Morrell, Ernest. (2004). Becoming Critical Researchers: Literacy and Empowerment for Urban Youth. Reviewed by Beth A. Wassell, Rowan University

Morrell, Ernest. (2004). Becoming Critical Researchers: Literacy and Empowerment for Urban Youth. NY: Peter Lang. Pp. 168 $29.95     ISBN 0-8204-6199-7 Reviewed by Beth A. Wassell Rowan University February 4, 2005 In recent years, researchers have begun to recognize the importance of using students as researchers, especially for critical studies (e.g. Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998; Tobin, Elmesky & Seiler, 2005). In Becoming Critical Researchers: Literacy and Empowerment for Urban Youth, Ernest Morrell strives to incorporate student voice into critical academic research while helping them develop academic and critical literacies. The focus of his research, however, is not only "the potential of engaging students in critical research relating to popular culture to facilitate the development of academic and critical literacies" (p.6); it also extends to the classroom, teacher and whole school contexts by examining the roles of schools in facilitating critical research that explores inequities between different groups of students. In this book he argues that, through critical research that questions hegemonic structures within schools and the study of popular culture, students gain empowerment, a commitment to social justice and both critical and academic literacies. Morrell begins by explaining a conceptual framework that is comprehensive, yet accessible to practitioners and others outside of academia. An important preface to his study lies in his description of the roles of critical pedagogists: "[they] would like to pry theories away from academics and incorporate them in educational practice" (p. 22). This is precisely what Morrell does throughout the book; within the context of the Pacific Beach Project, he effectively engages teachers, administrators, other school-based stakeholders, university researchers and most importantly, marginalized students, in transformative, critical dialogue that questions school structures. Even further, Morrell internalizes Delpit’s (1995) idea that critical consciousness is meaningless if it is not augmented with the academic skills that students need to be successful in mainstream society. He does this by linking students’ academic tasks and projects to their research agendas and offering them school credit for their participation in the research. Morrell clearly describes the postmodernist notions of building on students’ own knowledge and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) as important foundational aspects upon which the project is based. Using Street’s (1993) definition of literacy practices (as social, ideological and strongly tied to culture, power and other cultural practices), Morrell further links the interrelatedness of literacy and critical research. In addition, he explains that the project explores the students’ movement from the periphery of the research community to more central roles as they engage in "legitimate peripheral participation" (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This theory takes into account the social, contextualized nature of learning while highlighting elements of community, identity and collaboration, all of which become unifying themes in the data analysis and conclusion chapters. In the "Method" chapter, Morrell describes his use of critical ethnography to explore four students’ use of critical research in a diverse (both racially and socio-economically) high school in Southern California. His smaller sample of participants was chosen from a larger group of students who participated in the Pacific Beach Project, which he describes as a partnership effort between a large research university in the area and Pacific Beach High School. Activities generated by the Pacific Beach Project sought to broadly investigate issues of equity and achievement for students of color within Pacific Beach High School. Morrell specifically chose to follow four low-income students (2 African American females, 1 Chicano male and 1 Chicana female), all of who were considered "average" students based on their GPA and the track of courses in which they were placed. Morrell used field notes, interviews, artifacts and student work as means to explore the students’ "interactions with existing texts and production of original texts" (p. 49) as they participated in different phases of the project’s research component. The five analysis chapters chronicle the progress of the project and the students’ development as researchers and as more critically and academically literate individuals. The project group began with a short summer seminar in which students discussed several theories and issues in educational sociology (e.g., connections between critical pedagogy and pop culture, student resistance, etc.), learned the basics of qualitative research, and were asked to present results from a basic study. The chapter shows that this phase of the project was educative in the limited work students could do over a 3-week period (they met 2 1/2 hours a day for 12 days), as they were able to learn the theory, collect data and make presentations. However, the chapter left me questioning the context behind some of the narratives included and looking for further detail regarding the seminar agenda. For instance, after a brief introduction, Morrell describes a vignette in which the four student researchers walk around a college campus with a video camera randomly asking people about "the impact of hip-hop culture on the lives of youth" (p. 71). Although this vignette is rich with vivid description, the chapter neglected to include a preface of the context in which the students embarked on their endeavors. I wanted to know a little more about the process before the data collection—why did they choose to do random, in-person interviews with college-students? Later in the chapter, Morrell mentions that even in this short, chaotic, introductory seminar, the students learned "about the process of becoming legitimate peripheral participants and the literacy events associated with this participation, creating interview questions, and reading literature on the sociology of education in order to prepare. Also the group takes notes and reviews the data from the digital camera in the process of data analysis for the report" (pp. 74-75). Additional description into these elements, including students’ reflections on the processes, would have enhanced the analysis and addressed important logistical questions, such as, what were the specific questions the students created, and how they performed the data analysis. During the school year following the initial summer seminar, the project students were enrolled in a special "A period" class created specifically for them to continue their research. In thischapter, Morrell uses narratives and field notes that capture the students’ participation in popular culture and activist events such as a protest of an racist video game and the premiere of a hip-hop documentary followed by a question and answer session. In both of these forums, the students had the opportunity to interact with texts, engage in critical discourse, collect data, and enhance both critical and academic literacies. In this chapter, he also begins to illustrate how the students’ use of such literacies expanded into other fields for academic purposes, for instance, in formal writing assignments for English class. With the help of English teachers who were also involved in the project, the students were able to use their knowledge "to engage the literary canon and foster academic writing" (p. 98). In chapter 7, Morrell describes the third phase of the project. During this summer seminar, the students had increased opportunities to research issues of youth access, social justice and empowerment in a much more comprehensive seminar. After choosing an issue within the category of youth access to study, the students spent 80 hours discussing theory, posing questions, collecting and analyzing data and presenting their work to a panel of faculty from the affiliated university. The presence of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles during the seminar created a strong context for the students’ work; they participated in the convention and used it as a site to collect data. Some of the striking vignettes in this chapter show the power of students’ experiences in critical research and social activism. For instance, Imani, one of the focal students, wrote the following journal entry to describe her participation in part of the Democratic National Convention: We also addressed these issues being ignored by mainstream Americans by attending the protest that ended later in what the news called a "mini riot." People gathered from various backgrounds and various issues from socialism to the freedom of Mumia to seek justice and social change. Throughout this day we faced situations ranging from police attempts to silence the voices screaming to be heard, to the moshpit of excited fans chanting along with the band. This was but the first day in a week that will prove to be both interesting and hopefully revolutionary. (p. 110) In the last two analysis chapters, Morrell moves from the micro level to describe the students’ individual transformations to the macro issues of the school as a site for social reproduction. Through evidence in student work and other data, he substantiates the claim that the students’ participation in the multi-phased project helped them to become full participants in the research community while developing both critical and academic literacies. As promised, Morrell gives ample evidence that students moved to central participation; by the final phase of the study, they had published their work in on-line journals, participated in and helped organize activist events, and presented their work at local meetings and academic forums, such as the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Through the students’ narratives and other data collected during the two-year study, Morrell uncovers and describes some of the practices at Pacific Beach High School that reify implicit, yet hegemonic structures, such as priority scheduling for A.P., honors-level and orchestra students (the majority of whom were White and middle-class), an Advanced Placement culture in which a set of standards were heavily dictated by White, middle-class culture, a lack of access to quality counseling (for selection of courses, college guidance, etc.), and a conservative parent organization within the school community that denounced what they claimed were progressive policies (i.e. increasing enrollment of students of color in A.P. classes) that might water down the schools’ rigorous instruction in Advanced Placement courses. In attempts to make the work truly transformative, the project students, university researchers and teacher liaisons planned several meetings with other school stakeholders, such as the English department teachers, guidance counselors, and the student government body to initiate dialogue that might shed light on the deleterious effects of the project findings. Unfortunately, Morrell claims "there seems to be little change in who has access to the most rigorous courses at the high school" (p. 140). However, the project has taken a key step in changing oppressive structures in the school by simply identifying the contrasts between the school experiences of White, middle-class students and students of color and by engaging many members of the school community in critical, catalytic dialogue that one can only hope will continue. The book includes several important implications and quality suggestions for urban educators, teacher educators, administrators and policymakers. I would argue that these ideas would also be appropriate, and possibly even more critical, for suburban practitioners in schools that are less diverse, yet equally conflicted with gaps in achievement between White students and students of color. Overall, Becoming Critical Researchers is clearly written, and as mentioned earlier, is accessible to teachers, administrators and other practitioners, although graduate students and teacher educators will find its content an important resource for discussing quality critical ethnography that affirms student voice. Morrell’s claims are clearly evidenced throughout the book in most areas; however, one might question why he chose to include certain vignettes (many of which were thick with ethnographic description), yet leaves other more explanatory elements out of the chapters that focused on the four student researchers. Also, within the conclusion chapters, readers may be disappointed not to find any updates on the four student researchers—did their intensive participation in the project have any enduring effects on their identities? To what extent are they still engaged in work that tackles issues of social justice? Are they still connecting popular culture to critical discourse? In what ways have they become critical researchers in everyday life? In order to expose inequitable structures and then make transformative practices and policies work within our public schools, we must advocate for further studies that incorporate the voices of those that are most affected by the research, namely, students and practitioners. It is their positionality that "gives these street sociologists the perspective from below (or within) that allows for the development of a critical and transformative sociology leading to revolutionary praxis emerging from the people who can liberate themselves" (p. 81). Morrell’s work engages students as capable, critical researchers who have unlimited power to develop and apply academic and critical literacies to their fight for counter-hegemonic practices. I only hope that similar insightful and transformative work will continue to surface in other daunting, yet hopeful, public schools. References Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press, 241-258. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press. Kincheloe, J. & Steinberg, S. (Eds). (1998). Students as researchers: Creating Classrooms that Matter. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In B.V. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tobin, K., Elmesky, R. & Seiler, G. (Eds). (2005). Improvingurban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers. NY: Rowman & Littlefield. About the reviewer Beth Wassell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Secondary Education/Foundations of Education at Rowan University in Glassboro, NJ. Currently, her research explores beginning teacher practices in urban settings and the challenges faced by secondary English Language Learners in content-area classrooms.