CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 444Literacy, Media, and EducationLinguistics and Education ResearchLiteracy and Educational Practices

Literacy and Identity: Examining the Metaphors in History and Contemporary Research

Open access
Moje, Elizabeth Birr, Luke, Allan·2009·Reading Research Quarterly
DOI 10.1598/rrq.44.4.7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this review, the authors interrogate the recent identity turn in literacy studies by asking, How do particular views of identity shape how researchers think about literacy and, conversely, how does the view of literacy taken by a researcher shape meanings made about identity? To address this question, the authors review various ways of conceptualizing identity by using five metaphors for identity documented in the identity literature: Identity as (a) difference, (b) sense of self/subjectivity, (c) mind or consciousness, (d) narrative, and (e) position. Few literacy studies acknowledge this range of perspectives on and views for conceptualizing identity, and yet, subtle differences in identity theories have widely different implications for how one thinks about both how literacy matters to identity and how identity matters to literacy. They offer this review to encourage more theorizing of both literacy and identity as social practices and, most important, of how the two breathe life into each other. تلخيص البحث:في هذه المراجعة يستجوب المؤلفون انعطاف الهوية المؤخر في دراسات تعليم معرفة القراءة والكتابة بطرح السؤال: كيف تشكل وجهات نظر معينة من الهوية الطريقة التي يفكر فيها الباحثون عن معرفة القراءة والكتابة وعلى نقيض من ذلك، كيف تشكل وجهة النظر هذه من معرفة القراءة والكتابة المأخوذة من باحث ما المعاني عن الهوية. ومن أجل معالجة هذا السؤال، يراجع المؤلفون طرقاً مختلفة لتصور الهوية بواسطة خمسة تعابير مجازية للهوية المسجلة في أدب الهوية وهي: الهوية كـ (ا) الاختلاف و(ب) حاسة النفس/الموضوعية و(ج) الذهن أو الوعي و(د) النثر و(ي) الموقف. ويعترف قليل من دراسات معرفة القراءة والكتابة بمدى وجهات التظر عن تصور الهوية ومع ذلك فأن اختلافات دقيقة في نظريات هوية لها أعقاب مختلفة بشأن الطريقة التي يفكر المرء فيها عن أهمية معرفة القراءة والكتابة للهوية والعكس أي أهمية الهوية لمعرفة القراءة والكتابة. ويقدمون هذه المراجعة لتشجيع تنظير معرفة القراءة والكتابة والهوية كممارسات اجتماعية وأهم من ذلك الطريقة التي يُنَفِّس فيها كلاهما الحياة في الآخر. 在本评论中，作者就近今读写文化研究中之身份认同转向现象提出以下两个问题：某些特殊的身份认同观点如何塑造研究人员对读写文化的想法？反过来说，研究人员对读写文化所持的观点又如何塑造身份认同的意义？为回答这两个问题，作者探究有关身份认同的文献，并使用五种隐喻来归纳出文献中五种身份认同概念化的方式：身份认同就是：差异、自我∕主体感觉、意或意识、叙述、定位。很少有关读写文化的研究承认有这一系列的身份认同观点及身份认同概念化的看法。然而，各身份认同理论之间的微妙差异，却对我们考量读写文化与身份认同对彼此之重要性这些问题上带来极不一样的启示。本评论旨在鼓励更多有关视读写文化与身份认同为社会实践的理论研究，尤其至为重要的，是有关这两者如何为彼此赋予生机的理论研究。 Dans cette revue de question, les auteurs examinent le récent changement d'identité dans les études de littératie en se demandant comment des conceptions particulières de l'identité façonnent la façon dont les chercheurs considèrent l'identité et, réciproquement, comment la conception de la littératie qu'adopte un chercheur façonne la façon dont il conçoit l'identité. Pour traiter cette question, les auteurs passent en revue différentes façons de conceptualiser l'identité en utilisant cinq métaphores de l'identité que l'on peut trouver dans la littérature sur l'identité: l'identité comme (a) différence, (b) sentiment de soi/subjectivité, (c) esprit ou conscience, (d) narration, et (e) position. Quelques études de littératie reconnaissent cet ensemble de perspectives et de façons de concevoir l'identité, et cependant de subtiles différences dans les théories de l'identité ont d'importantes conséquences sur la façon dont on considère à la fois de quelle façon la littératie importe à l'identité et la façon dont l'identité importe à la littératie. Les auteurs présentent cette revue afin d'inciter à plus de théorisations à la fois de la littératie et de l'identité comme pratiques sociales et, ce qui est le plus important, de quelle façon l'une et l'autre se nourrissent l'une de l'autre. Авторов данного обзора интересуют наметившиеся в последнее время изменения в исследованиях грамотности, а именно – поворот к проблемам идентичности. Они задаются следующими вопросами: Как определенные представления об идентичности формируют представления исследователей о грамотности? И, наоборот, как представления того или иного исследователя о грамотности определяют его понимание идентичности? Чтобы разобраться с этими вопросами, авторы рассматривают различные пути концептуализации идентичности на основе пяти метафор, существующих в литературе, посвященной идентичности, а именно: идентичность как (а) инакость, (б) осознание самости/ субъективности, (в) сознание или разум, (г) нарратив, (д) позиция. Лишь в немногих исследованиях грамотности признается существование этого набора ракурсов для осмысления идентичности, в то время как даже весьма тонкие различия в представлениях об идентичности влияют на представления о взаимоотношениях грамотности и идентичности. Цель статьи – привлечь внимание авторов‐теоретиков к этой проблематике, чтобы появилось больше исследований, посвященных грамотности и идентичности как социальным практикам и, что самое важное, их взаимообусловленности. En esta reseña, los autores cuestionan el reciente giro hacia la identidad en los estudios de competencias preguntándose cómo es que las perspectivas individuales de identidad afectan la forma en que los in

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1598/rrq.44.4.7

Cites

150 of 150 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Literacy has become even more essential for claiming the right to speak.

    “As social media, SMS, email, and other Web 2.0 functionalities allow them to speak by writing (Cope & Kalantzis, 2012;Jones & Hafner, 2012;Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010), literacy has become even more essential in being able to claim the right to speak (Janks, 2010;Moje & Luke, 2009).”

    From Identity and a Model of Investment in Applied Linguistics (2015) · cites this paper as Moje & Luke, 2009

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) say that texts and new media tools offer opportunities to engage others and narrate oneself into the world, supporting a link between literacy and having a voice. The paper does not establish the citing sentence’s comparative claim that literacy has become even more essential for claiming the right to speak. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Anzaldúa, G. (1999a). Borderlands = La frontera (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
  2. Anzaldúa, G. (1999b, October). Nos/otros: "Us" vs. "them," (des) conciementos y comprisos. Paper presented at the Conference of Territories and Boundaries: Geographies of Latinidad, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
  3. Baker, C., & Freebody, P. (1989). Children's first school books. Oxford. UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In M. Holquist (Ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  5. Blackburn, M. (1999). Agency in borderline discourses: Engaging in gaybonics for pleasure subversion and retaliation. Unpublished Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
  6. Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
  7. Davies, B., & Gannon, S. (2006). Doing collective biography. Berkshire, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
  8. Dressman, M. (2007). Theoretically framed: Argument and desire in the production of general knowledge about literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 332-363.
  9. Geach, P. (1973). Ontological relativity and relative identity. In M. K. Munitz (Ed.), Logica and ontology. New York: New York University Press.
  10. Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence (Vol. 1 & 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  11. Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Border discourses and identities in transnational youth culture. In J. Mahiri (Ed.), What they don't learn in school (pp. 79-97). New York: Peter Lang.
  12. Landau, S. I. (Ed.) (1975) The Doubleday Dictionary. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
  13. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 323-342). Guilford, CT: Guilford Press.
  14. Martino, W. (2009). Literacy issues and GLBTQ youth. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Literacy Research (pp. 386-399). Guilford, CT: Guilford Press.
  15. McAdams, D. (1997). Stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self (2nd ed.). London: Guilford.
  16. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  17. Moody, S. (2009). Reframing the romance: Exploring the literacy practices of contemporary romance readers. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Francisco, CA.
  18. Nabi, R., Rogers, A., & Street, B. V. (in press). 'Hidden literacies': Ethnographic studies of literacy and numeracy practices in Pakistan.
  19. Shultz, S. (2009). Legitimizing and marginalizing: How the internet has shaped responses to online fan communities and practices. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Franciso, CA.
  20. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & U. E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moje, E. B., & Luke, A.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Moje, Elizabeth Birr
  • Luke, Allan
ORCID
Moje, Elizabeth Birr
Venue
Reading Research Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-12
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
415-437
ISSN
  • 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2722
DOI
10.1598/rrq.44.4.7
OpenAlex
W2039426677
Cited by
444
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 30
FWCI
391.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 758 d)
Locations
  • Reading Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literacy, Media, and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
Keywords
literacy, identity, subjectivity, consciousness, narrative, positionality, social practices, identity theory, literacy theory, social practice theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review