Perspectives on the study of literacy

According to NLS researchers, three perspectives on literacy are the most salient:

social, autonomous, and critical. Different authors do not necessarily use the same terms, and researchers do not necessarily identify themselves as adopting a specific perspective, as noted by Street (2001). However, Street explains that it is useful to look at the different perspectives adopted to study literacy in order to ‘fill the gap left by untheorised statements about literacy and to adopt a broader perspective than is apparent in any one writer’ (2001: 432). These three perspectives have their roots in different disciplines and research traditions.

2.1.1 New Literacy Studies

The New Literacy Studies can be understood as the social view of literacy (Papen, 2005) or as the ideological model of literacy (Street, 1984; 1993, 2001). According to

Barton (2001), the NLS originated from dissatisfaction with purely cognitive conceptions of what reading and writing are. These ‘over-simplistic psychological models’ were particularly influential in schools (ibid.: 93). In their work, researchers associated with the NLS conducted studies in education settings but also in other contexts not associated with formal schooling.

For NLS researchers, literacy cannot be defined as the simple aptitude to read and write and needs to be understood in its socially and historically situated contexts. On this matter, Baynham and Prinsloo (2009: 2) explain that NLS researchers consider that

literacy goings-on are always and already embedded in particular forms of activity; that one cannot define literacy or its uses in a vacuum; that reading and writing are studied in the context of social (cultural, historical, political and economic) practices of which they are a part and which operate in particular social spaces.

It is thus more useful to look at literacy in terms of what people do, as part of social interactions, as multimodal, as situated in contexts and as ‘literacies’ rather than

‘literacy’ (Street, 1984) (further explained in Section 2.1.2). Literacy should therefore be understood from the perspectives of the people using it and seen as situated in context.

The NLS is a research perspective developed by researchers from various disciplines―notably empirical psychology (Scribner and Cole, 1981), anthropology (Street, 1984), sociolinguistics and education (Heath, 1983). The first generation of NLS studies finely described the uses of literacy in diverse communities such as the Vai people in Liberia (Scribner and Cole, 1981), Iranian villagers (Street 1984) and families from three different communities in the South-Eastern United States (Heath,

1983). They used various methodologies, but were all drawing on observations and other ethnographic approaches. These studies have highlighted the importance of looking at literacy beyond a skills perspective and outside formal settings such as schools.

The second generation of NLS studies continued adopting an ethnographic approach.

The landmark study by Barton and Hamilton (1998) conducted in a neighbourhood of Lancaster was a major contribution to the field. Based on their empirical work, they refined the definition of concepts such as literacy events and literacy practices (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3). Barton and Hamilton (1998) note that literacy is generally defined as the ability to read and write, but according to them literacy events (Section 2.2) often involve other modes such as spoken language but also signs, numbers, images, and so on. Therefore, literacy is much more than just reading and writing.

People use an amalgam of modes while accomplishing tasks and making sense of their everyday lives.

Other studies from the second generation such as Baynham (1993), Besnier (1993), or the studies published in Prinsloo and Breier (1996) contributed to the exploration and development of new areas of literacy study such as literacy mediation, literacy and emotions, and the critical analysis of literacy policies. These studies highlighted the roles of other people in literacy practices; emphasising the social interactions around text and the delicate power issues that can occur in practices. Besnier’s study (1993) also illustrated the close link between literacy (in this case writing) and emotions. The importance of emotions was not taken into consideration in more skill-oriented models of literacy, since skills and individual cognition were the main focus.

The NLS have evolved since their beginning. The NLS now cover a wide range of research interests such as health (Papen, 2009, 2012a; 2012b), workplaces (Tusting,

2009; 2010; Varey and Tusting, 2012), policy and narratives on literacy (Hamilton and Pitt, 2011; Hamilton, 2012), institutions such as prisons (Wilson, 2000), multimodality and spaces (Pahl and Rowsell, 2006), immigration, migration and transnational literacies (see for instance the volume of Linguistics and Education edited by Warriner (2007)), and the effects of globalisation on local practices (Jones, 2000a; 2000b; Papen 2007). The digital technologies and social media are also important research topics for NLS researchers (see notably Davies, 2006; Lee and Barton, 2009; Merchant et al., 2012; Barton and Lee, 2013; Burnett and Merchant, 2014). The digital technologies have enriched the study of literacies; revealing fast-changing, layered and complex contexts (see Section 2.2.2).

2.1.2 Autonomous model of literacy

The second perspective is what Street (1984; 1993, 2001) calls the autonomous model of literacy. According to him, literacy is conceptualised in this model as technical skills which are not bound to a social context. In other words, literacy is an

‘autonomous variable’ affecting society and its individuals (Street, 2001: 431). Street is particularly critical of authors such as Jack Goody, Walter J. Ong and David Olson and others who he links with the autonomous model. These authors are associated with the ‘Great Divide’ theory which distinguishes non-literate from literate societies by attributing characteristics to both of them (e.g. claiming more complex cognitive abilities in literate societies than in non-literate ones). The autonomous model of literacy is sometimes referred to as the skills view of literacy (Papen, 2005).

According to Street (1984), the autonomous model emphasises one ‘literacy’ and therefore only one ‘culture’, overshadowing all the other literacies which are not recognised. What is generally considered as reading and writing in society is strongly

influenced by the autonomous model (Papen, 2015a). It is also strongly shaped by school and the expectations associated with this institution (Barton, 2001). Thus other ways of reading and writing not associated with schools but associated with other cultures and sub-cultures also present in society are not included in the term ‘literacy’

as used in the autonomous perspective. For instance, literacy practices in other languages, personal diaries, shopping lists, checklists, tattoos and so on, might not be included in the notion of Literacy ‘with a large L and a small y’ (Street, 2011: 582).

The concept of literacies (plural form) is then more comprehensive and representative of the uses of literacy in everyday life and in different cultures and sub-cultures.

Prinsloo (2013) explains that ‘it is not helpful to think in terms of a single literacy when there is a remarkable diversity in the ways that people read and write for the performance of widely varying personal, social, and economic functions’ (1).

Crowther, Hamilton and Tett (2001) add to this that a skills oriented perspective emphasises a deficit view. This means that it highlights what people cannot do rather than what they can actually do with literacy. Barton and Hamilton (1998) argue that although literacy can generally be seen as a tool that people use to do things, it is in fact more complex than that because of its social nature and its central role in social relationships.

Collin (2013), in contrast, invites researchers to revisit Goody’s work in order to understand how literacy can impact on society. According to him, researchers associated with a sociocultural approach to literacy have rejected Goody’s view of literacy because it is associated with a perspective of technological determinism. That is to say that ‘changes in literacy cause changes in culture, economics, politics, etc.’

(ibid.: 28). Collin argues that socio-cultural approaches to literacy, on the contrary, tend to adopt a cultural determinism view that can be summarised as follow: ‘literacy

is best understood as an expression of local culture’ (28). However, Collin fails to suggest an innovative theoretical approach compatible with literacy studies which could balance between the two types of determinism. Also, it seems that his selection of sociocultural studies of literacy is limited, and his critique on the overemphasis on the local is not representative of the actual work in the field. I come back to this critique in Section 2.2, where I introduce a few authors who suggest ways of bridging the gap between the local and global contexts.

2.1.3 Critical literacy

The third perspective draws on the work of the Brazilian educator and philosopher Paolo Freire, and is generally referred to as critical literacy. This perspective on literacy aims at the empowerment and emancipation of people through literacy. One of Freire’s book titles judiciously summarises this perspective: ‘Literacy: Reading the Word and the World’ (Freire and Macedo, 1987). Papen (2005) notes that this perspective started to gain popularity in the 70s and 80s, since policies and programmes based on a skills view of literacy were not reaching their expected aims.

She explains that a Freirean approach to literacy ‘includes having the ability to not only decode the literal meaning of texts, but to read behind the lines, and to engage in a critical discussion of the positions a text supports’ (11).

For some authors close to the NLS, there are some important differences between the Freirean critical literacy perspective and the NLS. According to Rogers (1999: 225), the way literacy is taught in a Freirean perspective is decontextualised, that is to say it starts with syllables that are later brought together to form words. For Rogers (1999), this is not a method which corresponds to a NLS stance. Also, he argues that there is an ontological problem regarding oppression in Freire’s critical pedagogy. Rogers

(Boughton, Rogers and Street, 2013) argues that in a Freirean perspective, researchers and practitioners start from the assumption that participants are oppressed. The NLS do not necessarily start from this assumption, but, rather, try to understand what people do with literacy; what their literacy practices are in context. Rogers (1999) notes that applied to literacy policies, a Freirean perspective can have ambiguous outcomes since what is seen as emancipatory literacy practices may not be the same for stakeholders and learners. Rogers’s criticisms neglect the important contribution of the Freirean approach to literacy education, especially in developing countries.

Despite the ontological problem mentioned above, educators working with a Freirean approach are working closely with the communities concerned and do care about the local needs. Hamilton, Barton and Ivanič (1992: 113) mention that

Paulo Freire pointed out ways in which literacy can be seen as a form of power. Literacy that is imposed and learned for other people's purposes enslaves. Literacy that is self-generated and springs from people's own needs to communicate and act on the world can be empowering.

This quote illustrates one of the ideals pursued within the critical view of literacy. As I explain further in Chapter 9, Brandt (2001) argues that people’s everyday literacy practices are rarely generated. It might not be fruitful to think that only self-generated practices are emancipatory. As I said in Chapter 1, literacies cannot be simply seen as tools that can be used to empower individuals. What really matters is for people to understand the narratives underlying powerful institutions and their texts.

This can be better understood by adopting a social view of literacy.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, I selected the NLS perspective on literacy for my study. In the following section, I explore other concepts that have been developed to explain what literacy means from a social point of view. For instance,

NLS researchers talk about literacy events and literacy practices. These concepts are the two main foci of research for NLS researchers.