[NLA] interpreting postings to the list (long)

[Eileen Eckert]

>From Nancy: My first reaction was this writer doesn't get it - if I had 
money for a research project, I'd have money to pay a lobbyist.  The second 
was that the whole attitudinal spirit of this writer is one of the reasons I 
would *hesitate* to put myself and program *out* there.  It would be MY luck 
that I'd have to work with someone who doesn't "see the forest for the 
trees" when it comes to being sensitive while questioning learning disabled 
adults.  I felt that she used criticism that goes well beyond critique of my 
remarks.

I'm sorry you find my comments to be judgmental. With my lobbyist remark I 
meant that policymakers listen to those with money and power. I don't know 
that any single practitioner research project is going to sway them, so 
you'd have to have another reason beyond influencing policymakers to make 
doing research worthwhile, and I think George Demetrion gives some good 
reasons. I didn't mean that I thought you could, if you only chose to, take 
$100,000 from petty cash and sprinkle it around various campaign funds to 
get policymakers' ears. I guess part of it is that sarcasm really doesn't 
come through in e-mail. I've heard that, but I'm one of those people who has 
to learn by experience.

A comment on the discussion process, and I am asking people to read it in 
the reflective tone in which I am trying to write (and to make allowances if 
I don't succeed):
I "lurked" on this list by reading the archives for a long time before 
joining in. I appreciate the topics, content, and willingness/eagerness to 
engage that seems to be way above average for listserv discussions. I'm 
thinking maybe I should go back to just reading the archives, though, for a 
couple of reasons:
1. Some of the responses seem to start with the assumption that if you hold 
certain views, you must either not be committed to learners, not be working 
with the ones who need help the most, or not be an authentic member of the 
field at all. When Sandy from Pennsylvania posted a comment that her 
students were not all put off by the testing requirement, someone said 
something like, Well, you must be working only with GED level students, as 
if GED students are not <really> AELS students. Nancy said she hadn't heard 
from practitioners about research. Okay, I am currently a full-time student, 
last academic year anyway. Before that, I was a full-time teacher and 
administrator, and I hope to go back to that. At what point is someone not 
qualified to speak with a practitioner's experience--when they've been out 
of practice for a day, a week, a year? I do not try to speak as a current 
practitioner, but I don't think my 12 years in the field is negated because 
I'm not teaching adult literacy right now. In fact, while I've been out of 
current practice, I've had time to reflect on and learn from the experiences 
that came so fast and furious while I was working full-time that I did not 
have enough time to digest them all.

2. Some of the responses to my posts have not been responses to what I said, 
but to what the reader inferred from what I said, and to what others 
presented as what I said or meant. I did it to David Rosen when I inferred 
that he meant teacher certification should be required, when in fact he 
hadn't said that (I'm sure I've done it other times, that's the one that 
stands out right now). That was a reminder to me to read carefully and to 
reflect on what the writer actually said, what I inferred appropriately from 
the whole of the writer's remarks, and what I added to the interpretation 
through my own biases. If I post anything else, I will also be more careful 
about how I say it. But I don't know if it I can craft messages carefully 
and clearly enough to withstand an effort to find places that are open to 
the interpretation that I'm hostile to practitioners, and I feel that some 
readers want to start with that assumption (as discussed above) and respond 
as if I were hostile or clueless. I don't know if others have felt that 
while they are out on a limb trying to say something that is difficult to 
articulate, someone is standing behind them with the saw. I guess I'm asking 
people to assume the best until proven wrong, rather than the opposite, and 
saying I'll do the same.

The list guidelines are intended to promote open, respectful, and relevant 
discussion. I think they are just right and I wouldn't argue for adding to 
them, but some comments that fall within the guidelines have a subtle 
muffling effect--or am I the only one who has felt this? As I said, I'm 
looking at how my interpretations and writings play a role in what I'm 
describing (though I won't try to subject the whole list to that messy 
process!) Please understand that I'm not trying to accuse people of 
intentionally silencing dissent or debate; I'm talking about the effects of 
dynamics that are largely unintentional.





>From: Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>Subject: Re: [NLA] Practitioner-based research
>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:03:10 EDT
>
>PRINT TO READ LATER - LONG
>
>Dear NLA subscribers, particularly George, Andrea, Eileen and others on 
>this
>thread interested in the topic below:
>
>Subj:    Re: [NLA] Practitioner-based research
>Date:   06/24/2002 7:01:49 PM Central Daylight Time
>From:   sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
>
>To discuss here on this listserv the issue of research on a
>practitioner-based inquiry and abide by the NLA guidelines, it should be
>something, which impacts policy.  Consequently I will try to address it 
>with
>that focus.
>
>Three emails are highlighted in this space.
>
>On 6/24/02 George defined the discussion as:  "practitioner-based research
>which is research by, for and with teachers for the primary purpose of
>raising critical issues within practice that effect our daily work.  The
>motivation for this type of research comes from the issues and dilemmas we
>experience at the ground."
>
>A 2nd email from Andrea Wilder (06/23/2002 5:06:18 PM) included an example 
>of
>one of her projects.  I enjoyed reading about that project, Andrea - it 
>made
>sense of the benefit of a focused research project.  You also wrote 
>something
>I could relate to:
>
>"…An example: the latest census count relied on door-to-door counting.
>Another plan was put forth: using a statistical sample, which would give a
>more accurate count.  Would It?  I expect it would--there are those who 
>don't
>answer the door, who aren't home, etc., etc.  It turned into a political
>football--what party would gain more with which kind of counting?
>
>"You want a sample which will give you an answer to the question that you 
>can
>depend on--valid and reliable. …"
>
>I can relate to this because I have a sense that deep in the heart of the
>Midwest where I live the best we would get as a participant in any research
>project done of the Adult Ed field would be strictly a "sampling ".  Who
>*ever* comes here anyhow??  The idea of doing a "door-to-door survey" to
>identify non-reading adults is ludicrous anyway.  Add to the above list 
>that
>an adult who is illiterate would not ever tell you s/he is!  So much for
>validity and reliability!  Besides that?  THIS is what makes me hesitant -
>Andrea wrote:
>
>" … Good research does not maul its subjects, it respects them.  
>Researchers
>are usually profoundly grateful that people will agree to talk with them!
>Research takes an immense amount of time, tremendous effort and usually a 
>lot
>of money."
>
>I don't have either time or money or *staffing* to mess with something this
>huge.  Unless somehow I would be able to drastically influence the policies
>that impact (on a worldly level) the field of adult literacy - including 
>the
>policies dictating testing and funding related to testing - or (on a local
>level) the identification of how many adults lacking literacy skills in our
>community-at-large we are not serving in one of the adult ed environments -
>our literacy environment in particular, it would not be something in which 
>I
>could participate.
>
>Funding cannot be taken lightly for programs like ours.  I do not think I'm
>alone - even though no other practitioner "has spoken" here.  It would
>definitely be a problem for our program.  Our primary funding source has 
>just
>sent word that they are authorizing a 3% increase in the allocations for 
>2003
>within the upcoming fall fund campaign.  It is not "a lot of money"
>designated to just **program* development - none to research.
>
>In a 3rd email (06/23/2002 7:35:00 PM) Eileen Eckert wrote:
>"…Nancy, if all you want to do is find a way to convince policymakers of
>something, get a lobbyist and bribe them legally--that's how everyone else
>gets what they want, right? Sorry to sound so grouchy, but I'm not 
>advocating
>for an all-or-nothing type deal on the research issue, and I'm not an
>ivory-tower, anti-learner academic. I don't think it's unreasonable or
>unfriendly to learners to ask anyone to provide some evidence to support
>their opinions."
>
>>
>George's post included these benefits:
>"A lot of good could come from these field-based projects to the extent 
>that
>they:
>a)  provide valuable information to the field
>b)  gain scholarly credibility by linking practitioner-based inquiry to 
>other
>types of educational research
>c)  gain institutional credibility in our major adult literacy 
>institutions,
>only through which broader legitimization can come.." (end quote)
>
>Sorry, George.  Valuable information in the field is already 'out there'.
>It's as near as taking the time to talk to people within the national
>organizations that you listed in your email  - the "major adult literacy
>institutions" of the NCSALL, ProLiteracy Worldwide, and NIFL.  Interested
>parties would find valid and legitimate data there.  We don't need a
>practitioner-to-practitioner research project to dredge it out when they 
>have
>data -- or could even possibly gather more practitioner data if merited!
>Hopefully someone from one of those organizations will confirm that.
>
>George, if as you say we should "look at the NLA as a playing field for a
>national practitioner-inquiry (teacher-research) project."  Where are the
>practitioners?  I'm a stand-alone from all appearances.  We heard from Art
>LaChance who said "bring it on", but where are all the others which would
>merit doing such an expensive endeavor?
>
>Additionally, teachers are different than volunteer tutors (as related to
>"teacher-research" and the data you'd receive).  If there are instructors
>within the realm of our NLA lurkers, they are probably paid staff for the
>most part - making them "teachers".  They will have a far different view of
>the state of the AEL in their area than will a volunteer.
>
>Regarding the following sentence related to item /c/:
>"But for the latter to happen, the community-based adult literacy sector
>needs to define itself and not be defined by the dominant ABE sector as ABE
>light."
>
>My opinion is the community-based literacy program *has* "defined itself".
>This sector of the field is probably ahead of the ABE programs in 
>determining
>what their program mission and objectives are.  When you say that the
>dominant ABE sector defines literacy as "ABE light", what are you referring
>to?  My view is the learner-centered program approach more effectively 
>meets
>the learners' needs in their educational process.  Our learners are part of 
>a
>team approach.  Is that true of the ABE?
>
>Legitimacy is still going to be an issue in my opinion.  George never gave 
>me
>a sense that there are concrete answers while using the practitioner-based
>inquiry.  He wrote:
>  "…, for the field of practitioner-based inquiry to achieve any enduring
>legitimacy …, the development of this field cannot rest simply on
>practitioner-to-practitioner communication."
>
>Perhaps the book, "Inside/Outside:  Teacher Research and Knowledge" by
>Cochran-Smith and Lytle, gives more answers that I could more easily
>understand and I'll find the time to read it, but for now?  I believe that 
>a
>research project using the data described would *not* be accepted by the
>policy-makers.
>
>He wrote that it would "need to attain a certain institutional threshold 
>both
>in terms of formal networks of participants engaging in this work and
>publicizing and documenting it in some visible way, and also, in a more
>formal institutional sense, where particularly the major adult literacy
>agencies… make substantial room for this type of research within the 
>context
>of their organizational cultures."
>
>Why not just have the three national level agencies provide the data?  I
>sense that they already *do* "make room for this type research in their
>organizational structures.
>
>Just like Art LaChance said a couple weeks ago:  Bring practitioner-based
>research on!  You want to find the specific researcher who will guide a
>"practitioner-to-practitioner inquiry" and it's FREE?  I'll take it on 
>here!!
>  My goals regarding shaping policies, would be my sincere desire to find 
>out
>exactly which literacy organizations use NRS effectively, what other 
>testing
>tools are more effective than the established standardized tests that are 
>the
>grail of GED testing, whether there are other administrators who feel as I
>do, and whether or not the AELS truly is NOT declining in numbers.  
>Regarding
>the last topic, maybe a research project, which studies the programs in 
>Texas
>and California with a comparative study of the strengths of the adult ed
>program offered in Massachusetts, would at least shed some light on that 
>one.
>
>In closing, it truly does amaze me, George.  A person like me questions the
>legitimacy of expending such monies for such a line item and someone as
>experienced in the field as you writes:
>"Yes, Nancy, this is a profound tension in the field and there are many 
>good
>reasons not to engage in any formal-based practitioners-inquiry project."
>
>I believe that before we jump into the deep end of the pool, or find more
>fields for the cows, as Andrea wrote, we should be attempting to find out 
>why
>the above statement is true.
>
>To conclude, Eileen wrote another email (06/24/2002 7:15:48 PM) which 
>stated:
>"My points about research are simply that we in adult ed. need to support 
>our
>statements with some evidence, that research is one way to do it, and that
>more ownership of the research and research agenda should be at the level 
>of
>the program, where the learners are. That's all. Said, re-stated (ad
>nauseum), the end."
>
>Perhaps this is the place to end the discussion.
>
>The Midwest Hayseed who is simply lookin' to hear from the cows in the 
>fields,
>Nancy Hansen
>Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
>sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net
>and
>Nashansen at aol.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


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

_______________________________________________
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