Practitioner Knowledge: A story about translation

by Tracey Mollins

This summer I heard a story from the US about how practitioner knowledge, if framed in language that policy-makers understand, can inform and direct policy. The storyteller told us that framing literacy policy in terms that are important to the broader policy agenda means that there is a chance that someone will pay attention to our issues — and in the first decade of the twenty-first century, we’re in a back-to-basics mode.

To make sure we end up with a policy that meets the needs of adult learners, we need to:

1. Be clear about our vision.
2. Identify both the explicit and the underlying drivers of the dominant policy agenda.
3. Translate our vision into terms that are acceptable in the dominant policy arena.

She told us that Equipped for the Future is an example of how the above strategy can work — that EFF built alliances based on a consensus about “literacy for what?” For example, the government has economic goals and learners want better.

The goal of EFF was to create an adult literacy education system that focuses on preparing adults for the future. EFF presents a clear vision of what adults need to know to fulfill their roles as citizens, workers and family members and developed maps for each of these roles.

The citizen map tells us that our role is to work to eliminate discrimination; to figure out how a system works and identify how to have an impact; use diverse resources including personal experience; respect and learn from others; reflect and reevaluate our own ideas — in short, be a lifelong learner, an activist and an advocate.

The worker role map tells us that we are to “do the work.” We are to value people different from ourselves while working within organizational norms and respecting organizational goals — determining both individual and organizational priorities based on industry trends, labor laws and competitive practices — in short, we are to leave our advocacy, our activism, and our lifelong learning skills at the door.

It seems to me that EFF actually represents the vision of the policymakers and employers presented in a language they think literacy workers, those who are sympathetic to what our storyteller called a ’60s access-to-opportunity approach, will find acceptable. You can see the ghosts of a holistic approach behind the layers of literacy for the real customers of adult education — employers and governments interested in the product of skilled, compliant employees.

To me, this story of what happens when literacy workers water down the culture of literacy and try to speak the language of policy-makers has a very sad ending.