Ontario

Musings on research in practice by Esther Nordin

On the one hand…

When I first began to think about research in practice, as much as I saw its rich potential as a source of exploration, I also saw contradictions and tensions embedded within it. Thus, I thought the most fruitful thing I could add to this project was a critical questioning. Questioning is, of course, important for any type of practice.

Research in practice, like the propagation of literacy itself, is not neutral. Historically the propagation of literacy has been used not only as a means of democratic liberation and “conscientization” (to use a Freirian word), but also to suppress, colonize and silence. Research in practice, like the propagation of literacy, has this hydra-headed quality: it has the potential to enrich our store of knowledge and impact policy in ways that move literacy practice towards educational equity, social justice and artistic exploration, but I believe it also has the potential to have a negative impact on community programs, moving programs away from educational equity, entrenching hierarchies, creating difference and distance between the learner and the facilitator.

I would evaluate any framework for research in practice through the filter of educational equity, social justice, empowerment, democratization and artistic endeavour; all the ideals that I believe are fundamental to the practice and development of learning communities. I would ask whether the research in practice moves community-based programs closer to social, educational and economic equity, or whether these projects further entrench hierarchies and the current dominant neo-liberal educational agenda deeper into community practice.

Community literacy programs are unique in that they are informal spaces in which people come together not only to learn to read but to critically read the world. Central to this process is the search for voice. Practitioners and learners seek to empower our voices, voices that have historically been suppressed and colonized. Literacy programs are fertile discursive spaces, wherein we find a rich diversity of language, culture and expression. I wonder whether injecting the more dominant discourse of academic research into the discursive space of community could continue the colonization or suppression of voices that are in the process of reclaiming themselves. Will the language of academic research and current educational policy overpower our own voices and perceptions that are struggling to emerge? In Ontario, this has already occurred to some extent. Before new practitioners even begin to frame the pedagogical process for themselves they are filled with the conforming language of a neo-liberal policy establishment that I would guess had its origins in academic research. Practitioners, learners, administrators and academics very quickly learn a dominant discourse that views learners as failed human capital in a global economy. We speak of accountability, goal setting, demonstrations, more goal setting and exits. I worry that research in practice will further inject this rhetoric into practice, making it more difficult for learners and practitioners to find their own unique voices, or examine the particular context of their learning communities.

Thus, for me, the content and ideological bent of the research is critical. I would ask: Who constructs the questions to be asked? Who funds the research? Toward what ends? Who gets to ask the questions? Whose voices will be heard? Whose interests are represented through the research? Who will use the information gathered? Toward what ends? Will research in practice represent itself as speaking for learners while learners continue to remain silent and powerless, their voices and concerns lost in a research frame that claims to authentically speak for the community?

Community literacy programs are also unique in that they tend to foster spaces for dialogue, in which practitioners and learners search for knowledge and share knowledge together. Many of our programs attempt to eliminate the hierarchical relationship between learners and teachers found in more traditional learning settings. What will happen once practitioners become researchers of their own practice and their knowledge becomes further “professionalized” or identified with the research and policy establishment? Will this change the nature of the relationship between practitioner and learner, creating a hierarchical relationship rather than a relationship of shared experience and equity? In the role of researchers, practitioners could become subjects gazing at the learners who have become objects of study. Practitioners will view learners much like anthropologists view populations through an ethnographic lens. In my one direct experience with practitioner research, I noticed a subtle and pervasive shift in my relationship with the learners. No longer was I only interested in the learning process or in the sharing of knowledge that was always a part of my practice. As a researcher I wanted something from the learners: information that I would take back to the university and share with my colleagues. Although I framed the research as participatory and incorporated it into the educational process, I was now in a different relationship to the learners. I was the subject and they were the objects of research. I was financially rewarded for this work. They were not. They were central to the research, but we were not participating in the research as equals.

Research in practice also has a woeful record when it comes to examining the role of systemic racism, class, and gender oppression in creating literacy problems. In my years as a literacy worker, many projects asked practitioners to look at accountability, employability and goal setting, but no funded projects examined the ways in which race, class or gender oppression have historically created and fostered literacy problems or undereducation. Why?

Literacy programs are born and sustained out of underlying social, racial and economic injustice. Because of this they are unique grounds of potential struggle, advocacy and activism by learners and practitioners. In recent years there has been little advocacy or activism on the part of the people involved in the literacy movement. I wonder whether research in practice is in some unconscious way a stalling technique, a way to avoid the necessary political, economic, and artistic activism we know must take place to really change practice (or alleviate the need for practice as we know it). Will research in practice move programs forward towards activism? Will research in practice lead to social, economic and educational equity? Can there be any true change in practice without changing underlying social and economic systems of oppression? Should we not be speaking of activism in practice, advocacy in practice, the arts in practice, history and community in practice, economic equity in practice?

I am not suggesting that research in practice is not a valuable tool for exploring practice. Or that practitioners and learners should not be educated regarding current issues in literacy practice. But I am suggesting that research in practice should not be accepted uncritically; and that if it is funded by the same policy establishment that brought us accountability and goal setting, it may indeed be antithetical to the needs of the community. I also believe that research in practice should be truly participatory: that both learners and practitioners should be involved in creating knowledge and that both learners and practitioners should be recognized and economically rewarded equally for this work. Finally, I question whether research in practice should be placed in the foreground of our concerns and economic support in a time when there is limited funding for literacy programs. I think that both learners and practitioners would tell you that they have many more pressing concerns. Both practitioners and learners have been engaged in “research” for a long time and have a good understanding of their own practice. However, as one learner who participated in a research in practice project on literacy and health noted, “We know what we need to move our educational development forward, but who is there to listen?”

….And on the other hand

Research in practice should be a critical part of community-based literacy practice as it is a powerful tool from which practitioners can explore, define and deepen their practice. Both practitioners and learners have extraordinary insights about learning and practice, but these insights are often lost, or remain anecdotal. Research in practice could allow practitioners and learners to explore the learning process and to deepen their understanding of themselves and their communities. To use a phrase of Freire’s, research in practice can be a means to conscientization: We research, we explore in depth, we deepen our understanding. Out of our praxis we create a body of evidence, leading to a formal body of knowledge and theory. Out of research in practice we can create policy that is no longer alienated because it comes directly from our praxis.

I became acutely aware of the need for practitioner research after attending a conference in Montreal on the Impact of Policy on Practice. I went to the conference expecting a two-way dialogue between policy-makers and practitioners, but I found there was an imbalance of power on the side of the policy-makers and researchers. The researchers presented ideas that many of us felt were out of touch or alienated from what happens in community-based literacy programs. Almost no practitioners presented papers. And although many practitioners spoke emotionally and eloquently about their practice, we did not have a body of evidence, or a formal body of knowledge, from which to theorize or advocate for our programs. I came away from the conference feeling unheard and powerless, and I realized that I needed a language, a body of knowledge, a body of research that reflected my practice. I had no language from which to speak about my practice other than an alienated language inherited from the policy makers.

Thus, I believe that research in practice is necessary if practitioners are to influence educational policy to be more reflective of community practice. Practitioners need a body of evidence and research from which to advocate, theorize, and create policy. As Freire notes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, we can not be in a situation where a few privileged name on behalf of others. We can not be in a situation where academics and bureaucrats are the sole creators of policy, because it leads to policy that is often alienated from the needs of our communities. Research in practice, because it is located in the community and depends on the voices, ideas and experience of both practitioners and learners, holds the promise of empowerment. It could move our voices from the margins of policy and academic debates to the centre.

Research in practice can also greatly enrich and deepen the learning that takes place in community-based settings. In a sense, a great deal of learning that occurs in community-based programs is a form of research. We research our various childhoods, we research our cultural traditions, we research our work goals and our experiences with work, we research our understanding of a novel or even a word. Once we reframe our everyday learning and insights as forms of research, we can become conscious researchers of our own experiences, histories, situations and communities, and a new world of content and form opens up to us. We can explore topics that are critical to us, in new and novel ways, not only through academic language but also through poetry and the arts, social activism and advocacy. By becoming conscious researchers and merging our research with our learning, our learning is further validated and takes on a new social and artistic potency.

I guess my view is that as long as research in practice carries the assumptions and language of current dominant thinking in literacy and educational policy it will have a negative impact on community literacy programs. But if it can embrace social and economic change and equity, or can serve as a catalyst for equity—helping us to understand the many oppressions that have carried us here, or helping us to explore learning—it has the potential to support and even transform community literacy.

Sources: Freire, Paolo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000.