Content uploaded by Helen Oughton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Helen Oughton on Nov 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
1 of 22
Funds of Knowledge – A Conceptual Critique
Helen Oughton
University of Bolton
h.oughton@bolton.ac.uk
Abstract
The concept of ‘funds of knowledge’ is critically reviewed, tracing a history of the
term’s changing use since its original conception by Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg
in the late 1980s, and discussing its relevance in adult literacy and numeracy
classrooms. An attempt is made to locate the concept within wider theoretical
frameworks, and in particular to relate it to Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital.
The article concludes that while the concept of funds of knowledge is powerful in
disrupting discourses of deficit, practitioners or researchers who are committed to
this approach need to be critically reflexive to avoid imposing their own, however
well-intentioned, cultural arbitraries on learners.
Key words: Funds of knowledge; cultural capital; adult literacy; adult numeracy
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
2 of 22
Funds of Knowledge – A Conceptual Critique
Helen Oughton
University of Bolton
h.oughton@bolton.ac.uk
Critical self-consciousness is the ability…to discern in any scheme of association,
including those one finds attractive and compelling, the partisan aims it hides from view.
(Thomas, 1993:19)
When the Skills for Life strategy for adult literacy and numeracy was launched in
England in 2001, policy-makers compared the literacy and numeracy skills of
many adults to those of primary school children (DfES 2001). As a teacher in
adult community education at the time, I felt that this comparison did not do
justice to the maturity, self-motivation, sophisticated metacognitive skills and
repertoires of informal literacy and numeracy practices possessed by many of the
learners with whom I was working.
I found that the concept of ‘funds of knowledge’, originally developed by Vélez-
Ibáñez and Greenberg (1990) and Moll et al (1992), offered a relevant and
powerful way to describe the wide and varied resources possessed by these
learners, and a useful model for research into the practices adult learners bring to
the classroom (e.g. Baker and Rhodes 2007, Oughton 2009).
However, it increasingly seems essential that we reflect carefully on exactly what
is meant by the term ‘funds of knowledge’. The concept is highly ideological, and
yet seems rarely to have been questioned or deconstructed; rather the term appears
to have become reified with little critical reflection. In this article I attempt to
consider clearly how the concept has come to be understood, to reflect on the
ideological assumptions which may be at play, and to explore critically the
concept’s relationship to, and position within, wider theoretical frameworks.
I begin with a brief history of the term ‘funds of knowledge’, and how its
interpretation has been developed and extended in ways which make it
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
3 of 22
increasingly relevant to adult learning. I then attempt to locate the concept within
wider theoretical frameworks; in particular, the overlapping relationship between
funds of knowledge and cultural capital. I also present some of my own
reservations about the concept, which include: the possible stereotyping and
‘essentialisation’ of cultural groups; the reinforcement of the metaphor of learning
as acquisition, rather than participation; and the danger of teachers and researchers
imposing our own cultural arbitraries (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977) as we
identify and privilege what we regard to be ‘funds of knowledge’.
The development of the concept of ‘funds of knowledge’
Although the term ‘funds of knowledge’ is most often associated with the work of
Luis Moll, Moll himself (2002) disclaims credit for the term, which was originally
coined by Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg (1990). In their anthropological study of
households in the US-Mexican borderlands, Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg describe
the formation of ‘strategic and cultural resources, which we have termed funds of
knowledge, that households contain’ (1992:313, original emphasis). They relate
their use of the term to Wolf’s (1966) categorisation of economy in peasant
households into several funds, which may take the form of labour, produce or
currency. Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg suggest that ‘entailed in these are wider
sets of activities requiring specific strategic bodies of essential information that
households need to maintain their well-being’ (p.314), and define these bodies of
information as ‘funds of knowledge’.
However, it is with Moll et al’s (1992) extension of this idea from anthropology to
education, that the concept gains much of its power to disrupt discourses of deficit
and to transform teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. Again working in the US-
Mexican borderlands, Moll et al apply a funds of knowledge approach with
teachers as ethnographers and explore how these new insights can be brought to
the classroom. They suggest that the funds of knowledge identified by the study
represent ‘a positive and realistic view of households as containing ample cultural
and cognitive resource with great potential utility for classroom instruction’
(p.134). Table 1 below demonstrates the breadth of funds of knowledge identified
by their study.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
4 of 22
Table 1. A Sample of Household Funds of Knowledge (Moll et al 1992:133)
They explore how an understanding of such funds of knowledge can inform and
transform practice in the classrooms attended by children from these households.
While the teachers had made home visits before, this had tended to be on school
business, such as the delivery of report cards. In the funds of knowledge project,
teachers took on the role of ethnographers, entering the households of their
students to learn more about them. Moll et al emphasise that the importance of
their approach is not limited to their own findings regarding Mexican families in
Arizona. Rather they advocate the transformative effects of teacher-ethnography
in any community positioned as ‘deficient’.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
5 of 22
Moll et al’s link between Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg’s anthropological work and
educational settings has been highly influential on subsequent work examining the
funds of knowledge of different communities. (A Google Scholar search on 14
December 2009 suggests that Moll et al’s 1992 study has been cited in nearly 900
publications, compared to around 130 for Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg’s paper).
Work in the US-Mexican borderlands has continued through projects such as
Project Bridge, which applies a funds of knowledge perspective to mathematics
teaching, including that of adults (Civil 2003). The funds of knowledge approach
to teacher development has also influenced projects in Australia and in the UK,
where it has been used in communities with low socio-economic status as well as
those of ethnic minorities (e.g. Comber and Kamler 2004; Hughes et al 2005).
The term has become widely used within discourses of educational research and
practice, especially those with a social justice agenda. In particular, the approach
is used to disrupt deficit models, which remain pervasive and persistent (Luke and
Goldstein, 2006)
The deficit model of educational failure isn’t just an incorrect or misplaced idea that
somehow gets into teachers’ heads… It has a particular logic and obviousness that makes
it appear “natural” to policy makers, the public and even to… educators. (p.1)
González et al (1993:11) suggest that teacher-research within a funds of
knowledge approach can result in ‘pivotal and transformative shifts in teachers
and in relations between households and schools and between parents and
teachers’ (p. 4). Comber and Kamler (2004) describe these fundamental and
lasting paradigm shifts as ‘turn-around pedagogies’, which not only result in
classroom curricula and activities matched to student interests, but also a lasting
shift in the perceptions, beliefs and attitudes of teachers towards their students and
their communities, from a view of deficit to one of respect and understanding.
This transformative power seems equally relevant in an adult literacy and
numeracy context, in which deficit models tend to dominate (Papen 2005;
Oughton 2007). As requirements for continuous professional development in the
post-compulsory sector come into line with those in the school sector, there is
greater potential for teachers of adults to undertake such research (Institute for
Learning 2009, Hamilton and Wilson 2005).
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
6 of 22
Changing interpretations of ‘funds of knowledge’
In the decades since Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg’s original paper, the term ‘funds
of knowledge’ has been interpreted differently in different studies. Here I
examine three notable shifts in interpretation: from resources held by households
to those held by individual adults; the extension to interpersonal, communication
and metacognitive skills; and its uptake by the discourse of policy.
From Households and Communities to Individual Adults
In some studies there is a significant, though unacknowledged, shift from
describing the cultural and cognitive resources possessed by households or
communities to those possessed by individuals. This shift coincides with the
extension of the concept from the education of children (who draw on the funds of
knowledge of their households) to the education of adults and young adults (who
draw on their own funds). For example, Seiler (2001) uses the funds of
knowledge of young, urban, African-American males to explore alternative
approaches to high-school science teaching. The study draws on the students’
own out-of-school practices, rather than those held by their families. Hensley
(2005) writes of the funds of knowledge held by parents as individual adults.
Andrews et al (2005) discuss the funds of knowledge held by teachers themselves,
again as individuals. This is quite different from Moll et al’s (1992) description
of funds of knowledge which are available within a household, but which might
not all be held by any one person in that household. This shift in conception is a
more useful model for adult learners than for children, and allows us to draw on
knowledge and practices they have acquired throughout their lives.
From Practical Skills to Interpersonal and Metacognitive Skills
Another shift in conception is the widening of the resources embraced by the term
to include interpersonal and communication skills. For example, Hensley (2005)
describes the communication skills possessed by parent helpers as funds of
knowledge. A wider definition of the term has also been developed by Baker for
his research with adult numeracy learners (Baker 2005; Baker and Rhodes 2007):
knowledge, experiences, histories, identities and images of themselves;
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
7 of 22
attitudes, dispositions, desires, values, beliefs, and social and cultural relations;
relationships with learning, teachers and mathematics itself; and
numeracy practices beyond the classroom (Baker 2005:16)
Recognition of these wider funds of knowledge allows teachers to acknowledge
and build on the personal, interpersonal and metacognitive resources of these
mature adults. This wider definition is again particularly relevant to adult literacy
and numeracy learners, and initially seemed an ideal framework for my own
research in such classrooms (Oughton, 2009). However, this broadening of the
concept inevitably raises the question of where indeed we should draw the
boundaries of the term, and the risk of it becoming elided with social practice
theories of learning (e.g. Barton and Hamilton 1998).
From Critical Ethnography to the Discourse of Policy
As discussed earlier, the concept of funds of knowledge has tended to be used,
often overtly, to disrupt discourses of deficit, right from its earliest inception:
‘This view of households contrasts sharply with the prevailing and accepted perceptions
as somehow disorganised socially and deficient intellectually; perceptions that are well-
accepted and rarely challenged in the field of education and elsewhere.’ (Moll et al 1992:
134)
However, the term has recently entered the official discourse of policy, for
example in a DfES document for teachers of pupils from minority ethnic
backgrounds:
Schools have much to gain from the experiences and understanding of pupils, their
families and communities. Drawing on their funds of knowledge enriches a school in a
range of valuable ways (DfES, 2004:8).
It remains to be seen whether this represents a genuine shift in government
discourse away from the deficit model, or merely a weakening of the critical
power of funds of knowledge as a concept. Since the aim of the original funds of
knowledge project was to recognise, celebrate and utilise forms of knowledge
which were not valued by dominant educational discourse, the adoption of the
term by official rhetoric seems to present a danger of allowing dominant groups to
stand in judgement of what does or does not constitute a fund of knowledge.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
8 of 22
Funds of Knowledge and Cultural Capital
In the following, I attempt to locate funds of knowledge approaches within wider
theoretical frameworks. I begin with Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and
consider whether there is an equivalence, overlap or analogy between the two
concepts. Bourdieu (1986/2004:15) describes capital as something which:
in its objectified or embodied forms, takes time to accumulate and which, as a potential
capacity to produce profits and to reproduce itself in identical or expanded form, contains
a tendency to persist in its being, is a force inscribed in the objectivity of things so that
everything is not equally possible or impossible.
In particular, he outlines three forms in which capital may present itself, and
which, he suggests, contribute the reproduction of inequality in society:
as economic capital, which is immediately and directly convertible into money and may
be institutionalised in the form of property rights; as cultural capital, which is
convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalised in
the form of educational qualifications; and as social capital, made up of social obligations
(“connections”), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and
may be institutionalised in the form of a title of nobility. (p.16)
Elsewhere, he also uses the concept of linguistic capital, which we may regard as
a form of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1991). Bourdieu suggests that the value and
influence of cultural and social capital are often overlooked in analyses which
consider only economic capital.
Bourdieu (1986/2004) suggests that cultural capital may be in the form of long-
lasting dispositions of the mind and body (and is thus related to habitus); in the
form of cultural goods; or in the form of educational qualifications and
membership of professional organizations. Bourdieu regards academic
qualifications to be the ‘objectified’ form of cultural capital, which he describes as
a ‘conventional, constant, legally-guaranteed value with respect to culture’
(p.248). Cultural capital in the form of qualifications can be exchanged, by more
or less direct means, for economic capital and symbolic capital.
He suggests that the transmission of cultural capital in the home maintains an
inequality of educational achievement, but because it is less visible than economic
capital, the advantages it confers may not be recognised as capital and may
instead be seen as legitimate competence and the deserved result of hard work. It
is important to stress this critical aspect of Bourdieu’s concept. Bourdieu
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
9 of 22
emphasises that cultural capital is not inherently valuable; it has been given
arbitrary value because of its legitimation by the dominant class. The critical
power of the concept rests in its challenge to cultural hegemony, such as the
discourses of policy.
We can indeed draw many parallels between cultural capital and funds of
knowledge. They are both characterised by sets of gradually-acquired and long-
lasting dispositions and manifested in skills, know-how, and competences.
Despite the economic metaphors used in both cases, neither is diminished through
use. They may be transmitted between generations and within a selected
community.
Nonetheless, we may note some important differences. To continue the economic
metaphor, Marx’s distinction between use-value and exchange-value is applied by
Coben (2002) to different domains of adult numeracy practice (and may similarly
be applied to other areas of adult education). Numeracy and literacy practices
which have high use-value but low exchange-value might include those used in
household budgeting, cooking or DIY; whereas an academic mathematics
qualification, for example, has low use-value but high exchange-value.
Practices encompassed by the term ‘funds of knowledge’ tend to be dismissed as
low-status, or common-sense, possessed in some form or other by everyone, and
often regarded as having little exchange-value, though a high use-value. Contrast
this with Bourdieu’s cultural capital, exchangeable for symbolic and economic
capital, and privileged and legitimated by a dominant elite.
However, Lubienski (2003:33) notes a recent shift in the way the term cultural
capital is being used. She argues that, in attempts to embrace diversity and be
‘politically correct’ the concept of cultural capital is in danger of losing its
‘critical edge’:
As originally intended, the term refers to high-status cultural resources…that can be
employed to gain economic capital and social prestige. Such resources are not inherently
better than other cultural resources, but in a hierarchical society they are “worth more”
because they are valued by those in positions of power. So those with more cultural
capital have greater access to power and privilege than those with less… However, I have
noticed a change in the term’s use…with people conflating “cultural capital” and Moll’s
“funds of knowledge,” which all possess regardless of background. This shift can be seen
in the ways people preface the term in conversations, making it “White, middle-class
cultural capital” instead of simply “cultural capital”—as if by implying that one group has
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
10 of 22
cultural capital and another does not (or even has less), one conveys a deficit view of the
less (or differentially?) privileged group. (p. 33)
So while some researchers might place funds of knowledge within a subset of
cultural capital, I would suggest that possibly the opposite is a more appropriate
conceptualisation; cultural capital consists of those funds of knowledge which are
legitimised and privileged through the dominant discourse.
I also want to extend this idea to the relationship between funds of knowledge and
the curriculum. Theories of social reproduction emphasise the part played by the
curriculum in reproducing social inequalities by constructing certain knowledges
as legitimate (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bernstein 1975; 1996; Apple 1979;
1982).
According to Bernstein (1975:85), ‘curriculum defines what counts as valid
knowledge’. He argues that the recontextualisation of a practice, from its original
site to curriculum and pedagogy, opens up a space in which ideology inevitably
plays a role in selecting what is to be learnt from the total knowable (Bernstein
1996). Apple (1979:30) stresses the ideological nature of curriculum selection,
whereby what counts as legitimate knowledge is made to seem natural and
common-sense.
In the academic achievement model, curricular knowledge itself is not made problematic.
Rather the knowledge that finds its way into schools is usually accepted as given, as
neutral, so that comparisons can be made among social groups, schools, children etc.
Thus academic performance, differentiation and stratification based on relatively
unexamined presuppositions of what is to be construed as valuable knowledge are the
guiding interests behind the research.
Thus this perspective of curriculum theory, in which curriculum selection is seen
as a cultural arbitrary, allows us to further categorise funds of knowledge as forms
of knowledge not defined by the curriculum as ‘valid’ knowledge.
‘Funds of Knowledge’: A Conceptual Critique
While I find the concept of funds of knowledge a powerful and useful model for
my research interests, I do have some reservations about its uncritical use, and am
concerned that the concept has not always been subjected to sufficient critical
reflection. Of the literature I reviewed for this article, only one group of authors
(Hughes et al, 2005) critiques the concept. They suggest that the metaphor of
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
11 of 22
‘funds’ might be misconstrued, with some households having ‘more funds’ than
others, thus contributing to, rather than disrupting, a deficit model. They also
express concerns about the metaphor of learning as acquisition rather than
participation, and again briefly note the similarity in metaphor with Bourdieu’s
forms of capital.
In this section I offer my own critique, which covers three aspects of the concept
which I find problematic: the possibility of ‘essentialising’ cultural or ethnic
groups as homogenous; the appropriateness or otherwise of the ‘funds’ metaphor;
and the danger of the teacher or researcher imposing their own cultural arbitraries
in deciding what ‘counts’ as funds of knowledge.
Problem 1: The stereotyping of cultural or ethnic groups
Gonzalez (2005) raises concerns that attempts to develop culturally-responsive
pedagogies may risk portraying groups as homogenous and possessing fixed
cultural traits, and this certainly demands critical reflectiveness on the part of the
teacher or researcher. However, none of the studies I have reviewed above
seemed to stereotype groups in this way; in general, the studies tended to take a
case-study approach, and any generalisations made referred more to the benefits
of the funds of knowledge approach itself, and not to any findings about the
individuals or communities studied.
In fact there is some evidence that the converse is actually more likely to be the
result:
It seemed to us that the prevailing notions of culture in the schools centered around
observable and tangible surface markers such as dances, food, folklore and the like.
Viewing households within a processual view of culture, that is, a view of culture as
process rather than as a normative end state, emphasized the lived contexts and practices
of the students and their families. (Gonzalez et al 1993:10)
Amanti (2005:131) takes this idea further, using a funds of knowledge perspective
to reject a view of culture as static and normative (a view which she dismisses as a
‘beads and feathers approach’) and instead to explore an understanding of cultures
as diverse and dynamic.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
12 of 22
Problem 2: The metaphor of ‘funds’
Sfard (1998) describes metaphors as ‘the most primitive, most elusive, and yet
amazingly informative objects of analysis’ and reminds us of their constitutive
power.
Because metaphors bring with them certain well-defined expectations as to the possible
features of target concepts, the choice of a metaphor is a highly consequential decision.
Different metaphors may lead to different ways of thinking and to different activities …
and – above all – perpetuate beliefs and values that have never been submitted to a
critical inspection (p.5).
For this reason, it seems essential to examine and critique the use of the metaphor
of ‘funds’.
As outlined above, Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg adopted the term ‘funds of
knowledge’, following Wolf’s (1966) categorisation of economy in peasant
households into several funds, including caloric funds, replacement funds,
ceremonial funds and funds of rent. In doing so, they associate their concept with
two metaphors widely used in education (although more typically within neo-
liberal discourse): economic metaphors and metaphors of learning as acquisition.
Historically, learning has always been conceived of as an acquisition of
knowledge, the human mind as a container to be filled with knowledge, and the
learner as gaining ownership of that learning. We talk about intellectual property
and copyright theft. Sfard (1998) points out that ‘if people are valued and
segregated according to what they have, the metaphor of intellectual property is
more likely to feed rivalry than collaboration’.
Sfard suggests that the acquisition metaphor has become so natural to us that we
would probably never become aware of its existence if another, alternative
metaphor had not started to develop. The alternative metaphor is that of learning
as participation, within which the learning of a subject is regarded as the process
of becoming a member of a certain community (Lave and Wenger 1991). Within
this metaphor, the state of ‘having’ gives way to the process of ‘doing’, and we
speak of situatedness, context and culture.
Learning involves the whole person; it implies not only a relation to specific activities,
but a relation to social communities – it implies becoming a full participant, a member, a
kind of person. In this view, learning only partly – and often incidentally – implies
becoming able to be involved in new activities, to perform new tasks and functions, to
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
13 of 22
master new understandings. Activities, tasks, functions, and understandings do not exist
in isolation; they are part of broader systems of relations in which they have meaning.
(Lave and Wenger 1991: 53)
Hughes et al (2005) suggests that Sfard’s distinction between the two metaphors
of ‘learning as acquisition’ and ‘learning as participation’ may be applied to
formal and informal learning, linking the acquisition metaphor with learning in
the classroom domain, and the participation metaphor with informal learning. Of
these two metaphors, the participation metaphor does, indeed, seem more
appropriate for the type of learning through which one develops ‘funds of
knowledge’. The term describes skills and understandings which result from
participation in a community rather than from the deliberate and purposeful
pursuit of knowledge.
In a recent examination of adult learning as participation in cultural practices,
(Hodkinson et al 2007) provide rich and varied examples from the workplace,
leisure and community involvement. Learning is seen as inseparably associated
with learners’ identities, and recognised both as a process of ‘becoming’ and a
process of ‘being’. The learning as participation metaphor is also extended to
formal adult education classes, for example in a case study of one of their
participants, ‘Tony’:
Learning on formal courses can also be usefully seen as participatory. Tony clearly gets a
strong sense of belonging from his beloved adult education classes, and is learning
through engagement with and participation in those classes, with the tutor, others
students, and the varied activities and practices in the class. (p21).
It is interesting to note that although the research draws on many of the same
themes as Moll et al’s work – acknowledging undervalued forms of learning, and
challenging discourses of deficit – it does not use the word ‘funds’ and
emphasises the limitations of metaphors of acquisition.
It is also noteworthy that the Brazilian educator and reformer Paulo Freire uses an
economic metaphor, ‘banking’, as a derogatory term to describe a model of
education in which legitimised knowledge is ‘deposited’ in the passive learner,
and which he utterly rejected (Freire 1972; 1976). Since most advocates of the
funds of knowledge approach are likely also to embrace Freirean principles, the
clash of metaphors is striking.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
14 of 22
While I do not seriously propose a change to this well-established term, it seemed
worthwhile to carry out some personal reflection on what I would consider to be a
more meaningful metaphor than ‘funds’. The metaphor which to me seemed most
appropriate is that of a village well or pool. It is a source which is filled without
intention or directed effort on anyone’s part, yet which can be drawn upon by any
member of the community and is not diminished through use.
Problem 3: The imposition of cultural arbitraries
My third concern is, in my opinion, more problematic and less easily addressed
than the first two. It concerns the danger of replacing one set of cultural
arbitraries (the curriculum privileged as ‘legitimate knowledge’ by policy or other
dominant discourse) with another set of cultural arbitraries (the resources
privileged as ‘funds of knowledge’ by the researcher or teacher).
To illustrate what I mean by this, I draw anecdotally on an experience from my
own teaching. A few years ago, the adult community education service I worked
for received external funding to run a Chinese-themed literacy course in the weeks
before the Chinese New Year. The area from which we drew our students is
ethnically homogenous (white-British), but a short train ride from a thriving China
Town district. Because the external funding meant that students did not need to
be working towards vocational qualifications, we gave priority to our older
students – adults of retirement age who enjoyed learning literacy for its own sake.
Amongst a number of literacy activities, aimed at celebrating Chinese
achievement and culture, was a group reading exercise about the 60-year history
of the nearby China Town, which I had prepared myself following internet
research. The students participated politely in the reading exercise for a few
minutes, then the older students began spontaneously to share their earliest
memories of visiting the China Town district in the 1940s. I soon realised that
they knew far more about it than I had gleaned from my internet research, so we
put away our reading materials and I and the younger students listened in
fascination to the reminiscences of the older students. They gave us insights
which it would have been hard to find elsewhere: how exotic it had seemed the
first time they went; the way that the restaurant menus had changed over time to
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
15 of 22
reflect British expectations from Chinese food. I felt privileged to benefit from
my students’ funds of knowledge in this way.
However, in a later session I initiated a (somewhat ambitious) discussion about
why China’s history of technical achievements was not well-recognised in the
West. As some of the students started tentatively to formulate ideas about
colonial and post-colonial narratives, one of the older students swept these ideas
aside. He explained, with conviction and authority, that ‘the oriental’ was
‘devious but lazy’ and so had failed to capitalise on Chinese developments. He
cited the war-time experiences of a family friend as a prisoner of the Japanese as
evidence of this.
I think many adult literacy teachers would share my satisfaction at the students’
funds of knowledge about China Town in the 1940s, and my dismay at the
uninformed racism expressed in the later episode. Yet, to my student, the family
friend’s war-time history would probably seem as much a part of his funds of
knowledge as his experiences of China Town, and is embraced by Baker’s (2005)
broader definition of funds of knowledge discussed above. If we, as teachers or
researchers, feel entitled to arbitrate what ‘counts’ as valid and useable funds of
knowledge, are we not replacing one set of cultural arbitraries (the approved
curriculum) with another (our own well-intentioned but value-laden judgements)?
Taking an example from the literature, Baxter et al (2006) study teaching and
learning about measurement in adult numeracy educational settings, including
colleges and prisons, and draw on a funds of knowledge approach to consider how
measurement might be made relevant to these learners’ lives. Amongst the funds
of knowledge possessed by these learners, they describe the sophisticated
strategies used to weigh and price recreational drugs. Baxter et al’s team of
researchers and teacher-researchers view this experience as a valid and
pedagogically useful fund of knowledge, but it seems possible that others might
not. For example, would (and should) such a fund of knowledge be recognised
and celebrated in a classroom of schoolchildren? I do not attempt to answer these
questions; merely to illustrate how subjective the answers might be.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
16 of 22
Whose Knowledge Counts: Applying Freirean principles to Funds of Knowledge
These questions address difficult issues, and I have considered them at some
length. It seems to me that the teacher or researcher who is committed to a funds
of knowledge approach needs to be highly reflexive and (self)-critical as they
attempt to arbitrate which funds of knowledge to draw on in the classroom.
Two concepts seemed helpful to me in providing a framework for critical
reflection: Freire’s commitment to conscientisation and to mutual dialogue
between teacher and learner; and Moje et al’s (2004) notions of third space and
scaffolding.
Freire (1972; 1976) advocates that education should involve questions which
challenge unexamined assumptions about what knowledge is deemed ‘normal’.
He emphasises that teaching is a political act, and that teachers should embrace
this aspect of their work and place critical pedagogy at the core of the curriculum.
Students are encouraged to become critically aware and to take an active role in
their learning. In such an approach, creativity and reflection are fostered.
In the dialogical pedagogies described by Freire, students become ‘critical co-
investigators in dialogue with the teacher’ (Freire 1996:62). He rejects student-
teacher dichotomies and suggests that in a participatory classroom, teachers
should learn as well as teach, and students should teach as well as learn.
By taking a Freirean perspective, based on mutual respect, ‘what counts as valid
knowledge’ (Bernstein 1975:85) is determined by the learner. The learner’s
definition of ‘valid’ may include knowledge that is: of intellectual interest to the
learner; of use in the learner’s everyday life; or (increasingly within a Skills for
Life context) of use in gaining a recognised qualification.
Freirean dialogue can additionally be used by groups of learners to establish
‘house rules’ about racist, sexist or other abusive discourse in the classroom (e.g.,
Beder and Medina, 2001; Purcell-Gates et al, 1998) and to bring into the open
contentious subjects such as drug use and abuse. Learning as participation in
cultural practices is also a useful model here, as members of the class learn to
‘become’ students and encounter the diverse mores and attitudes held by others in
the group.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
17 of 22
An example from my own work is an adult numeracy class on measurement, with
a small group containing both African and white-British students. The African
students, whose countries of origin used only metric measurements, were able to
share their funds of knowledge through groupwork with the British students, who
were more familiar with the imperial system. As a group we then discussed the
historical context of the two measurement systems, their relevance to the students,
and in particular, the questionable and arguably out-dated use of the term
‘imperial’ – a discussion made more political because the African students’
countries of origin had each been under British rule in the past.
While Freire’s ideas provide a useful framework, they may still be problematic. It
could be argued that the learner is still one more cultural arbiter in addition to the
curriculum or the teacher. Furthermore, as Taylor (1993) argues, the teacher’s
own ideas and values can be consciously or sub-consciously imposed under the
guise of dialogue. Finally – and this issue will be familiar to anyone who has
tried to incorporate Freirean principles into their own teaching – the students’ own
expectations will often be that knowledge should come from the teacher:
They call themselves ignorant and say the “professor” is the one who has knowledge and
to whom they should listen. The criteria of knowledge imposed upon them are the
conventional ones. “Why don’t you,” said a peasant participating in a culture circle,
“explain the pictures first? That way it’ll take less time and won’t give us a headache.”
(Freire 1972:45)
From ‘use-value’ to ‘exchange-value’: Third spaces and scaffolding.
Although it may seem a worthy aim to draw on students’ funds of knowledge,
these often have low exchange-value. Knijnik (1993:25) warns us against
‘glorifying popular knowledge’ and emphasises the importance of using
knowledge in ways valued by dominant groups. Moje et al (2004) propose a
model which draws on learner’s existing funds of knowledge (which have high
use-value but low exchange-value) to support the learning of legitimised, formal
knowledge which has high exchange-value, is associated with cultural capital, and
which is important to learners’ sense of achievement and self-worth. (Knijnik
1993; Swain et al 2005, Oughton 2008).
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
18 of 22
Moje et al (2004) propose a development of hybridity theory and Bhabha’s (1994)
concept of ‘third space’ – a virtual (and sometimes physical) place where
opposing discourses meet to generate new, creative and constructive discourses.
Drawing on work by Gutiérrez et al (1999), they suggest that third space can be
seen ‘less [as] a space in which new types of knowledges are generated and more
[as] a scaffold used to move students through zones of proximal development
toward better honed academic or school knowledges’ (p.43, my italics). They
recommend that such third spaces should be actively constructed:
Such a third space is important because it provides opportunities for success in
traditional… learning while also making a space for typically marginalized voices... With
this scaffold, students would be able to better access and negotiate the privileged texts of
upper level, content area classrooms. (Moje et al 2004 p.44).
Moje et al’s model of third space as a scaffold between funds of knowledge and
formal learning has been successfully used to engage young adult literacy learners
in England (Euesden and McCullough, 2005) and shows potential for use with
other adult groups.
Conclusion
In attempting to apply a funds of knowledge approach to my research in adult
Skills for Life classrooms, I have found the concept to be over-simplified and
ideologically problematic (Oughton 2009). In particular, the concept seems to get
more ‘slippery’ the further it is taken from its original formulation by Moll and
colleagues. Baker’s (2005) broader interpretation allows us to acknowledge the
wider range of resources, experiences and attitudes which adult learners bring to
their classrooms, yet the breadth which makes it useful is also a weakness, in that
boundaries become poorly defined, and the teacher or researcher must grapple
with what to accept, and what to discard, as a fund of knowledge.
The concept of funds of knowledge has proved a powerful model for disrupting
discourses of deficit and reconstructing teachers’ attitudes to communities other
than their own. My caveat is that teachers and researchers committed to this
approach should proceed with the ‘critical self-consciousness’ advocated by
Thomas (1993) in my opening citation, and not allow the ideological
attractiveness of this concept to blind them to its potential pitfalls.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
19 of 22
References
Amanti, C. (2005) ‘Beyond a Beads and Feathers Approach’ in N. Gonzalez, L.
Moll. and C. Amanti (eds), Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in
Households, Communities and Classrooms, Mahwah NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 131-142.
Andrews, J., Yee, W.C., Greenhough, P., Hughes, M. & Winter, J. (2005)
‘Teachers’ Funds of Knowledge and the Teaching and Learning of
Mathematics in Multi-Ethnic Primary School Classrooms: Two Teachers’
Views of Linking Home and School’. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der
Mathematick, 37(2) pp.72-80.
Apple, M (1979) Ideology and Curriculum, London: Routledge Paul,
Apple, M. (1982) Education and Power, Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Baker, D. (2005) ‘Numeracy and “funds of knowledge” ’ Reflect 3 pp. 16-19
Baker, D. and Rhodes, V. (2007) Making use of Learners’ Funds of Knowledge
for Mathematics and Numeracy: Improving Teaching and Learning of
mathematics and numeracy in Adult Education, NCETM / Maths4Life.
Available from: www.ncetm.org.uk/files/254456/research_funds_of
knowledge.pdf [Accessed 9 Sept 2008]
Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (1998) Local Literacies: Reading and writing in one
community London: Routledge
Baxter, M., Leddy, E., Richards, E., Tomlin, A., Wresniwiro, T. and Coben, D.
(2006) Measurement wasn't taught when they built the pyramids - was it?
London: NRDC.
Beder, H. and Medina, P. (2001) Classroom Dynamics In Adult Literacy
Education Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning
and Literacy.
Bernstein, B. (1975) Class, Codes and Control Vol. 3 Towards a Theory of
Educational Transmissions London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity London: Taylor &
Francis.
Bhabha, H.. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1986/2004) ‘The Forms of Capital’ in S. Ball (Ed) The
Routledgefalmer Reader in Sociology of Education, London:
RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 15-29. (English version first published in J.
Richardson (1986) Handbook for Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education, pp. 241–258)
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power (trans J. Thompson)
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in Education and Society.
London: Sage.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
20 of 22
Buck, P. and Sylvester, P. (2005) ‘Preservice Teachers Enter Urban Communities:
Coupling Funds of Knowledge Research and Critical Pedagogy in Teacher
Education’, in N. Gonzalez, L. Moll. and C. Amanti (eds), Funds of
Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities and
Classrooms, Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 213-232.
Civil, M. (2003). ‘Adult learners of mathematics: A look at issues of class and
culture’. Keynote address. In J. Evans, P. Healy, D. Kaye, V. Seabright and
A. Tomlin (Eds.). Policies and practices for adults learning mathematics:
Opportunities and risks. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of
Adults Learning Mathematics (ALM9). London: Adults Learning
Mathematics, pp. 13-23
Civil, M. (2006). ‘Building on community knowledge: An avenue to equity in
mathematics education’. In N. Nasir & P. Cobb (Eds.), Improving Access to
Mathematics Diversity and Equity in the Classroom New York: Teachers
College Press.
Civil, M., Quintos, B. and Bernier, E.(2003) ‘Parents as Observers in the
Mathematics Classroom: Establishing a Dialogue Between School and
Community’, Paper presented at the NCTM Research Presession, April
2003, San Antonio, TX. Available from: http://mapps.math.arizona.edu/
papers/NCTM_2003_Parents.pdf [Accessed 21 July 2007].
Coben, D. (2002) ‘Use Value and Exchange Value in Discursive Domains of
Adult Numeracy Teaching’ Literacy and Numeracy Studies 11(2) pp. 25-35.
Comber, B. and Kamler, B. (2004) ‘Getting Out of Deficit: Pedagogies of
reconnection’, Teaching Education, 15(3) pp. 293-310.
DfES (2001) Delivering skills for life: the national strategy for improving adult
literacy and numeracy skills, London: DfES.
DfES (2004) Aiming High: Understanding the Educational Needs of Minority
Ethnic Pupils in Mainly White Schools: A Guide to Good Practice. London:
DfES.
Euesden, P. and McCullough, K. (2005) ‘Young People Speak Out: Reaching and
engaging new learners using popular culture through a blend of on-line and
classroom learning’, in M. Hamilton and A. Wilson, New ways of engaging
new learners: lessons from round one of the practitioner-led research
initiative. London: NRDC, pp. 42-62.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freire, P. (1976) Education: The Practice of Freedom, translated by M. Bergman
Ramos. London: Writers and Readers, cited in D. Coben, J. O’Donoghue &
G. FitzSimons (Eds), (2000) Perspectives on Adults Learning Mathematics.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Revised edition), translated by M.
Bergman Ramos. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L, Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P,. Gonzales, R.,
and Amanti, C. (1993) Teacher Research on Funds of Knowledge: Learning
from Households (Educational Practice Report 6). Berkeley CA: National
Center For Research On Cultural Diversity And Second Language Learning.
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
21 of 22
Gonzalez, N. (2005) ‘Beyond Culture: The Hybridity of Funds of Knowledge’ in
N. Gonzalez, L. Moll. and C. Amanti (eds), Funds of Knowledge:
Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities and Classrooms.
Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.29-46.
Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H. and Chiu, M. (1999) ‘Building a
culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices’. Theory Into
Practice, 38, pp. 87–93.
M. Hamilton and A. Wilson (2005), New ways of engaging new learners: lessons
from round one of the practitioner-led research initiative. London: NRDC.
Hensley, M. (2005) ‘Empowering Parents of Multicultural Backgrounds’ in N.
Gonzalez, L. Moll. and C. Amanti (eds), Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing
Practices in Households, Communities and Classrooms. Mahwah NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 143-152.
Hodkinson, P. Ford, G., Hawthorn, R. and Hodkinson, H. (2007), Learning as
Being, Working Paper 6, Learning Lives: Learning, Identity and Agency in
the Life Course, Leeds: University of Leeds. Available from:
www.learninglives.org/papers/working_papers/Working_paper_6_Leeds_Ja
n_07.pdf [Accessed 14 Dec 2009]
Hughes, M., Andrews, J. Feiler, A., Greenhough, P., Johnson, D., McNess, E.,
Osborn, M., Pollard, A., Salway, L., Scanlan, M., Stinchcombe, V., Winter,
J. and Yee, W.C. (2005) ‘Exchanging Knowledge Between Home and
School to Enhance Children’s Learning’, Paper presented at: Contexts,
communities, networks: Mobilising learners’ resources and relationships in
different domains Glasgow: ESRC Teaching and Learning Research
Programme (TLRP) Thematic Seminar Series.
Institute for Learning (2009) Guidelines for your continuing professional
development (CPD), London: Institute for Learning.
Kincheloe, J. (2004) Critical Pedagogy Primer 2nd Edition, New York: NY Peter
Lang Publishing Inc.
Knijnik, G. (1993). An ethnomathematical approach in mathematical education: a
matter of political power. For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(2), pp.23-25.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lubienski, S.T. (2003) ‘Celebrating Diversity and Denying Disparities: A Critical
Assessment’, Educational Researcher, 32(8) pp. 30-38.
Luke, A. and Goldstein, T. (2006) ‘Building intercultural capital: A response to
Rogers, Marshall, and Tyson’, Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), pp. 202-
224.
Messing, J. (2005) ‘Social Reconstructions of Schooling: Teacher Evaluations of
What They Learned From Participation in the Funds of Knowledge Project’,
in N. Gonzalez, L. Moll. and C. Amanti. (eds) Funds of Knowledge:
Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities and Classrooms Mahwah
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 183-198.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R. and Collazo,
T. (2004), ‘Working toward third space in content area literacy: An
Funds of Knowledge: a Conceptual Critique
22 of 22
examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse’, Reading
Research Quarterly, 39(1) pp.38-70.
Moll, L. (2002) ‘The Concept of Educational Sovereignty’, Perspectives on
Urban Education, 1 (2) pp. 1-11.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). ‘Funds of knowledge for
teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms’.
Theory into Practice, 31, pp.132-141.
Oughton, H. (2007) ‘Constructing the “Ideal Learner”: A Critical Discourse
Analysis of the Adult Numeracy Core Curriculum’, Research in Post-
Compulsory Education, 12 (2) pp.259-275.
Oughton, H. (2009) ‘A willing suspension of disbelief? “Contexts” and
recontextualisation in adult numeracy classrooms’, Adults Learning
Mathematics: An International Journal, 4(1) pp.16-31.
Oughton, H (2008) ‘Mapping the Adult Numeracy Curriculum: Cultural capital
and Conscientization’, Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 16 (1) pp. 39-61.
Papen, U. (2005) Adult Literacy as Social Practice: More than Skills (New
Approaches to Adult Language, Literacy and Numeracy). Oxford:
Routledge.
Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., and Jacobson, E. (1998) U.S. Adult Literacy
Program Practice: A Typology Across Dimensions Of Life-
Contextualized/Decontextualized And Dialogic/Monologic. Cambridge,
MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy,
Seiler, G. (2001) ‘Reversing the “Standard” Direction: Science Emerging from the
Lives of African American Students’, Journal Of Research In Science
Teaching 38 (9) pp.1000-1014
Sfard, A. (1998) ‘On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing
Just One’ Educational Researcher, 27(2), pp. 4-13.
Swain, J., Baker, E., Holder, D., Newmarch, B. and Coben, D. (2005) ‘Beyond the
daily application’: making numeracy teaching meaningful to adult learners
London: NRDC.
Thomas, J. (1993) Doing Critical Ethnography . Newbury Park: Sage
Vélez-Ibáñez C.G. and Greenberg J.B. (1990) Formation and transformation of
funds of knowledge among U.S. Mexican households in the context of the
borderlands. Paper presented at the America Anthropological Association
Annual Meeting, Washington DC.
Vélez-Ibáñez C.G. and Greenberg J.B. (1992) ‘Formation and transformation of
funds of knowledge’ Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23 pp.313-335.
Wolf, E. (1966) Peasants. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
