Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6VHsYf00357; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:54:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:54:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001301c119e8$90c4acc0$bd10fea9@oemcomputer> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "A. Schofield/S.Smythe" <andrewsc@interchange.ubc.ca> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1545] Re: ethical question X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4233 Lines: 78 Very well put, Janet. You raised many complex issues and questions in a way that gives me a framework, a map for approaching them. You made me remind myself that how and with whom we work with in literacy is not about having the answers, a policy or a formula to apply broadly, but to use our values and principles and sometimes gut instincts as a guide: In any given situation, am I shutting down opportunities for learning or judiciously avoiding a real mess? You wisely conclude that it should be OK to say, "no, thank you, I can't work with you because..." I was faced with these occasions quite often in South Africa in the 1990's. It came down to whether groups who approached our Adult Education department at the university for training, operated on the basis of excluding others by virtue of their race, ethnicity, class. Or, whether their curricula and aims advocated racist/sexist ideologies. If we felt this was the case, we chose not to work with them, and told them why. A more touchy issue, but of real concern in the country, was what to do about groups who were not racist per se, but sought to take advantage of others' misfortune for their own gain. I am speaking specifically of foreign corporate-backed education companies seeking to deliver AIDS education through schools, in ways that would not have involved the community, and would have seen large amounts of South African tax money going into the coffers of these foreign companies. I guess what I'm saying is that there are lots of good reasons for saying, "no, thank you." Literacy education can create critical spaces for dialogue and change, but not, in my opinion, if the structural relationships that shape the education setting advocate or lead directly to, inequality or abuse of power. Great discussion, Daphne, as we all come out of the wood work. Suzanne From: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis@Brown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8:21 AM Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1543] Re: ethical question > At a participatory research conference in Alberta last week, Jane > Mace shared the method of using the opening "People say..." as a way > of stating beliefs, opinions, or sharing responses given to > questions asked by researchers. In some ways, it seems, such a > distancing enables a controversial statement to exist in 'neutral' > space -- where participants can take it up, discuss it, work on their > views of it. > > I was recently part of a discussion, too, about the possibility of > starting a literacy journal and asked about the notion of an > editorial stance; what happens when someone writes from a position > with which the journal does not agree? What happens (as someone in > the discussion mentioned) when a piece of writing maligns and insults > learners? Where are the places where we sing to the choir and only > share our views with those who agree with us, and where are the > places where we explicitly put forward a view that says, "here's what > I believe, or here's what people say" -- let's see how we each take > it up, and then let's see how, or if, we agree or disagree with the > position collectively. > > Let's also remember that when power comes into the discussion (who > has what power over or with whom?) -- then everything shifts. If I , > as a facilitator, have the power to decide who can speak when, and > only allow those views I like to be taken up, who do I silence and > what learning gets lost? What happens when one journal publishes > something and not another because the journal disagrees with the > author's stance? What happens when we publish/disseminatet divergent > points of view and ask readers/respondants to share their own > responses to those views in turn? Is there a possibility of > increased learning and exchange or do we only reinforce polarities > and deeply imbued beliefs/perspectives? > > Having said all that, Daphne, if there are people whose beliefs truly > offend you, is it also not a choice you can make to tell them that > you can't do the work with them and to let them know why? > > I don't see any simple or easy answer here, but lots of room for more > discussion. > > Janet Isserlis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:32:17 EST