Researchers use a variety of oral methods to include the knowledge and perspectives of historically underrepresented communities in their explorations of writing and literacy studies, and these methods are vital to more accurate understandings of the breadth of how literacy functions in societies. However, simultaneous to this important work of recording new oral histories, interviews, and videos is an overwhelming reliance on written sources in the Works Cited sections of these pursuits. In this article, I argue that recording new oral forms of information without citing oral sources perpetuates connections between written text as an authoritative source of evidence for the past and oral sources with the present. I share the low frequency with which authors in writing and literacy journals include oral history in their Works Cited sections and explore possible reasons for and consequences of a near-complete reliance on written sources. I conduct a close reading of an oral history donated by a woman named Jazz to emphasize its relevance to writing and literacy studies as a primary source. I end by suggesting that more intentional citation of oral sources contributes to ongoing efforts of inclusion in academic research, writing, and publishing. 

ust as musical codas persist beyond the end of musical work, Coda-a new sec- tion of the Community Literacy Journal devoted to creative writing-offers space for the representation of the lingering effects of community engagement, public engagement, and activism. Beginning with this, our inaugural effort, Coda will publish creative writing in a range of genres and voices in a move to expand conversations about writing studies, to document and preserve the work of community writing, and to encourage more creative writing. We invite readers and writers who are eager to create knowledge in new ways to join us in enacting writing as a form of communion.

The author shares the challenges of facilitating a writing group in a temporary emergency shelter in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. She shows how within this constantly changing environment and its safety protocols, community literacy was as difficult to establish as it was vital to make available. Exploring some of the best practices in community literacy, including reciprocity (Miller et al.), fruitful forms of conflict (Westbrook), "meaningful acts of public rhetoric" (Mathieu and George), and flow (Feigenbaum), the author proposes that this challenging environment made possible new shapes for each of these concepts. This experience suggests that while best practices can guide creation of a writing group during an emergency, an emergency, in turn, can generate innovation with these best practices.

The unique perspective that adult learners have on writing and its instruction in low or no-cost education programs offers valuable information to both instructors of written components in these courses and to scholars exploring how writing in adult education functions as community literacy. After conducting interviews with instructors and students at six adult education programs, I identify significant tensions between the ways that instructors perceive their students to experience writing and the ways students describe their own writing experiences, particularly in the areas of process, enjoyment, and feedback. After situating low and no-cost adult education programs as sites of community literacy, I explore these tensions and propose that they contribute to and arise from instructors’ understanding that personal development through writing occurs with free-forms such as journaling, whereas students experience these benefits through prescriptive modes such as note-taking, rote copying, and dictation. I introduce a concept called the “curriculum of the self” to identify students’ use of prescriptive modes to enjoy and engage with writing, and I end by situating this concept in other tensions inherent to and ongoing in community literacy, including “turbulent flow” and sustainable practices of reciprocity.