This article explores the complexities that arose as I attempted to engage in feminist literacy research in a 5th-grade classroom where I worked collaboratively with the classroom teacher to implement literature discussion circles into her literacy instruction. I address the contradictions and conflicts that emerged regarding issues of neutrality and comfort. Many of the dilemmas that arose were due to the tension that exists between feminist researchers' simultaneous calls for both disruption and closeness. I wanted to help the teacher disrupt her assumptions regarding literacy instruction but was uncomfortable in doing so because of my need to maintain comfort in our relationship. As we began to explore alternative ways of dealing with the power relations that were circulating in our research relationship, I discovered the need to disrupt my own assumptions regarding power, the expert position, and my need for maintaining comfort. The research described here aims to shed further light on what it means to conduct feminist literacy research in real classrooms and poses questions for continued discussion among researchers attempting to engage in this type of research.
References
1.
AlcoffL. (1988). Cultural feminism versus poststructuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13, 405–436.
2.
AlvermannD. (1995). Straddling the contradictory worlds of feminisms and patriarchy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, New Orleans, LA.
3.
AlvermannD.CommeyrasM.YoungJ.RandallS.HinsonD. (1997). Interrupting gendered discursive practices in classroom talk about texts: Easy to think about, difficult to do. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 73–104.
4.
BanningM. (1998, April). Close to you: Up close, safe - (but in your face) - research and teaching relations in a feminist classroom. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
5.
BickelW.HattrupR. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 35–62.
6.
ButlerJ. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.”New York: Routledge.
7.
CherlandM. (1994). Private practices. Girls reading fiction and constructing identity.Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
8.
ClarkC.MossP.GoeringS.HerterR.LamarB.LeonardD.RobbinsS.RussellM.TemplinM.WaschaK. (1996). Collaboration as dialogue: Teachers and researchers engaged in conversation and professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 193–231.
9.
DaviesB. (1989). The discursive production of the male/female dualism in school settings. Oxford Review of Education, 15 (3), 229–241.
10.
DaviesB. (1993). Beyond dualism and towards multiple subjectivities. In Christian-SmithL. K. (Ed.), Texts of desire: Essays on fiction, femininity, and schooling (pp. 145–173). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
11.
DaviesB.HarréR. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20 (1), 43–63.
12.
EdgertonS. (1996). Translating the curriculum: Multiculturalism into cultural studies.New York: Routledge.
13.
EllsworthE. (1992). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In LukeC.GoreJ. (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 90–119). New York: Routledge.
14.
EllsworthE.MillerJ. (1996). Working difference in education. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 245–263.
15.
EvansK. S. (1999a, April). Fifth-grade students' perceptions of how they experience literature discussion groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
16.
EvansK. S. (1999b). Negotiating roles in collaborative research: Re-examining issues of power and equity. Language Arts, 77 (2), 128–136.
17.
FaircloughN. (1989). Language and power.New York: Longman.
18.
FeldmanA. (1993). Promoting equitable collaboration between university researchers and school teachers. Qualitative Studies in Education, 6, 341–357.
19.
FindersM. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high.New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
FineM. (1992). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
21.
FineM. (1994). Dis-stance and other stances: Negotiations of power inside feminist research. In GitlinA. (Ed.), Power and method: Political activism and educational research (pp. 13–35). New York: Routledge.
22.
FlynnE. (1995). Feminist theories/feminist composition. College English, 57 (2), 201–212.
23.
FoucaultM. (1980). Truth and power. In GordonC. (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (pp. 109–135). New York: Pantheon Books.
24.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.New York: Continuum.
25.
FriedmanS. (1985). Authority in the feminist classroom: A contradiction in terms? In CulleyM.PortugesC. (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 203–208), Boston: Routledge.
26.
GeeJ. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.
27.
GilbertP.TaylorS. (1991). Fashioning the feminine: Girls, popular culture, and schooling.Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
28.
GoreJ. (1992). What can we do for you! What can “we” do for “you”?: Struggling over empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy. In LukeC.GoreJ. (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 54–73). New York: Routledge.
29.
GoreJ. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies. Critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth.New York: Routledge.
30.
HarréR.Van LangenhoveL. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 21, 393–407.
MarshallB. K. (1992). Teaching the postmodern: Fiction and theory.New York: Routledge.
40.
MojeE. (1998, April). Changing our minds, changing our bodies: Power as embodied in research relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
41.
NoddingsN. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
42.
OrnerM. (1992). Interrupting the calls for student voice in “liberatory” education: A feminist poststructuralist perspective. In LukeC.GoreJ. (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 74–89). New York: Routledge.
43.
RockhillK. (1993). Dis/connecting literacy and sexuality: Speaking the unspeakable in the classroom. In LankshearC.McLarenP. (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 335–366). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
44.
ShortK.HarsteJ.BurkeC. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
StanleyL.WiseS. (1993). Breaking out again.London: Routledge.
47.
WalkerdineV. (1986). Post-stimulated theory and everyday social practices: The family and the school. In WilkinsonV. (Ed.), Feminist social psychology: Developing theory and practice (pp. 57–76). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
48.
WasserJ.BreslerL. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25 (5), 5–15.
