[NLA] Philosophical Naivete--Evidence and the Personal

[AndresMuro@aol.com]

Something that frustrates me a lot about our field is the overwhelming ignorance about it that exists both within and outside of it. I used to complain that nobody would take our field seriously if the bulk of the adult literacy work was handled by volunteers most of whom lack a deep understanding of the field. 

The image that we present is that if the bulk of work is done by volunteers, then, anyone can practice in our field and assess its impact, do research, etc., etc. Hence, politicians think that they understand the nature of our field and they can freely opine about it since it is a realm that is accessible to anyone. Therefore, from this perspective, using common sense and opinion, they can determine what the field does, how our work can be measured and what are effective and ineffective practices and programs. 

I understnad that some of the apparently reasonable language that we use to opine about daily things may not even apply to the field. So, a question such as: "What evidence do we have to determine if a Freirian program is more effective than something else?" is illogical and not appropriate. It is illogical because terms like 'evidence' and 'effectiveness' mean different things to different people in different contexts. Literacists that have worked in the field for a while know this and do not attempt either to ask this sort of questions or respond to them except within the framework of a certain pedagogy applied within a specific context. 

Unfortunately, those, outside the field asking these types of questions expect to hear that 'x' pedagogy is better, because there is a direct cause-effect relationship between the pedagogy and some observable outcome. 

How do we address this problem. We let politicians know that they do not have the background and preparation to understand the nature of our work. Therefore, rather than opining indiscriminately, they need to defer to experts that can advise them on different aspects of our field. If they do not want to rely on us, let them seek anybody that they want, provided that their advisors are, in fact, credible experts. There is nothing wrong with politicians not understanding our field. However, there is something wrong when, in their arrogance, they do not realize their own limitations and talk nonsense. 

Andres


In a message dated Fri, 5 Apr 2002  9:36:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, PDRNRI at aol.com writes:

>A few short observations from a quick read of Catherine's meaningful letter:
>
>1.  I would like to hear from other researchers on this list on how the 
>research field is grappling with the govt.'s emphatic prioritizing of a 
>rather one-dimensional approach to research.  It seems to me that there are a 
>great many researchers in the field today who seek to approach learning and 
>development as something "dialogic, self-reflective, political, ethical and 
>creative" (Catherine's terms).  How are you responding to this?  
>
> 2.  Reflecting on Catherine's important, ongoing reminder that we view our 
>society as a "maturing democracy" - it occurs to me that for most of our 
>history (certainly the 20th century) the predominant question challenging the 
>democratic process in the US. has been "who gets to participate?" .  The 
>dilemma of modern adult education, it seems to me, is partly connected to a 
>shift (or the lack thereof) in the popular discourse from  "who gets to 
>participate?" to "how do we prepare ourselves to participate?"  I suspect 
>that while many of the folks on this list -- who have thought hard about 
>democratic participation for so long -- see this question clearly and have 
>developed very carefully considered answers.  But I'm less sure that the 
>popular thinking on this question has advanced a great deal -- partly because 
>issues around "who gets to participate" are not fully resolved, partly 
>because actual preparation for participation is more threatening to those who 
>exert the most power, and perhaps partly because many of those who have had a 
>long-standing right to participate have been effectively dissuaded from doing 
>so, having bought into the idea that particaption ends, rather than begins, 
>at the ballot box.  In that case, the issue of preparing for more effective 
>participation would simply not be on the radar among those who can apply 
>political pressure through popular opinion.  
>
>3.  More good books, for the same purposes, I think, as Catherine's: 
>Making Spaces (Sissel and Sheared, eds.)  In Defense of the Lifeworld  
>(Welton, ed.) -- and for teacher development purposes, Becoming a Critically 
>Reflective Teacher (Brookfield)
>
>David Hayes
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
_______________________________________________
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