Belfiore, Mary Ellen; Defoe, Tracy A.; Folinsbee, Sue; Hunter, Judy; & Jackson, Nancy S. (2004). Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace. Reviewed by Amy E. Ryken, University of Puget Sound

	Belfiore, Mary Ellen; Defoe, Tracy A.; Folinsbee, Sue; Hunter, Judy; & Jackson, Nancy S. (2004). Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pp. xiv + 306 $59.95 (Hardcover)   ISBN: 0-8058-4621-2. $34.50 (Paperback)   ISBN: 0-8058-4622-0. Reviewed by Amy E. Ryken University of Puget Sound November 13, 2004 “We are a team! A group of eagles, who have joined to fly in formation” (p. 118) proclaims a poster mounted in the office of an urban tourist hotel. This workplace text represents the 4th Standard of Excellence at the hotel, and serves as a visual metaphor for Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace. A thoughtful examination of the social nature of reading, learning, and living in workplaces, this book is the result of a five-year collaboration among five workplace educators and academics, the In-Sites Research Group (http://www.nald.ca/insites/). These workplace educators use a social practice view of literacy, rather than focusing on the “new basic skills,” such as problem solving, the ability to work in groups and to use computers (Murnane & Levy, 1996), or describing a mismatch between workers skills and the job demands of high performance workplaces (Holzer, 1997). They examine “literacy-in-use” or “meanings-in-use” (p. 2), suggesting that “meanings are embedded in the context of how people use texts” (p. 247). The work builds upon socioliteracy studies or new literacy studies (Gee, 1996) which emphasize “the connections between literacy, culture, identity, and power” (Hull & Schultz, 2001, p. 585). The book is divided into two sections. In the first section, “Literacies in Use in Workplace Settings,” four ethnographic case studies of diverse work settings are presented—a food processing plant that manufactures pickled condiments, a textile factory that makes specialized fabrics, an urban tourist hotel, and a metal parts manufacturer. The companies are implementing practices that reflect a high performance workplace. The stages of implementation vary from initial application for International Standards Organization (ISO) registration to multiple customer quality assurance programs and/or manufacturing process quality systems. This diversity of settings and quality assurance experiences provides a rich picture of the complexity of workplace literacies. In the second section, “Reflections on Learning,” the authors consider implications of their research for workplace education and literacy theory and practice, and share insights about their ongoing collaboration. The book is “written mostly with workplace educators in mind” (p. xii), but its rich case studies and focus on the complexity of work interaction dynamics will appeal to multiple audiences. Workplace educators may be challenged by the social practice view that emphasizes unearthing the complexity of literacies in use, rather than a competency-based view that offers specific recommendations for changing educational practices. Managers, quality assurance personnel, and union leaders are likely to enjoy the case studies that may mirror their own experiences with the challenges to implementing documentation processes and supporting true collaboration. Researchers will be interested in the complex and overlapping identities described, the two-way nature of power dynamics, and the joys and challenges of a collaborative research process involving both workplace educators and researchers. Four themes emerge from this work: power dynamics involved in documenting manufacturing processes, complex identities intersecting at work, an expansion of “text” to include more than just written documents, and challenges to bridging theory and practice. Cultures of Documentation Documentation practices of high performance workplaces emphasize that manufacturing processes are as important as the product. As companies focus on documentation, tensions arise between trusting human relationships and proof of quality through data. Documentation takes a system-wide view of work processes rather than workers’-lived-experience view. Workers ask, “Now what’s the paper for?” (p. 32). The four case studies reveal the importance of a no-blame environment, demonstrate that written documents are not as simple as they seem, and that manufacturing documentation serves a variety of purposes, ranging from organizing work tasks to providing traceability of manufacturing problems. A production worker at the metal parts manufacturer emphasizes the no-blame environment he associates with keeping production charts, “If the machine goes wrong, then the parts are in trouble. It’s not the person in trouble” (p. 161). His comment reflects a focus on control and standardization of product, rather than scapegoating individual workers. In contrast, at the textile factory non-conformance reports are used to express frustration, get co-workers in trouble, and protect workers from customer and supervisor blame. In this work environment, a production worker notes the mixed messages (and conflicting expectations) involved in daily manufacturing versus research and development projects, “They say paperwork is more important than production, but when it comes to the crunch, no” (p. 87). Interestingly, in each setting workers create their own texts including diagrams, notebooks tracking the details of machinery runs, unique coding and marking systems, and checklists specific to work areas versus a generic company checklist. These non-controlled documents, not accounted for in the larger company documentation system, reveal how workers put information into terms and formats that make sense to them. They also raise questions about how written documents are valued; as one worker says, my notebook “isn’t really a document, it’s just to help us along when we have problems” (p. 98). By identifying diverse cultures of documentation, the workplace educators emphasize “see[ing] our role now not as fixing problems, but as revealing practices and understandings that make people use their literacies or not” (p. 228). In relation to the power dynamics of various cultures of documentation, two recommendations emerge: “create space for the different meanings of text to be understood, challenged, and discussed” (p. 29) and include workers in the development and revision of quality assurance documentation. Thus, employees are identified as critical team members in creating and critiquing workplace cultures of documentation. Work and Identities The authors describe the multicultural environments which they researched, rather than use an analytical framework that makes ethnicity or language central to their investigation. However, the case examples demonstrate the intersection of multiple identities and how those identities may or may not align with changing work environments. Ethnicity, dress style, and work persona are some of the aspects of identity that are described. The Italian and Italian-Canadian workers at the condiment factory recall the days without out paperwork, when most of the workers spoke Italian, and how the busy summer months brought singing to pass the long, hard days. A worker with 39 years of experience described her pride in being a part of building the company, eluded to the role of blame and punishment at work, and noted the shift from a tight knit community to a more diverse workplace that emphasizes written documentation; “When we pack pickles by hand in the summer, we sing like crazy. . . We scare to complain because maybe they send us home. We all Italian and no understand nothing. . . .Now all mix up. But Italian people, we build this place” (p. 30). The researcher who worked at the urban hotel described her own change in appearance to fit into the homogenous, sleek, cosmopolitan environment at the hotel. At the hotel, dress and grooming are used “to embody the ideal Urban Hotel identity” (p. 104). At the textile factory a senior manager described a former employee who did not make the work identity shift to embrace documentation. The employee said, “I’m a loom fixer and that’s all I do. Don’t ask me to do paperwork. It’s not in my job description” (p. 73). The manager noted “that paperwork is harder than what most workers do and not something they may be typically good at” (p.73). Here, the employee claimed the work identity of loom fixer, but rejected the company demands for expanding his work role to include documentation activity. At the metal parts manufacturer, more experienced employees usher newer workers into the culture of documentation by discussing how the measurements documented relate to the parts and how other departments will read the documentation. Thus, this work environment sponsors a work identity that embraces documentation. The nuanced behaviors of individual workers demonstrates that “no employee can be characterized as a single type, and that contradictory positions, behaviors and attitudes are all part of the complexity of living and working together” (p. 25). Feeling part of a work team suggests an alignment between an individual’s sense of self and the goals of the work environment. Workplace Texts Consistent with activity theory, where literacy is seen “within the context of a panoply of activities, activities themselves motivated by larger purpose and aims than literacy itself” (Hull & Schultz, 2001, p.584), the researchers describe the multiplicity of texts present in the workplace. At the hotel, front desk employees work “at computer stations and operate faxes, beepers, and telephones” (p. 106). They fill in databases, punch telephone codes, and respond to voice mail messages. At the metal parts manufacturer, machine operators run computer-controlled stations. Loom operators at the textile factory identify production problems by observing and listening to individual looms above the “muffled symphony of the weave room” (p. 65). These examples illustrate “text as embodiments” (p. 114) of work activity, thus workplace texts are not only written documents, but embedded work activities. In sharp contrast to the literacies encountered within the flow of ongoing work activities and to “organizations’ stated visions, goals and commitments to empowerment” (p. 198), employee training sessions at each work site included traditional teaching strategies such as lecture style teaching, written tests, and reading aloud of jargon-filled texts. A Challenge: Bridging Theory and Practice The five authors, three workplace educators and two academics collaborated over a five year period to research and write this book. The workplace educators described the difference between and challenges of using a new frame of reference (the researcher stance of socioliteracy studies) versus that of workplace education practice; “It is strange to be just observing and not working on a strategy that will eventually have concrete results” (p. 66). Their view of workplaces shifted as a result of the research; “My questions would now probe the ideals and the realities of how systems play out. . . . I would now look for contradictions in those systems” (p. 100). The second half of the book uses examples from four ethnographic case studies to relate socioliteracy and work education theory and practice. The authors set a high goal for themselves; “we have tried not just to build, but also to walk, a bridge from theory to practice and back” (p. xii). Although each chapter incorporates theory and practice and invites readers to find sections that seem most relevant to their interests, the authors fall short of their ambitious goal. The chapter organization emphasizes a distinction between theory and practice rather than an acknowledgement of “teaching as praxis” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999, p. 291) that all educational activities are simultaneously practical and theoretical. Chapter 6, “Implications for Practice” was written by the three workplace educators. Chapter 7, “Implications for Theory” was written by the project principal investigator. What is missing from the second half of the book is a sense of reciprocity across these two worlds. The workplace educators pose helpful questions for reflection on practice and highlight how using the analytical lens of socioliteracy theory limited two-way dialogue, “we always planned on a bridge from theory to practice, but we have also realized that dialogue is two-way” (p. 222). The principal investigator writes, “Whether academic or practical, all theories are there to be reflected on, tested and modified” (p. 241). This academic and practical distinction seems at odds with the case studies, which beautifully illustrate how workers’ actions are informed by nuanced readings, or sophisticated theories, of the work environment. I appreciated the honesty of tone in Chapter 8, “Conversation on Collaborative Research.” This chapter uses a conversation format to examine the joys and dilemmas of collaborative research; “I felt there was always a sense of generosity and good spirit in how we helped each other and worked together. But sometimes we spoke different languages because we were operating in different worlds. This created tensions and underlying currents that were difficult to name” (p. 267). The benefits and obstacles to bridging theory and practice and engaging in collaborative research are discussed from each author’s point of view. Summary I recommend Reading Work: Literacies in the New Workplace for the rich descriptions of four diverse work settings and the authors’ efforts to link socioliteracy and workplace education theory and practice. The authors describe and value the literacies that employees bring to their jobs and identify the challenges to providing opportunities for workers to engage in creation of the documentation that affects their work environment. Freire and Macedo write, “Reading the world always precedes reading the word, and reading the word implies continually reading the world. . . ” (as cited in Hull & Schultz, 2001). The authors build on this observation and “paint a highly textured picture of workplaces as complex social, cultural, and communicative environments full of agreements and disagreements, satisfactions and dissatisfactions, participation and resistance, confidence and apprehension and risk and opportunity related to changing work requirements” (p. 12). This work contributes to the literature by describing in detail diverse cultures of documentation, relationships between worker identity and work environments, and the diverse texts that employees encounter at work. References Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities, Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305. Gee, J.P. (1996). Discourses and literacies. In Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.) (pp. 122-148). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis, Inc. Holzer, H.J. (1997). Is there a gap between employer skill needs and the skills of the workforce? In A. Lesgold, M.J. Feuer & A.M. Black (Eds.), Transitions in work and learning: Implications for assessment (pp. 6-33). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Hull, G. & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575-611. Murnane, R.J. & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating children to thrive in a changing economy. New York: The Free Press. About the Reviewer Amy E. Ryken is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, WA. She coordinated a biotechnology internship program that linked two high school career academies, a community college, and 41 biotechnology laboratories. She researches partnership efforts that link high school, college, and work.