In this anthology, I will delve into two spheres of my personal and professional life: how my gender has inhibited my authority in the workplace, and how my gender has impacted the assumptions others make of my aptitude and worth. In each entry, I explore the intersection of poetry and literary criticism regarding internalized gendered assumptions. My headnote offers questions to consider upon reading each poem, and I have taken techniques and examples from Mary Oliver’s handbook on writing poetry, to then offer my own poem in response. Finally, I then analyze relevant scholarship to the gender-based issue I am referencing, alongside a personal explanation of how this issue materializes in my poems.
A handbook consisting of scholarship and social media included to frame the six experiences around which this handbook is organized: getting in the zone, a thought process in overdrive; impulsivity; a distinct relationship to creativity; difficulties with transitions, especially the transition to and from sleep; and a complex relationship to medication. Following the initial framing, I then describe what each of these experiences feel like to me. To render these experiences for the purpose of a shared inquiry, I followed the critical-incident interview method that Flower describes in Community Literacy and the Rhetoric of Public Engagement. I first learned to use this interview technique in ENG 205: Introduction to Writing, Rhetorics and Literacies and practiced it further in ENG 390: Methods of Inquiry. The crux of my project is the insights of research participants as they read and responded to the six critical incidents and respective follow-up questions I designed for this study. The full interview protocol–approved by ASU’s Internal Review Board in December of 2022–is included in the appendix. Following IRB approval, I recruited four participants for a critical-incident interview, the results of which enliven this handbook’s portrait of thriving with ADHD.
This dissertation examines two sets of data: 1) interviews with eight Navajo individuals whose interests, academic studies, and/or occupations relate to the promotion of Navajo language use in connection with cultural and linguistic revitalization; and 2) public statements made in online forums discussing the language used by Navajos. The interview data gathered consist of ten sociolinguistic (and open-ended conversational) interviews, culminating in over 13 hours of recorded interviews. The findings of this study show enregistered (i.e., imbued with social meaning) features of the dialect of Navajo English as well as insights into the challenges Navajos face while advocating for programs and policies supporting the teaching of their heritage language.