HEAD
What Did You Learn?
The participants left the conference with greater understanding of research
on two different levels. The first level was about the range of activities
that can be considered research, and greater understanding of its context,
including policy and funding. The second level was the specific practicalities
of research and its relationship to practice.
Participants felt very much validated at the Institute. Their work was
located in the centre instead of its usual place on the margins. Participants
looked at how power and privilege keep some people silent and some work
invisible. They also gained a greater sensitivity to the power dynamics
between researcher and who or what is researched. One participant identified
another ongoing dynamic: “Practitioners, academics and other kinds of
literacy workers still have a lot of myths about each other.”
A broader understanding of valid research was a crucial component of
many people’s learning experience. A number of participants mentioned
how they’d learned new ways to talk about, think about and understand
research. Many people spoke of a new definition of research—one which
was more encompassing. One participant said she learned that research
can be “humanized” and “empowering”. With a broader definition of research,
participants felt able to bring more creativity to the practice of research.
My head is boiling with information, more questions.
My head is awake. Looking at research as a process—from idea to proposal to application
to conclusion—helped participants feel they learned practical techniques
and strategies to explore further or apply in their workplace. One person
reported that it was important to learn ways to clarify and tighten
the focus of their research project. A number of people commented on the
value of learning how to incorporate arts-based approaches into their
research. Someone else wanted to know more about how to use art and music
in a tutorbased program. One participant spoke of gaining a deeper understanding
of the “importance and place of research in practice in the literacy field.”
The Institute stimulated the desire to search for further knowledge.
Several people wanted to know even more about incorporating models or
strategies into their practice. Others wanted to look at how their research
could be funded. Many were eager to carry on the networking and conversations
begun at the Institute. |
