This is one of the presentations that is on a subject matter that I am most interested in—hegemony and identity construction. The hegemony and its shifting use is based on the work of Goffman (1959), a sociologist with dramaturgical analysis (performance) & Brookfield (2005)

Group identity: historical and cultural constructs that shapes “norms, values, and beliefs” (Richer, 2004), as well as Wenger (1998), Hall (1997)

The position from which we speak involves many levels of our own “identity”

Hegemony and the performance of identity—on the macro and micro (individual) levels. Hegemony is the power to determine the impression that is wanted to be conveyed.

This presentation is fascinating thus far, and I have a lot more texts to look for. If only I were not so itchy from all the little green bugs that started climbing all over me and my bag while sitting in the park outside the Art Institute. The bugs are harmless (I hope and believe), and are only out and about because it is spring, warm, and sunny here in Chicago. Let’s just hope they stay out of my laptop and do not travel back to New York with me.

I love the titles of these slides—Hegemony and the Performance of Identity. I am having trouble seeing how this is all  organized, and I think this is because I came into the presentation while she was reviewing the agenda for the presentation. As a socialization process, we tend to give deference or respect based on mutual understandings.

Goffman gives 5 socialization processes:

1. presentation of abstract and general information
2. dramatic realization—enforcement of myths as truths
3. idealized view of the situation
4. maintenance of expressive control
5. social distance

The presenter is so animated and passionate about her subject matter that she is giving a dynamic presentation, but I wish there were some interaction among the participants. Looking around the room now, I see heads nodding and people losing attention. This is too bad, as her subject matter is so valuable and important for this audience as adult educators.

Really good point – as we do not see hegemony, we constantly have to ask what is normal and what is ok.

One area for future research—how do adult learners create structures that resist that one question / issue in a situation.

An audience member mentioned another author, Callero, who seems to have parallel structures with those mentioned throughout the presentation.

Tags: aerc2009, hegemony

I clapped when Joyce S. McKnight, the presenter, said that she was not planning to use PowerPoint. She is at Empire State College (in NY) in the Center for Distance Learning. She coordinates community and human services. She is an advocate of the Highlander Model (cf. Myles Horton). She focuses on narratives, as life is a story. I like her approach already.

I remember the first time I read Freire (and then Horton)—it blew my mind. I never considered education as a political topic, but the more I think about how those in power continue to teach the structures that maintain the power relationships and often the status quo (though veiled as change).

Oh, we are introducing ourselves (so fitting for a session on Horton) and mentioning what we hope to get out of this session. I am starting to get concerned, now that we are 15 minutes into the 45 minutes session, and we have only 1/2 of us introduced thus far. Looking out the window now (we are an inside-the-courtyard-facing room), I am noticing how some of the bricks on the inside look like they are going to need significant reconstruction. Ouch.

Ohh, just heard Vygotsky. Sweet. Another author who books adorn my shelves that have never been read.

Empire State College in NY college is exploding in the size of their Center for Distance Education.

Joyce is speaking about Horton, who speaks about community / labor organizer. Joyce is not about organizing communities—she is about helping others learn how to learn and do it.

Oooh, she is using the white board to show the model she developed and is using. First time I have seen this done here in the conference. Nicely refreshing . . . Now, the problem is I cannot read her writing on the board.

She is now speaking about one of her students who offered to have a community meeting online at his site, BuffaloPugs.org. Having 2 pugs myself, and I am now fully riveted. Having a set time online allows for more flexibility (with children, travel, etc.).

How do what Horton did in a F2F setting in an online context?

The course includes a process of thinking, which has a research agenda. This has a space

I am now getting lost with the drawing on the board, and while I like seeing how this develops, I think it could have been shown much more clearly using a PowerPoint build into the model, as that would allow her to still have the same discussion but for us to also see what she is writing (in a somewhat confusing graphical way) on the board. As Joyce has mentioned now more than once that she is having trouble reading her own writing, need I say more . . .

So, how can we do something online in the same way that Highlander did under Horton. How can we make a space, enhance the spirit of working together and social action, in a place that is virtual (and how we can understand this as a process). ARRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHH! Another drawing on the board . . .

This model should also include (as per Highlander):

• self-directed
• connection / collaboration
• peaceful
• interactive
• reflective
• safe space
• transcendental
• energy

She is using Elluminate, Facebook, and other tools like this.

I think there are a lot  of interesting things she is doing, and am a little disappointed that she has not gotten to the point that she wanted to get to (as she acknowledged), as we are out of time and she mentioned that she is out of time because she did not know what time the session ended. It is unfortunate that she is continuing to present, acknowledging that the time has ended, though now half the people have left the session.

I think Joyce probably has a lot of amazing things to share about community organizing and how to teach it, though the information somehow did not fully come across. I want to read her paper and speak with her more about this as I am very interested in the work of Horton and how to bring it into an online world.

I wonder what Joyce’s work at Empire State (my home state) College is all about? Sounds like a very interesting program . . .

Tags: aerc2009, Myles Horton

I arrived a few minutes into the introductory remarks for this symposium with Matthew A. Eichler, Tani K. Bialek, Cathy Twohig, Cynthia L. Digby, Rod P. Githens, and Lynn A. Trinko. Glad I made it just in time for the introductions. Just from listening to the intros, it is clear that there is a lot of interest in this area and the attendees have had a lot of  different experiences in the process.

Online discussions within class discussion boards, it can reduce some of the isolation involved in distance learning and traditional education. Online discussions have a written record of their experiences. Online discussions require a great amount of structure; “discuss this” is not sufficient. Structure questions, clear expectations, and utilize reference materials. Model a discussion posting and model how to respond with others at the beginning of a class, both to show people what to do and what you expect, as well as to help new online learners see what and how to do this. Ask people to cite who they use, even if that includes posting a link to it. Focus on active moderation, and ask people about tone and use of humor.

Form a “Coffee Shop” space in the class, to share things that may be useful but is not directly  related to the work of the week. Make yourself willing to share your own experiences, especially since you expect students to do the same.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is electronic exchange of information with voice. There is an example of a Wimba Voice posting. I have not seen this product before, though at NYU we use Epsilen that integrates Wimba. Tani did a research project with a purely online course without a synchronous component, and there was limited student use of the voice-technology, due to fear of technology, it takes longer, background sounds, and the like. Tani created a brief eLearning session that demonstrated how to do this with voice and slides.

Cathy discussed online student services and the depth of these services compared to F2F services, and it seems this is a rich area for new research strands.

Cynthia then spoke about faculty and course programs. Really interesting statistics about how long it takes to get an online course material ready to go online (100 hours per faculty per course and 100 hours for tech support). I asked about this as an area for future research, in that universities do not compensate faculty for this extra (free) work, and students still pay the same amount for the learning (though they do not generally use the physical plant and facilities). From a critical theory perspective, I find this very troubling.

Rod is now speaking about social presence, and the emphasis on creating and supporting social presence and fostering online learning communities. The most effective place to facilitate online learning within a program is on the institutional (department) level. This helps to have a clear thread through the program and may help to build and support community. One of the challenges is for learners who prefer to have solitary learning, and this is another factor to consider with developing programs and setting expectations. At times, posting their own photos and speaking about their jobs and careers can set up a problematic status situation. Some really good questions that were raised about how online and distance education

Lynn is discussing the Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, 2000), which is about the social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Teaching presence usually includes course design, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction. For the design, she suggested to storyboard and think about the layout, student navigation, think of the users / audience. She then does all the assignments along with her own students, to show the students that she is part of their group. Ouch; how does she have the time? While I think it is important to try to have as much democratic exchanges as possible, the students and the instructors really are on different levels. She also spoke about the other components of this model, and it is something I think I want to know more about. She engages the students and is online almost all the time in the class; this seems to be overly teacher-focused or otherwise too much work rather than helping to empower the students to address their own issues and support them through the process. I wonder if this is what is really happening, but just not clearly stated? She does podcasting, online office hours, Happy Friday weekly letters, instant messages, chats, etc. This seems a bit too intense for practical application, andd while I am sure this helps along her students, it also seems to somehow make them expect her to help them facilitate their issues and struggles, rather than their beginning the process and struggling (learning?) a bit on their own and with their colleaguees first.

Tags: aerc2009, Online Learning, online teaching

Cheryl Hunt from the University of Exeter is linking spirituality to adult education. The spiritual turn from Houtman and Aupers (2007), as there is decline in conventional religions but there is a search for grass-roots spirituality. Her theoretical framework is from Heron’s ways of knowing and the Orientation to Reflective Practice (Wellington and Austin, 1996). She also uses Dreary and Forman (2004).

For adult educators, she engages in this via professional reflective practice. Reflective practice can help us be more effective in the exercise of individual professions. There are the 5 areas of reflective practice, as per Houtman and Aupers.

1. Immediate
2. Technical
3. Deliberative
4. Dialectic
5. Transpersonal

There is more about this model within the proceedings than she is listing here in the session, especially based on a large chart that was on a slide and is in the paper.

There are a number of concerns that link academic / professional knowledge and practice something “deeper.” In a seminar series, she got a sense of the fragmentation in many people’s lives, and to link all levels of oneself, and all parts of oneself. Some of the feedback that was received came in the form of creative writing and poetry.

Thinking about the theory that underpinned the results was Heron (1996) on cooperative inquiry, where the use of language is rooted in deep experience and non-linguistic understandings.

Transpersonal perspective to spirituality is more of a secular spirituality in her work.

There are some really nice next steps, including the  British Association for the Study of Spirituality (BASS), a new international conference: Spirituality in a Changing World in May of 2010, and a new journal, Spirituality. Right now, discussions about spirituality are held in different silos, and they are trying to bring those various contexts and meaning together.

For questions, one person said that there is a lot of perceived need for this and that it is very fractured in the various professions and disciplines. Somebody shared that she was from the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), and how they integrate with many of the models and frameworks that Cheryl discussed. Libby Tisdell asked about an example, and Cheryl discussed her experiences of community which got lost when she studied it during her dissertation. The look at her first child at birth was like the “shimmering moment” that looks back and looks forward almost at once. Interestingly, the management theories in academia tend to move far away from these discussions. However, the more recent work on spirituality and management is getting more developed than it is in education.

There was an additional question about how spirituality and religion is kept separate, and this is a significant issue, both in the US as well as in the UK.

Having spoken with Cheryl via email in the past, I am really looking forward to reading her paper.

Tags: aerc2009, Spirituality

This presentation is about using movement in adult education and learning. Hiroyuki Aoki (of Shintaido) “What is received by the body will . . . ” Just as we started in the session, and Luis had us stand and do two physical movements with sounds of A and O as we were moving. Somewhat strange feeling for me, so I am interested in how he is going to work this into his presentation. As his background, he is interested in martial arts, experiential learning, and movement and physical theatre classes.

How has this movement influenced and engage in learning and reflection?

Somatic learning includes five elements:

1. breath
2. stillness
3. sound
4. movement
5. touch

I have experienced some somatic work before, and think it is all over the place in psychotherapy and meditation right now. It is interesting to see how this will relate with learning.

Social construction is another theoretical perspective that is being used, such as generate meaning together with dialogue and inquiry.

Affirmative competence was also used; it is an imagery technique through discipline and practice that athletes use to increase their performance. This is positive reinforcement and focusing on what is being done right.

Telling stories with our body (as per Shintaido):

• Creates positive images
• A repertoire of body movement constructs an expanded sense of self,
• Posture translates into a way of being
• Enhances relationships with others and nature
• Encourages  fluidity and reflection

He is now speaking about imagination and metaphor as meaning making. OK, now I am getting lost. I know a bit about somatic work, though I am a bit confused. I am not sure I would be following this much if I did not already come in here knowing a bit off it. Getting distracted. I think I would leave if I were closer to the door, but too far away without distracting everybody. To be kind, I removed the presenter’s name from this session; I think he is just speaking about a topic that is in some way far beyond me. Too bad, as this seems processing. Perhaps reading his paper will be helpful  for me getting his point?

In non-Western ways of thinking, there is a holistic wisdom that already lies in the body. some initial movement is needed to tap into this wisdom.

I cannot figure out how he is linking these martial art disciplines with research. I see them related to somatic experiences. We then did one more somatic experience, standing up and touching a single finger with another person with eyes closed and then one person moving the finger with the other following with eyes closed, and then switching, and then both people having eyes closed and leading / following back and forth.

He ended the session doing an example of this as action research, with the knowing, learning, doing, etc.

Somebody asked a question about how the methodology, which involved interviewing 10 people within the context of a retreat.

I really need to read this paper. Something about it seems filled with promise and possibility, but I think I need to understand it better.

Tags: aerc2009, somatic

Jacqlyn S. Triscari is presenting this session. Her answer to the session title is simply, no! The purpose of her qualitative research study is about the role of power and shifts in power that occur in an organization during an organizational transformation. How is the transformation process intertwined with shifts in power, and issues in and around power? She spoke about organizational change as the main framework, and then organizational development (OD, which is a policy and procedure way of managing change that comes from senior management) and organizational transformation (OT, which addresses issue of culture and people).

She addresses issues of critical reflection and altering values / assumptions / beliefs. She used a case study, which was a non-profit that provides services for people with developmental disabilities. With her case study,  she interviewed senior management, documents monthly newsletters as DVDs where senior management spoke, interviews with workers, and focus groups.

Her theoretical framework was Critical Organizational Theory with a Postmodern Lens. She did a spin on mainstream organizational theory (Abel, 2005), which is generally around maintaining the status quo. She then added critical theory, specifically critical management studies and critical HRD (cf. Alvesson & Wilmott, 1992). Jacqlyn did a nice job explaining these critical organizational theories and how they merge into transformative theories. Critical Organizational Theory and its view of power assumes power from society spills  over to organizations, diversity is seen broadly and includes many organizational factors, some people have more voice than others, and power is repressive and a negative entity. Postmodernism includes multiple views, perspectives, and voices that are encouraged, deconstruction is used as a teaching, learning, and questioning tool, context is crucial, no preferred ways of thinking, and solutions (even temporary ones) are sought. Needless to say, based on my blog’s subtitle, this is something I am really interested in. Postmodern organizational theory posits power that exists, though it is not good or evil, and this is based on the work of Foucault.

I asked a question about how deconstruction was done within the organizations; she will come back to this and respond later.

There is a lot of research on (planned) change (OD change), but less on organizational transformation with its issues of power.

She used a Spiral of Analysis (cf. Cepeda & Martin, 2005)—she did an analysis and then brought the findings to more people in the organization to test them out. This process reminds me of the PDSA (Plan – Do – Study – Act) cycle in the performance improvement literature.

One of the fundamental things that she learned from the workers within the organization—they followed what management told them to do (policies), unless they knew they were wrong. This was in part linked to the CEO’s initial tea and cookie session, when the CEO told the workers that sometimes you stand alone when you are right. The CEO gave a list of values, and asked the employees to accept the one(s) they thought were right and agreed with.

She was then asked at the end to reflect on what she learned and how she has changed (reminds me of my Lancaster paper I submitted last week and am now revising). One of  the items is that maybe power does not follow organizational lines. There is more than one “reality” to any event. In this way, everybody can be right.

A person in the audience recommended a Sage text by Dvora Yanow – Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, that may be useful for this style of research.

Tags: aerc2009, critical theory, postmodernism, transformative learning

The presenters ran into the room with masks on. I love it, active engagement to grab our attention right from the beginning. They then spoke about various statistics about women in academic positions. Susan L. Bracken, Jennifer A. Sandlin, and Robin Redman Wright.

This work comes from the theoretical perspective of performance ethnography and critical performative pedagogy (from the work of Denzin). It involves action and perform works that demonstrate issues of social justice and critical issues. Reminds me of QI2009 last week, where there was a lot of this, especially from the area of communications studies. Denzin calls this critical theatre.

Another framework they use is culture jamming, which is a form of critical performance pedagogy. This is the recreation of cultural messages with reframing accepted meanings. This takes mass produced messages and turning them on their heads for reexamination. It is linked with performance art. Not familiar with this, so something to look into. I wonder who the theorists in this area are . . .

This involves the performance, the performers, and the audience—how they experience their learning.

Feminist performative pedagogy is also being used. It is the exposure to these sorts of frameworks and performance that I so like AERC.

Ooh, just heard Gramsci mentioned. Sweet. Too bad they started their session in such an exciting way, but now we are just being read to / at. I know, a lot of theory to review so we understand their work. While the slides are nicely open, I wish the excellent reading would be more conversational in tone, rather than the same traditional reading that seems so counter to performative pedagogy.

They are now discussing performative experiences and embodied public pedagogy, such as Adbusters,  Reverend Billy, the Guerilla Girls, Raging Grannies, and The Skinny Bitch. Really interesting cultural references, especially nicely tied here to adult education while being on the heels of the opening session this morning. I have never seen any of these groups, though I have heard of a few of them.

The three core strategies (of the Guerilla Girls) include:

1. mimicry
2. re-visioning of history
3. strategic juxtaposition

There are some nice video clips that are being shown, to illustrate the work of these performative artists.

A lot of their strategies  cam from Ida B. Wells, another person I do not know and will have to look up.

The Raging Grannies take a different perspective. Their hook is being in your face and doing it in a sweet way (such as having tea parties, use humor, and resist gender and age stereotypes). They dress as grannies, and do not come across in threatening ways. They almost seem to push their points with kindness. In a way, this reminds me of that character in Ally McBeal, who when angry just smiled until his opponents lost their cools.

The videos from the Raging Grannies seem to involve singing, with their granny costumes, do not appear terribly threatening.

Now they have a Denzin quote from a work in press where he quotes Conquergood. In many ways, the references to Denzin demonstrate how much critical pedagogical work outside formal adult education can be useful for helping adult ed move forward as a field.  Why not borrow (or even partner) with other colleagues and disciplines to move the field forward.

The session ends with a performative work, An Answer to a Man’s Question, “What Can I Do about Women’s Liberation.”

The first question was about how do the presenters use performance ethnography in their classes. They have students perform what they are doing. Cross dressing students to discuss gender roles is done in some of the classes, especially with reading scripts or doing skits. The authors play with many forms of performativity in their presentation today. The audience and the performers can co-create and co-perform / experience they meaning within the texts.

Tags: aerc2009, critical performance pedagogy, Norman Denzin, perfomance ethnography

The opening plenary session for AERC2009 is taking place in the Chicago Cultural Center, what a beautiful and optimistic location to begin the 50th Anniversary AERC. This is the 3rd of these conferences I have attended, and I have felt this is one of my professional homes. I always like how this conference, in addition to all the wonderful sessions and past and future colleagues I have worked with from here, has a focus on critical theory, social justice, and the political implications of education. I was attracted to this organization initially because I agree that education, and adult education in particular, is focused around teaching and learning as both a means and a enabler of power and positionality.

This reminds me of one of the reasons why I engage in liveblogging at academic (and professional) conferences. I believe this is an opportunity to both engage in autoethnographic work as well as to co-participate in the conference itself. What could be a more engaging and democratic experience.

I like how the conference bags that were donated by Jossey-Bass were made from recyclable materials. National Louis University, the host institution, even provided all the conference attendees with water bottles in a further effort to be green (no individual bottles here!).

Nice discussion about the merger of theory and practice with adult education that is being discussed right now. Interesting that the adult education program at National Louis University lives within the school of arts and sciences.

There have been several references to Elizabeth Peterson, who was the conference organizer before she passed away very recently (RIP).

The panel presentations are now beginning, after the opening remarks concluded and the housekeeping issues were addressed.

• Edgar Boone is now speaking, and he started working with adult education 58 years ago. He speaks about how he got into the field, started to work in academia, and early work with Malcolm Knowles. He said that adult education has had a powerful effect on social justice within the US. He also said that we (the field of adult education) has done a lousy job communicating who we are and what we do. He acknowledged that our departments are dropping like flies, and unless adult education as a field becomes more politically connected on campuses and within governmental funding bodies. I agree with him completely. Adult education, I believe, will perish as a formal department-based program, merging into higher education programs or, which I believe will be much better, into programs such as cultural studies. I think I need to blog about this more thoroughly. Edgar is now talking about the need for a research agenda for the field, and ask ourselves how to rebuild the profession. Goodness, this reminds me of the DPE (Delta Pi Epsilon) organization I used to be a member of, where the focus seemed to be on what was rather than where we are going. Edgar is making a wonderful point, and I find him very refreshing.
• Phyllis Cunningham is now speaking. She is speaking how adult education has always been more among the more conservative of fields, really run by the numbers. She mentioned that issues of social justice and power and positionality comprise the core of adult education, though the field has now transitioned to program planning, evaluation, and adult learning as the core of graduate programs. Freire was translated into English in the early 70’s, and then after that critical theory, Habermas (even taken out of context and in pieces), and Miles Horton (among others) became the focus. The field gradually became more inclusive (not just white men) and international. She is now speaking about the various caucuses and pre-conferences that were organized. She is now speaking about the failures of our own association that did not even publish its own policy paper (written by Jack Mezirow). The counter-hegemonic forces grew, but then education in HRD and higher education have taken the focus and emphasis. Phyllis mentioned that President Obama’s emphasis is where the change is happening, not in here (field of adult education). As she said, everything can be critical, as long as the power structures do not change. How right she is. She is not hopeful for our field.
• Alan Knox is now speaking. Amazing he facilitated the first AERC 50 years ago. Nice that he is standing in from of the panel table and is directly speaking with and engaging us (even without notes – wow). He is very articulate, though somehow I am not able to really focus on his words; I am still so focused on Edgar and Phyllis, both of who stated what I have been thinking about the future of the field. He even mentioned AAACE, which is an organization to which I used to belong, but have since left due to its ambiguous nature and shrinking membership.

Now, an opportunity for conversation and dialog. Great question about how to afford all these conferences. A wise use of technology to blend with the live experiences is a possibility. Kathy King is adding a good point about having virtual conferences and presentations. Interesting discussion about how the GRE is a racist test, and how the differences between outcomes-based assessments (which are recognized) as opposed to issues of social justice in education. Alan Knox is now speaking about identifying measurable outcomes for adult education. The issue of having discussion boards and continued online work is a significant. Do I hear a need for a community of practice apart for the conference.

I have heard a number of mentions of the future of adult education,especially after the 50 years of AERC and want to try to list them in my own words:

• Become more political (both from a critical theory and activist perspective as well as connected to the governmental and national bodies)
• Remember the roots
• Differentiate ourselves
• Determine and articulate the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) – how and why should the field remain? What does it add? What makes it different? Is there still a need?
  • expanding on this point, this may just be a good position paper for the field, even to the point of creating an “elevator speech” for what it means to be an adult educator
• Consider how adult education can more actively understand itself, especially in relation to other fields and areas (anybody hear of cultural studies, communication studies, e-research, technology, online education, nursing education, gender studies, performance studies, and sociology?)

What to do for a field in need of renewal. Hope my colleagues

Tags: adult education, aerc2009, Alan Knox, critical theory, Edgar Boone, Phyllis Cunningham

Last night I struggled home (or to the hotel, at least) after the AERC 2009 pre-conference yesterday that was facilitated by my colleague, Matt Eichler. Here it was, 4:00 in the afternoon, and I had recently gotten a headache greater than any I recall experiencing before. It was so bad it put me to bed, finally to get up a bit after 10 pm (even without dinner, good gods!). The pre-conference was excellent (with Andre P. Grace, Tonette Rocco, and Kathy King, among others, how could it be otherwise?). The papers and presentations were all wonderful (I liveblogged them, of course), the conversations were good, ideas were shared, research interests were focused, and new possibilities were considered.

With such a good day, what happened? Perhaps back-to-back conferences are taking a toll on me? Perhaps the heat in the room (how I abhor sitting in a constant oppressive hot room, it recalls getting bronchitis a few years back in July) contributed? Anxiety with a third paper to present literally in a week’s time period? Maybe the work I am doing with the doctoral class I am teaching at Pace University right now and is mostly being facilitated by my teaching partner (Lucille, you are wonderful!; everything else stops for me this weekend, and then I can fully attend to our class to give you a break)? Perhaps my head just could not take any more new ideas that I could employee a room of research assistants to help me realize? Perhaps I am just learning too much too quickly?

As I am getting ready to leave for today’s session, I take consolation in my planned reflection and recharge this evening—I am treating myself and will visit the Art Institute of Chicago. Art always makes me feel better and renewed, especially when it comes with free admission after 5:00 tonight!

Tags: aerc2009