Deer-Vehicle Crash Patterns Across Ecoregions in Michigan

Deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs) impact the economic and social well being of humans. We examined large-scale patterns behind DVCs across 3 ecoregions: Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP), Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP), and Upper Peninsula (UP) in Michigan. A 3 component conceptual model of DVCs with drivers, deer, and a landscape was the framework of analysis. The conceptual model was parameterized into a parsimonious mathematical model. The dependent variable was DVCs by county by ecoregion and the independent variables were percent forest cover, percent crop cover, mean annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and mean deer density index (DDI) by county. A discriminant function analysis of the 4 independent variables by counties by ecoregion indicated low misclassification, and provided support to the groupings by ecoregions. The global model and all sub-models were run for the 3 ecoregions and evaluated using information-theoretic approaches. Adjusted R2 values for the global model increased substantially from the SLP (0.21) to the NLP (0.54) to the UP (0.72). VMT and DDI were important variables across all 3 ecoregions. Percent crop cover played an important role in DVCs in the SLP and UP. The scale at which causal factors of DVCs operate appear to be finer in southern Michigan than in northern Michigan. Reduction of DVCs will likely occur only through a reduction in deer density, a reduction in traffic volume, or in modification of sitespecific factors, such as driver behavior, sight distance, highway features, or speed limits.

A VEHICLE MOUNTED BAIT DISPENSER

A 3-inch-diameter plastic tube mounted on a truck was designed for distributing bait (cut carrots or grain) for mammal control. Baits are fed into the tube by an operator standing in the truck bed. The device is light-weight and detachable and permits rapid, accurate placement of bait along a line on the ground or in a plowed furrow.

Literacy Research: Issues of Authority, Ownership, and Representation

With the “social turn” of language in the past decade within English studies, ethnographic and teacher research methods increasingly have acquired legitimacy as a means of studying student literacy. And with this legitimacy, graduate students specializing in literacy and composition studies increasingly are being encouraged to use ethnographic and teacher research methods to study student literacy within classrooms. Yet few of the narratives produced from these studies discuss the problems that frequently arise when participant observers enter the classroom. Recently, some researchers have begun to interrogate the extent to which ethnographic and teacher research methods are able to construct and disseminate knowledge in empowering ways (Anderson & Irvine, 1993; Bishop, 1993; Fine, 1994; Fleischer. 1994; McLaren, 1992). While ethnographic and teacher research methods have oftentimes been touted as being more democratic and nonhierarchical than quantitative methods—-which oftentimes erase individuals lived experiences with numbers and statistical formulas—-researchers are just beginning to probe the ways that ethnographic and teacher research models can also be silencing, unreflective, and oppressive. Those who have begun to question the ethics of conducting, writing about, and disseminating knowledge in education have coined the term “critical” research, a rather vague and loose term that proposes a position of reflexivity and self-critique for all research methods, not just ethnography or teacher research. Drawing upon theories of feminist consciousness-raising, liberatory praxis, and community-action research, theories of critical research aim to involve researchers and participants in a highly participatory framework for constructing knowledge, an inquiry that seeks to question, disrupt, or intervene in the conditions under study for some socially transformative end. While critical research methods are always contingent upon the context being studied, in general they are undergirded by principles of non-hierarchical relations, participatory collaboration, problem-posing, dialogic inquiry, and multiple and multi-voiced interpretations. In distinguishing between critical and traditional ethnographic processes, for instance, Peter McLaren says that critical ethnography asks questions such as “[u]nder what conditions and to what ends do we. as educational researchers, enter into relations of cooperation. mutuality, and reciprocity with those who we research?” (p. 78) and “what social effects do you want your evaluations and understandings to have?” (p. 83). In»the same vein, Michelle Fine suggests that critical researchers must move beyond notions of the etic/emic dichotomy of researcher positionality in order to “probe how we are in relation with the contexts we study and with our informants, understanding that we are all multiple in those relations” (p. 72). Researchers in composition and literacy stud¬ies who endorse critical research methods, then, aim to enact some sort of positive transformative change in keeping with the needs and interests of the participants with whom they work.