INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

Teaching

Com

munication

Activism

Law

renceR

.Frey

University

ofC

oloradoB

oulder

David

L.Palm

erU

niversityof

Northern

Colorado

The

specterof

socialinjustice

looms

large.T

helist

ofinjustices

thataffect

thosew

hoare

oppressedand

marginalized

includespoverty,

genderand

racialviolence,

health-caredeficiencies,em

ployment

andhousing

problems,

environmental

degradation,and

countlessacts

ofdiscrim

inationon

thebasis

ofclass,

disability,gender,

race,religion,

sexualorientation,

andother

identities,and,

unfortunately,those

arejust

thetip

ofa

deepand

dauntin

giceberg.

Confronting

suchinjustices

demands

thatpeople

firstbecom

eaw

areof

thosesignificant

problems,

understandsystem

icstructures

andpractices

thatcreate

andsustain

thoseproblem

s,and

collaboratetogether

tointervene

tom

akethose

structuresand

practicesjust.

Education,

ofcourse,

offersone

ofthe

bestopportunities

furchal

lengingand

changingunjust

systemic

structuresand

practices.In

today’sinterconnected,

information-saturated

world,

althoughthere

arem

any

competing

stimuli,

educatorscertainly

canand

dom

akestudents

aware

ofsocial

injustices,and

theycan

employ

aw

iderange

ofpolitically

informed

2Frey

,tnrlP

alnxrIntroductiot

pedagogies(e.g.,

criticalpedagogy,

discussedlater)

toenable

studentsto

understandsystem

icstructures

andpractices

thatcreate

andm

aintainin

jus

tice.R

ecomm

endationsfor

solvingthose

problems

alsocan

beoffered

to,

orgencrated

by,students.

How

ever,a

substantialthem

aticgap

ineducation

andin

educationscholarship

isthe

systematic

practiceand

studyof

teaching

studentshow

toactually

inte

rvene

with

mem

bersof

oppressedcom

munities

andw

ithactivist

groupsand

organizationsto

make

systems

andpractices

more

just;that

is,offering

studentsopportunities

toput

theirconceptual

knowledge

intoconcrete

actionto

promote

socialjustice.

This

hookaddresses

thatsignificant

needby

advancinga

uniqueand

important

formof

pedagogy’—coininunication

activismpedagogy—

that

teachesstudents

studyingcom

munication

howto

usetheir

comm

unication

knowledge

andcapabilities

toprom

otesocial

justice,show

casingexem

plars

ofhow

comm

unicationeducators

haveaccom

plishedthat

goalin

practice.

This

chapterfirst situates

comm

unicationactivism

pedagogyw

ithina

general

historicalcontext

ofU

.S.education

and,m

orespecifically,

as(a)

acounter-

responseto

boththe

emphasis

onresearch

thatcharacterizes

contemporary

U.S.

collegesand

universities,and

thenow

dominant

corporatizationof

U.S.

education;and

(b)a

significantextension

ofboth

civic/democratic

education

andcritical

pedagogy(and

itsallied

pedagogies).W

ethen

offeran

overview

ofthe

book,including

itsgenesis

anddevelopm

ent,and

thesections

and

chaptersthat

comprise

it,and

we

concludew

ithlessons

learnedfrom

these

studiesabout

comm

unicationactivism

pedagogy.

FRO

MC

IVIC

/DE

MO

CR

AT

ICE

DU

CA

TIO

NT

OR

ESE

AR

CH

-BA

SED

AN

DC

OR

POR

AT

EE

DU

CA

TIO

N

Historically,

many

U.S.

collegesand

universitiesw

ereestablished

to,at

leastas

partof

theirm

ission,generate

knowledge

tobetter

theircivic

comm

unitiesand,

thereby,prom

otedem

ocracy(see,

e.g.,A

nderson,1993;

Barber,

1992; Checkow

ay,2001;

Kennedy,

1997). Indeed,B

enjamin

Franklin(1749),

describingthe

educationthat

shouldbe

offeredat

the“A

cademy

ofPhiladelphia,”

which

became

theU

niversityof

Pennsylvania,claim

edthat

thegrand

,4im

andE

ndof

allLearning

houldalso

beoften

pre

sentedto

Youth,

cxplain’dand

impress’d

ontheir

Minds,

asconsisting

inan

Incimaiw

njoin’d

with

anA

bilityto

serveM

ankind,one’s

Country,

Friendsand

Family.

(para.36)

inclinationjoined

with

anability

toserve

was

theoriginal

rationalefor

publicschools,

which

were

toeducate

youthfor

citizenship.M

oreover,colonial

collegesw

erefounded

with

serviceas

acentral

aim.

..

.Serviceto

society,fulfilling

Am

erica’sdem

ocraticm

ission,also

was

thefounding

purposeof

theland—

grantuniversities.

Lstahlishedby

theM

orrillA

ctof

1862,land-grant

universitiesw

eredesigned

tospread

education,advance

democracy

heurban

researchuniversities

foundedin

thelate

19thcentury

alsom

adeservice

theircentral

goal,In

1876,D

anielC

oitC

ilkman,

inhis

inauguraladdress

asthe

firstpresident

ofJohns

hopkins,A

merica’s

first modern

researchuniversity,expressed

thehope

thatuniversities

should“m

akefor

lessm

iseryam

ongthe

poor,less

ignorancein

theschools,

lessbigotry

inthe

temple,

lesssuffering

inthe

hospitals,less

fraudin

business,less

follyin

politics”(L

ong,1992,

p.119).

(pp.9,

10)

Perhapsnow

herew

asthat

civicm

issio

nbest

demonstrated

thanat

the

University

ofC

hicagoL

aboratorySchools

underthe

leadershipof

thebest-know

nproponent

ofdem

ocracythrough

education,John

Dew

ey.D

ewey

(1910)argued

thatstudents

neededexperiential

educationthat

engagedthem

in“active

inquiryand

carefuldeliberation

inthe

significantand

vitalproblem

s”(p.

55)that

confronttheir

comm

unities,starting

with

thesocial

institutionof

schools(1916),

which

Dew

eyview

edas

“am

iniature

comm

unity,an

embryonic

society”(1899,

p.15),

inw

hichstudents’

involvement

indecision

making

andsocial

reformw

ouldcreate

“democratic

socialexperiences”

(1938,p.

34)that

would

preparethem

fordem

ocraticparticipation

incivic

life.T

here,thus,

hasbeen

along

historyof

U.S.

educationthat

hascentered

on,and

preparedstudents

toaid,

localcom

munities.

How

ever,as

hasbeen

well

documented,

fromat

leastthe

middle

ofthe

20thcentury,

educationalinstitutions

havedrifted

away

fromtheir

statedcivic

missions

(see,e.g.,Boyer,

1990;J.E.

Butler,

2000;Sandm

ann&

Gillespie,

1991;Sirianni

&Friedland,

1997).indeed,

Gibson’s

(2001)study

ofcivic

engagement

concluded,in

astatem

entthat

stillrings

truetoday,

thatfor

collegesand

universities,“the

biggestchallenge

will

bem

ovingbeyond

publicstatem

ents.

..

andtran

sform

ingrhetoric

intoreality”

(p.17).

There

arcat

leasttw

oreasons

thatexplain

theshift

inthe

academy’s

priorities.O

nereason

isbecause

universitieshave

become

powerful

researchengines

thatnow

privilegeresearch

directedtow

arda

relativelysm

all,insulargroup

offellow

scholarsrather

thantow

ardthe

comm

unitiesw

ithinw

hichuniversities

areem

bedded.H

ence,at

them

ost“prestigious”

universities,especially

“research-oriented”universities

thateducate

doctoralstudents

(thenext

generationof

collegeteachers),

benefitsreceived

(e.g.,tenure,

pro

mo

tion

,and

payraises)

dependm

oreon

educators’research

productivity

thanon

theirteaching

effectiveness,A

dditionally,as

Carragee

andFrey

According

toH

arkavy(2006),

that

4F

reyand

Painter

Intro

ductio

n

(2012)pointed

out,that

researchprivileges

“theory”derived

fromthe

Greek

word

rhe’o

ria,w

hichm

eans“contem

plation,sp

ecu

latio

n,

alooking

at”)over

“application,”w

ithscholars

nowview

edas

spectatorsw

holook

atand

contemplate

what

occursw

ithouttrying

toaffect

it.T

heprivileg

ingof

theory,thus,

hasled

toa

hands—off

approachto

comm

unity—based

researchand

teaching.The

secondreason

forthe

shiftaw

ayfrom

acivic

mission

isbecause

highereducational

institutionshave

become,

asW

illiams

(1973)noted

aw

hileago,

oneof

the“m

ainagencies

ofthe

transmission

ofan

effe

ctiv

e

dominant

culture”(p.

9).A

ronowitz

andG

iroux(1993)

pointed,in

par

ticular,to

theco-optive

rolethat

thestatus-quo

U.S.

educationalsystem

hasplayed

becauseof

itsalignm

entw

ithindustry,

with

schoolreform

,for

instance,often

fundedby

corporatepow

ersto

servetheir

interests,w

ithw

orkplacelanguage

(e.g.,students

as“custom

ers”)now

pervadingthe

col

legecontext

andother

educationallevels

(see,e.g.,

Saltman,

2012;W

atkins,2012).

Indeed,W

esterneducation

(with

itscontem

poraryversion

formed

duringthe

Cold

War,

anera

inw

hicheducation

was

intendedto

promote

capitalismand

itscurriculum

was

designedto

havestudents

internalizeand

supportthe

idealsof

free-market

superiorityover

comm

unism;

seePalm

er,this

volume)

hasbecom

ea

subsidiaryof

theeconom

y,a

vocationalin

stitution

thatdisplays

aprohibitive

emphasis

onthe

ideologyof

corporatismto

producefree-m

arketproponents

who

arem

oldedto

feedthe

machine

of

econom

icand

socialinjustice.

The

educationalsystem

,today,

thus,is

am

arket-basededucation,

with

relativelylittle

focuson

democracy

proper.Secondary

education,for

instance,has

acore

curriculumthat

isfocused

almost

exclusivelyon

sub

jects,such

asm

ath,science,

andcanon-based

English,

with

relativelylittle

emphasis

onparticipatory

democracy

orcivic

advocacy.C

riticshave

arguedthat

theprim

arygoal

ofthat

secondarycurriculum

andschooling

designis

toinculcate

studentsw

iththe

technicalrationality

neededfor

efficientm

arketplaceparticipation—

ahidden

curriculumthat

emphasizes

them

athem

atical,procedural,

efficiency-basedrationality

andskills

thattranslate,

conveniently,into

capitalm

arketm

anagement

andlabor

proficiency(see,

e.g.,B

owles

&G

intis,2011;

MeL

aren,2007).

Across

thelandscape

ofhigher

education,this

corporatizedsystem

dominates

(see,e.g.,

Ahlquist,

Gorski,

&M

ontaflo,2011;

Saltman,

2000,2005,

2012;Saitm

an&

Gabbard,

2011);as

Manski

(2000)concluded,

“educationis

beingreconstructed

toserve

thepriorities

ofcorporate

profit,and

isin

theprocess

beingdestroyed

asan

institutionof

democracy”

(p.380;

seealso

Apple,

2013;B

rosio,1994).

The

corporatizationof

educationm

anifestsin

atleast

two

ways

incolleges

anduniversities:

(a)there

arem

oreprofessional/vocation—

orientedcourses

beingoffered

everyyear,

and(b)

many

ofthe

corecurriculum

coursesoffered,

which,

originally,had

veryfew

tiesto

thecorporate

sys

tem,

now,

virtually,are

indistinguishablefrom

thevocational

curriculum.

For

instance,a

searchof

theundergraduate

catalogat

anyU

.S.university

would

reveala

lackof

coursesw

ith“social

justice”in

thetitle,

andvery

fewcourses

with

“democracy”

intheir

titles,com

paredto

anabundance

ofcourse

titlesw

iththe

word

“business”in

them.

Additionally,

thistrend

isreflected

inand

supportedby

thescope

ofdisciplinary

anddepartm

entalpublic

relationslanguage

thatforegrounds

students’educational

experienceand

contentas

imm

ediatelytransferable

totheir

private-sectorcareer

plans.M

oreover,if

theevidence

aboutU

.S.A

mericans’

lackof

knowledge

ofdem

ocracyis

accurate(see,

e.g.,U

.S.D

epartment

ofE

ducation,2011),

theU

nitedStates

isa

countrythat

proudlycalls

itselfthe

“greatestdem

ocracyin

thew

orld,”but,

ironically,an

effectivedem

ocraticeducation

isnot

the,or

evena,

centralpurpose

ofpublic

(orprivate)

education.C

orporateeducation,

clearly,is

reflectedin

traditionalclassroom

structuresand

practices.D

oesthe

following

scenariothat

describesour

educationalexperience

ringa

bell(pun

intended)?

Alm

ostall

ofour

educationlooked

justlike

this:W

ew

entinto

classrooms

thathad

rows

ofchairs,

we

satin

thoserow

s,and

we

listened(or,

atleast.

we

pretendedto

listen)to

theteacher

lecture.W

ew

ereallow

edto

askquestions,

but,by

andlarge,

theteacher

lecturedvirtually

nonstop,and

we

tooknotes,

lotsof

notes—

generally,about

topicsthat

we

were

toldw

ereim

portant,but

thatseem

edalm

ostcom

pletelydetached

fromour

lives(e.g.,

algebra,chem

istry,and

canon—based

English).

As

ifthat

was

notenough,

teachersassigned

uslots

ofm

onotonoushom

ework

overthe

same

detachedm

aterial,w

hichw

edid

grudgingly,and

thenw

ew

eretested

onit.

I loww

ellw

edid

dependedon

howaccurately

we

reflectedthat

material

hackto

teachers;that

is,the

more

thatw

ew

erelike

aclean

mirror

th.itreflected

(orregurgitated)

them

aterialhack

toteachers,

thebetter

thegrades

thatw

ereceived.

(Palmer,

2011)

Ifstudents

areput

throughthat

systemof

educationyear

afteryear,

forw

hatarc

theyreally

beingprepared?

What

isthe

biddenideology

within

thatstructure

ofeducation?

Critics

contendthat

educationalsystem

teachesstudents

howto

begood,

passiveproductive

worker

beesw

hosubm

itto

atop-dow

n,authoritative

market

system.

Because

thereis

no(or

verylittle)

democracy

inautocratic

corporatesystem

s(see,

e.g.,D

eetz,1992),

tosurvive,

workers

must

submit

toan

authoritativesystem

(thatis,

dow

hatthey

aretold).

They,

essentially,are

ontheir

own

inthe

corporateen

viro

nm

ent;it

isan

individualizedgam

eof

survivalof

thefittest

competing

forscarce

resources(e.g.,

jobs,m

oney,and

rank).T

hosew

how

ork65

hoursover

thosew

how

ork40,

win.

Those

who

playthis

game

uncriticallyand

6rrey’

1)d

Palner

lntro

dtic

tion

compliantly

arerew

arded,and,

justas

gradesstratified

peopleearlier

in

life,now

theclass

systemdoes.

Workers

areextrinsically

motivated,

not

becausethey

intrinsicallylove

work;

indeed,they

arenot

supposedto

love

work—

thatis

why

itis

called“w

ork”!H

ence,not

onlyis

democracy

marginalized

inthe

educational processbut

thecorporate-based

contentand

material

structuresthat dom

inateeducation,

inm

anyw

ays,are

antidemocratic:

“thisw

aycorporate

consciousness;dem

ocracy—

thatw

ay”(Palm

er,2011).

Especially

important,

corporateeducation

suppressespossibilities

ofm

eaningfulcivic

activisminstruction

andlearning.

Simply

put,education

nowis

more

theproblem

thanit

is

thesolution,

with

many

teachersoperating

within

thateducational

system

beingdepoliticized

anddem

obilizedintellectual

laborersfor

thestatus

quo

who

sustainthe

problem(see,

e.g.,G

iroux,2013).

TH

ER

ET

UR

NT

OC

IVIC

ED

UC

AT

ION

AN

DT

HE

CR

EA

TIO

NO

FC

RIT

ICA

LPE

DA

GO

GY

Fortunately,in

responseto

theconcerns

raisedabove,

aconcerted

effortis

beingm

adeto

returnto

arevitalized

mission

ofcivic

engagement

atU

.S.universities

andcolleges.

That

returnis

evidenced,for

instance,by

Boyer’s

(1996)notion

of“engaged

scholarship”(and

relatedconcepts

of“public

scholarship”and

“comm

unity-basedscholarship”),

which

stressesscholar

ship(discovery,

integration,application,

andteaching)

tounderstand

andm

anagepressing

socialissues

andproblem

s;the

growing

service-learning(S-L

)m

ovement

(anexperiential

educationaltechnique

thatcom

binescom

munity

serviceand

academic

reflection;see,

e.g.,the

National

Service-L

earningC

learinghouse:http://w

ww

.servicelearning.org);and

theincreased

number

ofgrants

andaw

ardsfor

civiceducation

initiatives(see,e.g., C

ampus

Com

pact:http://w

ww

.compact.org).

The

comm

unicationdiscipline,w

ithits

originsin

ancientAthens—

where

effectivecivic

systems

were

conceivedas

requiringcitizens

tobe

educatedin

theart

ofpolicy

advocacyand

critique,w

iththe

education(the

padeia,w

hich,in

largepart,

was

rhetoricbased)

ofideal

mem

bersof

thepolis

focusedon

studentsapplying

theirrhetorical

knowledge

andskills

directlyto

thecollective

managem

entof

socialproblem

s—long

hasstressed

acivic!

democratic

viewof

comm

unicationeducation.

Startingin

the1930s

(see,e.g.,

Cable,

1932;T

rillingham,

1939),that

view,

today,at

leastconceptually,

infusesthe

teachingof

virtuallyevery

comm

unicationcourse,

frompublic

speaking(see,

e.g.,A

hlfeldt,2009;

Fisher,2010;

Gayle,

2004;G

ayle,M

artin,M

ann,&

Chrouser,

2002;L

ucas,2001),

toorganizational

comm

unication

(see,e.g.,

Garner

&B

arnes,2013),

tocom

munication

researchm

ethods(L

iu,2011),

tohealth

comm

unication(see,

e.g.,B

ute&

Kopchick,

2009),to

mediated

comm

unication(see,

e.g.,Jarvis

&H

an,2010).2

Civic

educationalso

hasbeen

oneof

them

ajordriving

forcesof

S-Lin

thecom

munication

discipline(see,

e.g.,B

ritt,this

volume;

Droge

&M

urphy,1999;

Jovanovic,2003;

O’H

ara,2001;

Oster-A

aland,Selinow

,N

elson,&

Pearson,2004).

Although

thereturn

tocivic

educationhas

beena

valuablestep

toward

reenvisioningthe

democratic

roleof

educationin

society,because

itsfo

un

dationsreside

inliberal

democratic

theory,such

educationoften

overlooks(both

conceptuallyand

inpedagogical

practice)structural

conditionsthat

generatesocial

problems

inthe

firstplace,

andfram

esthose

problems,

instead,as

enduringsym

ptoms

(oras

outcomes)

ofnatural

socialp

rocesses

thatare

treatedthrough

civic-basedindividual

(persons,groups,

ororganizations)

volunteerw

ork.Such

aperspective

easilycan

leadto

S-Lpedagogical

initiativesthat

privilegesocial

servicecharity

ratherthan

socialchange

and,m

orespecifically,

socialjustice

(see,e.g.,

Artz,

2001;B

ikford&

Reynolds,

2002;B

ritt,2012,

thisvolum

e;C

ipolle,2010;

Crabtree,

1998;E

infeld&

Collins,

2008;E

ndres&

Gould,

2009;Fixm

er-Oraiz

&M

urray,2009;

Kahne

&W

estheimer,

1996;M

arullo&

Edw

ards,2000;

Morton,

1995;W

ade,2000).

As

Artz

(2001)explained

aboutthe

S-I.charity

model:

Studentsbecom

eaw

areof

aparticular

injusticethey

encounterduring

theirservice—

learningproject,

andgenerally

participatein

sonicim

portantcom

munication

serviceactivity—

hutm

any,if

notm

ost,stop

shortof

seriousconsideration

ofthe

fundamental

systemic

practicesand

relationsthat

giverise

tothe

injusticethey

experiencedat

theindividual

level.(p.

240)

The

charityS-L

approach,A

rtzargued,

will

notlikely

leadto

sustainedsocial

critiqueor

actionbecause

itdoes

notchallenge

structuralconditions

thatproduce

injusticebut,

instead,view

sburdens

andsolutions

tosocietal

injusticesas

issuesof

individualconscience

andresponsibility.

Incontrast,

proponentsof

strongdcm

ocratictheory

(e.g.,B

arber,1984,

1998)envision

socialproblem

sas

structuraloutcom

esof

imbalances

ineconom

icand

politicalpow

erthat

canbe

transformed

(andactually

solved)through

socialactivism

.Such

aperspective

demands

acorresponding

socialjustice

activismform

ofS-L

(seeA

rtz,2001;

Britt,

2012,this

volume;

Droge

&M

urphy,1999)

thatresists

andtransform

sthose

imbalances.

Many

ofthe

criticisms

leveledagainst

civiceducation

aretaken

upby

criticalpedagogy.

Grounded

inB

razilianeducator

PauloFreire’s

(see,e.g.,

1970)w

orkon,

among

otherthings,

raisingstudents’

consciousnessof

connectionsbetw

eenindividuals’

problems

andsocial

contextsin

which

81-rey

nd

Ri liner

Introduction

thoseproblem

sare

embedded,

critical pedagogyrepresents

an“educational

movem

ent,guided

bypassion

andprinciple,

tohelp

studentsdevelop

consciousnessof

freedom,

recognizeauthoritarian

tendencies,and

connect

knowledge

topow

erand

theability

totake

constructiveaction”

(Giroux,

2010,para.

I;see

alsoG

iroux,1988b,

1989,2011;

Kanpul,

1994;M

cLaren,

2000a,200D

b;M

cLaren

&L

eonard,1993).

Critical

pedagogy,certainly,

hasbeen

woven

intoa

substantialportion

ofthe

fabricof

comm

unicationeducation.

Critical

comm

unicationpedagogy

(see,e.g.,

Cooks,

2010;F

assett&

Warren,

2007;Sholle,

1994;S

impson,

2010;

Warren

&F

assett,2010),

andits

alliedcom

munication

pedagogies,in

clud

ingfem

inistcom

munication

pedagogy(see,

e.g.,C

ooks,2001;

Eaton,

2001;

Hoffm

an&

Stake,1998;

Novak,

1999)and

performance

pedagogy(see,

e.g.,

Alexander,

2006,2010;

Alexander,

Anderson,

&G

allegos,2005;

Cooks

&

Sim

pson,2007;

Denzin,

2003;H

arman

&F

rench,2004;

Pineau,

2002),have

beeninstrum

entalin

raisingstudents’

consciousnessof

relationshipsam

ong,

forinstance,

comm

unication,pow

er,and

justice(see

Sim

pson,this

volume).

Critical

comm

unicationpedagogy,

todate,

however,

hasbeen

fun

da

mentally

concernedw

ithraising

students’consciousness

ofinjustice

rather

thanoffering

studentsopportunities

tointervene

intounjust

discoursesand

toreconstruct

themin

more

justw

ays;as

such,critical

comm

unication

pedagogyoften

stopsat

theclassroom

doorand,

thereby,rem

ainsa

theo

reti

cal/conceptualpedagogical

enterprise.C

omm

unicationactivism

pedagogy,

incontrast,

asexplained

next,offers

studentsthat

important

opportunity.

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NA

CT

IVISM

PED

AG

OG

Y

Com

munication

activismpedagogy

(CA

P)

teachesstudents

howto

usetheir

comm

unicationknow

ledgeand

resources

(e.g

.,theories,

researchm

ethods,

pedagogies,and

otherpractices)

tow

orktogether

with

comm

unitym

embers

tointervene

intoand

reconstructunjust

discoursesin

more

justw

ays.C

AP

,

asSim

pson(this

volume)

explains,represents

anextension

ofcritical

com

munication

pedagogyand

anoutgrow

thof,

andcorresponding

pedagogy

for,

acom

munication

approachto

socialjustice

and,m

orespecifically,

for

comm

unicationactivism

forsocial

justiceresearch

(CA

R).

Frey,P

earce,P

ollock,A

rtz,and

Murphy

(1996),originally,

defineda

comm

unicationapproach

tosocialjustice

as“engagem

entw

ithand

advocacy

forthose

inour

societyw

hoare

economically,

politically,and/or

cultu

r

allyunderresourced”

(p.110).

Suchengagem

entand

advocacy,according

toFrey,

Pearce,et

al.,is

groundedin

a“social

justicesensibility”

(p.Ill)

thatforegrounds

ethicalconcerns

inw

hatscholars

do,dem

andsstructural

analysesof

ethicalproblem

s,dem

onstratesa

comm

itment

toidentification

with

others,and

necessitatessocial

acto

rs

adoptingan

activistorientation.

CA

Rextended

thegoals

ofthat

comm

unicationand

socialjustice

approach,and,

inparticular,

itsactivist

orientation.A

ccordingto

Bruom

e,

Carey,

Dc

La

Garza,

Martin,

andM

orris(2005),

activisminvolves

actionthat

atte

mpts

tom

akea

positivedifference

insituations

where

people’slives

arcaffccted

byoppression, dom

ination,discrim

ination,racism,conflict,

andother

forms

ofcultural

struggledue

todifferences

inrace,

ethnicity,class,

religion,sexual

orientation,and

otheridentity

markers.

(p.146)

Frey

andC

arragee(2007c;

seealso

Carragee

&Frey,

2012),subsequently,

appliedthe

activismconcept

toscholars,

articulatinga

formof

scholarship

(CA

R)

inw

hichcom

munication

researchers,w

orkingcollaborativclv

with

comm

unitym

embers

andadvocacy/activist

groupsand/or

organizations,

usetheir

comm

unicationknow

ledgeand

capabilitiesto

intervenedirectly

intounjust

discoursesto

promote

socialjustice,

and,sim

ultaneously,study

ina

systematic

manner

andreport

inscholarly

(andother)

outletsp

ro

cesses,practices,

andproducts

associatedw

iththose

researchendeavors

(forexam

ples,see

thestudies

inF

rey&

Carragee,

2007a,2007b,

2012),B

y

engagingin

such“first-person-perspective

research”(as

opposedto

“third-

person-perspectiveresearch”),

comm

unicationresearchers

seekto

make

a

differencein

and

throughtheir

researchrather

thanrelying

onothers

to

make

adifference

from

theirresearch

(seeF

rey,2009).

Carragee

andFrey

(2012)argued

thatcom

munication

scholarsw

erew

ellpositioned

toengage

insocial

justiceinterventions

and,thereby,

tom

akea

differencein

and

throughtheir

researchbecause

activism,

fundamentally,

isa

comm

unicationprocess

andpractice

..

. [andI

comm

unicationactivism

forsocial

justice,thus,

Isa

uniqueform

ofschol

arshipthat

usesthe

veryessence

ofthe

discipline—com

munication

theoryand

practice—to

promote

thegoal

ofsocial

justice.(p.

22)

CA

R,

ofcourse,

focusedon

comm

unicationresearch,

hutfrom

theget-

go,Frey,

Pearce,

etal.

(1996)acknow

ledgedthe

implications

ofa

com

mu

ni

cationand

socialjustice

approachfor

comm

unicationeducation,

statingthat

socialjustice

notonly

needsto

infusecom

munication

theoryand

research,it

must

alsobecom

ean

integralpart

ofcom

munication

curriculumand

pedagogy.In

fact,

comm

unicationth

eor

andresearch

will

havedifficulty

maintaining

socialjustice

asa

focusif

undergraduatecoursew

orkand

10Frey

aridR

Inicr

Intro

ductio

nii

grad

uate

coursesv

ork

donot

provideopportu

nitie

sLu

articulatesucial

justicevalues.

(p.118)

At

thetim

e,Frey,

Pearce,et

al.(1996)

identifiedat

leastfive

way

sin

which

afocus

onsocial

justicecould

informpedagogy:

(I)as

tupol0f

readingand

discussionw

ithinstandard

classes;(2)

asclasses

oreven

clusterso

classesthat

focuso

npertin

ent

issues;

(3)as

service-learning

assignments;

(4)as

co—curricular

activities;and

(5)as

ageneral

approachto

classroomdem

eanor.(p.

119)

Moreover,

Freyand

Carragee

(2007c)and

Carragee

andFrey

(2012)pointed

ou

tim

porta

nt

implications

thatC

AR

hadfor

thescholarship

ofteaching,

suchas

offeringcom

munication

educatorsreal-life

examples

touse

intheir

courses,and

many

ofthe

researchstudies

featuredin

Freyand

Carragee

(2007a,2007b,

2012)stem

med

directlyfrom

teaching(e.g.,

S-Lcourses)

and/orw

orkingw

ithgraduate

and/orundergraduate

students.Infusing

educationw

itha

socialjustice

approach,of

course,is

nota

newendeavor,

asthere

isa

wealth

ofliterature

aboutsocial

justicep

eda

gogyacross

aw

iderange

ofdisciplines,

fromthe

artsand

humanities

tothe

socialand

physicalsciences

(see,e.g.,

Adam

s,B

ell,&

Griffin,

2007;A

u,B

igelow,

&K

arp,2007;

Ayres,

Quinn,

&Stovall,

2009;B

irkenmaicr

etal.,

2011;B

ull,2008;

Chapm

an&

Hobbel,

2010;D

arling-Ham

mond,

French,&

GarcIa-L

opez,2002;

Davis

&H

arrison,2013;

deO

liveira,2013;

Hartnett,

2011;H

artnett,N

ovek,&

Wood,

2013;H

olsinger,2011;

R.

G.

Johnson,2009;

Keddie,

2012;N

ash,Johnson,

&M

urray,2012;

Sensoy&

DiA

ngelo,

2012;Sm

ith,201

1;Sm

yth,2011;

Zajda,

Majhanovich,

&R

ust,2007),

althoughm

uchof

thatliterature

isat

theconceptual

leveland

would

bebetter

categorizedas

criticalpedagogy

toprom

otesocial

justice.T

hesam

eis

trueof

much

ofthe

literaturein

thecom

munication

disciplinethat

hastouched

on/addressedthe

conceptualrelationship

between

comm

unicationeducation

andsocial

justice/activism(see,

e.g.,E

rvin,2006;

Flores,2013;

Gajjala,

2011;1-Iartnett,

2010;J.R

.Johnson,

2004;L

ee,2006,

Makau,

1996;Sim

pson,2006;

Stocky,2006),

althoughthere

aresom

eexam

plesof

socialjustice

comm

unicationcourse/curriculum

initiatives(see,

e.g.,A

rtz,2001;

DeT

urk,2011;

Frey,Pearce,

eta!.,

1996;Frey,

Pollock,A

rtz,&

Pearce,1996;

Pearce,2006),

anda

fewem

piricalexam

plesof

suchpedagogy

(inaddition

toresearch

studiesthat

includedsom

epedagogical

elements

inFrey

&C

arragce,2007a,

2007b,2012,

see,e.g.,

Artz,

1998;C

rabtree,1998;

Hartnett,

1998;H

artnett,W

ood,&

McC

ann,2011;

Opt,

2005;Sw

an,2002).

This

book,thus,

representsour

contributionto

thatconversation

aboutsocial

justiceeducation,

byoffering,

andproviding

asustained

collectionof

examples

of,the

uniquevision

andpractice

ofC

AP.

OV

ER

VIE

WO

FT

HE

BO

OK

Tocreate

thishook,

we

firstform

edan

editorialboard

ofdistinguished

comm

unicationscholars

who

haveexpertise

inC

AP

andallied

pedagogies(listed

alphabetically):B

ryantA

lexander(L

oyolaM

arymount

University),

Shawny

Anderson

(SaintM

ary’sC

ollege),Lee

Artz

(Purdue

University

Calum

et),L

edaC

ooks(U

niversityof

Massachusetts

Am

herst),Stephen

Hartnett

(University

ofC

oloradoat

Denver),

Katherine

Hendrix

(The

University

ofM

emphis),

JudithM

artin(A

rizonaState

University),

andJennifer

Simpson

(University

ofW

aterloo,O

ntario).W

ediscussed

with

boardm

embers

thegoals/ob

jectives•atd

possibilitiesof

thehook,

with

ourconversations

resultingin

anopen

callthat

was

issuedfor

chapterproposals.

The

opencall,

distributedthrough

variousprint

andonline

sources,sought

originalscholarship

thatdocum

ente

dC

AP

effortsto

teachstudents

tohccom

ccritics1

scnts

ofsocial

ch

an

6eby

employing

thcHcom

munica

tionknow

ledgeand

capabilitiesto

interveneto

make

socialsystem

sm

orejust.

The

callm

adeclear

thatalthough

we

were

flexibleabout

thedefini

tionof

activism,

we

were

especiallyinterested

inscholarship

thatm

ovedbeyond

traditionalcivic

practices(e.g.,

studentsm

obilizingpeople

with

many

resourcesat

theirdisposal

tovote)

tointervene

toprom

otesocial

justice.C

AP

inany

areaof

thecom

munication

discipline(e.g.,

groupcom

munication,

media

studies,and

performance

studies)w

asencouraged,

with

alltheoretical

perspectives,m

ethodologies,and

pedagogicalpractices

employed

welcom

ed;the

onlyrequirem

entw

asthat

thepedagogy

involvedirect

studentintervention

intocom

munity

contextsto

promote

socialjustice.

Three

typesof

proposalsw

eresought.

The

firsttype

ofproposal

desiredw

asoriginal

researchstudies

thatdocum

entedhow

comm

unicationeducators

hadm

obilizedstudents

toassist

individuals,groups, organizations,and

comm

unities(especially

thosethat

were

marginalized)

intheir

attempts

tosecure

socialjustice.

Authors

were

askedto

explainthe

natureof

theirC

AP,

includingthe

peopleinvolved;

specificinterventions

conducted;theories,

methods,

andpedagogical

practicesthat

informed

theinterventions;

andlessons

learnedabout

CA

Pfrom

theirteaching.

The

secondtype

ofproposal

solicitedspecific

educationalefforts

toinfuse

comm

unicationactivism

intopedagogical

practices,curricula,

andacadem

icstructures.

These

proposalscould

rangefrom

theuniversity

level(e.g.,

creationand

implem

entationof

CA

Pprogram

sthat

cutacross

dep

artm

ents),to

thedepartm

entlevel

(e.g.,C

AP

programs

within

comm

unicationdepartm

ents),to

thecurricular

level(e.g.,

teachinga

CA

P-oriented

courseor

integratingactivism

intoother

comm

unicationcourses,

suchas

groupcom

munication),

tothe

pedagogicalpractice

level(e.g.,

particularcourse

assig

nm

ents

).

We

alsow

ereinterested

inC

AP

thathad

beenperform

edin

rryiid

I’aInkrIntroduction

educationalsites

beyondthe

traditionalcollege

classroom(e.g.,

inprisons),

especiallyw

ithm

arginalizedgroups.

The

thirdtype

ofproposal

soughtfocused

onim

portantphilosophical,

theoretical,conceptual,

methodological,

andpragm

aticC

AP

issues.Such

proposalscould

explore,for

instance,(a)

CA

Pethics,

(h)use

ordevelopm

entof

theoryin

suchpedagogy,

(c)issues

involvedin

studyingC

AP

efforts,(d)

challengesto

performing

CA

P(e.g.,

individualor

departmental

challenges,and/or

challengesin

localpolitical

arenas),and/or

(e)teacher

CA

Peducation.

The

callfor

chapterproposals

producedm

orethan

80subm

issions,and

we

were

impressed

bythe

quantityand

qualityof

thepedagogy

engagedin

byeducators

acrossthe

comm

unicationdiscipline,

as,clearly,

agrow

ingnum

berof

themregularly

employ

educationalpractices

thatfit

closelyw

ithour

ideasabout

activistpedagogy.

At

leasttw

oeditorial

boardm

embers

reviewed

eachproposal

and,if

contracted,subsequent

chapterssubm

itted(in

some

cases,m

ultipletim

es),providing

invaluablefeedback

thatsignificantly

shapedthose

chapters.W

eare

extremely

gratefulto

thesebusy

andin

highdem

andscholars

forthe

time

andenergy

thatthey

comm

ittedto

thisbook,

and,m

ostim

portant,for

theircontributions

tocom

munication

activismteaching

andresearch.

We

arealso

indebtedto

Peter

McL

aren(U

niversityof

California,

Los

Angeles,

andC

hapman

University)

forgraciously

writing

theforew

ordto

thishook.

We

alsothank

Barbara

Bernstein

atH

ampton

Pressfor

herunw

averingsupport

ofcom

munication

activismscholarship.

The

proposalsw

eretrim

med

tothe

currentlist

ofchapters

basedon

thecriteria

outlinedabove,

theirquality

(asjudged

byus

andthe

editorialboard),

andavailable

space.A

sthe

acceptedchapter

proposalsw

erereview

ed,several

tbemes

emerged

thatled

tothe

creationof

thefour

sectionsof

thisbook:

(a)C

AP’s

foundations,(b)

CA

Pcourses,

(c)social

justiceactivism

service—learning,

and(d)

sitesand

populationsthat

extendC

AP

beyondtraditional

collegestudents

andclassroom

s.F

oreach

thematic

sectionof

thebook,

we

provideda

basicorganizing

structure/sequencethat

authorscould

useas

theydeveloped

theirchapters,

with

thecentral

principleorg

anizing

eachchapter

beingpedagogical

practicesthat

theseeducators

usedto

preparestudents

forand

toguide

themthrough

theintervention

process.W

ealso

askedauthors

todiscuss

theirpedagogical

philosophy;the

genesis,dc

elopment,

anddesign

oftheir

particularpedagogy;

andth

natureand

outcomes

ofthe

interventions.B

elow,

we

providean

overviewof

these

ctions

andchapters

ofthis

book.

Rirt

I:U

nderstandingC

omm

unicationA

ctivismPedagogy

InC

hapter1,

David

L.Palm

eroutlines

historicalroots

ofthe

currentco

rporate

focusin

comm

unicationeducation,

contrastsideological

featuresof

thecorporate-centered

model

with

thoseof

CA

P,and

explainshow

market—

basedview

sof

comm

unication(and)

educationinhibit

possibilitiesof

activistteaching.

Palmer

firstidentifies

threehistorical

developments

thatshaped

theprohibitive

focuson

market

preparationin

comm

unicationeducation:

IndustrialR

evolutionvocationalism

,C

old\X

’arfree—

market

ind

iidualism

,and

neoliheralcorporatism

.T

hesetrends

stimulated

afocus

acrossU

.S.social

scienceson

cognitiveand

behavioralprocesses

ofstrategic

individualsoperating

independentlyin

relationto

thefree

market,

anapproach

tothe

studyof

socialbehavior

thatis

articulatedin

them

etatheoreticalprem

isesof

rationalchoice

theory.P

almer

thencontrasts

ideologicalfeatures

ofcorporate—

centeredm

odelsin

comm

unicationeducation

with

thoseof

CA

P,explicating

howcorporatism

noworganizes,

bothdirectly

andindirectly,

comm

unicationcurricula

andcourses.

Palmer

concludesthe

chapterby

examining

howthe

corporatefocus

inco

mm

unicatio

neducation

marginal—

izessocial

justicegoals

andteaching

approachesby

prioritizingeorporatism

overpublic

life,casting

comm

unicationin

rationalchoice

languagethat

overlooksits

centralrole

insocial

oppressionand

resistance,reducing

power

toits

bttreaucraticform

sand

downplaying

structural—cultural

conditionsthat

producesocial

inequities,and

bycam

ouflagingtraditional

forms

ofteaching

asbeing

apoliticalw

hen,in

fact,they

areengineered

toserve

theinterests

ofliberal

economic

individualism.

InC

hapter2, Jennifer

S.Sim

psonprovides

anoverview

ofC

AP,

including

itstheoretical

foundations,central

concepts,and

challenges.Sim

psonfirst

identifiesC

AP’s

principlesregarding

thesignificance

ofcom

munica

tioneducation

tosociety,

especiallygiven

aconstitutive

viewof

therole

ofcom

munication

inshaping

howpeople

make

senseof

thew

orldand

organizesocieties,

andC

AP’s

agendaof

teachingstudents

howto

interveneto

promote

socialjustice,

especiallyas

acountcrstatem

entto

thecorporate

educationalfocus

thatPalm

erdiscussed

inC

hapter1.

Sim

psonthen

explainstw

otheoretical

antecedentsthat

informC

AP:

comm

unicationactivism

forsocial

justiceresearch

andcritical

(comm

unication)pedagogy.

Shesubse

quentlyexplicates

CA

P’scentral

components

ofsocial

justiceaw

arenessand

intervention,explaining

competencies

needed,m

ethodsem

ployed,and

learningoutcom

esinvolved

inteaching

studentshow

tointervene

topiom

otesocial

justice—the

distinctivefeature

ofC

AP.

Sheconcludes

thechapter

byexam

iningim

portantinstitutional

anddisciplinary

challengesconfronting

CA

Peducators,

andby

reiteratingthe

importance

ofconfronting

thosechallenges,

toteach

studentshow

tointervene

tochange

unjustsystem

s.In

Chapter

3,Sporna

Jovanovicexam

inesethical

issuessurrounding

CA

Pand

theirim

plicationsfor

specificpedagogical

practicesto

promote

comm

unity-basedchange.

Shebegins

byexplaining

CA

P’scentral

ethi

calm

issionof

strengtheningdem

ocraticsociety

byhaving

studentsw

orkw

ith,for,

andon

behalfof

comm

unitym

embers

toprom

otesocial

justice

j4Frey

andP

almer

Introduction15

change,leading

studentsto

transformhow

the)’see

andact

inthe

world.

Toaccom

plishthat

goal,C

AP

requirespushing

pastthree

com

mon

barriersto

socialju

stic

eteaching:

(a)

theunfounded

beliefthat

teachingcan

beap

olitical;

(h)the

pressureto

maintain

aso—

called“neutral”

pedagogy—

anact,

inta

ct,

thatis

complicit

wjth

reproductionof

socialinjustices;

and(c

)the

pressureto

depoliticizeteaching,

which

discouragesstudents

fromdevelop

inginform

edpolitical

beliefsand

fromengaging

incom

munity—

basedsocial

change.A

sJovanovich

explicates,although

CA

Peducators

sharew

ithsom

eother

educatorstile

goalof

challenginginjustice,

theirm

ethodof

comm

unityintervention

distinguishestheir

practicesfrom

traditionalin—

classpedagogy

and,consequently,

CA

Pinvokes

important

ethicaldilem

mas,

notthe

leastof

which

isaw

akeningstudents’

socialjustice

sensibility.G

iventhat

teachers

operatein

thepolitically

chargedw

orldof

economic,

education,health,

andother

disparities,as

well

asduring

significantdom

esticand

internationalcrises,

theyneed

tobe

groundedin

anethical

systemthat

criticallyand

dialogicallyreflects

onlived

experiencesof

peoplein

theprincipled

spiritof

equality,com

passion,candor,

andm

utualrespect.

These

principlesare

especiallyrelevant

asC

AP

educatorsexplicitly

confrontcontroversial

topics,have

studentscoproduee

meaning

with

comm

unitym

embers,

andchallenge

forms

ofoppression,

aprocess

thatentails

weighing

ethicalconsiderations

asC

AP

teachersconceptualize

andplan

theiractivist

projects,and

asthey

identify,sustain

relations,and

negotiatecom

mitm

entboundaries

with

com—m

umty

partners.A

sJovanovich

concludes,this

ethicalstance

requiresC

AP

educatorsto

remain

dedicatedto

promoting

socialchange

despiteoften

hav

ingto

acceptproject

failureand

disappointment

aspart

ofthe

process,and,

thereby,fulfill

thetask

ofliberatory

pedagogyby

havingcom

munities

andstudents

takeow

nershipof

educationaland

comm

unitytasks

involvedin

overcoming

opposition,to

accomplish

CA

P’sm

issionto

fortifydem

ocraticsociety

byredressing

socialinjustices.

One

ofthe

most

significantand

popularw

aysin

which

educatorsenact

CA

P’sethical

stanceis

byem

ployingservice-learning

(S-L),w

hichis

exploredby

Lori

L.B

rittin

Chapter

4w

ithregard

toits

usein

comm

unicationcourses.

As

Britt

firstexplains,

S-I.is

nota

singularpedagogical

practice;it

canbe

differentiatedinto

atleast

threetypes.

The

firsttype,

skill-setpractice

andreflexivity

S-L,

basedin

experientiallearning

models,

engagesstudents

incom

munity

service(typically,w

ithsocial

agencies)to

applytheir

comm

unicationknow

ledgeand

skillsin

real-world

contexts.T

hesecond

type,civic

valuesand

liberaldem

ocraticcitizenship

S-L,engages

studentsin

comm

unityservice

tofortify

traditionalvalues

associatedw

ithcitizenship

ina

liberaldem

ocracy.T

hethird

type,social

justiceactivism

S-L,

which

stems

fromcritical

(comm

unication)pedagogy

(asSim

psonexplained

inC

hapter2)

andis

thecorresponding

S-Lform

forC

AP,

engagesstudents

with

marginalized

comm

uinities,and

with

groupsand

organizationsthat

work

with

andfight

forthose

comm

unities,to

promote

socialjustice,

aprocess

thatleads

studentsto

investigateroot

causesof

socialjustice

pro

blem

sand

toseek

local,collective,

andsystem

icsolutions

tothem

.B

rittthen

elaborateson

thediscursive

frame

andpedagogical

practicesthat

characterizeand

differentiatesocial

justiceactivism

S-Lfrom

theother

two

forms.

Sheexplains

thosedifferences

with

regardto

howinstructors

“frame”

studentidentities

andactions,

with

theskill-set

practiceand

reflexivityapproach

framing

studentsas

comm

unityapprentices,

thecivic

valuesand

liberaldem

ocraticcitizenship

approachfram

ingthem

associal

critics,and

thesocial

justiceactivism

approachfram

ingstudents

asinform

edcom

munity

agentsw

hom

ovebeyond

thecharity

perspectivethat

oftencharacterizes

thefirst

two

S—L

t)pes

tow

orkdiiectly

with

undeiresoureed,ioups,

Oi

iniz—

tions,and

comm

unitiesto

uncoverstructur

i1pow

erim

balancesthat

causesocial

injusticeand

tointervene

totiansfoim

oppressivepow

errelitions

andideologies

intom

oresocially

justpractices,

policies,rnd

systems

The

approsehesilso

differw

ithrehard

tothe

instructoridentity

estiblishcdw

ithsocisl

justiceactivism

S—L

ealllnhfor

impissioned

instructor—activists

(andnot

angrysuper-advocates)

who

teachstudents

toview

themselves

ascoinvestigators

working

togetherw

ith(rather

thanfor)

fellowcom

munity

mem

bers/activists;such

teachingrequires

exploringstudents’

storiesand

thestories

ofothers,

andcreating

transformational

learningopportunities

thatm

ovestudents

outsidetheir

comfort

zone.B

rittconcludes

thechapter

bystressing

theneed

forstudents

toexperience

allthree

typesof

S-Lbut,

especially,social

justiceactivism

S-L.

Part

II:Infusing

Activism

intoC

omm

unicationC

ourses

Infusingactivism

intocom

munication

coursesis

oneof

them

ostdirect

forms

ofC

AP.

Insom

ecases,

standardcom

munication

courses(e.g.,

publicspeaking,

groupcom

munication,

ororganizational

comm

unication)can

beoriented

toward

comm

unicationactivism

,althoughthat

most

likelytakes

theform

of,or

ism

osteasily

accomplished

by,em

ployingsocial

justiceactiv

ismS-L.

How

ever,as

thechapters

inthis

sectionhighlight,

some

educatorsorient

entirecourses

toward

comm

unicationactivism

.To

explicatethose

courses,authors

explainreasons

fortheir

CA

Pcourses,

coursedesigns

andintervention

goals,particular

comm

unitiesw

ithw

hichstudents

inthose

courseshave

worked,

pedagogicalpractices

employed

toguide

studentsin

theirinterventions,

andintervention

outcomes,

inaddition

tolessons

learnedabout

CA

P,in

general,and

teachingC

AP

courses,in

particular.A

uthorsalso

providea

copyof

theircourse

syllabusin

theappendix

toeach

chapter.3

lbrrey

rindR

ilinerInlroduL

tion

InC

hapter5,

Billie

Murray

andN

atalieFixm

er-Oraiz

explaintheir

cours.on

comm

unicationactivism

thatthey

designedand

taughtas

doc

toralstudents

atthe

University

ofN

orthC

arolinaat

Chapel

Hill.

View

ingtraditional

civicengagem

entpedagogies

astending

toprovide

studentsw

ithfeel-good

experiencesof

charity-basedvolunteerism

thatare

divorcedfrom

rootcauses

andpolitical

entanglements

thatform

thefabric

ofsocial

injustice,

Murray

andFixm

er-Oraiz

createda

coursethat

integratedtheory

with

practice,activism

with

education,and

advocacy-basedS-h

with

socialjustice

initiatives.Students

inthe

courseim

mersed

themselves

inactivist

literature;partnered

with

arange

oflocal,

advocacy-basedcom

munity

organizationsof

theirchoice;

andengaged

inclassroom

collaborativereflexive

talkthat

criticallyassessed

theliterature

andtheir

respectivecom

munity-advocacy

experiences.Pedagogical

practicesem

ployedby

Murray

andFixm

er-Oraiz

included(a)

creatingregular

in-classdiscussions

inw

hichstudents

appliedactivist—

basedliterature

totheir

topicareas;

(b)having

studentscollabora—

tivelydevelop

projectsw

ithadvocacy

comm

unitiesthat

educatedstudents,

comm

unitym

embers,

andthe

publicabout

particularsocial

justicecauses

onw

hichthey

worked

(e.g.,by

producingand

distributingdocum

entaryfilm

s,designing

comm

unitycharrettes,

andgenerating

internalcom

munication

assessment

documents);

and(c)

requiringstudents

tow

ritereflexive

assignm

entsabout

theirrespective

advocacycom

munities

andparticular

activistprojects.

Murray

andFixm

er-Oraiz

showhow

thosepedagogical

practicesresulted

inlearning

andgrow

thfor

students,and

intangible

socialjustice

outcomes

forthe

comm

unityorganizations

with

which

studentsw

orked,and

theyconclude

thechapter

with

lessonslearned

aboutC

AP

fromthe

teachingof

thiscourse.

Chapter

6discusses

acourse

thatSuzanne

Enck

designedand

teacheson

feminist-based

advocacyregarding

genderviolence/oppression

andrsis

tance.E

nckfirst

situatesthe

coursein

feminist

pedagogyliterature,

which

visualizesan

educationalspace

inw

hichtaken-for-granted

norms

ofgender

privilegeand

power

canbe

challengedand

transformed,

aproject

thatis

widened

asstudents

inthe

coursew

orkw

ithgender

advocacygroups.

Shethen

outlinesthe

course’sthree

units:(a)

bodiesand

thebody

politic,w

hichexam

ineshow

thehistorical

reductionof

wom

ento

thebody

isused

asa

method

ofsocial

control;(b)

policingidentities,

which

exploresideologi

calfoundations

ofgendered

violence;and

(c)industries

ofviolence,

which

uncovershow

genderedviolence

permeates

variousU

.S.culturalform

s.E

ncksubsequently

describesthe

S-hcourse

assignment

thatrequires

studentsto

examine

anarea

ofgendered

violenceabout

which

theyare

passionateas

theyw

orkw

ithlocal

organizationsto

teachothers

howto

criticallyassess

genderedoppression,

Sheexplains

thevariety

ofpedagogical

practicesthat

sheem

ploysin

thecourse,

includingteacher-decentered

discussionsabout

media

events,cultural

ideologiesand

forms,

andpersonal

experiencesregarding

genderedviolence;

explorationof

advocacycom

munities

andcreative

comm

unitengagem

ent;and

students’use

ofart,

free-writing,

andother

forms

ofcreative,

aestheticreflection

oncourse

material

andon

theircom

munity

experiences.E

nckconcludes

thechapter

breflecting

onthe

powerful

transformative

andjustice—

aligningeffects

ofthe

courseon

students.Joanne

Gilbert,

inC

hapter7,

documents

two

ofher

performance

advocacycourses

thatstaged

productionsof

thestories

oftw

om

arginalized

comm

unities:H

olocaustsurvivors

andthe

Lakota

Siouxtribe.

Gilbert

firstexplains

howperform

anceconstitutes

socialjustice

activism.

Shethen

explicatesher

useof

performance

ethnographyto

interviewm

embers

ofm

arginalizedpopulations

tocreate

scriptsthat

studentslearn

toperform

viathe

method

of“everyday

lifeperform

ance”(E

LP),

which

teachesstu

dents,literally,

tospeak

inothers’

voicesand,

thereby,to

move

beyonda

senseof

“theO

ther”to

empathize

with

andenvision

theadvocacy

valueof

speakingtheir

characters’m

arginalizedvoices

inpublic

spaces.G

ilbertthen

describesthe

performance

advocacyproject

Up

fromthe

Ashes:

Michigan

Holocaust

SurvivorsShare

Their

Stories,w

hichdocum

entsstories

ofsix

concentrationcam

psurvivors.

After

describingpedagogical

activitiesthat

sheem

ploysto

preparestudents

forthe

performances,

shedetails

thetw

oproject

performances

(oneat

alocal

highschool),

includingthe

TalkB

ackquestion-and-answ

ersessions

thatfollow

ed,w

hichw

ereheightened

atone

performance

bythe

presenceof

fourof

theIlolocaust

survivors.G

ilbertthen

explicatesa

secondproject,

Never

ForgetY

ourD

reams:

The

Creation

ofC

razyH

orseM

emorial,w

hichdocum

entsstories

toldby

family

mem

bersof

Korczak

Ziolkow

ski,sculptor

ofthe

Crazy

Horse

Mem

orial(C

HM

)in

SouthD

akota,and

byO

glalaL

akotaSioux

tribem

embers

associatedw

iththe

PineR

idgeIndian

Reservation

inthat

state.To

preparefor

theperform

ances(once

atA

lma

College,

twice

atthe

reservation’sR

edC

loudIndian

School,and

twice

atC

HM

),students

studiedL

akotahistory

andthe

deepchallenges

oflife

onthe

reservation.G

ilbertdocum

entsthe

impact

thatthese

activistperform

anceshad

onstudent

performers,

interviewees

andtheir

families,

andaudience

mem

bers.She

concludesthe

chapterby

reflectingon

theprofound

natureof

thisethnographic

performance

formof

CA

P,including

itslogistical

challenges,m

ethodsfor

cultivatingrecep

tiveaudiences

forsocial

justiceperform

ances,and

thevalue

of“perform

ingothers”

toprom

otesocial

change.In

Chapter

8,C

hristopherC

areyw

alksthrough

hiscapstone

courseon

environmental

advocacy(E

A)

atPortland

StateU

niversity,w

hichinvolves

studentsw

orkingw

ithlocal

“oldgrow

thforest”

activistcom

munities

toeducate

thepublic

aboutthe

regulatorysystem

thatis

tiedto

corporatelogging

andto

challengecorporate

timber

salesin

contestedforest

areas.

18F

rey,inci

PIn

ier

Intro

ductio

nI

Carey

firstdescribes

howhis

EA

courseconnects

studentsto

Bark,

alocal

environmental

advocacygroup

thatprotects

andpreserves

theM

t.H

ood

National

Forestfrom

unwarranted

loggingand

timber

sales.C

areygrounds

thecourse

inthe

emerging

fieldof

environmental

comm

unication(activism

),

which

examines

howpeople

comm

unicateabout

thenatural

world

andissues

affectingit,

includinghow

comm

unicationshapes

thepublic’s

perceptionof

andits

potentialrole

(includingas

activists)in

environmental

policiesand

debates.C

areythen

explicatesthe

coursedesign,

which

hasstudents

swdy

environmental

comm

unicationtheory,

historyof

contestedtim

bersales,

and

environmental

activistinterventions,

asw

ellas

exploreand

work

inM

t.

Hood

with

Bark

andother

localenvironm

entaladvocacy

comm

unitiesto

educatethe

publicabout

andintervene

intotim

bersales.

Carey

explainsin

some

depthtw

ocourse-driven

interventionsinto

timber

salesevents.

The

Solotim

bersales

interventionexposed

studentsto

two

typesof

activism:

(a)public

awareness

campaigns,

which,

inthis

case,involved

working

with

Bark

togive

publictours

ofcontested

forestsites;

and(b)

nonviolentdirect

action, with

studentsobserving

andinteracting

with

activistsw

hoengaged

in

tree—sits

(literally,sitting

intrees

toprotect

themfrom

beingchopped

down).

I)uuingthe

Bear

Knolls

intervention,students

conductedcitizen—

scientist

environmental

surveys(called

ground—truthing)

tocollect

environmental

datathat

theycited

incom

mentary

letterssent

tothe

U.S.

ForestService

to

aidB

arkin

exposingfaulty

datathat

were

beingused

tojustify

oldgrow

th

loggingin

Mt.

Hood,

which,

inlight

ofthe

newfacts,

forthe

most

part,

hasbeen

successfullycurtailed.

Carey

concludesthe

chapterby

identifying

some

“senses”that

students(e.g.,

asan

activistself),

andhe,

asthe

teacher

(e.g.,

asa

lifelongacadem

icactivist),

developfrom

thisC

AP

course.

PartIII:

Prom

otingC

omm

unicationA

ctivismthrough

Service-L

earning

As

mentioned

previously,S-L

isa

popularexperiential

educationalactiv

itythat

involvesstudents

working

with

comm

unitygroups.

How

ever,as

Britt

pointedout

inC

hapter4,

thereare

atleast

threeform

sof

S—L,

with

CA

Pem

ployingsocial

justiceactivism

S-Lto

offerstudents

experiential

opportunitiesto

intervenew

ithm

arginalizedcom

munities

andcom

munit—

basedgroups

andorganizations

toprom

otesocial

justice.T

hechapters

in

thissection

offerexam

plesof

CA

Peducators

who

haveem

ployedthis

S—L

form,

with

authorsexplaining

thegenesis

andsocial

justicenature

of

theirS-L

endeavors;S-L

experiencesin

which

studentsengaged,

pedagogi

calpractices

employed,

andoutcom

esachieved;

andlessons

learnedabout

engagingin

socialjustice

activismS—

L.

Inchapter

9,JoyL.

Hart

andK

andiL.

Walker

explaintheir

multiyear

socialjustice

activismS-L

work

that,in

collaborationw

iththe

University

ofL

ouisville’sInternational

ServiceL

earningProgram

,has

engagedin

avariety

ofstudent—

coordinatedhealth—

carecom

munication

projectsin

Belize

andthe

Philippines.H

artand

Walker

firstexplicate

thepreparation

phaseof

theprojects,

which

involvesprescreening

studentsfrom

num

er

ousacadem

icdisciplines

enrollingin

oneof

thehealth

comm

unicationcourses

thatthe

authorsteach,

with

studentsexam

ining,and

teachingeach

otherabout,

health—care

dilemm

asand

potentialsolutions

(e.g.,H

IVand

AID

Saw

arenessand

prevention)in

thoseinternational

contexts,and

thendeveloping

instructionaland

aid-basedprogram

sthat

respondto

thosepopulations’

needs.Students

subsequentlyparticipate

ina

substa

ntiv

e

orientationprogram

;travel

tothose

sites;and,

undertheir

instructors’guidance,

engagein

egalitariantalk

with

comm

unitym

embers

toidentify

mem

bers’needs

andto

createtrusting

relationshipsw

iththem

,follow

edby

students’planned

serviceefforts,

which

rangefrom

dentalhealth-care

anddisease

preventionsem

inarsto

interactivesessions

with

indigenousw

omen

onbasic

anatomy,

reproductiveprocesses,

andstrategies

forhow

todiscuss

health-careissues

with

health-careproviders.

Hart

andW

alker’shealth-care

activismprogram

sare

designed,specitcally,

tohave

participants(students

andcom

munity

mem

bers)understand

more

fullyand

transformstructural

conditionsthat

leadto

comm

unitym

embers’

deficientknow

ledge, resources,and

acrio

ns

oitc

ern

ing

vitalhealth—

careissues.

Their

socialjustice

activismS-L

projects,thus,

notonly

increasestudents’

knowledge

aboutstructural

causesof

health-careproblem

sand

activismsolutions

butthey

alsoseek

tochange

structural,lived

conditionsof

health-careproblem

sin

partsof

thew

orldthat

arein

direneed

ofsuch

change.A

mong

thepedagogical

practicesem

ployedto

accomplish

thosegoals,

Hart

andW

alkerhave

former

studentstalk

abouttheir

S—L

experiencesw

ithnew

students;allow

studentsto

frequentlyrepeat

theircourses

toco

ntin

ue

theiractivism

inthe

same

ora

newsite;

havestudents

work

insubteam

sand

coachand

collaboratew

ithother

subteams;

and,in

additionto

in-classgroup

reflectionexercises,

requirestudents

tow

ritejournal

entriesprior

to,during,

andafter

onsiteS-L

work.

They

concludethe

chapterby

examining

implications

oftheir

CA

Pfor

internationalsocial

justiceactivism

S-L,

andby

explainingbriefly

theirlatest

work

inthe

Philippines.In

Chapter

10,R

ebeccaM

.K

ennerly

(with

Tyson

Davis)

discussesa

collaborativesocial

justiceactivism

S-Lproject

between

herintercultural

com

munic

atio

ncourse

andD

avis’sadvanced

videoproduction

coursethat

linkedstudents

tom

igrantlabor

comm

unitym

embers

who

work

theV

idaliaonio

nfields

inL

yons,G

eoriga.K

ennerlyfirst

describesher

connectiomw

iththe

SoutheastG

eorgiaC

omm

unitiesP

roject,a

comm

unity-based

Ireyin

dR

ainierin

frodt,c

tion

organizationthat

servesm

igrantand

settledI

atino/afam

iliesin

theL

yonsarea,

andw

ithits

cofounder,A

ndreaIlinojosa,

andhow

theydecided

togetherto

createa

videodocum

entaryof

student—w

orkerinteractions

toLducate

thepublic

aboutthe

plightof,

discrimination

against,and

socialjustice

possibilitiesfor

them

isunderstoodand

oppressedL

atino/am

igrantw

orkercom

munity.

Shethen

explainsthree

pedagogicalassignm

entsthat

interculturalcom

munication

studentscom

pletedto

preparefor

thisS—

I.project:

(a)a

culturalidentity

projectthat

explored,through

journalingand

in-classdiscussion,

thecentrality

ofcom

munication

tostudents’

cul

turalstandpoint

positionsand

tosocioeconom

icconditions

thatproduce

economic

disparityand

discrimination;

(h)an

interculturalfield

experienceproject

thatstudied

anddiscussed

acultural

groupthat

was

differentfrom

students’cultural

groups;and

(c)a

multicultural

socialjustice

projectthat

hadstudent

groupslocate

aridresearch

asite

ofintercultural

conflict,and

proposecom

munication

solutionsthat

benefittedall

parties.T

yson’svideo

productioncourse

preparedstudents

bym

oing

beyondtraditional

production

instructionto

includecom

munication

techniquesfor

managing

in—field

challengesthat

arefaced

when

working

with

marginalized

comm

unities.K

ennerkthen

describesthe

intervention,w

hichinvolved

studentsfrom

thosecourses

travelingto

Lyons,

interactingw

ithm

igrantw

orkersand

learningfirsthand

abouttheir

livingand

working

conditions,and

filming

theinteraction.

Sheidentifies

projectoutcom

esfor

studentsand

thosethat

resultedfrom

thevideo

documentary,

which

was

airedon

localtelevision,

shown

atfund—

raisingevents

andat

conferences,and

advancedin

otherw

aysm

igrantw

orkers’social

justiceneeds,

Kennerly

endsthe

chapterby

outlininglessons

learnedabout

CA

Pthat

aretied

directlyto

uniquefeatures

ofthis

course-spanningsocial

justiceactivism

S-Lproject.

InC

hapterii,

E.Sam

Cox

andW

endyL.

Geiger

walk

througha

multilayered,

multiyear

S—I,

projectthat

involvesgraduate

studentsfrom

‘.ariouscom

munication

coursesw

orkingw

ithteachers

andstudents

toelim

inate

rampant

bullyingin

asm

allrural

middle

schoolin

Missouri

thathad

ahistory

ofracial

prejudice.A

fterexplaining

hateful/hurtfulspeech

inthe

formof

bullyingas

ahum

anrights

issuethat

nowis

atepidem

icpro

por

tionsacross

theU

.S.educational

system,

(ox

andG

eigerw

alkthrough

thesteps

oftheir

5—1. project,

which

emerged

fromtheir

universitybecom

inga

aember

ofC

ampus

Com

pact’sC

omm

unicatingC

omm

onG

roundprogram

thatlinks

universityteachers

andstudents

toP—

12system

sto

challengeprejudice

andto

fosterdiversity.

They

explainhow

graduatestudents

fromtheir

surveym

ethodscourse

firstconducted

interviews

with

them

iddleschool

childrenabout

thenature

andextent

ofbullying

atthat

school,and

presentedthe

findingsto

theschool’s

principal.G

raduatestudents

fromtheir

small

groupcom

munication

coursethen

designedand

conductedinterven—

tionsthat

involvedan

incremental

seriesof

focusgroup

discussionsheld

with

them

iddleschool

studentsto

sharethe

researchresults;

todiscuss

inm

oredepth,

andto

frame

asa

structuralproblem

,bullying

atthe

school;and

toteach

verbalstrategies

thatthose

middle

schoolstudents

coulduse

toaddress

bullyingcircum

stances,by

havingthem

role-playa

comm

onbullying

scenario,em

ploya

strategy,and

discussits

viability,as

well

asby

working

indyads

ortriads

tocreate

andhang

inschool

hallways

posterscalling

foran

endto

bullying.C

oxand

Geiger

thendocum

enteffects

ofthe

projecton

graduatestudents—

inparticular,

theirorientation

tosocial

justiceactivism

—and

onm

iddleschool

students—in

particular,their

iews

onhum

anequality

anddiversity,

andtheir

senseof

empow

erment

tochal

lengebullying

directly.T

heauthors

concludethe

chapterby

sharinglessons

learnedabout

CA

Pfrom

thislongitudinal

socialjustice

activismS-L

project.

PartIV

:E

xtendingthe

Teaching

ofC

omm

unicationA

ctivism

Although

most

CA

Peducation,

likeother

educationalendeavors,

iscon

ductedw

ithcollege

anduniversity

studentsin

(comm

unication)classroom

settings(although,

asexplained,

actualcom

munity

inaerentions

occur),som

eeducators’

CA

Pinvolves

teachingother

populations(e.g.,

oppresscdcom

munity

mem

bers)and

isconducted

atother

sites(e.g.,

inprisons

andat

highschools).

The

chaptersin

thissection

offerexam

plesof

howC

AP

hasbeen

extendedto

suchpopulations

andsites,

with

authorsexplaining

theircourse,

project,and/or

programgenesis,

development,

design,and

pedagogicalpractices

employed;

socialjustice

interventionsand

outcomes

achieved;and

lessonslearned

aboutextending

CA

Pto

populations.ind

sitesbeyond

thecollege

studentclassroom

.C

hapter12,

byK

imherl

M.

Cuny,

Marnie

Thom

pson,and

Ilemal

athaP

Naidu,

tellsthe

storyof

howthe

Universit

ofN

orthC

arolinaat

Greensboro’s

(UN

CG

)Speaking

Center

transformed

itsservices

viaa

decade-longsocial

justicecom

munity

outreachproject

thatinvolved

thestaff

working

with

acom

munity

organizationto

aidan

underrepresemited

populationto

preparefor

andpresent

oralargum

entsat

alocal

schoolhoard

meeting

aboutconfronting

race-relatedacadem

icproblem

s.C

unyet

al.first

explainthe

traditionalapproach

ofspeaking

centersto

havefaculty

leadersand

studenttutors

developschool

personnel’s(m

ostly,students’)

speaking

skillsfor

courseassignm

entsand

events,hut

howU

NC

G’s

SpeakingC

enteralso

soughtto

engagein

comm

unityoutreach,

andthey

describesom

eof

itsearly

outreachefforts,

They

thenfocus

onthe

Center’s

rolein

confrontingthe

longstandingacadem

icachievem

entgap

between

White

andB

lackand

Latino/a

students.W

orkingin

partnershipw

ithH

iVE

,a

Frey

,,idR

iliner

Ingro

ductiu

n

com

munity

collectivelocated

ina

low-incom

eneighborhood,

theC

enter

offeredw

orkshopsthat

preparedco

mm

unity

activiststo

talkabout

the

achievement

gapat

thelocal

schoolboard

meeting,

aproject

thatlinked

the

Center’s

staffand

studenttutors

with

comm

unityactivists

inan

egalitarian,

participatoryspeech

preparationprocess

thatcom

binedcom

munity

con

cernsand

arguments

with

traditionalrhetorical

tacticsand

standardspeech

preparationtechniques,

arming

activistsw

itheffective

rhetoricalpractices

andcreating

acom

munity-driven

senseof

empow

erment

thattheir

ideas

couldm

akea

difference.C

unyet

al.describe

thefirst

schoolboard

meet

ing,the

effectivepresentations

thatcom

munity

mem

bersgave,

andthe

deep

impact

ofthose

presentationson

attendingschool

hoardrepresentatives

andcom

munity

mem

bers,and

onthe

decisionby

activistgroups

tom

eet

regularlyand

topool

resourcesto

addressother

schoolsystem

concerns.

Finally,the

authorsexam

inethe

project’seffects

relativeto

itsgoals,

how

thispedagogical

initiativeenabled

theSpeaking

Center’s

staffto

theorize

andapply

CA

Pprinciples,

andhow

itled

toidentifying

resourcesto

sup

portthe

Center’s

long-termgoal

tobe

anextracurricular

comm

unication

programthat

engagesin

socialjustice

outreach,valuable

lessonsfor

others

who

seekto

followthis

academic-activist

outreachpath.

InC

hapter13,

Catherine

R.

Squiresand

PaulW

.C

reagerdocum

ent

theiractivist

teachingpartnership

between

theU

niversityof

Minnesota

(U

ofM

),nearby

Gordon

ParksH

ighSchool

(GPH

S),and

localcom

munity

organizationsthat

guidedG

PHS

students’creation

ofdigital

media

projects

aboutsocial

justiceissues

intheir

comm

unity.T

heauthors

firstdescribe

GPH

S,w

hereC

reagerteaches,

anat-risk,

low-incom

e,ethnically

diverse,

alternativeschool

named

afterfam

edB

lackphotographer/film

director

Gordon

Parks,follow

edby

anexplanation

oftheir

initialcollaboration

tocom

bineSquires’s

media

knowledge

andeducational

resourcesw

ith

Creager’s

ideaand

desireto

haveG

PH

Sstudents

createdigital

storytell

ing

proje

cts

of

theirlife

storiesto

developa

senseof

socialem

powerm

ent

and

practic

al

media

know

ledge,

toconnect

tocom

munity

organiz

atio

ns

andtheir

networks,

andto

affectsocial

discourseand

enactsocial

change.

Squiresand

Creagcr

thendescribe

two

studentassignm

ents;(a)

acivics

projectthat

involvedresearching

andcreating

podcastsabout

socialissues,

and(b)

theThis

IB

elieveproject

thatinvolved

researching,w

riting,and

creatinga

media

slideshowpresentation

abouta

socialjustice

issue,w

ith

man

ystudents

creatingpodcasts.

They

thenexplain

theirongoing

social

justicecollaboration

inw

hichG

PIIS

studentsexam

inea

controversiallight

railtransit

projectthat

disproportionatelyaffects

marginalized

comm

unities

inthe

area,a

projectthat

combines

fundinginitiatives;

Uof

Mstudents

andresources,

GP

IISinstructors,

andm

ultiplecourses;

partnershipsw

ith

comm

unityorganizations;

andstudent

researchand

digitalstorytelling

of

thetransit

project’seffects

intoa

web

ofadvocacy

discourseand

actionto

resistthe

lightrail’s

effectson

historicallyunderrepresented

neighborhoods.T

heiractivist-based

teaching,thus,

linksstudents

tolocal

organizations,netw

orks,and

comm

unitym

embers,

combined

with

technicalinstruction

indigital

storytelling,to

connectotherw

isedisparate

comm

unitym

embers

andresources

tochallenge

socialinjustice.

‘rheauthors

concludethe

chapter

bydiscussing

theneed

forand

challengesinvolved

inuniversity—

high

school—com

munity

socialjustice

collaborations.C

laireE.

Deal,

inC

hapter14,

sharesa

collaborativeteaching

projectthat

sheconducted

ina

politicaltheatre

coursetaught

bya

colleagueat

hercollege

thatunited

studentsw

ithprisoners

ina

localjail

aschange

agentsto

producecom

munity

theatreperform

ancesabout

theprison

system,

aprocess

thateducatedstudents

andaudiences

aboutstructural

conditionsthat

produceinjustice

inthe

penalsystem

.D

ealfirst

explainstheatre

oftestim

ony

performance,

anactivist

formof

teachingthat

combines

liberatorypedagogy

with

criticalperform

ancepraxis

toprom

ptcivic

discourse,heal

wounded

comm

unities,and

confrontsocial

injustices,by

challengingdiscrim

inatorystereotypes

aboutdifference,

viaperform

ersexploring

personalnarratives

thatare

linkedto

thosestereotypes.

Shethen

identifieschallenges

involvedin

importing

fourW

hitestudent-actors

intothe

jailsystem

tounite

themw

iththree

prisoner—actors

(two

African

Am

ericansand

aW

hiteperson),

andincrem

entalprocesses

involvedas

thegroup

embarked

onan

egalitarian,

3-month

effortto

write,

rehearse,and

performtw

otheatre

oftesti

mony

productionsin

thelocal

comm

unity.She

describeshow

participantsexplored

andperform

edeach

other’snarratives,

aprocess

thatinvolved

intense,cohesion-buildinginteractions

between

student—and

prisoner-actorsas

they“w

alkedin

eachother’s

shoes”that

unveiledm

isconceptionsabout

discriminatory

stereotypesand

structuralinequities

inth

U.S.

criminal

justicesystem

.D

ealdescribes

theperform

ances,w

hichw

erew

ellattended

bya

crosssection

ofthe

comm

unity,and

shedocum

entsparticipants’

andaudience

mem

bers’genuine

appreciationof

thecollaborative

projectand

transformed

understandingof

incarcerationstereotypes

thatthe

performances

challenged.D

ealconcludes

thechapter

byexam

ining,foreveryone

involved,the

pedagogicalvalue

ofsocial

justiceperform

anceactivism

.To

concludethe

hook,C

hapter15

explicatesthe

CA

Pengaged

inb’.’B

ethO

snesand

JasonB

ispingw

ithindigenous

Mayan

comm

unitiesin

Guatem

alathat

usetoxic

burningfires

tocook

andheat

theirhouses

(causingcount

lessprem

aturedeaths

andhealth

problems),

which

employs

performance

ofenergy

justicetheatre

productionsto

encourageusing

clean—burning

stoves.T

heybegin

byoutlining

theextensive

useand

toxicityof

traditionalfires

inthe

financiallypoor

regionof

Chajul,

Guatem

ala,and

theirw

orkw

ithL

imitless

Horizons

ixil,a

nongovernmental

organizationthat

mentors

local

Freyand

Palm

erIntroduction

primary

andm

iddleschool

studentsabout

energyissues,

tofoster

expandeduse

ofm

odernfuel-efficient

stovesin

thatregion.

They’then

describetheir

theatrefor

energyjustice

performance

interventionto

educateand

stimulate

comm

unitym

embers

todialogue

aboutusing

fuel—efficient

stovesto

solveproblem

sof

traditionalfire

use.G

roundingtheir

work

inFreire’s

(1970)liberation

theologyand

Boal’s

(1985)theatre

ofthe

oppressed,O

snesand

Bisping

worked

with

thearea’s

primary

studentpopulation

toprepare

theatrejustice

skits,and

with

localw

omen,

who,

traditionally,oversee

fire—based

activitiesand

who

arevictim

sof

genderoppression,

offeringthem

avocal

empow

erment

workshop

thattaught

themto

expressthem

selvesand

theirenergy

needs.T

heyrecount

theincubation

ofthose

skitsand

workshop

inO

snes’sU

.S.courses

andin

internationalstudent

forums,

followed

bytheir

initialem

ployment

ata

PeaceC

orps—based,

energyjustice

projectin

Panama

thatO

snesassisted,

followed

bya

descriptionof

thew

eeklongskit

preparationrehearsals

inC

hajul.O

snesand

Bisping

describethe

studentperform

ancein

thecom

munity

meeting

hallthat

was

attendedby

300local

citizens,w

hichcom

binedthe

skitsw

ithfollow

-upfacilitated

conversationsw

ithaudience

mem

bersabout

theirperceptions

oftraditional

andfuel-

efficientstoves,

apedagogical

processthat

stimulated

much

productivecom

munity

dialogueand

instructiontied

totheir

fireuse

andto

energyjustice.

Fheyconclude

thechapter

bydiscussing

challengesof

teachingin

othercultures

andthe

fineline

thatthey

walked

between

activistpedagogy

andm

arketinga

product,as

well

ashow

thew

orkverifies

thetransform

ative

power

oftheatre

forenerg’

justiceto

affect

socialchange.

LE

SSON

SL

EA

RN

ED

AB

OU

TT

EA

CH

ING

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NA

CT

IVISM

Uhe

work

presentedin

thisbook,

asa

set,sheds

lighton

important

prin

ciplesand

practicesassociated

with

CA

P.H

ere,w

ediscuss

some

salientlessons

learnedabout

suchteaching.

First,C

AP

constitutesa

uniqueform

of

(co

mm

un

icatio

n)

educationthat

makes

asubstantive

contributionto

theteaching

ofsocial

justice.A

lthoughother

academic

disciplines,certainly,

havem

uchto

contributeto

socialjustice

education,as

mentioned

previously,activism

,fundam

entally,is

anaccom

plishment

of(constituted

in),and

isaccom

plishedthrough,

comm

unication.

Moreover,

froma

comm

unicationperspective,

socialjustice

resultsfrom

reinfranchisingpeople

who

havebeen

shutout

ofrelevant

discoursesthat

ha’esignificant

material

consequences(e.g.,

money,

housing,and

food;see

Frey,Pearce,

etal.,

1996).C

omm

unicationeducators,

thus,are

ideally

positionedto

teachstudents

tounderstand

andem

ploycom

munication

principlesand

practicesthat

enablepeople

tow

orktogether

coilahorativelyto

promote

socialjustice.

Second,C

AP,

simultaneously,

contests,com

plements,

extends,and

carvesout

aspace

thatis

differentfrom

otherform

sof

(comm

unication)education.

CA

P,for

instance,contests

thecorporate

domination

ofed

uca

tion

,in

general,and

of

com

munic

atio

nedu

catio

n,

inpartic

ula

r(se

ePalm

et-,this

volume),

offeringstudents

analternatie

thatprom

otesthe

collectivegood

ofsocial

justice.in

doingso,

however,

CA

Pdoes

notdeny

studentsthe

educationthat

isneeded

tobe

successfulin

theirprofessional

livcsin

fact,com

paredto

otherpedagogies,

CA

Peducates

studentsbettci

forthe

increasingnum

berof

positions(and

increasingw

ages)available

inthe

non

profitsector

(see,e.g.,

A.

Butler,

2009),especially

nonprofitsthat

promote

socialjustice.

CA

Pprepares

studentsfor

nonprofitpositions

byoffering

themopportunities

toput

intopractice

comm

unicationinterventions,

fromcom

munic

atio

nsk

illstraining,

tofacilitating

groupm

eetingsand

publicdebates

anddialogues,

tocreating

media

products,such

asbrochures

andpublic

serviceannouncem

ents(see

Frey

&S

unWolf,

2009).In

doingso,

asSholle

(1995)explained

aboutG

iroux’s(1

988a)call

fora

democratic

cur

riculum,

CA

P

isnot

acall

toelim

inatetradition,

basicskills,

andpractical

knossledge

infavor

ofa

theoretica1lradical

curriculumdivorced

fromthe

concernsof

studentss

iththis

future,instead,

itpr

nisesto

integratelearning

h’opening

upthe

.,ileilcesabout

theconditions

oflife

inth

“realw

orld,”w

hileat

thesam

etim

eproviding

opportunitiesto

expl)rethe

practicalo

utc

om

es

oftheory,

method,

technique,and

critic

ism

intr

.uis

lorm

ing

thew

orldso

asto

providethe

spacefo

rpeople

tofurther

theirchances

fortruly

meaningful

einplovilient.(p.

138)

Moreover,

forstudents

enteringthe

corporatesecto

nC

AP

educationw

illprepare

themto

becritically

aware

of,w

illingto

challenge,and

capable0f

ch

an

gin

go

rg

an

izatio

ns’

un

just

actio

ns

(fo

ran

example

ofcom

munication

activismscholarship

inthe

corporatesector,

seeM

ay,2012).

Additionally,

drawing

studentsout

ofthe

classroomenvironm

entand

infusingthem

intom

arginalizedcom

munities

exposesstudents

tosystem

icand

livedconditions

ofinjustice

andoppression.

That

exposure,coupled

with

CA

Pinstruction

thatthey

receiveand

inputfrom

com

munit

mem

bersand

activistorganizations

concerningpractices

andstrategies

forchallenging

andtransform

ingthose

socialinjustices,

moves

studentsbeyond

thetraditional

civicview

ofsocial

problems

asnatural

andenduring

symptom

sof

aju

st

sociopoliticalsystem

thatare

mollified

throughcharity—

basedsolutions.

Students,instead,

seesocial

problems

asproducts

ofim

balancesin

political

rreyfind

PiIm

erIn

troductio

n-‘7

arideconom

icpow

erthat

canbe

directlychallenged

throughcom

munication

activism.

CA

P,thus,

offersa

needededucational

alternativeto

thetraditional

thinliberal

viewof

democracy

tow

hichstudents

routinelyare

exposedin

thecurrent

educationalsystem

,giving

them,

instead,opportunities

toexperience

strongdem

ocracyin

action.C

AP

alsosubstantially

extendscritical

(comm

unication)pedagogy

byproviding

studentsw

ithreal-life

opportunitiesto

actcollectively

againstInjustice,

puttingm

eaton

criticalpedagogy’s

theoreticalbones.

The

vastm

ajorityof

criticalpedagogy

teachingpractices

remains

circumscribed

toin—

classactivities,

arestriction

thatlim

itsin

important

ways

students’capacities

toenvision

andact

againstlocal

andstructural

inequities.B

ycarving

outthis

uniquespace

ofcollaborative

comm

unicationinterventions

with

affectedcom

munities

toprom

otesocial

justice,C

AP

constitutesan

appliedcritical

pedagogythat

doesjustice

toFreire’s

(1970)view

ofeducational

praxisas

“reflectionand

actionupon

thew

orldin

orderto

transformit”

(p.36).

Third,

educatorsfrom

acrossthe

comm

unicationdiscipline

canengage

inC

AP,

asthe

promotion

ofsocial

justiceis

important

toevery

leveland

contextof

comm

unication,from

interpersonalcom

munication

togroup,

organizational/institutional, societal/cultural,and

international/interculturalcom

munication.M

oreover,although

CA

P,certainly,dem

andsthat

many

com

munication

educatorschange

some

oftheir

currentteaching

practices(e.g.,

moving

studentsout

ofthe

classroomand

intocom

munities,

andteaching

studentshow

tointervene

comm

unicatively),C

AP,

primarily,

necessitatescom

munication

educatorsredirecting

comm

unicationconcepts,

theories,m

ethods,and

appliedpractices

tothe

promotion

ofsocial

justice.H

ence,m

anyof

theC

AP

educatorsfeatured

inthis

bookem

ployedtraditional

practicesassociated

with

comm

unicationeducation

toachieve

theirsocial

justicegoals

(e.g.,C

unyet

al.’susc

ofM

onroe’s,1935,

motivated

sequenceto

teachactivists

togive

publicspeeches

toclose

theachievem

entgap

between

White

andB

lackand

Latino/a

studentsin

Greensboro,

NC

;and

studentsin

Kennerly’s

projectlearning

standardvideo

productionpractices

todocum

entthe

livesand

needsof

migrant

laborcom

munity

mem

bersw

how

orkthe

Vidalia

onionfields

inL

yons,G

A).

Simultaneously,

CA

Palso

encourageseducators

toem

ploynew

andinnovative

forms

ofteaching

toaccom

plishtheir

socialjustice

goals(e.g.,

Squiresand

Creager’s

useof

podcastingby

highschool

studentsto

confrontsocially

unjustpolicies,

andO

sncsand

Bisping’s

creationof

theatrefor

energyjustice

toprom

otethe

useof

fuel-efficient

cookstoves

bythose

who

areenergy

oppressedin

Guatem

ala).Put

simply,

CA

Pis

definedm

oreby

itsgoals

thanby

itsteaching

tactics.F

ourth,C

AI

potentially,can

enableeducators

tointegrate

teaching,research,

andservice.

Although

scholarshave

longtalked

aboutthe

needfor

seamless

integrationof

theseacadem

icactivities

(see,e.g.,

Chesebro,

1996;

Colbeck,

1998;M

athieer

al.,2004;M

oore&

Ward,

2010;Park,

1996;R

akow,

1999;W

ard,2003),

toooften,

theyrem

ainseparate

academic

endeavors(see,

e.g.,G

ilmer,

2002).In

CA

P,the

linkageof

teachingand

comm

unityservice

isobvious;

bystudying

andreporting

theirpedagogical

efforts,as

thescholars

inthis

bookdid,

CA

Peducators

turntheir

teachingand

service

intoresearch.

Given

theem

phasison

researchat

today’suniversities,

itm

akessense

tom

aximize

benetitsthat

accruefrom

thelinkage

ofteaching

andservice

inC

AP

byintegrating

aresearch

component,

suchthat

CA

Pscholars

document,

fromthe

start,their

pedagogicalefforts

andresulting

outcomes,

toproduce

researchreports

thataid

them,

forinstance,

inte

nure

andprom

otiondecisions,

demonstrate

thevalue

ofa

comm

unication(education)

perspectiveon

socialjustice,

andreveal

important

differencesthat

theiractivist

teachingm

akesfor

studentsand

forcom

munities

with

which

CA

Peducators

andstudents

wo

rk.

Fifth,as

justsuggested,

thebenefits

ofengaging

inC

AP,

potentially.are

substantialand

widespread.

The

primary

beneficiaryof

CA

P,of

course,is

students,w

hoput

intopractice

theircom

munication

knowledge

andacquire

new,

expanded,and

transformed

comm

unicationknow

ledgefrom

thatprac

tice,to

become

socialjustice

comm

unitychange

agents.A

sthe

chaptersin

thisbook

document,

inaddition

tolearning

coursem

aterial,students

who

participatein

CA

Pdem

onstrateconsistently,

bothquantitatively

(see,e.g.,

Cox

&G

eiger)and

qualitatively(see,

e.g.,C

arey),an

increasedsense

ofthe

possibilitiesof

neededsocial

changeand

ofthem

selvesas

proactivesocial

changeagents

who

canand

will

work

with

others,both

nowand

inthe

future,to

producethat

socialchange.

Hartnett

(2007)pointed

tothe

potential“pow

erof

delayedim

pact”and

“multiplier

effects”of

nicationactivism

scholarship,for

althoughteaching

always

isabout

enablingpeople

toacquire

certainskills

inan

institutionallyconstrained

env

iro

nm

en

t,italso

isabout

theexcite

men

t

offuturity

—potential

waiting

tohe

realized—

anddispersion

—.- seeing

howideas

multiply

throughnetw

orksofstudents,friends,and

colleagues.(p.212)

CA

Palso

ishighly

beneficialto

thosew

hoengage

inthis

activistform

ofteaching.

At

aconcrete

level,C

AP

teachingdem

onstratesthe

appliedvalue

ofcom

munication

concepts,principles,

andpractices

thatcom

munication

educatorsteach

students,w

ithC

AP

projectsreverberating

backinto

andrefining,

extending,and,

insom

ecases,

transforming

teachers’know

ledgeand

useof

thoseconcepts,

principles,and

practices.In

thatsense,

CA

P,as

Wood

(1995)

contendedabout

appliedcom

munication

research,involves

“practicingtheory

andtheorizing

practice”(p.

157).A

ta

more

conceptuallevel,

CA

Ptransform

seducators

intoteacher-citizens

who

areem

bedded

28

Freyan

dP

almer

Introduction29

in,connected

to,and

attempt

tochange

Socialin)ustices

facingtheir

com

munities

(see,e.g.,

Fullan,1993).

People,typically,

become

teachersto

make

adifference

insociety

(see,e.g.,

Stiegelbauer,1992),

andthat

isparticularly

thecase

form

inoritiesentering

theteaching

profession(see,

e.g.,Su,

1996);C

AP

enableseducators

tom

eetthat

goalby

engagingin

socialtransform

ation

thatseeks

justicerather

thansocial

reproductionof

dominant

systems

thatcreate

andm

aintaininjustice.

CA

Palso

benefitsinstitutions

ofhigher

education,revitalizing

theircivic

mission,

inlarge

measure,

byrejecting

thedisconnect

between

theacadem

yand

localcom

munities.

CA

P-sponsoredevents/projects,for

instance,that

bringtogether

mem

bersof

localcom

munities

anduniversities

(inthis

volume,

seeD

eal;E

nck;G

ilbert)can

leadcom

munity

mem

bersto

seethe

(increased)relevance

andcredibility

ofthose

localuniversities,

and,thereby,

dissolvethe

“town—

gown”

distinctionthat

cancause

seriousproblem

sfor

universities.C

AP

alsocan

resultin

material

benefitsfor

colleges/universities,such

asvia

grantsobtained

byfaculty

mem

bers(in

thisvolum

e,see

Gilbert;

Murray

&Fixm

er-Oraiz;

Squires&

Creager)

andfavorable

media

coverageof

CA

Pevents/projects

(inthis

volume,

seeD

eal;G

ilbert).T

helong-term

,delayed-im

pact(f{artnett,

2007)benefits

ofC

AP

alsoinclude,

potentially,the

recruitment

andretention

ofa

more

diversestudent

body,especially

fromlocal

marginalized

comm

unitiesinvolved

inC

AP

projects,as

well

astangible

comm

unitysupport

(e.g.,from

financialcontributions

topolitical

supportfor

universityprojects),

andsupport

(financialand

otherwise)

fromparticipating

studentslater

inlife

when

theyare

more

established.C

AP,

ofcourse,

isdesigned,

specifically,to

aidoppressed

andunder

resourcedcom

munities,

andactivist

groupsand

organizationsw

orkingw

iththose

comm

unitiesto

securesocial

justice,hut

theextent

tow

hichC

AP

makes

theintended

socialjustice

differencecan

bedifficult

toassess.

Insom

ecases,

CA

Pdoes

resultin

tangiblem

aterialchanges

thatcan

heobserved

andm

easured;for

instance,as

documented

inthis

book,w

iththe

aidof

CA

Pstudents,

thePlanned

ParenthoodA

ctionFund

ofN

orthC

arolinacreated

oneof

them

ostsuccessful

advocacycam

paignsin

itshistory

thatregistered

6,000prochoice

votersstatew

ide(M

urray&

Fixmer-O

raiz);a

timber

salew

asdelayed

and,in

anothersale,

oldgrow

thunits

andnative

strandsw

ererem

ovedfrom

consideration,andthe

U.S. Forest Service

was

alertedto

facultydata-gathering

techniquesthat

were

beingused

tojustify

oldgrow

thlogging

inM

t.H

oodN

ationalForest

(Carey);

on-sitefree

medical

anddental

clinicsw

ereprovided

tom

arginalizedcom

munities

experiencinghealth

disparitiesin

Belize

(Hart

&W

alker);and

verbalbullying

(which

hadbeen

relatedto

racism,

inparticular)

was

reducedat

am

iddleschool

becauseof

students’ability

toengage

inbystander

intervention(C

ox&

Geiger).

Inother

cases,C

AP

studentsproduce

usefulproducts

foractivist

groupsand

organizations,and

affectedcom

munities,

hutthe

extentto

which

those

productsaid

thosegroups

orresult

insocial

change,is

difficult,if

notim

possible,to

assess.E

xamples

fromthis

hookof

suchproducts

includea

documentary

andaccom

panyingpress

kit,created

forN

orthC

arolinaStop

Torture

Now

,about

tortureand

extraordinaryrendition,

andefforts

by.ictiv

istsof

thatorganization

toend

thosepractices

(Murray

&Fixm

er-Oraiz);

educationalhealth

programs

(e.g.,aboutpuberty, andpreg

nan

cy

andchildbirth)

offeredto

childrenand

wom

enliving

inpoverty

inB

elize(H

art&

Walker);

avideo

documentary

aboutm

igrantw

orkers’lives

andneeds

thatw

asused

bythe

SoutheastG

eorgiaC

omm

unitiesProject

toap

pl

forgrants

andto

raisefunds,

asw

ellas

shown

onlocal

televisionto

raisepublic

awareness

ofw

orkers’needs

(Kennerly);

andphotographic

slideshow

sabout

localand

nationalsocial

justiceissues

(e.g.,racial

profiling)that

were

made

byand

shown

to“at-risk”

andunderserved

highschool

students(Squires

&C

reager).O

fcourse,

thesocial

justiceissues

onw

hichthese

CA

Pscholars

focused—including

economic,

environmental,

andenergy

injustice;violence

againstw

omen;

genocide;discrim

ination,stigm

atization,and

intimidation

(e.g.,racialand

anti—im

migrant);poverty;

marginalized

populations’access

tohealth

careand

education;and

prisonconditions—

arem

acrolevelsystem

icproblem

sthat

encompass

complex

structuralcauses,

numerous

organizationalsystem

s,m

ultiplepoints

ofim

pacton

comm

unities,and

solutioninitiatives

thatunfold

overlong

historicalperiods.

As

such,those

(andother

socialjustice)

problems

will

notbe

solvedin

theshort

termand,

certainly,not

bysingle,

orm

ultiple,C

AP

interventions.A

lthoughthe

goalis

tosolve

thoseinjustices,

doingso,

unfortunately,is

along-term

process.Still,

CA

Pefforts

contributeto

solvingthose

injusticesby

making

peopleaw

areof

them,

creating

spaceto

hearvoices

ofthose

who

areaffected

bythose

issues(including

thosew

honever

beforefelt

comfortable

expressingtheir

voices;see,

e.g.,O

snes&

Bisping),

andoffering

solutionsto

thoseproblem

s.M

oreover,because

systemic

changeis

sucha

vastand

longitudinalenterprise,

it,typically,

mandates

thatrelevant

organizationalnetw

orks(e.g.,

socialm

ovements,

nongovernmental

organizations,and

publicpolicy

thinktanks)

synchronizetheir

energiesand

resourcesto

challengecauses

of,and

implem

entsolutions

to,target

injustices.To

havem

acrolevelim

pact,C

AP

teachersm

ustfocus

theirteaching

practices(at

least,in

part)on

encouraging

suchnetw

orkingand

mobilizing

efforts.D

oingso

ineffective

vavsrequires

thatC

AP

teachersw

ithshared

concernscom

bine(or

collectivelyscaffold)

theirteaching

projectsto

theaid

oflarger

socialm

ovements.

Inthat

sense,C

AP

isnovel,

inthat

itboth

seesthe

needfor

andencourages

teachersto

combine

inm

aterialw

aystheir

pedagogicallydriven

researchinitiatives

tosolve

socialproblem

sthat

arefar

beyondthe

capacityof

individualteachers

tosolve

alone.Sixth,

thelong—

term,com

plexnature

ofconfronting

injusticeis

justone

ofm

anysignificant

challengesthat

confrontC

AP

educators,but

itpoints

30Frey

and1iIm

erIntroduction

31

tothe

needfor

settingrealistic

educationalobjectives

andcom

munity-based

outcomes

thatcan

beaccom

plishedin

theallotted

time

period(typically,

asem

ester/quarter)and

givenstudents’

knowledge

andcapabilities.

Settingrealistic

expectationsalso

countersthe

dauntingconceptions

thatoften

areassociated

with

socialjustice,

suchas

itbeing

the“quest

forthe

Holy

Grail”

(see,e.g.,

Boulding,

1988).Such

loftyconceptions,

nom

atterhow

well

intended,easily

canbe

debilitating,because,

asSolom

on(1989)

contended,

thevery

ideaof

justicetends

tobe

sooverblow

nthat

itaw

esrather

thanm

otivatesus.

Itseem

sto

referto

something

heroic—

perhapseven

divine—hut

notto

ordinarym

otives,spontaneous

gestures,and

everydayactions.

But

them

oststriking

andim

mediate

resultof

anysuch

grandconception

ofjustice

isthat

itis

always

ata

distance,som

ethingother,

astate

tobe

hopedfor

orprayed

forhut

justfor

thatreason

something

probablyunlikely,

evenim

possible,perhaps

evena

delusion. Justiceis

outof

ourhands,

am

atterof

personalconcern

perhapsbut

nota

matter

ofindividual

responsibility.(p.

355)

Even

with

realisticexpectations,

thereare

boundto

beinevitable

setbacks

andfrustrations

alongthe

way;

consequently,C

AP

educatorsm

ustw

orkhard

notto

letthose

problems

negativelyaffect

students’m

otivationto

besocial

changeagents

(seeJovanovic,

thisvolum

e).D

espitew

hateverproblem

sare

experienced,students

needto

understandand

appreciatetheir

CA

Pefforts,

keepingin

mind

thatevery

CA

Pendeavor,

regardlessof

whether

itaccom

plishesthe

intendedgoal,

isone

more

steptow

ardcreating

thecritical

mass

thatis

neededto

achievesocial

change.In

additionto

settingrealistic

expectationsand

maintaining

determina

tionin

theface

ofdaunting

oddsand

significantsetbacks,

comm

unicationeducators

confrontm

anyother

challengesas

theyplan

andim

plement

CA

Pendeavors,

includingunderstanding

asfully

aspossible

thetargeted

injustice,and

networking,

tosom

eextent,

with

activistorganizations

thatare

fightingthe

injustice.A

sjust

oneexam

plefrom

thisbook,

Enck’s

abilityto

guidestudents’

comm

unicationinterventions

toprevent

genderviolence

was

basedon

bothher

conceptualknow

ledgeof

suchviolence

andher

embodied

experiencesw

ithnational

andlocal

feminist

andgender

antivioleneeorg

anizations

toend

thatviolence.

Sucha

combination

aidsC

AP

educatorsin

linkingstudents

tosucial

justicegroups

and/orm

arginalizedcom

munities

inw

aysthat

meet

boththeir

teachingobjectives

andthose

groups’needs.

Moreover,

asevery

teacher-activistin

thisbook

testified,there

isa

discrepancy

between

thebest-laid

CA

Pplans

andthe

livedvicissitudes

involvedin

carryingthem

out;invariably,

unplannedsituations

arisethat

must

bedealt

with

instrategic

(andoften

imm

ediate)w

ays,including

improvising

an

interventionreconfiguration

dueto

comm

unitym

embers’

changingneeds,in

addition,of

course,to

maintaining

studentgroup

cohesionin

them

idstofthose

changes.M

aintaininga

willing

opennessto

strategicim

provisationin

lightof

Murphy’s

law(“A

nythingthat

cango

wrong,

will

gow

rong”),andturning

thatim

provisationinto

teachablem

oments,consequently,arecentral

featuresof

CA

P.H

ence,whether

itis

connectingstudents

with

marginalized

groups,coordinating

educationalobjectives

with

comm

unityorganizations,

orresponding

toongoing

interventionim

plementation

problems,

CA

Prequires

deftfacilitation

byeducators;

indeed,at

anygiven

mom

ent,CA

Peducators

must

playthe

roleof

instructor,veteran

activist,com

munity

organizer,university

liaison,or

anycom

bination.Teacher-activists,

thus,learn,

overtim

e,how

toenact

multiple

rolessim

ultaneouslyand

howto

adapttheir

pedagogicalpractices

tothe

projectdem

andsat

hand.T

wo

additionalinterrelated

corechallenges

forC

AP

educatorsare

docum

entationof

theeffects

ofC

AP

endeavorsand

reflectionon

CA

Ppractices.

As

mentioned

previously,effects

ofC

AP

oftenarc

difficultto

assess,but

CA

Peducators

stillshould

tryto

document

them.

Suchdocum

entation)undoubtedly,

isaided

byintegrating

researchinto

CA

Pendeavors,

asout

come

assessment

ofsom

eform

(whether

quantitativeor

qualitative)is

aroutine

practicein

comm

unicationactivism

research(see

thestudies

inFrey

&C

arragee,2007a,

2007b,2012).

Moreover,

becausesuch

research,invari

ably,seeks

theview

sof

affectedcom

munity

mem

bersand/or

mem

bersof

socialjustice

groupsand

organizationsw

orkingw

iththose

comm

unities,C

AP

educatorscan

determine

what

pedagogicalstrategies

were

andw

erenot

effective,and

howfuture

CA

Pprojects

might

employ

refashioned,if

notaltogether

different,teaching

practices.O

fcourse,

conductingresearch

addsto

thesignificant

time

andenergy

demands

thatalready

characterizeC

AP

endeavors,but

thatadditional

work

canbe

mitigated,

tosom

eextent,

bycollaborating

with

otherfaculty

mem

bersw

hofocus

onthe

researchcom

ponentand/or

bystructuring

researchinto

courseassignm

ents,or,in

thecase

ofC

oxand

Geiger

(thisvolum

e),conducting

CA

Pin

comm

unication

researchm

ethodscourses.

CA

Peducators

alsoneed

toreflect

inm

eaningfulw

ayson

thelived

practicesand

experiencesthat

constitutetheir

activistteaching,

especiallyw

henw

ritingabout

theirpedagogical

efforts.A

lthoughpedagogical

reflection

appearsto

bea

simple

andstraightforw

ardtask,

engagingin

itin

consequentialw

ays,actually,

canbe

quitedifficult.

Inediting

thisbook,w

enoted

thatone

theme

cuttingacross

thechapters

was

authors’tendency

toconfine

theirdescriptions

tothe

broadC

AP

project,despite

ourrepeated

requeststo

havethem

reflectsubstantively

ontheir

teachingpractices

andexperiences.

This

trendcan

betraced,

inpart,

tom

ostprofessors,

including

Freyand

PaIner

Intro

du

ctio

n

thosew

hopublish

substantially,not

conductingpedagogical

research;m

oreover,even

when

theydo,

them

ajorityof

pedagogicalresearch,

atleast

inthe

comm

unicationdiscipline

(e.g.,articles

publishedin

thejo

ur

nalC

omm

unicationE

ducation),do

not

callfor

reflectionon

thelived

experiencesof

teaching,itself,

The

resultw

asthat

itoften

tookseveral

draftsbefore

authorscould

providethick

descriptionsof

theireveryday

teachingpractices

andexperiences.

Writing

more

regularlyabout

livedteaching

practicesinside

andoutside

theclassroom

would

bea

positivestep

toward

understandingand

documenting

more

fullythe

veryacts

thatconstitute

CA

P.Finally,

CA

P,of

course,is

embedded

within

alarger

educationalsystem

that, with

itscorporate

andresearch

foci,as

discussedpreviously, dow

nplayssocial

activismas

aviable

teachingm

ethod.A

sa

result,C

AP

educatorsoften

arefaced

with

theneed

tofashion

teachinggoals,

strategies,and

supportform

sthat

havelittle,

ifany,,

institutionalprecedent;

they,thus,

oftenare

forgingthe

pathrather

thanfollow

inga

well—

worn

path.Sim

ultaneously,how

ever,because

CA

Prequires

extensiveplanning,

implem

entation,and,

ideally,follow

up,and

reportingof

itin

scholarlyoutlets,

itofte

nre

qu

ires

institutionalsupport

(e.g.,grant

funding),as

well

asdepartm

entalconsent!

approval—a

processthat,

attim

es,can

heproblem

atic(see

Jovanovic,this

volume).

Although

some

departments

andinstitutions

areor

would

hesupportive

ofC

AP

efforts(e.g.,

socialjustice

may

bew

ritteninto

theirm

issionstatem

ents),others

arenot

(seeSim

pson,this

volume).

There

are,unfortunately,

academ

ics

who

argueagainst

thisform

ofeducation

andeven

again

stany

ci

iceducation

(e.g.,Fish,

2004,2008),

andthere

areoth

who

arcvigilant

inand

will

goto

extreme

lengthsto

preventactivist

education(e.g.,

Horow

itz’s,2006,

“most

dangerousprofessors

list”;see

alsoH

artnett’s,2010,

examples

ofextrem

istresponses).

Those

individuals,

however,

seemperfectly

contentw

henprofessors

activelyproselytize

acceptedtruths

aboutcorporate

advertisingand

publicrelations,

orelite

civildiscourse;

they’becom

equite

agitated,how

ever,if

anyonesuggests

thattheir

preferredperspectives,

theories,m

ethods,and,

most

important

forour

purposes,pedagogies

recreatepreferred

meanings,

values,relations

ofpow

er,and

particularsocial

norms

andcultural

practices.W

eare

notarguing

thatall

educatorsshould

engagein

CA

P;w

eare

arguingfor

creatinga

spacefor

CA

Peducation.

CA

Peducators,

therefore,m

ustbe

well

preparedto

vali

datethe

legitimacy

oftheir

activistteaching

totheir

department

colleagues,university

administrators,

otheracadem

ics,other

comm

unitym

embers,

andeven

media

representatives,by

demonstrating

CA

P’spedagogical

valueto

studentsand

itsapplied

valueto

departments,

universities,and

localand

nationalcom

munities—

onem

orereason

fordocum

entingthe

effectsof

theirpedagogical

efforts.

CO

NC

LU

SIO

N

Despite

them

ail)’challenges

associatedw

ithteaching

cornm

unieationactivism

,this

bookis

testimony

tothe

factthat

edueaturscan

challengesocial

injusticesdirectly

throughtheir

teaching.T

hehighlighted

projectsare

creativeproducts

ofm

averickeducators

who

made

adeliberate

decisionto

breakfrom

traditionalteaching

objectivesand

bindtheir

comm

unicationpedagogy

toprom

otingsocial

justicethrough

them

ediumof

socialactivism

.C

omm

unicationactivism

pedagogyconstitutes

anew

,exciting,

anddistinctive

formof

teachingthat

standsin

sharpcontrast

totraditional,

corporate—oriented

education,by

puttin

ginto

practicephilosophies,

theories,and

methods

thatinform

criticalpedagogy

andother

educationalallies

inthe

struggleto

promote

socialjustice.

Com

munication

activismpedagogy

reinforcesfor

educators,as

Conquergood

(1995)argued,

that“the

imp

or

tantsite

forintellectuals

working

forsocial

changeis

intheir

teachingand

researchpractices

asm

uchas

onthe

ramparts”

(p.122).

At

theend

oftheir

essayabout

com

municatio

nand

socialjustice,

Frey,P

earce,et

al.(1996)

articulatedtheir

fundamental

beliefand

posedthe

fol

lowing

questionto

colleaguesin

thecom

munication

discipline:

We

sincerelybelieve

thatcom

munication

scholars,practitioners,educators,

andstudents

alikehave

much

tocontribute

tothe

struggleto

challengethe

norms,

practices,relations,

andstructures

thatprom

oteand

maintain

inequalityand

injustice.1’lic

questionis

whether

we

arepart

ofthe

problemor

partof

thesolution.

(p.123)

The

chapte

rsin

thisbook

demonstrate

thatw

hencom

munication

activismpedagogy’

ispart

andparcel

ofcom

munication

education,com

munication

educators,indeed,

arcpart

ofthe

solution.

NO

TE

S

1.W

eem

ploythe

term“pedagogy”

despiteits

questionableorigin—

rointhe

Ancient

Creek

word

paidagogas,w

hichis

derivedfrom

thew

ordfo

rtile

slave(p

all)

who

leads(agogas)

thechildren

(also,p

ais

)to

school.2.

Because

ofspace

limitations,

we

provideonl

sample

citationsfor

relevantscholarly

literature;extensive

bibliographiesfor

concepts,uiid

practicesdiscussed

inthis

chapter(and

otherchapters

inthis

hook)can

hebL

ind

athttp

://w

w.unco.

edu/C

oniniunicationActivism

Pedagogy.3.

Course

syllabihave

beenm

odifiedshightl’

forthe

sakeof

space.

).1Frey

ind

Palnw

rIn! rodtiction

35

4.‘Ihe

number

ofnonprofit

organizationsincreased

25%betw

een2001

and

2011,exceeding

thegrow

thrate

ofboth

thebusiness

andgovernm

entsectors

(Urban

Institute,2013a);

from2007

to2010

(du

ring

andalter

therecession),

no

np

rot

cniplovnientgrew

by4%

andw

agesincreased

6.5%,

incom

parisonto

declinein

1ohs

andw

agesin

business(—

8.4%and

--8%,

respectively)and

government

sectors

(—1%

and—

4.8%,

respectively;U

rbanInstitute,

2013b).

5.M

oreuniversities

alsoare

developingcriteria

foraw

ardingtenure

andp

ro

nm

onon

thebasis

of“engaged

scholarship”that

combines

teaching,research,

and

comm

unityservice

(see,e.g.,

Cam

pusC

ompact’s

resources:http://w

ww

.compact.

org/initiatives/trucen/trucen—toolkit).

6.‘lhat

listincludes

atleast

onecom

munication

scholarw

hoconducts

,sctiv—

isinresearch.

REFER

ENC

ES

Adam

s,N

I.,B

ell,L.

A.,

&G

riffits,P

(Eds.).

(2007).haching

fordiveruv

andsocial

Justice(2nd

ed).N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Routledge.

Ahlfeldt,

S.1.

(2009).Serving

ourcom

munities

with

publicspeaking

skills.Corn—

mum

cationTeacher,

23,158—

161.doi:10.1080/17404620903218767

Ahlquist,

R.,

Gorski,

P,

&M

ontaño,11

(Eds.).

(2011).A

ssaulton

kids.I/ow

hyper—

ciccoimntibilitj’,

corporatitalion,dejicit

ideologies, andR

ubyPayne

arelest roym

g

ourschools.

New

York,

NY

:Peter

Lang.

Alexander,

B.K

.(2006).

Perform

anceand

pedagogy.In

I).S.

Madison

&J.

1 lamera

(1ds.),

l’he.Satc’

han

db

oo

kof

performance

stitdws

(pp.253—

260).T

housand

Oaks,

CA

:Sage.

Alexander,

B.K

.(2010).

Critical/perform

ative/pedagogy:P

erforming

possibilityas

arehearsal

forsocial

justice.In

I).L.

Fasseit&

J.,L

Warren

(Eds.),

The

Sage

handbookof

corniiiitflic5itionand

imtruction

(pp.315—

341).T

housandO

aks,

CA

:Sage.

Alexander,

B.K

.,A

nderson,G

.I,.,

&G

allegos,P.

B.(E

ds.).(2005).

Performance

theoriesin

education:Pow

ei;

pedagogyand

thepolitics

ofidentity.

Nlaliw

ali,

NJ:

Law

renceE

rlbaum.

An

derso

n,

C.

W.

(1993).Prescribing

thelife

ofthe

mind:

An

essayon

thepurp

ose

ofthe

university,the

aims

ofliberal

education,the

competence

ofcitizem

,and

thecultivation

ofpra&

iualreason.

Madison:

University

ofW

isconsinPress.

Apple,

lvi.W

.(2013).

O/fiial

knowledge:

Dem

ocraticeducation

ina

comervative

age(3rd

ed.).N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Routledge.

Aronow

itz,S.,

&G

iroux,11.

A.

(1993).E

ducationstill

underiege

(2ii1ed).

West

port,(21’:

Bergin

&G

arvey.A

rtz,1..

(1998).A

frican—A

mericans

andhigher

education:A

nexigence

inneed

ofapplied

comm

unication.Journal

ofA

pplied(.om

munication

Research,

26,

210—231.

doi:lO.lO

$0/00909889809365502A

rty,1..

(2001).C

riticalcthnographv

forcom

munication

studies:1)ialogue

and

socialjustice

inservice—

learning, SouthernC

omm

unicationJournal,

66,239—

250,

doi:10,1080/10417940109373202

Au,

W,

Iligelow,

B.,

&K

arp,S.

(Eds.).

(2007).R

ethinkingour

classroomS:

Jac]ing

forequality

andsocialjustice

(2nded.).

Milw

aukee,W

I:R

ethinkingSchools.

Avres,

W,

Quinn,

‘1’.,&

Stovall,

I).(E

ds.).(2009).

handbookol

socialjustice

ineducation.

New

York,

NY

:R

outledge.B

arber,B

.R

.(1984)..Strong

democracy:

Participatomy

politicsJor

anew

age.B

erkeley:

University

ofC

aliforniaP

ress.B

arber,B.

R.(1998).

.4place

mr

us:I/vu.

tom

akesociet)

ci;.’l anddcrnoc

macv

.mtrong.

New

York,

NY

:1

liiiand

Wang.

Barber,

B.R

.(1992).

An

aristocracyof

everyone:Ihe

politicsof

educationand

the

futureof

Am

erica.N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Ballantine

Books.

Bickford,

I).M

.,&

Reynolds,

N.

(2002).A

ctivismand

servicelearning:

Refram

ing

volunteerismas

actsof

dissent.Pcd.zgogy,

2,229—

252.doi:1

0.1215/15314200-

2-2-229B

irkenmaier,

j.,(ru

ce,A

.,W

ilson,J.,

Curleev,

J.,B

urkemper,

E.,

&S

tretch,.

(Eds.).

(2011).E

ducatingfor

socialJustice:T

ransformitiz’e

experiential learning.C

hicago,11.:

lyceu

mB

ooks.B

oal,A

.(1985).

Theatre

ofthe

oppressed(C

.A

.M

cBiide

&M

.-O,

I..M

cBride,

‘irans.).N

ew‘york,

NY

:‘I’heatre

Com

munications

Gro

up.

Boulding,

K.

F.(1988).

Socialjustice

asthe

Ilol

Grail:

‘I’heendless

quest.Soci.cl

JusticeR

esearch,22,

273—286.

doi:10.1007/BF

01052299

Bow

les,S.,

&G

intis,11.

(2011).Schooling

incapitalist

Am

erica:l’ducational

reformand

thecontradfttions

ofeconom

icli/c

(2nded

).C

hicago,IL.:

Ilavniarket

Book.,.

Bover,

E.1..

(1990).Scholarshipreconsidered:

Prioritiesof

thepro/essoriate.

Princeton,N

J:C

arnegieF

oundationfor

theA

dvancement

of’l’eaching.B

oyer,E.

I..(1996).

The

scholarshipof

engagement.

Bulletin

ofthe

Am

erican.4cad—

em)’

ofA

rtsand

Sciences,49(7),

18—33.

doi:l0.2307/3$24459

Britt,

F.L.

(2012).‘‘ls’

we

useservice—

learning:A

reportoutlining

atvpologv

ofthree

approachesto

thisform

ofcom

munication

pedagogy.C

omm

unicationE

ducation,6),

80—88.

doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.632017

Broom

e,B.J.,

Carey,

(2.,D

cLa

Garza,

S.A

.,M

artin,J.,

&M

orris,R

.(2005).

Inthe

thickof

things:A

dialogueabout

theactivist

turnin

interculturaleonim

u—nieation,

InW

J.S

tarosta&

G.—NI.

Chen

(Eds.),

‘Likingstock

inintercultural

comm

uniLation:

Where

tcnow

?(pp.

145—175).

Washington,

1)C:

National

(om

mu

nic

atio

nA

ssociation,B

rosio,R.

A.

(1994).A

radicaldem

ocraticcritique

o/capitalts:

education.N

essY

ork,N

Y:

Peter

lang

.B

ull,B

.1..

(2008).Social

justic

ein

education:A

nintroduction.

New

York,

NY

:I5elg

rave

MacM

illan.B

ute,j. J.,

&K

opchick,(2.

1..(2009).

1lealthcom

municaticsn

andhealth

education:E

mpow

eringstudents

toeducate

theircom

munities.

Com

munication

7kachem23,

71—76.

doi:10.1080/17404620902780221

Butler,

A.

(2009,A

pril15).

igc’s

inthe

nonprofitsector:

ilanagemc’nt,

proJ,.—sional,

andadm

inistrativesupport

occupatio

ns

(Rev.

cc!.).W

ashington,l)(

2:U

.S.D

epartm

ent

(ifL

abor.R

etrievedfrom

http://ww

ss.bls.gov/opub/cwc/

cm2C

OX

lO22arO

lpIlam

Butler,J.

F.(2000).

Dem

ocrac),diversity,

andcivic

engagement

.A

codeine,86(4),

52—55.

doi:10,2307/40251899

30Frey

andPalm

erintroduction

.37

Cable,

A.

(1932).A

programof

speeched

uL

ano

nin

ad

emo

cracy.

Boston,

MA

:E

xpression.(:arrag

ee,K

.IV!.,

&F

rey,I.,

R.

(2012).In

troductio

n:

Com

municatio

nactivism

for

socialjustice

scholarsh

ip.

InI..

R.F

rey&

K.

M.

Carragee

(F.ds.),C

omm

unica—lion

activism.

Vol.3:

Strugglingfor

soLial

justiceam

idstdifference

(pp.I —

68).N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

I lampton

i’ress.C

hapman,

1.K

.,&

I lobbel,M

.(lids.).

(2010)Social

justicepedagogy

acrossthe

curricilum:

Ihep1ic

tI(eof

freedom

.N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Routledge.

Checkow

av,B

.(2001).

Renew

ingthe

civicm

issionof

theA

merican

researchuni—

scrsitv. Journalof

hig

her

Idjicaiwn,

72,125—

147.doi:

10.2307/2649319(‘licseb

ro,

j.W

.(1996,

March).

‘[hescholarly

imperative:

Fusingteaching,

research,and

service..Speetra,

Pp.2

17.C

ipolle,S.

B.

(2010) ,Service—learning

andsocial

justic

e:

Engaging

studentsin

socialchanie.

Iaiiham

,N

il):R

owm

an&

Iittleileld.

(olb

eek,

(2.(1998).

Merging

ina

seamless

blend:I low

facultyintegrate

teachingand

research.Journal

ofhig

her

Fducation,69,

647—671.

doi:10.2307/2649212(o

nquerg

ood,

1).(1995).

Betw

eenrigor

andrelevance:

Rethinking

appliedco

mm

unication.In

K.

N.

Cissna

(lid.),A

ppliedcom

munication

inthe

21stceniurI

(pp.79—

96).M

ahwah,

NJ:

1aw

rcnceE

rlbauin.(2ooks,

1..(2001).

Fensinist

pedagogiesand

resistance.M

ediaStudies,

1,380—

381.doi: 10.1080/14680770152649550

(ooks,1..

(2010).‘l’he

(critical)pedagogy

ofcom

munication

andthe

(critical)com

munication

ofpedagogy.

In1).

1..lassert

&J.

‘11W

arren(E

ds.),The

Sagehandliook

ofcom

munication

andzn,truction

(pp.293—

314).‘l’bousand

oak

s,C

A:

Sage.C

ooks,I,.

M.,

&Sim

pson,J.

S.(E

ds.).(2007).

Whiteness,

pedagogy,perjorinaiice:

Dis/pL

icingrase.

Ianham

,M

l):L

exingtonB

ooks.C

rabtrce,R

.1).

(1998).M

utualem

powerm

entin

cross—cultural

particip

atory

de—veiopnient

andservice

learning:l,essons

incom

munication

andsocial

justicefrom

pujects

inEl

Salvador

andN

icaragua.Journal

ofA

pplied(,om

mlsnication

Research,

26,182—

209.doi: 10.1080/00909889809365501

I)arling—I

lamm

ond,1

.,

French,

J.,&

Garcia—

Lopez,

S.P.

(2002).J.e.irning

toteach

forsu&

ialJustice.

New

York,

NY

:‘fracliers

College

Press.I)avis,

1’.,&Ilarrison,

I..lvi.

(2013).A

dvancingsocialjustice:

Thols, pedagogies,and

silategiesto

transJormyour

campus.

SanFrancisco,

CA

:Josscv

Bass.

1)ectz,S.

A.

(1992).J)em

ocracyin

anage

ofcoiporate

colonization:l)ocelojnieiits

Incom

,nunjiationand

the

politicsof

evervda)lije.

Albany:

State

University

olN

ew‘york

Press.I)enzin,

N.

K.

(2003).Perfrirm

inceeihnography:

Crical

pedagogyand

thepities

ofculture.

‘l’housandO

aks,C

A:

Sage.de

Oliveira,

I.C

.(I’d.).

(2013).T

hachereducation

forsocial justice:

Perspectices

andlessons

learned.(

liailotte,N

C:

Inform

atio

nA

ge.l)e’l’urk,

S.(2011).

Critical

andragogyand

comm

unicationactivism

:A

pproaches,tensions,

andlessons

learnedfrom

asenit )r

capstoneci iu

rse.O

miniunicaiion

ie.ichcs;25,

48—60.

doi:I0.1380/17404622.201C.513995

l)ewes

J.(1899).

.S,hooland

society.C

hicago,II.:

University

ofC

hicagoPress.

l)ewey,J.

(1910).h

ow

icethink,

Boston,

MA

:1).

C.

1Icatli.

l)ewey,J.

(1916).I)em

ocracyand

education.’A

nintroduction

tothe

philosophyof

education.N

csvY

ork,N

Y:

Macm

illan.I)ew

ev,J.(1938).

[xperiencc’and

education.N

ew‘o

rk,

NY

:Nlacm

illan.1)roge,

1).,&

Nlurph’,,

ii.0.

(lids.).(1999).

Voices

ofstrong

democracy:

(.‘oncepisand

models

forservice

lc’arningin

comm

unicationstudies.

Washington,

I)C:

Am

ericanA

ssociationfor

IligherE

ducation.E

aton,(2.

(2001).‘l’lw

practice0f

feminist

pcd

agog

..lledia

Stu

dies,

1,390—

391,doi:10.1080/14680770152649613

Linfeld,

A.,

&(2ollins,

D.

(2008).‘l’hc

relationshipshetsveen

service—learning,

socialjustice,

multicultural

competence,

andcivic

engagement.

Journalof

College

StudentD

evelopment,

49,95—

109.doi:

10.1353/csd.2009.00

171’ndres,

1).,&

Gould,

NI.

(2009).“1

amalso

inthe

positionto

usem

yw

hitenessto

helpthem

out”:l’he

comm

unicationof

whiteness

inservice

learning.W

esternJournal

ofC

omm

unication,73,

418—436.

doi:10.1080/10570310903279083Irv

in,

Ii.(2006).

Rhetorical

situationsand

thestraits

ofinappropriateness:

‘haclnnglem

inistactivism

.R

heioricR

eview,

25,316—

333.doi:

13.I20

7/s1532798lrr2

503,5

Fassctt,

1).1.,

&W

arren,J.1,.

(2037).(S

r,tualcom

munication

pedagog).‘l’housancl

Oaks,

(2A:

Sage.I’ish,

5.(2004,

May

21).W

hyw

ebuilt

theivory

tower.

ike

New

YlsrkTim

es.R

etrievedfrom

http

://ww

w.n

vtim

es.com

Fish,

S.(2008).

3az’ethc’

s.orldon

yourow

ntim

e.N

ew‘o

rL,

NY

:O

xfordUni—

sersitvP

ress.F

isher,B

.(2010).

Failing

democracy:

Public

speakingpedagogy

andeducation

fordem

ocraticcitizenship.

Florida(.‘om

munication

Journal,.38(1),

29—42.

Fixm

cr-Oraiz,

N.,

&M

urray,B

.(2009).

Challenging

pedagogics:R

eflectionson

comm

unicationactivisni

andservice—

learning.R

ocky.llountain

Com

nngnicatjonR

c’viec,6(2),

52—55,

Retrieved

fromlittp://rm

cmutah.edu

Flores,

L.A

.(2013).

Striving

forsocial

justice—’I’be

excellenceof

inclusionin

education.W

esternJournal

ofC

omm

nu,ncation,77,

645—653.

doi:10.1080/lOS

70314.2013.823514Franklin,

B.(1749).

Proposals;‘elating

tothe

c’diicationoJ

) outhin

Pensilvania.R

etrievedfrom

University

ofP

ennsylvaniaA

rchives&

Record

(enter

wehsitc:

http://ww

w.archives.upenm

i.edu/primdocs/l749proposals.litm

lF

reire,P

(1970).Pedagogy

oftl’c’

opp

ressed

(NI.

B.R

amos,

‘l’ransj.N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Ilerder

andIlerder.

1:re,

I..R

.(2009).

What

adifference

more

difference—m

akingcom

munication

scholarshipm

ightm

ake:M

akinga

differencefrom

andthrough

comm

unication

research.Journal

ofA

pplied(iom

municatoin

Research,

37,235

214.doi:10.1

38G/0C

909$8093279232I

Frey,

1..R

.,&

(arragcc,

K.

NI.

(lids.).(2037a).

(.onioctincc,ttmon

,ictiv

isol:

‘sol.1.

(:onim

ic)n

cw

tu,m

i/r

socialchange.

Cresskill,

NJ:

Ilam

ptonP

ress.Frey,

I,.R

.,&

(arragee,

K.

Nl.

(lids.).(2007b).

(Zomn,nunicaiion

activism:

VoL2.

.t!c’diaand

performance

activism.

(rcs.skill,N

J:I

lam

pto

nP

ress.

38Frey

,iiu.lP

InierIn

troductio

n39

Frey,L.

IC,

&C

arragee,K

.M

.(2007c).

Introduction:C

omm

unicationactivism

asengaged

scholarship.In

L.R.

Frey&

K.

M.

Carragce

(Eds.),

Com

munication

activism(2

Vols.,

pp.1—

64).C

resskill,N

J:IIainpton

Press.

Frey,1..

P..,&

Carragee,

K.

M.

(Eds.).

(2012).C

omm

unicationactivism

:V

ol.3.

Struggling

for

socialjusticeam

idstdiJfrence.

New

York,

NY

:Ilam

ptonPress.

Frey,L.

R.,

Pearce,W

B.,

Pollock,M

.A

.,A

rtz,L.,

&M

urphy,B.

A.0

.(1996),

Lo

ok

ing.or

justice111

allthe

wrong

places:O

na

comm

unicationapproach

tosocial

justic

e.

Com

munication

Studies,47,

110—127.

doi:10.1080/10510979609368467

Frey,C.

R.,

Pollock,M

.A

.,A

rtz,1,.,

&Pearce,

W.

B.(1996).

Fromm

ediumand

contextto

praxisand

process:‘l’ransform

ingthe

undergraduatecom

munication

curriculum.

World

Com

munication,

25,79—

89.Frey,

L.R

.,&

SunWolf.

(2009).A

crossapplied

divides:G

reatdebates

ofapplied

comm

unicationscholarship.

InC.

P..Frey

&K

.N

.C

issna(E

ds.),R

outledgehandbook

ofapplied

comm

unicationresearch

(pp.26—

54).N

ew

York,

NY

:R

outledge.

I’ullan,NI.

(1993).W

hyteachers

must

become

changeagents.

Educational

Leader

ship,50,

12—17.

Retrieved

fromhttp://w

ww

.ascd.org/publications/cducatic,naLleadership

.aspxG

ajjala,R.

(2011).

Building

andpracticing

theory:A

ddressingthe

academic/activist

binaryin

theclassroom

.W

omen

Lan

guag

c’,34,

67—70.

Garner,J.

‘C,&

Barnes,J.

(2013).C

onnectingclassroom

sand

comm

unity:E

ngagedscholarship,

nonacademic

voices,and

organizationalcom

munication

curriculum.

Com

munication

Education,

62,105—

126.doi:10,1080/03634523.2012.734380

Gayle,

B.M

.(2004).

Scholarship

ofteaching

andlearning:

‘l’ransformations

ina

civildiscourse

publicspeaking

class:Speakers’

andlisteners’

attitudechange.

Com

munication

Educatw

n,53,

174—184.

doi:10.108C

/03634520410001682438

Gayle,

B.M

.,M

artin,I).

M.,

Mann,

S.,&

Chrouser,

L.(2002).

Transform

ingthe

publicspeaking

classroom:

Ascholarslsip

ofteaching

andlearning

projecton

civilpublic

discourse./ournal

o/the

Northw

estC

omm

unication.lsoclation,

31,1—

26.G

ibson,C

.(2001,

Novem

ber).iro

min

spiratio

nto

particip

ation:

itrezieze

ofperspectives

onyouth

civicengagem

ent.B

erkeley,C

A:

Grantm

akerJ:oruin

onC

omm

unity&

National

Service.R

etrievedfrom

Philanthropy

forA

ctiveC

ivicE

ngagement

website:

http://ww

w.pacefunders.org/publications/pu1ss/

Moving%

2OY

outh%2O

report%2O

RE

V3pdf

Giliner,

1j.

(2002).O

palescenceat

thetriple

point:R

esearch,teaching,

andservice.

In1

C.

Taylor,

P.J.G

iliner,&

K.

‘l’obin(E

ds.),7}ansjorrning

undergraduatescience

teaching:Social

construct,visiperspectives

(pp.423—

462).N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Peter

Lang.

Giroux,

II.A

.(1988ay

schoolingand

thestruggle

for

publiclij’:

Criticalpedagogy

intl,e

modern

age.M

inneapolis:U

niversityof

Minnesota

Press.(,iroux,

11.A

.(1

988b).‘Iachers

asintellectuals:

loward

acritical

pedagogyoJ

learning.G

ranhy,M

A:

llergin&

Garvey.

Ciroux,

11.A

.(1989)

.School

/ordem

ocracy:C

riticalpedagogy

inthe

oimlern

age.L

ondon,U

nitedK

ingdom:

Routledge.

Giroux,

11.(2010,

October

17).lessons

fromPaulo

Freire.C

hronicleof

hig

her

Education.

Retrieved

fromhttp://chrcsnicle.com

Giroux,

11.A.

(2011).O

ncs-iticsil pedagogy.

New

York,

NY

:C

ontinuumInternational.

Giroux,

11.A

.(2013,

Septem

ber10).

Intellectualsas

subjectsand

ob1ecrs

o/violence.

Retrieved

fromT

rutbtiutw

ebsite:http://w

ww

.truthout.org/opinion/item

/18704—

intellectuals—as—

subjects—and—

objects—of—

vislence

I Iarkavy,1.

(2006).‘the

roleof

universitiesin

advancingcitizenship

andsocial

justicein

the21st

century.E

ducation,C

itizenship,and

Social Justice,1,

5—37.

doi:10.1177/1746197906060711

Ilarman,

R.,

&French,

K.

(2004).C

riticalperfcsrm

ancepedagogy:

Afeasible

praxis

forteacher

education.In

J.O

’Donnell,

M.

Pruyn,

&C

.R

.C

havez(E

ds.),

Socialjusticein

thesetim

es(pp.

97—115).

Grcenw

ich,C’l:

Information

Age.

Ilartnett,

S.(1998).

linco

lnand

Douglas

meet

theabolitionist

David

\Valker

,ss

priso

ners

debateslavery:

Enspow

eringed

ucatio

n,

appliedcom

munication,

andsocial

justice.Journal

o/A

ppliedC

omm

unicationR

esearch,26,

232—253.

doi:ID. 1 080/309098898093655C

3

Ilartnett,

S.J.(2007).

“You

arefit

forsom

ethingbetter”:

Com

municating

hope

inantiw

aractivism

.In

L.P..

Frey&

K.

M.

(:arragee

(Eds.),

Com

munication

activism:

Vol.

1.C

omm

unicationflir

socialchange

(pp.195—

246).C

resskill,N

J:

I IaniptonPress.

I Iartnctt,

S.J.

(2010).C

omm

unication,social

justic

e,

andjoyful

comm

itment.

Western

Journalof

Com

muum

ucation,74,

63—93.

doi:10.!C8C

/10570310903463776

IIartnett,S.J.

(Ed.).

(2011).C

hallengingthe

prison—industrial

complex:

Activism

,

arts,am

ideducational

alternatives.U

rbana:U

niversityof

IllinoisPress.

IIartisett,

S.J.,N

ovek,E.,

&W

ood,J.

K.

(Eds.).

(2013).W

orkingfor

juis

tue:

.4

handbook

u/prisoneducation

andactivism

.U

rbana:U

niversityof

IllinoisPress.

IIartnett,S.J.,

Wood,J.

K.,

&M

cCann,

B.J.(2011). T

urningsilence

intospeech

and

actio

n:

Prisonactivism

andthe

pedagogyo

fem

powered

citizenship.Com

nmunica—

don

&C

riticsil/CultugralS

tudies,8,

331—352.

dc,i: 10.1080/14791420.2011.615334

Iloffnsann,E

C.,&

Stake,J.E.

(1998).Fem

inistpedagogy

intheory

andpractice:

An

em

piric

al

investig

atio

n.N

WS.4

Journal,10,

79—97.

doi: 10.2979/NW

S.

1998.10.1,79

Ilolsinger,K

.(2011).

Teaching

justice:Solving

socialproblem

sthrough

university

education.B

urlington,V

T:A

shgate.

I loro

witz,

1).(2006).

The

professors:ih

e101

most

dangerouszcidem

icsin

/1nierici.

Washin

gto

n,

I)C:

Regnerv.

j.irvis,

S.E

.,&

1 Ian,S—

II.

(2010).‘leaching

citizenship:Student—

ledclo

cum

entar

filmp

roje

cts

intlse

comm

unicationclassroom

.C

omm

unicationteacb

e24,

35—42.

doi:10.1080/17404620903433390

Johnson,J.R

.(2034).

Universal

instructionaldesign

and

critical(com

munication)

pedagogy:S

trategiesfor

voice,inclusion,

andsocial

justice.L

quiiy6

Lxcellencein

Education,

37,145—

153.dcsi:10.1080/10665680490453995

J olsnson,P..

C.,

Ill.(E

d.).(2009).

Atw

enty—first

centuryapproach

toteaching

socialju

stic

e:

Educating

Jor

bothadvocacy

andactio

n.

New

York,

NY

:P

eterlang.

jovanovic,

S.(2003).

Com

munication

ascritic

al

inquiry

inse

rvic

e—

learn

ing..4cadem

uc

Exchange

Quarterly,

7,81—

85.

40Frey

,indPdIiiier

Intro(ILIC

.4lon.4

1

alineJ

&\V

estliiner

J.(1996).

Inthe

serviceof

what?

[he

politicsof

servicelearning.

PhiD

eltaK

appan,77,

593—599.

Kanpol,

B.(1994).

Critical pedagogy:A

nintroduction.

Westport,

C’l’:B

ergin&

Garvey.

Keddie,

A.

(2012).F

dueittngJor

diveisiiyand

social

justice.N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Routledge.

Kennedy,

1).(1997),

.‘Icadi’mu

duty.(

anibridge,M

A:

Ilarvard

Unisersitv

l’ress.I,cc,

W.

(2306).‘l’lw

desireto

knowand

tolove

isn

ever

too

small:

Mv

musings

onteaching

andsocial

justice.In

0.

Sw

artz(E

d.),.Social Justice

andcom

municsition

scholarship(pp.

193—214).

Mahw

ah,N

J:I,aw

renccE

ribaum.

[.ju,

NI.

(2311).F

osteringcivic

engagement

inthe

comm

unicationresearch

methods

course.C

omm

unicationieachei;

25,166—

174.doi:10.1083/17424622.221!

.579908I,ucas,

S.1’..

(2001).S

peechmaking,

pedagogy,and

civicresponsibility.

.imeru

an(:oiriinhinicsitloci

Journal,5(2).

Retrieved

fromhrtp://w

ww

.acjournal.org

Makau,

J.N

i.(1996).

Notes

oncom

munication

educationand

socialju

stic

e.

Corn—snunicaliun

Studies,47,

135—141.

doi:I0.1080/1051

09796093(6469M

anski,B.

(2000).In

thehands

ofyouth:

‘[hegrow

ingstruggle

fordem

ocracyand

education.In

C.

1).W

hite&

1C

.I

lauck(E

ds.),C

ampus,

Inc.:C

orporateer

inthe

ivoryto

aer(pp.

375—398).

Am

herst,N

Y:

Prom

etheusB

ooks.N

iarullo,S.,

&E

dwards,

14.(2000).

Fromcharity

tojustice:

‘I’hpoteiitial

ofuniver

sitv—coinm

unitvcollaboration

forsocial

change.A

merican

Behavioral

Scientist,43,

895—912.

doi: 10.1177/00027640021955540M

athie,V.

A.,

Buskist,

W,

Carlson,J.

F,

l)avis,S.

F,

Johnson,I).

F.,&

Sm

ith,R.

A.

(2004).F.xpanding

theboundaries

ofscholarship

inpsychology

throughteaching,

research,service,

andaclnnnistrat ion.

‘leachingof

Psychology,.31,

233—241.

doi:10.1207/s15328323top3104J

Nlav,

S.K

.(2012).

Activating

ethicalengagem

entthrough

comm

unicationin

or—gani/atlons:

Negotiating

ethicaltensions

andpractices

ina

businessethics

initiative.In

1..R

.[rev

&K

.N

I.C

arragee(E

ds.),(

omnm

unicationactivism

:Vol.

3Struggling

forsocial

justic

eam

idstdifference

(pp.325—

366).N

ewo

rk,

NY

:I lam

ptonP

ress.M

cIat

cii,

P.(2000a).

Chc

Gu

evara,

PauloFreire,

andthe

pedagogyoj

revolution.[anhani,

MI):

Row

man

&L

ittletield.M

elaren,

P.(2000b).

Paulo

l’reirc’spedagogy

ofpossibility.

InS.

Steiner,

11.K

rank,P.

McI.aren,

&R

.B

ahruth(E

cls.),!‘rcirean

pedagogy,praxis

andpossibilities:

Pmojccts

jor

thenez.’

millennium

(pp.1—

22).N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

l’almer

Press,

Mc

[aren,F

(2007).I.ije

inschools:

,4miintroduction

tocriticsil

pedagogyin

the/u

ndaiu

ms

ofeducation

(5thed.).

Boston,

MA

:P

earson/Allvn

andB

acon.M

cIaren,

F,

&l.eonarcl,

P.(E

cls.).(1993).

Paulo

Irene:A

criticalencounter.

New

York,

NY

:R

outledge.M

onroe,A

.if.

(1935).(

)rganizingthe

complete

speech:[h

em

otivatedsequence.

InA

.II.

Monroe

(Fd.),

Principlesand

typesof

speech(4th

ed.,pp.

307—3!!).

Incago,11.:

Sott,

Foresm

an.\lo

ore,

‘1’.1..,

&W

ard,K

.(2010).

institu

tionalizin

gfaculty’

engagement

throughteaching,

research,and

serviceat

researchuniversities.

Michigan

Journaloj

(.‘omm

numtv

ServiceL

earning,17(1),

44—58.

Retrieved

fromiittp

://ginsherg.

um

ich.cduinijcsl

Morton,

K.

(1995).‘I’he

ironyof

service:(

:haritv,project

andsocial

cliaiIgcIn

sersice—

learning..flichigan

Journaloj’

(]omm

uniiyService

1.i

rning,2,

1932.

Retrieved

fronihttp

://gin

sberg

.untich

.edu/m

jcslN

ash,R

.J.,Johnson,

R.

C.,

111,&

Murray,

NI.

C.

(2012).‘leaching

collegestudents

comm

unicationsti’iie

gle

sfor

eI/ectivesocial

JusticeciLlZ5)L.icy.

New

‘1 ork,N

Y:

Peter

I.ang.N

ovek,F.

NI.

(1999).S

erviceis

atennnist

issue:‘ii ansfornnng

comm

unicationpedagogy.

Wom

en’sStudies

inC

omm

unication,22,

230—243.

dot: 10.1080/07491409.1999.10162422

()‘llara,

I..S.

(200!)S

ervicelearning:

Students’

transformative

journc’’from

corn—in

unication

studen

tto

civic—m

indedprofess

ioilalox:thc’rn

(Anim

imnicaizom

iJo

urn

al,66,

251—266.

doi:10.1080/10417940109373203

)pt,S.

K.

(2005).l.earning

activismin

thebasic

publicrelations

course.lX

isSpeech

Coin

71111ni cat11)71

Joii,‘nal,

.30,47—

56.O

ster—A

aland,I..

K.,

Sellriow,

‘I’.F.,

Nelson,

P.F.,

&P

earson,J.

(.

2OO

4j.‘l’lw

statusof

sersicelearning

indepartm

entsof

coininuitication:A

followup

studsC

omnm

nunicationl’clucation,

53,348—

356.doi:10.!080/0363452032000305959

Palm

er,1).

1..(2011,

Novem

ber

4)Student

actiz’ismn

inthe

ageof

corpor.itism.

Speechpresented

tothe

I)cpartm

ent

ofIluntan

(oniniunication

.:ncl‘I’hteatrc,

‘l’rinitvU

niversity,San

Antonio,

‘IX.

Park,

S.N

I.(1996).

Research,

teaching,and

sersice:

Why

shouldn’tw

oo

len

’sw

oikc

iunt?Joinnal

ojhig

her

Lducation,

67,46—

84.doi:

13.2307/2943903P

earce.\V

B.(2006).

Refleetioits

ona

projectto

promote

sod.:

1justice

inc

‘iliniunication

educationand

research.In

0.

Sw

artz(id

.),Soci,il

Justiceand

coinmum

u:anonscholarship

(pp.216—

238).M

ahwah,

Nj:

I.asvrcnccI’,rlbauin.

Pineau,

F.(2002).

Critical

performative

pedagogy:F

leshingout

thepolitics

oflib

eratoryeducation.

InN

.S

tuck

&C

.W

imn:c’r

(E

d5.),

leachingpc’r/orm

ml.:ncc

studies(pp.

41—54).

Carboitdale:

Southern

lllnioisU

niv

ersitP

ress.R

akosv,1..

F(1999).

Beyond

teaching,research,

andservice.

In\\‘.

C.

i.htrist

(Id.),

I.eadershipin

times

ojchange:

Aham

tdbookfo

rcom

,numucatiom

iand

mcdii

admnm

istrators(pp.

85-—lCD

).N

lahwaht,

NJ:

Iaw

rencel’.rlbauni.

S,:ltman,

K.

J.(2300).

Collatc’ral

damage:

Coiporatizing

jiblic

Sc iJO,ls

—.1

thic,uto

dlemnocr.icy.

Ianhan:,

Nil):

Row

man

&I,ittletield.

Saltm

an,K

.j.

(2035).J’he

l”disonschools:

Corporatc’

sclsoolmg

and

the’assault

onpublic

educatio,i.N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Routledge.

Saltman,

K.J.

(2012).‘the

Jailureof

corporatesi’Jjo

oiri/ann.

Boulder,

GO

:Paradigm

.Saltinan,

K.

j.,&

(;.:bbard,I).

A.

(Eds.).

(201!).L

ducati,,nas

n/orcemnl

nt:

l’hcm

ilitarizuionan

dcorpviatiz.ition

of’schools(2nd

ed).N

ew‘

ork,N

’i:R

outledge.Sandrnann,

1,.R

.,&

Gillespie,

A.

(1991).L

andgrant

universitieson

iii,sl./lclitll

Learning,

3(2),23—

25.dcii:!

0.1177/104515959100302210S

en

si,v

,.

).,&

I)iAngelo,

R.

(2012).Is

every

one

e(/u

a&

:.fn

1111roduciz,,nto

“‘l

concc’ptsifl

sOci.il

Jilsticc’education.

New

York,

NY

:‘I’cachc’rs

College

Press.

Sholle,

1).(1994).

1hetheory

ofcritical

media

pedagogy’.Journ

al

ii!C

oo

imu

nic

atio

nInquiry,

18,8—

29.doi:l0

.I177/019685999401830202

Sholle,

1).(1995).

Resisting

chsciplincs:R

epositioningm

cdi,:studies

intile

ui:iscrsit\

-(.om

nmnunication

I’heori,5,

130—143.

ddll:10.11!!

‘j. 1468-2885.1995.tbDD

I02..\

42Frey

andP

almer

Sim

pson,j.

S.(2006).

Reaching

forjustice:

The

pedagogicalpohtics

ofagency,

race,

andchange.

Review

of

Educotion,

Pedagogy,

&C

ulturalStudies,

28,67—

94.

doi: 10.1080/10714410600552852S

impson,J.

S.(2010).

Critical

racetheory

andcritical

comm

unicationpedagogy.

In

I).L.

Fassctt

&J.

TW

arren(E

ds.),?be

Sagehandbook

of

comm

unicationand

instruLtion(pp.

361—384).

Thousand

Oaks,

CA

:Sage.

Sirianni,

C.,

&F

riedland,1..

(1997).C

ivicinnovation

&A

merican

democracy.

Change,

29(1),14—

23.doi:

10.1080/00091389709603109

Sm

ith,F.

(2011).K

eyissues

ineducation

andsocial

justic

e. T

housandO

aks,C

A:

Sage.

Smvth,J.

(2011).C

riticalpedagogy

fo

rsocial

justic

e.

New

York,

NY

:C

ontinuum.

Solomon,

K.C

.(1989).

The

emotions

ofjustice.

SocialJusticeR

esearch,3,

345—374.

doi: 10.1007/1

F0

1048082

Stiegelhauer,

S.(1992,

April).

Why

we

want

tobe

teachers:N

ezte

hers

talkabout

theirre

aso

ns

Jir

enteringthe

profession.P

aperpresented

atthe

meeting

ofthe

Am

ericanE

ducationalR

esearchA

s’ociation,San

Francisco,

CA

.

Stucky,

N.

(2006).F

ieldwork

inthe

performance

studiesclassroom

:learn

ing

ob

jec

tivesand

theactivist

curriculum.

Inft

S.M

adison&

J,F

lansera(E

ds.),T

he

Sagehandbook

ofpeijo

rin

ailL

estudies

(pp.261—

277). Thousand

Oaks,

CA

:Sage.

Su,X

.(1996).

Why

teach:P

roitlesand

entrperspectives

ofm

inoritysL

uden

tsas

becoming

teachers.Journal

ofR

esearchand

1)evelop;nentin

Lducation,

29,

117—133.

Swan,

S.(2002).

Rhetoric,

service,and

socialjustice.

Written

CoinuiuniL

ation,19,

76—108.

doi:10.l177/074108830201900104

‘Irillingham,

(2.C

.(1939).

Speech

educationin

adem

ocracy.W

esternSpeech,

3,7—

9.

Urban

Institute.(201

3a). NonjroJits.

Retrieved

fromhctp://w

wv.urban.orgJnonprohts

Urban

Institute.(2013b).

Nonprofit

sectoris

growing

fasterthan

therest

ofthe

economy.

Retrieved

frontlittp://w

ww

.urban.org/publications/90I 542.htm

l

U.S.

I)epartm

ent

ofE

ducation,Institute

ofE

ducationSciences,

National

Center

for

Education

Statistics.(2011,

May).

Thenation’s

reportcard:

Civics

2010(N

CE

S

Publication

No.

2011466).R

etrievedfrom

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

pdf/main2O

IO/201

1466.pdfW

ade,R

.(2.

(2000).1ey

ond

charity:Service

learningfor

socialjustice.

SocialStudies

andthe

Young

1_earnei;12(4),

6—9.

Ward,

K.

(2003).licu

ltyservice

rolesand

thescholarship

ofengagem

ent.San

Fran

cisco,C

A:

Jossey-Bass.

Warren,

j.T.,

&Fassett,

I).L.

(2010).C

riticalcom

munication

pedagogy:R

efraining

thefield.

In1).

L.Fassctt

&J.

‘1’.W

arren(E

ds.),T

heSage

handbookof

coin—

,nunicationand

instruction(pp.

283—291).

Thousand

Oaks,

CA

:Sage.

Watkins,

W.

11.(Ed.),

(2012).T

heassault

onpublic

education:C

onfi-ontingthe

politicsof

corporate

schoolreform

.N

ewY

ork,N

Y:

Teachers

College

Press.

William

s,K

.(1973).

Base

andsuperstructure

inM

arxistcultural

theory.N

ewLeft

Review

,82,

3—16.

Retrieved

fromhttp://new

leftreview.org

Wood,

j.T.

(1995).T

heorizingpractice,

practicingtheory.

InK

.N

.C

issna(E

d.),

Applied

comm

unasitionin

the21st

century(pp.

157—167).

Mahw

ah,N

J:L

aw

renceE

rlhauni.Z

ajda,j.,

Majhanovich,

S.,&

Rust,

V.(E

ds.).(2007).

Education

andsocial justice.

New

York,

NY

:Springer.