CCR 691: Logan's (2008) *Liberating Language*

Logan, Shirley Wilson. Liberating Language: Sites of Rhetorical Education in Nineteenth-Century Black America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.

INTRODUCTION: “‘By the Way, Where Did You Learn to Speak?’”

An overview of her study, scope, method, and purpose as explained in her “Introduction”:

1. WHAT and WHEN: Logan seeks to answer the question, “Where did [African Americans in the late 18^th-early 19^th century] learn to speak?” Specifically, she’s interested in identifying and analyzing sites of rhetorical education—those places where AAs were instructed explicitly or implicitly in being rhetorical in their communicative experiences.

2. WHERE and HOW: Her sites of research and textual artifacts analyzed within her book are:

a. CH1: “white-sponsored slave missions and initiatives emerging from within communities of the enslaved,” “the black Union regiments during the Civil War,” “the activities of the Republican Loyal League” (6-7)

b. CH2: diaries from multiple individuals; published advice manuals (7)

c. CH3: literacy societies “primarily in Philadelphia and New York, both single sex and mixed, church-affiliated, school-affiliated, and community-based” (7)

d. CH4: Black periodicals (8)

e. Throughout each of her chapters: calls on famous Black rhetors to make “cautious generalizations” (9)

3. WHY: She seeks answers to her research question because she hopes it will “broaden our approaches to contemporary rhetorical education and thereby help to further participation in democracy” (3). She also hopes to inform: “This study will expand our understanding of the various ways in which African Americans, faced with the consequences of enslavement and oppressive color prejudice, acquired rhetorical competence during the late eighteenth century and across the nineteenth century” (9).

Her strategies for supporting her methodology:

· Shows exigency in her study by providing a few examples of the challenges AAs faced in engaging in literacy practices and illustrating how so many white folks were shocked (this being “a form of ‘soft bigotry,’” quoting Anna Perez, 3).

· Defines her terms (e.g. rhetorical education, basic literacy) by calling on main rhetoric folks (Burke, Bitzer, Aristotle).

· Situates her methods of analyzing literacy practices of a population in the margins by likening her study to other main literacy folks (Royster, Williams, Jarratt, Zaluda, Gold).

· Situates her focus on AAs by citing others with a similar target population (Kates, Schneider, Anderson, Franklin, Porter, McHenry).

CHAPTER 1: “Free-Floating Literacy: Early African American Rhetorical Traditions”

Her method:

· She investigates rhetorical traditions and literacy practices in multiple sites to make claims about the experiences of AAs in the 18^th-19^th centuries. Sites and summaries include:

o “Plantation Literacies”: Records of “invisible institutions” (like group meetings in the woods where members could develop expression and worship) and slave missions where AAs received literacy education. These practices often helped to engrain the oral traditions of the culture.

o “Pulpit Literacies”: Missions helped AAs develop memorization skills. Rhetoric textbooks like The Columbian Orator helped AAs like Frederick Douglas realize the power of rhetoric in enacting freedom.

o “Battlefield Literacies”: Since AAs were coming together in the military and sharing literacy skills and since some military officials would initiate literacy education and/or develop schools for these soldiers, much of their rhetorical traditions were garnered through these experiences. Specifically, AA individuals participated in literacy practices by reading, discussing, and producing letters, newspapers, and speeches/poetry readings.

o “Political Literacies”: Sponsored by Union or Loyal League Movement, AAs also experienced literacy through night schools and other community gatherings aimed at promoting political activity and power.

o “Postbellum Workplace Literacies”: Some AAs may have also experienced literacy through working at cigar factories where they practiced la lectura, a custom where individuals were elected (based on mutual respect for their intelligence) to read texts aloud during cigar rolling and workers would use these texts as bases for debate and public argument.

· The evidence she presents come from various sources:

o Examples of AA’s experiences in the 19^th century and many of her terms of analysis from scholars’ previous studies (Costen, Nunley, Raboteau)

o References to historical moments, folks, or events (antebellum South, slave laws, slave mission movements, Militia Act, etc.)

o Analysis of primary texts of published AA writing and of AAs’ personal narratives (Elizabeth Johnson Harris, Frederick Douglas, Charles Colcock Jones, Amanda Berry Smith, Christian Recorder, Weekly Anglo-African)

· She keeps the analysis informational and refrains from making connections between the literacy practices of then to what’s happening today.

Key people and their terms:

· Ralph Ellison’s “free-floating literacy” (11)

· Shirley Brice Heath and Beverly J. Moss’ “literacy events” (11)

· Melva Wilson Costen’s “Invisible Institutions,” (12)

· Vorris L. Nunley’s “hush harbor rhetoric” (12)

My question:

Since in class we’ve been really emphasizing the importance of methods, methodology, and the building of a researcher ethos, it was a bit surprising to me that Logan does not spend time detailing her methods and methodologies. While she references primary sources and other scholarly work, we never seem to learn where and how she collected data. I then remembered how in our colloquium Lois focused less on step-by-step methods for a historical approach in her discussion of her research and Tolar Burton also stayed away from explicit discussion of procedural methods (even stating something about it might be boring for us to hear her methods). Although I imagine this trend for not detailing methods and methodologies is not unique to historiographers, I wonder why some are less inclined to provide such detailed accounts of data gathering and analysis. I wonder if we associate such descriptions as “boring” or too “science-like.” Maybe archival research feels too open-ended and exploratory to be defined methodologically. Maybe we just haven’t valued this practice as much until recently. Maybe historiographers assume we already know methods for historical approaches. Either way, I was interested to observe this trend, and I’m curious as to why researchers might be inclined to leave out discussions of their methods and methodologies and how we might work to address this issue.

CCR 691: Moss, Kirsch, Cushman (Ethnography)

CCR 691 Notes

10/29/09

Moss, Beverly J. “Ethnography and Composition.” Methods and Methodology in Composition Research. Eds. Gesa Kirsch and Patricia A. Sullivan. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Seeks to answer two questions:

1. What do comp studies need to know about ethnography?

a. “ethnography in composition studies is generally topic oriented and concerned more narrowly with communicative behavior or the interrelationship between language and culture” (156).

2. What challenges arise when we investigate communities through which we are a part of?

Some principles of ethnography

· Often participant-observer

· Context is crucial

· Usually a hypothesis or focus and a conceptual framework, but new interests should arise and old questions should be revised (157).

· You must negotiate access and interact with community according to that community (158)

· Fieldwork: gather as much info/data as is available, such as interviews, recordings, artifacts, notes, questionnaires (159)

· Data analysis is designed to discover patterns or interesting observations (160)

· Writing the report is usually in a narrative, story-telling fashion (160-161)

· Insiders must work to make the familiar unfamiliar: interrogate assumptions, find interest in the mundane, be cautious about not ignoring or overlooking patterns or significant connections (164-167)

· Insiders must acknowledge the effects of their own roles and participation in the community (165). Work to reflect on ethnocentrism and bias (168).

· Insiders must be cautious about how to present the material so that they are fair, accurate, critical, and loyal, while not going overboard in the opposite direction either (169).

Kirsch, Gesa E. Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation, and Publication. New York: State University of New York Press.

· Basically, she’s discussing how in feminist research, our goals are to become very close to and collaborate with our participants, but this is problematic since our findings and interpretations may be offensive or disempowering to our subjects. She suggests that we enact in dialogic interactions with participants and allow them say in how data are interpreted and presented.

Cushman, Ellen. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community.

· It’s ethnographic, but she has a “activist methodology” (x), where she investigates literacy on a class and race level.

· Wants to look at both the politically-infused struggles individuals experience and the coping strategies/tools individuals call on (these individuals being inner-city residents, mostly women and children)

· Looks at “linguistic abilities and political insights” (xi) individuals have for negotiating “institutional language” (xii)

· Data gathered (tapes, artifacts, field notes) (xi)

ETHNOGRAPHY

Possibilities

· Not being held to “false consciousness.” Looking within our social worlds (TJ).

· Co-interpretation: process is fluid (Cushman and Eileen).

· Explore what is present (TJ).

· Empower your people; reciprocity; expose power (Justin)

· Strategic essentialism (Amber, Steve, Eileen, Melissa)

· Activism

Limitations

· Ethics: message you send out is not what you observe, cuz participants are not performing the truth that they claim (Justin).

· Co-interpretation: material limits, time, space, connection/understanding

· Representing negotiations in your text (Eileen)

· What are you giving back? (TJ)

· High stakes! Intervention vs. access (Eileen)

· Insiders: remember to make the unsurprising surprising (Eileen/Moss)

Ethical Dilemmas

· Views and positions of participants and their “claim” to inhabit (false consciousness) (TJ).

· Participants “hurt” by your study (when you interrogate institutions, for example)

· Co-interpretations: disagreement, what do you do?

· Theoretical framework: using a lens doesn’t allow the participant to define themselves (Justin)

· Framing your subject in the deficit: how do you push against it without romancing it? (Amber)

· Intervening: helps right then, but maybe not helping others in the future? (Melissa)

CCR 691: Heath (1999) *Ways with Words*

Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: University Press, 1999.

Quick overview of Method:

· What and when: As described in her “Prologue,” Heath conducted ethnographic research during a time post-school-desegregation in the 1960s. Heath collaborated with numerous fellow teachers and graduate students on gathering and comparing recorded (field notes or audio tapes) and interpreted data of communication occurring in two populations during this time.

· Where: The sites she investigated were communities in the Piedmont Carolinas: one town consisting mostly of black farm families new to the working-class (Trackton) and one consisting mostly of long time working-class white folks (Roadville).

· How: Data consists of recorded communication occurring at school, at home, or at the textile mills, where most of the families from both towns work.

· Why: Based on their cross-cultural comparisons of communicative trends in Trackton and Roadville (both of children and teaching practices), the collaborating researchers worked to answer the following research question: “For each of these groups, what were the effects of the preschool home and community environment on the learning of those language structures and uses which were needed in classrooms and job settings” (4).

Some notes on Heath’s “strategies” for an ethnographic approach:

· 9 years! (1969-1978)

· Entered the community naturally, through acquaintances

· Acted as a participant-observer (did the work and knew and respected the town, the people, and the ways)

· Upfront with her focus: the physical boundaries, other communicative limitations, patterns of choice, and values associated within the socialization of language (5-6).

· Considers herself an anthropologist

· Acknowledges that her study is not a model for methods of other ethnographic research, admitting that it shouldn’t and likely won’t be replicated by other researchers (7-8).

· Defends her methodology by arguing that quantitative data approaches don’t account for social and cultural contexts (8).

· Acknowledges that participants “are the products of their history and current situation” and that her focus is on cultural, not racial, influences (10).

· Repeatedly refers to this account as a “narrative” or “story”

· Acknowledges that she affected the “social reality” of how classrooms were conducted at the time: “From ethnographer learning, or coming to ‘know,’ I have become ethnographer doing.”

· Acknowledges that these stories are incomplete (13)

· Conceals names of people and locations (13-14)

· Tries to capture the varying dialects as they naturally occur in speech (15)

Some questions/challenges/interesting topics:

1. I found great interest in Heath’s approach to being “responsible” to the community she researches, whether that be through the ways she entered the community, avoided generalized comparisons of race or socioeconomic status in her findings, used only equipment already accepted by the community (audio recorders), or sought to be respectful and considerate of her influence and presence at all times. Based on our conversations in class, I imagine others may have considered these acts of “responsibility” as answers to earlier calls for researchers to have the best interests for their participants when doing ethnography. Being “responsible” to our participants has been an unsettled issue for me all semester, though, since I suspect some of my research goals may not be perceived as well-intentioned (like when we wish to “infiltrate and assess” an institutional department, for example). I consider my aims to be aimed at positive action for some communities, but the actual community I seek to investigate may not see it that way. If our conclusions lead to arguments that our participants won’t be content with, I’m still unsure about how that complicates our responsibilities to our participants.

2. Heath acknowledges that “educators should not look here [in her book] for experiments, controlled conditions, and systematic score-keeping on the academic gains and losses of specific children. Nor should psycholinguisitics look here for data taped at periodic intervals under similar conditions over a predesignated period of time” (8-9). It’s hard not to respect her approach to using long term ethnographic participant-observation to make claims about how some individuals communicate. Still, having just read Chris Anson’s “The Intelligent Design of Writing Programs: Reliance on Belief or a Future of Evidence,” (where he argues that the discipline of college composition needs to perform research in the field that provides actual evidence, not just our own practical theories and story-telling) and based on our numerous conversations in 691 regarding our discipline’s call for evidence-driven research, I’m interested in thinking about how ethnography can be aligned with other methods to provide such results that Anson calls for. How might have Heath approached the study differently to accomplish this? How might we design a multi-method approach for our future ethnographic studies?