Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g4IGMQO23509; Sat, 18 May 2002 12:22:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 12:22:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20020518.121736.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George E. Demetrion" <sophocles5@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:807] Re: Results of CAAL's X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 3649 Lines: 68 Gail and others: Though it is not based on primary resources, Paulo Freire's (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed is perhaps the single-most influential book in the field for the second half of the 20th century. Andres mentions Henry Giroux's book Teachers as Intellectuals. I agree with him that that's also an important book which also contains little or no primary research. Empirical primary research is valuable but so are other types of scholarship such as theoretical essays like those of Freire and Giroux. John Dewey's major educational texts, Democracy and Education (1916), How We Think (1910/1933) and Experience and Education (1938) are also chock full of stimulating ideas which can advance thinking and practice, but are not strong on primary research. A probing study of these books could add much to one's understanding of education at any level. I don't dispute the importance of primary research and am glad to see that your list includes studies of various genres, including the ethnographic. Also, there very well may be good reason to highlight works that focus on primary research. But if the topic is "must reads" Pedagogy of the Oppressed needs to be right there near the top whether or not one agrees with it and whether or not it is flawed and limited, which it is. Those working within the field of education at any level could also benefit by the works of Jerome Bruner, L.V. Vygotsky and others, some of whom draw more or less on primary research. To me, what seems most important is what authors like these convey as well as the *general* nature of how they carry their argument rather on the degree to which they rely on primary resources per se. I think the issue of methodology is based on the broader issue of where the home of adult literacy studies resides, with the humanities and the softer social sciences or the harder social sciences, or perhaps more properly put, in some relationship between these divergent perspectives in the determination of what becomes legitimate adult literacy scholarship. I'm not taking a definitive position here except to note that this is an important discussion in its own right not to be overlooked as knowledge is construed by the means of legitimacy that argumentation allows. My bias is toward the overall quality of any given work in relationship to what it seeks to accomplish through both the evidence it draws upon as well as its narrative persuasiveness, along with the rejoinder that no work stands alone. All texts are subject to critique, amendment, revision and abandonment even as they hold the potential of opening up new ideas, new information, new methodologies, and new ways of working through issues. A thorough analysis of this issue would require considerable discussion among various scholars, researchers, practitioners and policy advocates. Perhaps that is something that could take place on NIFL-FOB. Just a thought. George Demetrion sophocles5@juno.com On Thu, 16 May 2002 09:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Gail Spangenberg <gspangenberg@caalusa.org> writes: >--============_-1190553937==_ma============ >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > >Colleagues, Re Andres list of titles, which CAAL is glad to add to >its growing collection, I thought it would be useful to remind anyone >else who wants to do this that what CAAL was/is interested in are the >5-10 "must-read" titles that are the result of original, primary >research and that meet accepted standards of highest professional >quality, research that is completed (not in process) and that has >been made widely available throughout the field. Gail S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:46:07 EST