Response to Today's (actual) Reading

Thanks to Khem for setting my ship on the right track and pointing me to the *actual* reading for today's class.

I'm glad he did too.

I especially like the way Flower (et al) establishes the framework for this study in Intercultural Inquiry, RH theory, and Community Literacy before delving in to the case studies that, I think, are the true focus of this work. Each of these antecedents were interesting to me in different ways. The introduction took plenty of time defining how II was an effective means for conducting this type of rhetorical analysis. Flower states that 'intercultural inquiry makes contact with another person's richer. more experientially grounded situated knowledge" (6). I like this because it, as we see later in the reading, creates experts of one's own experience. When dealing with soon-to-be college students or members of a community center who must deal with the specter of illegal drugs on a daily basis, creating a sense of agency and expectancy is an important aspect for conducting an intercultural inquiry.
Flower goes on to situate Rival Hypothesis theory in her study. While RH theory was certainly novel terminology for me, it speaks to my interests, goals, and emphases in my own work/life. This is a functional, flexible guiding theory. Flower describes how RH is an attitude, a strategic tool, and a process all in one. As an attitude, it is bold enough to function in uncertainty. Open questions and multiple answers are hallmarks of RH, and it's this kind of mindset that leads to effective inquiry. RH also guides the types of strategies one might use in conducting an inquiry. It's possible (and necessary) in RH to actively seek out opposing claims, view a situation from a variety of perspectives, and challenge outlying views (including ones own). Building from these strategies, the process of RH is constructive in that it provides a chance to find a conclusion that is best-fit for the situation at hand (30).
Finally, and for me most interestingly, Long (et al) explicate the idea of Community Literacy in the "Rivaling out of School" chapter. Long defines CL in opposition to the 'glamorless problem' that is illiteracy. She calls CL 'action, power, and collaboration' (233). In other words, CL is "utilized wherever people collaborate and use literate means to construct shared purposes and to take action" (Peck, 1991 qtd in Flower 234). Taking the same questions to a more community-oriented situation, these researchers broadened the scope of their inquiry in extremely important and provocative ways. For those of you who heard my presentation on community food security last semester, Flower's name might sound familiar as I quoted from her Community Literacy: The Rhetoric of Public Engagement text extensively. For me, this type of community engagement is central to any type of inquiry that affects local populations.

These theoretical frameworks are individually instrumental for Flower (et al) to carry out this type of inquiry. One of the frustrations I've had with Flower's work in the past (one that RevCat mentioned in her blog) is just how time-consuming and dense this type of scholarship can be. However, if you have a chance to read the rest of this text, or Community Literacy, the bulk of the study is written in clear, approachable prose. The theory serves as an important framework for establishing a scholarly disposition with which she carries out her practical, community-oriented work.