1/27

This afternoon, I began revisiting the chapter in my dissertation on John Beech. My plan, moving forward, is to try to produce a second article which presents the case studies of Jennifer and John. The focus will be similar to my previous article on Tony and this is something that I have questions about--does this organizational structure work or make sense? The structure is, for each case study, to spend the first part of the section describing the participant's literacy narrative and professional literacy work and then to move on to examine a particular instance where the participant is attempting to write an academic assignment. 

In the beginning stages of this project and right up to the time when I defended my dissertation, I was mostly focused on presenting my participants, tracing their journeys as students and as literate individuals. Then I stumbled upon this notion of the "reverse commute" and have since wanted to augment or add to the project, so that I'm doing more than just telling their stories, but, also, doing a bit of analytic work--that is, trying to sort through the process by which they attempt to write academic papers in highly traditional academic contexts. Here, I engage an entirely different field of work--focusing on the "school/work" divide and looking to those who have written about the differences between academic and professional literacy. Most of those studies have been focused on asking questions about what can be taught to traditional undergraduates, if anything, to aid them for the discursive world they'll encounter outside the university. I'm trying to turn that on its head and think through the opposite--how to help those who are immersed in complex professional communities acclimate to academic writing. Or, not to help them, necessarily, but to think sort of observe what they are going through, as writers, as they move from one context to another. 

I've become increasingly interested in this idea of movement, of contexts or "spheres" as Brandt puts it. What do people know about writing? Where have they learned that? Where can what they know be applied? Where can it not? What new information will they need to learn as they move from one context to another, as writers? These are the questions I've become interested in, via this project. These are also the questions I didn't anticipate asking when I was working on it as my dissertation at UNH. So, the project has evolved. 

But, again, this question--does it make sense? Does it make sense, this two-fold structure I've developed of, first, story, then, analysis? And is the story part theorized enough? It feels not. 

This afternoon, I worked at the library. I revisited the efforts I am making in writing an introduction to this article, using Brandt. Didn't do much with that, partly because I don't have the book with me. I did open up the chapter on John Beech and begin going through it and shaping it. There is much that needs to be cut and much that needs to be revised and reformulated. I have this vision in my head of the two case studies, the question is how to set them up and what will be in them. 

I also sent an email to the editors of Adult Education Quarterly and received a quick response:

Michael, thanks for you interest in the AEQ. We are interested in work from scholars outside the field. We operate a double blind review process to ensure there is not a bias. However, what is important for any manuscript is that it demonstrate its significance to field of adult education and it situates itself within relevant literature from the field. This means looking at prior issues of the AEQ and other adult education journals for literature that informs your research. Beyond that is it difficult to make any definitive statement about a particular manuscript without having it in hand. Hope this is helpful.

This was helpful, I think. The idea of situating the work within relevant literature from the field...of adult education is the piece that I think has signaled to me that this is not a project for them. I do not have a degree in adult education and while I've done a bit of research on a few of the journals, I don't really know enough about the field. I don't know that a cross-over is going to be possible with them. And in a way, I feel a bit relieve to cross this avenue off my list as something not worth pursuing. The work is really about writing and literacy and needs to be geared towards an audience of people interested in writing and literacy. I received an email from the editor of TETYC a week or so back which was encouraging. Jeff Sommers is the editor and he wrote: 

Your project does indeed sound suitable for the journal. I’ll look forward to receiving it.

The thing is, I think that a piece in TETYC would need to come in at 15-20 pages and no more. That might be a challenge for me. But, in terms of the audience and my experience in academic writing, it might just be perfect. In terms of their guidelines: "Feature articles should be 10-20 double-spaced pages..." It doesn't say anything on their site about case studies. I think that I need to go in and read a bit more into their journals--to look to see if case studies have been presented and also to see what, recently, has been said about adult students.

That's it for today.