The following is an extract from a research study examining perspectives on ALNARC research during the period 1999-2000.

Shore, Sue (2002) Keeping a sense of proportion. The impact of sponsored research in the Australian adult literacy and numeracy field: perspectives on the period 1999-2000. http://www.staff.vu.edu.au/alnarc

The relationship between educational research and the teaching profession has been the subject of much debate in Australia (DETYA, 2001a, 2001b) and overseas (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999; Freeman, 1998; Demetrion, 2000; Norton and Malicky, 2001). Moreover research in vocational education and training (VET) has moved to a place of visibility, if not prominence in Australian debates (Selby Smith et al., 1999; Selby Smith, 1999; Garrick and Rhodes, 2000). Adult literacy and numeracy stakeholders have engaged, eagerly if warily, in these debates (Lo Bianco and Wickert, 2001; fine PRINT, 1994) and contributed to a wide range of research outcomes in the field, not least because of the sustained contribution of government funds directed towards this end (see for example Brindley et al., nd).

Government sponsored research has been a feature of the Australian literacy and numeracy landscape for many years. The Technical and Further Education Commission (TAFEC) funded a number of grants related to literacy provision (see for example Foster and Byrne 1977, 1979). However, while these projects were of themselves useful, they made little impact on the national visibility of adult literacy and numeracy research. A landmark study No Single Measure (Wickert 1989) promoted significant public debate about issues and integrated well with government activity during the 1990s to offer an anchor for debate about further adult literacy research. The range of projects sponsored via Commonwealth funding mechanisms since the late 1980s reflects the breadth and scope of change required to establish a body of research work in the adult literacy and numeracy field.

A brief history of funding to build a ‘visible culture’ of research for adult literacy and numeracy was first flagged under Commonwealth funds tagged as a result of the activity emerging from International Literacy year (1990). These funds, allocated initially to the Adult Literacy Research Network (ALRN) were specifically designed to ‘promote a culture of practitioner research’ through specific activities identified in an initial contract and Workplan with Language Australia.

This initial funding saw approximately $25,000 redirected to individual states and Territories (with the exception of the ACT) to promote research ‘nodes’, using a central management structure coordinated by the National Languages and Literacy Institute (now Language Australia). Two triennial funding cycles established the Adult Literacy Research Network (ALRN) as a national network of sponsored practitioner research. After six years of funding, a change in the Australian training climate, a move to ‘training packages’, and increasing government regulation of literacy and numeracy training saw a ‘mood change’ in relation to sponsored research outcomes where literacy and numeracy expenditure were concerned. Consultations with the funding agents of the time resulted in reorganization of research funding with a line of funding established directly with the newly formed Adult Literacy and Numeracy Australian Research Consortium (ALNARC)

A Bridge to the Future. Australia’s National Strategy for Vocational Education and Training 1998-2003 (ANTA 1998) constituted the basis of discussion for a restructured research agenda established as a result of a call by DEETYA to convene a forum on training packages and literacy/numeracy provision (DEETYA, 1998). At this forum research was framed as an open-ended exploratory process designed to create critical debate and conversation about provision. Hence a research conversation often began from the point of ‘how is this working’ (with a view to improving practice), rather than from the perspective that what existed must be ‘fine-tuned’. The former gave an appearance of openness toward difficulties and problems, whereas the latter seemed to be geared towards ‘system tuning’ - a strategy which can involve endless busy work at the expense of deeper understandings of the wider changes needed (cf. Collins, 1991).

Second, these discussions framed lifelong learning as a related and connected site for literacy and numeracy research. Hence the focus on training packages was not at the expense of other forms of research. Rather, research about implementing training packages, as a new innovation, was seen to be appropriately complemented by wider research on ‘special needs’ (the focus in the 1999 Workplan), multiliteracies (The New London Group, 1995) (the focus in the 2000 Workplan), and lifelong learning (a major focus connected to policy analysis in the 2001 Workplan).

Third, the integration of literacy and numeracy into ‘training packages’ was identified as a primary research interest of the funding agency. Directors of the consortium agreed that this was a legitimate interest, albeit problematic, given the early days of implementation of Training Packages as one aspect of the Federal Government’s restructuring of industry training.

In the first year of funding, the funding agreement materialized as a national contract for each state to do the following things:

• undertake up to two national adult literacy and numeracy research studies on topics developed in collaboration with ANTA and DETYA;
• undertake state adult literacy and numeracy research activities in conjunction with other adult literacy and numeracy stakeholders such as policy makers and practitioners;
• assist in professional development activities regarding the applications and implications of adult literacy and numeracy research;
• prepare publications in a variety of formats for the adult literacy and numeracy community and other stakeholders; and
• conduct a national forum on adult literacy and numeracy research. (ALNARC, 1999a: p. 3)

The Consortium developed briefs for two national research projects endorsed by the funding body:

In 2000 the Workplan stated:

The second Workplan therefore built on findings of the previous year. However, it should be noted that when state Workplans for 2000 were submitted to DETYA, final research reports for 1999 were in the main unfinished, having been submitted to the funding body by the various states some months after Workplans for the 2000 funding period were required. In addition, projects were designed to investigate ‘multiliteracies’ as a follow-up to the focus on ‘special needs’ adopted in 1999.

In the early stages of the ALNARC research Training Packages were in various stages of development: 36 had been developed nationally; 10 of these were ready for implementation (ALNARC, 1999b); and many others were still in the planning stages. Hence the research undertaken, especially during 1999/2000, provides an interesting example of research about a change process which was not simply confined to the literacy and numeracy field.

The ALRN evolved as a research network in response to expectations, roles and responsibilities, and relationships that were developing within the field at the time. ALNARC also evolved in response to changing times, funding imperatives and local resource bases. Crucial to the development of the Consortium were Directors’ evolving understandings of literacy and numeracy research leadership, and an interest in maintaining the original focus on practitioner research, however problematic. They also had an ongoing interest in developing an ‘independent research voice’ (ALNARC, 1999c), as far as this was possible when research was tied to investigations of government driven innovations for change (cf. Yates, 1999).

Under various funded projects (for example the ANTA Innovative projects) the Commonwealth has sponsored much work on improving professionalism in the field (see for example Wyatt et al., 1997; Scheeres et al., 1993; Thompson and Chan Lee, 2001); or developing educational products to efficiently progress government agendas for change (DEETYA, 1995; Coates et al., 1994-5; Griffin et al., 1992).

The relationship between these developments and ALNARC is therefore not a separate matter, nor is the parallel development of improved professionalism and sponsored practice as part of wider vocational education and training sector (Mitchell, Wood & Young 2001; Mitchell and Wood, 2000; Mitchell, Henry and Young, 2001).

The present study addresses the first two years of research funding (1999-2000) and deals in detail with the research mentoring and training component of the program. As will become apparent though, many other activities were undertaken and respondents often connected these wider activities with the research mentoring and training. In addition, data collection shows that many factors were observed to be the results of the ALRN funding ‘kicking in’ some six years after it had been initiated.

The findings of this impact study have been framed in terms of the degree to which it is perceived that ALNARC has achieved its goals of undertaking and disseminating research and developing a visible research culture in literacy an numeracy. Nevertheless, the impacts are also a function of sustained funding for the notion of ‘field based’ practitioner research and it is this point which requires brief elaboration before describing the outcomes of the study.