[NLA] Practitioner-based research

Thu Jun 27 01:38:23 EDT 2002

Long

Nancy (and others):

First, where we agree

a)  On the importance of others, who have not spoken, but for whom
practitioner-based inquiry is important, in joining this discussion

b)  That the matter of engaging in research, practitioner-based or other,
has to be something that makes sense to whomever is thinking about taking
it on

c)  That, logically, there may be many good reasons why an individual or
a group may choose not to take on a research project

d)  That research needs to be relevant at some level, though different
people will define relevancy in various ways.

Second, points for clarification and/or possible disagreement

My statement:  "Practitioner-based inquiry is valuable to the extent that
it provides useful information to the field.

Your statement:  "Valuable information is already out there."

Commentary:

I agree with what you are saying here,.  I also agree with the
implication that it doesn't (necessarily, though in cases it may) take
research to bring out the fuller value of information than might be
evident though common sense or practitioner-based experience alone.

Yet, I would add that knowledge is not static, but dynamic and subject to
on-going investigation that may require increased levels of intricacy to
get a really good handle on such  topics as what, how, why, and under
what circumstances do beginning level adult readers learn.  Certainly
information is out there, as you say, though what is at issue is how
definitive it is.  It is also one thing to consume someone else's
research (and there can be much value in doing so).  It is another thing
to create or produce research yourself.  Also, in terms of Cochran-Smith
and Lytle's definition, there is something rigorous to "systematic,
intentional inquiry" that very well can add an element of knowledge that
is not accessible from common sense alone or someone else's knowledge.

Again, go back to my basic qualification, practitioner-based research is
worth doing to the extent that it provides valuable information to the
field.  I mean no more and no less than that.  If it proves its mettle on
the ground, fine, if not, that's a problem.  While agreeing that valuable
information is already out there, to define that as a reason to reject
research in advance of engaging in it, is to put a lot of faith in
already given information and limiting the potential impact of
intentional, systematic inquiry to establish important additional
insights and perspectives.

On the NLA as a playing field for a national inquiry project.  

You ask where are the practitioners?  I say, look at the 1000+ posts this
year alone.  The NLA inquiry project is on-going.  Your message today as
well as your previous one is a prime example.  That is, we are engaged in
practitioner-based research just by who we are as a result of
participating in this public and highly communicative network.  Viewing
practitioner-based inquiry as a continuum rather than a zero-sum game, to
the extent that we are increasingly probing, critical, and reflective,
engaged in serious discussion and not mere polemics, we are embracing
more and more of the methodology of " systematic, intentional inquiry"
for the purpose of raising and seeking to resolve critical issues of
practice that effect our daily work--even as some of us are taking a
longer-range view of things.  

I'm not suggesting (necessarily) that your tutors are participating in
this network, but that we are and by doing so, *we* are participating in
this type of research on a daily basis.  And here is also opportunity for
further development--to transform the immediacy of our daily messages
into more comprehensive, usable documents organized around key topics
that can be utilized for a variety of purposes--at the level of
instruction, training, staff and board development, policy, additional
research, whatever.  That is, as I have said, the data is in front of us.
 What we do with it is another matter.  Stepping outside of the box of
immediacy, there is ample opportunity to work through some of the 5,000
messages through some "systematic, intentional inquiry" that can open up
a great deal of new and useful information.  The *study* of the litservs
is an uncharted field.

Be clear, I'm not suggesting that you take that on, but because you have
had a motivation to do so, you have closely studied this thread and have
sifted through a wide number of separate messages.  The point being (no
more and no less) that  the raw data is there to be worked through that
would add another level of depth  through systematic, intentional inquiry
that would hold the potential of being useful knowledge and that through
this thread and others where you have invested your time, talent, and
energy, you are already engaged in practitioner-based research with your
colleagues around the county.

On the matter of ABE light

I'd like to suggest that the AELS as Tom defines it, federally funding
programming as based on the WIA/NRS defines community-based literacy
programs as such . Look at the criteria:

a)  learning gains based on levels
b)  GED/high school equivalency
c)  Employment

Sounds more like the ABE programs at the local high school rather than
the volunteer and/or community-based literacy programs with which I am
familiar.  be clear, I have no intention of creating a great divide and
acknowledge that there can be and often are continuums between these
types of programs.  Yet, without going into specifics (see my published
articles), as you as well as others have made the case, there are some
substantial differences.  

Also, I don't take issue with your observation that "the community-based
program *has* defined itself.  Though the issue still remains, *how*
these programs define themselves,  which criteria are selected and why,
including the sources of legitimacy through which they are established. 
This is why I believe it is  incumbent for the three national literacy
agencies in particular to firmly establish the research base for the
field within their own houses, so that adult literacy as an independent
sector can thrive. 

As you suggest, this research is already being done at certain levels and
in different ways by the three agencies. Still, I would stress the
importance for an intellectual and knowledge base to establish adult
literacy as an independent sector.   As we've seen the field is going to
be defined in one way or another.  So I think it makes all the difference
in the world whether the field is defined by the UDDoE, NICHD, OVAE or
its own internal resources of intelligence and knowledge and the research
traditions and body of work upon which it does and can build even more,
should these agencies take on this worthy task as one of a number of key
commitments needed for the flourishing of the field..  The issue is who
(or what) defines the knowledge base for the field and what are its
sources of legitimacy and does that come from inside or outside the
house.

Given this matter, there's a lot to say for practitioner-based inquiry. 
There's also a lot to say about linking this type of inquiry with
ethnography and various qualitative research traditions in general along
the lines suggested by Juliet Merrifield in her NCSALL policy study
Contested Ground in aligning community-based literacy programs with the
New Literacy Studies.  This focus isn't going to come from USDoE, NICHD,
or OVAE, but can only come from the rich intellectual and
practitioner-rich resources of the field itself and the research bases
which support and ground it.  Where are the Quigley's Lytle's Fingeret's
and Merrifield's of the 21st century?

If not from the three national adult literacy agencies where will the
basis for an independent adult literacy research sector arise?  For
research, there will be and when linked to politics plays a powerful role
in defining the parameters of legitimacy.  

Either the field of literacy will define itself or it will be defined by
sources external to it.  In short, research is not an add-on, but an
essential force in the legitimacy and viability of any field.

George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
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