Frances and I talked about the process for editing the collaborative analysis and recommendations. After the workshop we would print the recorders' work and transcribe the flip charts. We would compile and distribute these unedited responses to all the women. As they returned the pages, we would add their agreement, disagreement, and general comments to the original recordings.

Then, after we received the final funding for the project, we would work with Tannis Atkinson to develop a draft text which would be sent to all the women from the third workshop. Again, their disagreements or comments would be included in the final document. These analysis statements and recommendations appear in Chapter 5 of this book.

Tannis Atkinson facilitated our discussions about final documentation.

At two different times during the workshop, Tannis facilitated a discussion on the final documentation for the project. Most women said we needed to include the descriptions of the communities, programs, and woman-positive activities, including what happened because of those activities. We needed to provide a context for understanding the work. Several women said we should publish all the different program products, that they would be useful for a wide variety of readers. Others emphasized the importance of the interviews, the places where so many women talked with clear and focused energy about their work. One woman talked about how they provide a springboard for the rest of the work because they are pieces of "live thinking."

One woman talked about the importance of having something accessible, something that would invite people in to read different pieces at different times. Some women emphasized that readers , should be able to see how the research was done. They should know that we made our discoveries through a lot of hard work, reflection, discussion, and analysis.

There seemed to be a strong consensus that the final product should be useful for literacy programs of all. Literacy workers and students should be able to read what happened and think about what might be possible within their own programs. Women also wanted something that would arouse the curiosity of women's organizations and agencies, policy makers, and academics.

I talked about how we would develop the documentation for the research process. I would write a draft and incorporate feedback from Frances, Tannis, and Aisla. All the women involved in the research - including CCLOW staff and advisory committee members - would receive copies of this document. Everyone would have the right to have their names, the names of their programs, and any identifying details changed. If they disagreed with a description or interpretation of part of the process, their objection and own interpretation would be included.