Home Literacy, Diversity, and Epistemological Assumptions

• In Event: Troubling Our Assumptions About Family Literacy: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?

Abstract

Data Sources: Based on qualitative analysis of 213 family literacy research reports, position papers, and reviews, we identified four categories of family literacy texts: 1). those that made no reference to diversity (15%), 2.) those that made general references to diversity (27%), 3.) those that treated diversity as a causal variable (17%), and those that treated diversity as a central construct (41%). The current paper focuses on the 88 (41%) papers that treated diversity as a central construct.

Methods: We subjected the papers that treated diversity as central to a secondary analysis involving critical discourse analysis to explore discernable epistemological distinctions related to the nature of literacy, the purposes of literacy learning, and the development/acquisition of literacy. Discourse analysis related to the nature of literacy focused on whether literacy was described as a singular, plural, or evolving construct (e.g., “literacy” vs. “literacies”, “multiliteracies”) and the degree to which literacy abilities and practices were presented as delineated or amorphous (e.g., “skills” vs. “practices,”) The goals and purposes of literacy were discernable in language that identified either static or negotiable benchmarks (e.g., “meeting school benchmarks” vs. “carving out own purposes”) and the degree to which goals were delineated (e.g., meeting grade level reading expectations vs. literacy for social justice). Finally, we examined various conceptualizations of literacy development/acquisition that were marked by attention to sequence (e.g., correlations, linear scope/sequences vs. recognition of recursivity, bidirectionality and syncreticism).

Findings: Our discourse analysis revealed the multiplicity of epistemological assumptions that appeared in virtually all studies. While some causal models highlighted progressive and child-centered practices, some scholars, who espoused multiple and situated literacies, adopted language that implied causality. For example, arguments that described mismatches between the home literacy practices of children and those they encounter in schools, complicated existing dichotomies by highlighting the agential and strategic nature of children and families. Family literacy scholarship reflected tensions between open and inclusive views of literacy and literacy as entailing school-sanctioned visions of performance. Furthermore, while all of the scholars presented stated or implied goals related to literacy learning, in some cases these goals were clearly delineated; in other cases they were presented as general, open, or negotiated. Some broad goals were accompanied by descriptions of detailed practices and the use of directive language. Other texts purported that constructs grounded in modernist assumptions, such as the construct of mismatch, should be addressed through open and negotiated means including conversations with families. Multiple epistemological assumptions and conceptualizations operate in the ways family literacy scholars define and present the goals and purposes of their work.

Significance: We draw attention to those tensions not to critique family literacy studies, but to highlight the epistemological inconsistencies that operate within the field in relation to diversity and within particular family literacy texts. We argue that viewed strategically, these tensions provide spaces for crafting novel family literacy research and practices and discuss the importance of making underlying epistemological assumptions visible so that complexities and contradictions can be acknowledged and addressed.

Authors

• Catherine F. Compton-Lilly, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Rebecca L. Rogers, University of Missouri

• Tisha Y. Lewis, Georgia State University