Post #2- Reciprocal Research: Hindrance or Opportunity?

Activist Methodology is crucial to research because the researchers is not seen as an outsider or an institutional representative, and can eventually obtain firsthand experience on how participants react and think to certain situations. This type of methodology basically illustrates a useful give-and-take situation where scholars and participants work together to achieve goals. Through my filed work I have discovered that I must not only observe but I also actively engage with students to uncover underlying information. For example, today at St. Martin de Porres I was assisting at a class of 5^th graders and noticed a young boy, named Bishop, completely motionless and looking up at the ceiling. From a strictly observational point of view the child seemed to be lethargic and distracted of his work. So as a result I walked over to the young boy and asked, “What’s up? Are you tired?” The student looked at me and replied with an inquiry, “58?” I had no idea was he was referring too. He then continued and said, “I’m trying to solve this word problem but I’m stuck cuz I forgot what 7 times 8 was.” I was flabbergasted. The entire time I thought he was simply being lazy and refusing to do his work he was merely having difficulties on his assignment. Without my engagement and active participation I would have never known that he was in fact completing his assignment and thinking though his solution. My observations would have been faulty since I saw him as lazy and careless of his school work. Thus, I completely agree with Cushman and Moll because it is through these interactions that we uncover crucial mental processes that enhance our understanding of research and simultaneously assist the participants.

I believe this reciprocal methodology can be used for research and to concurrently empower participants because Cushman demonstrated that she received important “letters, applications, diaries, notes, handouts, valuable critiques” and in return provided “time, resources, and knowledge” to the community. Similarly my experience with Bishop at the school proved to be an important instance of reciprocal methodology bcause I received vital information on how students think-through math questions and, at the same time, helped Bishop with on his math homework.

Unfortunately, one of the barriers limiting activist methodology at the university level is the enormous fear that interacting and engaging with participants will tamper or sway the data. However, stemming from my experience with Bishop, I feel that without interaction researchers will have a weaker understanding of their data and participants will fail to benefit from their researchers expertise and assistance. Luckily as tutor/mentors I see that there are several opportunities that can allow us to actively participate and engage in the reciprocal relationship that Cush and Mole advocate. For instance, mentors at the school sites can play or converse with the children instead of simply observing them from afar.

Post #1 - Thursday's Word of the Day: Orality

Orality was described in class as a function that does not require logic, whereas writing is the ability to “logically” express abstract thought. However, I see orality as a function that requires as much logic as writing. The process of learning how to speak is acquired at a young age and is simultaneously engraved in our mental processes to the point where verbally expressing thought is done instinctively. Yet attainment of language is achieved through a “critical point” in our development when the human mind is most capable of absorbing the surrounding language. After this crucial time the individual will never accomplish a full command of language, especially grammatical systems. Therefore beyond this “critical period,” such as learning a new language later in life, becomes a function that requires much logic to achieve.

In terms of the “great divide,” Walter Ong argues that writing, as a form of literacy, is essential to the human repertoire because it “separates past from present,” and “separates academic learning from wisdom.” Through this, Ong suggests that orality is inferior to literacy because it enhances our ability to identify historical events and enables us to become wiser; however, I argue that orality and literacy have shared the same level of importance in our society. Firstly, Ong’s proposal that writing “separates past from present” is not entirely true because if you examine written diaries, journals, or even testaments form the past one cannot help but image the past to the point where the reader becomes entrenched in the setting from which those texts were written. In other words, historical texts can be written is such a vivid style that readers can shatter the barrier between the past and the present.

Secondly, the fact that Ong argues writing is necessary to separate academic learning from wisdom seems completely unreasonable because in the past there have been superior societies that thrived on orality instead of literacy. Before the advent of written language and previous to the arrival of literacy, oral tradition was much more of a presence in people’s lives. The Anlo-Ewe people of present day Republic of Ghana, for example, used orality for learning and scholarship through folklore, myths, and songs. In addition, “Griot’s” were West African poets, and wandering musicians that were viewed as repositories for oral traditions since they passed important information to subsequent generations. Prior to the dawn of literacy and written language, orality laid the foundation for myths and folklore's that bequeathed wisdom from one generation to the next. Thus, I see that Ong’s statement which regards writing as the link between academic learning from wisdom as absurd and completely irrational.