One of the major themes covered in this week's readings has to do with developing a theory and practice for using research and pedagogy for the purpose of empowering individuals and the community. For Flower, this entails developing a rhetoric of engagement that benefits the self and others. For those doing oral history interviews, it means taking knowledge gained through the interview process to make sense of the interviewee in ways that are ethical and just.
Reflect on what it means to engage in research that actually makes a direct difference in the lives others. How are power relationships to be negotiated in ways that are just? Following Flower, what does activist research have to contribute to community work? How can research in collaboration with others work to empower a community?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
A community can be empowered by a variety of ways and acts through the collaborative efforts of research. I don’t think there are definable, set ways that a community is/can be/should be empowered; each community and each project is unique. And though I knew there wouldn’t be one set-in-stone answer, I was still feeling a little overwhelmed (or bombarded) with “empowerment” scenarios throughout chapter 5.
However, I did feel like a chord was struck when Flower mentions Spellmeyer’s arguments of what should happen when a composition class is empowered. He states that empowerment is an “involvement” of ideas and experiences which allow the writers to not just be seen as a “community of knowers,” but truly as acknowledged “meaning makers.”
I understood this because as a middle school teacher, I often have to have the kids realize that reading, writing, and thinking are three different activities. They can be done independent of one another, but just because they may be weak in one area does not mean the others can/should be ignored. My goal is to empower them. So, I often have to work with students who have-low writing abilities, but yet have great stories to tell, and share, and yes, even to write. So when Spellmeyer comments how the community of writers should not just have reserved a spot at the table, or merely sat at the table, but is brought to this “common ground” in which it has retained its own voice and its own work and its own questions, I got it.
I also better understood how empowerment might work in a community when Flower was suggesting a community literacy project may borrow some of those same ideas from Spellmeyer. For instance, how a “negotiated meaning” is something that should be “achieved” as a whole, not as simply a target or a goal to be led to. I also liked how it was stated how the community of inquiry is again not a simple access code or card key granted kind of situation, but instead, is a place that is “constructed.” And again Flower ties in that “intersection of differences” that she mentioned back on page 19.
If your goal in research is to make a difference in the lives of others, you need to create a strategy to ensure that the “rhetoric of engagement” is successful. Flower says it’s about the meaning of respect and describes “strategies to draw out narrative, reflective interpretation and reveal situated knowledge … [strategies] that do the analytical work of proposing and testing hypotheses and options” (59).
I’m interested in Flower’s “Story-behind-the-Story” strategy in which you “call forth what teenagers know but also acknowledge the significance of their situated, local knowledge” and the “Examining Options and Outcomes” strategy where you “listen with empathy” to both sides of a story (56).
My first thought about power relationships is that they must start from a place of authenticity. As we touched on in class last week, the aspect of a “genuine” person needs to be the starting place for any interaction. In further considering what “role” I might take in a community literacy setting, I was interested in Flower’s section on Jon, Nick and Franki, who “redefined their roles during their experience with a Community Think Tank.” Flower describes each one’s reaction and change resulting from their experience. She says Jon “avoided dilemma by moving into a caring person-to-person relationship” and Nick became a “listener and learner” (119). She goes on to highlight Franki (an activist masters student), who defines inquiry as an act of “mutual regard” and receptivity (120).
Flower clearly praises Franki’s approach and does not think that Jon’s approach is successful. Personally, I think this is something I need to be aware of because sometimes the “dilemma-avoidance” role is one I (unintentionally) take on.
One theme in Flower’s research seems to be the concept of the multiple functions of the dynamic that I’ll call the “speak up/against/with/for” (81).
Flower’s examples of success at the CLC are inspiring. Her stories of specific teens help me to believe that the right kind of collaboration can empower a community. If her program can foster “personal decision making, reflexive understanding and rhetorical action” (149) by way of “exchanging perspectives, negotiating meanings and creating understanding” (136), then maybe success is possible.
Linda Flower gives us a lot of guidelines to apply to a service-learning model. The question is not do they make sense but are they useful? They are only as good as the results they produce. The difference between Flower and some of the previous readings is that she also provides a working model where the concepts were applied with positive results.
I thought the CLC Risk and Stress was successful for a number of reasons, not least that it identified and posed a relevant question to the teens. Teens are at a stage of figuring out individual identity and if a subject for writing and discussion isn’t personally relevant they get bored and lose interest. Retention rate was remarkably good. By asking the right question the group followed Stuart Gilbert Brown’s concept by choosing “not to recover the past but aggressively critique the present” (128). The facilitators understood their role in the group and rather than act as doer, expert or giving advice they seemed to seek knowledge and focus on highlighting, discussing and finding resolution to issues raised.
In this way, the teenager was situated as the expert working partner and their experience was validated while the adult facilitated a shift in power and in turn, empower the other. My reading of the situation is that they followed recommendations we have read about whereby they assist dialogue and create a new space. If the results are to be believed, as the tracking indicates, the CLC model was successful. Teenagers matured during the program, were perceived as more responsible with improved grades and remained in the school system.
This begs the question, why can’t we apply this model to mainstream education / other youth programs? The group was small and therefore more manageable. Schools are obliged to produce certain results whereas CLC had the luxury of experimentation – try something out and see where it goes. The minor miracle is that the program was successful in negotiating a way to bring 14 students back into the mainstream without really alleviating their personal or social situations. So what changed? They say we do not see things as they are but as we are and after the program there are indications that the teenagers possessed more autonomy, improved self-esteem, goals and, most important, an emerging voice that was heard and acknowledged. They saw the world not as it was but thru evolving, more self-assured lenses.
When engaging in research that makes a direct difference in the lives of others, I believe a researcher must be aware of how the audience and the subject relate to each other. If you are working with teenagers to help solve the problems of a racial public sphere, you may be presenting their experiences at a government meeting to help combat the harassment received by the police force. When handling the research and presentation, the researcher has to address the issue of the government having the power & the teenagers being considered a nuisance to society with views that are not important. If the researcher wants to bring these problems to the forefront they will need to shift the power at the meeting from the government to the teenagers. Some ways to do that might be to have teenagers at the meetings dressed appropriately for a public hearing, have them speak with confidence of the issues that have occurred, the harassment they have witnessed & presenting solutions to the problem. Empowering the teenagers by giving them the opportunity and helping them to develop the skills to communicate effectively with the government could help bring about a change in their world that they never expected.
Anna said “This begs the question, why can’t we apply this model to mainstream education / other youth programs?”
I had not thought of posing this question until I read Anna’s post. Applying this model to mainstream education & other youth programs makes sense; however, the road block I see is that many adults or those in a power situation do not know how to communicate with teenagers. Ask any parent of a teenager & they can tell you that teenagers have their own way of communicating that makes it seem like they are from another planet. But on the other side of the coin, teenagers appear to have an issue with communicating with adults. So, how do you create a program that builds a bridge over this communication barrier and helps to empower the teenagers to have a voice – but allows the adults to understand without feeling threatened by their power being shifted to the teenagers?
Three points that resonated with me the most from this week’s readings were Flower’s discussion of Cornel West’s prophetic pragmatism and democratic “faith” resonated with me the most, the point that (drawn from Jews and Blacks by West and Lerner) that modern intellectuals are cynical and “see through everything [and] believe in nothing,” and finally that in a community literacy initiative members from two zones of society partake jointly in the “making of meaning.”
The first two points should be handled together I think. I agree with Lerner from Jews and Blacks that contemporary intellectuals tend to be take a cynical and skeptical, almost a faux-scientific / dispassionate stance against the world. Dewey’s type of pragmatism (where “the meaning and value of ideas lie in their enabling conditions and their outcome”) seems far more empowering to the researcher / academic. From that stance, West’s prophetic pragmatism and democratic faith suggests a framework by which we as intellectuals can aspire to develop and promote understanding across difference without first flattening those differences into an “ideal speech.”
I think the third point, entering into a partnership with the community to create meaning, is key to traversing power relationships; it is both the method as well as the goal. The “gown” and the “town” both exist as institutions in the greater community that must come together as equals, with neither group’s discursive techniques taking the leadership role, but rather as all equal members of the community within which this new discourse is taking place and then, from that place of equality, something can then be created that is informed by both rhetorics.
Has anyone read Cornell West before? Any suggestions on a place to start with him?
Flowers cautions civic engagement teachers, scholars, and researchers regarding the dangers of misinterpretation. A tendency to misinterpret the writing and speaking of low income or culturally different citizens is generated by a biased view of rhetorical expression and world realities, according to Flowers.
For example, the lower income or culturally different citizen may not fulfill the behavioral or learning expectations of more affluent citizens. The public intellectual or researcher may view behavior which reflects the "culture of poverty" or some other situation as a deficit in the character or ability of the individual.
Flowers argues that the individual may simply be reacting to the requirements or pressures of his or her particular environment. A deficit of cross-cultural understanding/sensitivity on the part of the teacher, scholar, or researcher results in a biased perception of what is being read or heard.
Misleading assumptions regarding low income or culturally different readers and speakers will ultimately result in misleading research study conclusions. Flowers recommends that the researcher avoid such misinterpretations of speech and writing. The researcher, teacher, or scholar can do so by unearthing "hidden logic," according to Flowers (p. 96).
In reflecting on what it means to engage in research that actually makes a difference in the lives of others Flower’s assertion that “speaking with others across the chasms of difference” instead of speaking up, at, against or for them seems to be at the very heart of the matter. On almost a daily basis in some form or another you can see examples of this. If you turn on the radio or television you will certainly see someone speaking for someone else, or at (the political scene is full of it) but the scenarios that Flower shared were lessons that many teachers, parents, school administrators and certainly politicians overlook. But as Professor Wilkey has pointed out in class, the danger of advocacy creeps in. Quite understandably, people may resist an outsider coming in and telling them that they’re there to “help.”
Through looking at literacy from this angle we can see Flower’s perspective when the “rhetoric of resistance moves out of academic debates and into the community engagement” and the problems that creates. If we’re not really listening to what other people are saying, or they think we’re not listening but patronizing, how can they feel respected or valued in society? Why wouldn’t people who know their voices are not heard “resist” any efforts to change? In some cases, all they have is who they are and where they come from and they’ve struggled to resist seeing themselves through the eyes of others.
While I think the programs at the CLC are working, I don’t know how well they would be received in other areas or other groups. Anna’s comment that “teenagers possessed more autonomy, improved self-esteem, goals and, most important, an emerging voice that was heard and acknowledged” is a great start but I wonder once they move beyond that environment if they’ll be able to sustain these positive aspects if the communities around them don’t change as well.
By the way Jason, I’ve read some of Cornel West’s work, most recently parts of Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism (which is the sequel to Race Matters). I’d recommend that. It has some interesting insights on author’s perception government, culture and the condition of America.
I have a question regarding empowerment. On numerous occasions I have encountered situations where once specific groups or individuals achieve a sense of empowerment, they begin to set their own agendas which may very well clash with the agenda of their learning facilitators.
For example, suppose people who need to pass a High School Proficiency exam or a GED Test suddenly decide they want to write all of their work in nonstandardized Black English Vernacular or in their native home language? Of course, they need to be able to write and comprehend standard English to pass those tests which are not necessarily culturally or social justice sensitive.
The demand to do things their way or feel empowered as Rabe suggests is perhaps ethically correct and reasonable. However, the individuals will shoot themselves in the foot, if they do not master standard English. How would one negotiate such a sensitive situation after telling people to be empowered in a society where they don't really have any?
Anna asks why Flowers' theories can't be applied to mainstream education. Actually, they can be. The only thing is that a political movement in public education must become strong enough to effectively challenge traditional educational processes. In other words, the people who empower the learners must become empowered to do so.
It is very interesting that Jason mentions Cornell West. Cornell West is a highly respected African American scholar. However, he formulates is view points from an ivory tower and actually has very little connection with the most deprived segments of the African American community. His message of empowerment tends to be a message of Black middleclass empowerment and does not necessarily address the sort of Black folks who need help with literacy empowerment.
Week Six Blog
My impression of engaging in research is that this is not a process of randomly picking a topic of interest and simply reading texts associated, but to be effective in the involved process of research, there has to initially be a resource of some kind to even begin familiarizing yourself with all the issues surrounding the issue. For example, most communities where there is a deficit of some kind would not tolerate an “outsider” questioning their lifestyle. I think that individuals in a community that feel threatened would not allow the accurate condition of life to be seen, therefore making any research pointless. The fortunate circumstance of being accepted in a community will promote the citizens to reflect on their circumstances and conceive the possibility that their standards can be raised and believe they deserve opportunities and gradually internalize the desire to improve the quality of life for the future of their families/children. Research that actually makes a change, or difference in life, is an accomplishment that obviously has consumed a great amount of time for the community members and those self-appointed to facilitate a change. The change has to be wanted, or sought after by the community members and at some point during this process, demonstrated that the change will be maintained, or respected for years to come. I believe that when individuals are given money, possessions, etc.. they often lose a sense of pride and take things for granted. If community members are encouraged to work for change, and develop a sense of pride and modesty, the will have experienced success, therefore motivating them to strive for more. As far as power relationships are concerned, I believe that most often these resources are already in place within communities just not utilized to their full ability or the communication has been so poorly maintained that their intentions to help or assist are unrecognizable. This appears to me where the researcher(s) would bring this to the attention of the community in an effort to promote positive relations and eliminate stereotypes that exist around most of these institutions. Collaboration in a scenario where a deficit has been identified and the community is actively striving for change can never be a bad idea. Even if the collaboration proves not to be applicable to the cause at large, the exposure to different theories or rationalizations could only cause the community to focus more on their own goals and refine their desired outcome.
I agree with Jen about the importance of relationships with those in the community where work/research is being conducted. In my experience, the trust community members form is pricless when work, or change are trying to be achieved. The family structures in the community are not traditional, and most of the time, if citizens feel as though their family network is being questioned, or evaluated, they will become withdrawn.
Post a Comment