[NLA] Can research improve policy or practice?

[gdemetrion]

Regie, Tom, and others:

I'm wondering too, that in this discussion of relevant research, whether we
can also examine various research tradition that stem, say, not only from
the "harder" social sciences, but those stemming from social philosophy and
the humanities.  All of these traditions can potentially draw on what may be
viewed as the "facts," but it's their interpretation which is often
contestable.

I, for one, am concerned about the more recent (and perhaps not so recent)
thrust to link "research-based" evidence with the imagery of "objectivity"
as portrayed in the hard sciences and mathematics (though, in certain
respects Einstein deconstructed Newton, and brought to the realm of physics
the theory of relativity).

Where, for example, does the ethnographic research tradition fit in with
what might be considered useful and, from a policy perspective, legitimate
research?  While ethnography does not purport to be statistically
representative, its "thick description" of phenomenon, which includes
analysis and interpretation, including in some cases, statistics, brings a
depth dimension to whatever is being studied, which is often unavailable in
quantitative studies.

Recall that Merrifield, Bingman, Hemphill, and deMarrais' (1997) Literacy
Language, and Technology in Everyday Life (Teachers College Press)
originated as a policy study  under the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment p. vii).  If such research was funded by the government, then one
would presume that its findings would have some impact on policy.  And
perhaps there was such impact.  If so, it would be instructive to learn
something of its nature.

Recall also that in its final rendition, the book was an in-depth case study
of 12 literacy and ESOL students in Appalachia and California.  One of the
critical theses of the book is the study of "literacy practices" as an
indirect variable that interfaces (or perhaps serves as a catalyst) with
other contextual factors to effect change in the lives of individuals, in
various work, family, and community settings.  It's not by chance that
Juliet Merrifield has played a strong research role with EFF as the EFF role
maps are grounded in the concept of "literacy practices" as discussed by her
and others, going back at least to Lytle and Wolfe in their overview of
assessment in 1989 and also picked up in Fingeret's ERIC study of trends in
1992.  This view also shares strong affinities with what Tom Sticht has
referred to as functional context education, though there are some subtle
(and highly significant) differences between Tom's version of contextual
functional education and Juliet's concept of literacy practices at least as
discussed in the 1997 monograph.  With her work on EFF at least, I get the
sense that Juliet has moved closer to the contextual functional position,
though that may or may not be where she currently stands.

The difference between the two perspectives of contextual literacy, briefly,
is that the contextual functional perspective is linked more precisely to
specific articulated goals, while the literacy as practices perspective as
discussed in the Merrifield et al's book as well as in Fingeret and Drennon
(1997) Life at the Margins, shows a much more indirect relationship between
outcomes that emerge as a result of participating in programs and specific
goals that students may or may not have had, going into the literacy
program.  I take something of this view in an essay titled "Motivation and
the Adult New Reader:  Case Profiles in a Deweyan Vein." (ABE
Journal,Summer, 2001).

Going back to Life at the Margins, one wonders what policy changed as a
result of the initial report.  One wonders also, if the strong governmental
focus on workforce development, "objective" research, and the thrust toward
quantitative, uniform, standardized assessment, delegitimizes the literacy
as practices perspective in viewing literacy as an indirect variable or
catalyst, from a policy-perspective as well as the invariable
"response-bias" that accompanies ethnographic research.  If so, perhaps such
recent policy developments have resulted in a discounting or marginalization
of the original policy study.  From a certain paradigmatic slant, one could
argue that from a strictly statistical perspective that the 12 case studies
were not sufficiently representative in making a signifcant case about the
impact of literacy. Be clear, though, that such a perspective would not be a
reflection of "objective" science, but of one research tradition.

These are some of the concerns of one practitioner, theorist-researcher.
What gets legitimized as valid research by the policy sector and the
circulatory impact of such legitimization on the field in reinforcing policy
biases, is also a concern.

The hope is that the National Academy of Sciences Board on Testing and
Assessment will look at the issues somewhat widely and draw in part, on the
research tradition that goes back to the late 80s and 90s as articulated by
Susan Lytle, Hannah Fingeret, Allan Quigley, Juliet Merrifield, Elsa
Auerbach, and others. This research tradition is based both on the
assimilationist tendencies of the New Literacy Studies as well as the
oppositional perspectives of critical pedagogy.  These research traditions
need to be engaged in tough dialogue with more normative interpretations
that in theory, "an independent review of the state-of-the practice" of
assessment accountability, would entail.  Since it is inevitable, perhaps,
that political ideology, will invariably influence the outcome (that assumes
an ineradicable, though not deterministic assumption that power and
knowledge are correlated), then such discussions need also to veer into
political cultures that support or enhance certain research traditions.
What also is contestable is the "levels metaphor" which grounds the current
NRS.  Some would argue that it is that metaphor itself, which needs to be
changed.

The broader issue (in my view) is not so much whether "valid" alternative
assessment can be made congruent with the NRS (though that is the stated
mandate of the Board on Testing and Assessment.  Rather, the broader issue
is whether an assessment system stemming from literacy as
practices/contextual functional/emergent curriculum (Auerbach, Making
Meaning) can be made congruent with a viable national reporting system.  I
hope you're seeing the difference there--the limitation being in defining
the current National Reporting System through the research guise of
"objectivity," standardization, and uniformity, when other research
traditions, such as ethnography, for example, demonstrate a much more
indirect relationship between adult literacy education and enhanced life
efficacy. Coming to terms with these matters has less to do with what might
be viewed as "legitimate" research, though it has everything to do with what
might be viewed as legitimacy. At issue more than methodology and even
specific research traditions, are values and political culture.  Can an
enlightened political culture be established in these United States of
America that value the many indirect, but highly significant contributions
that  individuals draw from adult literacy education, which also has an
impact on their public lives, whether in home, work, or community settings.

A thorough exploration of some of these issues, particularly by mainstream
research institutions, would, I argue, make an important contribution to the
field and to practice.  Whether there's a will for this, is another matter.


George Demetrion
Litercay Volunteers of Greater Hartford
Gdemetruion at msn.com


_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org