[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: FW: Dr. Roger Farr Passing

Sat Aug 3 17:01:35 BST 2019

David - Love your tribute to Roger Farr.    It reminds me that some of the most important work we do, in addition to our own scholarly pursuits, is to mentor others in our field.     

I think all us owe a debt of  gratitude to those who have taken the time to mentor us.   

Timothy Rasinski, PhD
Kent State University
trasinsk at kent.edu
330-672-0649

________________________________________
From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] on behalf of P Pearson [ppearson at berkeley.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:52 PM
To: Douglas Ray Reutzel
Cc: reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk; jmconner at iu.edu
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: FW: Dr. Roger Farr Passing

All week, I have been thinking about what I could say to mark the passing of Roger Farr, a long time friend, colleague, and sparring partner when it came to matters of assessment.  And then I remembered something I had written about Roger and his RRQ co-editor, Sam Weintraub, when I was a new assistant professor at Minnesota.  It was in a 2013 issue of the Journal of Education when it was so ably edited by our RHF colleague, Lee Indrisano.

Lee asked me and one of my doctoral advisees, Kate Frankel, to write a commentary about collaborative research for JE.  I agreed, as did Kate.  In that journal appears my 1974 RRQ dissertation article (all about syntactic and semantic complexity) and a piece by Kate. Those two articles are accompanied by s commentary with 3 stories—my story, Kate’s story, and our story.  My story is about how that 1974-75 piece came into being, and the major role that Roger and Sam played in seeing it through to publication. I think it is the best tribute I could pay to Roger and his legacy to the field. Here is the critical segment:

“The article reprinted here was published in Reading Research Quarterly in the journal’s 1974–75 publication year. It was based on my dissertation, which was completed in 1969. By my calculations, that is a five-year gap between completion and publication. Why such long time lag? Was I just too lazy or too busy with new courses and the other duties of an assistant professor to pursue publication? Not really! While I might have been busy, I surely wasn’t lazy when it came to trying to get the work published. In early 1970, I submitted it to the Journal of Educational Psychology, received a revise and resubmit recommendation; revised, resubmitted, and was rejected. That nearly two-year ordeal brought me to early 1972.

After four months of wallowing in dejection and self-doubt, I summoned up the grit needed to revamp it and send it off to RRQ. Predictably, I received another revise and resubmit; revised, resubmitted, and yet another revise and resubmit. That cycle of revising and resubmitting, all the while in close interaction with the editors, Roger Farr and Sam Weintraub, went on for another 18 months until they were satisfied that the manuscript was not only technically sound but rhetorically effective. Even though Roger and Sam put me through the revision wringer, I am forever grateful for their focused and helpful feedback and their undying patience with a struggling young researcher. They could have easily “written me off ” after the first round of reviews (reviewers wanted a lot of changes!), but they didn’t. They stayed with me through what seemed like an endless stream of revisions. But in the end, there emerged a product in which both the author and the editors could take a modicum of pride.

I am both fond and proud of this article, but for different reasons.

Fond of it because it embodies what I aspire to do in reporting research—establish a strong relationship between theory and research. I have always thought that the most important role for research was to provide an empirical database to evaluate which among two or more competing theories of a mental, social, or pedagogical process provides the best account of the evidence available. An index of the article’s impact is that Robert Ruddell and his various co-editors of Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading selected it to appear in multiple editions of their influential volume. Bob once told me that it was precisely the theory evaluation focus of the article that led to his decision. By the way, when you read this 39-year-old piece, think about it in light of all the emphasis we are placing on text complexity these days.

Proud of it because of the process that led to its publication. Even the rejections, the revisions, the resubmits, and the numerous requests by the editors to fine-tune the piece in its final stages were important to the process—for they taught me three important lessons. First, stamina, endurance, and belief in oneself are the pathway to scholarly success. Second, you can always use a little help from your friends—and your editors. I would never have published the piece without Roger and Sam’s support and faith in me as an emerging scholar. Third—and this follows from the second— you can learn a lot more about your own writing once you learn how to examine it from the perspective of those who read it, even criticize it. So now, whenever I receive a negative review (and I still get them!), I allow myself a day to wallow in self-pity and accuse the reviewers of ignorance or mean-spiritedness. Then I shift gears and ask, “If I had been sitting where they were sitting and looking at this manuscript through their lens, might I have reached the same conclusion?” And if the answer to that question is, “Yes,” or even “Maybe,” then I have to ask myself an even more important question, “What do I have to learn from this review— and how can I use the feedback to make this an even better manuscript?” It might be the scholarly equivalent of “turning the other cheek” and learning from one’s missteps. Those three lessons have served me well. I hope they can be of help to others!“
Thanks you, Roger!!!!
From:Frankel, K. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2013). Reflections on becoming a researcher.  Journal of Education, 193(1), 31-34. Reprinted without permission!

ps:  Ken Goodman had to put up with my rantings and ravings about picky editors and getting things into print during the 4 year period of rejections from 1970-74.  I often leaned on him (accosted him is more like it--at IRA) to provide moral support for my sagging ego and sense of self-worth.  Thanks, Ken.

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:50 AM Douglas Ray Reutzel <Ray.Reutzel at uwyo.edu<mailto:Ray.Reutzel at uwyo.edu>> wrote:

From: Douglass Reutzel <ray.reutzel at uwyo.edu<mailto:ray.reutzel at uwyo.edu>>
Date: Friday, July 26, 2019 at 10:48 AM
To: "reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>" <reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>
Subject: Dr. Roger Farr Passing

Dear Reading Hall of Fame Colleagues:

Probably all of us remember the multitude of contributions that Dr. Roger Farr made to literacy. I am sad to convey to you that he passed away.  I received the following email from Jennifer Conner:

Dear Dr. Reutzel,

As the president of the Reading Hall of Fame, I wanted to let you know that Roger Farr, who was inducted in 1986, passed away on Wednesday of this week. He had a stroke about two months ago, but recovered fairly well from it. A few weeks ago, though, he developed a blood infection, and his health deteriorated quickly. He is survived by his wife, Joyce. Roger was a dear friend, colleague, and mentor of mine.

Thanks,
Jenny

--
Jennifer Conner, Ph.D.
Division Head, Division of Education
Associate Professor of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education
Indiana University-Purdue University of Columbus (IUPUC)
4601 Central Ave.
Columbus, Indiana 47203
812.348.7278
jmconner at iu.edu<mailto:jmconner at iu.edu>

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.

_______________________________________________
Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P. David Pearson
Evelyn Lois Corey Emeritus Professor of Instructional Science
and Professor of the Graduate School
Graduate School of Education
4220 Berkeley Way West #1670
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley CA 94720-1670
GSE Office: 510 543 6508
email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>
other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com<mailto:pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com>
website for presentations:  www.scienceandliteracy.org<http://www.scienceandliteracy.org>
website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org<http://www.pdavidpearson.org>
*******************
Home:  851 Euclid Ave
Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
iPhone:  510 543 6508
****************************************

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.