During the fall 2015 semester, Rex Rose, Erin Herrmann, and I attended the International Writing Center Association Conference to present a session titled “From Safe to Brave Worlds: Developing a Heuristic for Discussing Social Justice in Writing Centers” (the title is linked to our Prezi from the conference and our conference proposal is attached below, in case you would like more information). As Haas and Eble discuss the evidence of a “social justice turn” in tech comm studies (3), a similar trend writing center scholarship. Both of the two most recent issues of The Writing Center Journal (Spring/Summer 2015 and Fall/Winter 2015) include articles focused on social justice (“Body+Power+Justice: Movement-Based Workshops for Critical Tutor Education” and “A Place to Begin: Service-Learning Tutor Education and Writing Center Social Justice”). While reading the introduction and first chapter of Key Theoretical Frameworks for Teaching Technical Communication in the 21st Century, I kept seeing connections between how the ideas from our presentation, particularly that of literacy improvisation, and those in the text. I also started imagining what our project could gain from the book.
First, some basic ideas from our presentation would probably be helpful. The main argument we were creating was the following: In order to better support consultants as they engage with people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, writing centers need to shift mindsets from safety to bravery. We invited the participants to examine common assumptions of “safe spaces”, consider key components of “brave spaces” (both defined in our Prezi), and explore strategies and activities to engage social justice issues in consultant professional development with us. In what could arguably be considered a socially just risk communication approach that easily links to critical and cultural studies (28-29), the participants and presenters wrote together, shared ideas, discussed these ideas and our centers, and considered alternative perspectives.
Like Haas and Eble’s text, our presentation aims to offer ideas, language, and actions for deeper understandings of key issues of communication within a social justice framework (13). To do so, they both work to build a bridge between theory, pedagogy, and action (8); consider key themes of embodied knowledge and risk (14); and reflect on the issues of space, (em)place, and dis(place)ment (15). While Actor-Network Theory is a useful theory in tech comm, we also appreciate its emphasis on the importance of context; its focus on connections among physical space, objects, individuals, and relationships; and its value of the fluid, dynamic nature of social interactions and individual identities - all significant ideas when considering the globalized nature of tech comm in the 21st century (4).
While we considered the heuristic Rex, Erin, and I created for building brave spaces, we wanted to 1. Engage more than just brains and vocal cords 2. Provide a model for how to put these ideas into action; and 3. Offer a pedagogical approach that makes the critical issues addressed more apparent (30). To do so, we invited them to participate in a literacy improvisation and embodiment activity called Tableaux . After providing the “rules” of literacy improv and the situation (or prompt) the group would be responding to and acknowledging the risks (29) involved in partaking in a pedagogical activity that is outside of many other’s pedagogical norms, we – our bodies, minds, and embodied knowledge (28) – jumped into the activity. Like Frost (42), the feedback that we received from participants indicated success in the connections the group made among risk, embodiment, discourse, writing center spaces, and social justice issues. (See images below for more information.)
As I reflect on and reconsider ideas from the presentation, several concepts from the readings spark new questions and ideas in my mind, including
I am looking forward to hearing what others think about these possibilities and their ideas on or questions about the text.
First, some basic ideas from our presentation would probably be helpful. The main argument we were creating was the following: In order to better support consultants as they engage with people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, writing centers need to shift mindsets from safety to bravery. We invited the participants to examine common assumptions of “safe spaces”, consider key components of “brave spaces” (both defined in our Prezi), and explore strategies and activities to engage social justice issues in consultant professional development with us. In what could arguably be considered a socially just risk communication approach that easily links to critical and cultural studies (28-29), the participants and presenters wrote together, shared ideas, discussed these ideas and our centers, and considered alternative perspectives.
Like Haas and Eble’s text, our presentation aims to offer ideas, language, and actions for deeper understandings of key issues of communication within a social justice framework (13). To do so, they both work to build a bridge between theory, pedagogy, and action (8); consider key themes of embodied knowledge and risk (14); and reflect on the issues of space, (em)place, and dis(place)ment (15). While Actor-Network Theory is a useful theory in tech comm, we also appreciate its emphasis on the importance of context; its focus on connections among physical space, objects, individuals, and relationships; and its value of the fluid, dynamic nature of social interactions and individual identities - all significant ideas when considering the globalized nature of tech comm in the 21st century (4).
While we considered the heuristic Rex, Erin, and I created for building brave spaces, we wanted to 1. Engage more than just brains and vocal cords 2. Provide a model for how to put these ideas into action; and 3. Offer a pedagogical approach that makes the critical issues addressed more apparent (30). To do so, we invited them to participate in a literacy improvisation and embodiment activity called Tableaux . After providing the “rules” of literacy improv and the situation (or prompt) the group would be responding to and acknowledging the risks (29) involved in partaking in a pedagogical activity that is outside of many other’s pedagogical norms, we – our bodies, minds, and embodied knowledge (28) – jumped into the activity. Like Frost (42), the feedback that we received from participants indicated success in the connections the group made among risk, embodiment, discourse, writing center spaces, and social justice issues. (See images below for more information.)
As I reflect on and reconsider ideas from the presentation, several concepts from the readings spark new questions and ideas in my mind, including
- Rude’s (2009) reminder of the potential of both empowerment and oppression that technologies, including pedagogical technologies, can result in (2 & 4);
- Sandman’s (2014) risk formula (42);
- The idea that “the embodied, lived nature of risk” presents a situation that “bears unequal risks for potential instructors” (51); and
- How the ideas and objectives of activities like literacy improvisation could translate into an online learning situation.
I am looking forward to hearing what others think about these possibilities and their ideas on or questions about the text.
| |