LongBench v2 / 6704a83dbb02136c067cde1b / In examining the sociocultural perspectives on literacy—specifically literacy as…

Volume 8 Number 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            Spring 2012  
 
Editor 
Lindy L. Johnson 
                    
 
 
 
      http://jolle.coe.uga.edu 
 
 
What is Literacy? – A Critical Overview of Sociocultural 
Perspectives 
 
Kristen H. Perry 
University of Kentucky 
Kristen.perry@uky.edu 
 
 
 
Abstract 
 
Sociocultural perspectives on literacy include various theories focused on the myriad ways in  
which people use literacy in context, which include a strong emphasis on power relations.  Yet, 
these theories also have important differences, and many in the field of literacy do not clearly 
differentiate among them.  I provide a critical overview of influential sociocultural perspectives 
on literacy, focusing on three major perspectives: (1) literacy as social practice, (2) 
multiliteracies, and (3) critical literacy.  In an effort to support researchers in framing their 
scholarly work and to support practitioners and other consumers of research make sense of 
research, I discuss the ways in which each theory would answer the question, “What is literacy?” 
as well as the affordances and limitations of these theories in terms of literacy development, 
literacy use, and literacy instruction.   
 
Please cite this article as: Perry, K. (2012). What is Literacy? –A critical overview of 
sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 8(1), 50-71. 
Available at http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/What-is-Literacy_KPerry.pdf 
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       51 
 
Introduction 
Recent literacy policies and programs have been shaped in large part by cognitive and 
psycholinguistic perspectives (e.g., Muth & Perry, 2010; Pearson & Hiebert, 2010), such as 
those promoted by the National Institute for Literacy (e.g., McShane, 2005), the National 
Reading Panel (2000), and the National Early Literacy Panel (2008), that focus on particular 
skills such as phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension.  Although they have had a 
lesser impact on policy and instruction, sociocultural approaches to literacy have long played an 
important role in the field of literacy.  Indeed, many of the theories that literacy scholars draw 
upon in their work emerge from sociocultural perspectives (Gee, 2000; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 
2007a; Tracey & Morrow, 2006) grounded in the work of Vygotsky (1978).  While sociocultural 
theories of literacy development and practice have been taken up in K-12 contexts, much of the 
groundwork for these theories originated in adult, family, and community literacy research from 
scholars such as Street (1984), Barton and Hamilton (1998), Heath (1983), and Purcell-Gates 
(1995).  This research has been concerned with understanding the ways in which people use 
literacy in their everyday lives, finding ways to make literacy instruction meaningful and 
relevant by recognizing and incorporating students’ out-of-school ways of practicing literacy, 
and decreasing achievement gaps for students whose families and communities practice literacy 
in ways that may differ from those in the mainstream or in positions of power.   
 
Although there is no single sociocultural theory on literacy, literacy scholars sometimes treat 
sociocultural perspectives on literacy as unified or interchangeable.  Indeed, Lewis, Enciso, and 
Moje (2007b) argue that “the word sociocultural has taken on both great prominence, and, we 
would assert, some lack of clarity in application” (p. 1).  One widely-adopted graduate text, 
Tracey and Morrow’s (2006) Lenses on Reading, illustrates the way in which sociocultural 
theories are often undifferentiated, in comparison to cognitive theories.  This book contains one 
chapter on social learning theories; in contrast, the cognitive theory of Constructivism receives 
its own chapter, and Information/Cognitive Processing theories are spread over three entire 
chapters.  Some may argue that this treatment reflects the relative “newness” of the acceptance 
of sociocultural perspectives on literacy development; however, sociocultural and sociolinguistic 
theories on literacy development and practice have been influential for decades.   
 
Because of the differences among the various theories united under the sociocultural umbrella, it 
is more appropriate to speak of sociocultural perspectives as a collection of related theories that 
include significant emphases on the social and cultural contexts in which literacy is practiced.  
Major theoretical perspectives within this paradigm include literacy as a social practice, 
multiliteracies, and multiple literacies.  Sociocultural perspectives also include an emphasis on 
power relations; thus, critical theories play an important role in this perspective.  In fact, Lewis, 
Enciso, and Moje (2007a) suggest that the term critical sociocultural perspective may be 
appropriate to describe many of these theories. Having a clear understanding of the specific 
theories that fall under the sociocultural umbrella is important for both literacy researchers and 
literacy practitioners.  For example, is there a difference between multiliteracies and multiple 
literacies?  Are new literacies and new literacy studies the same?  The theoretical ways in which 
we describe literacy matter: Terms like new literacies, multiliteracies, or literacy as a social 
practice have implications that extend beyond the pages of scholarly and professional journals:  
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       52 
 
Metaphors for literacy do not stand on their own.  They are part of a particular 
view on literacy that has implications for how we think about learners, how we 
think about what they ought to learn and how this could be achieved. (Papen, 
2000, p. 12) 
 
Given the ways in which theories shape our understandings of literacy learning and instruction, 
my goal in this manuscript is to provide a critical overview of influential sociocultural 
perspectives on literacy.  As there simply is not enough space for a complete review of all 
theories that fall under the sociocultural umbrella, I focus this review on three major 
perspectives: (1) literacy as social practice, (2) multiliteracies, and (3) critical literacy.  I discuss 
the affordances and limitations of these theories; that is, the ways in which these theories are – 
and are not – useful in speaking to literacy development, literacy use, and literacy instruction.  
This critical overview may be helpful for literacy researchers in framing their scholarly work; it 
also may help practitioners and other consumers make sense of research emerging from this 
paradigm.   
 
Framing the Perspective 
Sociocultural perspectives on literacy are related to sociolinguistic conceptualizations of the 
ways in which language instantiates culture (e.g., Gee, 1996; Halliday, 1973), the ways in which 
language use varies according to contexts (Bakhtin, 1986), the relationship between language use 
and power (Bourdieu, 1991), and the ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1994).  Halliday, 
coming from a functional linguistics perspective, suggested that culture is realized through 
language.  Language, thus, is never independent of social world, as it always occurs within and is 
shaped by a cultural context.  According to Gee (1996), language “always comes fully attached 
to ‘other stuff’: to social relations, cultural models, power and politics, perspectives on 
experience, values and attitudes, as well as things and places in the world” (p. vii).  Literacy, as 
one form of language use, therefore reflects all of this “other stuff.”  Sociolinguists have 
described the many ways in which language and literacy are patterned according to context – 
what Bakhtin (1986) referred to as speech genres.  Gee’s (1996) construct of Discourses as an 
“identity kit” similarly illustrates the ways in which language is connected with social roles and 
cultural and political contexts.  Bourdieu (1991) suggested that language, as a set of practices, is 
more than a system of words and grammatical rules, but “also an often forgotten or hidden 
struggle over the symbolic power of a particular way of communicating” (Duranti, 1997, p. 45).  
 
An emphasis on culture, activity, identity, power, and the sociocultural contexts in which literacy 
occurs engenders approaches that align with this epistemological viewpoint.  In advocating for 
an ethnography of communication, Hymes (1994) argued that “facets of the cultural values and 
beliefs, social institutions and forms, roles and personalities, history and ecology of a community 
may have to be examined in their bearing on communicative events and patterns” (p. 12).  
Responding to calls for situated understandings of language and literacy in use, much of the 
empirical work that has led to the development of current sociocultural perspectives has emerged 
from ethnographic research, discourse analysis (Rex et al., 2010), and other situated case studies 
of literacy in practice.  According to Street (2001), various perspectives coming out of 
anthropology and sociolinguistics focused researchers on the ways in which people used reading 
and writing in different contexts.  As Street notes,  
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       53 
 
The rich cultural variation in these practices and conceptions leads us to rethink what we 
mean by them and to be wary of assuming a single literacy where we may simply be 
imposing assumptions derived from our own cultural practice onto other people’s 
literacies. (p. 430) 
 
Much sociocultural research in literacy, therefore, is built on an assumption that “an 
understanding of literacy requires detailed, in-depth accounts of actual practice in different 
cultural settings” (Street, 2001, p. 430).  Street warns, however, that it is not enough “to extol 
simply the richness and variety of literacy practices made accessible through such ethnographic 
detail: we also need bold theoretical models that recognize the central role of power relations in 
literacy practices” (p. 430).  
 
Major Sociocultural Theories of Literacy 
In the following sections, I describe the theories of literacy as social practice, multiliteracies, 
and critical literacy, describing what is common among the three perspectives, as well as what 
differs among them.  Because literacy as a situated social practice underpins other theories 
within the larger umbrella of sociocultural theories on literacy, I devote more space to the 
discussion of this particular theory than the others in this manuscript, in order to lay the 
groundwork for understanding other theories.   
 
Literacy as Social Practice  
The theory of literacy as a social practice has been heavily influenced by Street’s (1985) early 
work in Iran.  Grounded in data that described the various ways in which people used reading 
and writing for different purposes in their everyday lives, Street’s theory contrasted autonomous 
and ideological models of literacy.  The autonomous model – under which most formal literacy 
instruction operates – conceptualizes literacy in strictly technical terms.  That is, literacy is 
assumed to be a set of neutral, decontextualized skills that can be applied in any situation.  
Literacy is something that one either has or does not have; people are either literate or illiterate, 
and those who are illiterate are deficient.  The autonomous model attributes important 
consequences both to individual cognition and to society through the intrinsic characteristics that 
literacy is assumed to have.  In contrast, the ideological model conceptualizes literacy as a set of 
practices (as opposed to skills) that are grounded in specific contexts and “inextricably linked to 
cultural and power structures in society” (p. 433).   
 
Others working within this tradition (e.g., Alvermann, 2008; Gregory & Williams, 2000; 
Hagood, 2002; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007a; Luke, 2003, 2004; Purcell-Gates, 2007), 
sometimes referred to as the New Literacy Studies, have added to this theory.  As Street (2003) 
explains,  
What has come to be termed the “New Literacy Studies” (NLS) (Gee, 1991; Street, 1996) 
represents a new tradition in considering the nature of literacy, focusing not so much on 
acquisition of skills, as in dominant approaches, but rather on what it means to think of 
literacy as a social practice (Street, 1985).  This entails the recognition of multiple 
literacies, varying according to time and space, but also contested in relations of 
power…and asking “whose literacies” are dominant and whose are marginalized or 
resistant. (p. 77) 
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       54 
 
In this sense, the term New Literacy Studies is essentially equivalent to literacy as a social 
practice.  What is “new” in this sense?  As Lankshear and Knobel (2003) explain, “the New 
Literacy Studies comprise a new paradigm for looking at literacy, as opposed to the paradigm, 
based on psychology, that was already well established” (p. 2; emphasis in original).  In other 
words, the New Literacy Studies challenges autonomous paradigms of literacy.   
 
The theoretical work of Barton, Hamilton, and others based at the Lancaster Literacy Research 
Centre in the United Kingdom has been particularly influential in further developing theories of 
literacy as social practice.  In answer to the question “What is literacy?,” theorists of literacy as a 
social practice would say that literacy is what people do with reading, writing, and texts in real 
world contexts and why they do it: Barton and Hamilton (2000) note that “in the simplest sense 
literacy practices are what people do with literacy” (p. 7).  They caution, however, that practices 
involve more than actions with texts; practices connect to, and are shaped by, values, attitudes, 
feelings, and social relationships.  Social relationships are crucial, as “literacy practices are more 
usefully understood as existing in the relationships between people, within groups and 
communities, rather than as a set of properties residing in individuals” (p. 8).  Barton and 
Hamilton (2000) outlined six propositions about the nature of literacy: 
 
1. Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these can be inferred from events 
which are mediated by written texts 
2. There are different literacies associated with different domains of life 
3. Literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and some 
literacies become more dominant, visible and influential than others 
4. Literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and cultural 
practices 
5. Literacy is historically situated 
6. Literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of 
informal learning and sense making. (p. 8) 
 
Drawing upon Heath’s (1983) work, Barton and Hamilton differentiate between literacy events 
and literacy practices.  Literacy events are observable; that is, we can see what people are doing 
with texts.  Practices, in contrast, must be inferred because they connect to unobservable beliefs, 
values, attitudes, and power structures.  Due to the emphasis on literacy events, those who work 
within this framework of literacy as social practice tend to focus on print and written texts.  
 
An example may be useful here in illustrating the nature of literacy as a social practice.  
Sudanese refugees frequently engaged in literacy events that involved reading the Bible for 
various purposes (Perry, 2007, 2008, 2009), such as following along during a church service, for 
Bible study classes, or for guiding personal prayer.  As a social practice, these events connected 
with the larger life domain of religion or spirituality.  Reading the Bible was done purposefully, 
for a variety of reasons, as the refugees engaged with their Christian communities.  This practice 
has been shaped by the social institution of the church, with historical and power dimensions.  
Historically, socially, and politically, the practice of reading the Bible is generally valued among 
the mainstream culture of the U.S., which has been predominantly Judeo-Christian.  Thus, the 
practice of reading the Bible is, at least in the U.S., more dominant, privileged, and valued above 
the practice of reading other holy texts, such as the Quran.  However, this practice must also be 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       55 
 
considered in the historical context of the participants’ lives: In the Sudan, African Christians are 
a minority that has been actively oppressed by the Arabized Muslim majority.  Reading the 
Quran was a more dominant and privileged practice that was valued above reading the Bible; in 
fact, reading the Bible (practicing Christianity) could have serious negative consequences.  
Finally, this practice has changed for these refugees as their contexts have changed.  Many 
participants switched to reading the Bible in English instead of in their native Arabic, in order to 
actively participate within American Christian communities. 
 
One critique of existing theories of literacy as social practice is that the connection between 
literacy events and literacy practices has been, at best, vague.  How can practices be inferred 
from events?  In our ongoing work with the Cultural Practices of Literacy Study (CPLS), 
Purcell-Gates and I have used the theory of literacy as a social practice to frame our 
investigations of literacy in various marginalized communities.  Over the past eight years, the 
process of analyzing the data across multiple case studies has allowed us to develop a model 
(Figure 1) that represents the theoretical relationship between literacy events and literacy 
practices (Purcell-Gates, Perry, & Briseño, 2011).   
 
The central, shaded layers of the model represent observable literacy events, beginning with the 
agent’s intent for reading or writing, and then moving to the text itself.  For example, a refugee 
from Iraq may read through online admissions information for various university programs to 
learn information about program(s) to which he or she might apply.  Together, this function or 
communicative intent (locating admissions information), along with the actual text (online 
university websites), mediates the agent’s purpose for engaging in the event (to apply for – and, 
ideally, to obtain – admission to a university program).  This immediate social goal is shaped by 
larger domains of social activity (such as schooling), which are in turn shaped by other 
contextual layers.  For example, the applicant’s personal history, along with beliefs and values, 
will help to shape which types of programs he or she might apply for.  If the applicant had 
previously been educated and worked as a doctor in Iraq, he or she might apply for medical 
programs in order to be certified to practice in the U.S.  Power relationships and social structures 
are integral to this context: If, for example, the applicant cannot provide documentation of his or 
her prior educational attainment, due to having fled his or her country under duress, this lack of 
documentation will shape whether or not he or she may apply to certain programs. 
 
Although the theory of literacy as social practice may not explain the process of how people 
learn to read and write, it can help to describe what types of knowledge are needed in order to 
effectively engage in given literacy practices.  By investigating the practice of literacy brokering 
among Sudanese refugees (Perry, 2009), in which individuals seek informal help with texts and 
literacy practices, I identified three broad aspects of knowledge that adults need in order to 
effectively engage in literacy practices: lexico-syntactic and graphophonic knowledge, cultural 
knowledge, and written genre knowledge (Figure 2).  
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       56 
 
Figure 1. Model of a literacy practice.  
Reprinted from Purcell-Gates, V., Perry, K.H., & Briseño, A. (2011). Analyzing Literacy 
Practice: Grounded Theory to Model. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(4), 439-458.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       57 
 
 
Figure 2. Aspects of knowledge needed in order to engage in literacy practices. 
Reprinted from Perry, K. (2009).  Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering 
among Sudanese refugee families.  Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 256-276. 
 
 
 
 
 
Lexico-syntactic and graphophonic knowledge consist of knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, and 
how a given language is encoded and decoded in print.  Cultural knowledge includes beliefs, 
values, and expectations.  Genre knowledge includes knowledge of the textual features, uses, 
purposes for use, and organization of given genres.  This model illustrates the usefulness of 
viewing literacy as a set of social practices, because it shows that cognitive skills (e.g., the ability 
to decode) are only one part of what it takes to be literate.  In addition, individuals must have a 
great deal of context-dependent knowledge to engage in a literacy practice.  
 
For example, one refugee family needed help understanding the meaning of, as well as what they 
were supposed to do with, sweepstakes documents they had received in the mail.  The wife had 
unsuccessfully tried calling the company for more information to learn what they were supposed 
to do to claim the $1,000,000 they believed they had won.  Neither participant knew how 
sweepstakes programs worked in the U.S., and because they did not know how to either read the 
fine print or read between the lines, they took the documents’ statements at face value.  As the 
literacy broker in this event, I had to explain the concept of a sweepstakes to the couple.  I 
showed them some of the “tricky” language the letter used (e.g., you will win “if you have the 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       58 
 
winning number” [emphasis added]) and shared that my family referred to this type of text as 
“junk mail,” reflecting our belief that it was “not good.”  These refugees, who were literate in 
several languages, needed access to a great deal of information in order to know what to do with 
the sweepstakes documents.  Without cultural background knowledge regarding the sweepstakes 
and other similar schemes in the U.S., without experience with the genre of direct-mail 
marketing ploys, without knowledge of the registers used in such genres, this couple could not 
make sense of the documents, and they were at a loss as to what to do with them. 
 
Multiliteracies 
Both derived and distinct from theories of literacy as social practice is the theory of 
multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), developed by the New London Group.  As Cope and 
Kalantzis (2000) note, the group’s focus was “the big picture; the changing world and the new 
demands being placed upon people as makers of meaning in changing workplaces, as citizens in 
changing public spaces and in the changing dimensions of our community lives – our lifeworlds” 
(p. 4).  Like the perspective of literacy as social practice, multiliteracies emphasizes the real-
world contexts in which people practice literacy.  This theory also places significant emphasis on 
the role of power relationships in shaping literacy and literacy learning.  
 
The theory of multiliteracies differs from literacy as social practice in important ways.  The 
construct of multiliteracies suggests two arguments: “The first argument engages with the 
multiplicity of communications channels and media; the second with the increasing salience of 
cultural and linguistic diversity” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 5).  While the increased emphasis 
on cultural and linguistic diversity certainly aligns with theories of literacy as social practice, the 
emphasis on multiple communication channels is different.  As Cope and Kalantzis note, this 
theory “focuses on modes of representation much broader than language alone” (p. 5). 
 
In other words, scholars who work within theories of literacy as social practice tend to focus on 
practices that surround print literacy, while those who work within the theory of multiliteracies 
emphasize what Kress (2000a, 2000b) terms multimodality.  Multimodality implies that 
meaning-making occurs through a variety of communicative channels “in which written-
linguistic modes of meaning are part and parcel of visual, audio, and spatial patterns of meaning” 
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 5).  In fact, Kress and others who work within this framework 
actively criticize those who focus primarily on print literacy practices: 
 
So-called literate Western societies have for too long insisted on the priority of a 
particular form of engagement, through a combination of hearing and sight: with the 
sense of hearing specialized to the sounds of speech, and the sense of sight specialized to 
the graphic representation of sounds by “letters”, on flat surfaces. (Kress, 2000b, p. 184) 
 
In critiquing the overemphasis on written forms of meaning-making and the neglect of other 
modes of representation, Kress calls for a theory of semiosis that accounts for the “‘interested 
action’ of socially located, culturally and historically formed individuals, as the remakers, the 
transformers, and the re-shapers of the representational resources available to them” (Kress, 
2000a, p. 155).  That is, in answer to the question “What is literacy?,” those who ascribe to the 
multiliteracies perspective actively reject definitions of literacy that focus solely on print or 
written texts and instead view literacy as involving multiple modes of visual, gestural, spatial, 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       59 
 
and other forms of representation.  Multiliteracies scholars do not reject print literacy, but they 
view it as only one form of representation and meaning-making among many – one that has 
been, and continues to be, privileged above other forms in schooling.  The salient difference 
between theories of literacy as social practice and multiliteracies is how text is defined: 
multiliteracies theorists do not limit their definition of text to print only and instead include a 
variety of forms and semiotic systems.  
 
Given the emphasis on multiple media and modes of representation, digital technologies, and 
their associated literacy practices are an important focus of work within multiliteracies.  As a 
result, multiliteracies is often associated with the term new literacies, which may refer either to 
literacy practices that are associated with digital technologies or practices associated with a 
rapidly changing social context, depending on who is using the term (Lankshear & Knobel, 
2003).   
 
The New London Group and others have taken critical stances to higher levels than have 
researchers in the social practice framework (although this trend appears to be changing).  Much 
of the work of the New London Group, for example, focuses on the changing social, economic, 
and political world; they discuss the implications of the post-Fordist economy and globalization 
as well as the implications these trends have on life chances and social futures (Cope & 
Kalantzis, 2000).  Thus, while many who work within the theory of literacy practice 
acknowledge the dynamic nature of both culture and literacy practices, those within the 
multiliteracies framework place a much greater emphasis on the changing nature of the world – 
and the power relationships that are constructed within – and the ways in which language and 
literacy use change and adapt in response.  As an example of ways in which a multiliteracies 
perspective impacts literacy research and instruction, Alvermann (2008) paraphrases Lankshear 
and Knobel’s (2007) discussion of mindsets: 
 
The first mindset assumes that the contemporary world has undergone little social, 
cultural, and economic change since the advent of cyberspace, except for one thing—
technologies in use are greater in number and more sophisticated. The second assumes 
that the world has changed significantly as a result of individuals’ eagerness to participate 
in a networked society in which digital technologies enable new ways of being and 
accomplishing things. (p. 14) 
 
A critical stance is especially apparent in the multiliteracies theory’s implications for practice.  
While researchers and theorists working within the framework of literacy as social practice have, 
for the most part, focused on describing the many ways in which various communities practice 
literacy, there has been less emphasis on implications for practice in literacy instruction.  In 
contrast, much of the theory of multiliteracies is intimately tied to instructional implications.  
The New London Group’s work argues that education must be reformed in such a way that 
encourages situated practice for critical understanding.  Only through this pedagogy of 
multiliteracies can literacy education raise critical consciousness and ultimately transform 
practice.  Thus, in responding to the question of what literacy is, scholars in this tradition might 
respond that we cannot think about what literacy is without also thinking about the ways in 
which literacy is taught.  For example, Alvermann (2008) suggests that the second “mindset,” 
described above, implies that expertise and authority are distributed, which blurs the distinction 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       60 
 
between teachers and learners.  Similarly, in describing the impact of new literacies on 
instruction, Hagood (2003) argues that critical media literacy should involve “engaging students 
in the analysis of textual images (both print and nonprint), the study of audiences, and the 
mapping of subject positions such that differences become cause for celebration rather than 
distrust” (p. 194).  
 
Critical Literacy 
Both of the perspectives described thus far include at least some consideration of power 
relationships.  Street’s work highlights the ideological nature of literacy, while Barton and 
Hamilton (and many others within the social practices perspective) note the ways in which 
literacy practices are shaped by power.  Kress and others within the multiliteracies framework 
critique those who focus only on print literacy, suggesting that this semiotic mode may be overly 
privileged in Western societies.  In contrast, critical theories emphasize both power and 
empowerment, and recently have expanded to include issues of agency and identity (e.g., 
Alvermann & Hagood, 2000; Hagood, 2002; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007a; Moje & Luke, 
2009).  Indeed, Lewis, Enciso, and Moje call for “versions of sociocultural theory that would 
better address the issues of power, identity, and agency” (2007b, p. 2).   
 
In defining literacy as reading both the word and the world, Freire (2001) recognized that 
literacy is more than a cognitive skill and that it includes power relationships.  For Freire, the 
important point is “to understand literacy as the relationship of learners to the world” (p. 173).  
That is,  
 
To acquire literacy is more than to psychologically and mechanically dominate reading 
and writing techniques.  It is to dominate these techniques in terms of consciousness; to 
understand what one reads and to write what one understands; it is to communicate 
graphically.  Acquiring literacy does not involve memorizing sentences, words, or 
syllables – lifeless objects unconnected to an existential universe – but rather an attitude 
of creation and re-creation, a self-transformation producing a stance of intervention in 
one’s context. (p. 86; emphasis in original) 
 
Freire (2001) defined literacy as a process of conscientização, or consciousness, which means 
taking the printed word, connecting it to the world, and then using that for purposes of 
empowerment.  For Freire, “Literacy makes sense only in these terms, as the consequence of 
men’s beginning to reflect about their capacity for reflection, about the world, about their 
position in the world, about the encounter of consciousness” (p. 106).     
 
Other critical theorists also have employed similar frameworks.  Through her ethnographic work, 
Brandt (2001, 2009) used the construct of sponsorship to explore the ways in which individual 
literacy development connects to large-scale economic forces.  Sponsors, according to Brandt,  
 
Are any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, 
as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy – and gain advantage by it in 
some way…. Sponsors are a tangible reminder that literacy learning throughout history 
has always required permission, sanction, assistance, coercion, or, at minimum, contact 
with existing trade routes. (2001, p. 556)  


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       61 
 
 
While aligning in many ways with theories of literacy as social practice, Brandt brings issues of 
power to the forefront.  She argues that analysis of sponsorship requires consideration of  
 
not merely how one social group’s literacy practices may differ from another’s, but how 
everybody’s literacy practices are operating in differential economies, which supply 
different access routes, different degrees of sponsoring power, and different scales of 
monetary worth to the practices in use. (2001, p. 561)  
 
Brandt highlights the ways in which literacy acts as a commodity – one that individuals and 
groups may appropriate, misappropriate, or even reject.  She suggests that theorists of literacy as 
social practice have exaggerated the power of local contexts to determine the “meaning and 
forms that literacy takes” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 337).  Brandt seeks to restore the 
“somethingness” of literacy, in which literacy itself is a participant in literate events and 
practices. 
 
While Brandt’s work focuses on larger contextual factors, many working within a critical 
literacy perspective have focused on identity and on the ways in which individuals respond to 
power through literate practices, grounded in Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain’s (1998) 
work on identity and culture.  Identity as a theoretical construct is intimately tied to critical 
literacy, as Hagood (2002) contends:  
 
What is central to critical literacy that focuses on identity is the influence of the text and 
specifically of identities in texts on the reader.  The text, imbued with societal and 
cultural structures of race, class, and gender, marks the site of the struggle for power, 
knowledge, and representation. (pp. 250-251) 
 
Moje and Luke (2009) offer a comprehensive theoretical overview of identity within 
sociocultural perspectives on literacy; they note that while five general metaphors for identity 
shape literacy researchers’ work in various ways, the commonality among them is that the 
construct of identity foregrounds the actor or agent in literate and social practices.  Moje and 
Luke contend that identities mediate, and are mediated by, the texts that individuals read, write, 
and talk about, and that a theoretical focus on identity “is crucial, not to control the identities that 
students produce, construct, form, or enact but to avoid controlling identities” (p. 433). 
 
The work of French sociolinguistic theorist Bourdieu (1991) offers a helpful frame for 
understanding critical theories, and for seeing the ways in which critical theories can, and do, 
connect with theories of literacy as social practice and multiliteracies.  Bourdieu’s work makes 
connections among language use, power and politics.  Bourdieu connects his concept of habitus 
– the set of dispositions that incline us to think and act in certain ways – to that of cultural 
capital.  That is, linguistic utterances are signs of both status and authority.  Bourdieu, thus, 
believes that all linguistic exchanges (including those involving written texts) “are also relations 
of symbolic power in which the power relations between speakers or their respective groups are 
actualized” (p. 37).  Bourdieu argues that the social uses of language (including literacy) also 
symbolically reproduce power relationships and social differences.  Various agents have more or 
less symbolic power, depending upon whether or not their symbolic capital is recognized by 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       62 
 
those in power.  Bourdieu argues that the powerful (such as educators) do symbolic violence 
when they deny or denigrate the practices of others (such as minority students).   
 
What is Productive About Sociocultural Perspectives on Literacy? 
The various theories included in sociocultural perspectives have much to offer the field of 
literacy in general.  Notions about literacy have been shifting over the years, including beliefs 
that literacy is a singular skill set and that people are either literate or illiterate (Muth & Perry, 
2010).  Conceptualizing literacy as something one does, as opposed to a skill or ability one has, 
helps us understand the real-world ways in which real people actually engage with real texts, 
which ultimately could help educators make formal literacy instruction more meaningful and 
relevant for learners.  As Lewis, Enciso, and Moje (2007b) note, “Few other theories have shed 
so much light on the education of people whose language, literacy, and very being have 
traditionally been marginalized or disenfranchised in schools and societies” (p. 3).   
 
Understanding literacy as a socially-contextualized practice helps us understand the ways in 
which practices may vary across diverse communities, and the ways in which they also are 
dynamic and malleable.  Understanding multiliteracies helps us understand the varied ways in 
which people communicate and make meaning, as well as resulting implications for language 
and literacy instruction.  The focus on issues of power also helps us understand issues of access 
that people have, the ways in which social, economic and political structures may shape literacy 
practices, and the ways in which people may appropriate or reject certain practices.  Running 
across all three major perspectives are implications for authentic literacy instruction, redefining 
functional literacy, and understanding power and literacy. 
 
Focus on Authentic, Real-World Practice 
Sociocultural theories related to literacy focus on what people actually do with texts – the 
meaningful, purposeful ways in which people actually use literacy in real-world contexts.  
Viewing literacy as a diverse set of contextualized practices helps researchers and practitioners 
understand the full range of ways in which people use literacy in their everyday lives, as well as 
the various types of complex knowledge that users need to have in order to effectively practice 
literacy.  When educators understand the diverse ways in which people practice literacy – and 
that these ways are intimately connected with who these people are and the contexts in which 
they exist – they may be able to better tailor literacy instruction to meet the needs of learners.  
For example, Jacobsen, Degener, and Purcell-Gates (2003) and Purcell-Gates, Duke, and 
Martineau (2007) advocate for teaching with authentic literacy materials and activities in 
education.  
 
According to Jacobsen, Degener, and Purcell-Gates (2003), authentic, learner-centered 
instruction means using “print materials used in ways that they would be used in the lives of 
learners outside of their adult education classes” (p. 1).  In other words, instructors use real-
world texts for real-world purposes, not simply for the purpose of learning to read and write.  For 
example, immigrant students might be interested in advocating for legislation such as the Dream 
Act; their instructor might use newspapers or internet news articles in reading instruction and 
encourage their students to write letters to the editor or to politicians to advocate for their 
positions.  Thus, students are engaged with real-world texts for purposes that extend beyond 
classroom instructional goals.  Yet, sociocultural perspectives on literacy also require an 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       63 
 
understanding that what is authentic and meaningful in one context might not necessarily be so 
in another; the contextualized nature of authenticity requires nuanced understandings of literacy 
practices in order to make literacy instruction relevant and meaningful. 
 
Although a focus on real-world practices may not effectively explain how people become literate 
in the first place, it can speak to the ways in which informal literacy learning occurs, particularly 
in out-of-school contexts.  Theories related to literacy brokering (Mazak, 2006; Perry, 2009), 
literacy sponsorship (Brandt, 2001, 2009), or apprenticeship and legitimate peripheral 
participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) offer insights into the ways in which people acquire, adopt, 
or appropriate new practices and/or facility with new textual genres.  These informal learning 
theories may have something to offer formal instructional practice, particularly when instructors 
wish to teach in authentic, meaningful ways.  Understanding and acknowledging the informal 
ways in which people gain access to new texts and practices in their everyday lives may lead to 
insights into the effective skills and strategies learners already use that can be built upon in 
formal instructional settings.  
 
Redefining “Functional Literacy” 
Understanding literacy as a diverse set of practices should force researchers and practitioners to 
ask real questions about what terms like functional literacy mean.  Papen (2005) argues that 
functional literacy is increasingly defined by economic considerations, as literacy has become 
“identified with the skills needed in the context of employment and economic development” (p. 
9).  For example, Papen quotes Rassool (1999), who defines basic literacy as “the acquisition of 
technical skills involving the decoding of written texts and the writing of simple statements 
within the context of everyday life” (p. 7).  Those working within sociocultural theories of 
literacy would argue that a skills-driven model of functional literacy, particularly one grounded 
so heavily in employment and economics, ignores or denies the multiplicity of ways in which 
people meaningfully engage with print in their everyday lives.  Sociocultural theories force 
consideration that individuals who might be considered “illiterate” in certain contexts may, in 
fact, be able to effectively read, write, and otherwise meaningfully engage with texts in other 
contexts.  Conversely, these theories also suggest that individuals may be highly literate in some 
contexts, but have low levels of functional literacy in others.  Many academics I know, for 
example, have been very successful in academic publishing, but face great difficulties in 
navigating new digital forms of communication, such as text messaging or social networking 
websites.  
 
The results of my own work with refugees from Sudan required me to rethink and 
reconceptualize how I defined functional literacy and basic skills.  The participants’ frequent 
need for brokering related to genre suggests that functional literacy involves more than being 
able to decode words on a page.  Skills that are “basic” to being a functionally literate person go 
beyond decoding, vocabulary, and syntax and include an understanding of the cultural context, of 
genre features and purposes, of pragmatics.  Any definition of functional literacy must capture all 
of these skills required to effectively engage in the literacy practices of a given context.  Thus, 
being functionally literate involves having an understanding of the ways in which texts are used 
in the world to achieve social goals and purposes (Perry, 2009).  Those who work within the 
multiliteracies framework likely would extend this definition even further, suggesting that a 
functionally literate person is one who is adept at using a variety of semiotic modes of 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       64 
 
communication in the contexts in which those modes are used.  Similarly, critical theorists also 
would challenge such a simplistic, skills-based notion of functional literacy, instead suggesting 
that someone is not functionally literate until that person can understand their world “in terms of 
justice and injustice, power and oppression, and so ultimately, to transform it” (Papen, 2005, p. 
11).  
 
Understanding Power 
A focus on the importance of issues of power is a thread that runs throughout sociocultural 
theories of literacy.  Cognitive/psycholinguistic theories do not (and perhaps cannot) speak to the 
ways in which power relations shape literacy practices, and this focus on power is therefore an 
important contribution that sociocultural perspectives make to understandings of literacy and its 
use in the world.  Sociocultural perspectives help researchers and practitioners to see and 
understand the ways in which power relationships help to determine which literacy practices are 
available to a given community, which are dominant and privileged, and which are marginalized 
(Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Street, 1984).  For example, Street’s (1984) work demonstrates that 
the written practices associated with schooling are only one type of the many literate practices 
available, yet they are the practices that are both dominant and valued by those in power, and 
thus privileged.  Kress (2000b) would extend this claim even further, by arguing that a focus on 
written texts and practices (and not the full range of semiotic modes) further privileges some 
practices and modes at the expense of other meaningful and valuable modes. 
 
A focus on power also offers an understanding of the agentive ways in which dominant literacy 
practices are adopted, appropriated for new purposes, or rejected (Brandt, 2001, 2009; Perry & 
Purcell-Gates, 2005).  In fact, this perspective raises awareness that individuals are agentive, and 
they appropriate or reject practices in purposeful ways that meet their needs – or in some 
instances, even challenge the practices of those in power.  
 
 
 
Limitations of this Paradigm 
While sociocultural perspectives offer much to the field of literacy, there certainly are 
limitations.  Scholars who work within this tradition have a wide range of ways in which they 
define the construct of literacy.  While most who fall under the theory of literacy as social 
practice tend to focus on a definition of literacy that involves print or written text, those who 
espouse multiliteracies do not limit their definition to print and instead expand their definition of 
literacy to include all semiotic systems.  Similarly, while Freire’s (2001) work involved a focus 
on teaching print literacy, he also expanded that definition of literacy to include “the relationship 
of learners to the world” (p. 173), including the process of conscientização – connecting print to 
the real world for purposes of empowerment.  
 
Given these wide definitions of literacy, some of which do not necessarily involve the ability to 
use print, one legitimate critique of this perspective is that literacy can be so broadly defined as 
to be almost meaningless.  Depending on the particular theory involved, literacy can be defined 
as any form of communication/thinking, or “any old semiotic competence” (Erik Jacobson, 
personal communication, December 1, 2010).  In fact, common parlance has co-opted the term 
literacy in this very way; thus, in terms like financial literacy or cultural literacy, literacy equals 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       65 
 
facility with a particular body of knowledge, and not necessarily the ability to engage with print.  
While it is possible to maintain a focus on print literacy while also acknowledging that other 
semiotic systems are also in play and are important, it is also fair to claim that something is lost 
when the field defines literacy so broadly.  While many semiotic systems exist, and while 
humans have the ability to make meaning multimodally, it is also true that there can be great 
benefit to understanding specific semiotic systems, such as written language, on their own terms.  
 
The paradigm’s focus on specific sociocultural contexts is an important aspect of this 
perspective, yet it is also a potential limitation.  Understanding the unique ways in which 
contexts shape literacy practices – taking each context on its own terms – also has the effect of 
limiting the ways in which we can meaningfully speak across contexts.  Moreover, as Brandt and 
Clinton (2002) suggest, a focus on the local introduces “methodological bias and conceptual 
impasses” (p. 337).  Given the emphasis on social, cultural, and political contexts, researchers 
who work within this paradigm rightly tend to use ethnographic, discourse analysis, and/or case 
study methodologies.  Yet, the nature of these methodologies also necessarily limits the nature of 
the claims that can be made.  Unlike methodologies that aim for generalizability, the results of 
ethnographic, discourse analysis, and case study research are context-dependent, which also 
serves to limit the claims and other implications that can be made from these studies.  This 
difficulty in speaking across contexts has been a significant limitation of this perspective 
(although the Cultural Practices of Literacy Study is attempting to challenge this limitation – see 
Purcell-Gates, Perry, & Briseño, 2011).  Similarly, Brandt and Clinton (2002) rightfully critique 
this perspective as assuming “separations between the local and the global, agency and social 
structure, and literacy and its technology” (p. 338).  
 
Another limitation to this paradigm, to which I have already alluded, is that it does not speak 
particularly well to the process of becoming literate.  While we can observe the multifaceted 
ways in which people actually use literacy in their real lives, while family and emergent literacy 
theories attempt to address the ways in which sociocultural factors shape literacy development, 
and while we can also observe the informal ways in which people acquire new practices, 
sociocultural perspectives are limited in their ability to explain what actually happens when an 
individual learns to read and write – that is, when someone learns how to decode, encode, and 
otherwise make sense of written text.  As a result, while sociocultural perspectives make an 
important – and, I would argue, essential – contribution to our understanding of what literacy is 
and how it should be taught and assessed, this theory alone may not be able to fully explain the 
phenomenon of literacy.  
 
Similarly, although this paradigm offers some explanations for achievement gaps in literacy 
development (e.g., that learners with low literacy levels may experience difficulty because 
school literacy practices do not align well with or devalue what is considered meaningful and 
important in their cultural contexts), it also does not address the real difficulties that learners may 
have with acquiring literacy.  This limitation may have significant, tangible consequences for 
learners who may have real cognitive limitations or learning disabilities.  As a result, 
sociocultural paradigms may be limited in what they can offer instructors who are working with 
struggling readers. 
 
Conclusions 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       66 
 
In addition to the above limitations, those working within cognitive and psycholinguistic 
paradigms critique the sociocultural paradigm for ignoring issues of learning/development and 
schooling, for having a diminished focus on print literacy and the important cognitive sub-skills 
related to print literacy, and for having too few practical implications for instruction.  I have 
attempted to address some of these critiques in my previous discussion.  For example, I have 
shown that some newer research does look at issues of learning and development, albeit largely 
from an informal learning perspective.  In adult and family literacy, for example, researchers 
have demonstrated practical applications of sociocultural perspectives in instruction by using 
authentic literacy materials and activities (Anderson, Purcell-Gates, Gagne, & Jang, 2009; 
Jacobsen, Degener, & Purcell-Gates, 2003).  Similarly, practical instructional implications also 
come from thinking about issues of critical literacy (a la Freire), as Purcell-Gates and Waterman 
(2000) demonstrated in work with women in Nicaragua. 
 
Despite limitations and legitimate critiques, the sociocultural paradigm nevertheless has much to 
offer theory, research, and instructional practice in literacy.  All paradigms offer both limitations 
and strengths, and they do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.  As Papen (2005) 
noted, the metaphors – and, I would add, theories – the field uses to think about literacy shape 
thinking about literacy instruction.  Because there are real implications for real learners, it 
therefore behooves researchers and theorists to think carefully about what various paradigms 
offer and to not dismiss alternate paradigms out of hand.  For example, in their book, Print 
Literacy Development: Uniting Cognitive and Social Practice Theories, Purcell-Gates, Jacobsen, 
and Degener (2004) critique seemingly contradictory perspectives and offer a useful lens through 
which both paradigms may be united.  
 
Although it is certainly true that the sociocultural paradigm may only poorly explain the 
processes by which people become literate, and although it is also true that these theories, as yet, 
may be more limited in what practical implications they can offer literacy instruction, it is also 
true that in order to truly understand literacy and learners, educators must see literacy and 
learners in all contexts, not just in the contexts of schooling.  Additionally, there also must be an 
understanding that cognitive processes are shaped by the social contexts and practices in which 
they occur.  As Purcell-Gates, Jacobsen, and Degener (2004) claim, “to study reading and 
writing as if they exist separately from larger, socially related and constructed discourses is, at 
best, foolish and, at worst, hegemonic” (p. 66).  What is needed is an understanding that literacy 
development can, and does, occur in all contexts – and that formal schooling is only one of those 
contexts.     


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       67 
 
References 
Alvermann, D.E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom 
practice and research?  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 8-19. 
 
Alvermann, D.E., & Hagood, M.C. (2000).  Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and 
practice in "New Times."  The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 193-205. 
 
Anderson, J., Purcell-Gates, V., Gagne, M., Jang, K. (2009). Implementing an intergenerational 
literacy program with authentic literacy instruction: Challenges, responses, and results. 
Vancouver, BC; University of British Columbia. 
 
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.) & V. 
McGee (Trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-101). Austin, TX: 
University of Texas Press. 
 
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community.  
London: Routledge. 
 
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič 
(Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). London: Routledge. 
 
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language & symbolic power (Trans. G. Raymond & M. Adamson). 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
 
Brandt, D. (2001). Sponsors of literacy.  In E. Cushman, E.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. Rose 
(Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 555-571). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 
 
Brandt, D. (2009). Literacy and learning: Reflections on writing, reading and society.  San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
 
Brandt, D., & Clinton, K.  (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a 
social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 337-356. 
 
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social 
futures. London: Routledge. 
 
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
 
Freire, P. (2001). The Paulo Freire reader (A. Freire & D. Macedo, Eds.). New York: 
Continuum. 
 
Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: 
RoutledgeFalmer.   
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       68 
 
Gee, J. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, 
P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook on reading research, volume III (pp. 195-208). 
London: Routledge. 
 
Gregory, E. & Williams, A. (2000). City literacies: Learning to read across generations and 
cultures. London: Routledge.  
 
Hagood, M.C. (2002). Critical literacy for whom? Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 247-
266. 
 
Hagood, M.C. (2003). New media and online literacies: No age left behind.  Reading Research 
Quarterly, 38, 387-391. 
 
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. 
 
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. 
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 
 
Holland, D., Lachicotte, Jr., W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural 
worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  
 
Hruby, G. (2001). Sociological, postmodern, and new realism perspectives in social 
constructionism: Implications for literacy research.  Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 48-
62. 
 
Hymes, D. (1994). Toward ethnographies of communication. In J. Maybin (Ed.), Language and 
literacy in social practice: A reader (pp.11-22). Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.  
 
Jacobson, E., Degener, S., & Purcell-Gates, V. (2003). Creating authentic materials and 
activities for the adult literacy classroom. Boston: National Center for the Study of Adult 
Learning and Literacy.  
 
Kress, G. (2000a).  Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. 
Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 
153-161).  London: Routledge. 
 
Kress, G. (2000b). Multimodality.  In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy 
learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182-202).  London: Routledge. 
 
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003).  Implications of “new” literacies for writing research.  
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 478121).  
 
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the new” in new literacies. In M. Knobel & C. 
Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1–24). New York: Peter Lang. 
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       69 
 
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
 
Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E.B. (2007a). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: 
Identity, agency, and power.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
 
Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E.B. (2007b). Introduction: Reframing sociocultural research on 
literacy.  In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E.B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research 
on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 1-11).  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates. 
 
Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the Other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy 
in multilingual societies.  Reading Research Quarterly, 38,132-141. 
 
Luke, A. (2004).  On the material consequences of literacy.  Language and Education, 18, 331-
335. 
 
Mazak, C.M. (2006). Negotiating el dificil: English literacy practices in a rural Puerto Rican 
community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 
 
McShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First steps for 
teachers. Retrieved from http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/applyingresearch.pdf 
 
Moje, E.B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and 
contemporary research.  Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 415-437. 
 
Muth, W.R., & Perry, K.H. (2010). Adult literacy: An inclusive framework. In D. Lapp & D. 
Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English Language Arts, Third 
Edition. New York: Routledge. 
 
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early 
Literacy Panel. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf  
 
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the 
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. 
Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf  
 
Papen, U. (2005). Adult literacy as social practice: More than skills. London: Routledge. 
 
Pearson, P.D., & Hiebert, E.H. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base for 
practice and policy. Educational Researcher, 39, 286-294. 
 
Perry, K.H. (2007). Sharing stories, linking lives: Literacy practices among Sudanese refugees.  
In V. Purcell-Gates (Ed.), Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, 
literacy, social practice, and power (pp.57-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       70 
 
Perry, K.H. (2008). From storytelling to writing: Transforming literacy practices among 
Sudanese refugees. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, pp. 317-358. 
 
Perry, K.H. (2009). Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering among Sudanese 
refugee families. Reading Research Quarterly (44), pp. 256-276. 
 
Perry, K.H., & Purcell-Gates, V. (2005). Resistance and appropriation: Literacy practices as 
agency within hegemonic contexts.  In B. Maloch, J.V. Hoffman, D.L. Schallert, C.M. 
Fairbanks & J. Worthy (Eds.), 54th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 
272-285).  Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference. 
 
Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University Press. 
 
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N.K., & Martineau, J.A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-
specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching.  Reading Research 
Quarterly, 42, 8-45. 
 
Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobsen, E., & Degener, S. (2004). Print literacy development: Uniting 
cognitive and social practice theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  
 
Purcell-Gates, V., Perry, K.H., & Briseño, A. (2011). Analyzing literacy practice: Grounded 
theory to model. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(4), 439-458. 
 
Purcell-Gates, V. & Waterman, R. (2000). Now we read, we see, we speak: Portrait of literacy 
development in an adult Freirean-based class. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates. 
 
Rassool, N. (1999). Literacy for sustainable development in the age of information. Clevedon, 
UK: Multilingual Matters. 
 
Rex, L.A., Bunn, M., Davila, B.A., Dickinson, H.A., Ford, A.C., Gerben, C., Orzulack, MJ.M., 
& Thomson, H. (2010).  A review of discourse analysis in literacy research: Equitable 
access.  Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 94-115. 
 
Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
 
Street, B.V. (2001). The new literacy studies. In E. Cushman, G.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. 
Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 430-442). Boston: St. Martin’s Press. 
 
Street, B.V. (2003). What's "new" in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in 
theory and practice.  Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77-91. 
 
Tracey, D.H., & Morrow, L.M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and 
models. New York: Guilford. 
 


 
K. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       71 
 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. 
Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds). Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press.