This week I would like you to reflect on this concept of intercultural inquiry. On the level of theory, intercultural inquiry is all about developing deliberate ways to negotiate meaning across difference in ways that are just. Another way of putting it is that it is about using literacy to negotiate across systems of oppression and inequality in the hopes of dignifying others and igniting social change. Central to this deliberative process is establishing an ethical relationship between self and other that works for the mutual benefit of both the individual and the broader community.
In your view, how useful, in practice, is Flower's and the CLC's model of intercultural inquiry? Besides the community literacy initiatives done at the CLC, what might other productive community literacy projects look like that place intercultural inquiry at the center?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
From the current professional situation I find myself in, I do believe intercultural inquiry is a fundamental beginning task in the process of creating and implementing community literacy efforts. The text states that intercultural inquiry is a "collaboratively constructed meaning," pg169.
I believe that this is a very effective perspective for a researcher, or activist to present to the community to prevent the citizens from feeling as though they are the center of a group's artificial or temporary pity, or their plight is one that can be quickly fixed and no genuine connection will ever be made to the community. The approach of the CLC demonstrates a sincere and prepared method of working with citizens for selfless goals. By gathering testimony and working congruently with community members of all demographics, the CLC does not just speak of their wishes, but creates an environment of shared interest in constructing a change within the community that will be sustainable for years to come.
During the past several years I have found myself in a variety of different encounters with the students I teach, their parents, and even at times their extended families. These circumstances I have learned were a gift and have shown me how to be a more effective person not just in the classroom, but also in the community. To approach anyone with a sense of arrongance or superiority will not produce active participation or dialogue to connect knowledge with need.
A program that places intercultural inquiry at its core would not have to advertise credentials or qualifications to promote engagement. The approach of this group would come with an semi-unspoken eagerness to improve an aspect of life for a defined community and the individuals themselves would not communicate an intended delegation of tasks, but a willingness to collaboratively seek honest change that would be accomplished through efforts for the improvement of individuals self perception and the quality of their lives.
I think that intercultural inquiry is extremely useful and very important. In Flower’s book, I like how she described not “interviewing” someone, but how she “deliberated a question” with him/her instead (163). This was also reflected in her discussion of the “collaboratively constructed understanding” (172). And in respecting the “complexities of other people’s reading of the world” (187).
The online essay described Higgins, Long and Flower’s approach as one that “uses writing to support collaborative inquiry into community problems, calls up local publics around the aims of democratic deliberation; and transforms personal and public knowledge by restructuring deliberative dialogues among individuals and groups across lines of difference” (10).
It was helpful to find in this week’s readings, specific projects at the CLC, including the creation of the Landlord Tenant Handbook,” Raising the Curtain on Curfew” newsletter, and Welfare to Work artifacts. Using the rivaling method, they suggest that some “model an alternative version of argument: deliberative intercultural inquiry” (28).
However, even with these examples, it’s hard for me to determine what might be other realistic projects for me to take on. I want to learn more about the Oral History project in Over the Rhine and determine if it uses intercultural inquiry. I wonder if telling the story of the residents of the Drop Inn Center might be a way to silence critics by giving a voice to those who are being depicted as criminals in the media.
Would a teen program focused on self-esteem be such a project if it was structured around inquiry and the creation of artifacts to demonstrate the group’s progression? Without a venue like the CLC, it seems like there would be a lot more groundwork to lay before starting such a program.
I enjoyed this reading for several reasons. First off, as a teacher, I am trying to create more "inquiry based" units of instruction. And so reading about the inquiries in this section, allowed me to think how such ideas could be expanded and built upon even in my own middle-school contexts.
Secondly, as I read, I had Ruby Payne's work (A Framework for Understanding Poverty) in the back of my head. I especially thought of it early in chapter 10 when it talked about the "Inquiry into Local, Situated Meanings."
It was a nice connective text for me to again refer to in "seeing" how this might actually be in "real-life" situations.
Reading Kristi and some of the other blogs this week - seems like some people were using intercultural space already but I think we’re all using it more consciously now – could be the most useful tool we take out of the classroom to other areas of our lives. Flower unequivocally believes in the process, otherwise why would she continue to commit her life work to it?
I agree that intercultural inquiry has intrinsic value on a case by case, person by person basis but I’m not sure whether if it works as a social justice tool. The readings show both mentors and individual teenagers benefit from the process. The burden of establishing an ethical relationship falls to the mentor. I got a real sense of the mentors’ struggles and the challenge to restructure their own beliefs. Anne and Scott’s internal dialogues give us a sense of their conflict with previously internalized values. Anne entered the discourse with an open mind but concedes that many of her own preconceived notions were incorrect. She was forced to revise some assumptions on family dynamics and traditional roles. The role of fathers was a theme in Scott’s group and he had to rethink his own assumptions based on exchanges with Javon and Bobby. The mentors had to work at moving beyond their own inherent cultural values to neutral space (if that’s possible). The teenager’s issues, on the other hand, were readily understandable. The discourse is effective in contributing to individual development and has the effect of a pebble cast in a stream but I am less confident of the inquiry’s ability to elicit change in the social justice arena.
For those of us thinking of signing up for the next segment of the class, Flower shares some creative / innovative ways of generating dialogue; these include excerpts from novels, critical incidents that frame the problem, a videotaped interview of someone with firsthand knowledge, published editorials or position statements, even relevant scientific information. Dialogue can manifest as action oriented responses include a skit or acted-out internal monologue. Other suggestions, like allowing people to dynamically act out issues and using a blackboard (or flip chart) that visually outlines pros and cons of a given situation and keeps dialogue on track. Flower’s concept of “partners in inquiry,” the notion of collaboration may still be the most effective tool to bring to any forum.
Jill said “Would a teen program focused on self-esteem be such a project if it was structured around inquiry and the creation of artifacts to demonstrate the group’s progression?”
This project could work if the self-esteem issues were a result from issues in their community. What I noticed in my younger days, a lot of teenagers in my class that were pregnant were excited by the prospect of someone to love them. Maybe if the project focused on the issues in the community that lead to the teenagers not feeling as if they had someone cared about them and solutions were presented by the teenagers. Also, gangs seem to prey on those teenagers who have the same self-esteem problems and want someone to care about them. The teenagers could do small writing workshops to help them work through their issues & then a forum created for the students to address the concerns and how to help solve the issues could have potential.
The discussion of the conclusion of the student paper labeled “Observations. Not Answers” that Flowers shared illustrates how Flowers work is helping me sort through this topic. I’m thankful for the plethora of examples and stories shared by Flowers and her mentors and students because it is clear that finding a universally accepted goal or aim (definition) for this work will be difficult. The stability and longevity of the CLC Project offers a great laboratory for this work. I think the most helpful (and intellectually honest) aspect is that Flowers doesn’t seem to be arriving at a definitive procedure or structure for all community literacy projects. Where there seems to be agreement, that agreement seems negotiated and purposely vague.
She consistently brings other scholar’s concerns & counterpoints into play (seemingly just in time to head off settling carefully defined methods or goals). Fot that reason, I’m thankful she provides an unusually large number of specific examples of community literacy efforts (both individual and institutional) that “seem” to work. Equally important, she offers stories that either don’t work so well or examples that work in ways that were never intended (or at least not expected).
I’d want to learn more about community literacy projects that involve differently diverse participants. It seems that the CLC concentrated on one low-income neighborhood that was predominantly African-American, using mentors and faculty associated with an upper-middle class university. As I mentioned in class, I’m still concerned that the assignment of power (from the mentors) can affect both process and outcome. In what way depends upon the participants involved.
I’ve taken part in forays into the River City Correctional Institute with Women Writing for (a) Change. We took a visual artist, a musician, a theatre/dance artist, and a writer (me). The artists went in once each week for six weeks. It was apparent in the first meetings (of each workshop) that the 20 men were highly divided by race. That division waned in the next weeks as sans-racial tensions became apparent. On the 7th week, the men (or women) presented a “performance” of art, dance, poetry & music. The experience and performance (in front of family, peers & supporters) was always transformative in some way.
WWF(a) Change evaluations have shown those transformative experiences to be lasting. One thing these prisoners shared in common was similar social/economic standing. One thing this group had in common with CLC was an approximate 50/50 white/minority makeup. Another difference was the setting—it was no one’s home turf. Each participant was out of his/her comfort zone. This is one of the concerns I have about CL (particularly CLC) is that it all seems to take place in a “targeted” neighborhood. I share Keith’s concerns that his tilts the axis away from reciprocity. If it’s not reciprocal, then we find ourselves STILL in the troublesome area of assigning power instead of something more helpful. River City (jail) was a neutral place. If one participant is always “going to” the Other’s space, then the Other is not getting a complete view of power structures and relationships. I’m not suggesting interactions take place on a barge in the river, but my experience seems to suggest that setting has an influence. I wonder what how making the meeting place “roam” would affect process and outcomes. Is anyone interested in this?
Besides the community literacy initiatives done at the CLC, I believe other productive community literacy projects that place intercultural inquiry at the center could be an Oral History project that explores a culture that is diminishing in numbers. The traditions of the Native American communities or the Appalachian traditions have elders that want to pass along these traditions, but the younger members of the communities are not interested. I believe a project that gives the elders a chance to share their traditions and stories to give voice to a dying community and preserves it for future generations would benefit from inquiry. I believe a project such as this would be beneficial to the project coordinator because they’d have a chance to be a part of preserving history. Learning cultures other than your own is rewarding in its own way.
In reading Flower I tend to get a bit confused and hung up, at times, on her word choice. However, this made sens. Her goal to work with (instead of for) the community seems achievable. By including someone directly from the community, collaberation can occur. Not only the sharing of ideas together, but also the solutions. Another thing I find interesting here is the concept of self realization, and how big of a role that plays. The people from the community involved are being asked to examine themselves and others in order to progress and grow. Similar to that of what the students are being asked to do as well. Both in conscience effort to acheive something greater. This being a mutual task, although maybe not intended to be that way, it is just another step in the right direction to working together.
Intercultural inquiry seems to be extremely important, and I think should have more emphasis. Not only the idea of this type of inquiry but how it is done. As Flowers described it, it is beginning these exchanges 'artfully' and without anyone feeling examined. I think that approaching intercultural inquiry genuinely and seperate from being 'the researcher' will ultimately produce the best result.
I too found it difficult to think of how I might center a community literacy project around intercultural inquiry. I think Jill's idea of teens and self image is a good one and Aimem had good suggestions of how to relate these problems to the community. Any information provided to these young adults, of things they could avoid, but also how to be involved in constructive outletts would be helpful. I think (building off what Aimem said) that feeling unloved can stem from not feeling productive or like you have a real purpose. Finding out what they are interested in and trying to build around that for community based programs I think would be a good start.
Aime, I think you did a good job taking my preliminary idea to the next level.
Also I wanted to point out that I think Flower does a great job at articulating the reason behind participating in Community Literacy projects when she say: “For other students, the impulse to outreach bursts from an emerging critical consciousness – an awareness of the social and ideological forces that oppress some and shape us all” (157).
The CLC model that Linda Flower writes about is, in my opinion, very important. It gives concrete evidence of how a program may work in communities, classrooms or other venues. I find it interesting that throughout this book and the others we’ve read so far that the point of view, as Flower quotes Waterman, is “The research on service learning is indeed preoccupied with our expertise with developing pedagogical agendas, with interrogating our middle class ideologies, with producing satisfying academic dichotomies and incisive critiques.” (156) Why has it been assumed that everything is seen through the eyes of the middle class? I know these books are written to tell us that we’re reaching across cultures but it also seems that class is coming into play here too. Is a person any less intelligent if they don’t make a lot of money? What about educated people that live modest lives and value education, art, or community?
Jill’s comment that she likes “how she [Flower] described not “interviewing” someone, but how she “deliberated a question” with him/her instead (163).” I’d like to know if Linda Flower reciprocated. Are members of the community asking her questions and considering her answers carefully? I guess it’s just me, but the very phrasing of the statement (not Jill’s, Flower) seems to suggest some sort of judgment and language has power. After all, doesn’t a jury deliberate on a verdict?
I know there are people in education that look at the world through rose-colored-suburban-middle-class glasses but I’m getting the idea that we’re not seeing the side of the every day urbanite educated in the ways of his/her culture and working a job, that has something to say about community too. The Landlord-Tennant project in Community Literacy: A Rhetorical Model for Personal and Public Inquiry, gives several examples of how people in the community don’t participate. Other’s try and are dismissed as explained by Higgins (et al) “One tenant reported that she had tried to participate but was frustrated with participants not “listening to everyone” and leaders failing to ask “good questions.” Talk at such meetings is ephemeral, and divergent viewpoints can easily be dismissed or left out of the public record when the minutes, reports and proposals generated are even made public.” I believe this is part of human nature. If you’re not young enough, thin enough, attractive enough, in with the right group, etc. it’s hard to get people to listen no matter what you have to say. I see it in classrooms, workplaces, and communities. It’s not just a cultural thing. Without changing people’s socially ingrained ideas of what/who is acceptable, how do you begin to change communities? While I understand that this is a beginning to addressing cross-cultural matters, it seems that there are still too many people not willing to listen.
Jill,
I think that focusing on teenager's self esteem and perception issues is a wonderful idea with nothing but potential. It has been my experience that thus age range of adolesence is often not intentionally overlooked. It's a weird time for a kid and their parents and with a community that functions through generational poverty, direction is needed. I do believe that familiarization with the community, families - most often nontraditional, is key to success. It can be a very emotionally tolling experience for you, and I have found it best to leave all my experience and notions out of the scenario. This leaves more space in your conscious for focusing on the community.
I think the specific examples Flower uses of specific documents and pulications by the CLC, not to mention the fact that this project has actually been implemented, really helps me to visualize the ideas behind intercultural inquiry. That being said, I think the model for intercultural inquiry can be very effective, not only in terms of commuity literacy, but any other aspect of daily life, especially if participants are willing to, as Flower suggests, go beyond a "contact zone". One of the most important aspects, I think of intercultural inquiry, Flower describes as "moving beyond the critical role of critique" and is mirrored in what the mentor Scott calls his "clueless approach". I think removing oneself from a position of "authority" or as an expert is critical if participants want to aprroach community literacy efforts justly. Coming to the table with this mindset allows you to learn as much as you can about the community members, and it also allows you to offer insightful feedback. I'm still not sure however, what an effective community literacy project might be, but I can see relating these models to instances of volunteerism I've done in the past. For example, I worked as a peer advocate for victims of sexual assault. While the program did offer victims the chance to confide with peers and offer the advocates a chance to gain important insight into the stigma associated with victims of sexual assault and statistical information, there was not any relevant dissemenation of this dialogue with other memebers of the community, ie YWCA, Battered Womens Shelter, U.C. Medical Hospital, or the University of Cincinnati, where the program was created. I feel as if the program could have used this model as a starting point, the program could become more successful in the victims they serve.
Flowers quotes Ellen Cushman who says that, "...our certainties can be challenged when we recognize community partners as agents in their own right rather than as the recipients of our service and empowerment..." (157).
Flowers goes on to discuss the tensions that might exist between the agendas of scholar-researchers and community. partners. Flowers further defines intercultural inquiry as a collaborative effort between the oppressed and the scholar-researcher. Flowers states that the goal of intercultural inquiry is "transformed understanding. Consequently, the ethical ramifications of intercultural inquiry require that intellectual and cultural mutuality must exist between the individual parties who are engaging in the community literacy process p.167).
Flowers concludes that meanings are "circumstantial" (p.171). Therefore,the concept of intercultural inquiry is useful as a theoretical benchmark or starting point. In practice, however, I found that Flowers tends not to think outside of the "institutionalized" box. Ironically, the culture of poverty and the oppressed tend to clash with each other.
The issue of self esteem has to do with both social and personal expectations. The collaborative effort is essential to the process of protecting and piecing together an individualized definition for self esteem.
Cultural values and experiences influence the individual's perception of self worth. Teens are famous for allowing their peers to influence their sense of value. The age group that Flowers works with (high school students) will not allow the scholar/researcher to ignore the impact of peer pressure in the context of youth culture. Something which the post adolescent scholar and research must investigate and inquire about.
The collaborative process of working with as opposed to serving or dominating the community requires that an intellectual exchange take place across cutural divides.
Post a Comment