Research topic/aim

The fixation around documentation, evaluation, measurability, and efficiency characterizes our time where neoliberalism and new public management is a self-evident condition, a social and political order that affects all forms of education. As actors within the educational system, teacher educators and students are facing various dilemmas as a result of this prevailing order which affect the professional freedom of action and the ability to influence the content and form of the education which has consequences for which kind of education that is possible. A critically informed starting point is used to stress the need for understanding the culture within higher education and the educators’ and students’ conditions. This paper is part of a doctoral project aiming to describe, understand, and problematize preschool teacher educators' collegial constructions of the student, and the paper aims to understand how student constructions are made and what they relate to using Habermas’ concepts of instrumental, strategic and communicative action.

Theoretical framework

Understanding the subjects as actors within the system of education is self-evident when using Habermas’ theoretical perspective. Habermas' (1984;1987) theoretical concepts of the three types of action, instrumental, strategic, and communicative action, is used to understand how the educators are constructing the student and what these constructions are related to. Instrumental action refers to a subject-object-focused action while strategic action refers to a social (subjectsubject), goal-oriented action to achieve success and benefit. Communicative action, in turn, relates to a mutual, intersubjective understanding and deliberation without any utility-oriented bias. In the analysis the types of action are used trying to understand how and in relation to what educators construct the student, and the characteristics of the different student constructions related to the three types of action.

Methodological design

The analysis is based on material from a five-month-long critical ethnographic fieldwork containing observations of collegial contexts, including various program-related meetings, offices and staffroom, formal and informal conversations with educators, as well as notes from group discussions among educators.

Expected conclusions/findings

Preliminary results suggest that the formation of various student constructions occurs predominantly through strategic action rather than communicative action. An illustrative example is the construction of the student as non-academic, often arising from the participants’ own constrained working conditions. Acceptable working conditions are expressed to be of greater importance to protect than the possible pedagogical ideals, ideals which, in practice, seem challenging to uphold given the educators assigned, course-specific hours. The educators are however reflecting on the fact that this construction may be too destructive, and they express a desire to act differently and construct alternative images of the student. However, the current circumstances where deadlines, learning objectives and working conditions play a significant role for their actions, lead them to believe that they lack sufficient room for action and resources to act in a manner they consider more ideal and pedagogically motivated. These results points at interesting tensions within the professional work of academic educators.

Relevance to Nordic educational research

This presentation contributes to the comprehension and discussion of educators within teacher education in Sweden, serving as a crucial part of the Nordic higher education landscape.

This paper concerns a doctoral project focusing on educators’ cultural conceptions of the student within teacher education for early childhood education (TEECE) at a Swedish University. As a part of the project this specific paper explores how educators do education through negotiations in the processes of planning, discussing and constructing the different parts of the TEECE, focusing on the role of deliberative communication in these processes. As an educator in higher education (HE) in general and professional (teacher) education in particular, one can speak of limitations for the possibilities of educating autonomous future professionals, when instrumental rationality is highly valued (Ball & Olmedo, 2013; Bornemark, 2018; Biesta, 2011). HE and teacher education are commonly considered to be limited by a neoliberal governance which limits educators’ possibilities for educating future professional teachers (Lenz Taguchi, 2005; Levinsson, Norlund & Beach, 2020). The neoliberal governance is criticized and problematized, not least in relation to give the students space to be and act (Ibid.). Based on this, educators have a complex role to navigate this landscape of different interests of what HE is and could be.

Habermas theory of democracy (Habermas, 1996a; 1996b) is an important departure point for the project. Based on this theory, the necessity of communicative action, deliberative democracy and the concepts of private and public good (Dyrdal Solbrekke & Sugrue, 2020) is put in the foreground. Communicative action is expressed as a necessity to underline the subjects’ part in a democratic society (Carlheden, 2002) and one can say that this is a theory in which the private and public sphere is linked together. It means that the private autonomy and the public are each other's prerequisite (Ibid.). Based on this theoretical perspective, the paper focuses on the educators in the process of planning, discussing and constructing the TEECE, and discusses what good education is and could be in HE and TEECE. Englund (2008) and Dyrdal Solbrekke & Surgue (2020) argue for the need of HE to be that public spere where deliberation is an aim and where public debate is desirable.  

In this paper, autonomy is an important concept when understanding educators’ role as subjects at universities. One fundamental aspect for understanding how education is done and discussed among the informants/educators is that “[f]reedom is rather something that needs to be realized in a social community” [my translation] (Carlheden, 2002:50). Deliberative communication (Englund, 2006) is recognizable for its focus on for pluralistic communication including “[…] listening, deliberating, seeking arguments and valuing, coupled to a collective and cooperative endeavor to find values and norms which everyone can accept, at the same time as pluralism is acknowledged.” (Englund, 2008:103). This concept makes it possible to explore how educators handle their autonomy when doing education and if there is room for deliberative communication. The concept also underlines educators’ autonomy in the organization of TEECE.  

Method

A five-month long critical ethnography (CE) was completed at one university hosting TEECE. The ethnographic fieldwork was carried out in various collegial contexts among a group of educators and their everyday, formal and informal work. The fieldwork includes observations of collegial settings, for example, teacher team meetings related to courses or the program as a whole; conversations with educators, both formal and informal; group discussions; documents and policy documents such as education plans, course plans and study guides; websites, where the TEECE programs are presented at different universities. Which situations and settings to focus on in the observations was quite quickly identified due to the researcher’s experience from the field. In parallel with observations and informal conversations, conversations of a more formal nature were carried out. Primarily, field notes were used to collect empirical material, but it also includes recordings from the formal conversations and written reflections submitted to me based on group discussions among the informants. In the field of CE there are different traditions and ideas on what CE entails (se for example Tomas, 1993;Carspecken,1996;Willis & Tondman, 2000; Beach & Vigo-Arrazola, 2021;Madison, 2011). However, one common idea is that CE enables the researcher to study power as an obvious part of all social relations. The ambition is to undress this power and power imbalance in order to question the power relations, contribute to change and adopt an emancipatory interest of knowledge (Habermas, 1996a; Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008). The aim for me as a researcher in this project was to take part in the environment and the language at the field of study. The informants and their interactions were of interest as well as the rhythm of the field itself. Observation of the field can be seen as a prerequisite in ethnographically oriented studies (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019;Coffey, 2018; Crang & Cook, 2007) where the culture is in focus and CE enables the researcher to take an active part in the field and to question what can be perceived as culturally accepted norms. In parallel to this active role, the informants were continuously invited to contribute to the creation of the empirical material. The material was not collected but rather created together with and in interaction with the field (Ibid.). The researcher's role as well as the informants, has thus been important in the construction of the collected material (Beach & Vigo-Arrazola, 2021; Tomas, 1993; Willis & Trondman, 2000).

Expected Outcomes

At the time of writing this abstract the analysis is not fully completed but is intended to be, by the time for the presentation. However, preliminary results shows that educators are balancing their right for good working conditions with their pedagogical intentions, in favor of their own needs and working conditions. The educators negotiate what kind of requirements and perspective they can, should and wish to have in relation to for example policy documents and different kinds of IT-systems. This is probably the most common context when deliberative communication appears. Other aspects that are discussed, but not at all in that extent, are pedagogical visions, intentions and or strategies. The results also shows that different circumstances condition what kind of communication becomes possible. Deliberative communication is not always possible due to time where for example, deadlines and bureaucratic praxis are in the foreground. For example, the need to be careful with one's own time and one's own energy is very prominent and frequently used. And it is something that they argue from when they express limitations in relation to time. On a general level, the results show how educators’ room for action and their possibilities for deliberative communication, are two main factors that condition how educators do education and how they negotiate the education they are working with. The results will contribute a perspective on how and in what way educators’ autonomy and room for action appears in their doing of education and when navigating what HE is and could be.

References 

Alvesson, Mats & Sköldberg, Kaj (2008). Tolkning och reflektion: vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod (2:a uppl.). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Ball, Stephen J & Olmedo, Antonio (2013) Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities, Critical Studies in Education, 54(1), 85-96. Beach, Dennis, & Vigo-Arrazola, Maria Begoña (2021). Critical Ethnographies of Education and for Social and Educational Transformation: A Meta-Ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(6), 677–688. Biesta, Gert (2011). God utbildning i mätningens tidevarv. (1. uppl.) Stockholm: Liber. Bornemark, Jonna (2018). Det omätbaras renässans: en uppgörelse med pedanternas världsherravälde. Första upplagan Stockholm: Volante. Carlheden, Mikael (2002) Fostran till frihet - Skolans demokratiska värdegrund ur ett habermasianskt perspektiv. Utbildning & Demokrati 2002, 11(3), 43-72. Carspecken, Francis Phil (1996) Critical Ethnography in Educational Research, A Theoretical and Practical Guide, London: Routledge. Dyrdal Solbrekke, Tone & Sugrue, Ciaran (2020) Leading higher education as and for public good: Rekindling education as praxis. London: Routledge. Englund, Tomas (2006) Deliberative communication: a pragmatist proposal, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503-520. Englund, Thomas (2008) The university as an encounter for deliberative communication, Creating cultural citizenship and professional responsibility. Utbildning & Demokrati 2008, 17(2), 97–114 Habermas, Jürgen (1996a). Kommunikativt handlande: texter om språk, rationalitet och samhälle. (2. uppl.) Göteborg: Daidalos. Habermas, Jürgen (1996b). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. London: Polity Levinsson Magnus, Norlund Anita & Beach Dennis (2020) Teacher Educators in Neoliberal Times: A Phenomenological Self-Study. Phenomenology & Practice, 14(1), 7-23. Madison, D. Soyini (2011). Critical ethnography, method, ethics, and performance. SAGE Taguchi, Hillevi Lenz (2005). Getting personal: how early childhood teacher education troubles students' and teacher educators' identities regarding subjectivity and feminism. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(3), 244-255. Thomas, Jim (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage.

This presentation highlights the methodological part of a doctoral project which intends to study cultural conceptions of the student among educators within teacher training for early childhood education (TTECE). The presentation aims to discuss the insider and outsider position occupied by the researcher in critical ethnographic research in order to contribute to the discussion about critical theory and critically oriented studies in a Nordic context. When and why does it become a challenge to be an insider? Where, when and how are boundaries set up between the researcher and the research subjects? When does such boundaries become limiting and when do they provide opportunities? What does being an active part of the empirical production in critical ethnography (CE) imply for the research? 

CE is a theory-informed methodological approach which, in this doctoral project, departs from a pragmatic and critical perspective in which higher education is, or should be, understood as a practice built upon deliberative democracy and communicative action as important prerequisites for creating good education for all (Habermas, 1996;Englund, 2008). The fundamental purpose of CE is to question what becomes normalized within a field of study and to consider, or suggest alternatives to, what appears given or natural in such a field (Thomas, 1993;Madison, 2012). The critical approach of CE provides the researcher with a possibility to take an active part in the field, to influence it in certain directions and to question culturally accepted norms within it. Simultaneously, the informants are continuously invited to participate in and contribute to the creation and interpretation of the empirical material. 

The empirical material was collected during a five-month long fieldwork at a Swedish university that provides TTECE. Data was gathered through participant observations of formal and informal every-day collegial work, semi-structured conversations and group-sessions. The empirical material consists of fieldnotes, transcripts from recorded conversations, documents and webpages. 

Being an insider turned out to be an advantage in relation to understanding the circumstances of educators’ sayings and doings, to access the field of study and to gain trust from the informants. At the same time, to assume the role as an outsider can be preferred in some situations due to e.g. the degree of commitment at the field. Being open and transparent with my interpretations of the empirical material has enabled me to have discussions with the informants in a way which have given the informants opportunities to provide more nuanced interpretations. In some sense, seemingly insignificant situations puts the insider/outsider position into play and affects the investigation and its results. To balance the insider/outsider position requires a continuous pursuit of reflexivity through every part of the research process.

Englund, T. (2008) The university as an encounter for deliberative communication, Creating cultural citizenship and professional responsibility. Utbildning & Demokrati, 17(2), 97-114

Habermas, J.(1996). Kommunikativt handlande: texter om språk, rationalitet och samhälle. (2. uppl.) Göteborg: Daidalos.

Madison, D.(2012). Critical ethnography- method, ethics, and performance. SAGE

Thomas, J.(1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage.

The preschool teacher education plays a fundamental role for the preschool teacher profession. When planning and creating a teacher education, several factors affecting the work of preschool teacher educators which need to be taken into consideration. Among these factors are notions about the preschool profession itself, a preschool practice that is characterized by many private actors' economic and political interests (such as ownership, material production, IT systems, etc.) and political governance in the form of policy documents, etc. As part of higher education, the preschool teacher education is also affected by the political governance and the interests and influence of external, private actors regarding the education, the educational structure and regarding research funding. Even the notion of the profession of teacher educators plays an important role.

Previous studies show tensions within teacher education, on the one hand aiming to develop students’ agency and on the other train future teachers that adapt to neoliberal ideals of audit and accountability. 

The presentation is going to focus on the ongoing empirical work and reflections on theoretical concepts of my doctoral project. The aim of the project is to examine how educators construct the student within preschool teacher education. The following questions are asked: What kind of cultural conceptions of the student appear within preschool teacher education? How are these conceptions made and which roles or positions do the educators occupy in relation to different influencing factors? 

This is studied trough critical ethnography, in which observations of educators, in situations where they work with the education and its development (syllabus, course guides and so on), interviews of educators and studies of policy documents are the main empirical materials. Theoretically the study is relying on Habermas concepts ‘communicative action’ and ‘deliberative democracy’ through which I seek to understand the culture in between the professional educators and to deepen the knowledge about which figures of the student that appears. How are the student made and what factors have influence on this making of the student? The critical approach enables me to reveal hegemonic structures or mechanisms and discuss what ought to be instead of just what is.