Illuminating
literacy practice in a Christianity basics course:
The potential of an
ethnographic approach
Hilary Haworth
Introduction:
What is ethnography?
Multiplicity
of examples and the literacy event
The
participant/observer continuum
Introduction: What is ethnography?
Historically,
ethnography is based in cultural anthropology.
Atkinson et al (1993), writing
an overview of qualitative research traditions some years before many studies
drawn on in this paper, mention ethnography only in passing: they note that
Jacob’s term “ethnography of communication” would more properly be described as
a sociolinguistic approach. The concerns
and approaches of ethnography are instead recognizably summarized by them as
‘applied anthropology’, and described as a strong
Implicit
in the possibility of an anthropology
of literacy is the acceptance of the concept of literacy as social practice, of
“multiple” literacies that “vary with time and place and are embedded in
specific cultural practices” (Street,2003).
It is no coincidence that early development of the concept of multiple
literacies appeared in the Review of
Anthropology (Collins,1995).
Anthropology has to be able to construct the ‘otherness’ of the object
of study, in order for it to be of scientific interest: and that otherness has
to be internally coherent, a complete ‘system’, in order for its study to have
validity and relevance. The key features
of the ethnographic approach stem from this history:
·
How the
research ‘problem’ is framed;
·
the use
of observation, field notes and interviewing;
·
the use
of ‘members’ categories’;
·
the multiplicity and selection of instances examined;
·
the
extended time period for data-gathering;
·
the
participant/observer continuum; and
·
the
discourse of ethnography.
In
structuring my approach, I take as my starting point these key ‘markers’ of
ethnography as identified by participants, and look at each in turn in order to
evaluate their effectiveness and assess how they could illuminate my area of
enquiry –literacy practices in a Christianity basics course, Christianity
Explored (CE).
Framing the problem
Over
and above features of method, one key characteristic of ethnography is how
researchers frame the research
‘question’. Essentially ethnography is
not an approach that tests hypotheses, but starts one stage back, with a piece
of ‘common’ knowledge or ‘folk theory’ of literacy (Carrington and
Luke,1997). Moss (2003) examines the
quasi-truistic view that boys’ choice of reading material differs from girls’,
neglecting fiction for non-fiction.
Gregory and Williams(2003) investigate how family literacy practices
influence school literacy learning. The
“folk theories” unearthed include the institutional view that ‘equality of
opportunity’ can be achieved by ‘the same provision’, and parents’ views that
literacy learning is best left to experts (class teachers).
In other
words ethnographic studies look at “what everyone knows” (Garfinkel,1967). In many cases this leads to reconstructions
of the issue and a problematising of ‘common sense’ views.
In
my context, there are many folk theories surrounding Christian study – that it
is based on the catechism, rote-learning or Sunday school, that certain
standards of behaviour, use of language or background of belief are expected,
that it centres on prayer, Bible reading and sermonising. There is also the view that “most people
know” what Christianity is. In the sense that there are so many widely-held
preconceptions of the nature of Christian literacy, paradoxically including
folk theories that it is monolithic, an ethnographic approach should offer
great potential to unpick how that literacy is constructed in the particular
social context of the CE course.
Observation
Observation is at the heart of many qualitative research
projects. For ethnographic approaches to
literacy practices, observation will generally extend beyond the immediate
educational field and look at material as well as discursive contexts. Moss (2003) for example notes group size,
students’ and teachers’ postures and positions, when pupils are permitted to
move around, the materiality of texts, furnishings and physical space. Analysing photographic images of literacy
practice,
In the context of the CE course, an activity
theory triangle could be used, as devised by Vygotsky (1994) and expanded by
Engeström (1987) (Fig.1). Each literacy event would be analysed in
terms of the interactions and mediations of the tools and technologies
involved, the objective and outcomes, the community rules, roles and
responsibilities as enacted.
Figure 1: Engeström’s triangle
Audio recording offers opportunities for fine-grained conversation analysis (Sacks,1992). The negotiation of community roles can be inferred from turn-taking, acknowledgement markers and topic shift. Looking at the development of literacy as an “activity sytem” in this way (Russell,2002) may demonstrate “the potentially contradictory pull of different elements within any one event” (Moss,2003) despite the univocal design of the CE course. Ethnographic approaches call into question the boundaries of learning events, in that Christian literacy might be enacted elsewhere in partipants’ home, social and work lives. However for such situations, observation might be overly intrusive, and another part of the toolkit more illuminating – the interview.
Interviewing
Most
ethnographies include interviews less as the sole means of ascertaining the
views or aims of individuals or groups, and most often as a way of validating
data from observation in a process of triangulation. Gregory and Williams (2003) check the
pedagogical objectives of a teacher as stated in interviews against their
observations:
Recordings of Teacher 1 throughout the year demonstrated a close link between her aims and practice.
This
reflects a prioritisation of what can be learnt by ‘sitting-in’ on everyday
events over interview responses. As
social psychology research demonstrates, respondents can express variable views
in the same interview, depending on the phrasing of the question or which
issues are topical at that time and place (Potter and
Wetherell,1987:pp.49-53).
Examining
Zubair’s analysis of lexis and pronoun use (Zubair,1999) in this respect, I
suggest that her strategies show similar wariness of directly-expressed
views. She outlines the construction of
a social group with like views, as a process achieved on-the-spot through word
choice and taking up a series of positions alongside or against other
views. These ways with words are what
inform and validate the researcher’s statement that younger women in a rural
Pakistani community see secular literacy as ‘empowering’.
Interviews for ethnographic studies of literacy often take the form of talk-around-texts (Hall,1993;Lillis,2003). I would hope to illuminate religious backgrounds, attitudes to learning and literacy, and the nature and level of support at home for the participants through conventional interviews, but it is as talk-around-texts that interviewing would be most helpful for the CE context. The process centres on several texts: the source document of Mark’s gospel, which is subject to a close reading of the type many participants will not have practiced since school if at all; the group discussions of the coursebook; the notes of participants and the course leader; intertextual references (for example to the Old Testament or historical accounts); and video presentations.
Members’ categories
The
idea that ethnography looks at events from the point of view of participants is
central. Lillis and
Hall’s
(1999) “ecology of learning” is ethnographic in that he searches for pupils’
own rationales for punctuation incongruities, redrawing “confusion” as “the
child’s systematization” (Ferreiro
and Teberosky,1984).
Moss
(2003) acknowledges her starting position as “the use of a particular range of
techniques designed to elicit and preserve ways of knowing and acting which
belong to the researched”. However, the report cannot just reproduce
the data – it codifies it, so developing its own categories. While Gregory and Williams (2003)
differentiate between their ethnographic study –which is essentially at the level
of demographics- and the codifying of teaching strategies, for most researchers
the drawing out of categories is very much part of the ethnography. Moss (2003), after Bernstein(1996), describes
this as “developing reading rules…to grasp how members construct their various
texts to manage their contexts”.
The
formation of explanation categories in Moss’ study provides her best insights
into the approaches of teachers and the effects of material contexts (for
instance in publicising displays of competence). It helps to show how:
A similar curriculum slot performing the same function but in a different setting and mobilising different resources, can still turn out differently.
So,
for many ethnographers, this translation work is the study. It is here that theoretical perspectives can “emerge
from the data” (Gitlin et al,1993) and inform practice. It is in this way that I would want to
develop categories in the context of the CE course literacies.
Multiplicity of examples and the literacy event
The
use of multiple examples is to be understood as looking in depth at several
small-scale events, rather than broad sampling.
Gregory and Williams (2003) compare practices of only fifteen children,
in different year groups in different schools, employing different procedures
to contact and communicate with parents of children in different groups, and
work with children both with and without siblings at home. Any one of these would invalidate their
conclusions were this a quantitative study.
But
the selection of examples for ethnographies is validated by different
criteria. Most ethnographic studies are
selective, working with, say, tens of pupils.
Since no hypothesis is to be proved, there is no requirement for control
groups, and more everyday, less ‘stage-managed’ events can be investigated than
experiments in cognition in the Piagetian tradition: compare for example
Donaldson’s(1978) reappraisal of Piaget’s experiments on number-perception.
Several researchers achieve multiplicity of
examples by choosing as their unit of study the “literacy event”. Literacy events are defined as:
Activities where literacy has a role. Usually there is a written text or texts
central to the activity and there may be talk around the text. Events are observable episodes.
Barton and Hamilton,2000
Working
with this definition has two helpful effects.
First,
Secondly,
Moss (2003) uncovers a wide variety of literacy events throughout the day, and
all elements in every event are “resources” with “meaning potential”
(Halliday,1978). Therefore interactions with similar material contexts
have the potential to be “patterned and persistent” (Street,2003). Rather than taking a
technological-determinist position, Moss shows how texts, readers and “material
and discursive space” generate new meanings in interaction. The problem is that:
Within…ethnography,
these [elements] are traditionally handled separately, using different kinds of
analytic tools
I would aim to adopt integrated ethnographic approaches to study all elements in the CE course literacy events and show the pull of various resources within the systems.
Taking time
The ‘extended period of time’ spent in contact with
participants is another ‘marker’ of ethnography. Gregory and Williams (2003) studied family
and schooled literacy practices over the 1994/1995 academic year. Lillis’
(2001a) study of student writing is described as “ethnographic to the extent
that” she studied participants’ literacy-histories through “regular
contact…over a sustained period of time”.
Lee’s (1996) study is described as ethonographic because she “immerses
herself in a particular classroom over an extended period of time” (Lillis and
The extended data gathering period valorises the study; the implication being that it is a pre-requisite for understanding, for the researcher becoming accepted. Awkwardly, within ethnography, detachment is seen as a virtue and ‘going native’ a problem (Gitlin et al,1993) – a problem that becomes more pronounced with the passing of time. I would expect to hit exactly this issue; the CE course is only six hour-long sessions, so I could not be an undercover observer for more than one instance, and would have to negotiate my position in order to observe further iterations.
The participant/observer continuum
Moss
sees the role of researchers as “both insiders and outsiders” (2003) present at
leisure and recreational activities as well as in school, themselves teachers,
yet required to “remain ‘strange’”.
Again, this stems from cultural anthropology, where access was
historically often gained through the mediation of colonial administrators or
missionary workers, and in schools via head teachers or inspection bodies. As an example, the language used in guidance
notes from a workshop on research skills at the UK Open University (Hennessy,
2005) suggests the fine line researchers tread when negotiating access and
managing relationships on site:
Check
up on what is expected and…go along with what is asked…
…Be
prepared to put the time in...in order to build up a relationship of trust…
…Heads
are often understandably concerned with the school’s image and may require
reassurance….
Dyson’s
(1997) report identifies “guides or informants” – positioning researchers as outsiders and the children as being
informed upon (with connotations of being ‘shopped’). Ethnographers are detached not only from
participants but from their own accounts –setbacks on the way, funding
negotiations and publication delays are detailed elsewhere, as
semi-autobiographical notes for apprentice researchers, but not in main report
findings (see Mercer,1991;Tizard and Hughes,1991). This connects to another problematic within ethnography
– the nature of its discourse.
Ethnographic discourse
Moss
(2003) claims a connection between the “language of enactment” and the
“language of description”, and a link, in the act of translation, between
member categories and the categories of the research report.
Arguably,
there is more connection between one study and another in their languages of description than in their languages of enactment. Despite real insights offered by Moss’ study,
therefore, it is important to be sceptical about its claims to be
‘descriptive’, since as an act of academic writing it is situated in political
practice. As Gitlin et al argue (1993,p.193), the history of ethnography is “a history
of textual practice”, bound up in what Lillis (2001b) analyses as the “ideology
of clarity” in western academic culture.
Tracing this ideology back to the science writing of
As
for science, so for ethnography:
It
is also noteworthy that ethnographic methods have long been contested within
the field of anthropology. Key
challenges include whether to intervene in cultural activity, the kinds of
relationships to form with participants, and the implications of the
distinctions between observer and observed.
Gitlin
et al suggest ethnographic
technologies have been left relatively unchallenged by educational researchers,
and have instead been reified and applied as a technique in the field as if
they were “rhetorically and ideologically innocent”. I would argue that many researchers do raise
questions regarding their relationships and positioning in the study, but that
this almost never reaches the rhetorical organisation of the report.
One
way I aim to find an appropriate discursive style through ethnographic study
would be by attempting to capture the change process– the construction of new
literacy practices over the length of the CE course – rather than producing a
‘snapshot’ of a stable object or a set of conclusions. To record this as a work in collaborative
progress would require the mapping of fine-grained findings to a timeline or
storyboard.
Conclusions for practice
The
dilemma for practitioner-researchers is that while ethnographic approaches should have potential to encourage
reflective practice (given the time invested and the level of detail of the
analyses), they have “had little influence on teachers’ consciousness, their
behaviour, or schooling in general” (Gitlin et
al,1993). In some ways this is
because much illumination is seen to come from the theoretical perspectives
that emerge from the study and not directly from ethnography. But it is also due to the fact that much of
the research is ‘consumed’ by the educational research community rather than
practicing teachers, and reward structures set little store by the reaching of
shared conclusions with teacher-participants, or the practicality of
recommendations.
If
ethnography produces only deep analyses of little practical relevance – all the
“language of critique” rather than the “language of possibility” (Aronowitz and
Giroux,1985) - then it is impotent. If the best of the ethnographic techniques
can be combined with a more reflexive discourse that can describe change
processes, and plan for the achievement of further change in collaboration with
teachers and learners, then its potential is rich indeed.
References
Atkinson, P.,
Delamont, S. and Hammersley, M. (1993) ‘Qualitative Research Traditions’ in
Martyn
Aronowitz, S. and
Giroux, H. (1985) Education under siege:
the conservative, liberal and radical debate over schooling.
Bahktin, M.M.
(1981) ‘Discourse in the Novel’, in M. Holquist (ed) The Dialogic Imagination, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Austin
TX, University of Texas Press
Barton, D. and
Bazerman, C. (1988)
Shaping Written Knowledge, Madison
WI,
Bernstein, B.
(1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and
Identity
Collins, J. (1995)
‘Literacy and Literacies’, in Annual
Review of Anthropology, 24, 75-93.
Donaldson, M.
(1993) ‘Failing to Reason or Failing to Understand?’ in M. Hammersley (ed) Educational Research: in action,
Dyson, A.H. (1997)
‘Rewriting for, and by, the children: the social and ideological fate of a
Media Miss in an urban classroom’ in Lillis and
Engeström, Y.
(1987) Learning by Expanding: An activity
Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research
Ferreiro, E. and
Teberosky, A. (1984) Literacy before
Schooling
Garfinkel,
H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology,
Gitlin, A., Siegel,
M. and Boru, K.(1993) ‘The Politics of Method: from leftist ethnography to
educative research’ in M. Hammersley (ed) Educational
Research: Current Issues
Goodman, S.,
Lillis, T., Maybin, J. and Mercer, N. (2003) Language, Literacy and Education: A reader, Stoke on Trent,
Trentham Books
Gregory, E. and
Williams, A. (2003) ‘Investigating family literacy histories and children’s
reading practices in
Hall, N. (1999)
‘Young children’s use of graphic punctuation’, Language and Education, vol.13, no. 3, pp.178-93.
Halliday, M. (1978)
Language as Social Semiotic,
Hammersley (ed.) Educational Research: current issues,
Hennessy, S. (2005)
Lillis, T. (2001a) Student Writing: Access, Regulation and
Desire,
Lillis, T. (2001b)
‘Student Writing in Higher Education: Contemporary Confusion, Traditional
Concerns’, Teaching in Higher Education,
January 2001, Vol.6 Issue 1, pp.57-69
Lillis, T. and
Mercer, N. (1991) Researching Common Knowledge: Studying the content and context of
educational discourse in G. Walford (ed), Doing Educational Research,
Moss, G. (2003)
‘Analysing literacy events: mapping gendered configurations of readers, texts
and contexts’ in S. Goodman, T. Lillis, J. Maybin and N. Mercer (eds) Language, Literacy and Education: A reader,
Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books
Piaget, J. (1952) The Child’s Conception of Number,
Routledge and Kegan Paul,
Potter, J. and Wetherell,
M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology:
beyond attitudes and behaviour,
Russell, R. R.
(2002) ‘Looking beyond the interface: activity theory and distributed learning’
in M. Lea and K. Nicholl (eds) Distributed
Learning: social and cultural approaches to practice,
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversations, Vols I & II,
Street, B. (2003)
‘Implications of the ‘New Literacy Studies’ for Education’, in S. Goodman, T.
Lillis, J. Maybin and N. Mercer (eds) Language,
Literacy and Education: A reader, Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books
Tizard, B. and
Hughes,M. (1991) ‘Reflections on Young
Children Learning’ in G. Walford (ed), Doing
Educational Research,
Vygotsky, L.S.
(1994) The Vygotsky Reader (edited by
V. der veer and J. Valsiner)
Zubair, S. (1999)
‘Women’s literacy in a rural Pakistani community’ in T.O’Brien (ed.) Language and Literacies: Selected Papers
from the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics,
University of Manchester, September 1998, BAAL and Multilingual Matters,
pp.114-25.