Research Questions

Let me highlight the research questions that underscore the direction of my methods (Creswell, 2009):

• What is an indelible form of supplementing or supplanting the homeless identity that doesn’t denote or connote a lack?

• Does vending, writing, or combining both acts by the homeless participants of street newspapers most effectively propel them in a new direction that eschews the homeless moniker, in lieu of empowerment?

• How will I ensure that the volunteers, including myself, have the proper training to host writing workshops?

• How can all of those involved in the study – from academia and the public – benefit from the proposed study?

It’s possible that in terms of identity and its relation to power, individual vendors or writers see themselves as representative of the homeless population; Green (1998) found that one writer for StreetWise was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times as having such a sensation: “‘ I feel I’m writing in their [i.e., the homeless] name, trying to tell people what’s going on’” (Herguth, 1994, p. 8). If this writer assumes the identity of other homeless people, then the transference of power to powerless individuals is complete. However, because each individual is unique with a unique voice, the need for more

individual and collective empowerment among this population across the country is apparent. It has been noted that the creation of a street newspaper (SNP) was separate from the study. However, as recruitment for participation of the study stems from writers of the street newspaper entitled Atlanta Overlook, the stories of participants of the paper here would validate them not only as “homeless” but also as “writers” and “contributors.” Again, emphasis here is on the suffix “less” which denotes lack of; the suffixes “er” and “or” underscore substance and production of discourse in a

Marxian sense. The paradox here exists not only in homeless empowerment through these alternative identities other than “homeless,” but also by their utilization of those identities to expose aspects of themselves other than homelessness: their art and poetry, for example. Through such public exposure, columnists and contributors also may have additional opportunities for employment, such as freelance writers for other publications. (Green, 1998, p. 43)

Studies of the vendors have already been conducted (Howley, 2003; Lindeman, 2007), but my research indicates that no studies have looked at the writing as a sense for empowerment for this population from an SNP’s inception. As a participant-observer researcher, I was able to ask participants on their thoughts behind their writing in workshops and involvement with the Atlanta Overlook. There are ongoing writing workshops hosted by myself and other qualified volunteers to offer a level of “professionalism” to the writing behind the paper. (Howley, 2003, p. 280).

From an organizer’s perspective, I document and log a narrative that refers back to Atlanta Overlook’s inception, detailing the interactions among vendors, writers, and the public. I believe this approach of participatory research is fair, because participation should not just be a task for the participants or students of a study. In other words, by writing the narrative of research and being present with vendors and writers, I am a participant as well. Johanek (2000) queries the benefits of not only studying a population, but also having the ability to divulge stories or narratives about that

research:

If we asked other researchers who have done such studies to tell the stories behind their research, could they? Could narratives about their research assist our understanding of that research so that we can become better producers and consumers of all studies, fully

understanding the researchers’ decisions in the contexts of their research questions? (p. 122) Of course, additional, but related, research questions that compel me to lean towards this empirical research method are:

• How can alternative views of homelessness by the ones experiencing it, besides the one presented in mainstream media, be established?

• In what ways could an SNP and writing community give a mobile population an incentive to organize and possibly stay in this city?

• How can I gain trust among this population, not only as a researcher, but also as a fellow participant?

On this last question, by organizing and meeting many of the participants who wrote some of the articles for the paper, a rapport among the writers was established. I want to emphasize here how important trust is in this close case study and ethnography. More than what is apparent in research on research, I have a strong connection to the writers who appear weekly in the workshop that I host. I have become friends with several of the participants, and I will evermore view writing and

communication as an act of love.

In addition to the trust and the bonds built in the workshop, the questions regarding

transformation of identities imply a substantive amount of time. That is, transformation does not occur instantly. Even in this ethnography with keen focus on the participants, vending, and, writing as means of empowerment, the liminality associated with identities that connote lack (of ownership, homes) is ongoing. Glimpses of transformation are apparent with writing and communication, however.

Additionally, money was needed to carry out this project. Renewing resources for the purposes of conducting research and having the materials needed for writing workshops is also a recurring procedure. In particular, the costs of writing instruction manuals and essay collections are necessary to teach a class of varying writing performances. I minimized out-of-pocket expenses by using what is currently available at Mercy Community Church and the workshop space.

To be sure, this overall method isn’t infallible. As MacNealy (1999) acknowledges, time and money are key factors for ethnography. Without immediately available monetary resources to sustain

the longevity of this project, I must rely on others for funding of the writing instruction that is also a part of research. Also, the availability of reaching participants in the study comes into question here. While Mercy Community Church granted me space for a writing workshop, it was unclear that participants would frequent the space for the duration of the research. Having monetary means and solidifying a network among the people and resources already in place for homeless advocacy here was imperative.

I attempt to address some concerns with participation in the study. While any number of factors can inhibit participation in study – illness, incarceration, or avoidance of conflict with other patrons of the church – can writing compel participants to return to the workshop space? The general transience of the homeless population at Mercy Community Church compels me to establish an

organization in which those participants work alongside each other for a common cause. Or, in research question form: How can I organize a sense of community within community—a writing community— among a population generally thought to be transient?