Abstract
In his seminal piece on the role of imagination in social science research, Bowman (1936) reminded researchers that the purpose of a research report is to “implant pictures or conceptions in the reader’s head like those which the investigator has in his” (p. 635) as a reader is unable to directly observe evidence described by researchers. Thus, the research report becomes the “intermediary between the imagery of the writer and that of the reader” (p. 635). The articles in this issue not only do that, they also assist in “awaken[ing], enliven[ing], and convok[ing]” the radical imagination of the reader (Khasnabish & Haiven, 2017, p. 2). On the surface, researchers who operate from their radical imagination are able to imagine social institutions (and life within) not only as they are but how they might be. Furthermore, this type of researcher arrives as a “critical, reflexive agent” and works in solidarity with social movements to build capacity for resilience in the transformative struggle (p. 2). The studies that appear in this issue radically reimagine the ways in which research can reposition people and ideas to create new and more inviting spaces for literacy.
In the first article, Tanner relies on narrative scholarship to tell and interpret a story related to his nontraditional literacy pedagogy as a high school teacher. He invites the reader to consider the improvisational nature of his pedagogy that allowed a particular artifact to emerge and analyzes his intra-action with the artifact as a pedagogical event. Using critical Whiteness studies, he examines his administration’s reaction to the artifact and encourages the reader to consider the potentialities and pitfalls of teaching “to the unexpected.”
Brooks’s article examines the alternative English spelling practices of Jamilet, a student who is considered to be a long-term English learner. Brooks’s work draws on a theoretical framework that integrates a social perspective on spelling with a rejection of idealized conceptions of bilingualism. Brooks encourages the reader to consider Jamilet’s alternative spellings as representative of the depth and extent of her knowledge of the English language and to explore the role of raciolinguistic ideologies in the curricularization of English.
Sciurba’s article explores the ways in which youth in an urban school situated themselves as individuals as well as readers. Her analysis led her to two forms of textual relevance for the youth: empathetic and sympathetic. Sciurba builds upon theories of intersectionality and reader response to argue for the acknowledgment of the multidimensionality of readers’ identities and their meaning-making processes as potential spaces for youth empowerment.
Moses and Kelly’s article examines the ways in which first graders (who were initially positioned as “struggling readers”) took up literacy practices to reposition themselves in their classroom as capable, competent readers. Moses and Kelly combined positive and critical discourse analysis to analyze their data. In doing so, they offer the reader insight into the possibilities for power to be redistributed in positive ways for young children.
Bacon’s article reviews and synthesizes empirical literature on critical literacies in English language teaching (ELT), gathering perspectives from international scholarship. His analysis illustrates the key topics related to this literature, including teacher beliefs, learner beliefs, course design, specific practices, and language-emphatic designs. Bacon then proposes a multilanguage, multipurpose framework that highlights language learning and critical engagement as a means of challenging the ways in which multilingual learners are positioned within research. He asks the reader to consider practices that frame language learning and critical engagement as mutually reinforcing endeavors toward critical praxis.
For this issue’s “Insights” column, Morrell offers a variety of imperatives for the fundamental reconsideration of literacy policy and practice. He advocates for a global, postcolonial critical literacies framework that is inclusive of teachers as intellectuals, youth as producers and distributors of multimodal compositions, children as powerful and reflexive readers, and parents and communities as partners in the project of agentive change.
In short, we are pleased to present this set of studies that, through the efforts of the authors and reviewers, contribute to a growing understanding of the reimagining of literacy, literacy instruction, and literacy research.