'Each and Every One of Us': A Comparative Case Study of Coalitional Literacy Praxis in Community Organizing and School Spaces
Saved in:
| Title: | 'Each and Every One of Us': A Comparative Case Study of Coalitional Literacy Praxis in Community Organizing and School Spaces |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Alicia Rusoja (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(2). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Literacy, Community Involvement, Community Cooperation, Ethnography, Praxis, Collaborative Writing, Reading Strategies, Community Problems, Problem Solving, Story Telling |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.70118 |
| ISSN: | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| Abstract: | This qualitative, comparative case study draws on the concepts of "coalitional literacy," "organizing as critical pedagogy," "oppression as intermeshed," and "solidarity as pedagogical" to address this question: "How is solidarity built through literacy practice in two different educational spaces (one community-organizing based and one classroom-based) in a large, ethnically and racially diverse, urban context?" Through comparative analysis of ethnographic data, such as participant observations, fieldnotes, and open-ended interviews, this study found that across both spaces a specific set of coalitional literacy practices, coming together as "praxis," facilitated moves toward solidarity. What we term "coalitional literacy praxis" involved (a) problem posing the status quo on a particular community issue through shared reading and writing, (b) empathetic listening to critical testimonials, and (c) dialogic inquiry that surfaced systemic and internalized oppression. Study implications include that coalitional literacy praxis can be a tool--within and outside of schools--for unlearning internalized assumptions that uphold fused oppressions, and for learning/teaching toward solidarity. Implications also invite viewing community organizers as educators and educators as community organizers. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1503978 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHw_SkHUQhziCC8AI6Y0kOfAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGW6s2eO8VyyK3OClgIBEICBmyvPvIruSXcBqcUGTkMEv7QUxHdVyoQSKrJQmh6eG2Hx3YNtSAbaPWzFow9RaxDAZXTzciuzt6b2XL_qk9BxqBpLhmQr1kwiAByupn_KKG0QwuFXsNtC7Sm28kiGHqJpEcSQvcbcMfoM_uDpeYPY9axm_l4loMrpvzYNhv_N8JQbZ1VTqjCh-F5PTzwM_sMOLCVnDoC4Zpmwqr9s Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0193225983;[nrnu]02apr.26;2026Apr27.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193225983-1">"Each and Every One of Us:" A Comparative Case Study of Coalitional Literacy Praxis in Community Organizing and School Spaces </title> <p>This qualitative, comparative case study draws on the concepts of coalitional literacy, organizing as critical pedagogy, oppression as intermeshed, and solidarity as pedagogical to address this question: How is solidarity built through literacy practice in two different educational spaces (one community‐organizing based and one classroom‐based) in a large, ethnically and racially diverse, urban context? Through comparative analysis of ethnographic data, such as participant observations, fieldnotes, and open‐ended interviews, this study found that across both spaces a specific set of coalitional literacy practices, coming together as "praxis," facilitated moves toward solidarity. What we term "coalitional literacy praxis" involved (a) problem posing the status quo on a particular community issue through shared reading and writing, (b) empathetic listening to critical testimonials, and (c) dialogic inquiry that surfaced systemic and internalized oppression. Study implications include that coalitional literacy praxis can be a tool—within and outside of schools—for unlearning internalized assumptions that uphold fused oppressions, and for learning/teaching toward solidarity. Implications also invite viewing community organizers as educators and educators as community organizers.</p> <p>Keywords: coalitional literacy; in‐school; literacy; out‐of‐school; social movements; solidarity</p> <p>How is solidarity built through literacy practice in two different educational spaces (one community‐organizing based and one classroom‐based) in a large, ethnically and racially diverse, urban context? Case #1: Intergenerational Immigrant rights community workshop by and for Latine/x immigrants focused on deportation priorities. Case #2: Sixth grade classroom year‐long service‐learning framework where students inquired into drug addiction in their neighborhood. Finding: Participants in both settings engaged in coalitional literacy praxis toward solidarity. Problem posing the status quo through reading/writing across boundaries. Empathetic listening to critical testimonials. Dialogic inquiry that surfaces systemic and internalized oppressions. Selected implications: Power of "coalitional literacy praxis" for unveiling internalized oppression and teaching/learning toward intra‐group solidarity. Value of viewing educators as organizers and organizers as educators.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70118-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70118-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The ideal fight against the system takes two fronts: the one internal to the schooling system and the one external to the schooling system.—Horton and Freire (1990 , 203)</p> <p>Events in the United States—such as the 2016 and 2024 elections, mass mobilizations against police violence, increasing nativism, attacks on transgender people, and inequities made more glaringly obvious by the COVID‐19 pandemic—have inspired social change efforts both inside and outside of schools. Recent years have shown a rise in civic participation (ACLED [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]), particularly of racially and ethnically minoritized people (Barroso and Minkin [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]). Relatedly, despite state and local laws meant to silence diversity and justice work, teachers and school districts are increasingly integrating critical analysis of social issues into curriculum (e.g., Gaztambide‐Fernández et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]; Mirra and Garcia [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref4">48</reflink>]; Sopelsa [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref5">69</reflink>]). High‐profile attacks on immigrants, transgender youth, curriculum, and teachers have forced educators and students into organizing roles. Linking "coalitional literacies" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]) outside of schools to those inside of schools, this study explores the connections between literacy and solidarity across two educational settings that we conceptualize as organizing spaces: a community‐based organization and a public‐school classroom.</p> <p>In this comparative case study (Bartlett and Vavrus [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]), we ask: How is solidarity built through literacy practice in two different educational and organizing spaces in a large, ethnically and racially diverse, urban context? The first site was an intergenerational immigrant rights committee, composed mostly of un/documented Indigenous, Mestize/x, and non‐white Mexican immigrants, organizing together through <emph>Juntos</emph>, a Latine/x‐led immigrant rights organization in an ethnically and racially diverse and low‐income neighborhood in the South of a city in the Northeast United States. The second site was a sixth‐grade class located in a Northern neighborhood of the same city with primarily Black and Brown Puerto Rican and Dominican students in which a white teacher facilitated a year‐long student‐driven process where students chose a problem affecting their community, explored it, and developed an action to address the problem.</p> <p>Through a qualitative analysis of ethnographic data, we argue that "coalitional literacy" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]) in these differing educational spaces facilitated critical empathy (Mirra [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref9">47</reflink>]) toward intra‐group solidarity by those who had internalized an oppressive stance toward members of their own marginalized communities, including through internalized self and interpersonal oppression. The engagement of coalitional literacy by participants in these two spaces ultimately facilitated them challenging their own internalized oppression and making clear moves toward solidarity. Our work builds on research on the fugitive and critical civic literacies of youth in schools (e.g., Butler [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]; Kwon and de los Ríos [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]; Mirra and Garcia [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref12">48</reflink>]), and adds an intergenerational and coalitional analysis (Rusoja et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref13">64</reflink>]) that unveils the power of literacy practices to facilitate intra‐group solidarity toward the dismantling of hegemony in society.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-3">Literature Review</hd> <p>Our study explores how literacy as critical sociocultural practice (e.g., Street [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref14">71</reflink>]) can be mobilized toward the enactment of solidarity in school and community organizing spaces. Research on the ways that literacy and pedagogical practices connect classrooms to ongoing social movements, facilitating collective social justice action by students (e.g., de los Ríos and Molina [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]) and by families (e.g., Oakes and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]), recognizes that youth and families from racialized, disenfranchised, and marginalized communities, such as Latine/x immigrant communities, are already engaged in community organizing efforts that are consequential to classrooms and schools (Rusoja [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref17">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>One study that powerfully links the in‐school literacies of Latine/x immigrant youth in schools with their out‐of‐school literacies, and with those of their larger activist communities, includes de los Ríos and Molina's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]) <emph>literacies of refuge</emph> study, which explores the literacies mobilized collectively, within a longstanding immigrant community‐ethnic studies classroom partnership, by day‐laborers, students, families, and teachers "in the name of justice and refuge" (p. 32), amidst rising anti‐immigrant discourses and policies. Another such study is Rombalski's ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref19">59</reflink>]) <emph>connected literacies</emph> study, which examines how youth organizers employ literacies "across schools, communities, and digital spaces" (p. 348). Together, these studies conceptualize marginalized, oppressed, and racialized families, homes, and communities as facilitators and sites of critical intergenerational literacy (Rusoja [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref20">61</reflink>]) and critical educational practice.</p> <p>Contributing to this scholarship that links in‐school with out‐of‐school literacy practices, our work examines literacies and literacy research for social action within and in relationship to schools (e.g., Blackburn and Buckley [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]; Blackburn and Clark [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref22">7</reflink>]; de los Ríos [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]; Morrell [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref24">50</reflink>]; Rogers [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]). This rapidly growing literature includes work on <emph>fugitive literacies</emph> (e.g., Lyiscott [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref26">41</reflink>]; Player et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref27">54</reflink>]), which powerfully foreground the literacies of organizing of Ella Baker and Frederick Douglass (Rombalski [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref28">59</reflink>], citing the Fugitive Literacies Collective). Overall, this scholarship historizes and centers the radical and abolitionist literacies of Black, Indigenous, and fellow oppressed and racialized communities of Color.</p> <p>Related to these studies, and challenging dominant approaches to and understandings of civic education, critical literacy scholars have theorized <emph>critical civic literacies</emph> (e.g., Durán and Aguilera [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>]; Kwon and de los Ríos [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]), s<emph>peculative civic literacies</emph> (e.g., Mirra and Garcia [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref31">48</reflink>]) and <emph>communal organizing literacies</emph> (Rusoja [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref32">62</reflink>]). Together, these studies recognize and foreground the agency and intergenerational resistance of marginalized, disenfranchised, racialized, and/or minoritized youth. This scholarship has further found that the <emph>multimodal coalitional literacies</emph> of Latine/x immigrant youth, for example, cannot be understood outside of their reciprocal pedagogical relationships to their families and communities (Rusoja et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref33">64</reflink>]). This literature has also argued that understanding the literacy practices of out‐of‐school social movements is critical to advancing educational equity and justice inside of schools (e.g., Riley and Soslau [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]; Bishop [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]; Yee [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref36">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our work also joins a body of out‐of‐school education research that is concerned with sociopolitical socialization and action through community‐based organizations (e.g., Ginwright and Cammarota [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]; Terriquez and Kwon [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref38">72</reflink>]), immigrant rights organizing as parental engagement (Rusoja and Gonzales [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref39">63</reflink>]), and with the critical literacy practices and related pedagogies of social movements (e.g., Rusoja [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref40">61</reflink>]; Rusoja et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref41">64</reflink>]; Riley [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref42">55</reflink>]; Bishop [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]; Yee [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref44">74</reflink>]). Through studies that emphasize the "critical literacy praxis" (Bishop [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]), the "organizing pedagogies" (Rogers et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref46">57</reflink>]), and the "intergenerational critical literacy" and "communal pedagogy of resistance" (Rusoja [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref47">61</reflink>]) that racialized, marginalized, oppressed, and racialized youth, families, and communities use to facilitate social movements, this literature challenges dominant deficit‐based understandings of these communities as uneducated, and of their sociopolitical mobilization as disconnected from educational practice. Our study takes up the argument that K‐16 educational institutions and educational researchers can benefit from "learning about and refining pedagogical models based on organizing" (Bishop [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>], 183).</p> <p>Lastly, our study aims to deepen the literacy field's understandings of the complex pedagogical nature of social movements (Rusoja [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref49">61</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref50">62</reflink>]; Rusoja et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref51">64</reflink>]; Riley [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref52">55</reflink>]; Bishop [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]; Foley [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]; Maton [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref55">44</reflink>]; Shield et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref56">68</reflink>]; Yee [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref57">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref58">75</reflink>]) by examining how socio‐political mobilization can be facilitated by literacy practice, teaching, and learning <emph>within schools</emph> (e.g., de los Ríos and Molina [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref59">17</reflink>]; Mirra and Garcia [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref60">48</reflink>]; Player et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref61">54</reflink>]) <emph>and outside</emph> of schools. Specifically, we are interested in solidarity building and enactment between community members who have internalized oppression in ways that have made them feel separate from fellow members of their marginalized communities. Our solidarity‐centered contribution to understanding pedagogy is fundamental to understanding how literacy can be a tool—within and outside of schools—for unlearning hegemonic exclusionary stances and for learning/teaching toward change.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-4">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>This study draws on the concepts of <emph>coalitional literacies, organizing as critical pedagogy</emph>, <emph>oppression as intermeshed</emph>, and <emph>solidarity as pedagogical</emph> to engage in analysis that links political mobilization, solidarity, and coalition to literacy and pedagogy inside/outside of school and community spaces.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-5">Coalitional Literacies</hd> <p>This study's approach to studying literacy is grounded in a critical, ideological and sociocultural definition of literacy that understands it as social practice (e.g., Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>]; Lewis et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref63">39</reflink>]). This conceptualization challenges the autonomous model of literacy (Street [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref64">71</reflink>]) that understands literacy as a neutral set of skills that can be transferred between people in decontextualized ways, without any relationship to the historical, sociocultural, ideological contexts in which literacy is being engaged by individuals and communities. Relatedly, our research understands literacy practices as also involving "literacy events," defined as "any action sequence, involving one or more persons, in which the production and/or comprehension of print plays a role" (Heath [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref65">33</reflink>], 386). Further, our analysis draws upon Rosenblatt's ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref66">60</reflink>]) transactional theory of reading/writing, or from the argument that "every reading act is an event" (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref67">60</reflink>], 6), and that such events involve transactions where "'meaning' does not reside ready‐made in the text or in the reader" but instead arises from and "during the transaction between reader and text" (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref68">60</reflink>], 6). Specifically, the data analyzed in this comparative study showcase what Freire and Macedo ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>]) would define as "critical literacy" events and practices because they involve dialogic learning/teaching through "reading the word" (reading/writing/discussing/transacting with a text) to "read the world" (make meaning to critically analyze the status quo) and "write the world" (transform the world toward social justice ends). Our data analysis shows that cycles of praxis (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref70">25</reflink>]) can be powerfully facilitated by literacy practices and events that involve reading/writing to critically analyze (read) the world in order to transform (write) the world.</p> <p>Significantly, we center the concept of "coalitional literacy" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]), which belongs to the family of critical literacies. We purposefully anchor our analysis on "coalitional literacy" because we are concerned with how "literacy may be used to construct shared visions and see oneself as a part of a larger community" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>], 315), particularly when divisions among us have been normed through dominant and oppressive logics of meritocracy, carcerality, individualism, respectability, illegality, among others. Specifically, our analysis engages Campano et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>]) definition of "coalitional literacy," as the "critical social practices whereby community members enact language and literacy across cultural boundaries in order to learn from others, be reflective with respect to social location, foster empathy, cultivate affective bonds, and promote inclusion in the service of progressive change" (p. 315). Thus, our analysis understands "coalitional literacies" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>]) as the literacy practices and events engaged by racialized, minoritized, and marginalized communities and families outside and inside of schools, and across imposed and internalized sociocultural, racialized and linguistic boundaries, toward the pedagogical enactment of solidarity, and a shared vision of equity and justice.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-6">Organizing as Critical Pedagogy</hd> <p>We anchor our understanding of organizing as critical pedagogy on a Freirean understanding of education, as well as on an educational view of community organizing. In his book, <emph>Pedagogy of the Oppressed</emph>, Paulo Freire ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref75">25</reflink>]) argued for a conceptualization of education as a fundamental tool to organize, meaning to facilitate critical consciousness ("conscientização") development toward dismantling oppressions and bringing about radical personal and societal transformation. Across his work, Freire argued for the community organizing power of "radical education." By this term, Freire meant education that unearths and addresses root causes of oppression through critical dialogue between people that inquiring into ideological, historical, structural, interpersonal, and internalized aspects of oppression, as well as individual and collective reflection and action to dismantle oppressions and bring about radical societal transformation. By "radical," Freire meant addressing the root causes of oppression. Significantly, Freire conceptualized radical/popular education, also known as critical pedagogy, as possible through what he called "praxis," meaning cycles of problem‐posing, or problematizing the status quo, dialogic inquiry, and critical reflection and action upon our lives, each other, and our wider world, toward liberatory ends.</p> <p>Analysis in this study is rooted in understanding dialogic inquiry as a fundamental component of critical pedagogy (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref76">27</reflink>]). In their theorizing, Freire and Macedo ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref77">27</reflink>]) viewed dialogue "as a process of learning and knowing [that] must always involve a political project with the objective of dismantling oppressive structures and mechanisms both in education and society" (p. 380). Relating this dialogic process to community organizing, this study's analysis draws on Horton and Freire's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref78">34</reflink>]) understanding of organizing as a political and "educational process and product" (p. 119), as well as on Foley's ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref79">24</reflink>]) and Oakes and Rogers' ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref80">53</reflink>]) view that organizing is fundamentally a pedagogical process. These stances solidly ground our inquiry into learning/teaching through organizing (e.g., Rusoja et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref81">64</reflink>]; Ginwright and Cammarota [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref82">32</reflink>]; Rogers et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref83">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-7">Oppression as Intermeshed and Solidarity as Pedagogical</hd> <p>We draw upon Black and Latina feminist epistemologies (Crenshaw [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref84">15</reflink>]; Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref85">40</reflink>]), particularly on the fundamental claim that oppressions and identities intersect, "disrupt[ing] the tendencies to see race and gender [among other social constructions of identity] as exclusive or separable" (Crenshaw [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref86">15</reflink>], 1244). Our analysis is further grounded on the stance that identities and oppressions "intermesh" or "fuse" together (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>]). Concerned with coalition building against fused oppressions, Lugones ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref88">40</reflink>]) argued that "there is an impulse toward coalition within the logic of fusion," emphasizing that "each fusion is lived and understood relationally" (p. 77). Resisting the logic of fusion, Lugones argues, means resisting multiple/fused oppressions, and necessitates understanding "how and to what extent these resistances support or undermine each other" (p. 77). This understanding of oppression as intermeshed, and of coalition and resistance as needing to root in fusion, is central to our data analysis. This is because we pay attention to how study participants engage in a dialogic process of un/learning, relationally, how they have internalized dominant oppressive ideologies—such as deeming un/documented immigrants with criminal records as bad and unworthy of deportation protection, or people who experience drug addiction as bad and individually at fault for their struggle—even when those internalizations and normalizations hurt those in their own families and communities, and even themselves.</p> <p>We incorporate this concept of oppressions fused or intermeshed to make sense of solidarity. To do so, we anchor this study on Eagle Shield's definition of solidarity as "what it means to look at each other as relatives" (Martinez et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref89">43</reflink>], 445), and on Baker‐Bell's conceptualization of <emph>solidarity as praxis</emph>, which emphasizes the necessity of critical reflection and action. Ultimately, we take up the view of <emph>solidarity as pedagogical</emph> (Gaztambide‐Fernández [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref90">28</reflink>]), meaning that "solidarity, like pedagogy, is driven by a desire to transform," and that, as a relational process attentive and responsive to historical, ideological, structural and intermeshed oppression, it "requires a deliberate attention to particular relationships and to the dynamic entanglements that produce the similarities and differences that animate these relationships" (Gaztambide‐Fernández et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref91">29</reflink>], 254). This understanding of solidarity shines light in our data analysis onto the "dynamic entanglements" that shape study participants' dialogic inquiries and un/learning, as they see and question oppressive beliefs against members of their own communities and enact solidarity in ways responsive to the relational and fused nature of oppressions.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-8">Methodology</hd> <p>We employed a comparative case study approach (Bartlett and Vavrus [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]) of two different organizing and educational communities in a large city in the Northeast United States. Bartlett and Vavrus ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref93">4</reflink>]) critiqued and extended traditional case study research, including cross‐case analysis, by arguing for a critical approach to comparative case studies that accounts for the sociopolitical and sociohistorical contexts and acknowledges the ways that power and inequality are at play within qualitative research. While traditional case study research often conceptualizes culture as static or fixed, process‐oriented comparative case study approaches acknowledge the ways that culture is constantly evolving, often contested, and impacted by power differences. Applying this methodology in this study involved following these crucial arguments, including understanding phenomena in terms defined by the participants, and utilizing critical theoretical frameworks to enable an analysis of power in the data. As we studied two cases of learning/teaching through coalitional literacy practice, we paid attention to Bartlett and Vavrus' call to systematically compare the cases to each other in power and sociocultural attentive ways.</p> <p>It is important to note that the two cases in this comparative study originated as two different studies conducted separately by Alicia and Kathleen within the same city. Alicia's qualitative practitioner inquiry study, conducted in 2015–2016 in a community organizing setting in the city's south, focused on the literacy and pedagogical practices of Latine/x immigrant rights organizing outside of schools. Kathleen's qualitative study, conducted in the 2021–2022 school year in a school in the city's north, focused on in‐school/in‐classroom service‐learning pedagogies and literacies toward social change. Both of our original research questions focused on the <emph>processes</emph> of activism and the <emph>literacies</emph>, <emph>experiences</emph>, <emph>and practices</emph> of the participants. Both studies took an ethnographic orientation to understand participants' experiences through a combination of interviews, observations, and focus groups. Despite these cases having different origins, foci, and methodological approaches, we decided to inquire together into literacy, solidarity, and social change inside and outside schools by analyzing our data together through a new comparative study. We were especially interested in exploring the differences between community organizing spaces, which are designed to leverage people power to make structural/system change (where political education is often a part of this), and formal educational spaces, which are designed with a focus on learning and, in some cases, offer explicit pathways to use that learning for social change.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-9">Case #1: Community Organizing for Immigrant Rights</hd> <p>Across 2015–2016, and in her role as an unpaid/intern community organizer, Alicia conducted a year‐long qualitative practitioner inquiry (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref94">14</reflink>]) study with eleven un/documented Latine/x immigrants at <emph>Juntos</emph>,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>] a grassroots popular‐education organization led by Latine/x immigrants in the city's south.</p> <p>Across the year of this study, the organization employed two paid Latina immigrant organizers and had several unpaid Latine/x immigrant intern organizers, including Alicia. Together, organizers and members co‐facilitated weekly meetings of various committees, over time including an immigration committee, LGBTQ+ committee, youth committee, women's committee, and education committee. Organizers were not formally trained by <emph>Juntos</emph>. However, we consistently joined local, regional, and national organizer gatherings to share facilitation tools, build shared strategy and coalition, centering racial, LGBTQIA+, and gender justice, for example. Notably, <emph>Juntos</emph> organizers consistently helped each other co‐facilitate committees in ways that were dialogic, prompting <emph>Juntos</emph> members to share their personal experiences and concerns, building curriculum and meeting goals based on these, with the goal of building critical analysis and leadership, organizing based on members working directly "against their own oppression" (<emph>Juntos</emph> mission).</p> <p>With explicit permission from <emph>Juntos</emph> leadership and membership, and intern organizing for a minimum of 16 h each week, Alicia carried out a year‐long study into her own and shared practice of immigrant rights organizing, asking: (a) How do Latine/x immigrants organize for their/our rights? And (b) What literacy practices do Latine/x immigrants mobilize in the process of organizing for their/our rights? Alicia addressed these inquiries as a documented, light‐skinned, cisgender, middle‐class Latina immigrant who immigrated to the U.S. as a 12‐year‐old from Venezuela, which meant she did not fully share background with <emph>Juntos</emph> members, who were largely low‐income and working‐class un/documented immigrants from Mexico, Colombia and Paraguay. Structural inequities had prevented most <emph>Juntos</emph> members from completing high school studies or accessing higher education. All eleven study participants were primarily Spanish speakers, with only two (Jasmine and Yared, U.S.‐born Chicanas, and <emph>Juntos</emph>' lead and youth organizers, respectively) being native English speakers. Alicia's positionalities reflected many privileges already noted, as well as being fully bilingual (Spanish/English), and being enrolled in a doctoral program at a local university. Being reflexive across the study about her privileges, and her insider/outsider positionality to this community, was epistemologically generative and fundamental, as she strove to ensure this study would be useful and accountable to all <emph>Juntos</emph> members.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-10">Methods for Case #1</hd> <p>As a practitioner researcher, Alicia took daily field notes as an "observant participant" (Erickson et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref96">22</reflink>]) and carried out multiple rounds of open‐ended interviews with an intergenerational group of 11 un/documented Latine/x immigrants. Examples of the types of questions Alicia asked during these interviews include: "How do you define immigrant rights?", "What do you do, individually and as part of the group, in the movement for immigrant rights?" and "What are you learning and/or teaching through this movement? How?" In addition, she gathered artifacts related to the group's community organizing practices and included photography and video as part of the data collection. Data analysis was iterative, involving weekly and monthly analytical memos and thematic coding (Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref97">70</reflink>]) using Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis software. She also employed member checks as an ethical tool (Delgado Bernal [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref98">19</reflink>]), aiming to center the analysis of each study participant of their own data and co‐construct knowledge with each individual and with the group through the sharing of "thick descriptions" (Geertz [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref99">30</reflink>]) that facilitated the identification of patterns and storylines across experiences and practices. Member‐check questions included "What stood out to you when you re‐read your interview transcript(s)?" and "What do you think about the takeaways I got from your interviews and my observations of your participation in our immigrant rights movement? What would you like me to leave/take out/add to these findings?"</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-11">Case #2: Classroom‐Embedded Community Organizing to Address Drug Addiction</hd> <p>Kathleen conducted a qualitative study in a sixth‐grade classroom in the northern region of the same city as <emph>Juntos</emph> in which the teacher led students in a year‐long service‐learning framework rooted in critical pedagogies and supported by a local non‐profit organization. Guided by the organization, the teacher used a critical service‐learning (Mitchell [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref100">49</reflink>]) pedagogical framework to bring students through a year‐long process that emphasized multiple stages including (a) community‐building and identity work, (b) choosing a social issue as a class, (c) analyzing root causes and effects of the social issue, (d) planning and engaging in some sort of action to address the problem, and (e) reflecting on and celebrating the work.</p> <p>Aiming to understand the teaching and learning practices that this framework makes possible within schools, Kathleen visited a sixth‐grade language arts class in a public charter middle school in a northern neighborhood of the city that has received national media attention as an epicenter of drug addiction. The teacher, a white woman who resided in a nearby suburban community, had been teaching for 19 years, at the school for ten, and using the critical service‐learning framework for two. The 22 students in the class were 90% Latine/x, mostly from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, with 100% receiving free or reduced priced lunch. Three students were in the school's English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program and seven received special education services. The original research questions of this study were: (a) How and to what extent do teachers facilitate critical service‐learning projects where participants work to redistribute power, take a social change orientation, and develop authentic relationships? and, (b) In what ways do teachers and students characterize their experiences and learning as they engage in, and reflect on, their participation in critical service‐learning?</p> <p>Kathleen is a white woman teacher educator and former elementary school teacher who had been partnering with the non‐profit organization for 9 years within the context of a literacy practicum class where her undergraduate students were placed in classrooms using the framework. Kathleen became familiar with the framework through doing teacher candidate observations in classrooms that use it and through class visits from non‐profit staff. She volunteers at the annual celebration where students from across the city gather to celebrate and share about their projects. While Kathleen has 5 years of urban classroom teaching experience and had lived in this city for 15 years at the time of the study, she was an outsider‐within to the sixth‐grade classroom that she observed in and the neighborhood in which the school was located. She often debriefed the lessons with the teacher and became an informal thinking partner, but she had no formal role in the classroom outside of her research role. Students became more familiar with her over time and knew that she was there to do research and learn more about how the service‐learning framework worked.</p> <p>In the interview that Kathleen did with the teacher, she shared that she was Catholic, female, and white and "doing alright" in terms of social class. Her three most important beliefs about teaching included building and repairing relationships, passion for the subject area (in her case language arts), and knowing students' backgrounds to provide culturally relevant materials. She shared that her Catholic upbringing led her toward relationship‐building service as a high school and college student and that, after Hurricane Maria in 2017, she started a social justice club at the middle school that included raising funds for different organizations and also creating and maintaining a community garden.</p> <p>Kathleen immediately noticed the deep and authentic relationships with the students and their families, and level of attentiveness to their well‐being. The teacher checked in on how they were feeling as soon as they walked in the room, with students showing a number of fingers to indicate how well they felt. She would follow up with individuals with whom she was concerned. Kathleen observed her regularly following up with students on specific details of their lives and referencing family members and siblings by name. Kathleen also observed student‐centered pedagogies, such as Socratic seminar discussions, student presentations with robust question/discussions, and consensus‐based and democratic processes for decision making. Also, over the course of the observations there were several times when Kathleen disagreed with the teacher's views on the issue, the framing of the neighborhood, and most notably her beliefs about the police as a primary solution to solving the drug issue. Kathleen's concerns about these differences led her to feel the limits of her outside observer status and wish that she had designed the study to include more intentional reflections and analysis <emph>with</emph> the teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-12">Methods for Case #2</hd> <p>Kathleen acted as a participant‐observer (Merriam and Grenier [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref101">46</reflink>]), visiting the classroom for 8 months during the times the class was engaged in the service‐learning framework. She did fifteen 1‐h classroom observations from November 2022 through June 2023, creating detailed field notes and analytic memos (Emerson et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref102">21</reflink>]). Kathleen conducted one interview with the teacher that included question topics focused on the teachers' background and reasons for teaching; reasons for using the critical service learning framework; and their reflections on the using the framework. Student focus group questions focused on their experiences doing the social change work in the classroom. Kathleen also collected artifacts such as project activities, video recordings, photographs, and lesson materials (e.g., slideshows, Google Docs, student work). Within this individually studied case, she and her research colleague (not Alicia) coded the data inductively in Dedoose by recursively developing categories based on themes emerging from the data and refining questions and findings (Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref103">70</reflink>]). Next, they conducted deductive analysis, looking for elements of Mitchell's ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref104">49</reflink>]) critical‐service learning (Riley and Soslau [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref105">56</reflink>]) and for elements of Ginwright's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref106">31</reflink>]) healing‐centered engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-13">Data Selection and Analysis</hd> <p>To begin our shared analysis for this comparative case study, we picked a parallel moment between our two studies where participants mobilized literacy practices to understand and address an issue (Table 1). The parallel literacy event in Case 1 was an immigrant rights workshop, and in Case 2, it was a class dialogue about drug addiction with community visitors.</p> <p>1 TABLE Data sources in each case for comparative analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Literacy event&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Data sources&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Moves toward solidarity&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Case #1: Outside&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;school&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Immigration relief, deportation priorities and defense workshop&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Organizer Interview (3)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fieldnotes (1)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Artifacts (3)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Photographs (5)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Protest and civil disobedience calling for a deportation moratorium&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Case #2: Inside&amp;#8208; school&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Class dialogue with community visitors (person in recovery and local elected official)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher Interview (1)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Student Focus Group (2)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fieldnotes (1)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;City&amp;#8208;Wide share&amp;#8208;out of service&amp;#8208;learning project&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Student&amp;#8208;produced PSA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students use of humanizing language&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>We uploaded these data sources into Dedoose qualitative analysis software and conducted several rounds of inductive coding, noticing themes that we saw that were broadly related to our research question from our data sources. These included long sets of field notes, participant interviews, and public‐facing actions from each setting in relation to our research question, and inductively noticed themes. We also coded deductively, documenting themes that were specifically related to our theoretical framework (Table 2). Specifically, we noticed how several literacy practices supported moves toward solidarity among the participants: <emph>problem posing status quo through reading/writing/dialogue across social boundaries; empathetic listening to testimonials; dialogic inquiry that surfaced systemic and internalized oppression</emph> (Table 2). These became analytical themes that we categorized under "coalitional literacy praxis."</p> <p>2 TABLE Analytical themes: Coalitional literacy praxis across both cases.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Coalitional literacies&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Description&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Problem posing the status quo through reading/writing/dialogue across boundaries&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Participants engaged in reading/writing/dialogue across boundaries, problematizing the status quo or current arrangements related to an issue relevant to their communities, and inquiring into its root causes and solutions&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Empathetic listening to testimonials&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Participants engaged in empathetic listening to testimonials that offered a critical (power imbalance attentive) view that different from their own&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Dialogic inquiry that surfaces systemic and internalized oppressions&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Participants questioned their own assumptions, which reflected their internalization of dominant and oppressive logics. As they did so, they engaged with structural and relational understandings of the problem, connecting their individual experiences to larger systems of oppression, developing more critically conscious understandings of the problem. This process contributed to their beginning to shift away from unquestioned internalization and acceptance of dominant solutions (e.g., criminalizing immigration or drug use) that deem some members of their community as good and some as not&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225983-14">Findings</hd> <p>Our findings show that three coalitional literacy practices were engaged in each setting, coming together as "praxis" (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref107">25</reflink>]), and facilitating critical consciousness building and moves toward solidarity. What we term "coalitional literacy praxis" (Figure 1) involved (a) Problem‐posing the status quo through shared reading/writing and dialogue across social boundaries, (b) Empathetic listening to critical testimony by people with differing experiences that countered dominant views, and (c) Dialogic inquiry that surfaces systemic and internalized oppression. We argue that this "coalitional literacy praxis" ultimately facilitated moves toward solidarity by participants in both spaces, including by those who had internalized oppressive hegemonic logics of meritocracy, carcerality, for example, toward members of their marginalized communities, as well as toward themselves (self‐oppression) given the harmful implications of these oppressive assumptions in their lives.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70118-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70118-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Coalitional literacy praxis in community organizing and school spaces." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225983-16">Case 1: Coalitional Literacy Practices in a Community Organizing Setting</hd> <p>The immigrant rights workshop analyzed in this case took place in February 2016 and was co‐facilitated in Spanish, by Jasmine, <emph>Juntos</emph> Lead Organizer at the time, and Alicia. Jasmine identified as a Brown woman from a mixed‐status family, a working‐class Chicana, and a native English speaker (Spanish being her second language), who had recently completed her undergraduate degree. Alicia, as a native Spanish speaker and past Freirean facilitator of adult ESOL classrooms, co‐facilitated. In our analysis, Alicia and Kathleen conceptualized this workshop as a coalitional literacy "event" because it involved community members engaging in the "production and/or comprehension of print" (Heath [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>], 386), and community readers transacting with text to make meaning of a shared text together (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref109">60</reflink>]), particularly toward "learn[ing] from others, be[ing] reflective with respect to social location, foster[ing] empathy, cultivate[ing] affective bonds, and promote[ing] inclusion in the service of progressive change" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref110">11</reflink>], 315). Specifically, this event's goal was to facilitate un/documented immigrant community members' reading and learning about existing immigration relief programs (e.g., U‐Visa, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals/DACA), and understanding current deportation priorities and logics, so they could teach others this information through workshops in their homes, teaching/learning about how immigration programs and priorities position un/documented people differently, targeting certain members of our communities over others based on oppressive logics of meritocracy, respectability, illegality, etc. Some of the short‐ or mid‐term aims were for participants to see where they fell individually within this oppressive system and why, know their rights, and understand how exclusionary relief programs are, as well as the divisive, dehumanizing, and oppressive nature of deportation priorities. In the longer run, moreover, these workshops would be one step toward collectively organizing to protect all members of our communities, without upholding oppressive stances that hurt fellow racialized, marginalized, disenfranchised communities, whether immigrant or not.</p> <p>Planning went into each workshop so that it reflected Freirean/popular education tenets. In preparing, for example, Jasmine asked Alicia and other <emph>Juntos</emph> organizers for feedback, such as, "I want to hear from you guys about how we can do this as pop‐ed as possible" (fieldnotes, February 24, 2016). Drawing on fellow <emph>Juntos</emph> organizers' input, Jasmine and Alicia decided to write out workshop goals on butcher paper and create handouts for read‐alouds about existing immigration relief programs and Obama's deportation priorities, so these could serve as problem‐posing texts to prompt a cycle of praxis (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref111">25</reflink>]). Explaining facilitation and textual engagement (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref112">60</reflink>]) plans, Jasmine explained: "We'll have a handout, and I was thinking we will read it popcorn style ... we can [do so] either collectively ... or individually, have[ing] one person read the U‐Visa section, then discuss it ... being like 'What do people think about it?'" (fieldnotes, February 24, 2016).</p> <p>On workshop day, a total of 20 people joined, including 1 teenager and 3 toddlers. All participants identified as low‐income or working‐class, un/documented, or belonging to mixed status families, and none identified as white Latine/xs. The workshop was run in Spanish by Jasmine and Alicia because most participants spoke Spanish as their first language. Jasmine first wrote the handouts in English (her first language) and asked Alicia to translate them into Spanish. For this publication, Alicia is including the English version (Figure 2) of the handout discussed in this manuscript.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70118-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70118-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Deportation priority list handout." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225983-18">Coalitional Literacy Practice 1: Problem Posing the Status Quo Through Reading/Writing and Di...</hd> <p>As planned, we began by reading the butcher paper‐written workshop goals. Participants then engaged in a close reading of one handout on existing relief programs, such as U‐Visa, DACA, policies about which the group already felt knowledgeable. Beginning their workshop by reviewing their existing knowledge, participants transacted with this text (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref113">60</reflink>]) by reading this handout, writing notes by hand on it, underlining, and talking 1:1 with a partner about current immigration relief programs, for which a very small number of our un/documented community qualify. Once participants confirmed they could teach others about them, Jasmine invited us to closely engage with the text (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref114">60</reflink>]) of a second handout (Figure 2) in by underlining sentences, writing notes on the page, talking 1:1 with a partner. Then, as a large group, we set out to (re)considered the dominant logics behind the notion of "deportation priorities." Prompting problem‐posing (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref115">25</reflink>]), or the critical questioning of the status quo, Jasmine said: "Let's define, and consider, the meaning of 'priority.' Is there someone who would like to read out loud [in handout] what is meant by 'priority?'" A male participant in his 30s answered quickly, "I can read it." He read aloud the handout's first sentence (in Spanish)—"What does priority mean? ICE's priorities guide how an ICE agent uses their time"—and the remaining paragraph, followed by the first list of then‐current deportation priorities of Obama's (2009–2017) administration.</p> <p>Continuing to transact with the text (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref116">60</reflink>]), this participant read through the end of Priority 2's bullet points (Figure 2), reading aloud that the Obama administration had newly made having misdemeanors in one's criminal record, including through a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or burglary conviction, reason to be prioritized for deportation. Making sense of this text, this participant stated: "This is very bad for us." In response, Jasmine offered a critically conscious insight about the meaning of this text, saying: "This is how immigrant communities are criminalized." After workshop participants finished taking turns reading rest of the handout aloud, Jasmine problem‐posed (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref117">25</reflink>]) by asking, "What do we think about this list?" And specifically prompting the critically conscious consideration that this priority list divided us, or positioned us against each other, Jasmine added: "What do you all think of this division of our community?" Elena, an un/documented Indigenous mother from Mexico in her late 20s, answered:</p> <p>I think these are all good because a lot of people drive drunk, there are a lot of accidents where children get run over, and that's not okay. The same thing is true with domestic violence and sexual assault, weapon possession, and robbery. I think everything we just read is good.</p> <p>Others in the room nodded, agreeing with Elena's view, which reflected her internalization, or acceptance and application, of dominant and oppressive criminalization logics that deem people with criminal records as bad, and deserving of deportation as punishment. Other participants expressed disagreement with Elena by shaking their heads. Problem‐posing further, Jasmine raised a question that shone critical light onto the fused (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref118">40</reflink>]) carceral and nativist logics undergirding the dominant stance that Elena had internalized as reasonable: "Is deporting people who have committed these crimes a solution?"</p> <p>To this, Elena immediately responded, "No, because they would continue doing these things in another country." Elena's response shows she agrees deportation is not the solution (for the person or larger society) to a person engaging in the activities listed. It also shows her possible openness to reconsidering the logics behind her stance that un/documented immigrants with criminal records are not worthy of protection. Another community member then raised a question, "Maybe therapy would be a solution?" and another person added, "Maybe Alcoholics Anonymous?" Jasmine then shared a question that dug further into the root causes of crime, specifically referring to item four of priority 2 in the handout, "And what could be the solution to someone selling drugs? Why do people sell drugs?" to which an older male community member who had not yet spoken responded, "Out of necessity." Elena then contributed, "Maybe because it's the easiest way to make money." Jasmine agreed, "Yes, often it's much easier to sell drugs to support your family than to work two or three jobs and not see your family." This process of facilitating "praxis" through problem‐posing and dialogic inquiry (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref119">25</reflink>]) unveiled individual and collective internalized views and our theorizing regarding criminality. Through our making meaning of this text (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref120">60</reflink>]) via this Freirean approach to organizing, the group reconsidered root causes, as well as lived experiences of oppression that differed from their own.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-19">Coalitional Literacy Practice 2: Empathetic Listening to Critical Testimony</hd> <p>Continuing to facilitate problem‐posing (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref121">25</reflink>]), Jasmine asked:</p> <p>So, is it fair for an American to have a DUI, go to court, do community service, and keep on with life here but that for an immigrant this isn't so? Is it fair that [un/documented] immigrants have to face a double punishment?</p> <p>Across the room, participants shook their heads, and the room was silent. We then empathetically listened to Jasmine's testimonial about her experience with a DUI misdemeanor. In her critical testimony—itself a critical literacy practice (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref122">11</reflink>]; Latina Feminist Group [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref123">38</reflink>]; Saavedra [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref124">65</reflink>])—Jasmine illuminated the fusion/intermeshing of oppressions (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref125">40</reflink>]) as she offered her critically conscious understanding that her privilege as a U.S. citizen shielded her from being punished in the ways that un/documented immigrants with misdemeanors, such as DUIs, have been penalized since the Obama administration, given its establishment of an explicit focus on deporting people with criminal records:</p> <p>Jasmine: Those of you who have been at <emph>Juntos</emph> for a while know that I am open about this issue in my past but when I was young I got a DUI. I knew it was bad [to drink and drive] but when one starts to drink, it's easy to think one hasn't drunk too much...</p> <p>Elena interrupted, drawing on her longstanding trust in Jasmine, and her positive view of her: "That's when you were young. I bet you did not do it again," and Jasmine said: "No, of course I did it again.... The thing is that deporting me was not going to stop that. Most people that have a problem with alcohol have it due to trauma or abuse in their life, what they need is therapy or a doctor."</p> <p>In response to Jasmine's reframing, Elena said, "They need more support," showing empathy for those with alcohol use problems. Someone else immediately added, "Family support." Across the room, all participants agreed. Jasmine replied, "Because I was born here, I did not need to think 'Will I get deported?'. I got treated differently, better." Reengaging with the text in the priorities handout as she pointed to it, Jasmine asked: "So, should we accept these divisions within our community?" And numerous people in the room said, "No, no, no." "Why?" Jasmine asked. "Because it's unjust," a community member responded, and most supported this statement by assenting.</p> <p>As this data excerpt shows, Jasmine's <emph>testimonio</emph> in this workshop functioned as a critical text (Latina Feminist Group [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref126">38</reflink>]) that workshop participants transacted with (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref127">60</reflink>]), and made meaning through, as they listened to a story that countered mainstream discourse's criminalizing image of un/documented immigrants, well‐portrayed in the deportation priorities handout. As Chicana/Latina education scholars have argued, testimonies are verbal or written texts by and for marginalized groups that counter dominant oppressive stances (Latina Feminist Group [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref128">38</reflink>]), which enact a critical "way of teaching and learning (pedagogy)" (Delgado Bernal et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref129">18</reflink>], 364). In their writing about the pedagogical relationship between testimonios and solidarity, Delgado Bernal et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref130">18</reflink>]) argued that "one must first listen to the testimonio in an effort to understand before one can be moved to action" (p. 368). In this excerpt from this testimonial as a critical literacy event (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref131">11</reflink>]), workshop participants' responses to Jasmine's question about accepting imposed community divisions ("no, no, no," "because it's unjust") show that empathetic listening is taking place, facilitating a genuine "effort to understand" (Delgado Bernal et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref132">18</reflink>], 368) another across social location and experience. Our study's analysis unveils this empathetic literacy to a critical testimonial as a necessary coalitional literacy practice that deepens dialogic inquiry and is a precursor to possible moves toward solidarity.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-20">Coalitional Literacy Practice 3: Dialogic Inquiry That Surfaces Systemic and Internalized Opp...</hd> <p>The third coalitional literacy practice that our data analysis illuminated as central to a coalitional literacy praxis is what Freire ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref133">25</reflink>]) defined as "dialogic inquiry." As data excerpts from our workshop show, the type of dialogue we engaged in as a collective was not a "mere technique" (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref134">27</reflink>], 379) for learning through conversation. Instead, our textual engagement (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref135">60</reflink>]) with the deportation priorities handout and with Jasmine's testimonial involved individuals dialoguing through asking and answering critical questions that fundamentally questioned the status quo, drawing on participants' own dissonances, experiences, and sense‐making in relationship to these texts. Below, we detail and analyze an instance that showcases dialogic inquiry that surfaces systemic and internalized oppressions in this space.</p> <p>After Jasmine's testimonial and the group's affirmation that it is "unjust" to accept divisions in our community based on carceral and nativist logics, a Brown‐skin teenager said, "You're right." Then, he "read the world" (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref136">27</reflink>]) through his critical question and theorizing, surfacing the intermeshing/fusion of oppressions (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref137">40</reflink>]) shaping our lives. Specifically, his contribution shone light into how capitalism, nativism, and carceral logics shape the deportation priorities we were reading about and discussing. Referring back to the priorities listed (Figure 2), he said:</p> <p>Why don't the wealthy who have money contribute? They don't want to lose their power. In my mind I think that if every rich person in this world gave money to all the poor people, there would be no more rich people and that's what they don't want. They want to maintain their power and they want us to stay in this situation.</p> <p>Many across the room quickly responded to his comment in agreement, with one saying, "Exactly, this is the truth!" This young Brown person's analysis of how capitalism works to assert hegemony—and in the context of our dialogic textual analysis, to ensure un/documented people in poverty are criminalized, dehumanized, and targeted for deportation—makes a connection between immigration laws and capitalism to see the fusion or intermeshing (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref138">40</reflink>]) of capitalism, racism, and nativism as systems of oppression that mutually constitute one another. This young person's contributions to our literacy event (Heath [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref139">33</reflink>]) also shone light on the use of seeing the ways in which our community members have internalized these oppressions ("they want us to stay in this situation"), including through rationalizing meritocracy and respectability politics, and applying them to judge our own selves and each other.</p> <p>Elena, digging into the root causes of criminality—and not taking up this critical read of the handout, or of the of meritocracy, nativism, or capitalism it reinforces—contributed to our dialogic inquiry (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref140">25</reflink>]) by asking, "But why do those who come here to make a better life commit crimes? They shouldn't do it. Why do they do it?" Jasmine responded with a question that offered a critical reading of the word/world (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref141">26</reflink>]), highlighting the relationship between poverty, capitalism, racism, and specifically anti‐Black racism, as fused oppressions that can be at the root of crime in, and criminalization of, our communities. She asked, "How does this country treat our Latino community? I'm not just talking about immigrants. But are we given the same education and the same opportunities as white people are?" Across the room, we heard multiple immediate, "No, no, no" as a response. It is important to note here that the workshop participants and facilitators all identified as non‐white, so when Jasmine uses "we," she is directly speaking to our racialized Latine/x group. Relatedly, when Jasmine asks about the structural treatment of "our Latino community"—specifically asking "are we given the same education and same opportunities as white people?"—she invites the group to critically attend to the oppressive consequences of the dominant white supremacist racialization of Latine/x people in the United States, meaning to the sociopolitical and historical construction of this population as non‐white (e.g., Chavez [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref142">12</reflink>]), including through schooling (Chávez‐Moreno [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref143">13</reflink>]), in mainstream public discourse (Santa Ana [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref144">66</reflink>]) and through constructions of illegality (Flores and Schachter [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref145">23</reflink>]; Menjívar [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref146">45</reflink>]), regardless of racial heterogeneity among Latine/xs, or of how Latine/xs individually identify.</p> <p>Facilitating in a way that connects the racialized struggles of Latine/xs and Latine/x immigrants with those of Black Americans, Jasmine added: "And are Black people treated like white people?" Immediately, a round of firm "No" across the table followed. Jasmine then facilitated in a way that centered an ideological, structural, interpersonal, and internalized (Sensoy and DiAngelo [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref147">67</reflink>]) analysis of fused oppression (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref148">40</reflink>]). This involved her prompting a deeper engagement with our shared texts (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref149">60</reflink>]), the handouts, and her testimonial through an invitation to consider the interrelated root causes of un/documented migration, poverty, crime, domestic violence, etc.:</p> <p>Let's think about larger society, [about] the issues that exist more broadly. We're all here because back home we had issues with raising families, having jobs, being safe, and a lot of that was out of our control as individuals on our own. There are oppression systems that exist across countries and here to maintain oppression. And so there are systems that work together to oppress us, and that's why we are here without papers. The immigration system is broken but even when we all get papers we will still live in a country where it is okay to abuse women, for example. How can we change the system so that we don't accept domestic violence, so that we all are treated as white citizens, so that we don't have to sell drugs? These are not coincidences.</p> <p>People across the room voiced their agreement with Jasmine. Elena, demonstrating a move toward empathy with people with criminal records whom she previously firmly viewed as undoubtedly deserving of deportation as punishment, and as undeserving of any support, said, "So maybe the solution to when people commit these crimes is to say, 'We'll help you and give you this punishment <emph>but</emph> help you get better, and if you do, then we give you permission [to become a citizen]. And if you don't, well then.'" And Jasmine, aware that the disagreement Elena had voiced remained unresolved, responded with, "Well, you're right that sometimes we need to see that we have a problem to get better." In her answer, Jasmine agreed with one aspect of Elena's position, which did not get Elena to agree with her, but did affirm Elena's theorizing or her "reading of the world." In this way, Jasmine's facilitation reflected Freire's ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref150">25</reflink>]) argument that dialogic inquiry does not involve imposition by a teacher or facilitator of their theories or views. Instead, in their work Freire and Macedo ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref151">27</reflink>]) argue that "the fundamental goal of dialogical teaching is to create a process of learning and knowing that invariably involves theorizing about the experiences shared in the dialogue process" (p. 381). Here, each participant's contributions to our dialogue offer their theorizing, anchored in their lived experiences in relation to our workshop's shared texts (deportation priority list and Jasmine's testimonials) about oppression and in/justice.</p> <p>The process depicted in this data excerpt, thus, is the process of dialogic inquiry that Freire and Macedo ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref152">26</reflink>]) described as reading the word to read (critically analyze) the world. It is a "process of learning and knowing" through critical dialogue and inquiry toward the dismantling of "oppressive structures and mechanisms" (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref153">27</reflink>], 380), including the internalization of oppressive beliefs about ourselves and others. The dialogic inquiry (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref154">25</reflink>]) above revolved around the recognition of the intermeshing of oppressions (i.e., "How can we change the system so that we don't accept domestic violence, so that we all are treated as white citizens, so that we don't have to sell drugs? These are not coincidences"). In this dialogic inquiry, we also witnessed Elena moving from internalizing oppressive logics of meritocracy, illegality and carcerality, through her feeling that Obama's deportation priorities are fair and supporting them, to considering the possibility that they are not. Yet she is still very concerned with deterring crime and is still in disagreement with Jasmine about whether people in our community with criminal records should be deported. So Jasmine meets her where she is, affirming her perspective and concern.</p> <p>Our workshop continued, lasting more than 2 h and involving additional instances of textual engagement (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref155">60</reflink>]) with our handouts and with Jasmine's testimonial. The dialogic inquiry (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref156">25</reflink>]) portrayed above occurred before learning about the rights of un/documented people facing deportation. As reflected in this excerpt, our text‐grounded analysis of how government policies, capitalism, racism, and other oppressions affect individual and collective opportunities and behaviors, particularly around crime, began a slow but consistent move by workshop participants away from criminalizing members of our own community, and toward structural understandings that opened the door to empathetic views. As Elena's engagement shows, these moves were not homogeneous, however, and involved ongoing differences of opinion, which continued to be explored over time as the committee continued to meet each week over the year. Jasmine, clear on the strategic pedagogical goal of relational solidarity building, closed this section of the workshop with the following words:</p> <p>So, now that we know more about the deportation priorities, how do you [all] feel about saying we don't accept these divisions, that the federal government isn't going to divide our community, and that we are going to fight for <emph>each and every one of us?</emph>. Do you feel good about that? Is this something we can do?</p> <p>And an overwhelming "Sí Se Puede!" [Yes, We Can!] was said loudly by many across the room, including Elena. Then without prompting, we all begin to chant together, "Sí Se Puede! Sí Se Puede! Sí Se Puede!"</p> <p>Overall, this final workshop excerpt illuminates teaching/learning through textual engagement (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref157">60</reflink>]) and dialogic inquiry (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref158">27</reflink>]) toward understanding that the struggles of racialized un/documented communities are not solely about citizenship or nativism, and that "the racialization of illegality is also tied to [racialized] notions of deserving and undeserving, good and bad immigrants" (Menjívar [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref159">45</reflink>], 94). As Jasmine highlighted in her dialogic facilitation, this is because oppression of un/documented peoples does not result solely from a nativist immigration system but also results from its fusion with racism, sexism, classism, etc. This point is reinforced when our community critically questions whether those racialized as Latine/x, regardless of immigration status, and those racialized as Black, regardless of whether they are immigrants, are treated like white people, particularly in light of Elena's question about why people commit crimes in our communities. Here, we see the intermeshing of oppressions (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref160">40</reflink>]) and how white supremacy greatly shapes this fusion. Further, when Jasmine said, "But even when we all get papers we will still live in a country where it is okay to abuse women, for example," she shone light on how sexism, patriarchy, and racism are oppressions that fuse together, impacting women with and without U.S. citizenship. Jasmine's call, "that we don't accept these divisions," and her facilitation toward "fight[ing] for <emph>each and everyone of us</emph>," guided participants toward organizing and resistance <emph>from</emph> a logic of fusion (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref161">40</reflink>]), where fighting nativism necessarily involves fighting racism, sexism, classism, too.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-21">Moving Toward Solidarity</hd> <p>Following this February workshop, additional weekly ones took place, bringing together other community members across the organization to understand immigration policy and organize together. By summer, several <emph>Juntos</emph> immigration committee members, including Elena, along with members of other local immigrant rights organizations, participated in a large downtown protest that blocked the city's main expressway and, as a literacy event (Heath [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref162">33</reflink>]), called for a moratorium on all deportations through verbal chants and written protest signs and banners. Fully stopping traffic through their direct action, a smaller intergenerational group of activists sat linked together on the hot pavement and refused to move. This written and verbal demand for a moratorium on all deportations did not exclude un/documented people with criminal records, nor any other member of the heterogeneous un/documented immigrant communities living in the United States from being protected by a moratorium. The group's enactment of solidarity, their re‐writing of the world (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref163">26</reflink>]; Nuñez [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref164">52</reflink>]; Yee [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref165">76</reflink>]) through this direct action led to their arrest, which put those who were un/documented in the group at risk of deportation and all arrested at risk of a permanent criminal record.</p> <p>The protest, with its direct action and arrests, reflected "solidarity as pedagogical" (Gaztambide‐Fernández et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref166">29</reflink>]) because it did not mobilize mainstream oppressive slogans that uphold notions of respectability politics or deserving/undeserving logics, such as "we are workers, not criminals," as many immigrant rights organizations do (Brown and Jones [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref167">8</reflink>]), racializing and criminalizing immigrants in doing so. Instead, the protest clearly aimed to transform mainstream rhetoric via critical literacy texts, written banners and chants in Spanish and English, that called for a "moratorium on all deportations now!." This inclusive and humanizing framing paid "deliberate attention to the dynamic entanglements" (Gaztambide‐Fernández et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref168">29</reflink>], 254) between the lives of all widely diverse un/documented immigrants. Certainly, the workshop analyzed in this study was not solely responsible for this solidarity enactment. Nonetheless, someone holding the dominant views Elena held at the beginning of the workshop, which upheld meritocracy, individualism, and carceral logics, would not have chosen to support or participate in direct action protecting immigrants she viewed as undeserving of this protection. Our analysis shows that a coalitional literacy praxis involved (a) problem‐posing (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref169">25</reflink>]) through transactions with texts (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref170">60</reflink>]) such as the deportation priorities handout, and (b) empathetic listening to and engagement with Jasmine's testimonial as a critical literacy text, as well as (c) dialogic inquiry (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref171">27</reflink>]) into the intermeshing (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref172">40</reflink>]) and internalization (Sensoy and DiAngelo [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref173">67</reflink>]) of oppression. Analysis also shows that this praxis played a positive role in the individual transformation toward empathy and solidarity that clearly took place over time for Elena, and likely others.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-22">Case 2: Coalitional Literacy Practices in an In‐School Setting</hd> <p>In the sixth‐grade class exploring the issue of drug addiction, students were visited by community members as part of the issue exploration phase of the critical service‐learning framework. One of the community visitors was a man named Henry who shared about his own journey through addiction and recovery as well as his work with a non‐profit organization that supports people who use drugs with access to housing as part of their recovery. Henry, a Black man who appeared to be in his sixties, sat in front of the class, told his story through the critical literacy practice of testimonial (Latina Feminist Group [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref174">38</reflink>]). He also read and engaged with written student questions that the teacher had compiled.</p> <p>Throughout the shared inquiry, students also explored the issue through reading articles, discussing the problem to come to a shared definition, hearing from guest speakers from local universities about the science of addiction, and sharing personal experiences of growing up in an area with such prevalent drug use. They deliberated on different actions they could take, and through a multi‐day process of brainstorming, considering different options, and coming to consensus, ultimately decided to compose a Public Service Announcement (PSA) style video about their experiences living in the neighborhood that they would share with elected officials at the state and local levels.</p> <p>During the <emph>action</emph> phase, a local elected official visited the class so that students could present their video and have a dialogue with her. Other data highlighted in this section comes from two focus groups that Kathleen conducted near the end of the process and during the city‐wide event where students celebrated and shared their learning with other classes and community members.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-23">Coalitional Literacy Practice 1: Problem Posing the Status Quo Through Reading/Writing and Di...</hd> <p>Students, teacher, and class visitors engaged in problem‐posing (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref175">25</reflink>]) through coalitional literacies (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref176">11</reflink>]) by writing down questions for Henry that problematized drug addiction, inquiring into its causes and consequences, and sought to learn across social boundaries. Once in the classroom, Henry read and textually engaged (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref177">60</reflink>]) with each written student question out loud. Students' questions included: Why did you do drugs? How did you stop and was it hard to stop? and "Have you ever had an emotional recovery?" Additionally, the teacher asked, "What do you think is the best way to help the people who the kids see and walk over?" A non‐profit worker who was visiting the class asked, "I think my mom drank too much, but now I realize she was probably addicted. Is there anything I could have done?" The collective composition and textual engagement (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref178">60</reflink>]) with these questions ultimately enabled students to witness and connect to Henry's story, learning from him through this literacy event (Heath [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref179">33</reflink>]), to "promote inclusion in the service of progressive change" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref180">11</reflink>], 315).</p> <p>Written and verbal questions were also central during the classroom visit from the local elected official. The official—who draws her political analysis from her experience as a Black, working single mother—is one of two people representing a progressive third party whose platform includes raising the minimum wage, paid sick time leave, and voting rights. The students shared their PSA video with her, and then asked questions, such as: "What feeling do you get when you see our neighborhood?" "Are you very determined to make [the neighborhood] better?" One student asked, "Do you think there are places that are worse than [our neighborhood]?" "Do you think this city is bad? Or just the people in it that make it bad?" The councilperson responded to this question with a question, by asking: "Do you live in this city? Are you bad?" The student initially said, "Yes," then changed his answer to "No." The councilperson then talked about making positive change so that the good outweighs the bad. Again, this exchange—especially when the councilperson responded to a question with another question—represents an instance of problem‐posing education (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref181">25</reflink>]) in which differently positioned participants collectively consider a set of questions together that have material impacts on their lives.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-24">Coalitional Literacy Practice 2: Empathetic Listening to Critical Testimony</hd> <p>In the critical literacy event (Heath [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref182">33</reflink>]) where Henry read and answered student questions out loud, transacting with their written questions (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref183">60</reflink>]) through sharing about his addiction and recovery experiences, students were focused, note‐taking, and engaged for the entire 1‐h visit. Kathleen's field notes document in several places that "Students are all very, very focused. Quiet. Listening." She noted that fewer, if any, students seemed distracted or lethargic than other visits or class activities. Later, when their teacher asked a small group of students to compare this speaker with a visit from researchers from the local university who explained the science of addiction, one student said they barely remembered the university visitors, and all enthusiastically said they liked Henry because "he was a recovering addict." This first‐hand testimony, itself a critical literacy practice (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref184">11</reflink>]; Latina Feminist Group [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref185">38</reflink>]), just as Jasmine's in Case 1 was, created a connectedness with Henry and with the shared experience of learning from his story. While it is hard to know how each student was relating to Henry, they repeatedly referenced this visit later in the project, and other data from the study show that some students had close family members who were impacted by addiction, while others did not. In this way, students were getting both mirrors and windows (Bishop [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref186">5</reflink>]) as they listened to Henry's experience. While it's hard to measure "empathy" or argue that students were engaged in empathetic listening, the embodied experience of Kathleen in the classroom and the notable silence and focus suggest that there was a connection in the room that was notable. This deep listening, we argue, was part of engaging solidarity as pedagogy (Gaztambide‐Fernández [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref187">28</reflink>]) in that students were witnessing, relationally learning from, and processing experiences that were both similar to and different from theirs as they built an analysis of the problem.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-25">Coalitional Literacy Practice 3: Dialogic Inquiry That Surfaces Systemic and Internalized Opp...</hd> <p>Through dialogic inquiry (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref188">25</reflink>]), students enacted coalitional literacy in which they were able to "construct shared visions and see oneself as a part of a larger community" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref189">11</reflink>], 315). Part of this work included seeing issues in their community as part of interrelated systemic injustices (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref190">40</reflink>]), rather than individual struggles. In his textual engagement (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref191">60</reflink>]) with students' written questions, Henry shared connections between drug use in their neighborhood and larger oppressive structures like capitalism, racism, and policing. For example, when one student asked, "why do crackheads have to use drugs throughout the world?" Henry responded, "It's a worldwide epidemic. Crack was introduced, cocaine was introduced in around the 1980s. People who use cocaine, there's a psychological addiction. It's overwhelming people." In this example, Henry refers to the <emph>War on Drugs</emph> and the over‐policing of Black and Latine/x neighborhoods, especially in reference to the introduction of crack cocaine into predominantly Black neighborhoods in the 1980s.</p> <p>Later, another student asked, "Why are drugs so easy to access?" to which Henry responded, "Probably greed, we live in a capitalist society. People are willing to do anything to make money." He then talked about fentanyl—a drug being added to heroin—and concluded, "People care more about money than life. It's economics." Here, he drew connections between drug use and capitalism. Henry, through his testimony and his "reading of the world" (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref192">27</reflink>]), challenged the idea that drug users were "bad people" making individual bad choices, and instead introduced intermeshed (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref193">40</reflink>]) systems—racism and capitalism—which impacted drug use in particular neighborhoods.</p> <p>Later, during the citywide celebration where students shared their learning with another middle school class, they connected the issue of drug addiction to many of the other issues they had explored (e.g., LGBTQ issues, gun violence, mental health, sexual assault) during the first part of class before they selected their focal issue. One student shared, "We realized that drug abuse is connected to the other issues we were thinking about," demonstrating an emerging recognition of the fusion of oppressions (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref194">40</reflink>]), as well as the need to frame personal experiences of societal problems within larger structural frames (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref195">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-26">Moves Toward Solidarity</hd> <p>Over time, the students began to move toward feeling solidarity with people impacted by drug use. This was evidenced in the way they began to incorporate more humanizing and empathetic language in their writing and classroom dialogues. For example, they shifted from using dehumanizing language like "zombies and crackheads" to language like "people who use drugs" and "homeless people." In the critical literacy event with Henry where he shared his testimonial, students asked many questions about his personal experience with addiction and recovery. Below is an example of one of these exchanges:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Student 1: Why did you do drugs?</item> <p></p> <item> Henry: I started at a very early age, at 11 years old. I had a difficult childhood. I hung out with older kids. Initially, it was to be accepted. What I didn't know is that I'm predisposed to addiction. I have addicts and alcoholics in my family. I started at 11 and stopped at 31. I wanted acceptance; I wanted to be part of the crowd.</item> <p></p> <item> Student 1: Can people do drugs and still be okay?</item> <p></p> <item> Henry: Yeah, at the beginning. Early on. I had a difficult childhood; I grew up in an abusive household. When I got introduced to drugs, it was marijuana, a gateway drug.</item> <p></p> <item> Student 1: Oh, like the beginning.</item> <p></p> <item> Henry: It covered up my pain.</item> </ulist> <p>These questions allowed students inside of Henry's experience and enabled them to hear firsthand about the connections between his difficult personal experiences, his feelings of isolation, and his use of drugs. He also shared stories from his work with parents who went to prison or lost their kids because of addiction, his multiple attempts at recovery, and the death of his brother. These stories destigmatized addiction by providing humanized accounts of others experiencing and overcoming it.</p> <p>Amidst the shift toward more humanizing and empathetic language, students developed a written action plan that involved sharing their own testimony with elected officials representing their neighborhood by making a PSA video. During the visit from the councilperson, they shared their PSA. The video that the students made included music with lots of photographs and short videos of the scenes they saw walking to and from school each day, including trash, encampments for unhoused people, and needles (including one on the stoop of a daycare center that one of the students' nieces attended). Interspersed with these images were short video clips of students sharing their experiences and hopes for their neighborhood. After the video ended, Kathleen's fieldnotes indicate a moment of palpable silence before the Councilwoman broke it to ask students about their multimodal composition of the PSA as a critical literacy text, prompting the following exchange:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Councilwoman: You all took the photos yourselves? Students nodded.</item> <p></p> <item> Councilwoman: That's very courageous of you.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: We've read a little bit about your background. We want them to learn about how to be change makers.</item> <p></p> <item> Councilwoman: How can we heal the harm? What can we do about the hurt and harm? Addiction is an outcome of trauma, or stress, or poverty. When we think about the harm, it is not just to the people but also to the community. And you don't deserve that. I want you to know that. It can't be the norm and we need to solve it.... People need treatment.</item> <p></p> <item> Student B: —it took Henry 30 years to recover.</item> </ulist> <p>In this exchange, facilitated by the sharing of a multimodal literacy artifact—the PSA co‐created by the students—the councilwoman and students spoke directly to each other, highlighting a moment of connection around the students' testimony. As a participant observer, Kathleen could feel the solemn, connected energy around her. The power of the direct connection between the Councilwoman and the students is evident when the teacher tries to intervene with an academic pre‐planned exchange of question and answer, and the councilperson stays in her mode of direct address to the students from a more emotionally weighty place. In this moment, the City councilperson is the one with institutional power and positions herself in solidarity with the students, seeing them as kin, and overriding the teacher's effort to participate in the cultural script of "doing school" with a more academic register. Further, she drives home the point that addiction is a symptom of larger structural problems and strongly emphasizes that the students themselves are not at fault and deserve better. At the end of the exchange, we see a student connect back to Henry's critical testimony, again demonstrating the power of students' transacting with the text of Henry's personal narrative (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref196">60</reflink>]) and making sense of systemic problems as they move toward solidarity with Henry.</p> <p>Solidarity as pedagogical (Gaztambide‐Fernández [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref197">28</reflink>]) was also revealed through students' learning from each other through their sharing (especially within small group discussions) about their own family members who have experienced addiction. During a focus group at the end of the project, Maria shared her perspective as a student:</p> <p>Some of my classmates have had family that used drugs. Cause they never say anything about it. Like when we work on other things they never talk about it, but during [service‐learning time] they start talking about it. They express what they do. They express the things that are happening in their life.</p> <p>This comment demonstrates personal meaning‐making and transformations taking shape, with some of the students themselves being aware of the shift in their classmates' willingness to share personal details about their families with the class, which enabled more solidarity moves between class members whose family members experienced addiction and those who didn't. This, combined with Henry's testimonial, served to humanize people who use drugs and offered more pathways to empathy ("they think the needle can take away their depression").</p> <p>In that same focus group, another transformation became evident to Kathleen: the shift in students' identities as change‐makers, their move from reading the word/world to writing their world (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref198">27</reflink>]). The students revealed that they had a clearer grasp of the problem itself and their capacity to change it based on participating in the critical service learning process. Maria explained that she didn't originally see or take the problem seriously but then, "when we started the [service learning], I realized that we need to do something and so as I walk home and walk to school, I see needles everywhere and it's just like we really need to take this seriously. So we really need to do something to actually help people." Kathleen then asked if she thought she could do something about the issue before, to which she said, "No" and then another student, Raquel, added, "now, you feel like you have 100% power than before you only felt like you had 2% of the power." Kathleen said, "Wow. What changed for you? How did you realize you had that power?" and Raquel replied, "This [service‐learning] project. It helped me see how things really are. Like when I first started seeing needles I just assumed they weren't drugs or anything like people just took needles from their house and stuff, so then when we started, I realized they were drug needles.... And people stick it in their arm and it makes them feel happier and they think the needle can take away their depression and help them feel better, but it is making them worse." The exchange ended with Kathleen asking, "What ways do you now know that you can make a change?" and Raquel responding, "Talk to the government. Make videos. Take photos. Show them how we feel in our neighborhood. That we're not safe." This exchange reveals students (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref199">1</reflink>) seeing the problem as structural clearly when they had not before and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref200">2</reflink>) believing that they can make change. Specifically, they felt more power within them (from 2% to 100%), and they have specific avenues to create change, to read the word/world to write the world (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref201">27</reflink>]), through critical literacy practices such as taking photos, making videos, and talking to the government.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-27">Discussion</hd> <p>Analysis across both studies shows that "coalitional literacy" practices come together as what we theorize as "coalitional literacy praxis." This is because the three coalitional literacy practices identified across both cases facilitated moves toward solidarity via a praxis cycle (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref202">25</reflink>]) of (a) problem posing through engagement with shared texts across social boundaries, (b) empathetic listening to critical testimonials, and (c) individual and collective critical reflection via dialogic inquiry that deepened critical consciousness about structural, interpersonal, and internalized dynamics of fused oppressions. Ultimately, as Freire ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref203">25</reflink>]) argued in his theorizing of praxis, it involved personal transformation that is fundamental toward any move toward collective/societal transformation.</p> <p>With this notion of "coalitional literacy praxis," our study contributes to the definition of "coalitional literacy" (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref204">11</reflink>]), illuminating how praxis can be a vehicle for community members enacting "language and literacy across cultural boundaries in order to learn from others, be reflective with respect to social location ... foster empathy, cultivate affective bonds, and promote inclusion in the service of progressive change (p. 315)." Our theorizing of "coalitional literacy praxis" contributes to scholarly conversations regarding development of "critical civic empathy" (Mirra [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref205">47</reflink>]) in K‐12 classrooms, which involve "an analysis of power and privilege that fosters dialogue, leading to justice‐oriented actions" (p. 7), offering the argument that "coalitional literacy praxis" can help cultivate this type of empathy. Relatedly, our work shows that critical civic empathy can be most powerful when it moves beyond expressed or verbalized perspective‐taking and extends into graspable enactments of solidarity (Case 1). Yet it also illustrates that "justice‐oriented actions" can also involve personal humanizing changes in the language used to describe community members or in humanizing portrayals and explanations for their struggles (Case 2). Relatedly, our work affirms Lyiscott et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref206">42</reflink>]) argument that turning toward critical dissonance, as seen in Case 1, can be fruitful in engaging, and responding to, difficult sociopolitical realities in and beyond learning spaces, particularly across sociocultural boundaries.</p> <p>As evident in our analysis, in both educational spaces participants' engagement of "coalitional literacy praxis" involved textual practices such as reading/writing, as well as transactions with and discussion of shared texts (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref207">60</reflink>]). We argue that the centrality of literacy in this praxis defined these as reading events (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref208">60</reflink>]), literacy events (Heath [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref209">33</reflink>]) and literacy practices (Street [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref210">71</reflink>]). This finding is supported by wider literacy scholarship that argues critical engagement with shared texts can deepen critical consciousness (e.g., Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref211">27</reflink>]; Muhammad [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref212">51</reflink>]) inside and outside classrooms. In our case, we found this "coalitional literacy praxis" to be particularly useful in building toward intra‐group solidarity. This type of solidarity is necessary, and powerful, for the ability of social movements to transform into ones that are not oppressive of members of their own communities, as immigration workshop data analysis shows (Case 1).</p> <p>In addition, our study shows that critical testimonies are critical literacy events (Campano et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref213">11</reflink>]; Latina Feminist Group [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref214">38</reflink>]) that can also be powerful in moving toward solidarity. For example, data from the sixth‐grade classroom shows that personal testimony—both from community members and members of the class—is important in developing empathy with people impacted by drug addiction, such as Henry, and that it can be facilitated when classrooms value the epistemic privilege (Campano [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref215">10</reflink>]), or the unique knowledge about how oppressions work and how to dismantle them, of community members directly impacted by oppression. Throughout the time of data collection, students' language shifted from using terms like "zombies" and "crackheads" to more humanizing language, such as "people who use drugs." Also, over the course of the study, students began to disclose information about their family members who were impacted by drug use. For example, one student in a focus group shared that "some of my classmates have had family that used drugs and ... when we work on other things they never talk about it, but during [critical service learning] they start talking about it. They express what they do. They express the things that are happening in their life." Study findings connect with critical literacy research that foregrounds the role of literacy in young Black children's emergent solidarity practices (Johnson [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref216">35</reflink>]), and in the solidarity practices of educators (Rogers [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref217">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our comparative case study raises several tensions and new questions for further exploration, including the complex role of the facilitator, the challenges of drawing on personal experiences as a source of learning, and the messy, non‐linear nature of learning in organizing spaces. We argue that while organizing is often aimed at the important work of changing laws and institutions, dialogue that happens <emph>within</emph> organizing communities has the power to unveil, and possibly undo, internalized oppression and unconscious bias among group members and support the building of solidarity across social boundaries. This relational educational work within social movements is crucial for building relationships of accountability, humanizing each other, and deepening a shared analysis of systems that oppress us all, albeit in different ways. Classrooms, like the sixth‐grade one documented here, often foreground this educational work with action as a possible outcome. While the critical service‐learning framework includes action, the goal was the transformation of individuals. While political education is often a component of community organizing efforts, as seen in <emph>Juntos</emph>, this study highlights that taking time for relational dialogue, and specifically sustained dialogic inquiry (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref218">25</reflink>]), across social boundaries is fundamental within community organizing spaces. Conversely, learning within social movements (Foley [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref219">24</reflink>]) emphasized the importance of collective action to change social conditions, and schools can draw on this framework through taking social action aligned with those of culturally relevant teachers and critical literacy educators (e.g., Ladson‐Billings [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref220">37</reflink>]; Muhammad [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref221">51</reflink>]; Vasquez [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref222">73</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-28">Implications</hd> <p>Our work unveils the power of "coalitional literacy praxis," in community and in‐school spaces, of facilitating moves toward intra‐group solidarity, and ultimately toward the dismantling of hegemony in society. As we consider the lessons this study provides, and their implications, we are reminded of Gloria Anzaldúa's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref223">2</reflink>]/2002) teaching that "the struggle has always been inner ... nothing happens in the "real" world unless it first happens in the images in our heads" (p. 109). Below, we offer educators, organizers, and researchers the lessons we took away from this comparative analysis. We hope that these can be helpful for mobilizing "coalitional literacy praxis" toward solidarity, particularly in these times, when it is paramount to unveil and address how internalized oppression is fundamental to the workings of oppression (Sensoy and DiAngelo [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref224">67</reflink>]). Internalized oppressions shape intra‐group dynamics, and not just inter‐group ones. This heightens the potential power for transformation through resistance and coalition <emph>from</emph> a logic of fusion (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref225">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-29">Attention to Facilitation</hd> <p>The role of the facilitator is crucial in shared engagement of coalitional literacy praxis. Teachers/organizers can limit or open dialogue based on their own assumptions, beliefs, and experiences. Therefore, it is necessary for these facilitators/teachers to do sustained and critically reflexive work into building their own critical consciousness, paying attention to their own internalized privileges, internalized oppressions, and their own understandings of the historical, ideological, structural, and fused nature of oppression.</p> <p>In the immigration workshop, Jasmine's critical testimonial and facilitative practice demonstrated she had analyzed her own life, including her experiences of privilege and oppression, in their particular fusion (Lugones [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref226">40</reflink>]). This was evident in her problem‐posing facilitation (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref227">25</reflink>]), and in her testimony, demonstrating she was, as a Chicana with U.S. citizenship, aware of her own privilege and power in the context of larger systems of oppression. Her testimonial, and engagement with community members questions about it, exuded a firm sense of solidarity with those who did not share her privileges. Grounded in "solidarity as pedagogical" (Gaztambide‐Fernández [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref228">28</reflink>]), she invited in the differing experiences and related analysis of participants, focusing on a larger solidarity‐based strategy of fighting for "each and every one of us." In the sixth‐grade classroom, a white teacher from the suburbs was facilitating an inquiry into the problem of drug addiction in a poor and working‐class, mostly Latine/x neighborhood. The teacher often framed the issue as <emph>she</emph> experienced it—when driving through the neighborhood or when talking to her family members. In this case, however, the critical service‐learning framework, grounded in critical pedagogy (e.g., Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref229">25</reflink>]) facilitation, opened spaces for other analyses that would not otherwise be available within this classroom. For example, although the teacher often implied that the police could be a significant part of the solution, the guest speakers suggested otherwise. Additionally, in a class conversation that was structured to center student voices, students pushed back on the teacher's analysis and said they did not feel safe near the police. While the facilitators' critical consciousness and positionality have power to limit or open analytic spaces (Vasquez [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref230">73</reflink>]), intentionally creating student‐centered dialogue and bringing in people who are more closely connected to the issue can mitigate these limitations. Analyzing the classroom data along with the community‐organizing based data brought this tension into a stronger light for Kathleen.</p> <p>These cases show how the positionality, experience, and critical consciousness development of the facilitator matters. Jasmine, for example, was able (and willing) to offer a firsthand, critical testimonial within the context of the immigration workshop's inquiry, while the teacher could not engage with the students' inquiry into drug addiction in the same way. In both cases, however, it was the "coalitional literacy praxis" facilitation structure itself—the shared texts, the bringing in of testimonials of people directly impacted by structural oppression, the dialogic inquiry into oppression—that enabled participants to come to deeper critically conscious analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-30">Attention to Internalized and Interpersonal Oppression</hd> <p>Our findings emphasize that oppression is not only ideological and structural but also interpersonal and internalized (Sensoy and DiAngelo [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref231">67</reflink>]), and that "coalitional literacy praxis," which we argue attends to internalized oppression and internalized dominance, can be helpful in addressing intra‐group oppressions. In our analysis of Case 1, we strove to show how dominant and racialized notions of illegality shape immigrants' self‐perceptions. As in the case of Elena, this can involve immigrants "try[ing] to distance themselves from their negative portrayals" (Menjívar [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref232">45</reflink>], 97), internalizing and deeming reasonable oppressive ideologies, such as meritocracy, carceral logics, nativism, etc. This is crucial because this internalization of oppression, and its interpersonal manifestations, involves intra‐group tensions and divisions, such as the ones we see play out in this dialogue between Elena, Jasmine, and workshop participants. If internalized and interpersonal oppression are not unveiled and addressed, individuals will reinforce the oppression of members of their own communities and fight each other, instead of the systems of oppression that impact them both. This can block intra‐group solidarity building within marginalized groups, and make it so that they uphold or advocate for anti‐immigrant (Case 1) or criminalizing policies (both cases) that harm members of their communities, and ultimately themselves, as well. Facilitation that is critically attentive to these intragroup power dynamics, and to the need for engaging solidarity as pedagogical (Gaztambide‐Fernández [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref233">28</reflink>]) is especially crucial for groups who, to outsiders, may be perceived or positioned as homogenous (as is the case with Latine/xs). Both study cases zoomed in on moments of reading the word/world (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref234">27</reflink>]), un‐learning, re‐framing, and re‐thinking assumptions and prejudices through coalitional literacy praxis attentive to the power of unveiling these intra‐group power dynamics. Ultimately, we believe the pedagogical engagement of solidarity (Gaztambide‐Fernández [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref235">28</reflink>]) was possible because participants critically learned from being differently positioned by society in relation to the issues being explored.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-31">Organizers as Educators; Educators as Organizers</hd> <p>This comparative case study looked closely at two different learning spaces with social change goals—one inside and one outside of a school setting, and offers examples from which to ask, <emph>How could schooling spaces be closer to organizing spaces, and vice versa?</emph> Our findings emphasize the need for <emph>organizers to think like educators</emph>—specifically in the commitment to justice work for the long‐haul—holding the view that learning/teaching can slow down further to include a wider variety of slower‐paced pedagogical activities over a longer period of time, such as in the school setting, that can allow sustained engagement with multiple critical testimonials across social location, or even engage community members in co‐composing multimodal literacy artifacts, such as PSAs, as Case 2 showcased. For example, <emph>Juntos</emph> often facilitated popular education workshops in a time‐sensitive manner as a reaction to sudden federal policy change, such as Obama introducing DACA/DAPA and related deportation priorities, or in the context of an urgent campaign (moratorium on all deportations). As Case 1 showed, the time between when the workshop took place and the related moratorium on all deportations direct action happened was short (February to June).</p> <p>Our research also points toward the necessity of <emph>educators thinking like organizers</emph>, deepening their own critically conscious analysis through learning on how oppressions work, including within themselves, and paying attention to how power dynamics within the classroom between teacher and students, and the larger community, can shape learning. In Case 1, workshop participants were able to engage in dialogic inquiry <emph>with</emph> Jasmine, learning from her own critical reading of the world (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref236">27</reflink>]), and theorizing with her from their own lived experiences. When educators think and facilitate like organizers, they develop and draw on their own critical consciousness (Freire [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref237">25</reflink>]) as they engage in being "ontologically curious" (Freire and Macedo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref238">27</reflink>]) to critically learn from their students and larger communities, as they teach as well. Relatedly, schools can also work to expand beyond the single‐age grade bands common in most U.S. schools to include more intergenerational dialogue (as was common in <emph>Juntos</emph> and made possible by visits from community members in Case 2). Finally, schools could learn from organizing spaces, such as <emph>Juntos</emph>, to be purposefully oriented collective action that transforms societal structures that, in the words of Jasmine, uphold and protect the humanity of "each and every one of us."</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-32">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Study was conducted with IRB approval. The name of the community organization discussed in Case Study 1 is the real name of the organization. This is so because study participants requested their real names and the real name of their organization be used. Due to this participant request, an amendment was processed through the IRB at the time of the study, and the IRB approved that real names be used in any writing. This respects participants' requests.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-33">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0193225983-34">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0193225983-35"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> All Case 1 study participants requested their real first names, and the real name of their community organization, be used in any writing about their organizing. This paper honors and respects their request.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0193225983-36"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> ACLED. 2020. "Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020."https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations‐political‐violence‐in‐america‐new‐data‐for‐summer‐2020/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref200" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anzaldúa, G.1987/2007. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Aunt Lute Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barroso, A., and R. Minkin. 2020. Recent Protest Attendees Are More Racially and Ethnically Diverse, Younger Than Americans Overall. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/short&amp;#8208;reads/2020/06/24/recent&amp;#8208;protest&amp;#8208;attendees&amp;#8208;are&amp;#8208;more&amp;#8208;racially&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;ethnically&amp;#8208;diverse&amp;#8208;younger&amp;#8208;than&amp;#8208;americans&amp;#8208;overall/">www.pewresearch.org/short&amp;#8208;reads/2020/06/24/recent&amp;#8208;protest&amp;#8208;attendees&amp;#8208;are&amp;#8208;more&amp;#8208;racially&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;ethnically&amp;#8208;diverse&amp;#8208;younger&amp;#8208;than&amp;#8208;americans&amp;#8208;overall/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bartlett, L., and F. Vavrus. 2017. Rethinking Case Study Research: A Comparative Approach. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref35" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bishop, E.2015. Becoming Activist: Critical Literacy and Youth Organizing. Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blackburn, M. V., and J. F. Buckley. 2005. "Teaching Queer‐Inclusive English Language Arts." Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy49, no. 3: 202–212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref22" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Blackburn, M. V., and C. T. Clark. 2007. Literacy Research for Political Action and Social Change. Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref167" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, H. E., and J. A. Jones. 2022. "Chasing Respectability: Pro‐Immigrant Organizations and the Reinforcement of Immigrant Racialization." American Behavioral Scientist66, no. 13: 1737–1757.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, T.2017. "'We Need a Song': Sustaining Critical Youth Organizing Literacies Through World Humanities." Equity &amp; Excellence in Education50, no. 1: 84–95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campano, G.2007. Immigrant Students and Literacy: Reading, Writing, and Remembering. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campano, G., M. P. Ghiso, M. Yee, and A. Pantoja. 2013. "Toward Community Research and Coalitional Literacy Practice for Educational Justice." Language Arts90, no. 5: 314–326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chavez, L. R.2020. The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chávez‐Moreno, L. C.2024. How Schools Make Race: Teaching Latinx Racialization in America. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran‐Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 2009. Inquiry as Stance. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw, K.1991. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color." Stanford Law Review43, no. 6: 1241–1299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de los Ríos, C. V.2017. "Picturing Ethnic Studies: Photovoice and Youth Literacies of Social Action." Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy61, no. 1: 15–24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de los Ríos, C. V., and A. Molina. 2020. "Literacies of Refuge: 'Pidiendo Posada' as Ritual of Justice." Journal of Literacy Research52, no. 1: 32–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delgado Bernal, D., R. Burciaga, and J. Flores Carmona. 2012. "Chicana/Latina Testimonios: Mapping the Methodological, Pedagogical, and Political." Equity &amp; Excellence in Education45, no. 3: 363–372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delgado Bernal, D. D.1998. "Using a Chicana Feminist Epistemology in Educational Research." Harvard Educational Review68, no. 4: 555–579.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durán, L., and M. Aguilera. 2022. "Walls, Bridges, Borders, Papers: Civic Literacy in the Borderlands." Research in the Teaching of English57, no. 2: 156–176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erickson, F., S. Florio, and J. Buschman. 1980. Fieldwork in Educational Research (Occasional Paper No. 36). Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flores, R. D., and A. Schachter. 2018. "Who Are the 'Illegals'? The Social Construction of Illegality in the United States." American Sociological Review83, no. 5: 839–868.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foley, G.1999. Learning in Social Action: A Contribution to Understanding Informal Education. Zed Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P.1970/2007. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P., and D. Macedo. 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P., and D. Macedo. 1995. "A Dialogue: Culture, Language, and Race." Harvard Educational Review65, no. 3: 377–403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaztambide‐Fernández, R. A.2012. "Decolonization and the Pedagogy of Solidarity." Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society1, no. 1: 41–67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaztambide‐Fernández, R. A., J. Brant, and C. Desai. 2022. "Toward a Pedagogy of Solidarity." Curriculum Inquiry52, no. 3: 251–265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geertz, C.2003. "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture." In Turning Points in Qualitative Research: Tying Knots in a Handkerchief, edited by Y. S. Lincoln and N. K. Denzin, 143–168. Altamira Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginwright, S.2018. The future of healing: Shifting form trauma informed care to healing centered engagement. https://medium.com/@ginwright/the‐future‐of‐healing‐shifting‐from‐trauma‐informed‐care‐to‐healing‐centered‐engagement‐634f557ce69c.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginwright, S., and J. Cammarota. 2007. "Youth Activism in the Urban Community: Learning Critical Civic Praxis Within Community Organizations." International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education20, no. 6: 693–710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath, S. B.1983. Ways With Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horton, M., and P. Freire. 1990. We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. Temple University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, W. F.2023. "'"You Cannot Come to This Country"—That's What the Government Says Sometimes, When You're Brown': African American Children's Critical Literacies and Emergent Solidarity." Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood24, no. 2: 147–162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwon, L., and C. V. de los Ríos. 2019. "'See, Click, Fix': Civic Interrogation and Digital Tools in a Ninth‐Grade Ethnic Studies Course." Equity &amp; Excellence in Education52, no. 2–3: 154–166.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G.1995. "Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy." American Educational Research Journal32, no. 3: 465–491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latina Feminist Group. 2001. "Introduction: Papelitos Guardados: Theorizing Latinidades Through Testimonio." In Telling to Live: Latina Feminist Testimonios, 1–24. Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, C., P. Enciso, and E. B. Moje. 2007. Reframing Sociocultural Research on Literacy: Identity, Agency, and Power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lugones, M.2014. "Radical Multiculturalism and Women of Color Feminisms." Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory13, no. 1: 68–80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyiscott, J.2020. "Fugitive Literacies as Inscriptions of Freedom." English Education52, no. 3: 256–263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyiscott, J., C. V. de Los Ríos, and C. H. Clark. 2023. "Case Studies of Effective Learning Climates for Civic Reasoning and Discussion." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science705, no. 1: 138–155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinez, D. C., A. Baker‐Bell, A. E. Shield, and C. H. Lee. 2021. "In Dialogued: Solidarity." Research in the Teaching of English55, no. 4: 442–453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maton, R. M.2018. "From Neoliberalism to Structural Racism: Problem Framing in a Teacher Activist Organization." Curriculum Inquiry48, no. 3: 293–315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menjívar, C.2021. "The Racialization of 'Illegality'." Daedalus150, no. 2: 91–105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B., and R. S. Grenier, eds. 2019. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mirra, N.2018. Educating for Empathy: Literacy Learning and Civic Engagement. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mirra, N., and A. Garcia. 2022. "Guns, Schools, and Democracy: Adolescents Imagining Social Futures Through Speculative Civic Literacies." American Educational Research Journal59, no. 2: 345–380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, T. D.2008. "Traditional vs. Critical Service‐Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning14, no. 2: 50–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell, E.2015. Critical Literacy and Urban Youth: Pedagogies of Access, Dissent, and Liberation. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muhammad, G.2020. Cultivating Genius. Scholastic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuñez, I.2023. "Toward Border‐Crossing Biliteracies: Pláticas of Midwest Transnational Latinx Families Reading and (Re) Writing the World." Reading Research Quarterly58, no. 4: 475–494.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakes, J., and J. Rogers. 2006. Learning Power: Organizing for Education and Justice. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Player, G. D., J. A. Coles, and M. G. Ybarra. 2020. "Enacting Educational Fugitivity With Youth of Color." High School Journal103, no. 3: 140–156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riley, K.2021. "Book Groups in the Social Justice Unionism Movement: An Analysis of Teachers' Reasons for Participation." Critical Education12, no. 7: 23–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riley, K., and E. G. Soslau. 2022. "What Does It Look Like? A Window Into Classroom‐Based Critical Service Learning." Journal for Multicultural Education16, no. 4: 362–373.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, C. R., B. Mendelsohn, and K. Strong. 2023. "Organizing Pedagogies: Transgressing Campus‐Movement Boundaries Through Radical Study and Action." Journal of the Learning Sciences32, no. 1: 143–169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, R.2019. "Literacy Educators' Practices of Solidarity Within an Educational Network." English Teaching: Practice and Critique18, no. 2: 263–278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rombalski, A.2020. "Connected Literacies of Anti‐Racist Youth Organizers." English Teaching: Practice and Critique19, no. 3: 347–363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenblatt, L. M.1988. Writing and reading: The transactional theory (No. 416). University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rusoja, A.2022. "'Our Community Is Filled With Experts': The Critical Intergenerational Literacies of Latinx Immigrants That Facilitate a Communal Pedagogy of Resistance." Research in the Teaching of English56, no. 3: 301–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rusoja, A.2024. "'Estás Luchando... Por Toda la Comunidad': The Communal Organizing Literacies of Latine/x Immigrant Families." Journal of Language, Identity &amp; Education23, no. 3: 380–395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rusoja, A., and G. C. Gonzales. 2024. "'I Have Been Getting Involved for My Children': An Un/Documented Latina Mother's Immigrant Rights Practice as Family Engagement." Educational Forum88, no. 4: 400–414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rusoja, A., Y. Portillo, and O. Vazquez Ponce. 2023. "'Mi Lucha Es Tu Lucha; Tu Lucha Es Mi Lucha': Latinx Immigrant Youth Organizers Facilitating a New Common Sense Through Coalitional Multimodal Literacies." International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education36, no. 3: 487–507.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saavedra, C. M.2011. "Language and Literacy in the Borderlands: Acting Upon the World Through 'Testimonios'." Language Arts88, no. 4: 261–269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santa Ana, O.2002. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. University of Texas Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sensoy, O., and R. DiAngelo. 2017. Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shield, A. E., D. Paris, R. Paris, and T. Pedro, eds. 2020. Education in Movement Spaces: Standing Rock to Chicago Freedom Square. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sopelsa, B.2019. N.J. Governor Signs LGBTQ‐Inclusive Curriculum Bill Into Law. NBC News. https://<ulink href="http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc&amp;#8208;out/n&amp;#8208;j&amp;#8208;governor&amp;#8208;signs&amp;#8208;lgbtq&amp;#8208;inclusive&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;bill&amp;#8208;law&amp;#8208;n965806">www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc&amp;#8208;out/n&amp;#8208;j&amp;#8208;governor&amp;#8208;signs&amp;#8208;lgbtq&amp;#8208;inclusive&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;bill&amp;#8208;law&amp;#8208;n965806</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and Techniques for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Street, B. V.1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terriquez, V., and H. Kwon. 2015. "Intergenerational Family Relations, Civic Organisations, and the Political Socialisation of Second‐Generation Immigrant Youth." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies41, no. 3: 425–447.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasquez, V. M.2014. Negotiating Critical Literacies With Young Children. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yee, M.2016. "We Have the Power to Make Change: The Struggle of Asian Immigrant Youth Against School Violence." In Contemporary Youth Activism: Advancing Social Justice in the United States, edited by J. Conner and S. M. Rosen, 289–310. Praeger.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yee, M.2017. "Resisting the Hegemony of School Bureaucracy and Organizing for Safe Schools: First Generation Immigrant Asian Students Develop Activist Identities and Literacies." In The Power of Resistance: Culture, Ideology and Social Reproduction in Global Contexts, 191–219. Emerald Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yee, M.2022. "The Chinatown Youth Organizing Project (CYOP): Community Literacies for Social Justice." In A Field Guide to Community Literacy: Case Studies and Tools for Praxis, Evaluation, and Research, edited by L. A. Henry and N. A. Stahl, 155–172. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Alicia Rusoja and Kathleen Riley</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref222"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1503978 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: 'Each and Every One of Us': A Comparative Case Study of Coalitional Literacy Praxis in Community Organizing and School Spaces – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alicia+Rusoja%22">Alicia Rusoja</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6110-1265">0000-0002-6110-1265</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathleen+Riley%22">Kathleen Riley</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(2). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Involvement%22">Community Involvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Cooperation%22">Community Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnography%22">Ethnography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Praxis%22">Praxis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Collaborative+Writing%22">Collaborative Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Problems%22">Community Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Telling%22">Story Telling</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/rrq.70118 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This qualitative, comparative case study draws on the concepts of "coalitional literacy," "organizing as critical pedagogy," "oppression as intermeshed," and "solidarity as pedagogical" to address this question: "How is solidarity built through literacy practice in two different educational spaces (one community-organizing based and one classroom-based) in a large, ethnically and racially diverse, urban context?" Through comparative analysis of ethnographic data, such as participant observations, fieldnotes, and open-ended interviews, this study found that across both spaces a specific set of coalitional literacy practices, coming together as "praxis," facilitated moves toward solidarity. What we term "coalitional literacy praxis" involved (a) problem posing the status quo on a particular community issue through shared reading and writing, (b) empathetic listening to critical testimonials, and (c) dialogic inquiry that surfaced systemic and internalized oppression. Study implications include that coalitional literacy praxis can be a tool--within and outside of schools--for unlearning internalized assumptions that uphold fused oppressions, and for learning/teaching toward solidarity. Implications also invite viewing community organizers as educators and educators as community organizers. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1503978 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503978 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/rrq.70118 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Literacy Type: general – SubjectFull: Community Involvement Type: general – SubjectFull: Community Cooperation Type: general – SubjectFull: Ethnography Type: general – SubjectFull: Praxis Type: general – SubjectFull: Collaborative Writing Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies Type: general – SubjectFull: Community Problems Type: general – SubjectFull: Problem Solving Type: general – SubjectFull: Story Telling Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: 'Each and Every One of Us': A Comparative Case Study of Coalitional Literacy Praxis in Community Organizing and School Spaces Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Alicia Rusoja – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kathleen Riley IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0034-0553 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1936-2722 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 61 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
