Critical Issues: What Counts When Context Counts?: The Uncommon “Common” Language of Literacy Research

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?

“The Behavior Kids”

“…Literacy researchers tend to leave context underdefined theoretically, which limits its analytic power (Rex, Green, & Dixon, 1998). For the present study, I articulated a theory that foregrounds the role of social interaction (Erickson & Schultz, 1997) and how interactions among actors and objects form networks that span time and space (Latour, 1987).…”

“Everyone’s Voices Are to Be Heard”: A Comparison of Struggling and Proficient Readers’ Perspectives in One Urban High School

“…Central to this analysis are theories of literacy in context. In literacy research, context tends to go underdefined theoretically, which limits the work it can do as an analytic tool (Rex, Green, & Dixon, 1998). We understand contexts as interactionally constituted environments (Erickson & Schultz, 1997).…”

Getting at the Core of Literacy Improvement

“…Indeed, in a review of major reading research journals, Rex, Green, and Dixon (1998) found that scholars consistently asserted that context made a difference in children's reading experiences, yet the articles rarely defined the term. Indeed, in a review of major reading research journals, Rex, Green, and Dixon (1998) found that scholars consistently asserted that context made a difference in children's reading experiences, yet the articles rarely defined the term.…”

“…Although reading researchers agree that the sociocultural context of reading comprehension is critical to a reader’s development, they also contend that our understanding of context is both complex and vague. Indeed, in a review of major reading research journals, Rex, Green, and Dixon (1998) found that scholars consistently asserted that context made a difference in children’s reading experiences, yet the articles rarely defined the term. Rex et al warn that without an explicit understanding of the context in which reading occurs, not only do researchers leave readers with an ambiguous grasp of the meaning of “context,” but they also leave those wanting to improve children’s reading experiences ill-equipped with tangible ways to improve the sociocultural context.…”