No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Research into literacy published in journals such as the Journal of Literacy Research spans a range of disciplines and areas of study (e.g., reading, English education, composition). Even individual studies frequently take up interdisciplinary perspectives (e.g., anthropological, sociological, linguistic, educational, textual). The results are journals far ranging in their reach and rich in the knowledge they bring to literacy issues. However, such diversity of theoretical perspectives, research methods, and analytical methodologies also contributes to a confounding effect. In this article, we explore one such effect that occurs when a common term is used with different meanings. Although this may appear on the surface to be a problem easily remedied or even a rather trivial issue, in this article, we show just how consequential this practice can be when the goal is building knowledge from research that can inform practice, policy, and theory. This critical issue can be posed as a set of interrelated questions: Are we all talking about the same thing when we use words like literacy, reading, and even seemingly less resonant ones like context, the one addressed in this commentary? If we are, how do we know? And if we are not, what price are we paying for not considering the issue?

For the remainder of Volume 23, the Critical Issues section of JLR will be devoted to a discussion of literacy and educational policy. A survey of our editorial advisory board indicated that this topic was one of the critical issues facing the field. Likewise, a survey of the entire membership of the NRC, JLR's sponsoring organization, indicated that members hold strong feelings about whether the organization should “become more proactive on policy issues” (NRC Newsletter, Sept., 1995, p. 10). To further a dialogue about literacy and educational policy, we began by inviting three literacy researchers with diverse perspectives to address the topic of literacy and educational policy (Judith Green, who writes here with her colleague Carol Dixon, P. David Pearson, and Sharon Quint). We asked them to comment on the ideas they believe to be most crucial for policymakers to know about literacy. We also invited Donna Alvermann to read and to react to the three responses. Those familiar with the field will immediately surmise that these individuals represent not only diverse perspectives on literacy research, but that they are imminently qualified to reflect on what implications their research perspectives have for educational policy. Their responses are published here as Part 1 of a three-part series. For the next two issues of JLR, we have invited several individuals who have played a key role in developing and implementing state and national agenda for educational policy to respond to the literacy researchers' views. In addition, because any discussion of literacy and educational policy must eventually attend to the issue of poverty and the socially disadvantaged, we have invited Patrick Shannon to comment on how this issue relates to literacy research. We hope that this series of “Critical Issues” pieces will stimulate increased dialogue about educational policy among researchers interested in literacy and between researchers and policymakers. Toward that end, we encourage readers to ponder the perspectives and ideas presented in this series and to add their own insights by submitting letters to the editor, which will be considered for future publication.

The authors discuss where qualitative research may be headed in the light of where it has been, situating their conversation in the current political context.