© 2016 Keiko Yasukawa. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties 
to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the 
material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. 
Citation: Literacy & Numeracy Studies, 24(1): 4897, - http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/lns.v24i1.4897  
 

 

L I T E R A C Y  &  N U M E R A C Y  S T U D I E S  V O L  2 4  N O  1  2 0 1 6  1 
 

EDITORIAL 
 
 
KEIKO YASUKAWA   

  
 
This issue of Literacy and Numeracy Studies features contributions in 

areas of literacy and workforce development, vocational literacy and health 
literacy. Each of these areas has had significant attention in many English 
speaking countries in the OECD, and they also highlight the cross-
disciplinary nature of adult literacy research. 

In ‘Workforce development rhetoric and the realities of 21st century 
capitalism’, Erik Jacobson challenges the prevailing rhetoric about adult 
education as a panacea for problems in the economy. He argues that there is 
a fundamental contradiction between this rhetoric and the nature of 
capitalism itself that limits the power of education to solve issues of 
economic inequalities. However, Jacobson goes beyond critique to point to 
adult education  - not as a site to feed fodder to the capitalist marketplace, 
but as a site for critical education about the economy and mobilisation for 
structural change. 

The contradictions presented by neo-liberalism are further illustrated 
in the second contribution in this issue by Oleg Popov and Alzira Manuel: 
‘Vocational literacy in Mozambique: historical development, current 
challenges and contradiction’. The authors analyse the development of 
vocational programs in Mozambique using Cultural-Historical Activity 
Theory (CHAT) as their analytical lens. Vocational literacy is treated as an 
‘activity’ leading to the development of job-related skills and knowledge. 
Their analysis uncovers the historical and cultural influences on the shape of 
vocational literacy education in Mozambique, and how this is currently 
challenged by a range of factors including economic inequalities and 
inadequate infrastructures and quality assurance systems, each of which 
demands closer examination as dynamic elements within a larger and 
complex cultural and historical activity system. 

The third research article by Holly Jacobson, Lauren Hund and 
Francisco Soto Mas: ‘Predictors of English health literacy among US 
Hispanic immigrants’ raises questions about how English language 
proficiency and socio-linguistic environment affect the health literacy of 
adults in language minority groups. While several health literacy assessment 
instruments have been developed and used in the US, the language of 
assessment is English, and does not take into account that this may not be 
the first language of many of the participants, or the language they primarily 
use in their communities. In addition to calling for health literacy research 
that takes on board the reality of bilingualism in many communities, for 
example by examining not only English language proficiency but also the 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/lns.v24i1.4897


 E d i t o r i a l   
  

 

  
2 L I T E R A C Y  &  N U M E R A C Y  S T U D I E S   
 

participants’ first language, the authors identify the need for more place-
based research to uncover the complex sociolinguistic environmental factors 
that may be affecting the health literacy, care and outcomes of the 
population.  

The final contribution, in the Refractions section, is an opinion piece 
from Stephen Black. Black puts forward a criticism of the Australian health 
sector’s creation of crisis discourse about health literacy. He traces the 
source of this crisis to a definition of what constitutes ‘minimum literacy’ 
used in the reporting from an OECD international literacy survey, and 
argues that not only is this criterion of literacy unsubstantiated, but that it 
results in a victim-blaming exercise.