Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice (Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices, 23) 9811624976, 9789811624971

Citation preview

Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23

Julian Kitchen  Editor

Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice

Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices Volume 23

Series Editor Julian Kitchen, Brock University, Hamilton, Canada Advisory Editors Mary Lynn Hamilton, University of Kansas, Kansas, USA Ruth Kane, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Geert Kelchtermans, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Fred Korthagen, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Tom Russell, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

Important insights into varying aspects of teacher education emerge when attention is focused on the work of teacher educators. Teacher educators’ observations, explorations and inquiries are important as they offer access to the intricacies of teaching and learning about teaching so important in shaping the nature of teacher education itself. For (at least) this reason, research of the kind found in self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) is increasingly pursued and valued by teacher educators. In so doing, self-study also encourages others to look more closely into their own practices. For many, self-study has become an empowering way of examining and learning about practice while simultaneously developing opportunities for exploring scholarship in, and through, teaching. Self-Study allows educators to maintain a focus on their teaching and on their students’ learning; both high priorities that constantly interact with one another. This interplay between practice and scholarship can then be quite appealing to educators as their work becomes more holistic as opposed to being sectioned off into separate and distinct compartments (e.g., teaching, research, program evaluation, development, etc.). However, just because self-study may be appealing, it is not to suggest that the nature of self-study work should simply be accepted without question and critique. There is a constant need to examine what is being done, how and why, in order to further our understanding of the field and to foster development in critical and useful ways so that the learning through self-study might be informative and accessible to others. This series has been organized in order so that the insights from self-study research and practice might offer a more comprehensive articulation of the distinguishing aspects of such work to the education community at large and builds on the International Handbook of Self Study in Teaching and Teacher Education (Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey & Russell, 2004). Self-study may be viewed as a natural consequence of the re-emergence of reflection and reflective practice that gripped the education community in the last two decades of the 20th century (see for example Calderhead & Gates, 1993; Clift et  al., 1990; Grimmett & Erickson, 1988; LaBoskey, 1994; Schön, 1983, 1987). However, self-­study aims to, and must, go further than reflection alone. Self-study generates questions about the very nature of teaching about teaching in teacher education (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999) and is important in conceptualizing scholarship in teaching as it generates and makes public the knowledge of teaching and learning about teaching so that it might be informative to the education community in general. This series offers a range of committed teacher educators who, through their books, offer a diverse range of approaches to, and outcomes from, self-study of teacher teacher education practices. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Publishing Editor: Nick Melchior E-mail: [email protected]

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/7072

Julian Kitchen Editor

Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice

Editor Julian Kitchen Faculty of Education Brock University Hamilton, ON, Canada

ISSN 1875-3620     ISSN 2215-1850 (electronic) Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices ISBN 978-981-16-2497-1    ISBN 978-981-16-2498-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword

Springer’s Self-study series was originally designed to act as a companion to the first International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Loughran et al., 2004). Now, with the recent release of the second edition of the Handbook (Kitchen et al., 2020), Writing as a Method for the Self-study of Practice continues to reinforce that worthy tradition. In bringing this text to fruition, the editor has brought together a group of exceptional self-study scholars. Together their chapters offer new insights into the field in ways that demonstrate the growth and development of self-study over time. It is therefore most fitting that as Professor Kitchen assumes editorship of the series that he leads off with the publication of this outstanding contribution. The nature of this book is a testament to the commitment and vision of the self-­ study community. It offers ideas, understandings and possibilities that build on and extend the Handbook. With the accessibility of the ideas and approaches documented in this book, the field itself is pushed forward in positive and engaging ways. Writing as a Method for the Self-study of Practice opens up new and interesting ways of conceptualizing Self-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices and does so by exploring in detail the ‘what, how and why’ of writing and practice. Each of the authors has thoughtfully demonstrated and explained their ideas, approaches and thinking in ways that invite the reader to purposefully engage with the possibilities offered. In fact, the structure of the book (self-study as a cognitive process; self-study as an inquiry method; self-study and artistic representation; and crafting a self-study text) illustrates how one of the central activities (writing) of academia can be conceptualized and understood in order to progress scholarship within the field. Through the first part of the book (Self-Study as a Cognitive Process), the ideas within the chapters draw attention to the notion of learning about oneself through writing. However, just as is the case with self-study more generally, learning about oneself through writing should not be limited by the self. There is a need to seek alternative views and perspectives, to be disciplined, thoughtful and attuned to pedagogical situations, episodes and events. Collaboration is essential to moving beyond the self. Through the support of critical friends, mentoring and engaging v

vi

Foreword

with the literature, writing is developed and enhanced and can be seen as much more than an ‘academic task’. Importantly, as Kitchen notes, writing is a form of inquiry. Therefore, it works at developing the attitudes and skills that underpin a disciplined approach to inquiry matter. There is little doubt that in this part of the book, those ideas stand up and demand attention. Each of the authors demonstrate well how learning, collaboration and disciplined inquiry reinforce the value of one to the other such that the product itself – in this case well-written and thoughtfully structured chapters – makes clear the understanding writing as inquiry supports the overall development of the academic(s) at the heart of the enterprise. The second part of the book (Self-Study as in Inquiry Method) builds on the first part by diving more deeply into the idea of method, in particular that of journaling and shared communication. Although it is not necessarily explicitly stated as such, it is clear that each of these chapters is built on a philosophical foundation which values relationships: between self and writing, self and colleagues, and public trust and responsibility. These chapters are strong examples of the type of deep dive researchers need to take to enhance their writing, and to do so through understanding the process and practices in detail. However, for that to be meaningful and educative, confidence in oneself and trust in others is necessary in order to allow the honesty and vulnerability that accompanies public exposure to be fully realized. Such confidence should not be construed as a form of hubris, but moreso a humility through which opening oneself up to the reality of situations is crucial. As these chapters make clear, expressing oneself in such a manner may be daunting, but doing so portrays skills and expertise which have been actively shaped by accepting the challenge to genuinely engage with the notion of inquiry. The third part of the book (Self-Study and Artistic Representation) reminds the reader that self-study is not dictated by a specific method. Rather, the purpose of a self-study demands that the researcher adopt a research approach that might best help to answer the question(s) on which the study is derived. Not surprisingly, across these chapters, narrative (in a variety of forms) is used to highlight some of the ways in which thinking about representation is not only attractive but also powerful. Yet as each of the authors makes clear, story alone – no matter how it is represented – is not sufficient. Self-study must go beyond the story. The purpose needs to be clear and strong; it must stand up to scrutiny and critique if it is to be valuable and extend beyond the self. Choosing to develop and use artistic representations reinforces again the point that, in embarking on self-study, it is not just the ‘results’ that matter but also the ways in which those outcomes were achieved, are able to be publicly analysed, and lead to valuable learning for oneself and others. In this part of the book, there is an ever-present reminder of the need for practices in teaching and teacher education to move ‘beyond the norm’. In so doing, teacher educators and students of teaching are encouraged to frame and reframe their shared pedagogical experiences in meaningful ways. The book closes with a part titled Crafting a Self-Study Text. Beyond the value of offering practical guidance to constructing a text and making some of the ‘hidden business’ of writing clear for others, the authors in this part offer the reader an invitation to think again about that which embodies self-study itself. Writing is a crucial

Foreword

vii

form of communication in academia and, in self-study, the ability to communicate purpose and meaning in ways that will resonate with others is crucial. Although self-study is not bound by a methodological straitjacket, there are important signals through the clues offered by structure and the strength of evidence that matter in enticing a reader to fully engage with a text. Seeing behind the words and into the underlying meaning builds a sense of trustworthiness not only in the way in which a self-study has been constructed, but also in the authenticity of the voice detailing the work and the power of the learning accessible to others as a consequence. This part is a perfect way of bringing this book to a close. It encourages the reader to think again about self-study as something that, although it might often begin with the self, must inevitably reach far beyond the self if the research and its findings are to positively impact the work of others. As each of the authors demonstrate, doing so is at the heart of scholarship in teaching and teacher education practices. I am most grateful to have had the opportunity to read this book and to offer a foreword. It has been a pleasure to see members of the self-study community yet again publicly push the boundaries of the field and to do so in such thoughtful, well-­ structured and meaningful ways. This series has a lot to offer, and I am sure that under the editorship of Professor Kitchen, it will continue to lead the way through the nature of the possibilities, challenges and invitations it creates for teachers and teacher educators enticed by the idea of self-study. Emeritus Sir John Monash Distinguished Professor Faculty of Education Monash University Clayton, VIC, Australia

John Loughran

References Kitchen, J., Berry, A., Bullock, S. M., Crowe, A. R., Taylor, M., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Thomas, L. (Eds.). (2020). International handbook of self-­study of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.). Springer. Loughran, J.J., Hamilton, M.L., LaBoskey, V.K. & Russell. T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Springer Netherlands.

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

Abstract Writing is a method of inquiry, not just a means for reporting research findings. Through the process of inquiring in writing, we come to know more deeply the subjects of inquiry. This is particularly true of self-study, in which the subjects of inquiry are the self, practice, and context. We come to know ourselves and our practice in our local context process through the texts we produce as we engage in the research process, and through the crafting of articles and chapters to be shared with other practitioners and scholars. This volume, which features chapters by established researchers and writers in the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices discourse community, is designed to “show,” rather than just “tell,” how writing is a method for the self-study of practice. Writing is a method of inquiry, not just a means for reporting research findings. Through the process of inquiring in writing, we come to know more deeply the subjects of inquiry. This is particularly true of self-study, in which the subjects of inquiry are the self, practice, and context. We come to know ourselves and our practice in our local context process through the texts we produce as we engage in the research process, and through the crafting of articles and chapters to be shared with other practitioners and scholars. This volume, which features chapters by established researchers and writers in the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices discourse community, is designed to “show,” rather than just “tell,” how writing is a method for the self-study of practice. Robyn Brandenburg, in the penultimate chapter of this volume, writes that questions and dilemmas from her own practice led to conversations with colleagues that culminated in edited volumes on important themes. Similarly, Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice began with my efforts to craft texts based on my research and experiences as a researcher of my own practice. As an editor of the journal Studying Teacher Education, the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices, Second Edition, and several edited books, I have read numerous manuscripts at various stages in the writing process ix

x

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

and engaged authors in conversations about their writing. These experiences led me to explicitly inquire into my own writing, as examined in Chapter 1. The questions that arose inspired me to invite respected colleagues to write about particular aspects of their work as self-study researchers, writers, and editors.

The Book Proposal Writing a scholarly article or chapter is “not just a mopping up activity at the end of a research project,” according to Laurel Richardson (2000, p. 923) in “Writing: A Method of Inquiry” in the Handbook of Qualitative Research. Rather, writing is “a method of inquiry, a way of finding out about yourself and your topic” (Richardson, 2000, p. 923), and a craft that can express reality and affect the reader. Qualitative research at its best uses “evocative writing” and features “highly personalized, revealing texts in which authors tell stories about their own lived experiences, relating the personal to the cultural” (Richardson, 2000. p. 929). Teacher educators writing self-studies of their practice would do well to consider writing as a method of inquiry, as well as a means of effective and artful expression. In Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education, John Loughran argues that “students of teaching need to be able to see and hear the pedagogical reasoning that underpins the teaching they are experiencing” (Loughran, 2006, p.  5). Similarly, scholarly readers of educational research and practice need to appreciate the reasoning that underpins the writing they are experiencing. To become effective writers about their practice, they need to become more metacognitive about their thinking. As writing is a cognitive process in which we “word the world” into existence through the language we use (Rose, 1992), Richardson is an advocate for creative analytic writing practices. She makes a strong case for employing observation notes, methodological notes, theoretical notes, and personal notes to enhance writing at various stages of a qualitative inquiry in order to enhance the quality and depth of the research. She recommends keeping a journal, both to free up one’s writing and as a “‘historical record’ for the writing of a narrative of the Self or a writing-story about the writing process” (p. 941). Richardson also praises collaborative writing “as a way to see beyond one’s own naturalisms of style and attitude” (p. 943). A book on writing as a method of inquiry in self-study will help teacher educators and other practitioners become more explicit about their thinking and writing. This will enhance their writing, while also helping readers appreciate writing about practice as a cognitive process. Writing is a craft with guidelines for the effective communication of ideas. While submission guidelines from publishers offer advice on technical elements, novice and experienced writers often lack guidance on how to craft manuscripts that are analytic, creative, and engaging. Richardson’s five criteria for reviewing papers are a useful framework for making the craft of self-study writing explicit. First, the manuscript must make a substantive contribution to the field. Second, aesthetic merit should be evident in the crafting of words and images, as well as creative

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

xi

analysis sand interpretation. Third, reflexivity is evident in how the authors puzzle over “truth’ and “knowing” in a postmodern world. Fourth, the impact of the manuscript is evident in how it affects the reader emotionally and intellectually. Finally, the expression of reality seems “true:” “a credible account of a cultural, social, individual, or communal sense of the ‘real’” (Richardson, 2000, p. 937). This volume focuses on the writing process in the self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. It is intended to make explicit the writing processes of self-study practitioners that are generally implicit, and often invisible to novices in the field. Various modes of representation and the craft of effective self-study writing are also examined. The authors, all experienced self-study practitioners, consider multiple dimensions of writing as a method for the self-study of practice. Through their texts, they make explicit their writing practice and offer guidance to other scholars of professional practice. The volume is divided into four sections with three chapters in each: • Self-Study as a Cognitive Process: Working out ideas through the writing process • Self-Study as an Inquiry Method: Journals, letters, observation notes, methodological notes, and theoretical notes • Self-Study and Artistic Representation: Stories, poetry, and imagery • Crafting a Self-Study Text.

Defining Features First, this volume focuses on writing in the self-study of teacher education practices, with insights from experienced researchers/practitioners in this educational community. While there have been self-study books on research methods, writing is seldom addressed as an area in which teacher educators can develop their skills. Moreover, unlike general books on academic writing, this volume represents how to write in ways that are compatible with self-study’s orientations toward inquiry, both personal and on practice. Second, the approach is more show than tell. Whereas books on academic writing are notable for technical tips, this volume digs deeper into the cognitive processes of real writers making explicit their writing practices. Authors, for example, may share notes and journals that contributed to an article, or demonstrate how a published piece evolved over stages of writing. Practical suggestions are connected to the lived experiences of self-study practitioners making sense of their field through the process of writing. Third, while this volume is suitable for doctoral and novice self-study writers, the chapters should be of interest to experienced authors seeking to develop or enhance their practice. It challenges the myth that one is either a good writer or a bad one by demonstrating that writing as a method of inquiry in self-study (and beyond) can be learned, modeled, and taught.

xii

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

Part I: Self-study as a Cognitive Process In Part I, three chapters illustrate how self-study writing is a cognitive process through which one comes to know oneself and one’s professional practice. Writing as a cognitive process is at the heart of Julian Kitchen’s “From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study.” In this opening chapter, I build on Richardson’s (2000) conception of writing as a method of inquiry. I encourage teacher educators and other professionals to engage in the hard work of making sense of the world through the process of writing. Writing as inquiry begins with sense-making during the research process (e.g., journals, research notes, and theoretical memos), continues through the metacognitive processes of making sense in words and organizing ideas, and culminates in careful crafting and polishing for understanding and clarity. I consider four aspects of writing: notetaking during research/practice; making sense through writing; making the writing seem true; and crafting writing with the reader in mind. In the spirit of this edited volume, I focus on showing my own writing in action by journaling about the writing choices as I crafted several articles and chapters. Writing as a cognitive process is particularly evident in the writing of collaborative self-studies. In the second chapter, “Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study,” Tim Fletcher and Déirdre Ní Chróinín review six years of researching their practice and conveying their understandings in writing. The examples in their chapter reveal the myriad ways correspondence has supported how they have “constructed knowledge and made meaning in personal and professional ways.” They pay particular attention to the ways in which letter writing has facilitated collaboration over years of funded research and meaning-making in writing. Drawing on excerpts from their letters, the authors trace their critical friendship as pen pals from its tentative beginnings to their highly productive collaborations together and with a wider circle of associates. Quotations from letters reveal how they wrote out the logistics of data collection, developed a caring relationship, provided each other with personal and professional support, and took stock of their work. All the while, their writing in process became critical parts of the texts Tim and Déirdre produced. They conclude by sharing insights from their journey together. Writing is also critical to the writing of doctoral dissertations. A dissertation is generally seen as an individual achievement, with a degree conferred once the substantive research project is completed and defended. In reality, doctoral students typically work in collaboration with a supervisor and a committee of scholars. This reality is brought to life in the third chapter, “Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage and Lifting the Curtain,” by Sandra Quiñones, Jason K. Ritter, and Ramona Broomer. While the “staged performance” is the work of doctoral student Ramona, lifting the curtain reveals the intense collaboration involved in the mentoring process. Sandra and Jason, as teacher educators committed to self-study, go beyond the call of duty by actively engaging with Ramona and documenting this in writing. Their account shows their process from

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

xiii

beginning to end through mentor reflections and a reflection by Ramona. Among the themes explored are writing a data collection plan, analytical memos, and crafting the final work to be disseminated. The chapter concludes with recommendations for doctoral students and their faculty advisors. The first two chapters in this section bring to life writing as a method of individual and collaborative inquiry. The third builds on them be showing how writing can be a powerful method for both doctoral students and faculty advisors.

Part II: Self-study as an Inquiry Method Self-study is both a way of thinking about practice and a method of inquiry. Fletcher (2020) characterizes self-study as a hybrid methodology that employs a variety of theoretical lenses and inquiry methods. As self-study research gives attention to the self-conducting of research, writing methods such as journaling figure prominently in the documenting of teaching and research experiences, and in the research texts that illuminate those experiences for the discourse community. As much self-study is collaborative in nature, written correspondence is another means of documenting experience and interaction with critical friends and collaborators. In “Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning and Self-Understanding,” Judy Williams writes, “it would be hard to imagine a self-study being undertaken without some form of personal, reflective journaling being part of the data generation process.” Journaling in a variety of forms allowed Judy to record “actions, events, thoughts, emotions, and interactions” in order to focus on her self within the research context. Revisiting previously published work, she shows how journals, initially utilized as data, contributed to the findings and to the texture of the published self-study research. This chapter demonstrates how journaling has transformed Judy’s research by allowing her to be vulnerable as she explores the challenges of authentic teacher education practice. By offering detailed excerpts from journal entries written throughout the research process, her chapter makes explicit how one can authentically inquire into the self as practitioner while also offering insights to others on teaching and teacher education practices. Journaling, typically a personal and private method of inquiry, becomes public when it is intentionally shared with collaborators and a discourse community. The fifth chapter, “From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool for Collaboration and Critical Friendship in Self-Study,” by Valerie A. Allison and Laurie A. Ramirez, offers a hybrid combination of journaling and correspondence in which the collaborators “intentionally write and share journals with one another electronically as part of [their] research practice.” This chapter offers a critical review of their collaboration over many years and demonstrates how the authors have used shared journaling as a means to hold themselves accountable for their work. More significantly, as this is a methods chapter, their correspondence helps them “to capture events so they can be shared with others so that they might

xiv

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

‘see’ and ‘experience’ them alongside [the authors].” Valerie and Laurie conclude with recommendations for other research teams, but the strongest evidence for these methods is contained in the journal excerpts featured in this chapter. Self-studies, whether individual or collaborative, typically begin with a personal concern related to the professional context. Journals and correspondence often become the vehicles for exploration and the means for documenting the journey to deeper understanding of the challenge. This is driven home by “Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook Messaging Our Way to Feminist Understanding” by Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein. The authors explore how their friendship and regular correspondence helped them construct meaning through co/autoethnographic self-study research. Monica and Emily’s inquiries are simultaneously unintentional and intentional. They correspond frequently without specific intent but, given their shared commitment related to their work as teacher educators, worthwhile inquiry questions inevitably emerge. By recounting how their process led to the writing of two articles, Monica and Emily demonstrate the importance of friendship and vulnerability, authentic personal/professional meaning-making, and taking action as professionals. This chapter, like the two previous chapters in this section, illustrates the value of writing field texts that help self-study researchers to understand themselves and make sense of their field. By stressing the personal, however, they draw particular attention to the value added that comes from the development of writing expertise over time (evident in Judy Williams’ chapter) and the importance of cultivating relationships that elevate one’s writing of these texts (evident from the blending of Allison’s and Ramirez’s voices). Monica and Emily cannot “fathom a writing, teaching, and research partnership for ourselves that exists outside of a friendship, a friendship that is prioritized above and beyond the work.” They end with the “hope that others will take up these commitments too.”

Part III: Self-study and Artistic Representation As self-study is a hybrid methodology, authors have long been open to using variety of methods in both their practice and their research on practice (LaBoskey, 2004b). Creative approaches are often used to enable inquiries, reimagine practice, and represent research artistically in articles and chapters (Weber & Mitchell, 2004; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2020). Such methodological inventiveness throughout the writing process is evident in the three chapters in this section. The most common form of artistic representation in self-study is the sharing of stories of experience. As Kitchen (2011) wrote: Narrative inquiry and self-study emerged as responses to the technical rational assumption that research knowledge can be applied to practical problems with little reference to people or context (Schwab, 1971). Drawing on John Dewey’s view that educative experiences that lead to growth emerge when teachers are responsive to ‘the situations in which interaction takes place’ (Dewey, 1938, p. 45), narrative inquiry explores ways in which the individual

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

xv

practitioner can make sense of the ‘complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value-conflict’ (p. 39) within a particular professional situation. (pp. 113–114)

Narrative inquiry, as employed in self-study, is more than “the study of stories or narratives or descriptions of a series of events” (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007, p. 4). Narrative inquirers immerse themselves in experience as lived and told in stories. This immersion in stories is a form of intimate scholarship often undertaken in collaboration with others. As all inquiry takes places in a three-dimensional space, at specific times “in specific places or [a] sequence of places” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 50), inquirers need to examine multiple dimensions in order to find meaning in experience. In “Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship,” Stefinee Pinnegar, Trudy Cardinal, M. Shaun Murphy, and Janice Huber bring extensive experience in narrative inquiry to a consideration of an article in which Trudy “links hidden stories of her own literacy development (including her Mosom—grandfather), her teaching of preservice teachers, and her knowing of the research on Indigenous literacy.” They revisit the article in order to consider “the challenges and potential responses by those engaged in various forms of intimate scholarship in order to support intimate scholars in the hard work of becoming stronger writers.” They frame the chapter around four challenges faced by scholars in writing meaningfully from stories of experience: (1) the dual positioning of intimate scholarship; (2) the writing conundrums introduced by its characteristics; (3) the challenge of crafting texts that are personal yet academic; and (4) the tension of shifting from “writer- to reader-based prose.” In order to articulate the challenges represented, and guide writers toward potential responses to them, the authors explore key concepts and connect them to quotations from Trudy’s article. They then turn to Trudy’s words to bring to life the challenge inherent in intimate writing and how Trudy addressed these in her article. This chapter offers guidance to self-study authors interested in “coming to know” by sharing stories of experience through prose that is deeply personal and scholarly. Kathleen Pithouse-Morgan and Anastasia P. Samaras, in Chapter 7, “Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing,” look back on their use of poetry in a wide range of self-studies, individually, as writing partners, and in collaboration with others. While their research texts prominently feature poetry, their chapter makes it clear that the creation of poetry, and dialogue in response to the poetry, is a crucial part of their virtual bricolage self-study method from the identification of inquiry themes to the collection of data to the construction of meaning through artistic representation in articles and chapters. They also lift the curtain to reveal some of their strategies for using poetry to puzzle over practice and research. Specifically, they make explicit their generation of poetry and dialogue as a means of inquiring into their collaborative writing practice as they crafted this chapter. The insights offered by Kathleen and Anastasia into writing are guided by the eight words that emerged from their poetic process. The artful construction of the chapter around these eight words demonstrates a deep commitment to rendering prose research texts with the clarity and precision of poetry.

xvi

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

Research tends to be undertaken in words. Visuals, however, have long played a role in the representation of data, most notably in the form of charts and graphs. Artistic visual representations—such as drawings, graphic organizers, and objects— offer additional pathways for capturing experience and representing experience to others (Weber, 2014). “Visuals as Meaning Making” by Deborah Tidwell and Svanborg R Jónsdóttir draws attention to the power of drawing as a means of making sense of teaching and teacher education practice and research. Svanborg explains how graphic facilitation can be used to increase engagement and promote reflection and deep learning throughout the research process. She begins by showing how she has used this approach in documenting and enriching discussion with students and professional peers. She also illustrates her use of such visuals as a means of understanding experience and representing experience in articles and chapters. Deb has long used drawings as an outlet for dealing with tensions in her work. By drawing sketches of nodal moments, often while in the moment, she captures experiences quickly and vividly. She then writes reflections on these images, and the contextual details and feelings they evoke, as a means of understanding herself and her practice. By including these images in articles and chapters, Deb brings her experience to life for readers and allows them to make sense for themselves. By sharing their visual representations as process and product, Svanborg and Deb offer readers artistic alternatives to both the journaling and correspondence featured in Parts I and II and the stories prose and poetry offered in the previous two chapters.

Part IV: Crafting a Self-study Text The final phase of the writing process is crafting a text for publication. The three chapters in Part IV offer practical guidance on bringing self-studies into the world for others to consider and learn from. In the real world of writing, crafting a text involves much more than polishing the wording of research findings. Crafting, which takes place throughout the writing process, culminates in making the research meaningful to readers. Authors are guided by the conventions of writing in English, the lingua franca of self-study. There are also guided by the norms for writing chapters in edited books and articles in academic journals. Crafting research texts is particularly challenging for scholars outside the English-speaking world. In Chapter 10, “Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two Languages,” Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir observe that the international discourse in English “presents interesting challenges for the many scholars from other languages and cultures.” Their chapter, based on their experiences as Icelandic teacher educators, positions these as both barriers to second language authors and pathways to richer educational discourse. Their chapter, constructed as a review of their writing from 2012 to 2019, shows how they worked through the challenges to become active scholars locally and internationally. They employ the term “translanguaging” (Garcia, 2009), which

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

xvii

centers on the practices of bilingual people rather than on language, to convey how one’s first language and culture can be “valuable, generative, and powerful” in education scholarship. Their account is brought to life through samples from their published work, as well as reflective notes and transcripts of meetings. They conclude with guidance for both second language authors and English-speaking readers on the power of translanguaging and the relevance of international work to the self-­ study of teacher education practices. “Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer and Editor” offers up the insights of Robyn Brandenburg, an experienced writer and book editor in self-study. For Robyn crafting articles, chapters, and books is not just a culminating experience. Indeed, looking behind the words, she reveals that her ideas for edited volumes often emerged from her practice as a teacher educator and scholar. This led her to engage with other practitioners to rigorously explore themes such as reflective theory and research ethics in self-study. Robyn begins with “the role and impact of critical-incident moments, conversations and interactions as ‘springboards’ for writing and examining the importance of ‘hunting assumptions.’” She then illustrates how she creates communities of self-study to help her (and us) probe more deeply into our practice. Examples from articles, chapters, and edited books are used to look behind the words and at the words we use in crafting self-studies and other educational research. As editor of Springer’s Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices series, I also hope that this chapter inspires practitioners to write proposals for edited volumes on self-study, teaching, and teacher education. Earlier in my career, I was too intimidated to contemplate editing a book, but soon discovered that publishers are receptive to proposals. In addition to the peer-­ reviewed Springer series, I draw your attention to Brill Sense’s Professional Learning series and Emerald’s Advances in Research on Teaching series as particularly receptive to self-study. The final chapter, “Organizing and Writing an Article Reporting a Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices” by Tom Russell, focuses specifically on how to craft a self-study for publication in an academic journal. Tom, co-founder of Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices and its co-editor for 14 years, draws on his extensive experience to offer guidance for authors crafting their self-studies or peer review. The section on typical headings in research reports offers insights into topics such as titles, introductions, data analysis, trustworthiness, and critical friendship. He then stands back and invites us to consider the purpose of our self-studies and what we hope to accomplish. Three examples are used to show what good writing for journals should look like. As one of the current editors of Studying Teacher Education (along with Amanda Berry), I encourage you to apply Tom’s tips as you ready your manuscripts for submission. Writing is both a means of inquiry and a tool for communicating meaning to others. Together, the chapters in this volume draw attention to writing as a cognitive process, writing as a means of inquiry, artistic approaches to academic writing, and strategies for crafting quality self-study chapters and articles.

xviii

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

Cross References From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage and Lifting the Curtain Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning and Self-Understanding From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool for Collaboration and Critical Friendship in Self-Study Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook Messaging Our Way to Feminist Understanding Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing Visuals as Meaning Making Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two Languages Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer and Editor Organizing and Writing an Article Reporting a Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Hamilton, ON, Canada  Julian Kitchen

References Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Collier. Fletcher, T. (2020). Self-study as hybrid methodology. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, H. Guðjónsdóttir, S.  M. Bullock, M.  Taylor, & A.  R. Crowe (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education, Second edition (pp.  269–297). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­6880-­6_9 García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145). Orient Blackswan. Kitchen, J. (2011). Imagining and re-imagining our students and ourselves: Using metaphor to story the experiences of teacher candidates and teacher educators. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli-­ Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum-making in teacher education (pp. 109–128). Emerald. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. Pinnegar, S., & Daynes, J. G. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn to narrative. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 3–34). SAGE.

Introduction: Writing as a Method for the Self-­Study of Practice

xix

Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A.  P. (2020). Methodological inventiveness in writing about self-study research: Inventiveness in service. In J.  Kitchen, A.  Berry, H.  Guðjónsdóttir, S. M. Bullock, M. Taylor, & A. R. Crowe (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education, Second edition (pp. 1291–1322). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_13-­1 Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K.  Denzin & Y.S.  Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923–948). Sage. Rose, E. (1992). The woruble. Waiting Room. Weber, S. (2014). Arts-based self-study: Documenting the ripple effect. Perspectives in Education, 32(2), 8–20. Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (2004). Using visual and artistic modes of representation for self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 979–1037). Kluwer.

Contents

Part I Self Study as a Cognitive Process 1 From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 Julian Kitchen 2 Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   17 Tim Fletcher and Déirdre Ní Chróinín 3 Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage and Lifting the Curtain����������������������   33 Sandra Quiñones, Jason K. Ritter, and Ramona Broomer Part II Self Study as an Inquiry Method 4 Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning and Self-Understanding��������������������������������������������������������������������������   61 Judy Williams 5 From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool for Collaboration and Critical Friendship in Self-Study����������������������������������������������������   77 Valerie A. Allison and Laurie A. Ramirez 6 Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-­Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook Messaging Our Way to Feminist Understanding ������������������������������������������������������������   91 Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

xxi

xxii

Contents

Part III Self Study and Artistic Representation 7 Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship������������������  111 Stefinee Pinnegar, Trudy Cardinal, M. Shaun Murphy, and Janice Huber 8 Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing��������������������������������������������������������  137 Kathleen Pithouse-Morgan and Anastasia P. Samaras 9 Visuals as Meaning Making��������������������������������������������������������������������  155 Deborah Tidwell and Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir Part IV Crafting a Self-Study Texts 10 Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two Languages������������������������������������  183 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir 11 Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-­Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  203 Robyn Brandenburg 12 Organizing and Writing an Article Reporting a Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices����������������������������������������  219 Tom Russell

Contributors

Valerie A. Allison  Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA, USA Robyn  Brandenburg  School of Education, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Australia Ramona Broomer  Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA, USA Trudy Cardinal  University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Tim  Fletcher  Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Hafdís  Guðjónsdóttir  School Reykjavík, Iceland

of

Education,

University

of

Iceland,

of

Iceland,

Janice Huber  University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Svanborg  R.  Jónsdóttir  School Reykjavík, Iceland

of

Education,

University

Julian Kitchen  Faculty of Education, Brock University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Emily J. Klein  Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA John Loughran  Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia M.  Shaun  Murphy  Department of Educational Foundations, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Déirdre Ní Chróinín  Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland Stefinee Pinnegar  Department of Teacher Education, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA Kathleen Pithouse-Morgan  School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa Sandra Quiñones  Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA xxiii

xxiv

Contributors

Laurie A. Ramirez  Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA Jason K. Ritter  Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Tom Russell  Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada Anastasia  P.  Samaras  College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA Monica Taylor  Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA Deborah Tidwell  University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA Judy Williams  Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

About the Authors

Valerie A. Allison  is currently an associate professor and the director of secondary programs at Susquehanna University in Pennsylvania, USA. Prior to entering academia, Valerie was a secondary English teacher and an elementary principal. In her current role, she teaches undergraduate courses to elementary education and secondary education students and supervises secondary education student teachers. Valerie’s research interests include social justice, advocacy, literacy development, educational leadership, narrative inquiry, and the self-study of teacher education practices. Valerie’s has been published in Studying Teacher Education, Reflective Practice, and Life Writing. Along with co-author Laurie A. Ramirez, Valerie contributed two chapters to the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices, Second Edition. Robyn Brandenburg  is Associate Dean for Research at the School of Education, Federation University Australia, and is the immediate Past President of the Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA). She is recognized for outstanding contributions to teacher education and, in 2020, received a Fulbright Scholar Award. Her research interests include learning and teaching in teacher education; self-study research methods and methodology, mathematics education; and reflective practice and feedback to enhance learning and teaching outcomes. Robyn has published extensively and presented research nationally and internationally. She has led key projects focusing on mathematics education; disadvantaged youth in regional and rural communities; and graduate transition to teaching and teaching performance assessment policy, practice and research. Ramona Broomer  is Assistant Professor of Theater and Chair of the Department of Visual and Performing Arts at Lock Haven University. Her research interest is the integration of instructional technology in theater courses. She is a doctoral candidate in the Instructional Technology and Leadership EdD program at Duquesne University’s School of Education. She has a Master of Science in Instructional Technology from Bloomsburg University, a Master of Fine Arts in Costume Design from Temple University, and a Bachelor of Science in Fashion Design from Drexel xxv

xxvi

About the Authors

University. She is a member of the International Alliance of Stage Employees (IATSE) Locals 895, 768, and 705. Trudy  Cardinal,  a Metis/Cree associate professor from Northern Alberta, currently works at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Originally from Slave Lake, she grew up in the communities of Wabasca, Slave Lake, and High Prairie. She was an elementary school teacher for 13 years before going on to graduate school to obtain a master’s degree and doctorate. As a former teacher, mother, grandmother, aunty, and Indigenous scholar, she is dedicated to continuing to deepen understanding of the educational experiences of Indigenous children, youth, and families. Of particular interest is the potential of Indigenous and relational pedagogies in the creation of an education system that honors the whole being of the learner.  Drawing on her research focused on identity and, in particular, the ways Indigenous young women negotiate who they are and are becoming in the midst of the stories told to, by, and about them, she co-created Braiding Stories to Live By ~ Indigenous Young Women’s Gatherings with her daughter Kyla. At the heart of all she does is a deep commitment to the experiences of current and next generations of Indigenous Peoples. This led to her current project, Paspinam: Made it through the hardship, which looks at the role of culture in the recovery from substance misuse through four generations (https://crismprairies.ca/node-­development-­program/), as well as the following two projects: Learning Indigenous Wisdom & Ethical Relationality with Elders & Knowledge & Language Keepers: Reaching Toward Relationally Ethical Assessment Making with Indigenous Children & Youth and Growing Faculty, Staff, and Student Foundational Knowledge of Indigenous Philosophies, Epistemologies, Ontologies, and Pedagogies. Tim Fletcher  is a teacher educator at Brock University in Ontario, Canada. Prior to teaching at universities he taught health and physical education in secondary schools. Along with his research on prioritizing meaningful experiences in physical education, he is also interested in various forms of practitioner research, particularly using self-study of teacher education practice methodology. Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir  is a professor in the School of Education at the University of Iceland. She completed a B.A.-degree at the Iceland University of Education in 1990, an M.A. degree in 1993, and a Ph.D. in from the University of Oregon 2000, all in special education. She worked for 25 years as a general classroom teacher and special educator in grade schools. Hafdís has collaborated with colleagues from Europe, Australia, and the USA. These include projects focusing on inclusive practices and multicultural education, teacher education, and self-study of teacher education practices. From the perspective of constant changes, critical theory, and pedagogy, she researches with teachers, their students and families, and school personnel. Her research methodology is qualitative, teacher research and self-study. Her research interests are in the area of inclusive educational practices, pedagogy, teacher development, and professionalism.

About the Authors

xxvii

Janice Huber,  privileged to have been an elementary teacher, as well as a faculty member at St. Francis Xavier University and the University of Regina, is currently an affiliate faculty member at the Centre for Research for Teacher Education and Development (CRTED) and a professor in the Department of Elementary Education, University of Alberta. Alongside children, youth, families, teachers, principals, colleagues, and Elders in classroom, school, post-secondary, family, and community contexts, Janice has engaged in long-term narrative inquiries that have contributed to narrative understandings of knowledge, contexts, identity, and diversity, and identity, curriculum, and assessment making in early childhood and elementary education, (Indigenous) teacher and post-secondary/professional education, as well as understandings of narrative inquiry as a relational research methodology and as relational pedagogy. Janice is currently engaged in two relational research projects: Learning Indigenous Wisdom & Ethical Relationality With Elders & Knowledge & Language Keepers: Reaching Toward Relationally Ethical Assessment Making With Indigenous Children & Youth and Growing Faculty, Staff, and Student Foundational Knowledge of Indigenous Philosophies, Epistemologies, Ontologies, and Pedagogies. Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir  is a professor at the School of Education, University of Iceland. Svanborg completed a B.Ed. at the Iceland University of Education in 1978, an MA in pedagogy from the University of Iceland and a PhD from the University of Iceland, School of Education, in 2011. Her thesis was titled The location of innovation education in Icelandic compulsory schools. Her research fields are innovation and entrepreneurial education, curriculum development, creativity in education, school change, and self-study of teacher education (http://orcid.org/0000-­ 0002-­8194-­0939). She has served as the director of the Center for Research on Creativity in Education at the School of Education, University of Iceland. She has been active in the self-study research community since 2011. Julian Kitchen  is a professor in the Faculty of Education at Brock University. He is the lead editor of the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Second Edition), Mindful and Relational Approaches to Social Justice, Equity and Diversity in Teacher Education, Narrative Inquiries into Curriculum-making in Teacher Education, Self-Study and Diversity II, and Canadian Perspectives on the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. In addition, he is the author of Relational Teacher Education and lead author of Professionalism, Law and the Ontario Educator. Kitchen is co-editor of the journal Studying Teacher Education and editor for Springer’s Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices series. Emily J. Klein  is a professor at Montclair State University in the Department of Teaching and Learning. She is also Academic Co-Editor of The Educational Forum, the journal of Kappa Delta Pi and co-PI, on the WIPRO Science Education Fellows grant that supports science teacher leadership in five districts in New Jersey. The author of several articles on teacher professional learning, teacher leadership, and

xxviii

About the Authors

urban teacher residencies, Klein’s first book Going to scale with new school designs: Reinventing high school, was published by Teachers College Press. Her second book, A year in the life of an urban teacher residency: Using inquiry to reinvent math and science education, was published by Sense Publishers in 2015. She is currently working on her third book, Our bodies tell the story: Disrupting the patriarchy in our lives and in our classrooms. John Loughran  is an emeritus Sir John Monash distinguished professor and was the executive dean of the Faculty of Education, Monash University, for a decade. John was a science teacher for 10 years before moving into teacher education. John was the co-founding editor of Studying Teacher Education and an executive editor for Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. John’s research interests revolve around the nature of teachers’ professional knowledge, and his work is based on a concern for teachers and teaching to be more highly valued. M. Shaun Murphy  is Professor of Educational Foundations at the University of Saskatchewan. He was born and raised on Treaty Six territory, where he still works. He was an elementary school teacher in rural and urban settings for twenty years. Shaun’s research interests are based in relational narrative inquiry; self-study of teacher practice, familial, and school curriculum making; identity; rural education; assessment practices; the interwoven lives of children, families, and teachers; and teacher education. Déirdre Ní Chróinín  is a physical education teacher educator at the primary elementary level at Mary Immaculate College, Ireland. Her current research explores meaningful experiences for children in physical education and sport settings. Self-­ study is an integral part of who she is. Stefinee Pinnegar,  a graduate of the University of Arizona, is a teacher educator at Brigham Young University. She began her teaching on the Navajo Reservation where she learned about cultural difference, poverty, and the obligation of a teacher to student success. Her research focuses on teacher education, particularly the development of practical memory for teaching and teacher education itself. She continues her interest in self-study of practice and other forms of intimate scholarship. She has a deep interest in the philosophical and theoretical foundations and attending to them in the Methodology. She has done extensive work in supporting teachers to teach English Learners (ELs). Currently, she edits the Advances in Research on Teaching Series for Emerald and is a specialty editor for the teacher education journal for Frontiers, a premier open-access online journal that is overcoming the subscription barriers to strong scholarship. Kathleen  Pithouse-Morgan  is Professor of Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Her scholarship is in professional learning, with a specific focus on better understanding and supporting teachers as self-directed and self-developing learners. Through the self-reflexive methodologies of self-study

About the Authors

xxix

research, narrative inquiry, and autoethnography, her work documents and theorizes how teachers can gain vital insights into their professional selves and practices – with critical implications for personal-professional growth and social transformation. Using arts-inspired and transdisciplinary approaches, Kathleen collaborates across contexts and continents to enact and document methodological inventiveness in professional learning research. Kathleen is the current chair of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) Special Interest Group (SIG). In 2019, she was granted the National Excellence in Teaching and Learning Award by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and the Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of Southern Africa (HELTASA). In 2020, she was awarded the South African Education Research Association (SAERA) Research Honours Award for outstanding contributions to educational research in South Africa over a sustained period. Sandra Quiñones  is an associate professor in the Department of Instruction and Leadership at Duquesne University’s School of Education. Her qualitative scholarship focuses on Latina/o education and family-community engagement issues, with an emphasis on bicultural-bilingual elementary teachers’ experiences and perspectives of being a well-educated person. She has published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Anthropology & Education Quarterly, the School Community Journal, the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, the International Journal of Qualitative Methods, and Urban Education. Laurie A. Ramirez  is an associate professor at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. Her educational career began as a middle school Spanish, English, and ESL teacher in Salt Lake City, Utah, during which time she completed a masters’ degree in linguistics/second language acquisition. Subsequently, Laurie received her doctorate from the University of Utah in teaching and learning, with an emphasis on teacher education. Laurie currently works with middle grades teacher candidates in courses focused on young adolescent development and issues of diversity in education. Her research is predominantly in the self-study of teacher education practices, centering on narrative inquiry, transformative education, social justice, student advocacy, and educational leadership. Jason K. Ritter  is an associate professor and Chair of the Department of Instruction and Leadership at Duquesne University’s School of Education. His qualitative scholarship focuses on understanding and promoting teaching as a process of critical inquiry, which has led to related interests in the professional learning and development of teacher educators. His work can be found in a number of prestigious journals, including Theory and Research in Social Education, the Journal of Teacher Education, Studying Teacher Education, and Teacher Education Quarterly. Tom  Russell  is professor emeritus at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, where he taught for 42 years from 1977 to 2019. His teaching focused on physics methods and practicum supervision for pre-service teachers and on action research

xxx

About the Authors

and the improvement of teaching at the graduate level. His research focuses on how individuals learn to teach and to improve their teaching, with particular attention to learning from experience and evaluating one’s tacit craft knowledge of teaching. He participated in eight research grants from the Social Studies and Humanities Research Council of Canada and has edited 11 books and published numerous book chapters and research articles. His favorite question continues to be “How can we improve the quality of teacher education classes and programs?” Tom is a founding member of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices special interest group and a founding editor of the Routledge journal, Studying Teacher Education. He was the organizer of the first 11 self-study international conferences held biennially at Herstmonceux Castle, UK. Anastasia P. Samaras  is a professor of education at the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University, Virginia, USA. She is a teacher educator, pedagogical scholar, and self-study research methodologist. Anastasia is the recipient of the Dissertation Research Award, University of Virginia, and the Outstanding Scholar Award, University of Maryland. Internationally, she served as a Fulbright Scholar and chair of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. Her research has centered on designing, co-facilitating, and researching neo-Vygotskian-­ based applications in curriculum and in transdisciplinary polyvocal professional learning communities, with a focus on collective creative activity. In collaboration with Kathleen Pithouse-Morgan, she has conceptualized a transdisciplinary, transnational, and transcultural network with reciprocal learning as polyvocal professional learning and with design elements for facilitation. A frequent keynote speaker both in the US and globally and a collaborator on multiple faculty professional development projects and grants, Anastasia seeks to make self-study accessible to teachers and faculty outside the teaching profession. Her leadership has included co-facilitating five transdisciplinary faculty Self-Study of Professional Practice communities, including a virtual transdisciplinary learning community to support adjunct faculty teaching. She also co-facilitates a new faculty group annually at the College. Monica Taylor  is a feminist teacher educator, social justice advocate, and parent activist. A professor in the Department of Educational Foundations at Montclair State University, she has numerous publications on feminist pedagogy and self-­ study, teaching for social justice, use of Theatre of the Oppressed, teacher leadership, and urban teacher education. She recently co-edited the 2nd International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices, leading the section on social justice, and has written and edited several books including Playhouse: Optimistic stories of real hope for families with little children; A year in the life of a third space urban teacher residency: Using inquiry to reinvent teacher education; Gender, feminism, and queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices; and Whole language teaching, whole hearted practice: Looking back, looking ahead. She is currently working on a new book with Emily Klein: Our

About the Authors

xxxi

bodies tell the story: Using co/autoethnography to disrupt the patriarchy in our lives and in our classroom. Taylor is also Academic Co-Editor of The Educational Forum, the journal of Kappa Delta Pi and co-PI, on the WIPRO Science teacher leadership grant. Deborah  Tidwell  is a professor of Literacy Education in the Department of Curriculum at the University of Northern Iowa. Tidwell’s work focuses on assessment and evaluation of literacy, the implementation of effective instructional practices and interventions, and bilingual education methods and appropriate instructional practice for English-language learners. Tidwell is active in the self-­ study research community, where she has published books and articles related to self-study research and has served as the chair for the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices SIG of the American Educational Research Association. At the university, she has served as the coordinator for the Literacy Education Program, director of the UNI Reading Clinic, director of the Jacobson Center for Comprehensive Literacy, department head for Curriculum and Instruction, and Associate Dean for the College of Education. Tidwell has been involved in federal, state, and privately funded projects for the preparation of bilingual classroom teachers for the state of Iowa, and professional development in comprehensive literacy instruction for in-service teachers working with children with significant disabilities. Judy Williams  is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education, Monash University. She worked as a primary school teacher for more than 20 years, before undertaking doctoral studies and transitioning to become an academic. Judy has taught in initial teacher education programs at undergraduate and graduate level, and currently teaches research methodology in graduate courses. She has a particular interest in self-study and autoethnography, and teacher and teacher educator professional learning and identity.

Part I

Self Study as a Cognitive Process

Chapter 1

From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study Julian Kitchen

Abstract  Writing a scholarly paper involves much more than reporting on one’s research findings. Rather, writing can be a method of inquiry through which one comes to understand oneself and the topic, craft that expresses reality, and an art that profoundly affects readers. A well-written self-study should rise above being a functional and informative textile to become a precisely and delicately crafted tapestry that artfully tells the story of the research in order to evoke understanding in the reader and, even, prompt changes in practice. Qualitative research at its best uses evocative writing and features accounts of the authors and their own lived experiences as means for connecting the personal to the larger cultural story. Teacher educators writing self-studies would do well to envision writing as a method of inquiry, one that adds clarity to the research findings and artfully engages the reader. Although teacher educators recognize that expert teaching is the result of skill development and hard work, we often attribute artfully crafted prose to natural ability. Yet, while some clearly demonstrate more aptitude than others, this talent is typically the result of passion, commitment, and hours of practice. Thus, with effort, we can train ourselves to become proficient. We can even develop increasing expertise over time so that our writing illuminates research findings, engages readers, and inspires changes in practice. Writing a scholarly paper, according to Richardson (2000), is “not just a mopping up activity at the end of a research project” (p. 923). Rather, writing can be “a method of inquiry, a way of finding out about yourself and your topic” (p. 923), a craft that expresses reality, and an art that profoundly affects readers. A well-written self-study should rise above being a functional and informative textile to become a precisely and delicately crafted tapestry that artfully tells the story of the research in order to evoke understanding in the reader and, even, prompt changes in practice. Qualitative research at its best uses “evocative writing” and features “highly personalized, revealing texts in which authors tell stories about their own lived experiences, relating the personal to the cultural” (p.  929). Teacher educators writing J. Kitchen (*) Faculty of Education, Brock University, Hamilton, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_1

3

4

J. Kitchen

self-studies would do well to envision writing as a method of inquiry, one that adds clarity to the research findings and artfully engages the reader. Although teacher educators recognize that expert teaching is the result of skill development and hard work, we often attribute artfully crafted prose to natural ability. Yet, while some clearly demonstrate more aptitude than others, this talent is typically the result of passion, commitment, and hours of practice. Malcom Gladwell (2008) popularized the idea that exceptional talent is the result of at least 10,000 h of practice. While we as academics need not develop this level of writing expertise, we can train ourselves to become proficient. We can even develop increasing expertise over time so that our writing illuminates research findings, engages readers, and inspires changes in practice. The results of a self-study research project are the yarns used in weaving the textile of a research paper. Just as a high-quality textile is woven precisely to be thick and durable, a research paper needs to be crafted carefully to convey the findings and implications. A textile becomes a tapestry when it is designed to be more than merely functional. So too the self-study researcher becomes an artisan when the scholarly paper is polished and responsive to the reader. The artisan becomes an artist, in both mediums, through the refinement of creative skills and the imagination to render the work as conceptually clear, evocative and/or beautiful. As writers, it behooves us to become more metacognitive about the yarns we spin. In reading educational research on practice, we should take notice of the structure, reasoning, and rhetoric of the high-quality academic writing we experience. How did the organization of the paper serve as a map to the reader? How did a carefully articulated line of logic elucidate an important concept? How did a beautifully crafted metaphor excite wonder? Thinking about the craft of other writers is the first step in developing the same qualities in our own writing. Writing a research paper is also a craft with protocols for effective communication. While submission guidelines offer technical support, the authors often lack direction on how to craft manuscripts that are analytic, creative, and engaging. Richardson’s five criteria for reviewing papers are a useful framework for making the craft of self-study writing explicit. First, manuscripts must make a substantive contribution to the field. Second, esthetic merit should be evident in the crafting of words and images, as well as creative analysis. Third, reflexivity is evident in how authors puzzle over ‘truth’ and ‘knowing’ in a postmodern world. Fourth, a manuscript’s impact is evident in how it affects the reader emotionally and intellectually. Finally, the expression of reality should seem true: “a credible account of a cultural, social, individual, or communal sense of the ‘real’” (p. 937). This chapter explores the writing process in the self-study of teacher education practices through the lens of my experiences as a writer and editor of self-studies and other educational texts. Through writing as process and product, I have come to know myself, my practice. By reflecting on my writing, I make explicit the writing processes in self-study that are generally implicit, and often invisible, to novices. These themes, inspired by the writing as research literature, emerged from the research:

1  From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study

5

1 . Value of Notes on Research/Practice 2. Making Sense through Writing 3. Making the Writing Seem True 4. Crafting for the Reader.

1.1  Methods This chapter is and is not a self-study. It is a self-study in that I inquire into my professional practices and through reflection on practice and reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983) as a writer. “Self-study of teacher education practices,” according to Martin and Russell (2020), “is a metacognitive and reflective practice conducted by teacher educators learning from experience” (p. 1049). Self-study recognizes teaching experience as being “acquired by investing time in the context of professional action, learning from experience demands reflection-in-action as an alternative frame of reference for personal learning” (Martin & Russell, p. 1059). Therefore, a case can be made for studying one’s writing as a self-study process. Indeed, drawing on LaBoskey’s (2004) criteria for self-study, this chapter is self-initiated and focused and improvement-aimed, employs multiple, primarily qualitative methods, and is made available for exemplar-based validation. On the other hand, it is neither interactive nor a study of teaching or teacher education practice. In this inquiry into the process of writing in self-study, I attempt to make sense of writing as a process in S-STEP. I explicitly attended to my thought processes as a writer engaged in such work. The main method employed is the keeping of a journal on my writing process while preparing self-study chapters and articles. As I engaged in writing of field texts, or in analysis of these texts, I paused to write journal entries on what I was thinking or feeling during those moments in the process. Similarly, as I composed scholarly manuscripts, I wrote entries on the challenges I experienced and the choices I made as a writer. Reflections from the writing journal constitute the main content for this chapter. Secondary field texts include other field notes and journal entries. Coding and analysis, combined with interactions with literature on the writing process, led to the identification of emergent themes that are developed in the next section.

1.2  Reflections on Writing Well I have always loved reading, but have only recently regarded myself as a writer. As an undergraduate, I enjoyed writing as a means of working through ideas and coming to know the world. As a graduate student of education, I discovered writing as a

6

J. Kitchen

means to knowing myself. In my doctoral dissertation, I wrote about my experiences in relation to practice and the larger educational milieu (Kitchen, 2005). As a novice academic, I continued to write about my practice through self-study, while also writing a textbook on educational law (Kitchen & Bellini, 2016) and reports based on my funded research in other areas of education. Through regular practice, discipline, and attending to the feedback of reviewers and editors, I became increasingly successful, as measured by frequency of publication. I was often invited to contribute chapters in self-study volumes, including ones that pushed me to consider theory and methodology in depth. A greater stretch was writing handbook chapters on teacher education themes (e.g., Kitchen & Petrarca, 2016; Kitchen, 2020c; Kitchen & Taylor, 2020) and an encyclopedia chapter (Kitchen, in press). I have also learned a great deal as a writer through reviewing and editing chapters and articles. Reading other people’s work-in-progress demystified the writing process, as I discovered that good writing did not always start that way. Editing work for publication—for Brock Education, Studying Teacher Education, several books, and the International Handbook of Teaching and Teacher Education (Kitchen et al., 2020)—pushed me to develop my own writing skills as I sought to help authors bring their ideas to life through lucid prose. Now, as series editor for Springer’s Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices series, I actively seek out manuscripts that will engage the self-study and educational communities. Although I now regard myself as a writer, conveying ideas in clear and precise prose still does not come easily. My reflections on writing are based on my experiences as a writer bumbling along with more perseverance than talent. While technical guides to writing have offered some assistance, more resonant and helpful are real life descriptions of the writing process of others. The themes below emerge from my experiences as a teacher educator writing about my fields of inquiry. Each theme is developed in relation to literature on effective writing. In the four sections, I draw on examples from my writing to reflect on how these themes are lived out in my writing process. It is hoped that these reflections will resonate with the experiences of other new and experienced self-study practitioners.

1.2.1  Value of Notes on Research/Practice Teacher educators often recall events and explain how their experiences have informed their practice. But how do we know what they were thinking and feeling at the time? The best way, according to Richardson (2000), is taking extensive notes about one’s experience of events as they happen or in the immediate aftermath. Clandinin and Connelly (2000) use the term field texts to describe “the kinds of records, normally called data,” that are “created, neither found nor discovered, by participants and researchers in order to represent aspects of the field experience” (p. 92). They refer to these “ongoing bits of nothingness that fill our days” (p. 104) as crucial to understanding both the self and the practices observed. These might

1  From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study

7

take the form of journals, field notes, or an interweaving of the two. In my self-study field texts, I often interweave the two, employing italics to denote personal reflection. While qualitative researchers, such as myself, attempt to convey accounts that are thick with detail of events and our experience of those events, these field texts are “imbued… with interpretation” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 93) and “shaped by the selective interest or disinterest of [the] researcher” (p. 94). A journal is as important as a field note as it “becomes the ‘historical record’ for the writing of the Self or a writing-story about the writing process” (Richardson, 2000, p. 941). For example, in my School and Society journal, I wrote immediately after a class: Overall students had done well on their equity and diversity projects the previous week…. They did not, however, acknowledge or address power and privilege…. These limitations prompted me to reflect on the construction of the course and consider how I might better (re)present these concepts…. In order to address power and privilege again, I began by sharing reflections on a talking circle with teachers working with Indigenous students…. The Indigenous facilitator assured the teachers that there would be ‘no shaming or blaming,’ while the Elder called for compassion and caring in dealing with Indigenous students who are hurting or acting out. In discussing the experience, I drew attention to the power and privilege of the white teachers in relation to their students. We also discussed how the research participants were learning to acknowledge their privilege and, through alternative pedagogic and relational approaches, sharing that power with students in order to help them make connections to their cultures…. I urged them to consider the ideas learned in this course about inclusiveness, power and privilege, particularly as they engage with students with worldviews and experiences very different than their own. You need not accept what they say but at least weigh these in your deliberations as a teacher. (February 3, 2017)

In my courses, particularly those in which I am conducting self-studies, I keep extensive notes on research and practice. This includes the use of exit cards in order to understand teacher candidate learning. Exit cards, in addition to providing rich data, serve an interactive element that contributes to trustworthiness. My journal, which serves both as observational notes and personal reflections, documents classroom events and my experience of them. These are thick descriptions of what I was actually thinking at the time, rather than vague recollections at a future date. Also, by journaling, I think, analyze, and engage in an ongoing “seductive tangled method of discovery” (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005, p.  967) that helps make sense of classroom interactions. This ongoing writing practice serves as rich data for both improving my practice and the first stage in developing insights to share with the S-STEP discourse community (e.g., Kitchen, 2020a).

1.2.2  Making Sense Through Writing Writing is a cognitive process in which we ‘word the world’ into existence through the language we use (Rose, 1992). It is through the process of writing that ideas are developed and meaning emerges. This is especially true in making sense of experience. It begins with telling and collecting stories, but understanding emerges from the multidimensional exploration of these stories. Such inquiry, according to

8

J. Kitchen

Clandinin and Connelly (2000), takes places in a three-dimensional space: “Studies have temporal dimensions and address temporal matters; they focus on the personal and the social in a balance appropriate to the inquiry; and they occur in specific places or sequence of places” (p. 50). As an experience simultaneously contains all these dimensions, narrative inquirers need to examine multiple dimensions in order to find meaning in experience. The experiences of individuals in a given moment need to be contextualized within a larger collective story (Richardson, 1990). While writing takes place in the present moment, it is often complicated as understanding involves the interpretation of experiences that both carry with them past experiences and anticipate plans for the future. The writing process—whether in journals, theoretical memos (Richardson, 2000) or a research paper intended for dissemination— often requires hours of effort and multiple revisions over time before sense is clear to the author. The editorial process, including peer review, may lead to further efforts to enhance sense-making. The journal entry featured in the previous section also illustrates the first stage in making sense through writing. I gave explicit attention to what was occurring in class, particularly teacher candidate learning as expressed in exit card feedback and the ways in which learning was reflected in their presentations. This sense-making from the previous week informed my planning of that day’s lesson, and, in turn, exit card and observational data from that class informed my work over the course of the term and in the year that followed. In an article published on this work, I concluded This article acknowledges that social justice work in teacher education is complex and challenging. Through the self-study process, I have identified some of the inherent tensions and ways in which advocacy for social justice can be balanced with attention to the identities and experiences of teacher candidate, including those from more privileged backgrounds. My experiences during this study suggest that teacher candidates are receptive to discussion of social justice issues, particularly when their initial resistance is respected and range of inclusion approaches are offered. By addressing social justice issues with teacher candidates in a relational manner, teacher educators model respect and empathy while contributing to making schools safe and supportive space for students across the diversity spectrum. For me, being vulnerable, relational, inquiry-oriented and responsive led to positive and safe experiences for teacher candidates. Yet effective teacher education lies in the tension between desirable attributes, so I must constantly be vigilant to ensure a balance among the attributes noted by Berry as teacher candidates and the times are always changing. (Kitchen, 2020a, p. 22).

This sense-making continues as I now focus my attention on self-study as a School and Society instructor on how my relative privilege has informed and continues to inform my practice.

1.2.3  Making the Writing Seem True The self-study literature places great stock in demonstrating trustworthiness (LaBoskey, 2004), often through triangulating multiple qualitative methods or engaging with critical friends or students. Mena and Russell (2017), in their review

1  From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study

9

of 65 studies presented at the 10th international self-study practices conference in 2014, estimated that “about 40% of the papers mentioned but failed to address[this] essential criterion of self-study research” (p. 115). As an author of one of the papers that did not explicitly address these criteria, I had both positive and negative responses to Mena and Russell’s review. On the positive side, it prompted me to make my subsequent contributions more rigorous and trustworthy by highlighting multiple data sources and making evident my collaboration with students and critical friends. On the other hand, I am concerned that placing great emphasis on rigor and trustworthiness diminishes the importance of making sense of lives through narrative constructions (Richardson, 2000). A self-study that draws from narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004) or autoethnography (Holman et  al., 2013)—e.g., unpacking stories of experience in classrooms or making sense of personal identity over time—cannot be evaluated solely on criteria adapted from formalistic models of research. It also needs to be evaluated as expression of reality: “Does it seem ‘true’—a credible account of a cultural, social, individual, or communal sense of the ‘real’?” (Richardson, 2000, p. 237). Does it create “a reciprocal relationship with audiences in order to compel a response” (Holman et  al., 2013, p.  22)? Does it attend to “voice, signature, narrative form, and especially audience” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 146)? As Clandinin and Connelly (2000) wrote, good narratives have an explanatory, invitational quality, along with authenticity and plausibility. Below, I offer three journal entries as a narrative on how I began this line of inquiry on writing soon after the 2019 American Educational Research Association conference in Toronto: I savored the beauty of the prose at an early morning AERA symposium session. As the first speaker read from her paper, based on a recently published book chapter, I was reminded of Laurel Richardson’s handbook chapter on writing as a form of research. Later, a presenter described her Indigenous education course as “an impossible and imperative assignment” (Markides, 2019). This elegant phrasing perfectly captured her dilemma as a practitioner and helped the listener understand her decision. It was both artful and rang true. These two papers made me yearn for rich prose that brings self-study to life. (April 8, 2019) I sit at my computer writing a literature review on societal privilege, notably white and male privilege, for a planned conference proposal and book chapter on my teacher education practices. I have read numerous articles and have grappled with this topic alongside my teacher candidates, yet the words do not fall trippingly off the tongue onto the page. I realize as I write that I need to more clearly differentiate between “unjust enrichment’ and “spared injustice.” I know, based on previous writing experiences, that the writing process deepens my understanding of concepts and the interrelationships among terms. I recognize that linking these terms to my own experiences will clarify matters for me and help the readers make sense in their lives. As I sit writing, I identify this as a possible conference paper. I write on a piece of scrap paper “As I Sit Writing.” I then add a colon and “Writing as a Cognitive Process in S-STEP.” I switch from my privilege paper draft to my journal and begin writing this entry. I feel confident that this would make a thoughtful S-STEP presentation… As I write this, I recall the work of John Loughran. I pull off the shelf Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education. I find underlined in my copy: “students of teaching need to be able to see and hear the pedagogical reasoning that underpins the teaching they are

10

J. Kitchen experiencing” (Loughran, 2006). So too, scholarly readers of academic books need to appreciate the reasoning that underpins the writing they are experiencing. They need to be metacognitive to become more effective writers about their practice. (April 12, 2019) Mindful of Connelly and Clandinin’s (1988) observation that the better we understand our own stories “the more meaningful our curriculum will be” (p. 11), I try to make explicit my lived experiences in order to offer guidance to readers. (April 12, 2019)

I propose that such writing, even without interaction with students or critical friends, can ring true. I also invite readers to consider this as a credible account and explanation of the writing process. It invites the reader to consider their own writing process through authentic experiences rendered plausible through good writing. In writing self-studies, whatever the topic, it is important to go beyond accurately representing the research study findings to crafting the words to make them seem true. While transactional writing is “a lot safer than expressive,” according to Colyer (2013, p.  369), “expressive writing leads to purposeful action” (p.  366). More importantly, the two need not be mutually exclusive as good content can be rendered more expressive and engaging.

1.2.4  Crafting Writing for the Reader Crafting writing for the reader is a layered, multidimensional process that involves (1) attending to the craft of creative analytic writing practices, (2) holding the reader’s attention, and (3) viewing writing as part of a scholarly conversation.

1.3  Creative Analytic Writing Practices As writing is a method of knowing, it is important to attend to the craft of writing. Quality academic writing does not merely report findings or meaning; it involves the careful selection of words and phrases to convey meaning. An excellent example is Martin and Russell’s (2020) “Advancing an Epistemology of Practice for Research in Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,” which elucidates and illuminates the interplay of complex themes in precise yet unadorned prose. Literary devices may also be used to elucidate and illuminate. Richardson (2000) highlights the value of metaphor and other creative analytic writing practices, which may be developed through experiments in poetic representation, memory work, layered texts, and reflexive accounts. Analogy and metaphor have always been central to how I make sense of the world and how I express my self-study research in words. This is reflected in the wording of the introduction to this chapter, which began as a work in progress at a conference (Kitchen, 2020b). Shortly after writing the first draft of the introduction, the moment was captured in my writing journal:

1  From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study

11

The Castle Conference theme reflects my perspective that self-study is a craft and, at its best, an art. The metaphor of textiles and tapestries implies that our work ranges on a continuum from functional to well-crafted to artistic. In order to ‘envision new ways of knowing’ it is necessary to effectively employ structures, words, and literary devices of literature. Indeed, it is primarily through such expression that we as researchers and practitioners share our ways of knowing. My process in crafting these sentences is interesting in two respects. First, I took the time to construct my words and thoughts in a manner that might be of interest to colleagues judging the merits of the manuscript in relation to the stated theme of the conference. Second, I relied not just on argument, but on the literary device of metaphor to engage the reader. In revising my proposal into a chapter, I riffed off the conference metaphor. I looked up the terms textiles, tapestry, artisan, artist and yarn to render my paper relevant to the theme. I distinguished between textile as a basic functional term and tapestry as a more artistic version of the same. By doing so I offered my chapter on writing as a way of envisioning our ways of knowing. I moved beyond mere function to thoughtful crafting, to something ‘artful’ even if it does not rise to the level of art (January 30, 2020)

Creative analytic writing practices are about more than clever turns of phrase or effective hooks. They actually make ideas more accessible. For a handbook chapter reviewing the literature on effective social justice practices in teacher education (Kitchen & Taylor, 2020), we employed a metaphor as tool for meaning-making: The metaphor of constructing a large building is employed to frame this chapter on preparing preservice teachers for social justice teaching. An attractive and functional building is culmination of a long and elaborate process of design and construction by trained professionals and skilled craftsman. Architects begin by designing an edifice that serves a function within its neighbourhood and community. Engineers then grapple with the complexities of realizing this vision, factoring in materials and the complex systems needed for the building to function. The foundation, shell and essential systems are constructed, followed by the interior fitting for floor and rooms. Finally, interior designers are employed to furnish the space to suit the needs of the users. There are feedback loops throughout the cycle in order to adapt to contingencies, not to mention adaptations and renovations over the lifespan of the building. This chapter is organized into sections based on the stages of the building process: Architecture: Designing Socially Just Teacher Education in Relation to Theory and Context Engineering: Identifying Conceptions, Structures and Principles (includes anticipating problems) Foundations and Systems Construction: Implementing Conceptions, Structures and Principles Selection of Construction of Interior Fittings: Themes and Strategies Interior Design: Curriculum and Pedagogy in Social Justice Courses (Chapter Draft, Kitchen & Taylor)

This mental frame emerged from our struggle to categorize information and order these blocks of information in meaningful ways. The metaphor, which developed over conversations with my coauthor, helped us sort the mass of literature available into blocks and give shape to the chapter. While this organizational structure could exist without the metaphor, this artful construction animates the chapter. The building metaphor helped us as writers make meaning for ourselves and guided our selection of the works cited in the chapter. It reinforced for me the importance of deep understandings of teacher education in the delivery of the cluster of teacher education courses I oversee. Although the paragraph was pared down to fit the word

12

J. Kitchen

limit, the metaphor guided our writing and, we hope, will inspire social justice instructors to think more deeply about the whole program and develop their pedagogy of teacher education.

1.4  Attention of Readers Second, as historian Barbara Tuchman (as quoted in Richardson, 2000) wrote, the “writer’s object is—or should be—to hold the reader’s attention… I want the reader to turn the page and keep on to the end” (p. 942). In S-STEP, we should consider what engages teacher educators and, particularly, those interested in studying their practice. We can then craft manuscripts that resonate with their experiences and that address their big questions. An example of imagining readers and attempting to hold their interest is the introduction to a recent article in Studying Teacher Education. The title, “Attending to the Concerns of Teacher Candidates in a Social Justice Course,” includes key words likely to attract attention of potential readers perusing the table of contents or conducting a journal database search. The article begins: Martin Luther King said that “the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice” (King, 1963/191, p.  49). Today, in light of the election of an American president insensitive to social justice issues and the legitimization of hateful speech, the arc seems particularly long. At such a time, it is useful for social justice educators to ask difficult questions about their teacher education practices. (Kitchen, 2020a, p. 6)

The opening quote served to attract attention by linking my ideas to those of a civil rights crusader, while the reference to the present was intended to draw readers into reflecting on how they might adjust their practice to the times. The opening paragraph, indeed the whole introduction, balances challenge with hope that “the power of relational teacher education” can serve as “a cultural bridge” (p. 7) While the opening paragraph might be viewed by some as overblown, it demonstrates an effort to connect my work to ideas that matter to them professionally. As an editor, I have observed that many authors, in their eagerness to report on their findings and insights, do not take the opportunity to build bridges to potential readers. Similarly, I have observed that conclusions to draft articles and chapters often are abrupt in summarizing the importance of the research. In my journal, I reflected on my effort to engage readers through the “Implications and Conclusion” section of this article: The reader has taken the time to read my research and discussion of findings but what, if anything, will they take away from the experience? The conclusion and implications sections of an article should be regarded as opportunities to make explicit why my little self-­ study at a Canadian university might matter to other teacher educators. I began with a lengthy quotation from a teacher candidate as a demonstration of the trustworthiness of my claims. I then built on his words to make my closing argument, with reference to discussions within the self-study community on social justice. I concluded with wise words on mindfulness expert Kabat-Zinn and a nod to Berry’s work on tensions.

1  From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study

13

Whether the language is spare or ornate, the important thing is how to be attentive to how readers experience the article and to curate the experience for maximum impact. As an editor, I give considerable attention to helping teacher educators craft their writing to engage readers. For an upcoming book on diversity, I received a selfstudy by two teacher educators on their experiences as South African of color (Hiralaal, A. & Masinga, in press). Their stories were powerful, but the chapter needed work. As their two ‘story pieces’ were titled “A Tale of Becoming” and “Radiance,” it occurred to me that these titles reflected the overall message of the chapter. I suggested that these are incorporated into the chapter title and that ‘becoming’ and ‘radiance’ artfully woven into the fabric of their chapter. Writing becomes more than mopping up research or polishing prose when the author has the reader’s interests in mind. As in these two examples, quality writing often emerges from the “seductive tangled method of discovery” (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005, p. 967) while trying to construct shared meaning.

1.5  Scholarly Conversation Third, we need to craft our texts with “ongoing scholarly conversation” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 167) in mind, which involves knowing one’s discourse community or communities. It also requires us to understand different mediums within a community. For example, a paper crafted for the Castle conference may be more conversational and exploratory. An article aimed at a teacher education journal may be crafted more formally and be narrowly focused on a particular study of practice; Studying Teacher Education may offer flexibility in modes of discourse, but its criteria are also bound by conventions of qualitative research. A chapter in a self-study volume may offer more flexibility in writing and allow for thematic connections across multiple experiences or studies. There are perennial tensions as we struggle to be true to ourselves and our research texts while connecting to audiences and as we seek to push boundaries while not stretching them beyond what will reach audiences (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Reflecting on my beliefs on writing as a method of inquiry, I noted in my writing journal: My approach to writing is guided by an image of the reader. When teaching essay writing as a secondary school teacher, I asked students to imagine that I was not paid to read their work, and that they needed to hook me in from the opening paragraph. In my academic writing, I try hook the reader in with a quotation or connection to an interesting issue, rather than start by stating my purpose. (May 7, 2019)

In introducing ideas and approaches, I am especially mindful of the power of careful crafting with the general reader in mind. As I recalled in my writing journal: Several years ago, I was asked to write a chapter on queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices. While I had read the literature, I certainly did not consider myself a

14

J. Kitchen theorist, let alone a queer theorist. Indeed, I found much of the literature dense, exclusive and esoteric. My self-appointed task was to understand the literature well enough to be able to craft explanations that were understandable first to myself and ultimately to general readers. I wrote in my conclusion, “I have drawn on my experiences as an educator and teacher educator to demonstrate that queering the gaze can help teacher educators think new ways about their identities and practices” (Kitchen, 2016). I drew on stories of my own in order to make the literature more accessible and inviting. When dealing with theory or methodology, in particular, I see myself as a curator helping the reader to grow from the experience. (December 14, 2019)

This is not always easy, as I discovered recently as I sought to explain ontology and epistemology for an upcoming chapter on self-knowledge. (Kitchen, 2020b). Fortunately, insightful editors guided me toward writing that was better crafted and better contributed to the scholarly dialogue on the subject.

1.6  Conclusion Writing is the main medium through which we disseminate our self-studies of teaching and teacher education practices. The artful use of this medium contributes greatly to the effectiveness of the message. Thus, it is wise to consider Richardson’s (2000) claim that writing should be regarded as a method of inquiry in qualitative research and should be employed as painstakingly as other methods in our research. In this chapter, I have drawn on my journals and other work to reflect on four aspects of writing: (1) Value of Notes on Research/Practice, (2) Making Sense through Writing, (3) Making the Writing Seem True, and (4) Crafting for the Reader. It is my hope that my musings and writing artifacts prompt readers to (re)consider writing as a process, method of inquiry, and means of evoking response and action among teachers and teacher educators.

References Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2004). Knowledge, narrative and self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practice (pp. 575–600). Springer. Colyer, J. E. (2013). Reflections on writing and autoethnography. In S. H. Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 363–383). Left Coast Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. OISE Press. Hiralaal, A., & Masinga, L. (in press). A tale of becoming and radiance: Our evolving teacher educator identities in post-apartheid South Africa. In J. Kitchen, D. Tidwell, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity III. Sense.

1  From Textile to Tapestry: Writing as a Way of Knowing in Self-Study

15

Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (2013). Coming to know autoethnography as more than a method. In S. Holman Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 17–47). Left Coast Press. Kitchen, J. (2005). Relational teacher development: A quest for meaning in the garden of teacher experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Kitchen, J. (2016). Inside out: My identity as a queer teacher educator. In J. Kitchen, D. Tidwell, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity II (pp. 11–26). Sense. Kitchen, J. (2020a). Attending to the concerns of teacher candidates in a social justice course: A self-study of a teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 16(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/17425964.2019.1691134. Kitchen, J. (2020b). Envisioning writing as a way of knowing in self-study. In C. Edge, A. Cameron-­ Standerford, & B. Bergh (Eds.), Textiles and tapestries. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https:// edtechbooks.org/textiles_tapestries_self_study/chapter_106. Kitchen, J. (2020c). Pedagogy of teacher education in exemplary programs. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. Bullock, A. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guojonsdottir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (2nd ed., pp.  1159–1198). Rotterdam: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­6880-­6-­39. Kitchen, J., & Bellini, C. (2016). Professionalism, law and the Ontario educator (2nd ed.). Highland Press. Kitchen, J., & Petrarca, D. (2016). Approaches to teacher education. In J.  Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education research: Initial teacher education (pp. 137–186). Springer. Kitchen, J., & Taylor, L. (2020). Preparing preservice teachers for social justice teaching: Designing and implementing effective interventions in teacher education. In C. Mullen (Ed.), Handbook of social justice interventions in education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­ 3-­030-­29553-­0_70-­1. Kitchen, J., Berry, A., Bullock, S. M., Crowe, A. R., Taylor, M., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Thomas, L. (Eds.). (2020). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.). Springer. LaBoskey, V. (2004). Moving the study of self-study research and practice forward: Challenges and opportunities. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Kluwer. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. Markides, J. M. (2019, April). Being indigenous in indigenous education classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, ON. Martin, A., & Russell, T. (2020). Advancing the epistemology of practice for research in self-study of teacher education. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. Bullock, A. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (2nd ed., pp. 1045–1073). Springer. Mena, J., & Russell, T. (2017). Collaboration, multiple methods, trustworthiness: Issues arising from the 2014 International Conference on Self-study of Teacher Education Practices. Studying Teacher Education, 13(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2017.1287694. Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Sage. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.  K. Denzin & Y.  S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923–948). Sage. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E.  A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.  K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Sage. Rose, E. (1992). The woruble. Waiting Room. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Chapter 2

Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study Tim Fletcher and Déirdre Ní Chróinín

Abstract  In this chapter, we show ways that written correspondence has shaped a six-year collaboration where self-study of teacher education practices and critical friendship played central roles. In thinking about writing as method, we have come to an increased awareness of how writing has been crucial to the perceived success and survival of our collaboration, supporting knowledge construction and meaning-­ making of our selves-in-practice. From our analysis, we show how writing supported relationships at both personal and professional levels, was a direct contributor to research design through scaffolding our thoughts and ideas, and offered a source to take stock of work done and work to do. Our written interactions have been a mainstay of our ongoing collaboration, and we demonstrate how others might be more intentional in centralizing the writing process to enhance the richness of engagement in collaborative self-studies.

In this chapter, we reflect on the ways written correspondence has shaped a six-year collaboration with self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) and critical friendship at its core. Our research has been focused on the development and articulation of pedagogical principles used by teacher educators and teachers to prioritize meaningful experiences in physical education (Ní Chróinín et  al., 2018). This approach has been proposed as a response to an overemphasis on utilitarian outcomes in physical education, such as those focused on weight loss and disease prevention, to the detriment of finding joy and personal meaning in movement and physical activity as more valuable outcomes of physical activity participation (Kretchmar, 2008). Meaningful experiences promote regular physical activity T. Fletcher (*) Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] D. Ní Chróinín Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_2

17

18

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín

participation in a way that enriches our lives (Hawkins, 2008). As Kretchmar (2006) suggests: “one of the greatest things about physical activity and play is that they make our lives go better, not just longer. It is the quality of life, the joy of being alive” (p. 6). Contributing a chapter to this book on writing as method has led to a heightened awareness that writing has been central not only to the perceived success, but also the survival of our collaboration. Much like Upitis and Russell (1998), we have been quite surprised at the insights and understanding about ourselves and our practices that have developed from analyzing our written correspondence. Our written correspondence has supported how we have constructed knowledge and made meaning in personal and professional ways (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2008). Based on these new understandings, we imagine writing will be similarly influential in the future of our work together. Loughran (2007) explains, “there is no one way, or correct way, of doing self-­ study. Rather, how a self-study might be done depends on what is sought to be better understood” (p. 15). S-STEP has offered us a degree of flexibility that allowed us to design and implement our collaboration to match both our aims and contexts. Geographically separated by the Atlantic Ocean necessitated a mechanism that facilitated the quality of interaction required by collaborative S-STEP: Written correspondence using various media offered this possibility. Within these parameters, LaBoskey’s (2004) characteristics of quality S-STEP informed how we designed and developed our research collaboration: self-initiated and self-oriented; improvement-­aimed; interactive; multiple forms of (mostly) qualitative data; and validation as a process based on trustworthiness. Although we do not write letters in the traditional sense (on paper and sent through the mail), we refer to much of our correspondence as letter writing, albeit with a twenty-first-century spin. Our letters are sent electronically, but they do contain several traditional elements of a letter, such as a greeting, the body of the letter, and a sign-off. This version of letter writing was central to the overall research design as well as being the medium for planning and reviewing our progress. In this way, letter writing and its process have served as an ongoing source for inquiry itself. Our purpose in this chapter is to make sense of and demonstrate the ways writing has facilitated our collaboration and advanced our work together.

2.1  How Letter Writing Has Facilitated Collaboration A quick search of our inboxes shows that we have received about 1000 emails from each other since 2014, yielding approximately 2000 emails that could be used as data to study our written correspondence. These numbers are approximate because our email accounts permanently delete some emails while duplicating others. We did not engage in a formalized analysis because we lacked a clear framework that would help us achieve our purpose for the research. Instead, we selectively searched for written correspondence that was linked to significant moments in our collaboration, such as preparation or submission of papers, grant proposals; personal events

2  Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study

19

or milestones; and salient memories from our collaboration, or what Bullock and Ritter (2011) might describe as turning points or others might call critical incidents. Upon rereading our emails, we saw how they served as a reflective archive of our collaboration; each reading could in some ways generate new insights and undertandings depending on our frame of reference (Ham & Kane, 2004; Richardson & St. Pierre, 2008). When the purpose of this chapter was recalled (demonstrating how written correspondence has facilitated our collaboration), we were able to construct themes that highlight the value of written correspondence as an effective and appropriate tool of collaboration and knowledge construction within S-STEP research. To this end, we argue and demonstrate the ways that written correspondence allows for attention to both personal and professional dimensions of the research process in generative ways. We share several excerpts that serve as examples of each theme to show how writing facilitated our collaborative S-STEP research.

2.1.1  Writing to Identify a Problem of Practice In this first theme, we share a series of emails that began the collaboration. These emails illustrate the self-initiated and improvement-aimed characteristics of our S-STEP inquiry. Usually, S-STEP begins with the identification of a problem of practice, a specific area identified for improvement in terms of deepening an understanding of one’s self-in-practice. Our collaborative process began with a letter from stranger to stranger. Tim wrote: June 2013 I am wondering if you would like to connect at some point soon perhaps on possibilities for collaborating. Please let me know if you might be interested in pursuing this but regardless, it would be great to keep in touch…. Tim

This began a series of emails containing ideas that were shared back and forth. From the start, we shared ideas openly. Déirdre proposed an idea focused on looking at ways to promote a joy-oriented approach to teaching physical education, writing: June 2013 Tim, I am aware you might hate this idea. I am not precious about it. The idea is at an early stage of development and I am open to exploring the “principles of practice” idea in other ways too. Bounce back any thoughts and ideas you are thinking of?

Tim replied: June 2013 So I am very much up for taking these ideas and thinking about them for a while, and thanks very much for putting the ideas out there. This sounds like a really great project and I'm looking forward to collaborating with you and [collaborator]…

The series of letters above demonstrate our initial attempts to identify a shared problem of practice, and establish parameters for how we might examine our

20

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín

respective selves-in-practice. From these early email exchanges, we designed a teaching innovation to address our collectively identified problem of practice. As stated previously, we initially proposed to examine the promotion of a joy-orientation in physical education, which, over time, developed into a broader pedagogical approach focused on supporting preservice teachers’ Learning about Meaningful Physical Education (LAMPE). While we could describe what a successful outcome would look and feel like (i.e., that preservice teachers could express a commitment to prioritizing meaningful experiences for learners), we were less clear on the pedagogies of teacher education we would enact to achieve these outcomes. Simultaneously, we were making sense of how to capture a cross-Atlantic collaboration focused on teacher education practices authentically and that was a rigorous representation of S-STEP research. Our archive of written correspondence shows the importance of the writing process in being able to articulate what it was we were interested (and what we were not). It also helped establish a foundation for personal communication based on the tone and content of the correspondence.

2.1.2  Writing Out the Logistics of Data Collection In line with the principle of interactivity (LaBoskey, 2004), we were conscious to “make a deep commitment to checking data and interpretations with others to broaden possibilities for learning and challenge perspectives, beyond the self” (Berry & Taylor, 2016, p. 597). Critical friendship was central to our approach in order to support “critiquing existing practices and rethinking and reframing practice” (Schuck & Russell, 2005, p. 108). Costa and Kallick (1993) defined a critical friend as a “trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critique of a person’s work as a friend” (p. 50). We intended that critical friendship would allow for alternative interpretations of practice-based situations and a shared understanding of teacher education practice to be generated (Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2015). Because we positioned interactivity centrally in our data collection, this required us to think about data collection methods and tools to facilitate our interactions. We concluded that written accounts would allow us to both report on/share and reflect on teaching and learning experiences in a focused way. Written correspondence thus represented how we would frame the day-to-day processes of data collection. Because we did not know each other well at the outset of our collaboration and had different levels of experience writing reflections, we designed a template for weekly reflections. We felt this would provide each of us some focus in our writing in terms of both reflecting on teacher education practices and responding as critical friend. In order to not make the process overly cumbersome or confusing, we decided that one of us would reflect on and document our practices in one semester, while the other acted as critical friend, and we would switch roles halfway through the academic year. Our template included a space for the teacher educator whose practice was being focused on to describe the lesson, and a number of specific

2  Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study

21

prompts to reflect on the experience, for example, “How/when was I made to feel vulnerable during the lesson? How did I handle this,” and “What insights and understandings about teaching and learning did I gain?” The teacher educator filled in this template content after teaching their lecture. By fore-fronting the teacher educator’s perspective on their own experiences, we ensured that their voice would be central in written accounts and that what was important to them would be the focus of and stimulus for our interactions. Each week of the semester, there were three steps involved. First, the teacher educator shared their template with the critical friend. Second, the critical friend inserted comments in response and reaction to the teacher educator’s accounts. Third, the teacher educator would offer a final response and reflection to the critical friend based on their comments and questions. The teacher educator’s initial reflection, critical friend’s response, and final teacher educator reflection were the mechanisms of our learning processes. These written exchanges were how we built our professional relationship, enabling us to generate interesting, insightful data and to theorize and enact our ideas in our respective teacher education practices. This writing occurred immediately following each teaching experience to try as much as possible to capture our lived experiences of teacher education practice. It involved describing what happened in detail to bring the other person into the situation. It also promoted reflection on the highs and lows of the experience. Given that both of us were exploring the innovation in our practices for the first time, placing boundaries on what was, and what was not, part of the innovation was important. Detail, clarity, and refinement of thought were all part of a “deliberate effort” (Berry & Crowe, 2006, p. 33) to ensure quality in data collection processes. In terms of trustworthiness, it is notable that while we were describing our teaching experiences, we had never seen each other teach. Due to residing in different parts of the world, we did not have the option of completing peer observations, or meeting up for coffee and a chat after teaching. In this, we recognize that our interactions from written correspondence were different from what they might have been face-to-face, as a writer is able to reflect on and make sense of experience before and during the writing process. For example, there is the possibility of deleting, cutting and pasting, and saving a draft for review prior to sending to a reader. This means that the writer is able to shape and reshape their story before it is told because of the relative distance from experience created by the writing process. Starting out, this breathing space was important as we both grappled with constructing the innovation and coming to understand each other personally and professionally.

2.1.3  Writing as Tentative Criticality With the research design and logistics in place, we set about the data collection process. As the collaboration began, Tim was foisted immediately into the role of critical friend to Déirdre. In the following examples, we share some initial interactions within the data collection phase to illustrate the tentative and restrained tone of

22

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín

our early interactions. Déirdre had shared her first reflections and Tim responded in writing: October 2013 Hi Deirdre ... I have made some comments …You will see in the track changes that in some places I have made comments, in most I have asked questions, and I have also reflected on some of my own positions because your thoughts, actions, reflections have prompted me to internalize some things. I hope the comments have not come across as critique of your practice because it certainly was not intended to make that happen. Instead I'm hoping to probe into some of your teaching thoughts and actions at a fairly deep level so that you and I (and others when the time comes) might come to some insights or understandings based on how deep the trail goes. If the feedback prompts you to want to respond—in any way—please feel free to send back and hopefully that will get the discussion going…. And please let me know how you find the feedback initially. I hope it is helpful and thought-provoking but I certainly don't want it to come across as critical and if it does, let me know and I will certainly change my tack. Cheers, Tim

Looking back now, the language Tim used and his tone were crucial at this point in developing a trusting relationship, but we are also surprised at his unwillingness to provide critique in his role of critical friend. By offering to “change tack” if comments were too critical, Tim was openly gauging the level of criticality that was appropriate. Déirdre replied: October 2013 Thank you for the documents and your comments. I have scanned your comments and concluded that you are an expert critical friend who asks really great questions, thank you. Hopefully I will be able to answer some of them! I plan to give this some “thinking” time over the weekend and I will bounce the conversation back to you next week.

This interaction illustrates how we openly addressed issues before they arose as problems, particularly those that might be interpreted as personal. It is noteworthy that Déirdre had never acted as a critical friend before. Tim was more experienced in this role and acted as critical friend to Déirdre first. His approach became the template for our interactions. We got lucky. Tim’s previous experience of acting as a critical friend was key as the quality of his initial communications as critical friend set the tone for our engagements, establishing a respectful, safe environment. In the early parts of our collaboration, it was risky enough to be engaging in the process at all given that we did not know each other. Upon reflection, this was important for riskier moments of collaboration that were to follow in the months and years ahead. Our learning process became a trial-and-error implementation of pedagogies across a four-year period, combined with shared reflection and analysis of their success. The quality of the (critical) friendship was key to our collaborative self-study engagement and to our progress in successfully designing and implementing the innovation. As we became more comfortable with the innovation and with each other, with some pushing from a colleague, we were better placed to be more critical and, in

2  Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study

23

some cases, contentious in our engagements (Fletcher et al., 2016). We changed our template in response. By year two, instead of inserting comments on the teacher educator’s narrative, we inserted specific prompts for the critical friend to address. These included opportunities to give encouragement and emotional support when things did not go to plan as well as to identify moments of confusion, raise questions, and seek advice and clarification. Other prompts aimed to increase criticality within the critical friendship. For example, “The questions that it raised for me ….” and “If I was going to be contentious I might suggest….” Using specific prompts helped us manage our exchanges in rigorous but respectful ways that enabled us to address our research questions, while also attending to potential emotional sensitivities. As well as tracking our progress, written correspondence allowed us to be open about our selves-in-practice, expressing feelings about our experiences.

2.1.4  Writing as Care We used emails to share, to consolidate, and to reinforce trust, respect, and empathy. Acting as critical friend from a distance required a response that was appropriate to the tone of the reflection shared. A successful teaching episode was mirrored in a similarly positive way: September 2015 Hi Déirdre Lovely to read this reflection! Congratulations on what seemed to be a VERY successful week with the students on various levels. I hope my comments make sense. Hope you are winning otherwise.

Sharing completed templates offered an invitation to explore, to probe and to speculate: January 2016 Hi Déirdre Hope you had a nice weekend! Attached is my first reflection from last week. It’s amazing how something that seems so simple and straightforward can mean a lot more once it is unpacked — at least it did for me. Interested to hear your thoughts when you get the chance.

End-of-semester and end-of-year written reflections were an opportunity to identify big picture learning and take stock: January 2016 Hi Tim, Thanks for your comments on my turning points, it is always reassuring that we are on the same page. Thanks also for your [turning points (TPs)], I really enjoyed reading them. I attach above your turning points document with comments inserted. I think your two turning points really captured the “big picture” learning this semester and both resonated really strongly for me. Also, I noticed the shift in emphasis from our practice to student experience within both our turning points, even within our self-study frame. I also find the TPs harder to develop this time around, does this mean our learning is not as obviously standing out? Interesting…

24

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín

Critical friendship also had other unanticipated benefits. For example, at the end of year 1, Déirdre wrote about how she valued Tim’s support keeping her “on track.” Tim shared in return: “What is interesting about this is that I was never really sure either of us were on the right track – I think you were more than me in many ways… So could it be that it is just as much about sharing the journey as it is about reassurance?” (Turning points, Year 1). This comment gives insight into how our written interactions supported us in developing the innovation. General advice on successful collaboration suggests starting out with clear definitions and agreement on the roles of the partners in the collaborative process. We suggest, however, that the starting point for a collaboration including critical friendship needs to begin instead by positioning friendship building and familiarity as the foundation of the collaboration. Berry and Taylor (2016, p. 589–590) remind us that “opening up the space between personal and professional complicates how teaching is investigated and understood, welcoming uncertainty and unknowability, and requiring on the part of the practitioner–researcher, self-confidence, vulnerability and often collaboration with others.” In reality, we worked out the logistics of working collaboratively during rather than before the collaboration. While it might be preferable to give attention to friendship aspects of critical friendships before initiating a formal partnership, in our case we were successful in promoting friendship alongside formal data collection. Allowing time and space for friendships and trust to develop established expectations of our critical friendship that included an openness to interrogate and make judgments of ourselves and our practices and to then share these reflections. Our careful approach created a safe space in which to acknowledge uncertainty without fear of judgment. This safety allowed us to build trust with each other, so we could be open and honest and thus expose our vulnerabilities, both personal and professional, leading to new understandings of our teacher education practices. (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2000).

2.1.5  Writing as Personal and Professional Support In February 2014, we were both at the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education World Congress in Auckland, New Zealand. This came midway through the second semester of our collaboration, so we had been corresponding for about eight months at that time. The following brief interaction took place: Tim: “Excuse me, are you Déirdre?” Déirdre: “You must be Tim. It’s so nice to be able to put a face to our emails!”

Up to that point, we had been exchanging emails where we negotiated and identified the focus of our collaborative self-study, outlined the research design, developed data collection templates, and completed three months of data collection. We had committed to engaging in a critical friendship, even though we had no idea what each other looked or sounded like. It came as a surprise to Déirdre at our

2  Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study

25

face-to-­face meeting in Auckland to learn that Tim did not have a Canadian but an Australian accent! The extent of our shared professional experience has resulted in a sharing associated with friendship, but at the beginning, we were more strangers than friends. From these uncertain beginnings, our collaboration has resulted in an inevitable sharing of aspects of our professional and personal lives in the process. We have met each other’s families and spent time at each other’s universities and homes. Inevitably, across the six-year period of our collaboration, we have navigated a range of personal and professional events in sustaining the collaboration. Any one of these might have been an obstacle that scuppered the collaboration, but they did not. With ways of working established and encouraging results, our S-STEP had momentum. Regardless, there was always time for attention to the personal, important life events. At different times, we adjusted the data collection, timelines, and outputs to match our capacities. Across time, we have nurtured our friendship through explicit attention to each other’s perspectives, contexts, and capacities through accommodation and support. Right at the initiation of our collaboration, Tim moved across Canada to a new house and job. From the start, our personal and professional capacities were an important consideration in implementing ideas. We juggled communication around these life events. Tim asked: June 2013 Do you use Skype or something similar? Perhaps we could aim to connect at some point during the summer to hash out some ideas and initial plans/designs... I'm out of action from July 12-31 driving across Canada to get to the new job but will be round before that or during Aug.

In May 2015, Ireland became the first country in the world to vote for Marriage Equality. Tim wrote: May 2015 Hi Déirdre Just listening to the news and our house is crossing our fingers for a YES vote in your part of the world today... Will fill you in when you have time to come up for air…

In summer 2016, Déirdre gave birth to a baby boy and Tim held the fort while Déírdre was on leave: January 2017 Hi Déirdre! Happy New Year! I am not sure if you are back on deck at MIC yet but if you are I hope that the transition back to work is as smooth as possible. I also hope you enjoyed every minute of your time with Fionn these past few months. I am sure you did — well, most of them anyway! I just wanted to keep you in the loop on a couple of things and please just let me know if you want or need me to do anything… October 2017

In 2018, Tim went on sabbatical, but kept in touch: January 2019 (holiday time) Hi Déirdre!

26

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín How are you and your clan? I hope you’re all well. Life continues to be fairly relaxing here with lots of surfing, swimming, animal spotting, and coffee drinking. You’ll note that not much work has been going on but I’m starting to get a bit of an itch – a very minor one – to get on with the revisions for several of our papers…

Writing in a caring and open way about life events facilitated an organic division of labor where we each stepped into the breach when necessary. We worked to support both the innovation and each other. One of the benefits we found in using writing as our primary means of communication while getting to know each other and simultaneously initiating an innovation was that we could respond to emails when the opportunity arose. There was no pressure for an immediate response, no uncomfortable silences, and no pressure to have the correct answer at hand (Kralik et al., 2000). At the same time, it is possible we edited spontaneity and possibilities out of our written correspondence at times. This is one drawback of our collaboration but is not something we can easily change. Berry (2009, p. 162) reminds us that self-study demands an “intimate perspective on practice.” We suggest that the development of a personal relationship alongside the professional outputs made a difference to the quality of our engagements as part of the research process. Creating an atmosphere for sharing personal circumstances and pressures created flexibility and openness that resulted in better quality of work. More importantly, knowing each other on a personal level reduced the riskiness of sharing when things went wrong, admitting to uncertainty, or acknowledging times when life became too busy. Deciding to put these personal issues in writing carried some risks at the start of the collaboration, what if the reader did not care about personal issues the writer was facing and wanted instead for them to “cut to the chase”? Fortunately for us, we did care about each other’s personal lives as we saw how important this was for our professional collaboration. Built on this strong foundation, we have been each other’s main research collaborators since our initial commitment to working together. The body of work we have coauthored together has resulted in an inevitable professional link that cannot be undone.

2.1.6  Writing as Learning Through Synthesis Contributing to knowledge, both personal and professional, is a key consideration in establishing the trustworthiness of S-STEP research (Berry & Taylor, 2016). Collecting data about our practices was a springboard to sharing these findings more broadly. To date, we have coauthored (with others) 15 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters published in leading physical education and teacher education journals, 21 peer-reviewed papers presented at national and international conferences, and over $CAD100,000 through funding applications. Again, written correspondence was the means by which we drafted, edited, and progressed these outputs. In this next example, we share some of our exchanges related to drafted research papers. Our approach typically involves one of us taking the lead on drafting research papers to report on our research findings.

2  Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study

27

January 2016 Hi Tim, Nice work. We are nearly there. I think it works with one example for the moment. The longer paper can get more examples. I have tried to help with getting the paper under 4000 words. I think the significance section is really solid. It is time to share with [collaborator] and see where the holes are? Once we get her feedback we can then make some final edits/ strengthen the argument as needed. Thank you for leading this.

We shared early drafts and close to final drafts. A fresh eye ensured the cohesion of the argument we were trying to present and always added value to the quality of the paper: March 2017 Hi Déirdre This paper is really taking shape and the findings section is really clear and strong, great job. I love the way you craft the argument, this is something you are really good at! I have inserted some very minor comments and suggestions. Please feel free to ignore/ take them up now or later. There were a few places where I made suggestions of alternative quotes….Again, no obligation to change here, just suggestions.

The examples shared above and elsewhere (for example, Fletcher et al., 2016) provide evidence of the crucial role interactivity through correspondence played in reframing and deepening our own understandings of our teacher education practices. Importantly, in line with the necessity of sharing S-STEP work to build the knowledge base of teacher education practice, written exchanges also scaffolded writing processes that resulted in wide dissemination and publication of our ideas by which we contributed to a body of knowledge. Our writing processes have also helped us to initiate learning across self-studies (Ní Chróinín et al., 2018, 2019). We have evidence that sharing our work is supporting other teacher educators to make changes to their practices and programs. In addition, our S-STEP has resulted in school-based innovation, influencing the practices and programs of many teachers (we expect that papers from this arm of our research will be forthcoming in 2020 and beyond). LaBoskey (2006) suggests validation of findings through their being “employed, applied, and re-tested by the teacher education community in ways that will help us embrace, discard, or transform those assertions” (p. 258). To date, our influence is encouraging and reflects what we believe is being requested by those who seek “chains of inquiry” in teacher education research (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Shulman, 2004; Zeichner, 2007).

2.1.7  Writing as Taking Stock Our research processes involved reflection on both our personal values and professional work, with improvement in our understanding of teacher education practice in mind (Hamilton et al., 2008). “Those who study their own practice are constantly confronted, not with the wonderfulness of what they are doing, but over and over again, with interesting new avenues for improvement” (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2000, p. 239). Our starting point for this collaboration was a written exchange that framed

28

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín

a shared problem of practice. Six years on, we can see that our problems of practice have evolved as we engaged in a process of reframing our own teacher education practices multiple times and continue to uncover new ideas and areas for development. Our writing processes involved both immediate reflection/reaction in weekly reflections as well as looking back, across time, and at the big picture in semester and yearly reflections. End-of-year reflections were an opportunity to take stock, to continue making sense of ideas, and to look ahead. For example, at the end of Year 2, Tim wondered about how teachers would interpret interaction between elements of the innovation we were developing. Déirdre replied: “Future research question, or can we answer this now through reflection? I have a hunch that we might be able to propose something around this now…?” (Turning points, Year 2). These data show how written interactions were an appropriate and effective means of reflecting together, making sense of our experiences, and identifying future areas to be inquired into. We suggest that conducting these exchanges in written format was beneficial in allowing the respondent time to make sense of what was shared and then position their own thinking relative to this. While acknowledging that letter writing risks the spontaneity of a verbal response being diminished, we suggest that the merits of written correspondence over a verbal conversation are dependent on the context, purposes of the exchange, and participants in the correspondence. Written correspondence was very suitable for our purposes in developing an innovation. Russell (2019, p. 258) advises that those engaged in S-STEP “need to be particularly attentive to the changes we make (and do not make) and to the insights that lead to and support our changes.” There is no doubt that we have engaged deeply with and reframed our own teacher education practices. Each year, looking back involved evaluation of progress in relation to conceptualizing the innovation itself, as well as the dissemination and generation of outputs. It is easy to look back and count outputs, grant totals, and graduate student numbers. What is less obvious is taking stock of the emotional journey associated with conceptualizing and refining an innovation where there is no set formula or framework to follow. As Clandinin and Connelly (1994) suggest, our letter writing revealed our feelings about our experiences, moving beyond the technical and practical aspects of the experience itself.

2.1.8  Writing as Emotion: The Highs and Lows… Looking back at our correspondence, it is clear that we encountered moments of struggle and sought support and reassurance from each other as we pushed the boundaries of our understanding: October 2017 “Déirdre: you are on fire today! Your comments to me are very grounding and reassuring — I am sitting here in a bit of awe I must admit because I was quite frustrated with how I engaged with the reflection and my response. You pushed these to a happier medium.

2  Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study

29

July 2019 Hi Tim, I need your help! I have attempted a restructure and reorganisation but I am a little lost at the moment chasing down rabbit holes… At the moment this paper is torturing me, I go to sleep thinking about it and wake up thinking about it.… I am totally open to you hating what I have done... I may just have gone backwards instead of forwards, I can no longer tell! You might have gathered by now, I need your help!... Interested in hearing what you think. With trepidation!

These examples capture some of the emotions we experienced as we together grappled with framing the innovation we were developing. Sometimes, reaching the end (e.g., submitting a paper) was cause for celebration too: January 2015 Hi Déirdre It’s gone! As I wipe away tears (of relief!)… March 2019 FYI, some stats from our website. 97 countries is pretty cool! Tim

Finally, we think it is important to acknowledge that the data and stories we have shared are largely positive and drama-free. With that said, we have not edited out any tantrums, throwing toys out of the pram, or major disagreements. While the absence of such interactions may reduce the tension-filled excitement of the chapter, we recognize we have been lucky. We suggest that other stories also merit sharing, particularly related to disagreements, misunderstandings, and how to navigate these challenges. As well as reaching goals, we were continuously identifying new targets as opportunities arose. Funding calls, journal special issue announcements, and recruitment of graduate students all prompted future-directed consideration of the next steps in our collaboration. We wrote about possibilities, both conceptual and practical. These brainstorming and planning activities were important in identifying common understandings as the innovation developed. One advantage of using emails as our primary form of communication was that the focus of our collaboration was clearly written down from the outset, and when needed, there was a written source to refer back to as a guide for our approach. Our email thread provided a “diary-­like” account of our evolving conceptual understanding. While reviewing written materials for this chapter, a number of threads of thinking that did not get pursued have emerged. Therefore, we suggest that because of our use of letter writing, these ideas lie in possibility, ready to be rediscovered, and pursued at another point in time.

2.2  Insights on Letter Writing as Collaboration Collaboration is a hallmark of S-STEP (Kitchen et al., 2019, p. 93). In our case, the collaboration demanded by S-STEP provided both a mechanism to explore our practices, as well as a foundation on which to innovate in our practices. Bullough

30

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín

and Pinnegar (2001) suggest that “a correspondence that takes place over years brings additional advantages of depth and richness and that [t]he promise to readers is that something special will be revealed” (p. 19). In this chapter, we have demonstrated some of the ways that written correspondence has supported and sustained our collaborative relationship. We do not intend these as a prescription or formula to contrive, but rather an illustration of some of the facets of our written interactions that helped to build our collaborative relationship. Taken together, these examples highlight the importance of open and honest communication (in terms of both the personal and professional) in shaping and sustaining our collaboration. Clandinin and Connelly (1994) outlined how letter writers simultaneously give attention to relationship building, sharing and making sense of experiences, and expressing feelings about those experiences. We have illustrated the important role of written correspondence in these three facets. First, we showed how writing supported our personal–professional relationships. Second, we described how correspondence was foundational to our S-STEP research design and how writing scaffolded thinking through and developing our ideas over the duration of our collaboration. Third, we outlined how we used writing to reflect on progress and how writing lent itself naturally to taking stock of and expressing feelings about our achievements. None of these three would have been possible without open communication. We suggest that the openness required of an authentic critical friendship (involving both the critical and the friendship aspects of this relationship) that we have tried to foster has complimented a more general openness that has helped and sustained our research collaboration. Our analysis included writing from emails that scaffolded our collaboration and that have not been subjected to any analysis until now. Until prompted by the invitation to contribute this chapter, we had never considered our email exchanges as data and never thought of analyzing their content. Wakkee et al. (2007) identify email communication as a rich data source, personalized and strengthened by the use of natural language, the potential to express emotions (for example, using emojis and capital letters), and the potential for an instant reply. We hope that the exchanges shared in this chapter illustrate some of the richness of our exchanges, as well as providing insight into how to nurture the seeds of collaboration and generate knowledge through writing (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2008). As exemplified by Upitis and Russell (1998), we agree that email content might be a data source in some situations as well as acting as the mechanism of communication and collaboration. In doing so, however, we suggest that tight boundaries be placed on what counts as data, so as not to compromise the other important aspects of friendship building that might be in danger of being filtered out of more formal data collection by written correspondence. In reviewing and reanalyzing our data from a six-year period with explicit attention to the roles of writing in our collaboration, we noticed three key temporal purposes for writing. First, sometimes, our purpose was generative, focused on possibilities. Our writing shows evidence of brain storming, weighing up options, and imagining possible future scenarios. Second, other times our writing represented the details of collaborative self-study, sharing reflections and responding as

2  Pen Pals with Purpose: Letter Writing as Collaboration in Self-Study

31

a critical friend, coauthoring funding applications, and supporting post graduate student work. These examples of writing are grounded in the present and resulted in a constantly evolving to-do list. Thirdly, and perhaps most satisfactorily, our writing allowed us to take stock, to reflect on our progress, celebrate our successes, and acknowledge progress of the overall project. Together, these three temporal purposes framed our collaborative activities. We suggest that a more conscious attention, perhaps through prompts, both to the past and future within present time reflection within S-STEP may enhance the richness of engagement and result in a greater change influence.

References Berry, A. (2009). Exploring vision in self-study. Studying Teacher Education., 5(2), 159–162. Berry, A., & Crowe, A. (2006). Extending our boundaries through self-study: Framing a research agenda through beginning a critical friendship. In D.  Tidwell, L.  Fitzgerald, & M.  Heston (Eds.), Journeys of hope: Risking self-study in a diverse world. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. University of Northern Iowa. Berry, A., & Taylor, M. (2016). Personal experience methods in practitioner research. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith, & L. E. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research (pp. 589–608). SAGE. Bullock, S. M., & Ritter, J. K. (2011). Exploring the transition into academia through collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 171–181. Bullough, R. V., & Pinnergar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-­ study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (p. 413–427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: Multiple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 219–225. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51, 49–51. Fletcher, T., Ní Chróinín, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2016). A layered approach to critical friendship as a means to support pedagogical innovation in pre-service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 12(3), 302–319. Ham, V., & Kane, R. (2004). Finding a way through the swamp: A case for self-study as research. In J.  Loughran, M.  L. Hamilton, V.  K. LaBoskey, & T.  Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 103–150). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2000). On the threshold of a new century trustworthiness, integrity, and self-study in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 234–240. Hamilton, M. L., Smith, L., & Worthington, K. (2008). Fitting the methodology with the research: An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education, 4(1), 17–28. Hawkins, A. (2008). Pragmatism, purpose, and play: Struggle for the soul of physical education. Quest, 60, 345–356. Kitchen, J., Berry, M., & Russell, T. (2019). The power of collaboration. Studying Teacher Education, 15(2), 93–97.

32

T. Fletcher and D. Ní Chróinín

Kralik, D., Koch, T., & Brady, B. M. (2000). Pen pals: Correspondence as a method for data generation in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 909–917. Kretchmar, R. S. (2006). Ten more reasons for quality physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77(9), 6–9. Kretchmar, R. S. (2008). The increasing utility of elementary school physical education: A mixed blessing and unique challenge. The Elementary School Journal, 108(3), 161–170. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. LaBoskey, V. K. (2006). The fragile strengths of self-study: Making bold claims and clear connections. In P. Aubusson & S. Schuck (Eds.), Teaching learning and development: The mirror maze (pp. 251–262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20. Ní Chróinín, D., Fletcher, T., & O’Sullivan, M. (2018). Pedagogical principles of learning to teach meaningful physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(2), 117–133. Ní Chróinín, D., Beni, S., Fletcher, T., Griffin, C., & Price, C. (2019). Using meaningful experiences as a vision for physical education teaching and teacher education practice. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(6), 598–614. Richardson, L. A., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2008). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.  S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Russell, T. (2019). Are teacher education practices really changing?—An editor’s farewell. Studying Teacher Education, 15(3), 255–259. Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1, 107–121. Shulman, L. (2004). Truth and consequences: Inquiry and policy in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 248–253. Upitis, R., & Russell, T. (1998). Building a teacher education community: Combining electronic mail with face-to-face interactions. In M. L. Hamilton, S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. Loughran, & V. K. LaBoskey (Eds.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Developing competence through self-study (pp. 84–120). London, UK: Falmer Press. Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2015). The state of the art in self-study of teacher education practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 508–528. Wakkee, I., Englis, P. D., & During, W. (2007). Using e-mails as a source of qualitative data. In H. Neergaard & J. P. Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 331–358). Northampton, UK: Edward Elgar. Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 36–46.

Chapter 3

Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage and Lifting the Curtain Sandra Quiñones, Jason K. Ritter, and Ramona Broomer

Abstract  The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate self-study as a cognitive process where writing is used as a tool for working through concepts and ideas in development. Thus, we analyze the mentoring practices that evolved during two years as the first and second authors worked closely with the third author to develop a self-study dissertation. Inspired by theater education, we narrate scenes in the mentoring process, including the evolution of the dissertation proposal, the collection and analysis of multiple data sources, and the development of findings for a specific audience and purpose. In these sections, we offer examples of dialogical written interactions associated with the development of a self-study dissertation. We also share mentor reflections that make connections to our conceptual framework. Then, we shift our attention to Ramona’s perspectives and experiences. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for faculty and graduate students pursuing similar paths. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate self-study as a cognitive process where writing is used as a tool for working through concepts and ideas in development. Thus, we analyze the mentoring practices that evolved during two years (2018–2020) as Sandra Quiñones and Jason Ritter worked closely with Ramona Broomer to develop a self-study dissertation. Inspired by theater education, we “lift the curtain” and narrate scenes in the mentoring process, including the evolution of the dissertation proposal (Act 1), the collection and analysis of multiple data sources (Act 2), and the development of findings for a specific audience and purpose (Act 3). In each act, we offer examples of dialogical written interactions associated with the S. Quiñones (*) · J. K. Ritter Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Broomer Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA, USA © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_3

33

34

S. Quiñones et al.

development of a self-study dissertation. Immediately following each act, we share mentor reflections that make connections to our conceptual framework. After the three acts, we “lower the curtain” and shift our attention to Ramona’s perspectives and experiences. This section is intended to emulate a monolog in a play. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for faculty and graduate students pursuing similar paths.

3.1  Setting the Stage 3.1.1  Context and Participants Ramona Broomer had the distinction of being the first candidate in the Professional Doctorate in Educational Technology (EdD) program at Duquesne University to formally engage in self-study research for her dissertation. She is a faculty member at Lock Haven University who teaches introductory theater courses in multiple delivery formats (face to face, hybrid, and online). Since there is minimal research about instructional technology in theater education, Ramona is conducting a self-­ study of her practice. Her research utilizes the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework to examine how she utilizes technology in her teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Koehler et al., 2012). The timing and context were “ripe” for supporting Ramona through this process for three main reasons. First, in 2018–2019, the program was revised to center the development of scholarly practitioners as espoused by the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) initiative (see http://CPEDinitiative.org). This meant, among other things, that doctoral students were encouraged to “blend practical wisdom with professional skills and knowledge to name, frame and solve problems of practice” (Perry, 2015, p. 23). Second, over 55% of affiliated program faculty had been engaged with self-study for several years as part of a faculty learning group (Ritter et al., 2018; Ritter & Quiñones, 2020). Subsequently, there was a growing recognition and appreciation of self-study as a potentially powerful approach to research in teaching and teacher education practices (Zeichner, 1999). Third, Ramona’s dissertation committee was composed of “key actors” invested in reenvisioning the EdD and potentially establishing self-study as a signature methodology within the program. Sandra took on the roles of directing the doctoral program in July of 2018 and chairing Ramona’s dissertation committee in August of 2018. Jason, an experienced self-study researcher in teacher education, had been recently elected to serve as Chair of the Department of Instruction and Leadership in Education (DILE). In the Fall of 2018, he agreed to be the methodologist in Ramona’s dissertation committee.

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

35

3.1.2  Conceptual Framework For this paper, we utilize a combined interpretive framework that draws from scholarship about three dynamic processes: writing, mentoring, and professional learning.

3.2  Writing In line with Richardson and St. Pierre (2005), Sandra and Jason understand “writing as a method of inquiry” because “writing is thinking, writing is analysis, writing is indeed a seductive tangled method of discovery” (emphasis in original, p.  967). Moreover, our work is informed by González-Ocampo and Castelló’s (2018) research on writing in doctoral programs. For instance, we agree that doctoral writing is a cognitive activity. However, within the context of doctoral education, we also view writing as a social and situational activity. Thus, we attribute both process-­ oriented and product-oriented roles to doctoral writing. First, doctoral writing is an instrumental activity so we work with Ramona as she produces academic texts. Second, doctoral writing is an epistemic activity, so we view it as a tool for promoting learning processes. For example, writing enables Ramona to construct knowledge about the research topic as well as the research methodology. Third, we attribute a communicative role to writing. That is, writing is “an activity that seeks to promote research communication and facilitate the socialization of doctoral students within their academic contexts” (p. 393). With this multifaceted view of writing, we began the journey of mentoring Ramona in a self-study dissertation.

3.3  Mentoring For this chapter, we define a mentor “as someone who actively helps, supports, or teaches someone else how to do a job so that she will succeed” (Méndez-Morse, 2004, p. 565). In this case, Sandra and Jason are actively supporting Ramona as she conducts dissertation research. Success here relates to the effective and timely completion of research as a program requirement for degree conferral and graduation. That being said, we take an interdependent “educative mentoring” approach (Mackintosh, n.d.; Stanulis et al., 2018; Trevethan & Sandretto, 2017) rather than a traditional, power-dependent hierarchical approach to mentoring (Darwin, 2000). In an educative mentoring approach, “knowledge and power is shared between mentor and mentee in an asymmetrical but collaborative relationship, which facilitates exchange and the generation of ideas and may lead to change and innovations in the prevailing situation” (Pennanen et al., 2016, p. 30). That is, co-learning becomes a possibility for us as we work together with Ramona to construct and reconstruct our understandings of self-study of practice (Cochran-Smith & Paris, 1995). Lastly, this

36

S. Quiñones et al.

type of collaborative approach offers short-term and long-term benefits for the mentoring relationship (Jones & Brown, 2011; Wexler, 2019). This means that Sandra and Jason try to work out what Ramona needs to learn (i.e., short-term concerns) and use a combination of showing and telling, asking, and listening, to facilitate the dissertation research (i.e., long-term goal).

3.4  Professional Learning Our work is informed by Williams et al. (2012), self-study scholars who utilized Wenger’s (1998, 2000) ideas of learning, meaning, and identity and the community of practice concept to argue that the professional learning of beginning teacher educators involves an interplay of four dimensions: meaning (learning as experience), practice (learning as doing), community (learning as belonging), and identity (learning as becoming). Building on this idea, we apply these four dimensions to Ramona joining a new community of practice via the dissertation writing process (e.g., the issues Ramona might face in joining a new community of practice). In other words, we explore Ramona’s transition from a theater educator to a scholarly practitioner writing a self-study dissertation.

3.4.1  Methods and Data Sources We utilized qualitative content analysis methods informed by our conceptual framework to explore writing as a tool for working through concepts and ideas in development. Primary data sources included 52 drafts of dissertation writing documents with faculty feedback inserted in the form of “track changes” on a document as well as over 40+ emails with specific recommendations, recommended readings, and comments. Secondary data sources included audio recordings and transcripts of virtual meetings with Ramona during the two years. For this chapter, Sandra and Jason revisited the data sources with the following questions in mind: 1) How did the writing dynamics intentionally and otherwise contribute to the mentoring process? 2) How did Ramona grow as a writer in S-STEP through the process? Our responses to these questions are woven throughout the findings section of this chapter, which we call “acts.”

3.5  Act One This first act concentrates on the dissertation proposal writing process. Ramona Broomer began the proposal writing process in August of 2018 and defended it on September 6, 2019. The evolution of the dissertation proposal took a year to

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

37

complete and the process speaks to the idea that writing is thinking that develops over time with prompting and mentoring. Next, we narrate two scenes about writing as thinking. The first relates to thinking about self-study research as an approach to inquiring about one’s practice in higher education. The second is about critical friendship as a component of self-study methodology.

3.5.1  What Is Self-Study? Right from the beginning, there was a need to think through “what is self-study?” and which approach to self-study would best align with the purpose of the research. There was also a need to tease out the confusion between research methodologies, particularly between self-study, auto-ethnography, and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). This conceptual confusion shaped the writing of the proposal and presented Sandra and Jason with one of our first authentic mentoring opportunities. For example, although Ramona seemed interested in self-study as a methodology, she did not explicitly state that she was conducting a self-study of practice in her early drafts. Ramona was also citing publications that explained autoethnography or SoTL rather than self-study in teaching and teacher education (S-STEP). To address this issue, Sandra encouraged Ramona to specifically review the self-study literature and consider how scholars conceptualize and design the research, and how the readings help her to think about her research project in development. During this time, Jason also sent Ramona his self-study dissertation, as well as articles and book chapters for her to read and discuss as part of the thinking and writing process. Ramona then submitted a rough draft of the dissertation proposal for Sandra to review in October of 2018. In response, Sandra offered this written feedback to Ramona (in addition to in-text comments throughout the document): This is a good start and is more in line with the genre/expectations of dissertation proposal writing. Having different sections will help with the ongoing and iterative research writing processes. From my perspective, I recommend the following as next steps: 1) Read more about research methods for the self-study of practice. See Tidwell, Heston, and Fitzgerald 2009 as a start. 2) Read more about TPCK/TPACK research and development, see Harris, Phillips, Koehler, & Rosenberg’s (2017) editorial piece and special issue/volume as a start. 3) Overall, I found your introduction very hard to follow. It needs to be revised for clarity and cohesion as well as grammar (i.e., avoid sentence fragments). Rewrite the introduction section for clarity and cohesion. Use first-person throughout the dissertation. (SQ feedback, 11/2/2018)

In the latter passage, it is interesting to note that Sandra had to be explicit about using first person throughout the dissertation. Ramona’s initial draft contained an odd combination of the third person (i.e., the researcher will…) and first-person writing (i.e., my research examines…). Jason also observed, “This all sounds a little awkward. At some point, you will have to embrace first-person writing if this is to be a self-study.” Ramona noted that in previous doctoral courses, she was expected

38

S. Quiñones et al.

to write research proposals in the third person, so naturally, she was confused about this. In response, Sandra and Jason reassured Ramona that using a first-person narrative style was appropriate and expected in self-study research. In the Fall of 2018, Ramona became interested in the work done by Samaras et al. (2004, 2006), particularly around personal history self-study. In the October 2018 draft of the proposal, Ramona wrote: “The purpose of this personal history self-study will be to analyze obstacles and challenges I have experienced with integrating technology into theater courses using TPACK.” Highlighting the term “personal history,” Jason wrote back, “I am starting to think you might be misusing this term. You may be doing self-study, but not personal history self-study which deliberately pulls from aspects of one's biography as part and parcel of the analysis process.” A little later in the text, Ramona proposed the following research questions to guide her dissertation study: RQ1: How do I, as a theater instructor, model teaching and learning based on the TPACK framework? RQ2: What is the perception of my integration of instructional technology in undergraduate theater courses using TPACK? RQ3: How can I help theater instructors understand the relationship between developing instructional content, learning activities, assessment, and effective technology integration? After reading these questions, Jason again decided to push back on what exactly Ramona was aiming to do with her study, writing, “I think these research questions are fine, but they make me continue to think that while you are doing self-study you are not doing personal history self-study.” Finally, in an attempt to further clarify his views, Jason highlighted the following statement from Ramona’s proposal: “Personal history research is reviewed as the historical or life experiences related to personal and professional meaning-making for teachers and researchers (Samaras et al., 2004, p. 9).” In his comment back to Ramona, he wrote: “This is why I am not sure this is what you are doing.” Importantly, in these examples, Jason tried to be mindful to frame his feedback to Ramona as tentative and dialogic. The purpose was to invite Ramona to revisit her thinking in light of her goals for her self-study dissertation. Consequently, Ramona and Sandra met to discuss Jason’s feedback around personal history self-study and to work through ideas about what type of approach to self-study best aligned with her research questions and objectives. As part of this process, Ramona and Sandra revisited the self-study literature together with particular attention to Bullough and Pinnegar’s (2001) article, Guidelines for Quality in Autobiographical Forms of Self-Study Research. This article offered an important historical account of self-study as an area of research in teacher education; it covers questions such as “When does self-study become research?” (pp.  14–15) and devotes attention to “problems of publication and questions of quality” (p. 15) as well as “biography and self-study research” (pp. 15–16). Sandra annotated sections of the article that were especially relevant for working through epistemic issues with Ramona, such as: “[q]uality self-study research requires that the researcher

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

39

negotiates a particularly sensitive balance between biography and history” (p. 15). In a follow-up meeting with Sandra, Ramona agreed that Bullough and Pinnegar’s (2001) article helped increase her understanding of self-study research, particularly concerning guidelines for establishing quality self-study scholarship. That being said, Ramona’s writing about the nature of self-study as a methodology took some time to develop.

3.5.2  What Is a Critical Friend? In addition to thinking through the nature of self-study as a genre of research concerned with examining the role of the educator within professional practice settings (Samaras, 2010), we also used writing as a tool for mentoring and thinking through the concept of a critical friend. Fuentealba and Russell (2016) assert that a critical friend “champions the co-construction of knowledge through collegial inquiry, conversation, and collaborative reflection within a climate of mutual vulnerability and risk-taking, trust and support” (pp. 227–234). About midway through the proposal writing process, Ramona identified two colleagues from the humanities and health sciences that were willing and able to serve as critical friends in her dissertation research. Therefore, Sandra asked Ramona to add a written rationale for why she chose those particular colleagues to serve as her critical friends in this self-study of teaching. Also, she needed to think about what they would do in that role, what procedures each would follow, and for what purpose (SQ feedback 2/16/2019). In an early draft of the dissertation proposal, Ramona indicated that her proposed study involved the collection and examination of data, documents, and records from her instructional materials and of artifacts from her teaching portfolio, i.e., interviews, feedback, and “correspondence with participants or critical friends” who are faculty from a variety of disciplines. Jason took this opportunity to highlight the words “participants or critical friends” to make some points about self-study as a methodology. In his feedback to Ramona, he responded: These are not one and the same. Some clarity will need to be provided. It will also have to be made clear how and why these artifacts were collected. Some may have been coincidental. Some may have been purposeful. It will be important for you to explain all of this in the methodology section to ensure ‘trustworthiness’ -- an equivalent to terms like validity or generalizability in quantitative paradigms. (JKR feedback, 3/11/2019)

Later in the proposal, Ramona discussed potentially videotaping her class sessions as an additional data source. Returning to this notion of critical friendship, Jason commented “I love this idea, but video can be difficult to analyze. Maybe this is a great opportunity to bring in a critical friend to review the video with you?” In the revised version of the proposal, Ramona wrote that critical friends would essentially conduct peer observations:

40

S. Quiñones et al. I will have my instruction observed and evaluated by a critical friend. The representation can be seen using the university’s template, and it can be viewed a second a time with a template I will develop or find. The purpose is to receive external feedback from a voice and perspective different from my own. (RB, 3/28/2019)

In an attempt to further the conversation and understandings around critical friendship, Jason commented: “Just remember that peer observations at universities, for several reasons, often do not conform to critical friendship as understood in the self-study community.” Accordingly, Sandra and Ramona met to review the concept of critical friends and explore examples of arts-based self-study methods recommended by Samaras and Freese (2006). After looking at a variety of options, Ramona decided that a “photograph analysis” would be apt as a data source for her study (pp. 173–174). Both Sandra and Jason agreed. At that point, Ramona began to gain a better idea about the role and purpose of critical friends in the context of her research design. Therefore, she was able to write about conducting a photograph analysis with critical friends in a more in-depth manner.

3.5.3  Mentor Reflections In the data analysis process, we learned that Ramona’s understanding of, and approach to, self-study of teaching was evolving. Over time, she moved from away from a personal history self-study approach to a practitioner–researcher approach to self-study. For example, in her evolving dissertation proposal, Ramona noted that self-study served a common purpose of “finding power in practice” (Allender & Allender, 2008, p. 145) because its inclusive nature encourages practitioners to be researchers and constructors of knowledge (Craig, 2009, p. 26). Moreover, the data analysis revealed that Ramona was challenged by dissertation proposal writing as an academic genre in three main areas: (a) supporting claims with citations; (b) providing rationales for the research design; and (c) APA style format. Although Ramona was using Terrell’s (2016) Writing a Proposal for Your Dissertation: Guidelines and Examples and the APA style manual as key writing resources in the process, more specific academic writing resources and direct instruction were needed (see Badenhorst & Guering, 2016; Cotterall, 2011). Therefore, Sandra recommended Graff and Birkenstein’s (2018) text about academic writing, with particular attention to the writing templates provided in the index. This first act emphasizes the idea that writing is thinking that develops over time with prompting and mentoring. Throughout the proposal writing and rewriting process, we were mindful of modeling writing as a heuristic tool and the role that direct and constructive criticism plays when advising or supervising doctoral dissertations (González-Ocampo & Castelló, 2018; Kamler & Thomson, 2014). In line with the dimensions of professional learning identified by Williams et  al. (2012), we attempted to balance critique and support in our feedback because we recognized the need to encourage Ramona to clarify the meaning she was bringing to her work

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

41

at the same time as we recognized the need for her to feel some sense of belonging. It is common for beginning self-study researchers to lean into their previous knowledge and experiences. However, an important aim of self-study involves critically examining one’s teaching to yield new or reframed understandings. So while we understood that Ramona would necessarily draw from her extensive knowledge and experience as a theater educator in writing her dissertation, we also encouraged her to think of appropriate ways to structure her self-study to get multiple “looks” on what was going on in her practice (i.e., learning as experience and meaning-­making). It was important to us as mentors to reinforce the notion that, with her dissertation, Ramona was in the process of developing an identity of belonging to an existing community of scholarly practitioners who engage with self-study of practice (i.e., learning as belonging).

3.6  Act Two In act two, we narrate five scenes related to writing as both analysis and method. First, we revisit a misunderstanding about self-study of practice. Second, we recount the importance of having a researcher positionality statement. Third, we discuss the need for a strategic and well-articulated data collection plan. Fourth, we elaborate on the use of biographical and reflective writing as primary data sources. Fifth, we emphasize the writing of a comprehensive data analysis plan.

3.6.1  Is This Self-Study or Celebratory Navel-Gazing? In the initial draft of the research methods chapter, there remained a misunderstanding about the purpose of self-study as a method of inquiry. For example, in a November 2018 draft of the proposal, Ramona wrote the following statement in the introduction section of chapter three: “The proposed study involves accepted educational practices, instructional strategies, instructional techniques, and methods I have employed for the past 15 years while teaching an undergraduate introduction to theater course with the integration of instructional technology.” As part of his written feedback, Jason said, “Careful not to reify misplaced understandings of self-­ study as celebratory navel-gazing.” Moreover, he stated: “This almost begs the question of what you hope to learn from the study.” In response Jason encouraged Ramona to revisit two sources: International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (2004) and Research Methods for the Self-Study of Practice (2009). Moreover, Sandra invited Ramona to read recently published self-study book chapters written by dissertation committee members that moved beyond celebratory navel-gazing (i.e., Ayieko, 2018; Quiñones, 2018; Ritter, 2018; Williams, 2018).

42

S. Quiñones et al.

The real issue here, in hindsight, was that initially, Ramona wanted to use self-­ study to “tell her story” of using instructional technology in theater education, but she did not necessarily envision this inquiry process to be a critical look at her practice. She was under the impression that all of the findings would yield positive and uplifting insights and that was the story she wanted to tell. In other words, initially, Ramona did have a naïve celebratory navel-gazing understanding of self-study research. Later, in the data analysis process, she explored aspects about herself as an instructor that surprised her and challenged her in ways that she had not anticipated. For example, after writing weekly reflections for 20 weeks, Ramona learned that (1) she prepared an overabundance of course material per class; (2) she was frequently anxious about her performance and her students’ success before and during each class period; and (3) she constantly developed or revised ideas for new or improved curriculum. As part of the photograph analysis with critical friends, Ramona worked through some of the unanticipated results that were revealed. It was during that phase of the dissertation that Ramona changed her working title to Meeting Ramona the Instructor: A Self-Study Exploring the Process of Integrating Instructional Technology into Introductory Theatre Courses.

3.6.2  Writing a Researcher Positionality Statement Next, we turn to another example of self-study as a cognitive process, namely encouraging Ramona to add a subjectivity or researcher positionality statement in the dissertation proposal. In the second version of the proposal that Jason read, after reading Ramona’s description of the setting for her study, he wrote: “I would like to see a subjectivity (or positionality) statement from you right around here.” Although Ramona was not doing a personal history self-study, it is still the case that self—and by extension self with others—is key to self-study. Who we are matters a great deal. It influences what we might feel compelled to investigate as well as how we see what we find. Therefore, adding a positionality statement to the dissertation proposal was an important component of the writing and thinking process. For Sandra and Jason, this mentoring move was also intended to develop Ramona’s reflexivity as a qualitative researcher (Hellawell, 2006).

3.6.3  Writing a Data Collection Plan In addition to asking Ramona to include a researcher positionality statement, Sandra and Jason encouraged Ramona to think carefully about the data collection plan within a self-study dissertation. For instance, Ramona’s initial proposal offered a large number of potential data sources that could be used to answer her research questions, almost taking too literally the notion that “everything is data.” After the first data source, Jason commented, “I need to know about the nature and structure

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

43

of this artifact. Why was it created? When? Etc. etc.” He then wrote the words “Same feedback here” after each additional proposed data source. The idea, of course, was to encourage Ramona to really think about which sources of data could be critically reflected upon in ways that could help her answer her research questions. In the October 2018 draft of the proposal, Ramona stated: “To explore my process of integrating instructional technology as a theater educator using TPACK, I will use varied data collection and analysis that include digital portfolio, reflective narratives, self-portraits, artifacts, critical friend correspondence, and journaling.” In response, Sandra asked: “Where did you get these ideas? Why these? Do these sources align with your research questions? Also, when/how will you collect each data source? Where is your data collection timeline? For how long? Where will you store/secure and organize the data?” These questions were intended to promote deeper thinking and develop more detailed procedural writing in the data collection plan. Although Ramona had briefly described each data source, she did not include sufficient rationales or explanations about the organization or procedures that she planned to use to collect the data. For these reasons, Ramona had to continue revising and resubmitting the data collection plan.

3.6.4  Different Types of Writing as Primary Data Sources Ramona used autobiographical narrative writing and reflective writing as data sources in her self-study of practice. This is an example of writing as a tool for both analysis and method. The autobiographical narrative writing was Ramona’s retrospective account of approximately 15 years of experience using instructional technology, including her years as an early adopter. In this narrative, Ramona also describes her present-day teaching practices and experiences using TPACK as a framework that informs how she integrates technology in teaching and learning. Below is a passage that describes the personal narrative as a data source: Personal narrative refers to alternative forms of writing and reporting, including autoethnography, performative writing, layered accounts, and storytelling. Narrative research traditions are diverse and encompass methods developed in folklore, psychology, literature, history, anthropology, and education (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, p. 15). Personal narrative is a way to create multiple tiered accounts of a research study, thereby providing the opportunity to develop new and provocative claims and to do so in a compelling manner (Chang, 2016). The personal narrative used in this study will contain information about my life and work. The purpose is to provide a retrospective account of my evolution as a lifelong learner and teacher. (RB 8/31/2019)

In reviewing multiple drafts as part of the data analysis process, it was clear that Ramona developed a scholar–practitioner voice over time (McClintock, 2004). By this, we mean “an ideal of professional excellence grounded in theory and research, informed by experimental knowledge, and motivated by personal values, political commitments, and ethical conduct” (p.  393). This is evidenced in how Ramona

44

S. Quiñones et al.

increasingly learned how to thread theory and research in her dissertation proposal writing. Another primary data source in Ramona’s self-study of practice was written reflections that she collected before and after every class session during the summer and fall 2019 semesters. This reflective writing included responses to 10 questions based on Gibb’s (1998) model of reflective practice (see Appendix A). In the analysis of multiple drafts of the description and rationale about reflective writing as a primary data source, Sandra and Jason noticed that Ramona’s writing was becoming more detailed and sophisticated. That being said, Jason noted: “Make sure you have a plan to follow through with this, as it will be an important and rich source of data.” This comment from Jason brings us to our next section: the data analysis plan.

3.6.5  The Data Analysis Plan In addition to mentoring the process of writing a detailed and robust data collection plan, Sandra and Jason worked with Ramona to develop a detailed and comprehensive data analysis plan. In the November 30, 2018, draft of the proposal, Ramona did not include a data analysis plan at all. After drafting a data collection plan and describing the multiple data sources, Ramona did not tell the reader what she would do with the data collected. In the written feedback, Sandra asked: Where is the data analysis plan? When and how will you analyze the multiple data sources? What approach(es) to qualitative coding will you use? Which coding method(s) are appropriate for your self-study? Will you write analytical memos throughout the data analysis process? These questions were intended to further Ramona’s thinking and help her develop an explicit and logical data analysis plan. Sandra also recommended that Ramona revisit Saldaña’s (2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers and added more texts to Ramona’s reading list, including Durdella’s (2017) Qualitative Dissertation Methodology and Leavy’s (2017) Research Design. In addition to more readings, Sandra encouraged Ramona to use a digital tool for qualitative data analysis (Paulus et al., 2017; Woolf & Silver, 2018). After doing some readings about data analysis plans in qualitative research design, Ramona began drafting the written data analysis plan. In her first draft of the data analysis plan, Ramona stated that she would use ATLAS.ti, but did not explicitly describe how she would approach the qualitative data analysis process using software as a digital tool. Therefore, to further scaffold the writing of a data analysis plan, Sandra shared examples of dissertations and published articles with clear and robust data analysis plans. Some of these exemplars included corresponding charts, figures, and tables. After several revisions, Ramona developed a comprehensive data analysis plan. In the defended dissertation proposal, Ramona allocated 10 weeks for the data analysis process and stated that she needed research software with robust tools so that she could analyze a wide range of multimedia and text-­ based data sources. For each data source, Ramona provided a detailed, procedural plan for how she would approach the data analysis. She thought carefully about

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

45

each data source and developed a corresponding table to support her written data analysis plan.

3.6.6  Mentor Reflections To summarize, the second act described four scenes related to writing as both analysis and method. Returning to the dimensions of professional learning identified in our conceptual framework (Williams et al., 2012), Act II is mostly focused on learning and identity as practice and also learning and identity from practice. Throughout this part of the process, Ramona had to negotiate ways of being as an emerging academic writer tasked with designing a research project examining how her content knowledge, technological knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge informs her practice as a theater educator. Here, we see how the mentoring moves were intended to be critical and direct. By regularly providing feedback (usually weekly) and sharing additional resources to guide the revision process as various issues surfaced in Ramona’s thinking/writing, we sought to support qualitative self-study dissertation writing as practice. As you will see in Ramona’s reflective narrative later in this chapter, she came to understand research writing as a relationship fueled by constructive criticism.

3.7  Act Three In this third and final act, we share mentoring moves and turning points during the data analysis process (post-data collection) as well as the transitional analytic process between coding cycles and the final write-up of the study (Saldaña, 2013, pp. 246–260). Saldaña also refers to this as the post-coding and prewriting transition process. The first scene describes coding as analysis. The second scene details memo writing as an integral part of the qualitative data analysis and interpretive development process. The next scene accounts for Ramona’s presentation to the S-STEP Faculty Learning Group and the fourth scene retells the use of focusing strategies as part of the transitional analytic process.

3.7.1  Codes and Coding One important aspect of qualitative research that Sandra and Jason showed Ramona was how the process of coding is a form of analysis and is a cyclical act (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2013). In our mentoring practices around coding, we wanted to emphasize that “coding is a heuristic—a method of discovery” intended to stimulate your “thinking about the data you have been

46

S. Quiñones et al.

given and have collected” (Saldaña, 2013, pp. 40–41). For example, Sandra modeled how she coded data line by line using a selected coding method that aligned with the research questions and the purpose of the study. She also demonstrated examples of an initial cycle and second cycle of codes, and how she moved from codes to categories, and categories to themes, as part of the analytical and interpretive process. Similarly, Ramona was systematic and thoughtful in how she approached her first, second, and third cycle of coding. First, she prepared, organized, and uploaded 69 data sources onto ATLAS.ti (i.e., documents, videos, and photographs gathered during data collection). For the first cycle, she used “Descriptive Coding” as her coding strategy (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2003; Wolcott, 1994). As noted by Saldaña (2013), “Descriptive Coding summarizes in a word or short phrase— most often as a noun—the basic topic of a passage of qualitative data” (p.88). This strategy is appropriate for “beginning qualitative researchers learning how to code data” and “studies with a wide variety of data forms” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 88). In this first cycle of coding, Ramona identified 223 codes and wrote 50 analytical memos. For the second cycle of coding, Ramona used Pattern Coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994) informed by her theoretical framework (TPACK) and research questions. Pattern codes are “explanatory or inferential codes, ones that identify an emergent theme, configuration, or explanation. They pull together a lot of material into a more meaningful and parsimonious unit of analysis They are sort of meta-code...” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). Pattern Coding is appropriate for the second cycle of coding and the development of major themes from the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this second cycle, Ramona identified 124 codes, 10 categories, and wrote 20 analytical memos. Ramona’s third cycle of coding was more conceptual and “meta” in nature. Here, Ramona moved from categories to themes that were informed by four intersecting knowledge areas derived from her theoretical framework. After the third cycle of coding, four themes were derived.

3.7.2  Analytical Memos Analytical memos are another example of mentored writing as analysis and method in a qualitative self-study of practice. Drawing from her own research experience and Saldaña’s (2013) recommendations for qualitative researchers, Sandra discussed the importance of analytic memo writing as a strategy for documenting and reflecting on several items: the coding process; code choices; how the process of inquiry is taking shape; the emerging patterns, categories, subcategories, themes, and concepts in your data (p. 41). Sandra showed Ramona examples of analytical memos and how to write memos on ATLAS.ti. In biweekly meetings with Ramona, Sandra emphasized that “[m]emos are sites of conversation with ourselves about our data” (Clarke, 2005, p. 202) and also an invitation to document the development of researcher reflexivity. That is, how you

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

47

are “thinking critically about what you are doing and why, confronting and often challenging our own assumptions, and recognizing the extent to which your thoughts, actions, and decisions shape how you research and what you see” (Mason, 2002, p.  5). Finally, Sandra highlighted the “reciprocal relationship between the development of a coding system and the evolution of understanding a phenomenon” (Weston et al., 2001, p. 397). During the data analysis process, Ramona wrote a total of 70 analytical memos (see Table 3.1 below for an example of analytical memos). Ramona wrote memos before, during, and after each cycle of coding. Overall, she agreed that memos were helpful for engaging in “systematic analysis” and developing good thinking practices in the qualitative inquiry process (Janesick, 2011).

3.7.3  The S-STEP Faculty Learning Group In February of 2020, Ramona conducted a presentation to the S-STEP Faculty Learning Group in our department about how she used computer software to engage with qualitative data analysis. At that point, she had just completed the twelve weeks of data analysis using ATLAS.ti. The faculty was thoroughly impressed with her developing expertise in using software to conduct a systematic analysis of multiple data sources. They asked her technical and process-related questions, and she responded with accuracy and a strong self-study researcher identity. There was also a long discussion about the photograph analysis with two critical friends. Overall, the faculty gave her positive feedback and thoroughly praised her work. The dissertation committee members in the room publically acknowledged that they were eager to read her final dissertation. This was a pivotal moment for Sandra as the dissertation chair for two reasons: First, she had witnessed Ramona’s growth over two years, and now, Ramona was the expert in the room—particularly concerning the use of software to harness qualitative inquiry. Second, from an educative mentoring perspective, Ramona’s presentation to the faculty group illustrated the idea that “[m]entors and mentees are co-learners, engaged in social activities that have meaningful products; mentees learn from doing and talking about work together” (Mackintosh, n.d.). Accordingly, Sandra felt like a proud spectator and co-facilitator of the learning process. This was also a pivotal moment for Ramona as a doctoral candidate but for different reasons. First, it was rewarding to share her research and receive critical feedback from the S-STEP faculty learning group. The faculty asked poignant questions about the coding process, the memos, and the photograph analysis with critical friends. Ramona felt energized by their intellectual curiosity. Second, it felt wonderful to share her work as part of a collegial teaching and learning process. She felt like everyone in the group “come to learn something” and treated her like a scholar– practitioner in theater education. In the passage below, Ramona reflected on her

48

S. Quiñones et al.

Table 3.1  Example of Analytical Memos written by Ramona Broomer MEMOS—Preliminary Round Transition The transition from working in professional theater to teaching theater full-time was very challenging because I had to acquire and use a new skill set so fast. Personal Narrative This data source is the heart of my self-study because it covers my introduction to instructional technology. My IT journey has been challenging but I would change a thing. MEMOS 1st ROUND 1st ROUND_Clearfield Classroom I never realized how much equipment is blocking my appearance. I give students an opportunity to use this classroom technology when they conduct their oral presentations. I think they should know how to use this equipment for future edification and to get a sense of what I am operating at the front of the class. 1st ROUND_Amy Way’s Analysis I am so focused on using the technology when I teach, I never considered how I look behind the technology. I really want to become more mindful of moving from behind the cart to improve my connection with the students. I also must admit I always feel safer and more at ease behind the technology cart. However, I must remember the students need to connect with me as the instructor and not the tools I use. This is another topic for a research article technology as a physical barrier to connecting with learners. 1st ROUND_Reflection 22 I copy content from the previous course shell in Desire2Learn, the course management system to the new semester. It is extremely important to comb through the content to make sure the links function; there are no typos, obsolete information, or incorrect email/Web addresses. I also change colors, fonts, tables, and images to avoid duplicating the same appearance, especially since I am teaching a new cohort of students. 1st ROUND_Reflection 32 This course gives students an opportunity to discover skills and talents that may never emerge in other classes. When given the instructions on how to design set, lights, and or costumes regardless of their major, the work they produce is pleasantly surprising to all. It seems to give a new level of confidence seeing what they are able to create and receiving positive feedback from peers and myself. 1st ROUND_Survey—Actions These action words are helping me realize how many different things I do when teaching theater with instructional technology. 1st ROUND_Survey—Resources I never considered how many different types of resources and/or materials I handle when teaching theater with instructional technology. I should take the time to list them specifically to see how many are obsolete and relevant. MEMOS—AFTER 2nd ROUND_5Photo_CLEARFIELD When the technology works, it is truly amazing how the curriculum can be delivered in an engaging manner that really reinforcements the meaning of theatrical terms and usage. When the technology fails, I have learned to proceed with the lesson I have prepared because the students are depending on me to teach them based on my CK Content Knowledge. 2nd ROUND_Personal Narrative (continued)

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

49

Table 3.1 (continued) This is my introduction to Instructor Ramona Broomer with this round of coding. I am pleasantly surprised by how frequently I articulate my Content Knowledge (CK). I also demonstrate varied technological knowledge (TK) and consciously change my Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) with the way I alter my teaching methods and instructional strategies.

emerging researcher voice and expertise in relation to her experience with the S-STEP faculty learning group: The tone and inviting nature of this constructive criticism helped me realize the value of my research and inquiry skills as a theatrical designer. My presentation illustrated my expertise at presenting multiple components for an audience to see and appreciate in theater and the academy (education). My researcher’s voice in theater is unspoken but observed three dimensionally and interpreted by a live audience from their perspective. My emerging voice as a qualitative researcher is articulated through literature and discrete data that must be consumed two dimensionally by scholars with or without my direct interpretation. Constructive criticism fueled and greatly impacted my writing and presentation showing my emerging researcher voice and expertise. (Ramona)

Overall, Ramona was grateful for the faculty members who commented on her strong identity as a qualitative researcher with knowledge and experience about how to use digital tools to leverage the data analysis process.

3.7.4  Focusing Strategies After presenting to the faculty learning group, Ramona was challenged with how to transition from the data analysis and interpretation phase to the writing of the qualitative findings (Wolcott, 2009). During a weekly meeting about the status of her dissertation writing, Ramona mentioned that she was still transitioning from the data analysis to the writing of the findings. Sandra could relate to what Ramona was experiencing because it also happened to her during the dissertation. Sandra had plenty of codes, categories, and potential themes after the second cycle of coding but she asked herself “Now what? How do I do justice to all of this data analysis?” Sandra admitted to Ramona that she too felt overwhelmed after the second cycle of coding. But more importantly, she offered a solution that worked for her, namely Saldaña’s (2013) “focusing strategies” (p. 247) for the transitional analytical phase. During the meeting, Sandra literally took Saldaña’s (2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers book from her bookshelf and opened it to chapter six. Ramona also had a copy of the same book so she did the same. Together via Zoom, they read the following passage from the book: Sometimes we become overwhelmed by the magnitude of our studies and thus need to intentionally focus the parameters of our investigation in progress to find its core. Forcing yourself to select a limited number of various ideas that have emerged from your study encourages you to prioritize the multiple observations and reflect on their essential meanings. (Saldaña, 2013, p. 247)

Ramona immediately resonated with this passage and together they reviewed Saldaña’s descriptions of four recommended focusing strategies. Ramona’s face lit

50

S. Quiñones et al.

up; she was excited and intrigued by the strategies. Sandra then informed Ramona that she used two of the focusing strategies mentioned in the book: the study’s trinity (pp. 247–248) and codeweaving (pp. 248–249) to transition from post-coding to prewriting in her dissertation. Therefore, she encouraged Ramona to try one or two of the focusing strategies before the next weekly meeting. Without hesitation, Ramona reviewed the entire chapter with particular attention to Saldaña’s four recommended focusing strategies. She decided to try the “top 10” list strategy and the trinity strategy. Of these two, she found the “top ten” strategy to be more fruitful and insightful. The following week, she shared the results of her focusing strategies with Sandra (See Appendix B).

3.7.5  Mentor Reflections This third and final act included two scenes related to the transitional analytical phase and the development of findings for a specific audience and purpose. Here, again with respect to the dimensions of professional learning discussed as part of our conceptual framework (Williams et al., 2012), we connect to the ideas of community (learning as belonging) and identity (learning as becoming). We (Sandra and Jason) shared struggles from our own graduate school experience with Ramona to demonstrate empathy for her learning process and to illustrate how different angles to a story can resonate with different audiences. We viewed our mentoring moves and the writing interactions with Ramona as part of a continuum of collaborative relationships that facilitated the development of a self-study dissertation. A key moment in that journey was when Ramona presented her emerging scholarship to the S-STEP faculty learning group in the department. This was a moment when faculty recognized Ramona as a self-study researcher, and she transitioned from being a doctoral candidate to a scholar–practitioner in theater education. In that presentation, she essentially owned the designation of being the “expert in the room” when it came to the topic of integrating technology in theater education. Further to this, as a result, the importance of both writing as a method of inquiry and educative mentoring became more evident to us. Together we dialogically engaged, often asynchronously, to think through ideas, tender critique, offer support, make sense of data, and frame the dissertation itself.

3.8  The Monologue Next, we share a reflective narrative written by Ramona specifically for this chapter. It focuses on her experiences and perspectives with attention to the role of mentoring, constructive criticism, the nature of dissertation research writing as a learning process, and how she has grown as a writer in self-study of practice.

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

51

3.8.1  Meeting Ramona the Instructor For over 15 years, I have integrated instructional technology into an introductory theater course using components of the Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework (Koehler et al., 2014). The integration of instructional technology has allowed my introductory course to develop beyond the walls of the classroom and added to a new level of communication with my students. I have incorporated engaging, interactive content well suited to the dynamic elements of theater presented in this course. The experience of combining my practical knowledge with the use of TPACK in theater education has been extremely rewarding. However, the transition from communicating my ideas on stage as a costume designer to teaching theater with technology is like learning how to speak a new language without the benefit of an interpreter. Therefore, the mentored dissertation writing process has been instrumental and revelatory for me as an emerging scholar– practitioner in theater education. This self-study process has allowed me an opportunity to meet a diligent, self-critical, and passionate educator for the first time—Professor Ramona Broomer. I am supported by two “keys actors” in the process: Dr. Sandra Quiñones (chair of the dissertation committee) and Dr. Jason Ritter (committee member and methodologist for my self-study dissertation). Both of these academic mentors have administered liberal amounts of constructive criticism with me as part of the dissertation process. While true that I am a novice researcher, I am a veteran at receiving critique. I have experienced constructive criticism from my professors and peers as an undergraduate fashion design major at Drexel University and a graduate costume design student at Temple University. Also, I have received years of critique from countless professional directors after presenting my costume designs for their approval. In a variety of circumstances, I have been asked to return to the drawing board and witnessed first-hand the difference constructive criticism can make, especially when it is a collaborative effort with more than one person providing feedback. For all of the reasons mentioned above, I felt a very familiar dynamic emerge when I started working with Dr. Quiñones and Dr. Ritter as mentors during my writing process. Each brought a unique style of constructive criticism and a distinct perspective for me to consider. Dr. Quiñones tends to deliver supportive criticism that is very direct. Her mentoring provides pathways to improved, albeit sometimes divergent, ways of thinking about my writing. She persistently magnifies the importance of adhering to the correct process, protocol, style, table, format, citation, or journal in a firm manner that is filled with encouragement. She shares a lot of readings and relevant scholarly literature. She has also helped me remain on task and on time by guiding my writing in a regulated, scheduled way. I now see writing and research as the profession she models, not an occasional vocation. By contrast, Dr. Ritter’s criticism during my writing process refines or redirects concepts I possess that are too broad or unclear. He provides measured suggestions steeped in literature for me to funnel through. He leads me from big concepts to

52

S. Quiñones et al.

consolidated verifiable claims that require relevant citations. Through a chance encounter several years ago, I saw a fascinating poster presentation featuring a self-­ study research project by Dr. Ritter that seemed suited to my education and experience. His guidance has taught me the value of contemplating multifaced areas of self-study research, including reflective writing. Reflection is vital in the life of an educator. It is the key to learning and it occurs when we create meaning from a past event and use this to shape future experiences. For three semesters in 2019, I wrote weekly reflections based on Gibbs’ (1988) model of reflective practice (Appendix A). The purpose of reflective writing as a part of my dissertation research was to capture my thinking and experiences teaching an introductory theater course using TPACK, as well as to save them as sources of data to revisit later during the formal data analysis process for my self-­study. Gibbs’ model is particularly useful if the researcher is new to reflection, as it is broken down into clearly defined sections. My self-study also embraced critical collaborative inquiry by incorporating the insight of a few colleagues serving as critical friends. A critical friend champions the co-construction of knowledge through collegial inquiry, conversation, and collaborative reflection within a climate of mutual vulnerability and risk-taking, trust, and support. There are several lessons I have learned from my mentors through this writing process. First, writing is an introspective process that benefits from being shared publicly. During the writing process now, I keep this in mind. Each sentence must be comprehended and communicated with others. The audience of a study, journal article, or book chapter is no longer looking at my work on stage; they need immediate gratification on the page. Second, reflective writing is essential to memorialize, analyze, and share my experience of adopting and mastering the integration of instructional technology in theater courses. This challenging endeavor allowed me the opportunity to carve out previous unscheduled time for self-examination and critical thinking; it has been an invitation to address undiscovered emotions with deep roots. Third, the best writing emerges when the mentee is open to constructive criticism or feedback. It is important to accept the criticism, implement the suggestions, and benefit from the results. Mastering the art and craft of academic writing requires reading, writing, listening, and lots of rewriting. It takes many drafts, but accepting criticism reveals better writing and, ultimately, stronger scholarship that exceeds singular aspirations. Recently, I reread the first draft of my dissertation, which is vastly different than the final draft. I have clearly grown as a writer in self-study of teaching through the mentoring process. That being said, if I could change anything about this process, I would have written reflectively throughout my graduate studies (i.e., during coursework in the doctoral program). The growth and benefits from one year of writing informed by Gibb’s (1998) model of reflective practice are palatable. I did not realize how much I had to offer others or, in some cases, how much I still had to learn until I began this self-study of my teaching practices. At the end of any production, when the curtain closes, the actors wait in great anticipation for a response from the audience. After all, everything they do is in preparation for an audience. The same is true, to some extent, with writing a

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

53

self-­study dissertation. I wait with great anticipation of how my research will be received and the criticism that may follow. It is fertile ground for the next paper, the next lecture, or my first book. Without an audience, the work remains in a vacuum as an academic endeavor. Therefore, I cannot wait to share my writing with a wider audience!

3.9  Conclusions and Recommendations By lifting and lowering the curtain on the mentoring of a self-study doctoral dissertation, we reveal writing as a cognitive, social, and situated process. We hope that the readers have enjoyed learning about the evolution of Ramona’s self-study dissertation and our approach(es) as educative mentors, with particular attention to writing as an integral part of the journey toward developing a scholarly practitioner identity. For faculty and graduate students pursuing similar developmental paths, we hope that making our journey explicit and public, as expected in self-study, will inspire you to go public with your own mentored writing processes. We conclude with recommendations for doctoral students and faculty advisors:

3.9.1  For Doctoral Students • Keep in mind that writing can play many roles during doctoral training (i.e., instrumental, epistemic, and communicative) and that supervisors may offer different types of writing support (see González-Ocampo & Castelló, 2018). • Participate in writing groups that promote accountability, collaboration, and ongoing learning (see Maher et al., 2008). • Visit self-study poster presentations, paper presentations, symposiums, and special interest groups at research conferences and meetings. • Become familiar with faculty and graduate students who are engaged with self-­ study methodology. • Collaborate with colleagues who do self-study; select dissertation committee members who are familiar with self-study of practice.

3.9.2  For Faculty Advisors • Review González-Ocampo & Castelló’s (2018) research describing characteristics of writing support offered by dissertation supervisors: telling what to do, revising and editing students’ text; discussing students’ processes and products collaboratively.

54

S. Quiñones et al.

• Be mindful of modeling writing as a heuristic tool and the role that direct and constructive criticism plays. • Keep in mind the importance of recommended readings, sometimes annotated for clarity and focus. Do not be afraid to select readings to enhance, and sometimes offer divergent perspectives to, what is being presented on the page. • Meet often or regularly as part of the process. We encourage establishing regular interactions that are dialogic. • When working with graduate students or peer-faculty that are novice in self-­ study, make sure to balance critique with encouragement. • Provide guided practice in learning self-study by doing self-study.

Appendices Appendix A: Reflective Writing The guided questions below are based on Graham Gibb’s (1988) model of reflective practice. This model is a six-stage approach, beginning with a description of the experience and continuing to conclusions and considerations for future events. These questions encourage me to reflect on my thoughts and feelings as an educator while generating data related to my research questions. Gibb’s model is a useful tool to help a researcher reflect after an experience. It is a particularly useful model if the researcher is new to reflection, as it is broken down into clearly defined sections: • • • • • • • • • • •

What happened? How do I feel before, during, and after my instruction? What insights have I gained about my students and myself from my instruction? What helped or hindered my students learning? What worked well? What did not work well? What did I learn from what worked well and what didn't work well? What did I learn from what didn't work well? What action will I take because of this experience? When will I take action to do the same or different because of this experience? Conclusion

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

55

 ppendix B: Top Ten Focusing Strategy (Adapted A from Saldaña, 2013)

Categories 1. Actions

Defined Utilizing Instructional Technology

2. Analysis

Exploring how I utilize Instructional Technology 3. Assessment Measuring Theater education instruction 4. Curriculum Theater education course content 5. Locations Places utilizing Instructional Technology 6. Perceptions Demeanor and Emotions utilizing Instructional Technology 7. Preparation Education and professional development

8. Resources

Teaching materials and equipment

9. Students

Utilizing Instructional Technology with Learners Periods utilizing Instructional Technology

10. Time

Quotes 88:88 I am going to display the remaining groups in a PowerPoint slide, so they know the exact order and presentation date. I will also send a follow-up email to see if anyone still needs to select chairs from the theater furniture stock. 129:15 Regardless of the number of students, how much instructional technology exists or how formal the teaching environment is the key in the teaching-­learning process is communication. 83:5 The section of the theater where the audience sits is called the house (True or False).

Color Orange

Brown

Dark Green

81:2 Play 1—Please respond to the following questions and submit them in the D2L drop box.

Red

129:1 Week 1 Monday Summer THEA110 121 Sloan Band Room

Pink

77:19 It’s interesting like it’s not just my thoughts about how I see myself but how other people perceive me and in that one, I look like a deer in the headlights.

Black

76:35 My graduate education in instructional technology at Duquesne University has been enlightening. I did not realize how much I knew until I began connecting theory, terminology, and research with the practical application of instructional technology I had been employing for years. 128:5 If you use need to contact me at any time, my email address is [email protected] Or you can call me at (570) 484 2126. Take care and thank you! 125:4 I can provide guidance to students by leading them to valid and reliable digital sources Yurdakul et al. (2012, pp. 975–976).

Light Green

99:4 DURING my instruction I felt a little anxious because I wanted to make sure that everyone was clear on how to access the online midterm and to access their electronic textbook while taking the test using Lockdown Browser and D2L.

Yellow

Purple

Light Blue

56

S. Quiñones et al.

References Allender, J., & Allender, D. S. (2008). The humanistic teacher: First the child, then curriculum. Paradigm. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.13. Ayieko, R. (2018). Identifying tensions and striving to improve international mathematics teacher educators’ practice through self-study. In J.  K. Ritter, M.  Lunenberg, K. ­Pithouse-­Morgan, A. P. Samaras, & E. Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting of self-­study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay (pp. 35–41). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8105-­7_4. Badenhorst, C., & Guering, C. (Eds.). (2016). Research literacies and writing pedagogies for masters and doctoral writers. Brill. Braun, R. (2017, January 17). Critical friends in self-studies. The Research Associate (RA) Notebooks. http://tirap.ucalgaryblogs.ca/2017/01/28/critical-­friends-­in-­self-­studies/. Bullough, R.  V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Research, 30(3), 13–21. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage. Cochran-Smith, M., & Paris, C. (1995). Mentor and mentoring: Did homer have it right? In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical discourses on teacher development (pp. 181–202). Cassell. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage. Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413–425. Craig, C. (2009). Trustworthiness in self-study research. In C.  A. Lassonde, S.  Galman, & C. M. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 21–34). Sense. Darwin, A. (2000). Critical reflections on mentoring in work settings. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(3), 197–211. Durdella, N. (2017). Qualitative dissertation methodology: A guide for research design and methods. Sage. Fuentealba, R., & Russell, T. (2016). Critical friends using self-study methods to challenge practicum assumptions and practices. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 227–234). S-STEP. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford. https:// thoughtsmostlyaboutlearning.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/learning-­b y-­d oing-­g raham-­ gibbs.pdf. González-Ocampo, G., & Castelló, M. (2018). Writing in doctoral programs: Examining supervisors’ perspectives. Higher Education, 76, 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­017-­0214-­1. Graff, G., & Birkenstein, K. (2018). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (4th ed.). Norton. Harris, J., Phillips, M., Koehler, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2017). TPCK/TPACK research and development: Past, present, and future directions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), i–viii. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3907. Hellawell, D. (2006). Inside-out: Analysis of the insider-outsider concept as a heuristic device to develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 483–494. Janesick, V. J. (2011). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage. Jones, R., & Brown, D. (2011). The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: Finding a model for our experience. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2011.622077. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Routledge. Koehler, M.  J., Shin, T.  S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R.  N. Ronau, M.  L. Niess, & C.  R. Rakes (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks

3  Mentoring a Doctoral Student Writing a Self-Study Dissertation: Setting the Stage…

57

and approaches (pp.  16–31). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-­1-­60960-­750-­0.ch002. Koehler, M.  J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T.  S., & Graham, C.  R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J.  M. Spector et  al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­1-­4614-­3185-­5_9. Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-­based participatory research approaches. Guilford. Mackintosh, J. (n.d.). Educative mentoring. LINK. https://www.herts.ac.uk/link/volume-­4,-­issue-­1/ educative-­mentoring. Maher, D., Seaton, L., McMullen, C., Fitzgerald, T., Otsuji, E., & Lee, A. (2008). Becoming and being writers: The experiences of doctoral students in writing groups. Studies in Continuing Education, 30(3), 263–275. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Sage. McClintock, C. (2004). The scholar-practitioner model. In A.  DiStefano, K.  E. Rudestam, & R. J. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 393–396). Sage. Méndez-Morse, S. (2004). Constructing mentors: Latina educational leaders’ role models and mentors. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 561–590. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Paulus, T. M., Jackson, K., & Davidson, J. (2017). Digital tools for qualitative research: Disruptions and entanglements. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(10), 751–756. Pennanen, M., Bristol, L., Wilkinson, J., & Heikkinen, H. L. T. (2016). What is ‘good’ mentoring? Understanding mentoring practices of teacher induction through case studies of Finland and Australia. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 24, 27–53. Perry, J. (2015). The EdD and scholarly practitioners. School Administrator, 21–25. Quiñones, S. (2018). Begin with yourself: Using self-study methodology in the process of cultivating mindfulness. In J.  K. Ritter, M.  Lunenberg, K.  Pithouse-Morgan, A.  P. Samaras, & E. Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting self-study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay (pp. 69–76). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8105-­7_9. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E.  A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.  K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Sage. Ritter, J. (2018). On the tension-fraught enterprise of teaching self-study to colleagues. In J.  K. Ritter, M.  Lunenberg, K.  Pithouse-Morgan, A.  P. Samaras, & E.  Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting self-study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay (pp. 21–33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8105-­7_3. Ritter, J. K., & Quiñones, S. (2020). Where do I begin? Entry points of self-study. In A. Berry, S.  Bullock, A.  Crowe, H.  Guðjónsdóttir, J.  Kitchen, & M.  Taylor (Eds.), 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 1–37). Springer. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_11-­1. Ritter, J. K., Lunenberg, M., Pithouse-Morgan, K., Samaras, A. P., & Vanassche, E. (Eds.). (2018). Teaching, learning, and enacting of self-study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8105-­7. Saldaña, J. (2003). Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time. AltaMira. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. Samaras, A. P. (2010). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Sage. Samaras, A., & Freese, A. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices: A primer. Peter Lang. Samaras, A.  P., Hicks, M.  A., & Berger, J.  G. (2004). Self-study through personal history. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 905–942). Springer.

58

S. Quiñones et al.

Stanulis, R., Wexler, L., Pylman, S., Guenther, A., Farver, S., Ward, A., … White, K. (2018). Mentoring as more than “cheerleading”: Looking at educative mentoring practices through mentors’ eyes. Journal of Teacher Education, 1–14. Terrell, S. R. (2016). Writing a proposal for your dissertation: Guidelines and examples. Guilford. Tidwell, D., Heston, M., & Fitzgerald, L. (Eds). (2009). Research methods for the self-study of practice. Springer. Trevethan, H., & Sandretto, S. (2017). Repositioning mentoring as educative: Examining missed opportunities for professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 127–133. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organisation Articles, 7(2), 226–246. Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381–400. Wexler, L. (2019). ‘I would be a completely different teacher if I had been with a different mentor’: Ways in which educative mentoring matters as novices learn to teach. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 1–18. Williams, J.  A. (2018). Being othered and finding my voice: Using self-study to better understand my experiences as an early childhood teacher educator. In J. K. Ritter, M. Lunenberg, K.  Pithouse-Morgan, A.  P. Samaras, & E.  Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting self-study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay (pp. 77–83). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8105-­7_10. Williams, J., Ritter, J., & Bulllock, S. M. (2012). Understanding the complexity of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245–260. Wolcott, H.  F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage. Wolcott, H. F. (2009). Writing up qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage. Woolf, N. H., & Silver, C. (2018). Qualitative analysis using ATLAS.ti: The five-level QDA method. Routledge. Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028009004.

Part II

Self Study as an Inquiry Method

Chapter 4

Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning and Self-Understanding Judy Williams

Abstract  Journaling is a common method used by self-study researchers. In this chapter, the author illustrates how she has used the writing of a personal reflective journal as a key data generation tool in a self-study about making the transition from school teacher to university-based teacher educator. The self-study presented in this chapter explored the author’s professional transition over the course of 1 year, during which her journal writing proved to be more than merely a source of data, and a record of events and experiences. The act of writing and reflecting facilitated deeper understanding of the complex processes involved in becoming a teacher educator and enabled the author/researcher to record, question, wonder and attempt to explain her actions and emotions, and those of people around her. This chapter illuminates the ways in which journaling as a self-study method helps researchers to keep the focus on the self in a self-study, while also considering the range of contextual factors that influence the process of professional becoming. The author concluded that journaling takes courage and requires deep reflection. It provided an opportunity to express how she experienced becoming a teacher educator and was a window into who she is as a teacher, teacher educator and researcher. Although this involves being vulnerable and trusting of the reader, such sharing of personal experiences and insights contributes to knowledge of the work and lives of teacher educators more broadly.

The use of journaling in self-study research is not unusual. In fact, it would be hard to imagine a self-study being undertaken without some form of personal, reflective journaling being part of the data generation process. The form of the journal may vary—it might be a text-based diary, blog, electronic communication, visual or artistic form—but the idea of recording actions, events, thoughts, emotions and J. Williams (*) Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_4

61

62

J. Williams

interactions is essential if a self-study researcher is to focus on his or her self within the research context. However, the ways in which journals are utilised, and how they transform from raw data to published research, have not been examined to a great degree in the research literature (see Thomas & Geursen, 2013; Strong Makaiau et al., 2019). In this chapter, I provide an account of how I have used text-based journaling in self-study and how these journal entries have enabled me to transform not only their form (from data through analysis to publication) but my understanding of myself in practice as a teacher educator. Reflective journals provide significant data for self-study research and evidence of research findings in publications. However, they are also a form of knowledge generation (research) in themselves and provide a rich tapestry of personal and professional learning. Most forms of journaling represent a form of narrative inquiry. It is writing that documents the author’s thoughts and emotions, and their responses and reactions to particular events. Journaling also helps to tell a significant story of learning, practice and identities over time and in different contexts. Journals contain the elements described by Clandinin and Connelly (2000) as being essential to narrative inquiry: a sense of time and place, enabling the researcher to look ‘backward and forward, inward and outward…locating them in place’ (p. 54). Journals as a narrative form capture the ‘ambiguity, complexity, difficulty and uncertainties’ (p.  55) of research and of experience. These dimensions of journaling certainly resonate with me and help me to see the ways in which my self-study journals over the past decade or so have enabled me to tell the story of my professional learning and experiences through the very process of generating these data. I am able to reflect on what that story says to me and the significance it has for my professional and personal learning, thus helping me to make sense of my experiences as a teacher educator. Journaling also provides me with an opportunity to reflect on what the significance of my personal stories of experience may have for others and to consider what my contribution to knowledge about teacher education more broadly might be. Richardson (1997) reminds us that ‘narrative is both a mode of reasoning and a mode of representation’ (p. 28). The narrative nature of journaling, especially when maintained over an extended period of time, helps the writer/researcher to make meaning of his or her experiences and to utilise these data when supporting an argument in publications about the research. As Richardson and St Pierre (2005) argue, ‘the writing process and the writing product [are] deeply intertwined’ (p. 962) in any form of ethnographic research. Self-study falls under the umbrella of research methodologies that explore the lived experiences of people, individually and collectively, in relation to, and interaction with, their particular contexts. In exploring my lived experiences in the context of teacher education, I have undertaken many self-studies, individually and collaboratively. The search for an understanding of my personal and professional identity, and the connections between these, has been a common thread in most of these self-studies over the past decade or so. I am intrigued by the notion of professional identity and self-­ understanding and have undertaken self-studies in different contexts to explore this idea in depth and to contribute to knowledge about what being (or becoming) a teacher educator is all about. Throughout my career as a teacher educator, the use of

4  Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning…

63

journaling as a significant data generation strategy in my self-studies has not only facilitated the various research projects, but has played an important part in my ability to focus, reflect on and articulate my learning. I have used journaling in most of my self-studies, but it has been most important in the self-studies that have been significant markers in the progression of my career: my transition into academia from school teaching (Williams, 2013; Williams & Ritter, 2010), my work in the area of international professional experience (Williams, 2017; Williams & Berry, 2016; Williams & Grierson, 2016), my experiences of editing a collection of narratives of experience on becoming a teacher educator (Hayler & Williams, 2018), and co-teaching with a school teacher in the university context (Williams et al., 2018a). In each of these self-studies, reflective journals provided the primary means of data generation and a vehicle through which I began to more deeply understand who I am as a teacher educator. They were also an important basis for conversations I had with critical friends, colleagues and collaborators. For this chapter, I have selected one of my first self-studies with which to explore the role of journaling in self-study. The article, Boundary crossing and working in the third space: Implications for a teacher educator’s identity and practice (Williams, 2013), examined my experiences as a novice practicum supervisor and the impact these had on my evolving professional identity. While all my self-studies have been based on journaling data, this particular self-study illustrates how powerful journaling was for me as a beginning teacher educator and novice researcher. It was my first experience of journaling over a sustained period of time (1 year) and showed me the value of writing as a research process, even before I was familiar with Richardson’s and St. Pierre’s work about writing as a method of inquiry. This self-study sparked my interest in using journaling as a method in self-study, as I saw the power it had in helping me to gain insights and understanding of my professional and personal self and my practice. When I again review my journal for the article featured in this chapter and when I look at the process I used to analyse it, I can see the complex nature of sense-making that is fundamental to writing as a form of qualitative research. Richardson and St. Pierre (2005) maintain that writing is a ‘dynamic creative process’ (p. 960) and that in a postmodern world, qualitative writers ‘have plenty to say as situated speakers, subjectivities engaged in knowing/telling about the world as they perceive it’ (p. 961). My experiences of journaling for self-study inquiry have allowed me to write freely, explore tensions, confusions and insights and, by the very process of writing, begin to create a clearer picture of who I am (and was becoming). This is not as neat and tidy as it might seem—the writing process can reveal hidden contradictions and uncertainties that do not magically disappear when exposed on the page or computer screen. Writing, especially a form as personal and introspective as reflective journaling, helps us to see and begin to understand these quandaries, but they do not necessarily provide the answers. As this chapter shows, these often come much later and can just as often be accompanied by more questions.

64

J. Williams

4.1  C  ontext of the Journaling: Professional Identity and Self-­Understanding of Teacher Educators The literature on the professional identity of teacher educators is growing, with new understandings of this process unfolding all the time (e.g. Chang et al., 2016; Kirk & Lipscombe, 2019; Strong Makaiau et al., 2019). The notion of professional identity is complex and contested in the literature (see Hayler & Williams, 2020), with much discussion about whether or not there is a core identity, or one that evolves over time, in context, and in relation to others. Keltchermans (2017) maintains that rather than risk an ‘essentialist’ understanding of identity, a more useful concept is that of ‘self-understanding’. He argues that ‘teachers’ narrative accounts of their experiences are not just informative about how they think about themselves. Rather, they construct that self-understanding in the interactive act, at the same time (implicitly or explicitly) inviting the ‘audience’ to acknowledge, confirm, or question and contradict the statement. Narrative accounts revealing one’s self-understanding are moments of interactive sense making’ (p. 14). While I believe that there is some form of inner, essential self (or identity) that is the basis of the process of becoming, my use of journaling in self-study has been a significant part in the ongoing process of self-understanding. When this is translated into publications, I am, as Keltchermans suggests, inviting the reader to consider how my experiences might shed some light on their own and help them on their own journey to professional self-understanding.

4.2  M  aking the Transition: From Teacher to Teacher Educator During Practicum Supervision Much of the literature about what it means to (be)come a teacher educator revolves around making the transition from school teacher to teacher educator in a post-­ secondary or tertiary context. Over the past two decades or so, many beginning teacher educators have documented their experiences of this transition through self-­ study research, with many using journaling to generate their data (see, for example, Allen, Park Rogers & Borowski, 2016; Boyd & Harris, 2010; Bullock & Christou, 2009; Dinkelman, Margolis & Sikkenga, 2006; McKeon & Harrison, 2010; Ritter, 2007). Some beginning teacher educators have explored their initial experiences as practicum supervisors (Allen, Park Rogers & Borowski, 2016; Cuenca, 2010; Diacopoulos & Butler, 2020), and all appeared to struggle with the notion of who they are within this context. For example, Allen asked himself questions such as: ‘What is my role as a field instructor? Am I a teacher educator? What is the difference between the two? What are my expectations for myself? What are the students’ expectations of me?’ (Allen, Park Rogers & Borowski, 2016, p.329). Diacopoulos was also challenged by questions such as ‘How would I navigate the problematic space of teacher supervision? Was my experience as a public-school educator of 20

4  Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning…

65

years enough to help teacher candidates find success? How would my learning of supervision affect my emerging practice as a teacher educator?’ (Diacopoulos & Butler, 2020, p. 67). The tension between prior experiences as a school teacher and their new context as teachers of preservice teachers in a higher education setting are a common theme in research about beginning teacher educators and was the basis of the paper that is featured in this chapter (Williams, 2013). After reviewing the field of literature about the transition from teacher to teacher educator, Williams et al. (2012) concluded that the process of becoming a teacher educator [is] complex and multilayered, and influenced by three key factors: personal and professional biography; institutional contexts and the nature of community; and the on-going development of a personal pedagogy of teacher education. Becoming a teacher educator involves examining beliefs and values grounded in personal biography, and dealing with the inherent tensions that arise from overlapping and interrelated personal and professional identities (p. 256).

The literature about becoming a teacher educator, however, is not restricted to the experiences of those new to the profession. As identity construction and self-­ understanding are ongoing, many more experienced teacher educators continue to explore their professional ‘becoming’ well into their careers (e.g. Hayler & Williams, 2020). One way in which reflection on this process of professional becoming is undertaken is through the use of journaling, with many of the studies cited above utilising this data generation process in their research. When I first made the transition from primary school teacher to university-based teacher educator, I was faced with the struggles and dilemmas that are faced by many of the authors cited above. I was not only learning what it meant to teach preservice teachers in university classrooms and lecture theatres, but I was also working in the professional experience programme, which involved school visits and practicum supervision. In the not so distant past, I had been a mentor teacher, supervising preservice teachers in my own classroom. Now, I was the ‘visiting academic’ supporting and assessing students during their practicum in schools. I was keen to be in schools again, but I was not sure exactly what it was that a ‘visiting academic’ actually did. Who is this new person that I was asked to be? I had no idea. Although I had extensive experience as a classroom teacher and mentor of preservice teachers, I had no understanding of what I was meant to do when I visited schools as a teacher educator. I had a strange sense of déjà vu whenever I entered a school, and I had difficulty seeing myself in this new academic role. I used to be a teacher, but was I still one? How had that change happened? At that early stage of my academic career, the difference between a professional role and a professional identity was not clear to me. In order to make sense of this new professional ‘me’, I decided to undertake a self-study of my experiences of practicum supervision. This self-study (Williams, 2013) involved the generation of 19 pages of journal data, written at intervals over the course of one year. The first entries were written after on-campus meetings with preservice teachers; the remainder was written after visits to schools during practicum supervision. There were also several email exchanges with preservice teachers and mentor teachers, although these cannot be considered journaling. These data provided me with important insights into my evolving

66

J. Williams

identity and practice as a beginning teacher educator and allowed me to explore my experiences, thoughts and responses after particularly eventful school visits.

4.3  A  nalysing Journaling to Explore My Professional Identity and Self-Understanding The first phase of analysis of data for the self-study, which involved identifying key ideas that ‘jumped out at me’ due to their salience, revealed that there were important concepts that appeared regularly throughout my journal. Data were read multiple times and key ideas noted in each successive reading. As Saldaña (2011) notes, ‘By reading and re-reading the [data] you gain intimate familiarity with its contents and begin to notice significant details as well as make new insights about their meanings’ (p.  95). Concepts that emerged from the data included: relational and ethical dilemmas; the predicament of ‘taking sides’ or creating allegiances; a confused sense of whether or not I was a ‘teacher’ or a ‘teacher educator’ or both; and attempts to identify the philosophical bases of my practice. There was also much evidence of the emotional energy expended during practicum supervision. Analysis of the data leads to a list of approximately 250 words or phrases that described my emotional state before, during or after a school visit. Words included: comfortable, struggling, relaxed, authentic, calm, fearful, anxious, uneasy, wary, nervous, obliged, out of place—the list goes on. Puzzling over the data lead me to identity three broad themes that captured the conflicted emotions and personal and professional challenges inherent in my work as a practicum supervisor. The data suggested that my work involved: managing conflicting identities; a growing awareness of different perspectives on what it means to learn to teach; and the ongoing need to negotiate relationships with and between preservice teachers and their mentors in schools. These insights, gained from multiple readings of my journal data, provided the basis of an emerging understanding of who I was as a beginning teacher educator. This self-study was instrumental in my awareness of an unfolding professional identity, a process that continues to this day. In the following sections, each of these themes is unpacked, showing how my journaling throughout the year transformed from raw ‘data’ to ‘research’, that is, the generation of new knowledge presented in the article, that is valuable not only to me personally and professionally, but to others working in teacher education.

4.4  Managing Conflicting Identities Early in my experience as a practicum supervisor, I documented my interactions with preservice teachers and their mentor teachers, both in on-campus classes and during school visits. In my journal, I recorded what I did, expressed how I felt and,

4  Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning…

67

interestingly, posed many questions to myself. It was to some extent these questions that lead to further exploration in subsequent journal entries of the issues they raised—for example, wondering about how others perceived me in the role of ‘visiting academic’; anxiety about what I was supposed to do and say during school visits; uncertainty about how I should interact with mentor teachers and students, especially in situations of conflict between them; and questioning what is actually meant by the notion of a ‘professional identity’. Early in the year I wrote: I met with my students and two of them are placed at one of my former schools… When this relationship was raised in our small group discussion, I told the students that I knew the school and some of the teachers, but [I wondered] how ‘familiar’ I should sound. One of the students transmitted a humorous message from the principal, who is a former teaching colleague. Is it appropriate to [engage in] this interaction? Why did I do it? Am I being unprofessional? I felt more like a teacher than a teacher educator at this moment – I relaxed and used more casual language. I wondered how the students perceived this relationship. Does it make them more confident in their interactions with me, or perhaps a bit intimidated? I made it clear that I had a strong identity with the teaching profession, and a shared teaching history. I wonder if I felt it gave me some sort of credibility in the eyes of my students? (February 11)

In this excerpt from my journal, I was clearly struggling with how I was perceived by the preservice teachers whom I would be visiting in the school. I still wanted to be seen as a ‘real teacher’, but I was uncomfortable with some issues that this relationship might create. I was a real teacher but also a visiting academic and a teacher educator. I wanted to be seen as credible in the eyes of the preservice teachers, but I was conscious of the tension between my teacher self and my academic self. Other journal entries frequently recorded my internal conflict in being an experienced teacher but a novice teacher educator. For example, when I visited one of the preservice teachers (PSTs) in a different school, I wrote that: ‘When I went over to the classroom where the PSTs were waiting, I had a very strange sensation…Hearing [the mentor teacher] use the same type of language that I used to use with my primary students, and seeing the look of anticipation and excitement on the faces of all the students (his and mine) I suddenly felt quite sad and nostalgic. I used to do this! Part of me briefly thought, “I could do this again.” Nostalgia for the old me!’ (February 25). I was frequently torn between the ‘old’ me and the ‘new’ me and an attempt to create some sort of reconciliation between the two was a regular feature in my journal over the course of the year. There were many entries that recorded my experiences of trying to understand what it meant to be both a teacher and a teacher educator. The act of writing in my journal, and using this process to untangle these contradictory and disconcerting feelings, enabled me to ponder and reflect, in my own time and place, on the professional transition that I was undergoing. In the final publication (Williams, 2013, p. 124), I captured this attempt to manage conflicting identities, using one of my journal entries as evidence of this struggle: Being torn between these two professional selves forced me to consider how I could reconcile these different and shifting identities, so that they were not separate and conflicting but connected and aligned and, most importantly, relevant and useful to the learning of the student teacher… I was conscious of being a primary teacher, just as they were, but I was

68

J. Williams also aware that I was now somehow different, with new experiences and perceptions that have developed during my time as a teacher educator. For example, after a visit to one school at which I met up with a former teaching colleague, I noted in my journal: Here, with Don in the school ground, surrounded by kids and noise, so familiar, I felt at home. I want to hold on to that, but to also be someone who has moved beyond that. I was wearing both ‘hats’ … How can I be the ‘old me’ and the ‘new me’, all at the same time?… I have to harness the knowledge and understanding that I have developed [as a teacher] and use it to frame my own pedagogy in teacher education. (March 18)

4.5  Changing Perspectives As the self-study unfolded, my journal entries show that in addition to trying to work out who I was as a teacher educator in relation to practicum supervision, I was also attempting to make sense of my changing perspectives on what it means to be a preservice teacher and to learn about teaching. My experiences of practicum supervision, and documenting this in my journal, enabled me to see this professional learning with new insights and perspectives and to gain a deeper understanding of my role in it. My journal contained many observations and questions about my work in relation to supporting preservice teachers on placement and about how I was beginning to see things that I did not see when I was a mentor teacher in a school, supervising preservice teachers. I was aware of the need to acknowledge the perspectives of the mentor teachers, but I also had to understand the challenges that the preservice teachers were going through. My musings about this tension in the journal helped me to see my role as a teacher educator more clearly—that one of the most important aspects of the work is to help mediate these different perspectives. For example, early in the year after a visit to a school in which the preservice teacher was deemed ‘at risk’ of failing the placement, I wrote: My interactions with the [teachers] were very positive, and I felt that what they said in relation to the pre-service teacher was reasonable. However, [the pre-service teacher] didn’t [agree] and is very angry and upset at the feedback she is getting from them. When I met with her alone, I felt that I needed to support her in her concerns, but…I was aware of being ‘torn’ between advocating for her interests, but actually ‘taking the side’ of the teachers. Was I being unsupportive of my student? Was I behaving more as a teacher than a teacher educator? What exactly is my position here – does it have to be one or the other? I understand the pre-service teacher’s concerns, but my knowledge and experience as a teacher tell me that she is being unreasonable and defensive, and that the teachers are only trying to help her. Am I her advocate, or do I tell her that she is over-reacting and that she is part of the problem?... I feel somewhat like a ‘traitor’ to her”. (March 18)

This journal entry shows my unease in the situation, but generally showing that I was tending to be more sympathetic to the mentor teacher’s perspective than that of the preservice teacher. I thought that the preservice teacher was just being difficult and should accept the mentors’ feedback in good grace, even if she disagreed with it. As the year progressed, I began to read more of the research literature about learning to teach during the practicum, and I was also becoming more heavily involved in visiting preservice teachers who were deemed to be ‘at risk’. In

4  Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning…

69

documenting these readings and experiences in my journal, it is evident that I was beginning to see a more complex picture emerging of what it means to learn to teach as a preservice teacher and that while the mentor teachers have much experience as teachers, they do not always have the insights that teacher educators bring to the practicum context. Midway through the year, I documented my thoughts about a difficult school visit: I have just returned from a very uncomfortable visit to an ‘at risk’ student...The tone of the mentor teacher’s communication via email was…very demanding and quite dismissive of the student…The mentor is expecting the student to perform at a level that I think is too high – she was labelled ‘at risk’ after only 3 days. I felt that I was unable to ‘connect’ with this mentor as her beliefs appeared to be very different from mine…While I am very supportive of the teaching profession as a whole, it was very obvious to me that I was not able to relate to this mentor teacher and even felt slightly offended by her manner. How do we as teacher educators convey our beliefs and expectations for students, when mentors take this as us making excuses for students who do not ‘perform’ well? I got a sense that this mentor did not trust my judgement, and…I found her lack of empathy confronting…It made me think very hard about what it is that I value in teaching and teachers…I felt that the mentor was making very harsh judgements about this student, but then perhaps I am making harsh judgements about the mentor… I have a great deal of empathy for the student, but at what point is that counterproductive? She still needs to be a ‘competent’ teacher in order to pass this course. (May 2)

By journaling soon after this and other school visits, I gave myself the opportunity to reflect on what was said and done and to try to work out where I stood on particular issues. After each ‘at risk’ school visit, I had to decide whether or not the preservice teacher passed or failed the placement or if they were moved to another school and given extra time to develop their knowledge and skills. As my experience grew, and my journaling progressed, so did my awareness of the many facets of learning to teach and the importance of expert mentoring (whether from the mentor teacher or the teacher educator) to the development of preservice teachers. There is always more than one perspective in a situation. To understand what these perspectives are and to make a decision in such an emotionally charged and high-stakes situation, dialogue and respecting different views are essential. My journaling helped me to unpack the various perspectives that I was exposed to—the views of experienced teachers and principals; the circumstances of preservice teachers with diverse backgrounds and experiences; and my own evolving understanding as an experienced classroom teacher and a teacher educator. The process of journaling after such difficult and confronting school visits helped me to uncover, debate and empathise with the various perspectives that inevitably arose. In the final publication of the self-study (Williams, 2013), I discussed the need to see different perspectives when involved in practicum supervision and that this also involved finding a balance between my own perspectives as a teacher and as a teacher educator. The article shows that by the middle of the year, I was increasingly aware that learning to be a teacher was not merely learning how to teach, but how to be a teacher. I wrote: My work with student teachers in the field prompted me to deeply reflect on my purpose as a teacher educator in this context and to always bear in mind that student teachers are not

70

J. Williams merely performing as teachers, but that they are in fact forging new professional identities…As different perspectives of teacher professional learning were swirling in my head, and coming to life in front of my eyes during school visits, I was also aware of my occasional frustration with mentor teachers who seemed to focus first and foremost on the procedural and technical aspects of teaching, with apparently little regard for the person doing the teaching. I noted in my journal that: I can see a clear disjunction between how [the mentor teacher] sees teaching and how I see it as a teacher educator. I can see a big change between how I perceived it early in my teacher educator career…compared to how I see teacher education now. .. I am aware of a gulf between how some mentor teachers think and how I now think. Is this a turning point in my journey of becoming a teacher educator? I know and acknowledge where they are coming from, but I no longer share [all their concerns]…Is becoming a teacher educator about growth of understanding and broadening of horizons, as much as about developing a ‘pedagogy of teacher education’? Is the broadening of understanding part of the pedagogy? (16 May 2011). This and other journal entries revealed a level of frustration and a growing awareness of my changing perspectives in relation to teaching and learning, and were therefore evidence of my gradually evolving pedagogy of teacher education (Williams, 2013, p. 125–6)

4.6  Negotiating Relationships The third finding of the self-study was the importance of negotiating relationships in the process of becoming a teacher educator. I learned through my experiences and my journaling that being involved in practicum supervision is not merely about giving advice and filling in evaluation forms, but negotiating often fraught relationships. I had to establish trusting relationships with both mentor teachers and preservice teachers. To build trust, I often reminded them of my teacher background and showed them that I really did understand the practicalities of classroom teaching. There are several journal entries that document how and why I used this as a strategy to build trust with mentor teachers. For example, on many occasions I used ‘teacher talk’ as a way of breaking down the perceived professional gulf between us, especially as an ‘ice-breaker’ in challenging situations. After a visit to a school that had been critical of our teacher education programme, I wrote: ‘After a few minutes of non-communication, I broke the ice by asking her how she thought B [the PST] was going. As we got into a deeper conversation…she seemed to relax and be less confrontational...I deliberately slipped into ‘teacher talk’ to try to diffuse the tension that appeared to be there when we first spoke. Instead of talking ‘to the university’ over the phone, she was talking to me, a teacher who was familiar with the local area’. (November 3). As well as the need to develop trusting relationships in my work, I was also developing a broader understanding of learning to teach through my many school visits, teaching on campus and delving into the research literature on this topic. My journal showed that I was attempting to bring all these factors together to enable the various participants in the practicum experience to have a positive outcome. I was beginning to see that negotiating relationships laid at the heart of this work.

4  Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning…

71

I visited a school today, in which an international student is deemed to be at risk of not passing the placement. The main concern is her English…Her mentor, J, is very concerned that the children can’t understand the pre-service teacher’s speech and she does not model good English…I feel very anxious about this and find it very confronting to deal with. I can understand the classroom teachers’ concerns…However, I feel it is a much bigger issue than incorrect English  – are we judging these students to be unsuccessful as teachers because they do not have perfect English? The teacher educator in me sees this bigger issue…[while] the teacher in me understands and shares the mentor’s concern that children need to be taught English correctly. This really challenges me to walk that fine line between understanding and empathising with the various perspectives in this situation. (June 1)

I used my journaling as a way in which to make sense of the precarious relationships that I sometimes had to negotiate, between the mentor and preservice teacher and between them and me. Journaling also helped me maintain empathy and understanding for everyone involved in the situation. For example, at the end of my work with the international student mentioned above, I realised that the main issue really was not her teaching, but the breakdown in the relationship between her and her mentor teacher. I had corresponded with both the mentor teacher and the preservice teacher over the weekend and reflected in my journal: …I had the two emails there, almost as if I was talking to them both in the same room…The tension between the two emails was clear when I looked at them both – two very different personalities and perspectives. My empathy went out to J who firmly believes that she is doing the right thing by H and her own students, but then I felt sadness and compassion for H when she wrote: “While I was doing placement, I tried not to think she treated me unfairly. I myself consider that she is just one of the people who care things a lot and what she thinks is right. But after spending last two placement days, I cannot help but wonder if she would treat me same if I am an Aussie [Australian] student teacher? Sorry that I keep asking you unpleasant things but I cannot just let it go.” I felt very uncomfortable to think that an international student was made to feel this way. It made me realize that my responsibility to pre-service teachers isn’t just in their capacity as students, but to them as people. Being a teacher educator means recognizing the complexities that mentors and pre-service teachers have to deal with in their respective positions, and somehow trying to find the common ground so they can at least work productively together. (September 26)

My journal also documented my interactions with another preservice teacher, Rose, and her mentor teacher. Rose was also deemed to be at risk, so I undertook several school visits to support and advise her and to work with her mentor teacher to see if the situation could be salvaged. Rose had her ideals about how teachers should be in the classroom, but her mentor was concerned that she would not cope with the demands of teaching and children, and their relationship was deteriorating fast. I was torn between my desire to support Rose, while acknowledging that the advice of the mentor teacher was probably correct. Rose believed that the main problem was a mismatch between her and her mentor; her mentor claimed that Rose had had a ‘severe reality check’ during the practicum that she was just not suited to teaching. In journaling about my visit to see Rose and her mentor teacher, I grappled with questions of ethics and professional responsibilities, tensions between my teacher self and my teacher educator self, questions about the nature of learning to teach, and about how we assess preservice teachers as suitable or proficient as a teacher, or not. In the final publication (Williams, 2013), I discussed the importance of

72

J. Williams

negotiating relationships when different perspectives were in play, using selected excepts from my journal about my interactions with Rose as an example of the difficult task of negotiating the relationships between myself, the preservice teacher and the mentor teacher. I wrote: I visited Rose in her classroom and my subsequent journal entry illustrated my struggles to bring together two parties who had such different perspectives on teaching, but to nevertheless acknowledge the validity of both…I found that I had to be very diplomatic in balancing the conflicting beliefs and needs of mentor and preservice teacher. I also felt very much caught in the middle. I wrote that: When speaking to the mentor teacher, I can understand her frustration with Rose’s apparent lack of organization and [not] being on top of things… I struggle, though, as I see much learning in Rose, [although] the teaching is not coming together at the moment. Is that the difference between mentor teachers and teacher educators – we focus on the learning of our students, and they focus on the teaching? Are these different things? It was heart-wrenching to meet with Rose alone after the lesson… and tell her that she is considered at risk of failing this placement. She was in tears, looking so disappointed and defeated. Teaching is so much about the person, and here I was saying she is “not good enough.” I felt a sense of betrayal because I have followed her challenges and personal growth through the year. .. How can I support Rose to continue on her journey to becoming a teacher, while recognizing that she is not there yet? (02 November 2011). In this situation, I realized that my work as a teacher educator…is about acknowledging the mentor teacher’s concerns about performance but, at the same time, supporting the emotional, pedagogical, and philosophical growth of a struggling preservice teacher. In these two cases, it was indeed like the “complicated dance” described by Martin et al. (2011, p. 305). (p. 127).

4.7  Reflections on Learning from Self-Study Journaling In this chapter, I have shown how the writing of a reflective journal can be an insightful and transformative process, especially when undertaken over an extended period of time. When I first begin my self-study journey, I kept reflective journals because that was what I thought I was supposed to do. And yes, it was a rich source of data to draw on when preparing the final write up of the research. However, over the years, it has proven to be much more than that. As the article referred to in this chapter (Williams, 2013), and other self-study publications show, my reflective journal writing has become much more than mere data generation. It is the means through which my inner voice (personal and professional) emerges, sometimes tentatively, sometimes confidently, into the public space of research dissemination and knowledge generation. Just like others (e.g. Allen, Park Rogers & Borowski, 2016; Diacopoulos & Butler, 2019), my reflective journals have helped me to ask questions, interrogate challenging situations and express my anger, annoyance, hurt, pride—whatever emotions I was feeling at the time. In doing so, these journals have become my friend and confidante and have contributed to my learning about my work, and about myself in context, all the while knowing that these thoughts (and sometime secrets) are mine alone, unless I choose to share them through my publications. My journals have become a source of powerful self-knowledge. The very

4  Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning…

73

act of writing, as I am doing now, helps me to make sense of my personal and professional worlds and where these worlds sometimes collide. In other words, journaling becomes research. This is evident in the conclusion to the article where I wrote: The transformative nature of this self-study has enabled me to see that I do not have to choose between being a teacher and being a teacher educator, but that I “belong to both one world and another” (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, p. 141). It has helped me to uncover how a familiar and often taken for granted professional practice (mentoring preservice teachers on practicum) is actually a highly complex and delicate endeavour… (p. 128)

The themes of the 2013 self-study that have been presented in this chapter, in relation to that particular self-study, have also been themes that have dominated my research in the years since. My use of journaling for subsequent self-studies has shown my attempts to reconcile my teacher/teacher educator identities and how I am never wholly one or the other. The theme of ‘conflicted identities’ has appeared repeatedly in my self-study work since the article was written. Whether it was in making the transition from school teaching to academia (Williams, 2013; Williams & Ritter, 2010), the context of practicum supervision abroad (Williams & Berry, 2016; Williams et al., 2014; Williams & Grierson, 2016), working with teachers in schools (Williams et al., 2018b) or taking on new roles as an academic (Hayler & Williams, 2018), the constant tug between being a teacher and a teacher educator is never far from my thinking. In becoming a teacher educator, and creating a new professional identity, to what extent do (can) we leave our ‘old selves’ behind? Are they, in fact, an essential part of our ‘new selves’? Subsequent self-studies have also shown the importance of acknowledging and understanding different perspectives. My experiences of practicum supervision were not the only times in which I questioned what I was doing as a teacher educator and how I was (or should) be doing it. For example, my understanding of others’ perspectives in relation to the work I was doing was examined in the context of International Professional Experience (Williams, 2017) or co-teaching (Williams et  al., 2018a). The 2013 self-study opened up my eyes to the necessity of considering the experiences and emotions of others and how interacting with others was also a part of my own professional learning and growth. As the study showed, this is underpinned by the necessity of negotiating professional relationships and the centrality of relationships in teaching and teacher education. Although all my self-studies have uncovered the importance of relationships in teacher education, these themes were recently explored in some depth in a duoethnography (Hayler & Williams, 2020), which has served to bring together the learning and wisdom I have gained, often through self-study, during my career as a teacher educator. Through journaling and the writing of ‘critical moment’ narratives, my co-author, Mike Hayler and I explored what it means to be a teacher educator in contemporary times. Drawing on existing journals and generating new insights through narrative writing, we have transformed these data into research: rich sources of new knowledge, new perspectives and new understandings. The value of such writing, and journaling in particular, is highlighted by Richardson and St. Pierre (2005) when they say that ‘a post-modernist position [allows] us to know

74

J. Williams

‘something’ without claiming to know ‘everything’. Having a partial, local and historical knowledge is still knowing’ (p. 961). Through journaling, researchers do not claim to know everything, but they do provide insights into the thinking, wondering and intellectual transformations that are inherent in the generation of new knowledge. Journaling is an important way in which to engage with ideas, interrogate problems and develop personal and professional self-knowledge. It can be confronting as well as liberating—but it is an essential element in furthering our knowledge of ourselves and our practice through self-study. When I began my 2013 self-study, little did I know that a whole new world of academic work was opening up for me and that journaling (and later narrative inquiry) would become the focus of my research career. In the duoethnography (Hayler & Williams, 2020), I wrote about how I came to embrace the idea of narrative writing, including journaling. I was excited by the idea that academic writing and research could involve using personal narratives as data and that they become research in themselves as they are interrogated, examined, discussed and read by others. I wrote that: Autoethnography appeared to be a natural progression for me from self-study and an opportunity to delve more deeply into my own experiences, to shed light on some of the challenges and opportunities created by the journey to becoming a teacher educator, and to learn a new methodology. (p 16)

The self-study that is the focus of this chapter was the beginning of a writing and research journey that has seen me adopt journaling and narrative approaches in most of my academic work. It provides an expression of how I have experienced being (and becoming) a teacher educator, and a window into who I am as a teacher, teacher educator and researcher. This involves being vulnerable and trusting that the reader will be respectful of what I have chosen to share and that they will reflect on my words thoughtfully to help them to understand themselves as teacher educators. This takes courage. All of us who embrace journaling in self-study need to weigh up the risks of exposure with the benefits of sharing honestly and purposefully, in the pursuit of new knowledge about our professional work and becoming. As the years go by, I am becoming more willing to take that risk. In closing, the aim of this chapter was to show how journaling has been a transformative process that has benefitted me, as well as my students and colleagues. If you are new to journaling, I hope that this examination of my writing process provides a new lens through which to see journaling as an significant form of inquiry. For the many readers who already keep journals for personal or research purposes, I hope this chapter offers insights that enhance your study of self and practice and that it helps you to make your inquiry journey explicit to other teacher educators engaged in self-study.

4  Journal Writing as a Self-Study Method: Teacher Educator Professional Learning…

75

References Allen, J., Park Rogers, M., & Borowski, R. (2016). “I am out of my comfort zone”: Self-study of the struggle of adapting to the professional identity of a teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 12(3), 320–332. Boyd, P., & Harris, K. (2010). Becoming a university lecturer in teacher education: Expert school teachers reconstructing their pedagogy and identity. Professional Development in Education, 36(1–2), 9–24. Bullock, S.  M., & Christou, T. (2009). Exploring the radical middle between theory and practice: A collaborative self-study of beginning teacher educators. Studying Teacher Education, 5(2), 75–88. Chang, A., Neugebauer, S., Ellis, A., Ensminger, D., Ryan, A., & Kennedy, A. (2016). Teacher educator identity in a culture of iterative teacher education program design: A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 12(2), 152–169. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cuenca, A. (2010). In loco paedagogus: The pedagogy of a novice university supervisor. Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 29–43. Diacopoulos, M., & Butler, B. (2020). What do we supervise for? A self-study of learning teacher candidates supervision. Studying Teacher Education, 16(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.108 0/17425964.2019.1690985. Dinkelman, T., Margolis, J., & Sikkenga, K. (2006). From teacher to teacher educator: Reframing knowledge in practice. Studying Teacher Education, 2(2), 119–136. Hayler, M., & Williams, J. (2018). Narratives of learning from co-editing, writing and presenting stories of experience in self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 14(1), 103–119. Hayler, M., & Williams, J. (2020). Being a teacher educator in challenging times: Negotiating the rapids of professional learning. Springer. Keltchermans, G. (2017). Studying teachers’ lives as an educational issue: Autobiographical reflections from a scholarly journey. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44, 7–26. Kirk, M., & Lipscombe, K. (2019). When a postgraduate student becomes a novice researcher and a supervisor becomes a mentor: A journey of research identity development. Studying Teacher Education, 15(2), 179–197. Martin, S., Snow, J., & Franklin Torrez, C. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third spaces: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 299–311. McKeon, F., & Harrison, J. (2010). Developing pedagogical practice and professional identities of beginning teacher educators in. Professional Development in Education, 36(1–2), 25–44. Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.  K. Denzin & Y.  S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.  959–978). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Ritter, J.  K. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 3, 5–22. Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press. Strong Makaiau, A., Ragoonaden, K., Leng, L., Mangram, C., & Toyoda, M. (2019). The handmaid’s tale: Using literature and online journaling to facilitate a self-study of feminist identity in an international research collective. Studying Teacher Education, 15(3), 334–354. Thomas, L., & Geursen, J. (2013). Creating spaces for reflection on learning to teach a foreign language through open journals: A Canadian-Dutch self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 9(1), 18–30. Williams, J. (2013). Boundary crossing and working in the third space: Implications for a teacher educator’s identity and practice. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 118–129.

76

J. Williams

Williams, J. (2017). Learning from leading: A teacher educator’s perspective of learning through leading an international professional experience. In A. Fitzgerald, G. Parr, & J. Williams (Eds.), Narratives of learning through international professional experience (pp. 169–184). Springer. Williams, J., & Berry, A. (2016). Boundary crossing and the professional learning of teacher educators in new international contexts. Studying Teacher Education, 12(2), 135–151. Williams, J., & Grierson, A. (2016). Facilitating professional development during international practicum: Understanding our work as teacher educators through critical incidents. Studying Teacher Education, 12(1), 55–69. Williams, J., & Ritter, J. K. (2010). Constructing new professional identities through self-study: From teacher to teacher educator. Professional Development in Education, 36(1&2), 77–92. Williams, J., Ritter, J., & Bullock, S. M. (2012). Understanding the complexities of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245–260. Williams, J., Brubaker, N.D. & Berry, A. (2014). Becoming teacher educators in new international contexts: Challenging knowledge, practices and identities. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.). Changing practices for changing times: Past, present and future possibilities of self-study research. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on the self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 212–214). The University of Auckland. Williams, J., MaRhea, Z., & Barrie, F. (2018a). Co-teaching as pedagogy: Negotiating pedagogical spaces in university classrooms. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-study as a means for researching pedagogy (pp. 425–432). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices SIG. Williams, J., White, S., Forgasz, R., & Grimmett, H. (2018b). Stories from the third space: Teacher educators’ professional learning in a school/university partnership. In A. Fitzgerald, G. Parr, & J.  Williams (Eds.), Re-imagining professional experience in initial teacher education: Narratives of learning (pp. 19–36). Singapore: Springer.

Chapter 5

From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool for Collaboration and Critical Friendship in Self-Study Valerie A. Allison and Laurie A. Ramirez

Abstract  In this chapter, the authors explore their long-standing collaborative relationship as teacher educators and self-study researchers. They detail their evolution as self-study research partners who have used writing, primarily journaling, for personal and professional ends. The chapter includes a description of their motivations for first developing and then maintaining their partnership that has now spanned more than a decade. They examine their early use of writing and how their processes have evolved over time. Throughout the chapter, the authors share excerpts from their journals, along with other modes of informal correspondence, to demonstrate their process in taking journals for simple expression of thoughts and emotions to the formulation of manuscripts that reach a broader research community. The authors’ use of journaling as a research tool is built upon three nested tenets of self-­ study methodology: collaboration, critical friendship, and dialogue. Using those tenets, they critique their practices and the effects of their inquiries on their development as teacher educators. The chapter concludes with recommendations for others who might wish to utilize journal writing as a methodological tool in their self-study collaborative research.

Writing, in general, is an idiosyncratic endeavor. Each person approaches it differently and for distinct purposes. This chapter details our evolution as self-study research partners who have used writing, primarily journaling, for personal and professional ends for more than a decade. We have examined our early uses of V. A. Allison (*) Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. A. Ramirez Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_5

77

78

V. A. Allison and L. A. Ramirez

writing and how that process transformed into our current practices. Throughout the chapter we share excerpts from our journals along with other modes of correspondence to demonstrate our process of taking journals from simple expression of thoughts and emotions to the formulation of manuscripts that reach a broader research community. We share our own experiences with writing as inquiry as a means for making recommendations to others who wish to incorporate journal writing and correspondence as part of their research methods. Journaling is often conceptualized as an individual effort and the resulting journal entries are perceived as being written for the personal edification and use of their author. In our case, we have almost always envisioned our journals as being writing for both ourselves and to one another. It is evident in reading our journals that we have one another in mind and we regularly address comments and questions to each other. Additionally, while we intentionally write and share journals with one another electronically as part of our research practice, we also engage in forms of informal correspondence (i.e., email, text messaging, and video chats) that frequently take up and extend the conversations embedded in our journals. Our research journals and informal correspondence, for us, are woven together in a manner that is difficult to untangle. In this chapter, the term journaling is used to identify the planned and intentionally carried out writing that we envision as the primary location of our research methods. Correspondence we operationalize as an umbrella term that includes our journals but is augmented by all manner of more spontaneous written communication, and sometimes audio and video, identified above. Our scholarship as research partners is built upon three nested tenets of self-­ study methodology: collaboration, critical friendship, and dialogue. Lighthall (2004) concluded that collaboration is “the single most prominent feature of the self-study enterprise” (p. 231). Linked closely to collaboration is critical friendship. Tidwell and Fitzgerald (2004) asserted, “An integral part of the self-study process is the need to work with a critical friend, a colleague who will provide support and listen, be a sounding board, a critic, an evaluator; whatever role is deemed necessary” (p. 70). Fundamental to critical friendship and collaboration, dialogue helps self-study teacher educator researchers question their beliefs and the implications of those beliefs for their practices (Samaras et al., 2008). In this chapter, we use the tenets of collaboration, critical friendship, and dialogue as lenses to describe and critique our journal writing. We begin the chapter by sharing our history as research partners and the motivations that have propelled our collaborative scholarship. Next, we describe and critique our efforts to support and challenge one another through our journals as co-critical friends. Then, we detail and analyze the dialogical nature of our journals. This section is followed by delineating the function of our journals as data for our inquiries, as well as the sites in which we grapple with our research procedures, data analysis, and our writing process in moving to polished manuscripts. We conclude the chapter by offering recommendations to others wishing to utilize journal writing as a methodological tool of their self-study collaborative research.

5  From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool…

79

5.1  The History of Our Partnership and Work As we have described elsewhere (Allison & Ramirez, 2020b), our friendship predates our tenure as teacher educators and our research collaborations. We met and became friends while in our doctoral program. When we completed our PhDs and moved to different regions of the United States to begin tenure track positions, we intentionally initiated a collaborative self-study research project, in part, because the work would give us an excuse for maintaining our connection to one another, so we did not drift apart. Our earliest self-study was focused on how we could be mutually supportive to one another as we became acclimated to our new communities, roles, and responsibilities as novice teacher educators. Early in our journeys to be(com)ing teacher educators (Ramirez et al., 2012), we initially used journal writing and sharing as a means for holding onto relationships, providing each other “safety nets” as we navigated new environments, new expectations, new places, and new responsibilities. At the time, we were thinking less about writing in terms of legitimate scholarship, but rather were positioning ourselves for survival, having been uprooted from everything we had known personally and professionally. Writing to each other helped us maintain the connection to “home” and the lives we had lived before academia. Having others who understood the cultural and academic references, knew the same people and places, and were facing similar challenges was an initial motivation to write. At that time, our audience was just each other, trusted friends, and colleagues who could empathize, relate, and question. As we began to navigate our very different new surroundings, writing became a way to share the joys and challenges of our new roles. Our collaborative self-study research, which began with an initiative designed to keep us connected, has evolved to include, among others, studies focused on being students of our own practice (Ramirez & Allison-Roan, 2014; Allison et al., 2020); navigating into, through and out of departmental-level administrative roles (Allison & Ramirez, 2016, 2020b; Ramirez et al., 2020); and addressing the crisis and repercussions of childhood sexual abuse (Allison et al., 2016; Ramirez & Allison, 2018; Allison & Ramirez, 2020a). Across all of our scholarship, we have been guided by our shared commitment to transparency of practice, critical reflection, democratic principles in teaching, and social justice and advocacy. We wish to note that our friendship and research/writing partnership is not particularly unique within the self-study community. Similar friendship-based partnerships can be seen in the scholarly contributions of Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009), Coia and Taylor (2013), Loughran and Brubaker (2015), Stolle et al. (2019), and numerous others. In some cases the partners met as we did as peers in graduate school (i.e., Pinnegar & Hamilton), and in others, they evolved from faculty and student or senior and junior faculty mentoring relationships (i.e., Coia & Taylor). What all of these partnerships share is a friendship that precedes and transcends the collaborative work. For us, at least, the strength and depth of the friendship has been fundamental to our longevity as collaborators, and, we would assert, in many ways it influences the quality and characteristics of our scholarship. We navigate every

80

V. A. Allison and L. A. Ramirez

aspect of our partnership from the footing of our friendship. This includes our processes in brainstorming new research projects, the nature of our communication with one another as we launch and carry out inquiries, the give and take of drafting and revising presentations and manuscripts, and ultimately, consideration in determining the order of our names on publications. We see our relationship aptly captured by Pinnegar and Hamilton’s (2009) description of bonding relationships: Bonding relationships are close relationships among people of like minds, and such relationships supply a human nurturing basis for a community of scholars. The feelings that emerge with the building of bonding social capital lead to the development of a sense of belonging in and a commitment to a particular group of people. (p. 89)

Our friendship and our scholarship are reciprocal, each nurturing the other and being strengthened over time. Over a decade ago, if we had ended up working at the same institution or living closer to one another, our friendship might have been maintained through more face-to-face conversations and social gatherings. Perhaps if that had been the case, we would not have developed the habit of using writing (i.e., journals, emails, and texts) as our primary communication. Serendipitously, adopting and maintaining our written correspondence has done more than kept us emotionally connected, it has become an enduring record of both our friendship and our collaborative research. By retrospectively analyzing our accumulated communications, we can see how our friendship and research agendas have evolved and note ideals, goals, themes, and concerns that have been consistent across time and our shifting roles and responsibilities within academia. Most important to this chapter, we can dissect what our processes (often in the moment hidden to us) have been over the length of our partnership in moving from informal modes of communication to polished manuscripts.

5.2  Balancing the Critical with Friendship The self-study community has long advocated the inclusion of critical friends in researchers’ methodology (Lighthall, 2004; Loughran & Northfield, 1998; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009; Tidwell & Fitzgerald, 2004). Berry and Russell (2014) posited that by collaborating with critical friends, self-study researchers “develop new insights and perspectives that can challenge and strengthen their own work” (p. 195). Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) detailing the roles that critical friends serve in strengthening self-study inquiries stated, We engage critical friends or other collaborators asking them to question our data, our interpretations, our analysis, and our assertions about our practice. In this way, others in our practice are a valuable source of data and analysis as well as a source of confirming and disconfirming evidence for our understandings and assertions for action. (p. 15)

Stolle et al. (2019) identified two applications of the term “critical friends” in self-­study research. In the first category, “one or more critical friends [is] ­supporting/

5  From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool…

81

coaching the transformation of another’s teaching,” and in the second, “one or more critical friends [is] supporting the trustworthiness of research methods” (p. 20). As we consider our previous work through Stolle et al.’s categorization, we assert that much of our work has been a synthesis of the two. Across the span of our collaboration, we have characterized one another as co-critical friends or “co-mentors” (i.e., Allison & Ramirez, 2016; Ramirez & Allison-Roan, 2014). Our intent has been both to support one another in improving our practice and in enhancing the trustworthiness of our research on our practice. As we have investigated the characteristics of critical friendships described across the self-study literature, we have noted the wide variation in how researchers choose critical friends. Frambaugh-Kritzer and Stolle (2014, 2016), like us, have served as critical friends to one another as an extension of their personal friendship. In numerous other instances, researchers have sought to establish critical friendships with individuals whom they did not already know well, were external to their institutions, and/or did not have insider perspective relative to the focus of the inquiry (i.e., Allison-Roan & Hayes, 2012; Loughran & Brubaker, 2015, Fletcher et al., 2016; Olan & Edge, 2019; Stolle et al., 2019). Some inquiries utilize multiple critical friends who have different relationships with one another as a means for enhancing the perspectives informing the focus of the scholarship (i.e., Fletcher et al., 2016; Stolle et al., 2019). We have ourselves found benefits from conducting inquiries in which we solicit input from critical friends who are dispassionate, external observers of our inquiry (i.e., Allison et al., 2016). As with most elements of self-study research methodology, there is not a one size fits all “best practice” in developing critical friendships and carrying out the work of a critical friend. Mena and Russell (2017) concluded, “A critical friend who already understands the researcher can help to review data, challenge assumptions, and suggest additional perspectives” (p. 116). While there are certainly numerous productive pathways for initiating and collaborating as critical friends in self-study research, there is always the potential for a critical friendship to not enhance the scholarship and, in rare circumstances, to become an unhelpful obstacle to the inquiry. Stolle et al. (2019), have pointed out the concept of critical friendship is frequently touted as a hallmark of self-study research, but its role is often not carefully defined in the studies that employ it. Stolle et al. identified “three characteristics central to an effective critical friendship: vulnerability, reflection, and skepticism” (p. 23). As we look back on the collaborative self-studies we have completed over the previous ten years, we must concur that we have not been consistent in carefully defining our enactments of critical friendship. Assessing ourselves by Stolle, et al.’s characteristics, we believe it is clearly evident in our work as critical friends that we have been wholeheartedly vulnerable with one another. Our personal friendship and the trust we have built over time ensures that we never hesitate to disclose how we feel, admit to missteps, or own our uncertainties. But like Stolle and Frambraugh-Kitzer (in Stolle et al., 2019), we have been inclined, perhaps because of our personal friendship, to be overly mindful of one another’s feelings and have erred on the side of supporting rather than challenging.

82

V. A. Allison and L. A. Ramirez

Likewise, we see our reflective thinking to be, in some respects, enhanced by our history with one another because our frames of reference overlap significantly. When we connect our reflection on our practice to the literature and theory, we are generally speaking a common language. This clearly has both affordances and constraints. On the one hand, we come to understand one another with more ease than other critical friends might. On the other, our reflective practices might not be as dynamic and multifaceted as they would be with critical friends with whom we have a less extensive background. Finally, like the characteristics of vulnerability and reflection, our enactment of skepticism in our critical friendships is influenced by the nature of our relationship beyond our scholarship. As Stolle noted (in Stolle et al., 2019), “I wonder if we are limited in our abilities to ask the critical questions always necessary to push our thinking further because we are best friends” (p. 25). Stolle et al. asserted that the inclusion of an outside critical friend “is key to insure critical friendship is effective” (p. 25). While we do not discount the value of the outsider perspective, we assert that there are both advantages and disadvantages to including an outside third perspective, especially to the extent that a third party might complicate aspects of vulnerability and reflection. In our case, we believe there are benefits from serving as co-critical friends that are related to us being simultaneously good friends but being in communities, professional and personal, well separated from one another. Because we live and work in communities that are hundreds of miles apart, we have not felt it necessary to temper our vulnerability and reflection out of fear it might seep into encounters and relationships we have with individuals who intersect both our communities. Additionally, since our institutions and our roles and responsibilities within them are sufficiently dissimilar, we can in some respects offer one another an outsider perspective that enhances skepticism.

5.3  Journaling as Dialogical Communication As stated above, from the beginning, we have seen our personal journals as dialogical. We write first and foremost to record and think through our individual experiences as teacher educators, scholars, and members of communities. The reflection in our journals represents our personal internal dialogue, a space in which our first audience is ourselves and where we come to know what we know by committing it to words on a “page.” We envisioned it in a manner similar to Placier, Pinnegar, Hamilton, and Guilfoyle’s (2008) assertions about the fundamental power of dialogue to build one’s knowledge: “Dialogue provides valuable ways of knowing. I come to know what I know as I say it” (p. 61). As importantly, our second audience is one another, and as such, as we write we have the other in mind. “How would she respond to reading this?” “What questions might she have?” “What perspective or insight might she offer that I am not considering?” Through writing we might come to clearer, firmer realizations, or just as

5  From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool…

83

readily, we might come to acknowledge an uncertainty or uneasiness with a position, idea, or action. As I explain my position to you, I either realize, ‘Yes that is what I know and believe {convergence}’ or ‘My word – why am I saying this I don’t believe what I am saying at all’ {divergence} or somewhere in between – I believe this but not this [I mean this but not that]. (Placier et al., 2008, p. 61)

Across the years, our journals have recorded more than a dialogue with ourselves and what we project or anticipate from the other. Rather, we have also been consistently actively writing and responding to one another. On one level we are one another’s sounding boards, a trusted friend who provides a safe space for being unvarnished and unguarded, where we can be vulnerable and wholeheartedly honest with ourselves and one another. I hope we can help each other through these challenging times. My advice to you, my dear Valerie – go for a bike ride! I, in order to gain some perspective today, am going for a hike if it kills me! (Laurie, September 6, 2013) Ugh, all sorts of things in my department right now are being held together with spit and a prayer. Nearly cried when I got this email, and then I did cry when my colleague told me during her annual evaluation meeting yesterday that she has tentatively accepted a position at another institution. (Valerie, March 30, 2018)

These journals and other correspondence provide ample evidence that we are not always singularly focused on scholarly tasks. East and Fitzgerald’s (2006) disclosure about their work ethos rings true for us: While we were often intensely engaged in grappling with issues of practice, we also strayed off topic or wanderfarhed [a term coined by East & Fitzgerald]. We were very productive, but ironically not vigilantly task-oriented. We allowed ourselves to enjoy working together rather than being single-mindedly focused on completing a product. (p. 73)

The elements of venting and playfulness present in our journals we see as a valuable attribute of our communication, a sort of mental health safety valve for letting off steam. Ultimately, trusting one another to know the range of our mental landscape only works because of the shared value we place on our friendship. As important as we assert it is to have one another as trusted confidants, professionally and personally, in order for our dialogical journals to be valuable tools for scholarly self-study collaboration, we have had to maintain a commitment to move beyond venting and banter to engaging in deeper exchanges about our experiences and perspectives: comparing, analyzing, and critiquing through the lenses of educational theory and scholarship. Because my responsibilities include observing others in my department, I have developed over the last few years a greater understanding of how the program "feels" to students. I am more able to make connections between my content and the other courses and professors students have. My students have responded by more frequently articulating the connections they see. (Valerie, April 15, 2016) I found your reflection and the responses of your students to be fascinating. I think, as Jerry said (at least I interpreted this way), that it is interesting how the students all saw this as an opportunity for advocacy or help rather than potentially problematic "mine fields." Mine were less positive, but maybe that is because middle school teachers tend to expect the

84

V. A. Allison and L. A. Ramirez worst. ? Anyway, it will take me some time to get my $%@# together, but I am committed to this piece and the conversations that will continue surrounding it. (Laurie, December 30, 2015)

Journals and emails have been the primary sites where we reflect on our actions and their alignment or misalignment with our professed values and goals as teacher educators. We explain to one another and ourselves what it is we have done or hope to do and what we hold as our rationale/justification. We point out to one another inconsistencies between actions and professed beliefs, and we encourage one another to move beyond the surface to what might be obscured by taken for granted assumptions or allegiances to the status quo or tradition. The annual evaluations were due this week for the members of my department. I tried to conduct the process as collaboratively and transparently as possible, but I am not sure I succeeded. I asked each faculty member to review the drafts I prepared and provide me with feedback/input on anything I had overlooked and then we met to sign the documents. Unfortunately, when I met with the dean, she felt like I needed to be more direct in saying/ putting in writing to one of my junior colleagues that their tenure review in another couple of years will come down to their record of scholarship/published work. I ended up having to go back to them with an addendum to sign that stated that. I can’t imagine that felt good or collaborative! (Valerie, March 29, 2014)

Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) asserted, “the process for coming to know upon which the authority for making claims rests in self-study practices work is a process of dialogue” (p. 53). Our intent in dialoguing through our journals and other forums is not to come to consensus, but rather to come to a deeper, clearer understanding of our own perspectives and where they converge and diverge with one another’s and with scholars within our field. Our conceptualization of our written exchanges harkens back to the theories of dialogue presented by Placier et al. (2008) Another kind of understanding that is revealed in dialogue is that I come to know what I know – when I hear you say it ... This does not mean that we must reach consensus, because we also develop authority for what we know when we work through divergence to understanding and acceptance of the other’s ideas. (p. 61)

5.4  J ournaling: Raw Data, Research Procedures, Data Analysis, and Writing Process Our writing, in journaling and other forums, we have come to realize, has been particularly well-suited to supporting our collaborative self-study scholarship. Self-­ study research, which values collaboration and critical friendship (LaBoskey, 2004; Mena & Russell, 2017; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009) is aptly facilitated through asynchronous modes of communication. We posit that our writing is a systematic methodological tool that we have been able to utilize to document our growth in our various roles as teacher educators. Because of the physical distance between us, writing to and with one another has been an essential element of our research. As discussed above, had we been in closer proximity, we might have had face-to-face

5  From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool…

85

conversations that served some of the same purposes, but we wonder how much we would have lost in not having a permanent record of such conservations, in not having felt the need to articulate our thoughts, feelings, and experiences in writing. Had that been the case, we would not have an enduring record that we could then use to investigate our personal and professional development. Furthermore, writing has allowed us to capture events so they can be shared with others so that they might “see” and “experience” them alongside us. This sharing, across time and place, has been vital to our research, allowing us to more deeply process and question our perceptions with the help of a trusted partner. Writing has allowed us to create a record of things as they happened, providing enough detail that the experiences were clearly and fully represented, but also providing the emotional response, moving us toward an exploration of how each event or experience influenced and/or changed us. Finally, in having this record, we can step back and critically analyze our writing to see different perspectives or ways to frame our thinking. Ultimately, throughout our journeys, writing has been a way to hold ourselves and each other accountable to our work. By engaging in this study, I have been kept "honest" in my commitment to walk the talk we claim. It’s a little like having someone sitting on my shoulder whispering in my ear, Think about what you're doing and why you're doing it because you're going to have to justify it to Laurie (and the rest of the self-study community). (Valerie, April 15, 2016)

Excerpts from our journals reveal our continued commitment to writing as a way to not only document our experiences, but also to interrogate our practice: All right, we made a commitment to journal with one another about our experiences as “leaders/administrators" this year. The problem has been time. I predict this may end up being one of our themes at the end of the year. There are always more demands on my time than I can reasonably manage. I worry I am doomed by the amount and variety of the tasks I am expected to accomplish. It is not a question of doing them in a way that is informed or consistent with my ideals as a teacher educator; it's a matter of plowing through items on my "to do list" as quickly as possible, so I can get to the next item. (Valerie, August 27, 2013).

The excerpt above is an example of a time where the demands of academia conflicted with the ideals we espoused in our practice. The commitment to which this entry refers is one that continued for many years, eventually reflecting back on earlier work and previous writing: It’s interesting to me that our journals of the last several months largely mirror the journals we shared in our first years in the academy. The more things and we change, they more they and we remain the same. (Valerie, January 5, 2014).

Though our correspondence has consistently been intentional, in reviewing our accumulated journals, emails, and texts, we have been struck by what might be characterized as the overall organic nature of our collaborations or the overlapping of our research data, research procedures, data analysis, and writing process. In our collaborations, the four do not always have distinct borders, nor are they contained within separate silos in our correspondences or our thinking.

86

V. A. Allison and L. A. Ramirez

It is not uncommon for one of us to begin a journal by detailing an event from our practice (what might be characterized as data) and in the same journal discuss our research procedures and/or compare and contrast our experiences and contemplate emerging themes we see. In nearly all our collaborations, we have adopted an iterative analysis stance for identifying converging and diverging trends and themes and that is evidenced in our journaling: We need to answer the question of how our practices have evolved over the last year – using students feedback, taking risks, etc. For my part I have spent a considerable amount of energy questioning what I should do with their feedback and eventually came to the place where I felt safe enough to encourage them to really analyze their feedback with me, help me identify the themes and brainstorm responses. I feel a lot more authentic and that I’m really making my practice transparent through these efforts. I’ve also grown in my ability to be frank in my feedback to students about their emerging practices – including having them now debrief in front of their peers after they have led a discussion or presented a sample lesson. Perhaps this goes under the significance/implications section... (Valerie, July 14, 2011) [The semester] started this week and it was ROUGH! I'm sitting here avoiding "real" work - aka my classes – and started thinking about the leadership manuscript and where we want it to go. I want to incorporate final thoughts from the spring and where we are now. So, I think we need to journal a few more times. I want to include some of the terrible reviews I got from students – I think it speaks to the point we made about how the forming, storming...etc. are not necessarily linear and not a "destination" but a continual journey. Anyway, if you have time (and I will make time this week), put on your list of things to do a review of the end of spring and the beginning of the new year (and maybe your total "summer of denial" mindset!). :) (Laurie, August 23, 2014)

Ultimately, our writing process, that is, moving from our journals to drafting and finalizing a manuscript is not an enterprise that is distinctly separate. This is evident in Laurie’s excerpt below from our earliest collaboration that included two other collaborators (Ramirez, et al., 2012): Since we kind of ended the piece with the "significance" section, I was thinking that we might rename that section to something that shows that it discusses the significance for US, personally and professionally. THEN, I think we could add a section about the significance for the field (I was also playing around with the idea of calling the sections "significance in our community" and "significance beyond our community" or something along those lines (you are better at "titles" than I am!). Within that new section I thought I would pull in some research about the importance of mentoring, then, I might discuss how our institutions didn't do that "well" so we sort of organically found mentors. I can use a quote from my post post-AERA 2010 from Richard Milner III who said that our mentors don't need to be people in our immediate space, maybe not even people we have met (I have YET to meet Susan, which is pretty crazy to think about!!). Then, I can discuss how our own efforts to seek out mentoring mirror those of the Arizona Group in certain ways and how that 15+ years later, the state of mentoring in higher education is still not great, etc. And then, if I can find the research to back it up – show how our collaborative community has filled the role of more traditional forms of mentoring and perhaps surpassed it??? THOUGHTS??? (Laurie, October 18, 2011)

Given that we live within a day’s drive of one another, we have found it beneficial to periodically travel to spend time together at self-designed writing retreats. We

5  From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool…

87

found that we could get a lot accomplished when we had a singular focus and the pressure that comes from having limited time together to accomplish particular tasks (i.e., developing proposals for a conference, revising a manuscript for an academic journal). In truth, our writing retreats in more recent years have become more excuses to reconnect as friends, as we have developed our skills and dispositions to revise and edit through remote means. When working remotely, we most typically use Google Docs, and discuss revisions using a combination of notes within the documents, emails, and most recently Zoom conferencing. Below are examples of our negotiations related to editing and revising two different documents: I looked over the notes from our conversation the other day and my notes from re-reading the paper and I think it is actually better than the reviewers suggest. I made some changes to lessen the privatization comparison and added a bit of clarification here and there, but I really didn't change all that much. We are super close on the word count, so take a look and let me know your thoughts. If you want to change things, go ahead. (Laurie, April 22, 2018) This needs a fresh set of eyes. We are over on the word count by 137. See if what I’ve done makes sense and meets the reviewer’s “suggestions,” and then PLEASE find 137 words of unnecessary, redundant, empty verbiage. (Valerie, October 19, 2015)

Each of us have worked with other collaborators with whom we have had more challenging experiences coauthoring manuscripts. We believe our writing partnership has been productive and endured because our writing styles are similar, we trust one another to revise/refine our words, and we wholeheartedly see one another as equals. The research procedures and writing process we have detailed above have grown organically from our friendship, and they fit our needs, even if they are, at times, somewhat disorganized. Other research partners might strive or prefer to be more purposeful and impose more structure to their work. Perhaps they would choose to distinctly separate the recording of journals they envision as data sets from journals in which they discuss their process and others where they analyze data and interpret findings. They may consider the preparation of a manuscript as something that takes place well apart from the previous three activities. We assert that just as writing itself is an idiosyncratic endeavor, no one mode of envisioning and conducting self-­ study collaborations is superior. Instead, the practices developed should meet the needs and work styles of the research partners, so they are sustainable and do not add unnecessary obstacles. We believe the excerpts from our journals and other correspondence we have included demonstrate the power of using writing as a methodological tool for collaborative self-study research. The value of journaling as an avenue for collaboration and critical friendship occurs not only in the moment of recording events but also in the opportunities to reread and revisit our journals reflectively and analytically to ultimately produce meaningful manuscripts that are both organic and intentional. Ultimately in sharing our work through publications and presentations with the broader educational community allows the dialogue to continue, bringing in additional perspectives and voices.

88

V. A. Allison and L. A. Ramirez

5.5  Recommendations For those who are interested in incorporating writing into their research, we have recommendations for doing so successfully. First and foremost, it is imperative that self-study researchers choose a partner or team with whom they have a safe, trusting relationship. Confiding in others so they are able to fully feel what we feel and hear our voices as expressed through writing requires strong relationships and trust. We have to commit to being vulnerable with ourselves and with those with whom we share our stories. We each also have to be a trustworthy partner; as we bear witness to events and feelings shared, holding them in confidence and respecting the potential harm that might result if that trust is broken. Further, an important decision we must make collectively is what to include and what to withhold (see Allender & Taylor, 2012). When crafting the final product, be it a presentation or publication, each research team must determine what is included so that the audience is able to attest to the authenticity of the written account, but still has space to insert their own interpretation and relate in a way that is meaningful and relevant to their own stories and lived experiences (see Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Ellis, 2009). Our third recommendation is prioritizing the writing so that it is consistent, regular, and attended to systematically. As events occur, they must be documented thoroughly to maintain an accurate, full record of them as well as the feelings and thoughts that accompany them. We have found this to be a challenge in our own work, as time is always a fleeting commodity. Making the writing a priority and adhering to that commitment is essential in moving from simple journaling to crafting a completed research project. Our final recommendation is one that is extant and critical – securing the data. Because much of this work is done electronically, it is important to keep data secure and private. Further, when moving from initial recording to the creation of the final product, it is important to remain true to the methodology for analysis. All involved should be able to articulate the purpose of the research and work collaboratively, member checking along the way, so that all feel their words ring true and all maintain the safety and veracity of the work. Our commitment to journaling, in combination with other forms of correspondence, quickly became and has consistently been the keystone of our research practices. Initially motivated by a desire to construct ourselves a safety net as new academics and to maintain our friendship against the challenge of distance, we serendipitously built a self-study research agenda situated firmly in the tenets of collaboration, dialogue, and critical friendship. Our partnership has withstood the tests of both distance and the passage of time and demonstrated its fruitfulness well beyond our modest goal of helping one another navigate being novice teacher educators. We have been fortunate to have been able to contribute to our self-study community through multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals and recently two chapters (Allison & Ramirez, 2020a, b) included in the second edition of the self-study handbook (Kitchen et  al., 2020). In our current research inquiries, we

5  From Informal Correspondence to Polished Manuscripts: Journaling as a Tool…

89

now identify as mid-career teacher educators (Allison et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2020). We hope to continue to have worthwhile contributions to make as we eventually find ourselves fitting the definition of late-career teacher educators.

References Allender, D., & Taylor, A. (2012) Bullying and the academic playground. In J.  R. Young, L.  B. Erickson, & S.  Pinnegar (Eds.). Extending inquiry communities: illuminating teacher education through self-study. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (pp.  21–24). Brigham Young University. Allison, V. A., & Ramirez, L. A. (2016). Co-mentoring: The iterative process of learning about self and “becoming” leaders. Studying Teacher Education, 12(1), 3–19. Allison, V. A., & Ramirez, L. A. (2020a). Employing self-study research to confront childhood sexual abuse and its consequences for self, others, and communities. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 655–682). Dordrecht: Springer. Allison, V. A., & Ramirez, L. A. (2020b). Role of self-study in navigating teacher educator administrators’ responsibilities. In J.  Kitchen, A.  Berry, S.  M. Bullock, A.  R. Crowe, M.  Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 1199–1223). Dordrecht: Springer. Allison, V.  A., Ramirez, L.  A., Allender, D., & Allender, J. (2016). From disgust to action: Childhood sexual abuse and its ramifications in/for our work as teacher educators. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 16–18). Auckland: University of Auckland Press. Allison, V.  A., Haniford, L., & Ramirez, L.  A. (2020). Breaking out of well-worn grooves: Rekindling teaching passion with fresh pedagogical practices. In C.  Edge, A.  Cameron-­ Standerford, & B. Bergh (Eds.), Textiles and Tapestries. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https:// edtechbooks.org/textiles_tapest. Allison-Roan, V. A., & Hayes, M. (2012). To be heard, to be seen, to matter: Consequences of/for self in utilizing one’s narrative. Studying Teacher Education, 8(2), 127–141. Berry, A., & Russell, T. (2014). Critical friends, collaborators and community in self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 195–196. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2013). Uncovering our feminist pedagogy: A co/autoethnography. Studying Teacher Education, 9(1), 3–17. East, E., & Fitzgerald, L.  M. (2006). Collaboration over the long term. In L.  M. Fitzgerald, M. L. Heston, & D. L. Tidwell (Eds.), Collaboration and community: Pushing the boundaries through self-study. Proceedings of the sixth international conference on self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 72–75). Sussex, UK: Herstmonceux. Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Authoethnographic reflections on life and work. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Fletcher, T., Ní Chriónín, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2016). A layered approach to critical friendship as a means to support pedagogical innovation in pre-service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 12(3), 302–319. Frambaugh-Kritzer, C., & Stolle, E. P. (2014). Our present journey with new literacies: Drawing on the past to impact the future. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past, present, and future possibilities for self-study research. Proceedings of the

90

V. A. Allison and L. A. Ramirez

tenth international conference on the self study of teacher education practices (pp. 101–103). Herstmonceux Castle: University of Auckland. Frambaugh-Kritzer, C., & Stolle, E.  P. (2016). Enacting self-study methods to explore critical engagement in synchronized online learning spaces. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 441–447). University of Auckland Press. Kitchen, J., Berry, A., Bullock, S. M., Crowe, A. R., Taylor, M., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Thomas, L. (Eds.). (2020). 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education. Springer. LaBoskey, V.  K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpins. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Springer. Lighthall, F.  F. (2004). Fundamental features and approaches of the s-step enterprise. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 193–246). Dordrecht: Springer. Loughran, J. J., & Brubaker, N. (2015). Working with a critical friend: A self-study of executive coaching. Studying Teacher Education, 11(3), 255–271. Loughran, J.  J., & Northfield, J.  R. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M.  L. Hamilton, S.  Pinnegar, T.  Russell, J.  Loughran, & V.  LaBoskey (Eds.), Reconceptualizing teacher practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp.  7–18). Bingley: Falmer Press. Mena, J., & Russell, T. (2017). Collaboration, multiple methods, trustworthiness: Issues arising from the 2104 International Conference on Self-study of Teacher Education Practices. Studying Teacher Education, 13(1), 105–122. Olan, E. L., & Edge, C. (2019). Collaborative meaning-making and dialogic interactions in critical friends as co-authors. Studying Teacher Education, 15(1), 31–43. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research. Dordrecht: Springer. Placier, P., Pinnegar, S., Hamilton, M. L., & Guilfoyle, K. (2008). Exploring the concept of dialogue in the self-study of teaching practices. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study (pp. 51–79). Dordrecht: Springer. Ramirez, L. A., & Allison, V. A. (2018). Breaking the silence surrounding childhood sexual abuse: Consequences for our practice and selves as teacher educators. Reflective Practice, 19(4), 447–460. Ramirez, L. A., & Allison-Roan, V. A. (2014). Insights into students, practice and self through engaging as learners in our own classrooms. Reflective Practice, 15(4), 456–467. Ramirez, L. A., Allison-Roan, V. A., Petersen, S., & Elliott-Johns, S. E. (2012). Supporting one another as beginning teacher educators: Forging an online community of critical inquiry into practice. Studying Teacher Education, 8(2), 109–126. Ramirez, L.  A., Haniford, L., & Allison, V.  A. (2020). Exploring new ways of knowing as ex-­ administrators: Re(k)newing ourselves as teacher educators. In C.  Edge, A.  Cameron-­ Standerford, & B. Bergh (Eds.), Textiles and Tapestries. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https:// edtechbooks.org/textiles_tape Samaras, A.  P., DeMulder, E.  K., Kayler, M.  A., Newton, L., Rigsby, L.  C., Weller, K.  L., & Wilcox, D. R. (2008). Spheres of learning in teacher collaboration. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-­ study (pp. 147–163). Dordrecht: Springer. Stolle, E. P., Frambaugh-Kritzer, C., Freese, A., & Persson, A. (2019). Investigating critical friendship: Peeling back the layers. Studying Teacher Education, 15(1), 19–30. Tidwell, D., & Fitzgerald, L. (2004). Self-study as teaching. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V.  K. LaBoskey, & T.  Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 69–102). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter 6

Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-­ Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook Messaging Our Way to Feminist Understanding Monica Taylor and Emily J. Klein

Abstract  In this chapter, we explore how our personal friendship and daily correspondence became the vehicle through which we made meaning in our co/autoethnographic self-study research. We are two friends who are teacher educators at the same university, identify as feminists, and collaboratively research and write together. We use co/autoethnography as a feminist self-study research methodology that takes autoethnography, a research paradigm that examines autobiographical narratives in relationship with larger cultural norms, and moves it beyond the singular to the plural. Using co/autoethnography enables us to come to know through the interweaving of our stories and dialogue so that validity, insight, and analysis all emerge as we write together exploring similar issues. In order to illustrate our collaborative writing process, and “show rather than tell,” we examine the dialogue that emerged through texting, email, and Facebook messaging after the election of President Trump that led to our exploration of our own embodied narratives of experiences of sexism and oppression within the context of our childhoods, schooling, and the teaching profession. We investigate our growing questions about our relationship to feminism as teacher educators and the principles that underlie this feminist writing partnership and our collaborative work. I want to tell you this: There is a truth that lives inside you and no one can give you permission to tell it except yourself. You can tell the whole thing, the full truth—and you deserve to. You deserve to tell the story of your anger and heartbreak and regret, your foolishness and apostasy and your unquenchable thirst for revenge … (Johnson, 2018)

Monica: Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. I am having one of those days where I just feel like I am not enough: not as a professor, ally, parent, or human being. I had horrible insomnia and was just feeling so overwhelmed on so many levels. I am working through it, having lots of small meetings with students M. Taylor (*) · E. J. Klein Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_6

91

92

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

which is helping but I have a general feeling of Ugh. I just have to push through it and put on my big girl panties and move forward. I am feeling so much and it doesn't feel like I am doing near enough. Emily: Hey honey, I hear you. I feel it too. I'm so exhausted and can't figure out why. love you. take care of you and be gentle. (Covid-19 Email Exchange: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2020) It happened unintentionally and in some ways quite unexpectedly. Over the course of our fifteen-year partnership, we repeatedly reminded each other that our friendship needed to come first that, in the end, we would prioritize and value it over our professional commitments. This was the main reason our professional relationship was so valuable to us, and without it, the work would be less meaningful. We would have never predicted that the personal would in fact become a vehicle for our professional research and writing. Our chapter is focused on the ways in which our personal relationship drives our self-study research collaboration. We examine how our friendship is interwoven into our professional lives and the vital role it plays in the ways that we make sense and analyze our experiences as teacher educators. About two years ago, in the midst of our working partnership and deep sisterhood friendship, we began to notice how our daily personal correspondence through texts, emails, and Facebook messages had become a new way that we were making sense of our experiences in the world as women, scholars, and teacher educators. It was, in some ways, a natural and evolving rhythm. We would message to make plans or mention an incident with our kids and it would somehow bleed into our work. Or we would text about an urgent work question, and remember to then ask, “How are you?” After years of collaboration in which we more deliberately compartmentalized our work/friend selves, we began to intuitively listen to the natural organic rhythm of our collaboration. We found ourselves working to honor, value, and pay attention to the ways in which this less formal, more intimate space allowed for us to interactively dialogue and construct a type of co/autoethnography that focused on the convergence of our personal and professional lives. In particular, we used this blended method of the personal/professional in order for us to explore our reactions to the sexism and misogyny that emerged during Kavanaugh hearings and the implications for teacher education (Taylor & Klein, 2020). We are also currently engaged in this co/autoethnographic writing process for a book that examines the ways in which our bodies tell the story of oppressive experiences of the patriarchy and how to disrupt these in the classroom (Taylor & Klein, in press). In this chapter, we—Monica and Emily—explore how our personal friendship and daily correspondence became the vehicle through which we made meaning in our co/autoethnographic self-study research. We are two friends who are teacher educators at the same university, identify as feminists, and collaboratively research and write together. We use co/autoethnography as a feminist self-study research methodology that takes autoethnography, “a form of self-representation that complicates cultural norms by seeing autobiography as implicated in larger cultural processes” (Taylor & Coia, 2006, p.  278), and moves it beyond the singular to the plural. Using co/autoethnography enables us to come to know through the

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

93

interweaving of our stories and dialogue so that validity, insight, and analysis all emerge as we write together exploring similar issues. In order to illustrate our collaborative writing process, and “show rather than tell,” below we examine the dialogue that emerged through texting, email, and Facebook messaging that led to our exploration of our own embodied narratives of experiences of sexism, exploitation, and oppression within the context of our childhoods, schooling, and the teaching profession. This chapter begins with a discussion of how our collaboration was born. We describe our friendship, our teaching, and early writing together, and how those foundations manifested in new collaborations after the election of President Donald Trump. We explore how our personal friendship works alongside our professional partnership in order to make meaning. We investigate our growing questions about our relationship to feminism as teacher educators and the type of writing that emerges from this focus. In the final section, we explore the principles that underlie this feminist writing partnership and our collaborative work.

6.1  C  oming to Know Through Our Feminist Friendship: Connecting Through Daily Texts, Emails, and Facebook Messaging Maybe our girlfriends are our soulmates and guys are just people to have fun with. (Bushnell, 2006)

Monica: Hey Sweetie: Have had you on my mind all weekend! I can only imagine how you are feeling and how hard it is and then tomorrow is the anniversary of your dad’s passing. I just want you to know how much I love you and how incredibly proud I am of your courage and clarity. . . I feel that I am taking off in the thick of this–but I am here if you need me!! Xo (Text Message to Emily, Sunday, July 12 8:15 am) Emily: Thank you honey!!! I am ok–I really sat with my feelings yesterday and didn’t run around. And then slept and woke up super happy and peaceful. . . I am sure it will come and go in waves. I love you and know you are ALWAYS there. (Text Reply to Monica: Sunday, July 12 8:27 am) Fifteen years ago, we began our friendship as colleagues at the same institution, when we were collaboratively designing a teacher leadership program. Monica had already been at Montclair State University for four years and Emily was beginning her career as a teacher educator. Looking back now, it is hard to remember a time when we were not friends–when we didn’t refer to one another as “work wife,” “one brain,” “soul sista,” or “friendsister.”

94

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

6.1.1  Emily’s Memory (January, 2020) I remember meeting you for one of the first times one warm August day when I came in to set up my office for my first semester of teaching. You were there putting together your tenure binder, ready to submit, juggling motherhood of two young kids. I was recently married, a new PhD in my first academic position, with no children (but a plan!). I was awed by what seemed like the graceful way you navigated what seemed like an overwhelmingly chaotic jumble of positions, roles, and jobs. At the time, I tended to focus on “one thing at a time.” I rarely took on more than I thought I could handle, I had gotten good at saying “no,” and I was careful about anything that infringed on my traditional work time. I had a narrow frame for my work: write, do traditional research, teach. Do them well and do very little else. This had developed largely as a result of 7 years of ongoing and mysterious medical problems later diagnosed as fibromyalgia. I had learned as a result to parcel out my energy, to shrink my life such that the world never saw the physical pain and struggles that kept me from engaging in my life as fully as I wanted. I looked to you and saw a reflection of a way of being a woman scholar that I did not believe I could ever be. Academia is–sadly–inherently conservative. For new scholars desperate for academic positions and tenure, the safest of research and publications is more likely the norm. My inner “good girl” wanted to do well–perform in ways that were recognized by the academy. In a practical sense I wanted tenure. But what we see after years of this is a limitation of what is possible. Both mentally and physically my life had shrunk. Your instinct is to say “Yes. I’ll do it. I’m not intimidated, I can make this work, I can make this happen.” You are always shifting, trying, growing, experimenting. After years of closing off, limiting, saying no, I found that as I worked alongside you I felt safer to say “yes” and “let’s try it.” Part of that is knowing that you had my back.

6.1.2  Monica’s Memory (February, 2020) Ah yes, that was the August I decided to do the tenure file march–coming in every day for six hours for about a week until the final dossier was complete. I was pretty anxious about getting it done–I remember that I was listening to the Beck CD Guero on repeat as I needed to stay focused and get it done. It is funny to think about that time in my life, how far away it seems now, and yet I do think it is pretty representative of how I live my life. I tend to work intensely for periods of time and then play hard. I think this has always been my mojo for a long while and now I am attempting to find ways to find more balance and integration. And my memories of first meeting you–well they are consistent with how I always think of you–radiant, focused, clear, super organized, and together. I think, from the first time I met you, I envied your ability to manage your time wisely with schedules

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

95

and timelines. You exude a sense of confidence, that you have a tight handle on everything, with not even a hair out a place. You always seem to have a purpose, there is very little nonsense, and you do it all with a smile. You seem to always anticipate what is to come or be in transit on your way to the next meeting, appointment, or engagement. Next to you my life felt incredibly messy and chaotic. (Google.docs) In pausing to reflect on our feminist friendship and how it fuels our professional collaboration, we note that the friendship came first, but it developed in the context of our work relationship. Our daily texts about everyday life also always include “water cooler talk” (Brown & Gray, 1995) about our teaching (How to help students understand the importance of building relationships with students? What was that crazy faculty meeting about? With what would you pair this reading?). This friendship relies on deep professional and personal vulnerability. Our earliest work together involved both co-teaching and co-writing. For each of us, this meant a unique way of sharing the self, our most vulnerable professional self, and also the self that often we cannot share with others such as our partners and closest friends. Co-teaching, for example, is a particular kind of dance. It can be intuitive and physical (Who takes up space and voice? How do they own and share that space? Who speaks? How much? When?). It is deeply emotional (How do you share stories? Share yourself and your emotions? How do you balance the caring for and relationships with students when there are two of you?). It is also intellectual (How do you plan a lesson together? How do you prioritize content and pedagogy? Whose ideas take center stage?). Both of us identify as “teachers”—being a “teacher” is central to who we are, it is how we feel respected, valued, effective, and even our “best” selves, as we have strong and lasting relationships with students. Each of us developed that “self” in the years before we worked together. Because teaching is a solitary activity in some ways, it can be a very private self, known only to the students, but not necessarily even to our closest peers. There is anxiety and vulnerability in sharing this central, but private self with another (What if she thinks I’m a bad teacher? What if I struggle in my teaching and she witnesses it?). Co-teaching is a dance; as much as you can try to state up front the values and norms underlying your practice, the practice of co-teaching comes in the doing of it, navigating the space (intellectual, physical, and emotional) in the moment to moment steps. Communication most certainly helps, but like any complex relationship there are underlying values (students should share power with professors, knowing is co-­ constructed) and intuitive chemistry (it feels easy, we notice when the other hasn’t taken up space and should) that influence the experience. The dynamics of vulnerability in co-teaching are the same dynamics at play in our self-study research as teacher educators. Our writing selves are more public, but also deeply vulnerable. As we have reflected in the past, “we are committed to caring for one another in our personal and professional lives and believe that doing so has the potential to transform the spaces” in which we work and live (Taylor & Klein, 2018). The privileging of personal experience has been an essential characteristic of the field of self-study of teaching and teacher education (Fletcher, 2020; Munby & Russell, 1994; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Munby and Russell (1994)

96

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

emphasized how exploring one’s teaching practices helps the researcher to gain authority of one’s experience rather than relying on reason. Feminist educators understand that the personal is meaningful, valuable, and a way of knowing about the world (Coia & Taylor, 2013; Taylor & Coia, 2020). Our collaboration takes this one step further, as we are inviting our personal lives outside of our professional work to help us to reflect on and transform practices that might perpetuate sexism and heteronormativity. As Clandinin and Connelly (2000) wrote: Following Dewey, the study of education is the study of life—for example, the study of epiphanies, rituals, routines, metaphors, and everyday actions. We learn about education by thinking about life, and we learn about life by thinking about education. (p. xxiv)

Similarly, our friendship exists at the crossroads of our personal and professional lives and therefore is the ideal vehicle for meaning-making across the boundaries, messiness, and contradiction. We make sense of the world and the ways in which we interact with it through collaboration, connection, and cooperation within the context of a caring relationship (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Maher & Tetreault, 1994), which allows for dissonance, partiality, and confusion (Ellsworth, 1994). For example, through the COVID pandemic, we struggled to redefine our teaching selves in an era of zoom instruction. How did we create community? How did we respect the personal challenges we and our students were encountering? Sometimes, we would text midclass while students were in groups, trying to figure out how to respond to in moment crises we were facing. This was especially true when this summer, Monica taught a seminar on Critical Feminisms during the rise of Black Lives Matter protests and needed an emotional and intellectual sounding board throughout her teaching. Our friendship buoys us to shake things up, disrupt, and open ourselves to new possibilities (Lather, 2006; St. Pierre, 2000). We see this work as a continuation of that which has come before us in the self-study of teacher education practices: the imperative to explore issues of gender, privilege, and power (Arizona Group, 1996, 2000; Manke, 2000; Perselli, 1998, 2004; Skerrett, 2007). We hoped that writing from our everyday vulnerability would help to disrupt sexist and misogynistic norms and replace them with new opportunities for ourselves as well as our students. Much of this scholarship emerged from 2016 to the present day, as we reflected on our gendered childhoods and early years of teaching in response to increasing assaults on women in society.

6.2  O  ur Background to the Self-Study: Living Feminist Contradictions Monica: I cannot even recall the first time I became aware of the power and importance of the male gaze. I feel like the messaging was constantly loud and clear. You want male attention. Heads should turn. Attracting men is valuable and important.

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

97

My mother was a true knockout. Absolutely gorgeous–probably model material in her day–and her parents constantly told her what a beauty she was. She had the most beautiful clothes. For her Sweet Sixteen, a doll was made of her in her dress. That summer she went to Europe with her parents on a ship and was lavished with attention from men of all ages. My grandfather loved to take my mother out because of all the admiration he received with her on his arm. She constantly dieted–she bragged that during her college years she lived on lifesavers. It was always about looking good. She had THE most bizarre relationship with food. Emily: It’s so interesting Mon. My mom was lovely, but she never felt attractive. I remember–from my earliest years–her talking about feeling unattractive, too heavy, aware always of her poverty in North Carolina. She carried herself so elegantly–beautifully–like a model. But I cannot remember a time when I did not know that there was self-loathing of her body and her sense of her physical self in the world. Monica: My mother’s continual concern about her looks and the male gaze seemed to always conflict with her feminist ideals. She would bathe me in the tub with photos of Gloria Steinem and others on the wall and talk about how women could do anything they wanted. She seemed to believe in women but her power as a sexual object always seemed to come first. She had grown up in the 50s and in some ways she was never able to shake that mentality. In many ways she defined herself by her relationship with a man. Emily: I saw this conflict in my mother as well. She would constantly talk to me about Virginia Woolf and the importance of having a “room of one’s own.” She had supported herself and my dad until I was born and while they had agreed she would stop working, she felt the financial dependence on him so deeply. She rued it, but seemed not to feel able to change it. She would both emphasize body positivity in me, but was miserable in her own body. And even the body positivity was framed as a kind of “you’re beautiful and that will make your life easier” way that had a real impact on me. (Facebook Messages: February 6th, 2020) Even though we recognized that our own upbringings of being raised on second-­ wave feminism of the 1970s and Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman” and our coming to know as third-wave feminists and pro-choice supporters of the 1990s were complex and often contradictory, we would never have imagined that almost forty years later, we would be still be living in a nation and a world dominated by sexism, misogyny, and the patriarchy. In the fall of 2015, as we mustered up the hope that we would soon have a female president in the USA, a dream that we had as children and that our mothers promised would one day be actualized, instead a sexist, white supremacist was elected. Recognizing that the notion that we lived in a “post-sexist” society was not true, we grappled with the constant assault of narratives in the news and social media that remind of us that the patriarchy is alive and well and has not lost its tight grip on the lives of women, children, and all those who are marginalized. Three years later, we watched as Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford thoughtfully shared accounts of being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh at a high school party in a

98

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

privileged community in the 1980s and along with thousands of other women, we thought to ourselves her narratives could be our stories, of being sexualized, sexually harassed, and physically abused. We knew that our stories were not unique and that the assault on women is pervasive nationally and globally. Months of messaging and dialoguing about our own experiences of abuse and assault would form the first of a series of pieces that took us from the personal to the professional (Taylor & Klein, 2020). In our writing, we wrestled with how assaults on women manifest in a variety of ways including lack of access to healthcare, birth control, and abortion; few opportunities for education increase of domestic violence; economic disparities of single mother households; the police murders of Blacks and the systemic racism that exists in society and in schools; the growing concern for the rights of LGBTQ youth in schools and society; and the misogyny of fundamentalist religious and political groups. We acknowledged the possibility of schools as sites where these inequities could be examined and problematized and yet we were acutely aware of the tensions of that goal with the neoliberal agenda of claiming to be gender neutral but in fact reproducing sexist, racist, and heteronormative inequalities (Taylor & Klein, 2020; Taylor & Klein, in press). Our personal experiences became how we investigated the implications for our teaching and professional lives. Throughout this chapter, we interweave examples from our personal correspondence to illustrate our process of co-constructing meaning around these issues.

6.3  O  ur Co/autoethnographic Method: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook Messaging to Understanding The version of co/autoethnography that we used for this self-study research drew from a long legacy of methodological use that Monica had developed with Lesley Coia (Taylor & Coia, 2020) but was reshaped by her collaboration with Emily and new nuances and features that emerged from our co-construction. Like the co/autoethnographic work, we found ourselves constructing knowledge together through dialogically interweaving our stories. We attempted to examine how our selves were presented through these narratives within the third space of our personal/professional relationship as well as the larger society in which we grew up and live. Similar to Monica’s work with Lesley, we tried to allow the meaning to emerge through the dialogue, rather than critiquing one another’s experiences. We found meaning and connection in “listening and recounting of stories” (p. 573). We began to realize that we had a true authentic burning question (Wells, 1999) to explore, when we dialogued about our personal responses to the Trump presidency within informal personal communications of texts, emails, and Facebook posts and messages. Once we realized the power of dialoguing through these personal media, we began to do so intentionally. Rather than compartmentalizing our professional

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

99

writing, we allowed ourselves to just write back and forth to one another within texts, emails, and Facebook posts and messages (Cardetti & Orgnero, 2013; East, Fitzgerald, & Heston, 2009; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2014). We were using a kind of “nomadic jamming” (Coia & Taylor, 2014), which allowed for us to move back and forth from the past to the present, from our personal experiences, to our professional experiences as teachers and teacher educators. We jammed and flowed, and started and stopped, adding in references to things we were reading about teaching and the experiences of secondary trauma, and embodied ways to address them in the classroom. Within the context of these informal messy ways of dialoguing, we found ourselves wading through deep emotions. Our friendship helped to hold space for those feelings, whether new or old. We grappled with how to compose a co/autoethnography that reflected this interweaving of the personal and professional. What would it look and feel like? How could we capture our emotions and yet still offer professional insights? Drawing from Richardson’s (2000) criteria for trustworthiness in writing for inquiry, we wanted to construct a piece that spoke to the readers aesthetically, but we also engaged them intellectually. Rather than separate the personal and the professional, we wanted to create a piece of writing that blurred the boundaries as a means of analysis. We looked at Middleton’s article, Doing feminist theory: A post-modernist perspective (1995), in which she provided two versions of her research, one personal and one professional, and took our co/autoethnography one step further. We wrote collaboratively from blended voices of the personal and professional in order to have our lived personal experiences engage with our professional identities. This process has manifested in a series of published pieces over the years (Taylor & Klein, 2020), but most recently as we began work on a book about gender and teacher education (Taylor & Klein, in press). In this final section, we describe and illustrate two major purposes our writing served. Rather than provide a series of clipped examples for each, we include one significant example of each kind of writing in an attempt to capture the kinds of dialogue that occurred. In some cases this writing was deliberate—i.e., we set out to try and raise these issues in our writing together while in other cases it was spontaneous. In each case, our ability to write across Facebook messenger, text, email, and Google document allowed us spaces for both deliberate and spontaneous dialogue. Overall our collaborative writing served two purposes: 1 . To make sense of our past and present experiences as women and teachers. 2. To improve our current work as teacher educators through dialogue and interweaving our personal stories with the theory and research on trauma, anger, and feminism. These purposes were specifically tailored to our current interests as scholars/ educators/women but could be generalized to the work of all self-study researchers.

100

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

6.3.1  M  aking Sense of Our Past and Present Experiences as Women and Teachers Writing serves as a kind of “sensemaking” (Weick, 2001), something that “gives us an insight into where we come from” (Langenberg & Wesseling, 2016, para.12). In order to generate narratives for our book, we began writing back and forth to one another over email. Sometimes, this would take the form of beginning to make sense of our early teaching years, as we did in a series of emails about anger, our first years of teaching, and how that manifested in our early 20s. We felt a kinship as we realized that we were both NYC school teachers at almost the same time, just out of college, and navigating schools where large portions of our students were of color and living in poverty. In that sense, many of them brought to school their own traumas and we were navigating both our experiences of personal trauma, our students’ traumas, and learning to teach. We were attempting to understand what it meant to be an urban teacher and where our personal and professional lives met and diverged. Emily: My first year was so brutal. So so brutal. I'm truly amazed at how my students from that time remember me as loving and caring because pedagogically I was so limited. But yes–that year I moved into my own apartment in the city for the first time–living alone. And by the end of that year I was starting to drink and drink hard! Lots of fun, but in a dark way over time. Monica: I was exactly the same–drinking, dancing into the night, going out A LOT. I was so exhausted from all the feelings that I carried around every day that I did not want to feel a bit. Emily: I remember how hard it was for me to manage anger and direct confrontation. For years I had avoided conflict in that way and mostly I could use humor to manage and navigate that. But sometimes I struggled with what I knew–not to take things personally. When my students stood up for themselves, were seemingly rude to me, aggressive, talked back, said no–it raised so much emotion for me and anger too. Monica: Did you express your anger? I feel like I was just a bundle of raw emotion those first few years. I would get so pissed off at my colleagues in the teachers' lounge. There were mostly male teachers there at the time and I was one of four young women who were hired. Those guys had been there forever and they treated us in sexist and patronizing ways. They also had no understanding of what good teaching–they were great with discipline but super traditional– teaching the same shitty lessons year after year after year. I would just lose it with them and start screaming. I clearly had a lot of anger and they made me so mad. They weren't really making a difference in the lives of the kids and it felt so frustrating. And I also broke three door windows as a teacher. I would be so frustrated with the students. They wouldn't listen or they would be disrespectful and I would just lose it. And they were so inappropriate with me at times–talking about my body,

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

101

fl­ irting, asking me out. As I write this I think no wonder I was so fucking angry–I was sexualized by the male teachers and students constantly. I literally started dressing like the kids to hide my shape, baggy girbaud jeans and a big sweater. Emily: Yes by the end I was expressing my rage but in crazy ways–I almost came to blows in a bar with a woman once–I remember that scared me. I would go into rages on the subway because people would walk up the stairs on the wrong side (ha!!) . . . . My rage and anger was all over the place by the last year I was there. I remember cursing once in front of my students when they were inappropriate laughing at a rape scene in a movie we were showing about Vietnam. The next day I came in and apologized–it was the first time I had done that in front of them. They kept saying "oh Miss don't worry teachers curse at us all the time." I cried after that. I didn't want to be another person in their life who couldn't behave like an adult. It's not that I care about cursing–it's that I thought there should be one space in their life that is different you know? (Email Exchange, Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:03 AM) For over a month, we dialogued back and forth through email and text about these past experiences as young, white women learning to teach. The process began more messily than not, after a series of emails and texts about how we might do this, we decided email was the easiest way. One of us started writing a little bit about a memory or a thought. Then, the other would respond back, writing in bold to distinguish who was speaking and responding directly to different sections, thus creating a dialogue. With each response, we used a different font (italics, bold italics, etc.) to mark clearly who was the author. In doing so we created a rich back and forth, of personal musing, responsive writing, and sometimes journaling. We tried to write every day, but sometimes our responses took a few days to formulate. But the other waited; it was important to us that we not continue to write until we had heard from the other. Much of co-authoring can involve two people writing in parallel, but for us, the source of our narratives was dialogic and interwoven. We were actively listening to one another and then responding. The other’s response often became a new way of thinking about our own experiences. We wrote dialogically to make sense of our past and to think about how our past helped to inform our present ways of theorizing about being young novice women teachers.

6.3.2  A  llowing Personal Dialogue to Make Professional Meaning Part of what made our reflection more than mere navel-gazing was the work we actively did to connect it to our professional lives and selves. Some of our daily writing involved the texts we were reading. In a separate Google document, we kept a record of everything we read and our notes about those texts. Sometimes, we read the same things, certain foundational pieces we wanted to write about, but often we did not. We realized that it was more efficient to read some separate texts, and this

102

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

way we read more broadly. As we were reading, It was not unusual for one of us to text the other with an interesting quote or idea. We were each other’s think-partner, and we often wanted to process new ideas together. These notes and insights often came into our collaborative writing. Dialoguing through writing helped us to find ways to weave together our understanding of the literature with our own personal stories and reflections. Sometimes, this would involve naming past or present experiences, and other times, we would discover new understandings for ourselves beyond the literature that would have implications for our work as feminist educators. This kind of dialoguing broke from traditional academic writing where one might write a summary paragraph of all we know about a particular topic and aimed to see how these texts worked together to give shape and meaning to our lives. It was a blurring of the personal and the academic or professional, one that emerged from the friendship (nobody would be able to dialogue in this way if they were strangers) and also helped to build our friendship. The process was bidirectional. Monica: Reading about women and anger in this book Burn It Down (2019), I am reminded that angry women are called bitches, witches, whores–they are hysterical, crazy, dangerous, bitter, jealous, emotional, dramatic, petty, hormonal, and they are shunned, shamed, shut down, drugged, locked up, and killed, women are not allowed to be angry. They just aren't. Emily: I thought of this today as I was looking through Traister (2018). I remember reading and being told that biologically being angry is bad for our bodies–our blood pressure, etc. And I was trying to reconcile that with my belief that it's important for women to express anger in part because we are not allowed to. I came across this quote: “I confess that I am now suspicious of nearly every attempt to code anger as unhealthy, no matter how well meaning or persuasive the source. I believe Stanton was correct: what is bad for women, when it comes to anger, are the messages that cause us to bottle it up, let it fester, keep it silent, feel shame, and isolation for ever having felt it or re-channel it in inappropriate directions. What is good for us is opening our mouths and letting it out, permitting ourselves to feel it and say it and think it and act on it and integrate it into our lives, just as we integrate joy and sadness and worry and optimism” (p. 244). I think that's really profound. We aren't taught to change systems that create the anger, that allow us to make changes in our lives that could prevent anger in some serious ways. But rather we are simply taught that it's bad for us and bad. But I do want to go back and look at some of that literature. She frames it more positively this way: “On some level, if not intellectual then animal, there has always been an understanding of the power of women's anger: that as an oppressed majority in the United States, women have long had within them the potential to rise up in fury, to take over a country in which they've never really been offered their fair or representative stake. Perhaps the reason that women's anger is so broadly denigrated--treated as so ugly, so alienating, and so irrational–is because we have known all along that with it came the explosive power to upturn the very systems that have sought to contain it. What becomes clear, when we look to the past with

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

103

an eye to the future, is that the discouragement of women's anger--via silencing, erasure, and repression--stems from the correct understanding of those in power that in the fury of women lies the power to change the world” (p. 52). Monica: I did that too for years, because for me being angry meant being like my biological father, fiery, passionate, angry, and often violent. I spent much of my life, from the time I was about 8 until maybe 10 years ago, terrified of strong emotions–terrified that there existed some sort of demon in me that I needed to actively hold down. And it's not like I didn't feel anger–it certainly was there for me–but I was always repressing it. But I can get very angry and want to release it physically. I can feel it boil up in me. Jamison (2019) wrote about how women are not allowed to be angry-–they are only allowed to be sad because sadness is more refined and selfless. when women get angry, they often feel shame or embarrassment. I remember feeling this way when we were trying to decide who to admit to the UTR (Urban Teacher Residency) and I got into an argument with Mike D about the resident who I knew was sexist. He told me he didn't know what I was talking about and I finally blurted out: “Well that is because you are not a woman.” And then I felt incredibly vulnerable because I had spoken from a place of anger and also fear, probably. Like I let the wall down and showed myself and it made me so uncomfortable. Kring (2000), a psych professor at Berkeley, wrote about how men express their anger through physically assaulting objects or verbally attacking people, while women are more likely to cry when they are angry–like that is the acceptable emotion for the outside world as women. Angry women make people uncomfortable–they are much more likely to deal with a sad woman who will evoke sympathy. She loses her social capital when she is angry. Emily: I think it is helpful for me to think about our anger as less than as not only about how it hurts us, but how it has possibility for liberating us. That speaks to a lot of what you have written below–what is the purpose of our anger? It does make people uncomfortable (and go to the stuff we wrote on likeability–we are PUNISHED for it in the workplace)–and Kring is right–we try to find socially acceptable ways to express our anger, to make it palatable and sympathetic. We can't just be angry because SHIT IS WRONG. We have to be angry because we are scared or sad. Monica: I am struck by how often women are silenced or shamed when they are angry. . . . At some point when I started to explore anger on the dance floor through 5Rs, I learned about the purpose of anger–our anger instinct is there to protect things that we love–it fuels us, our actions against injustice, our protection of others, of ourselves. It is a necessary emotion, one that we need. Lorde (2007) talks about this in her essay on the uses of anger-it is a catalyst for useful discomfort and clearer dialogue. Jamison (2019) wrote, "anger isn't just a blaze burning structures to the ground; it also casts a glow, generates heat, and brings bodies into communion" (p. 22) . . . "this is a vision of anger as fuel and fire, as a powerful inoculation against passivity" (p. 23).

104

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

Where does anger exist in our teaching? Where do we allow anger with our students? I think about the students’ bodies in schools that are always being controlled–stay calm, stay attentive, stand up straight, stand in a line, fold your hands–but where do kids get to feel their anger, work through their anger, use their anger as fuel? I think of the Rodney King riots when I was a teacher–and staging a protest with my middle school students in the school yard because I just had a gut feeling that they needed to be in their bodies. Emily: I think related to this–the idea of where anger exists in our teaching. I think a lot of what you say is true. Part of it is honoring the anger that students come to classrooms with –about injustices they can't name or powerlessness in their worlds. I think part of what we do as teachers is teach them to NAME that anger, the injustice. It is not enough to offer an alternative vision of the future (i.e. "you can get an education and your life will be great!"), but rather help them harness their anger to create a world that addresses the roots of their anger. Teachers– preservice and in-service need this too. They need to feel they have a voice, that what they are seeing and experiencing matters–that the injustice that is perpetrated on them as laborers is also something they can protest, change, etc. (Email Exchange: Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:01 PM) Above are examples of how we have interwoven our personal narrative into research, literature, and theory, creating a dialogue for the construction of meaning and breaking boundaries. Through an exchange of emails, we demonstrate how our personal dialogue drives collaborative meaning-making. We are able to disrupt the traditional binaries of personal/professional, theory/practice, lived experience/intellectual, mind/body to something more holistic like praxis. Our email exchange began as a response to readings that we were both doing and how they resonated with our own past experiences. We then connected to our personal work as teacher educators, and finally, we considered how these insights might improve our teacher education practices with preservice and in-service teachers. Again, because we rejected rigid binaries, it made sense that our meaning-making of our past experiences, the literature, and our writing helped to inform our thinking about teaching.

6.4  Conclusion Women helped each other in ways small and large every day, without thinking, and that was what kept them going even when the world came up with new and exciting ways to crush them. (Cole, 2017, p. 164)

This chapter explores the elements of our feminist writing partnership, elements that through co/autoethnography act as guiding principles or touchstones for our collaboration. For us, a feminist writing partnership is grounded in:

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

105

6.4.1  Friendship and Vulnerability We remind each other constantly that there is always more work, but friendships require nurturing. We come to the partnerships believing that the work is better and more meaningful when we can be vulnerable together both personally and professionally, as vulnerability allows us to be curious, caring, and connect to those questions and concerns that are of primary significance to our lives. For example, even as we were writing this, Emily was supposed to go visit Monica for two days at the beach. For a few moments, she wondered if she should cancel—she had so much writing to do on their projects. Would Monica be upset if she didn’t make as much progress as she should? But she reminded herself, that without nurturing the friendship, the work would quickly become meaningless. What would either of us care about another publication if it meant that we lost each other as friends? We know this may sound simple, but we believe that a close personal friendship with a colleague allows for the kind of personal and professional vulnerability that is necessary to full engage in challenging and emotional self-study research. We hope that our readers already have those kinds of blurred friendships or will look to develop them as we rely so much on one another for personal and professional growth.

6.4.2  Authentic Personal/Professional Meaning-Making Our research, reading, writing, and teaching are all grounded in the drive for authentic meaning-making that emerges from the interweaving of our personal and professional lives. We recognize that for us, this is a relatively recent phenomena with our privileged status as tenured, full professors. We have reached a career milestone where we can more easily (and yet within the academy never fully easily) commit to work that matters to us whether or not it is the kind of work approved of in the narrow confines of the academy (although we strove to do this prior to tenure and promotion as well). We went into this field, in part, because of who it allowed us to be and the ways it allowed us to grow, but we have committed to work that informs us as human beings as well as we engage in work that is informed by our lives. We believe that the constant need to produce in the academy can only be fulfilling if the research focus of teacher educators truly comes from the heart. We encourage our peers to listen to themselves carefully and only commit to research that speaks deeply to them.

106

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

6.4.3  Action While we are both deeply reflective individuals, one of the purposes of our writing partnership is about creating knowledge that is action-oriented, driving our practice as teacher educators, fighting for social justice, and building knowledge that we can share with others and guides our teaching, advising, and collaborations with stakeholders. Our work resides in a third space, where we are always thinking about the practical implications. For example, for a chapter we are developing in our next book together, we are thinking through the ways to support preservice teachers who come to the classroom with trauma and work with children in trauma. We have begun to consider what we might add to their coursework to better prepare them to tap into both the strengths and challenges of working with children who have experienced trauma. We know that too often academics reside in the intellectual realm and do not always consider the implications of their work on the ground. We believe that when you put into practice what you learn through research, and specifically self-study of teacher education practices, you are contributing to change and agency. We encourage all of you to continue to think about the ways in which your research is action-oriented. Neither of us can fathom a writing, teaching, and research partnership for ourselves that exists outside of a friendship, a friendship that is prioritized above and beyond the work. But we acknowledge that we are also fed by the work that the friendship is related to the work. And in truth, our solid and very reliable friendship is what has allowed us to try out a meaning-making process that organically happens through our daily interactions. Said differently, we trust that our friendship and the ways that we engage with one another help us to lead to new understandings of the world. We do not think there could be another route for our commitment to fight sexism oppression and exploitation as feminist teacher educators. We hope that others will take up these commitments too.

References Arizona Group. (1996). Navigating through a maze of contraindications: A conversation on self-­ study and teacher education reform. In J. Richards & T. L. Russell (Eds.), Empowering our future in teacher education. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 96–101). Kingston, ON: Queen’s University. Arizona Group. (2000). Myths and legends of teacher education reform in the 1990s: A collaborative self-study of four programs. In J. J. Loughran & T. L. Russell (Eds.), Exploring myths and legends of teacher education. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 20–24). Kingston, ON: Queen’s University. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books. Brown, J. S., & Gray, E. S. (1995, November). The people are the company: How to build your company around your people. Fast Company, 1, 78. https://www.fastcompany.com/26238/ people-­are-­company

6  Allowing the Personal to Drive Our Self-Study: Texting, Emailing, and Facebook…

107

Bushnell, C. (2006). Sex and the city. Grand Central Publishing. Cardetti, F. A., & Orgnero, M. C. (2013). Improving teaching practice through interdisciplinary dialog. Studying Teacher Education, 9(3), 256–266. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2013). Uncovering our feminist pedagogy: A co/autoethnography. Studying Teacher Education, 9(1), 3–17. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2014). A co/autoethnography of feminist teaching: Nomadic jamming into the unpredictable. In M. Taylor & L. Coia (Eds.), Gender, feminism, and queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 157–169). Sense. Cole, A. (2017). Let us dream. Seditious Sisters. East, K., Fitzgerald, L., & Heston, M. (2009). Talking, teaching, and learning: Using dialogue in self-study. In D. Tidwell, M. Heston, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-­ study of practice (pp. 55–72). Sense. Ellsworth, E. (1994). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In L. Stone (Ed.), The education feminism reader (pp. 300–327). Routledge. Fletcher, T. (2020). Self-study as hybrid methodology. In J.  Kitchen, A.  Berry, S.  M. Bullock, A.  R. Crowe, M.  Taylor, H.  Guðjónsdóttir, & L.  Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 269–298). Springer. Jamison, L. (2019). Lungs full of burning. In L. Dancyger (Ed.), Burn it down: Women writing about anger (pp. 7–23). Seal Press. Johnson, L. M. (2018). On likability. https://tinhouse.com/on-­likeability/ Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. Kring, A. M. (2000). Gender and anger. In A. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 211–231). Cambridge University Press. Langenberg, S., & Wesseling, H. (2016). Making sense of Weick’s organising. A philosophical exploration. Philosophy of Management, 15, 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40926-­016-­0040-­z. Lather, P. (2006, October). (Post)Feminist methodology: Getting lost OR a scientificity we can bear to learn from. Paper presented at the Research Methods Festival. Lorde, A. (2007). Sister outsider. Crossing Press. Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. (1994). The feminist classroom. Rowan and Littlefield. Manke, M.  P. (2000). Power relations and how they work: Weaving threads of meaning. In J.  J. Loughran & T.  L. Russell (Eds.), Exploring myths and legends of teacher education. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 168–172). Queen’s University. Middleton, S. (1995). Doing feminist education theory: A post-modernist perspective. Gender & Education, 7(1), 87–100. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 86–95. Perselli, V. (1998). The political is personal: An action researcher investigates issues of sex and gender in a junior school. In A.  L. Cole & S.  Finley (Eds.), Conversations in community. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 66–69). Queen’s University. Perselli, V. (2004). Marx and education: Exploring the teachings of Marx in the context of my role as a school experience liaison tutor in initial teacher education. In L.  M. Fitzgerald, M. L. Heston, & D. L. Tidwell (Eds.), Journeys of hope: Risking self-study in a diverse world. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 198–201). Queen’s University. Pithouse-Morgan, K. & Samaras, A.  P. (2014). Thinking in space: Learning about dialogue as method from a trans-continental conversation and trans-disciplinary self-study of professional practice. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past,

108

M. Taylor and E. J. Klein

p­ resent, and future possibilities of self-study research (pp. 167–170). Proceedings of the tenth international conference on self-study of teacher education practices, Herstmonceux. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.  K. Denzin & Y.  S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 923–948). Sage. Skerrett, A. (2007). Looking inward: The impact of race, ethnicity, gender, and social class background on teaching sociocultural theory in education. Studying Teacher Education, 2(2), 183–200. St. Pierre, E. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477–515. Taylor, M., & Coia, L. (2006). Revisiting feminist authority through a co/autoethnographic lens. In D. Tidwell & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity (pp. 51–70). Sense. Taylor, M. & Coia, L. (2020). Co/autoethnography as a feminist methodology: A retrospective. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H., Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices.(pp. 565–588) Springer. Taylor, M., & Klein, E. J. (2018). Tending to ourselves, tending to each other: Nurturing feminist friendships to manage academic lives. In N. Lemon & S. McDonough (Eds.), Mindfulness in the academy: practices and perspectives from scholars (pp. 99–111). Springer Press. Taylor, M., & Klein, E. J. (2020). Dislodging patriarchal and academic boundaries: Dialoguing on trauma through text, email, and Facebook messenger. Taboo, 19(1), 51–69. Taylor, M., & Klein, E. J. (In press). Our bodies tell the story: Using co/autoethnography to disrupt the patriarchy in our lives and in our classrooms. Myers Education Press. Traister, R. (2018). Good and mad: The revolutionary power of women’s anger. Simon and Schuster. Weick, K. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell Publishing. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press.

Part III

Self Study and Artistic Representation

Chapter 7

Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship Stefinee Pinnegar, Trudy Cardinal, M. Shaun Murphy, and Janice Huber

Abstract  We begin this chapter with a quote from an article by Trudy Cardinal to introduce the ways in which an author can write so that the reader moves toward knowing that it is an essential part of producing quality writing for intimate scholarship, and then our analysis of the article follows. The purpose of the chapter is to explore the challenges and articulate possible responses that intimate scholars might take in their writing. To meet the purpose we provide an example from Cardinal’s work followed by analysis. We consider four challenges: intimate scholarship’s dual positioning, conundrums based on intimate scholarship characteristics, writing in a personal but academic voice, and the move from writer- to reader-based prose. To explain the challenges and guide writers in responding, we follow the pattern that begins this chapter. We explain the concepts and the challenges they pose, and provide a representative quote from Cardinal’s article. We analyze the quote indicating where the challenge resides in the writing and how Cardinal’s text responds to and resolves the challenge making suggestions for response. We end by considering how intimate scholars can construct texts that engage readers in writing that is oriented toward knowing by attending to challenges in their own writing. I end with the story of me, as I go back to my course planning where I take up those teeny, tiny, little pieces of literacy that I broke apart as I silenced stories of Mosoms and moccasins to become really good at stories of pedagogy and curriculum. I will continue to dream up a new story, possibly a new story that starts with Mosom, along with the grandmothers, teaching me to listen with more than my ears (Archibald, 2008, p. 8), and then I just might hear the voices of my undergraduate students in ways that will help them to hear the stories of their youngest literacy learners. And then maybe someday I will share another talk and tell a different story of literacy in an Indigenous context. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 6)

S. Pinnegar (*) Department of Teacher Education, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. Cardinal · J. Huber University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada M. S. Murphy Department of Educational Foundations, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_7

111

112

S. Pinnegar et al.

This is the knowing that Cree/Métis scholar Trudy Cardinal (2015), in the article “Mosoms and moccasins … Literacy in an Indigenous context,”1 is writing toward. This quote comes from the last paragraph of the article, in which Trudy concludes her reporting on her inquiry into Indigenous literacy. In the article she links hidden stories of her own literacy development (including her Mosom—grandfather), her teaching of preservice teachers, and her knowing of the research on Indigenous literacy. By linking the ending to the place where she began, Trudy invites us in as readers to recognize the cycle of knowing she has embraced and shown in her written inquiry. She juxtaposes her past action in teaching and representing her knowledge of literacy as the “teeny, tiny, little pieces” that as an academic had positioned her as an expert in curriculum planning and pedagogy for teaching preservice teachers’ literacy, against her gradual awaking to knowing herself in new ways.2 In bringing forward her personal knowing of literacy learning by thinking with her stories of her Mosom, of moccasins, and of the places and ways that shaped her young life, Trudy shows how her earlier knowing is broken apart. In the article, Trudy acknowledges and makes plausible the knowing space of drawing forward both memory and dreamscapes into meaning making. She gently invites readers into this process of coming to know from experience that we, as scholars, often potentially silence. (We may quietly inwardly engage in this in our interpretive process, but we seldom share it as part of our analytic, interpretive representation of the process in our writing.) Trudy articulates her knowing from exploring this living contradiction: her teaching of literacy as an expert needed to be reconsidered in ways that acknowledged her own stories of literacy learning. In addition, she proposes that if she listens carefully to her voice and to the voices of students, her knowing of Indigenous literacy learning and teaching could be further enriched and reshaped by the literacy learning stories of the students.

1  Canadian Social Studies has granted us the right to draw on, in this chapter, significant portions of: Cardinal, T. (2015). Mosoms and moccasins ... Literacy in an Indigenous context, Canadian Social Studies, 48 (1) 1–7. 2  In part, Trudy shows this gradual awakening as coming into being as she prepared for a presentation at an Indigenous Literacy Event at a local high school:

The evening of the talk, I stood before the audience feeling as if it was my debut public talk about literacy from my Cree/Métis perspective. I knew that as a Kokom, mom, aunty, teacher, and now teacher educator I had been thinking about literacy from my Cree/Métis perspective my whole life. I had also been thinking about how my early landscape stories of literacy didn’t always line up with the stories of literacy that educators seemed to covet. The grand narrative of literacy learning is often one of being nurtured by parents snuggling children reading books each night. And as I considered this narrative I felt a niggling sense of unease as I looked to my own childhood and realized that no one read to me when I went to bed and yet somehow I was the quintessential, nose in book, living in the library kind of child, and I still am. And I wondered how many other literacy learners didn’t have that experience of family reading to them like in the movies or in the storybooks. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 3)

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

113

Trudy also stands within a living contradiction of scholarship wherein she has drawn forward into interpretation not just memory, but experience, and dialogue with those outside the academy (puzzling interpretation and understanding out into our daily conversation). This works as scholarship because of the way Trudy positions drawing forward dreams and memories into interpretation as part of her interpretive process. She articulates here the ways in which these unconventional dialogue elements shattered (broke into tiny pieces) her past concept of what she needed to teach when she taught preservice teachers about developing literacy with their students. The narrative is straight forward but it escapes from the potential for it to be writer-based prose or prose that communicates the ideas and thinking of the writer without taking into account the understanding of the reader (Flowers, 1979). This happens because Trudy articulates her knowing in order to develop complex concepts. The article as a whole unpacks Trudy’s struggle to uncover her knowing of Indigenous literacy and form a presentation of it in a way that represents her understanding of Indigenous literacy to an audience of undergraduate preservice teachers and fellow academics, along with listeners and readers. We begin with this quote from Trudy’s article and our analysis of it to introduce ways in which an author can write themselves and readers toward knowing that is an essential part of producing quality intimate scholarship (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2015) of which self-study of teacher education practice (S-STEP) can be a part. Beginning the chapter in this way also introduces the pattern we follow as we show one scholar’s process of writing toward knowing. Our purpose is to explore the challenges and potential responses by those engaged in various forms of intimate scholarship in order to support intimate scholars in the hard work of becoming stronger writers. We do this by reporting the challenge, providing an example in Trudy’s work, and then articulating how she responded. Four challenges for scholars in producing quality written reports of intimate scholarship are considered. First is the dual positioning of intimate scholarship. Second includes the writing conundrums introduced by its characteristics. Third is the challenge of writing in a personal yet academic voice or register. Fourth is the tension in the move from writer- to reader-based prose. In order to articulate the challenges represented and guide writers toward potential responses to them, we follow the pattern with which we began this chapter. We articulate concepts and the challenges they pose, followed by a quote from Trudy’s article that represents the challenge and its resolution. Then, we unpack the quote in order to show where the challenge resides in the writing and how Trudy’s response resolved the challenge; also we make suggestions for responding to the challenge. We end with a consideration of how intimate scholars can attend to these challenges in their writing.

114

S. Pinnegar et al.

7.1  Challenge One: Dual Positioning of Intimate Scholarship Intimate scholarship can be undertaken from a number of methodologies: primarily S-STEP, but also autoethnography, action research, design-based research, various forms of narrative research, qualitative research, and narrative inquiry (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2015). The article by Trudy (Cardinal, 2015) that we think with in this chapter is a hybrid of narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) and S-STEP.  We name it in this way because it is written in the style of an autobiographical narrative beginning and at the same time meets the characteristics of S-STEP scholarship identified by LaBoskey (2004). The scholarship is expressed in an academic register but with a first-person voice. As a scholar of Indigenous ancestry, Trudy foregrounds the relational way in which she understands experience and her careful attention to ethics and honesty. Intimate scholarship (regardless of methodology) explores the particular, is oriented toward relational ontology, employs dialogue in the process of coming to know, and is conducted in (and invites readers into) a space where knowing is unstable and shifting. Since intimate scholarship acknowledges the uncertainty and openness of results, the researcher as well as the findings and the process of research stand in a space of vulnerability. In other words, intimate scholarship has a dual nature. It is intimate meaning that just like intimate relationships is honest and open. The author in intimate scholarship positions the writer in a close and warm relationship with readers, and the knowledge represented emerges from carefully investigated familiar or sometimes personal and private experience and the knowing of it. Simultaneously, its goal is also academic and the writer/researcher has a purpose of contributing new unearthed knowing from embodied knowing or experience to the educational research conversation to which the topic might contribute. In other words, it is also scholarship. Such scholarship and the writing of it has a dual nature: it is both intimate and scholarship. The writing challenge is that written accounts of such inquiries require an authentic voice that expresses the report of the study in a scholarly or academic register and is also an honest expression of what is—warts and all—from the perspective of the author. The report of the inquiry seeks to knit together intimate, expounded personal knowing with the academic. This is a precarious balance. Such writing must take into careful account the academic audience the writing is meant to inform, and transform. Such writing (like Trudy’s in her 2015 article) demands elegance, grace, provocation, humility, and honesty but not sentimentality preciousness or solipsism. Intimate scholarship requires that authors both embrace and clear the space of traditional Modernist epistemology. It requires that reports of it be expressed in a register that is familiar as scholarship and familiar as personal writing. Most traditional Modernist scholarship is consumed by objectivity, generalizability, and assertions of foundational criteria for knowing and thus often lacks the energy of the intimate scholarly voice that positions the study and the reader in a space of openness, vulnerability, and relationship. Producing work that represents this dual nature (intimacy and scholarly) is a difficult balance.

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

115

7.1.1  E  xample for Meeting the Dual Nature of Intimate Scholarship This searching for coherence… was also something I considered as I thought about literacy in an Indigenous context because after I found myself in the current, being swept away on route to Center High’s Literacy Event, the words of Indigenous author Thomas King (2003) popped into my mind. … I imagined that I might stand before the ... audience, and have everyone look at me saying, “You’re not the Indian I had in mind” (King, 2003, p. 43). … As I contemplated the concept of literacy in an Indigenous context or from an Indigenous perspective, I noted this urge to silence my own knowing. … I had an overwhelming desire: to squelch the stories that I knew from my experiences. … When I experience this kind of tension I turn to academic experts in the field of research and I seek out the written word to articulate knowing about literacy. … I imagined sharing literature about literacy in an Indigenous context from the literacy-knowing scholars. … But I didn’t. … It is important to think about the ways we know and the ways we share this knowing and the kinds of knowledge we might validate or disregard. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 2)

7.1.2  A  nalysis and Recommendations from an Example of the Dual Nature of Intimate Scholarship Trudy’s article provides many examples of how she meets the challenge of representing this dual nature effectively. It is especially evident in the quote with which we began the chapter, but it is also present in the additional example provided above. Trudy immediately fronts the difficulty of honoring her own knowing of learning to be literate as an Indigenous person while also honoring her learning of literacy from her education and her experience as a teacher and an as an academic. Her playful use of the Thomas King reference introduces a whisper of her knowing of the scholarly. Thomas King is a well-known and respected Indigenous scholar who was the first Aboriginal person to win the Massey Lecture, an annual public invited lecture series awarded to outstanding and respected Canadian writers and thinkers. As Trudy draws on Thomas King’s stories and concepts, she makes visible a broader social narrative about Indigenous peoples that she has faced since birth. By drawing Thomas King into the conversation she is shaping with readers, Trudy shows how she carries wisdom that also positions herself as a knower of the scholarly—which is a way of maintaining the balance of the intimate and the scholarly. As Trudy draws forward King’s (2003) naming of the social phenomenon of “not [being] the Indian [that someone] had in mind” (Cardinal, 2015, p. 2) she lets readers feel her vulnerability in relation with students, academics, and others in the audience and their opinions about her Indigenous and her scholarly knowing of literacy development. Doing so again balances the scholarly and intimacy. There is always a vulnerability in intimate scholarship (which we will discuss later) but here that vulnerability expressed in her doubting of herself as someone who will be recognized as a legitimate knower brings intimacy (the honest evaluation of the self) against the

116

S. Pinnegar et al.

academic references which anchor her as a knowledgeable scholar.3 This playfulness and juxtaposition of knowing as a scholar and intimate knowing of the self is present across Trudy’s article, but especially evident here. She is expressing herself honestly but is also representing herself as knower of the scholarly. By juxtaposing her knowledge of how to teach children to be literate and how to teach teachers to teach children to be literate (from her knowledge based mostly in Modernist teacher education scholarship) and her commitment to the intimate to not disregard or dismiss her personal intimate knowing of how she learned to be literate as an Indigenous person, Trudy provides a strong example of the ways in which she balances both elements of intimate scholarship. She meets these dual demands of intimate scholarship by articulating her scholarly knowing and raising questions of it from the basis of her personal knowing. Trudy represents herself here as a living contradiction. She has enacted particular kinds of teaching and pushed particular kinds of knowing based in Modernist epistemology. Yet, she juxtaposes this Modernist knowing of literacy and best practices for promoting it in tension with her own knowing as an Indigenous person. Negotiating and fairly accounting for such tensions in our work occurs when—like in Trudy’s work here—we account for the duality inherent in intimate scholarship. Too often those who operate from intimate scholarship violate this balance of the intimate (the personal, honest, and open) against the scholarly (usually a more distanced, expert, and objective voice). When intimate scholars write preciously or overshare or fill their accounts with sentimentality, they lose balance. Another article that represents well the dual nature of intimate scholarship is a study by McNeil (2011) who accounts for her challenges as an African-Canadian in her university teaching with neither solipsism nor sentimentality. Intimate scholarship is filled with passion, irony, and emotion, but never apathy, ambivalence, and disinterest. As researchers, we can cultivate this dual voice by including in our written accounts our own voice, concern, and knowing in relationship to the things we uncover in our studies. We attend to the scholarly by considering theory by seeking diverse voices and findings of the concepts we are pursuing, our consideration of theory, and our attention to the multiplicity, by taking a reasoned approach in our writing. Trudy honors the authors who have explored and reported on Indigenous knowing and literacy. She also honors more traditional and mainstream research on developing children’s literacy and the practices that support that. What is important in this piece and as a guide for intimate scholarship is that Trudy honors her own knowing as an Indigenous learner, as someone who learned to read, taught others to read, and taught preservice teachers to teach children to read.

3  In her text (though not included in the above quote), Trudy also references other well-known Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars.

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

117

7.2  C  hallenge Two: Conundrums Embedded in Characteristics of Intimate Scholarship Several of the characteristics of intimate scholarship can disrupt our writing as we create our scholarly accounts. There are three conundrums associated with this challenge. The first is the dilemma of responding to both relationships and ethics. Indeed, the fundamentally relational nature of the work heightens ethical concerns. The second is the predicament of honoring ontology and holding to the value of the particular. This kind of work focuses on the particular but must also attend to the whole of the context of the inquiry. Third are the tensions between achieving trustworthiness in the face of vulnerability, openness, and uncertainty. As Trudy shows, the issues of openness and uncertainty as we report our research findings and our embracing of dialogue as our process of coming to know includes considerations of trustworthiness and coherence. In this section we define each of these, and identify the conundrums and dilemmas they pose for the writer of intimate scholarship. We follow with a representative quote from Trudy’s (2015) article that captures the conundrum and its resolution. We then examine the quote to reveal the issue as well as Trudy’s response. We end with guidance for how to respond.

7.2.1  T  he Dilemma of Relationship and Ethics in Intimate Scholarship When intimate scholars create research accounts, their identity as the researcher and the context they are writing about are easily knowable. In addition, the accounts seek to represent the development and understanding that is uncovered and explored in the account accurately and completely, again—warts and all. Representing our own unsettling truths or our less than stellar action or thinking in an inquiry based in intimate scholarship while difficult may not be problematic, but when such accuracy draws others in or requires that we do not smooth the stories we seek to tell, then issues of relationships and ethics emerge. As we construct such accounts, we are faced with the dilemma of how much needs to be said when relationships are difficult, or how much of a context that is problematic needs to be explained to present the understandings and the meaning making that emerged in the study. The intimate scholar, because of the commitment to scholarship, wants to be as truthful and forthcoming as possible regardless of difficult truths or experiences that need to be reported. Yet, the commitment to open, honest intimate relationships within the scholarship requires that we honor our relationships with others and their identity and integrity as well as the dynamics of the place where the inquiry occurs. In intimate scholarship, we have an ethical commitment to humans and moral obligations to scholarship and we are turned again and again creating accounts that honor ethical commitments and obligations to the moral.

118

S. Pinnegar et al.

An ethical commitment to scholarship may push the writer in one direction while a similar commitment to intimacy and relationships may push in the other. This is further complexified when we recognize the ethical commitment we hold for ourselves (Pinnegar & Murphy, 2019). Because intimate scholarship exists in a relational ontology that involves the development of thick relationships that enable us as scholars to reach across difference (Appiah, 2007), seek to understand the views others might hold, and welcomes diversity of opinion within our scholarship (Slife, 2004) the dilemma of holding ethical commitments to both scholarship and relationships can disrupt researchers as they write accounts of intimate scholarship. The dilemma for the researcher is to represent their knowing within an account in a way that reduces the potential vulnerability of others. The researcher must be ethical and create an honest account, but the researcher must also honor the relationships involved. 7.2.1.1  Example of the Dilemma of Ethics and Relationship One of the subtexts of Trudy’s article (Cardinal, 2015) is the tension found in this dilemma. It is there in the initial quote in the reference to going back to course planning with “teeny, tiny, little pieces of literacy,” “silenced stories,” and the statement of “teaching me to listen with more than ears (Archibald, 2008 p. 8),” (p. 6). It is also present in the example representing the duality in Intimate scholarship when she says: “As I contemplated the concept of literacy in an Indigenous context or from an Indigenous perspective, I noted this urge to silence my own knowing” and then states later in the same passage: “It is important to think about the ways we know and the ways we share this knowing and the kinds of knowledge we might validate or disregard” (Cardinal, 2015, p. 2). Following is another example: When I said yes to speaking about literacy in an Indigenous context, many stories flooded back filling me with memories. Yet I was reluctant to bring them forward to the literacy event. I felt that perhaps they wouldn’t be the literacy stories people had in mind. In the end I was compelled to share them anyway. I felt that I was supposed to share them because they were there—my stories of experience as a literacy learner, the stories that once I had disregarded as not academic enough to bring to university courses. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 3)

7.2.1.2  A  nalysis of the Example of the Dilemma of Ethics and Relationship This dilemma of ethics and relationship is evident in the initial quote as Trudy represents her own knowing as silenced and her scholarly knowing as fragmented. By juxtaposing these ideas Trudy honestly represents her current commitment to both. As she plans her courses, she ethically includes her scholarly knowing, while simultaneously striving to no longer silence her intuitive knowing captured in her accounts of her dreams and her memories of how she actually experienced and lived literacy as a young child. The dilemma of relationship is also captured as she commits to

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

119

become better at listening to students’ stories of literacy development and to stay struggle with them as they collectively are both able and not to reconcile them with her scholarly knowing of literacy development. What we report here about the dilemma in the first example is true in the second in the passage. The resolution of the dilemma is found in her statement about “thinking about the ways we know, sharing that knowing, and then seek to validate or disregard” (Cardinal, 2015, p. 3). In the longer example we see the dilemma since in her inquiry she was reluctant to include her own memories of becoming literate because of how they might be considered by those she considered more knowing others. However, as Trudy shows, she gradually honors her ethical responsibility to herself and her own knowing. Within the article she articulates the ways in which her becoming literate was not in line with the stories in the scholarly literature that centered practices of being read to and supported in literacy development in her home. This is a hard story to share. Trudy does not dwell in the particulars of her experience or become maudlin or sentimental, instead she honors her family by fronting the reality that she became literate within that context and was supported in the ancestral ways of her family. In this quote, she honors her story and the story of her family by arguing that her stories of literacy learner needed to be shared and not disregarded but brought into tension with “academic” stories of literacy development. In this account, Trudy demonstrates how we bring forward what might be considered hard stories that could potentially make those we care about vulnerable. To account for the hard stories, she links them with academic stories, creating in this linking a richer and more complex story of literacy learning and teaching and being a teacher educator for literacy learning.

7.2.2  T  he Predicament of Ontology and the Value of the Particular When we write about our studies of intimate scholarship, because it is positioned in a relational ontology and focused on the particular, we are always engaged in a predicament of determining how much context and how much detail needs to be in the account. This is indeed similar to the dilemma we just discussed. When we construct reports of intimate scholarship, because it is our story, we always know more than we need to say or than should be said in order to account for the knowing we gained from our inquiry experience. Determining how much to say to communicate about what is and the characteristics of the particular is most often a harrowing editing experience. Because of the nature of intimate scholarship, we adhere to Grice’s (2002) maxims of quantity, relation, and manner. We find ourselves constantly questioning which quotes are most compelling and best buttress our assertions for action or understanding or provide the clearest evidence of the trustworthiness of the meaning we have uncovered in the inquiry. We have concern about not being overly informative, being relevant (including in our narratives sufficient detail to

120

S. Pinnegar et al.

communicate but not engaging in prolixity), and avoiding unnecessary obscurity and avoiding unintentional ambiguity. Because we are interested in the particular, we often deliberately take up explorations of things that may have been forbidden in scholarship in the past or represent new and unreported concepts and ideas. We are torn between how much of the context we stand in, how much of our assumptions going into the study, and how much detail of our experience must be included in the account if we are to communicate accurately and adequately. We have to make judgments about how much of what we know in our practice or in our life experiences or from our explorations in the particular inquiry do we need to provide if we are to support our readers in understanding what we learned, and the complex ideas and concepts we are trying to communicate. We seek to look carefully from multiple perspectives at our attempts to understand and enact our routines, our new practices, our learning from experience, and our attending deeply and carefully to systematic study using methods that allow for insight and discovery and scholarship. Yet, there are limits of pages and attention spans that need to be taken into account. How do we say more by saying less? 7.2.2.1  E  xample of the Predicament of Ontology and the Value of the Particular Trudy’s article is rife with the ways in which she responded to this challenge. In some cases, Trudy generously provided more detail and in others she provided less, but enough to communicate her ideas. For example, when she represented scholarly knowing of Indigenous literacy as a listing of names and dates, she is using an academic shorthand to indicate she has read and knows the relevant scholarship. This is further established by her quote of Archibald with the date and page. Yet in contrast, she introduces Thomas King and the quote about not being the Indian they had in mind. This balancing of what is needful is most clear in her decision to include three dream experiences, two with Mosom, her grandfather. We include one here: And yet, in this dream my Mosom was being honored in this way. There I was, with my daughter, granddaughter, and my siblings in my dream. As we gathered, my sister noted that we were all in need of new moccasins. The ones we were wearing looked awkward and didn’t fit. ... For me, dreams are part of literacy in my Cree/Métis context. And yet, I have never, as a teacher, a learner, or a professor, created any spaces where dreams might be welcomed. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 5)

7.2.2.2  A  nalysis of the Example of the Predicament of Ontology and the Value of the Particular In writing this account of her inquiry, Trudy had to make the decision of whether or not to include her intuitive knowing, her knowing from dreams, and her knowing from her life experience. How much of ontology and the particular would be

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

121

included, if she chose to do this? How much was needed to establish the context of what she was communicating and yet focus this toward the particular understanding of Indigenous literacy she was seeking to communicate? She had to determine whether to reference all three of the dreams that were part of the inquiry process and how much detail to include. Introducing dreams and intuition as part of our scholarly process is a risk. Of course, it makes us vulnerable and could raise questions about our trustworthiness as a scholar and that of our account. In taking this risk, Trudy initially tells of a dream where her Mosom taught her to make a fur hat and even though, because she did not speak Cree and her Mosom did not speak English—a fraught process—she was able to construct the hat. Deciding to include this dream, Trudy is able to demonstrate that in her life experience, knowing from dreaming was/is a legitimate enterprise. In addition, Trudy uses just a sentence or two to report to us how she engaged in dialogue as a process of coming to know in her interactions with her sister. She reports in her article that she was hesitant to report these things. The inclusion of the dream in the quoted example above is important as well because it mirrors Trudy’s uncertainty in her knowing of Indigenous literacy and her questioning her own stories (which she initially felt needed to be silenced). In introducing dreaming into the ontological account and focusing this introduction on the particular (Trudy’s journey toward understanding what Indigenous literacy—its development and teaching—is or could be), she opens new space in intimate scholarship for new kinds of data and more accurate accounts of coming to know. She does this by attending to how much needed to be said to present this knowing as viable within a scholarly article. A reader might wonder, what else might she have done? Trudy did not spend any space using scholarly literature or Indigenous literature to defend dreaming as a way of knowing (which she might have done). She did not spend space creating a catalogue of all her experiences from knowing through dreams or intuition; instead, she included only one. It was an abbreviated account, that reported the details of a dream even in which she learned how and then made—based on the information—a fur trapper hat—just the evidence to establish the credibility of dreaming. She then also includes the account of engaging her sister in dialogue to make meaning from the dreams that was relevant to the inquiry she was involved in. As in other places in this article, Trudy has a light hand and a sure foot in being able to select and include only the detail needed.

7.2.3  Trustworthiness, Vulnerability, and the Tension of Openness and Uncertainty Intimate scholarship exists in a space of openness and uncertainty in the knowing and in the account of our knowing. From the earliest publication of S-STEP work, there has existed an understanding that studies using this form of intimate scholarship remain open and the reader is invited to return and reinterpret what is said (see

122

S. Pinnegar et al.

Hamilton & Pinnegar 1998 where the introduction is the final segment of the book). Hamilton and Pinnegar (2014) provide an example where they open and reopen interpretation into the phenomenon of Famous Men’s Hallway from Feminist, Positioning Theory and then Queer Theory perspectives. What these works illustrate is that intimate scholarship is never closed and that even published studies are open to be reinterpreted. This is partly because they are grounded in relational ontology, but it is also because the focus is on the particular. The studies do not claim generalizability but invite readers to interrogate their own context and their own knowing in relationship to the work they study. Intimate scholarship exists in an uncertain space, since the researcher acknowledges that knowing will shift, that the context will evolve and the knowledge of participants will change unpredictably. This leaves researchers in a challenging space. The intimate scholar is vulnerable to issues of trustworthiness, identification of self and others, and the space in which the research is conducted is uncertain. In this uncertain, open, and vulnerable space the researcher must proceed with authenticity, veracity, and confidence in the knowing presented. Because this is intimate scholarship, the article adheres to the cooperative principle articulated by Grice (2002) that the author will attend to the maxim of quality, and that the author will not say that which is untrue or that for which the author has insufficient evidence. 7.2.3.1  E  xample of the Tensions in Trustworthiness, Vulnerability, Openness, and Uncertainty Trudy’s work is positioned within these tensions from the beginning of the article and this is still evident at its conclusion as represented in the quote with which we started this article. She asserts she will “dream up” conceptions of Indigenous literacy and that she will listen more carefully to the students she comes alongside with the expectation that as she listens new ways of understanding intimate scholarship will emerge. Too, this is clear in this quote: ...as I contemplated this request later, the literacy understanding I held as an elementary school classroom teacher had shifted. ... During those times, literacy wasn’t about conversation or relationships or stories, at least not in the ways that I had come to know. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 2)

7.2.3.2  Analysis of the Example of the Tensions of Trustworthiness We have already shown the ways in which Trudy established her trustworthiness in the use of dreams and interpretation of them in relationship to other stories in the account as a viable foundation of these accounts. She undercut the potential vulnerability of this stance because she demonstrates to the reader that she adheres to the maxim of quality. Through her honesty, her use of examples, and her provision in her article for different kinds of knowing brought together reasonably and holistically, she establishes her credence for her use and integration of these forms of data.

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

123

In this example, we point to the ways in which she clearly accounts for the uncertain space in which this study was begun. She recognized that earlier knowing she was secure in (the scholarly account of teaching teachers to teach literacy) had shifted and she was on uncertain ground as she began. She makes clear where she began and leaves open even at the end of the article that shifts were continuing. Her making visible the irony she experiences, as she enquires into stories others may have or hold of her as a person of Indigenous ancestry, is part of what in the text leads us to accept her as a trustworthy knower. Brubaker (2010) establishes himself as trustworthy in presenting his knowing of negotiating student contracts through presenting a thorough analysis of research on negotiation beyond the field of education. Murphy et al. (2011) demonstrate their trustworthiness through their juxtaposition and integration of multiple stories of issues of ethics. What we argue here is that there are multiple ways to establish trustworthiness. What Trudy demonstrates here is that in intimate scholarship where authors (and those in their coming to know process) are vulnerable, where interpretation is never final, and where the inquiry space is uncertain, it is through the whole of the account that trustworthiness is established and these issues are resolved.

7.3  Challenge Three: The Use of the Personal Voice Reports of studies that can be framed as intimate scholarship, as noted earlier in this chapter, have a dual nature represented in the label. The intimate quality of the scholarship enables readers to have confidence that the author utilizes Grice’s (2002) cooperative principle and attends to the accompanying maxims. The author is agreeing to provide only the necessary information, that the information provided will not be false or without evidence of its veracity, that what is said will be relevant, and that the writing will be clear and forthright avoiding obscurity and unintentional ambiguity. Further, intimate scholarship attends to the personal, but is also embraces the characteristics of the personal essay which Lopate (1995) argues uses an inviting, somewhat conversational tone that communicates candor and sometimes a personal voice that some readers may experience as unpredictable. Lopate labels intimacy as a central feature of personal essay. In the writing, the author in sharing events, details, memories, and feelings to establish an intimate relationship with the reader—a dialogue of coming to know based in relationship with and care for the reader. The enemy of the integrity of the personal essay is expressions that can be characterized as sanctimoniousness, sententiousness or holier-than-thou. This is blatantly true for intimate scholarship which must also avoid sentimentality and preciousness. The reason for these restrictions is that central to intimate scholarship is that authors must communicate their clear position in a relational ontology and a recognition that reader and writer are human and participate in the human condition. The challenge for the intimate scholar is to establish a personal voice and yet to do so while also engaging a scholarly register. Intimate scholarship is presenting findings from an inquiry—from a carefully crafted and enacted research study. As

124

S. Pinnegar et al.

argued earlier, the author must create this intimate space adhering to both scholarship and intimacy. Research based in Modernist epistemology establishes its credibility through camouflage—essentially hiding the features of a context that would make it identifiable and utilizing a distanced voice to communicate the viability of generalizability and a lack of bias—objectivity. Intimate scholarship, like much of post-modern scholarship, embraces subjectivity. A central feature then of intimate scholarship is the use of the personal voice. Employing and maintaining the use of the personal voice and yet communicating the purpose, process, and understandings that emerge in a scholarly voice is not simple. Often, researchers can unknowingly switch between voices. They will shift between the safe, distanced, third-person, and passive voice of traditional scholarship and the first person, subjective yet scholarly voice of intimate scholarship. The personal voice of intimate scholarship should be maintained throughout the work often revealing thoughts, feelings, personality, and the character of the writer. The writer voice is authentic and open conveying a willingness to honestly share the insights and knowing that has emerged in the inquiry. The writing demonstrates an awareness of the reader and a desire to connect with them using scholarly language and a natural voice free from unnecessary jargon, colloquialism, or slang. The writer continually shows what is meant providing details, cases, and examples that establish trustworthiness without being overly complex or providing irrelevant cases and examples.

7.3.1  Examples of Personal Voice We began this chapter with a quote from Trudy which is clearly expressed in personal voice. We provide an additional quote below that is at the end of Trudy’s article which also clearly represents the personal voice she uses throughout: I end with the story of me, as I go back to my course planning where I take up those teeny, tiny, little pieces of literacy that I broke apart as I silenced stories of Mosoms and moccasins to become really good at stories of pedagogy and curriculum. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 6)

Another quote in Trudy’s article that is also a clear representation of how she uses personal voice shows through as she says: Even as I shared this story with my sister in preparation for this talk, I heard the hesitation in her voice about how it might be received. I kept it in anyway because if I was going to ask my undergraduate students to share their early landscape literacy stories then I should do the same. I understand the vulnerability of sharing our stories and this too is what literacy means to me—sharing stories and vulnerability. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 5)

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

125

7.3.2  Analysis of the Examples of the Use of Personal Voice One of the hallmarks of intimate scholarship is the use of first person (except in directly quoted data). This use is important because it fronts the intimate aspect of the scholarship and signals the willingness of the author to be in ethical relationship with the reader. However, it also then requires a commitment of honesty, sparsity (just enough information), relevance, and clarity that needs to be carried out within the writing. The scholar also needs to be clear who this person is we are engaging with—who is the “I” of this piece. So, there is immediately a balance to establish self (or selves) as authors and yet not provide a comprehensive and unnecessary autobiography. Yet, for each of us as scholars there are details of personality and character that are important and relevant to the piece. Tidwell and Fitzgerald’s (2004) chapter in the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices has always been an exemplar. Through the study, Tidwell’s personality, character, and commitments as a teacher educator are clearly revealed without preciousness, sentimentality, self-righteousness, or oversharing. She maintains an academic yet unique personal voice. Hamilton’s (1995) early piece in which she compares her entrance into the university with Dorothy’s visit to Oz is another great example of the melding of the personal voice within scholarly writing. Trudy, in this writing, provides another exemplar. She begins the piece by establishing who she is and her voice with the phrase: “As a Cree/Métis assistant professor in the area of Elementary Education…” (Cardinal, 2015, p. 1). Her use of this personal voice positions her in relationship with us sharing forthrightly her heritage and her status. This is also evident in the phrase, “I end with the story of me” (Cardinal, 2015, p. 6). In both of these cases, Trudy not only uses a personal voice but she also engages Grice’s (2002) cooperative principle. In her use of her personal voice, as both of these quotes indicate, she does not become verbose but provides sufficient detail to establish a relationship communicating who she is, and her willingness to be honest with us. We trust what she shares. Her reference to returning to her academic work along with her mention of her sister communicate personality and character. The impact of the talk with her sister that led to her decision to share her stories of dreams, her own story of gaining literacy (found elsewhere in the article) which was drastically different from the standard story told by her students are further details that make the reader accept her voice as authentic. Notice the adequacy yet sparsity of the details. This is evident in her sharing that she talked about her dream story with her sister as she prepared for the talk, that her sister was hesitant about its inclusion, and her commitment to include it anyway based on her practice of requiring such sharing from her students. Notice here that she could at these points raise prolixity to an art by providing extensive detail of the conversation with her sister and an analysis of her reasoning behind honoring her commitment to her students by sharing in her article details she was potentially uncomfortable with and that positioned her in a space of vulnerability. Such writing requires the author to consider, to trim, to identify what is relevant, and what needs to be said to both support and communicate meeting. Such writing requires that the author

126

S. Pinnegar et al.

interweaves evidence of the intellectual prowess and commitment to the scholarly in the inquiry and in the accounting for it. There is always in this writing a juggling of saying enough to be relevant and informative while avoiding ambiguity.

7.4  C  hallenge Four: Transforming Writer-Based Prose to Reader-Based Prose When a researcher embraces intimate scholarship, the task of using reader-based prose becomes an imperative. One of the reasons for this challenge is that since the researcher is often in some way a participant in the inquiry, the researcher knows more than needs to be said about the context, the process, and the evidence in order to create a readable, understandable, and trustworthy account of the research. These studies always exist in between spaces (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001), which complicates the process of creating trustworthy accounts that attend to both elements of intimate scholarship. To articulate the study, the intimate scholar faces the challenge of communicating what potentially exists in his or her head as a writer-based account into reader-­ based prose. Flower (1979) argues that in writing the author is most likely to begin an account constructed as writer-based prose. In the mode of natural writing the author constructs an account using a survey or chronology from their perspective. Such accounts attempt to represent the complexity but not the concepts to be communicated. What this means is the accounts are often verbose and yet also ambiguous and obscure, presenting elliptical accounts that leave out necessary information the reader needs in order to understand what the author is attempting to communicate. The author is often too detailed in some parts and leaves out details that are imperative if the reader is to understand and accept the assertions for action and understanding provided by the account. Flowers (1979) argues further that the use of narrative as an important part of an account complicates the situation. This is partly because the researcher may feel that just telling the story will be enough. In the face of this understanding, the writer fails to take up the more difficult task involved in shaping narrative forms of intimate scholarship such as S-STEP, Action Research, Design-Based Research, Narrative Research, or Narrative Inquiry into the necessary reader-based prose that communicates more complicated and complex concepts through narratives. Since many times intimate scholarship relies on narrative structures and narrative exemplars, writers meet the challenge of producing reader-based prose most likely to make a clear, compelling, trustworthy account of the study by creating a shared language and context, transforming facts into concepts, using stories strategically to create knowledge of complex concepts and finally honoring the contract between reader and writer for mutually useful discourse. In the rest of this section, we present each of these four issues in producing reader-based prose. For each of the four we provide a short definition, exemplify

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

127

them with an example from Trudy’s article, and analyze the quote to communicate how Trudy meets the challenge of producing reader-based prose.

7.4.1  Creating a Shared Language and a Shared Context Creating a shared language and a shared context is an ever-present challenge for intimate scholarship. As we have earlier argued, this scholarship has a dual nature of intimacy and scholarship. However, usually when it is presented to a scholarly community, which is used to the camouflage of objectivity rather than utilization of subjectivity to communicate understanding, creating this shared language and context is vital. Further, because context in such studies involves both the scholarly context and the particular context of the study (see Pinnegar et al., 2010) this can become complicated. To bridge this divide, the writer must understand the writer’s role in relationship to the reader. It is imperative that the writer recognize that just communicating the details or a survey of the process is not enough. The writer must meet the obligation to make the connections the writer wants the reader to make. Further, the writer needs to use language that is not elliptical, obscure, or ambiguous. The writer needs to identify code words in the writing that may mask meaning and need to be unpacked, and the buried meaning should be uncovered and made explicit. 7.4.1.1  Example of Creating a Shared Language and Context From the beginning of her article, Trudy creates a shared language and context. The first sentence of the piece, cited earlier, establishes who Trudy is and her positionings and commitments. Another relevant example for this challenge is visible in this quote: I will continue to dream up a new story, possibly a new story that starts with Mosom, along with the grandmothers, teaching me to listen with more than my ears (Archibald, 2008, p. 8), and then I just might hear the voices of my undergraduate students in ways that will help them to hear the stories of their youngest literacy learners. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 6)

7.4.1.2  A  nalysis of the Example of Creating a Shared Language and Context In the example, as in the rest of the article, Trudy uses first person. In the article as a whole, as evidenced in earlier examples, Trudy continuously invites the reader in as she shares honest accounts of some of the actual ways in which she becomes literate. Referencing a well-known scholar (i.e., Thomas King) in a way that communicates her understanding and familiarity with the scholarship of Indigenous literacy, Trudy presents her inquiry and the reason and purpose for it and her heritage

128

S. Pinnegar et al.

as an academic and as a Cree/Métis woman. Her conscious and careful drawing on Thomas King’s knowledge, which is referenced earlier in this chapter, draws readers even further into Trudy’s inquiry because even though we may or may not be of Indigenous ancestry, most academics have been in spaces where we have been presented as a particular category and we are sure we are not “that” human who fits that category. Further, Trudy asserts her position in using dreams in exploring her knowing of Indigenous literacy showing how they are part of her Cree/Métis context. In this example, she uses the word “dream” metaphorically to argue that in the future she will start not with scholarship but with her Mosom alongside her careful listening to students. By introducing voices of those who populate her space and potentially that of her readers, Trudy’s explanation of Mosom meaning grandfather is her way of communicating understanding of what language we share and too, that some readers may need support in understanding. Intimate scholars create a shared context and a shared language, when like Trudy, we provide concise but relevant details of our context and we are careful in our language use to avoid words and phrases that obscure rather than support meaning making. Just because we can use abstract, complex, and obscure terms such use particularly in intimate scholarship can become code words whose meaning is buried and unclear and it can position us as condescending and self-righteous in relationship to readers.

7.4.2  T  ransform Facts into Concepts Buttressed by Development and Proof This challenge for transforming writer-based prose to reader-based prose has two elements. The first is the need to transform facts to concepts. This means that we become clear as writers concerning the relevant concepts in our work. By using concepts rather than facts the potential for readers to connect is both broadened and deepened, because a reader is more likely to have prior knowledge of concepts than they are of specific facts and details. Yet, at the same time, the author needs to employ facts and details in a way that they deepen readers’ understanding of the concepts and provide proof of the ideas and knowing expressed. This is especially vital in scholarly work of any kind. We must link together concepts with relevant proof. 7.4.2.1  Example of Transforming Facts into Concepts In her article, Trudy articulates her inquiry into the meaning of Indigenous literacy. At the end of the article, she shows her understanding of Indigenous literacy as still emergent and as resting in the stories and experiences of herself, scholarship, and students, if only she listens with more than her ears. This quote indicates further how she meets this challenge:

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

129

I end with the story of me, as I go back to my course planning where I take up those teeny, tiny, little pieces of literacy that I broke apart as I silenced stories of Mosoms and moccasins to become really good at stories of pedagogy and curriculum (Cardinal, 2015, p. 6).

7.4.2.2  Analysis of the Example of Transforming Facts into Concepts Trudy links the facts of the teeny-tiny pieces of literacy that in the past represented the knowledge of literacy she presented and taught students to her newer understanding of needing to teach literacy more holistically and in ways that embrace student experience and knowing as well as her own authentic account of (still) becoming literate. She buttresses her proof of her understanding about Indigenous literacy by referencing her silenced stories, her ignoring of a multiplicity of data and evidence of how Indigenous literacy might be taught and included in her curriculum and planning. In most academic writing and intimate scholarship, we might more straightforwardly and conventionally make these links, but the need is still there. Often, intimate scholars provide a quote from their data and simply expect the reader to make the relevant connections between the facts presented and the concepts the author is proposing. In Trudy’s article she subtly employs a helpful pattern. This is evident in how she begins her project—the quandary she faces in being presented as a knower of Indigenous literacy and its development and how she ends her article in the way she does by returning to where she started but now with an exploded and transformed past knowing of Indigenous literacy buttressed with the cycle of knowing articulated in the article. In this quote, she points to the specifics that positioned her in this new place that opens into future inquiry and knowing. The author of reader-based prose treats the reader with respect and makes the connections the reader needs to arrive at the understandings the scholarship has the potential to produce.

7.4.3  Use Stories to Develop Knowledge of Complex Concepts Using a reader-based prose approach to academic writing that includes and utilizes narratives is a particular challenge. This is because the reporting of a sequence of events being careful to include the remembered details but not in a way that is directed toward the communication of a particular purpose is a natural aspect of initial writing of an event. Flower (1979) shows how stories that are not transformed and linked in ways that uncover complex concepts or produce complex concepts do not engage the reader. When stories are simply articulated without attention to how the aspects of this or multiple narratives should be considered by the reader, intimate scholars leave the hard work of interpretation to the reader. It also leaves the writer at risk, since the reader is left to interpret and make meaning of the stories that may not lead to the understandings the writer hopes the reader to arrive at. Trudy’s work here is an excellent example. Another is a chapter by Huber and

130

S. Pinnegar et al.

Clandinin (2005), where they used multiple stories to uncover and then articulate their understanding of curriculum making in the face of the tensions that surround negotiating a curriculum of lives in which children’s and teachers’ stories bump against each other. Connecting and linking stories in order to develop and communicate complex knowledge to readers require the writer to pay careful attention to the needs of the readers in determining which aspects and elements of a story need to be shared (and what is too much detail and information) and what links between fact or data and concept needed to be made for the reader. 7.4.3.1  E  xample of Using Stories to Develop Knowledge of Complex Concepts There are several places in the narrative that unfolds in Trudy’s article in which she provides artfully reported story elements and threads she later links in ways that help us understand the meaning she made through the inquiry. Early in the piece, Trudy provides this example below of using story to develop complex concepts: As I contemplated the concept of literacy in an Indigenous context … I had an overwhelming desire: to squelch the stories that I knew from my growing up as a Cree/Metis literacy learner; to silence the knowledge I carried from my 13 years of teaching young literacy learners; and to ignore the understandings I had come to from my teaching pre-service teachers, future teachers of young literacy learners. … I imagined sharing literature … from the literacy-knowing scholars… (Fettes, 2013; Peltier, 2010; Sterzuk, 2008; Toulouse, 2013). But I didn’t. I weave in this story because this too is important to know in thinking about literacy in an Indigenous context. It is important to think about the ways we know and the ways we share this knowing and the kinds of knowledge we might validate or disregard. (Cardinal, 2015, pp. 2–3)

7.4.3.2  A  nalysis of the Example of Using Stories to Develop Knowledge of Complex Concepts In this example, Trudy references many stories. Had she taken up an approach of writer-based prose, she might have included more details from these stories that she attempted to squelch than were needed for us to understand the complex concepts she wanted us to arrive at as readers. She wanted us to understand that there already exists a scholarly story of Indigenous literacy and she provided references that allow readers to pursue that scholarly knowledge. In other places in the account she references her own story of literacy development as a Cree/Metis person and the ways in which it does not align with the comfortable stories of how to promote literacy development that represent a white middle-class orientation to children’s literacy development and which students often present as their own paths to literacy. She draws these stories together in this quote in ways that opens understanding of two key complex ideas. First, that there are multiple ways of knowing, coming to know, and sharing our knowing, and the influence these have on the knowledge we validate or disregard. Trudy latter links these stories to assert a second knowing that the

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

131

article shows, which is that knowledge of Indigenous literacy is emerging and can be built through narrative accounts from scholarly narratives, personal experience, and the stories of others and that we as scholars interested in this must listen and actually hear these multiple discourses. The insight we gain from Trudy’s writing is how to communicate spare stories and link them together in ways that enable the reader to understand the meaning we have arrived at. Just as importantly, in this work, Trudy invites us to bring our stories and our understandings, which opens potential that as we read and arrive at the conclusions she shares, we will simultaneously open up to the work of rethinking and reinterpretation of our own stories, practices, and ways of knowing and being. Doing so will position us in a space of uncertainty, but with an idea of how to pursue the ideas that open to us. 7.4.3.3  H  onor the Contract Between Reader and Writer for Mutually Useful Discourse As Flowers’ (1979) exploration of writer-based prose, Grice’s (2002) articulation of the cooperative principle, and Lopate’s (1995) introduction to a volume of personal essays attest, there is a contract between readers and writers. Nowhere is this more important than in scholarly writing. Afterall the purpose of such writing is to move forward research conversations and to shape and contribute to those conversations the scholarly results of our own inquiries. For intimate scholars, who write from a stance that may flow in a different direction or embrace different trajectories than scholarship written from more traditional orientations, there is a fundamental need to communicate clearly, enticingly, and cogently our ideas and the evidence that buttresses and provides proof of them. In order for us to meet this challenge, we need, as writers, to honor our contract to readers to provide useful discourse that they can both trust and utilize in developing their own scholarship. Flowers (1979) shows that to honor this contract the researcher writer needs to be aware of the multiple ways a research project and our account of it might unfold, and to select the more elegant and communicative representations of our knowing. 7.4.3.4  E  xample of Honoring the Contract Between Reader and Writer for Useful Discourse We have already articulated ways that Trudy honors this obligation and the ways she draws us in as readers to accept her as an authentic and trustworthy scholar. She demonstrates this further in the example below: I understand now that stories that I think of as silenced, as voices that I cannot hear, might be just waiting for the right time to come forward. Maybe they are waiting until the grandmothers lure them to a gathering with the scent of stew and bannock, where a trusted colleague might be waiting to entice them with stories of Indigenous youth leadership, literacy, and Indigenous authors. I might never be the Indigenous educator who understands literacy in the ways you might have imagined, or the ways you might have hoped. I always take the

132

S. Pinnegar et al.

long way, where I smile, nod, and laugh because I don’t understand. But I do know that Literacy in an Indigenous context includes building and sustaining relationships, engaging in conversations, and telling and hearing stories of the ways we make sense of the world. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 6)

7.4.3.5  A  nalysis of the Example of Honoring the Contract Between Reader and Writer In this example, Trudy points out the many paths and contexts from which improved knowing of Indigenous literacy might emerge. She indicates that importance for us to honor these various sources and contexts of knowing. She positions herself humbly as a person who might not be the scholar that uncovers the needed and important knowing that could inform better ways of supporting Indigenous learners in developing literacy. In honoring a diversity of ways of knowing, Trudy invites the reader in as potentially part of such an inquiry, and as a person with knowing that could contribute, and as identifying the importance of listening (collecting data and interpreting carefully and sharing results) to all of these ways of knowing. At every turn in our writing as intimate scholars, we should consider this example of Trudy’s and consider the ways in which, if we are open and honest, we show our excavation of our understanding, base our work in relational ontology, and act with integrity so that we can honor this contract to our readers who then stand in a space to produce new knowing of their own.

7.5  Conclusion Intimate scholars have the challenge of writing themselves out of the conventional academic writing plot in order to make a space where they can write themselves into the academic and scholarly discourse. This is the space in which they uncover their embodied knowledge of teaching and teacher education holistically rather than piecemeal. As they attend to the challenges confronted in this writing and honor their contract with readers, their writing then becomes scholarship others can use. They produce scholarly writing about problems in ways that interconnect everything expressed in an ethically grounded relational epistemology and ontology. Writing self-study of practice work, like most of intimate scholarship, exists in the space between ontology and epistemology. Carefully constructed accounts of “what is” can be taken up as knowing. This kind of writing is not simple. While not fiction, it draws on our most creative selves asking that we invent new types of scholarly writing and open space for personal expressions of our inquiry where we reveal what we have come to know and understand and, like this article from Trudy, we fearlessly provide an account of our inquiry that has integrity. When we do this, an undertone to the writing includes our emotional response.

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

133

As we have discussed early in this chapter, writing intimate scholarship requires that the writer accepts the challenge of working in a space of uncertainty and vulnerability. The writer seeks to produce accounts that communicate intimacy and scholarship. We best meet the challenge presented by this writing when we attend to the demands of both. Through using personal voice across the document, but making sure the register in the writing is not precious, dear, or sentimental but carries an academic tone. Critical friends or other readers can support us in meeting the challenge of the dual nature of this scholarship. They do this by supporting us in attending to its characteristics (which have the potential to disrupt the discourse), and consistently consider our readers as we write—making certain that they can understand, follow, and resonate with the account of our inquiry. Just as we take up the challenge of writing toward knowing, when we work to produce eloquent written accounts, we invite our readers to read toward knowing. Of course as intimate scholars we recognize that writing shapes our thinking but we cannot leave writing there. We need to recognize the dual nature and demands of the scholarly writing we take up in intimate scholarship and the accompanying challenges based on its characteristics. We need to embrace the subjective voice and carefully communicate by attending to Grice’s (2002) maxims of quantity, quality, relevance, and manner what we have to contribute to the research conversation. We need to clearly communicate the meaning we have made buttressing the complex concepts we present with evidence and proof. As assertions for understanding and action emerge from our engagement with the data, we must represent them in ways that the insights arrived at are clear in the ways stories are shared. Reports of self-­ study of practice inquiries require a voice that captures a scholarly or academic register that is not precious or arrogant but is an honest expression of what is—warts and all (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). The report of the inquiry seeks to knit together intimate, expounded personal knowing with the academic. Such writing demands elegance, grace, provocation, humility, and honesty but not sentimentality preciousness or solipsism. Self-study of practice research results in writing work and scholarship expressed in a register that no one grounded in a traditional, Modernist, research orientation could write—not a distanced third-person account. Indeed, our studies are based in work and practice that could never be produced from a Modernist research position. Most traditional Modernist scholarship is consumed by objectivity, generalizability, and assertions of foundational criteria for knowing and thus lacks the energy of the intimate scholarly voice that positions the study and the reader in a space of openness, vulnerability, and relationship. As Trudy shows, our studies explore things like living contradictions, living educational theory, embodied knowing, and diverse ways of knowing, being, doing, and relating that even yet are often held away from scholarship because these dwell in the realm of intuition4. The community welcomes expressions of knowing that emerge from embracing, exploring, and confronting the mishaps of living out 4  As we collaborated on this chapter and additional projects Trudy often storied her growth toward trusting her intuition. As she lived and told these stories, she showed how her commitments to continuing to grow the knowledge, language, and ways of knowing, being, doing, and relating that

134

S. Pinnegar et al.

practices and our explorations into the knowing that emerges. These inquiries explore the actual and often unsatisfactory or transcendent moments in our lives as teachers and scholars. In the quote from Trudy’s article with which we end this chapter, note the mention of dreams, the reference to Archibald (an important Indigenous scholar), and the indication that inquiry (as listening) are all elements that communicate the depth of Trudy’s knowledge and position her as an Indigenous scholar in her own right. This results in the text as a whole being a strong exemplar of the kind of intimate scholarship required in strong S-STEP, autoethnography, action research, narrative research, and narrative inquiry. This chapter, and the article of Trudy’s that we have thought with, provide guidance to others that can support them in strengthening their writing as a process of coming to know. We end with a quote from Trudy that represents intimate scholarship and the kind of writing it demands: I will continue to dream up a new story, possibly a new story that starts with Mosom, along with the grandmothers, teaching me to listen with more than my ears (Archibald, 2008, p. 8), and then I just might hear the voices of my undergraduate students in ways that will help them to hear the stories of their youngest literacy learners. And then maybe someday I will share another talk and tell a different story of literacy in an Indigenous context. (Cardinal, 2015, p. 6)

References Appiah, K.  A. (2007). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New  York, NY: W.W. Norton. Archibald, J. A. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. UBC press. Brubaker, N.  D. (2010). Negotiating authority by designing individualized grading contracts. Studying Teacher Education, 6(3), 257–267. Bullough, R.V., Jr. & Pinnegar, S. E. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Resarcher, 30(3), 13–22. Cardinal, T. (2015). Mosoms and moccasins... Literacy in an Indigenous context. Canadian Social Studies, 48(1), 1–7. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. Jossey-Bass. Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19–37. Grice, H. P. (2002). Logic and conversation. In D. J. Levitin (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive psychology: Core readings (pp. 719–732). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hamilton, M. L. (1995). Confronting self: Passion and promise in the act of teaching or my oz-­ dacious journey to Kansas! Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 29–42. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/23475831. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (Eds.). (1998). Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher (education). Hamilton: Psychology Press.

her Mosom encouraged her toward when she was a young child are now deeply and increasingly shaping the multiplicity of who she is and who she is becoming.

7  Writing Toward Knowing: Crafting Intimate Scholarship

135

Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2014). Interpretation and gender within the zone of inconclusivity. In M. Taylor & L. Coia (Eds.), Gender, feminism, and queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 45–60). Brill Sense. Huber, J., & Clandinin, D. J. (2005). Living in tension: Negotiating a curriculum of lives on the professional knowledge landscape. In J. Brophy & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Learning from research on teaching: Perspective, methodology, and representation (pp. 313–336). Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-­3687(05)11011-­6. LaBoskey, V.  K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Springer. Lopate, P. (Ed.). (1995). The art of the personal essay: An anthology from the classical era to the present. New York: Anchor. McNeil, B. (2011). Charting a way forward: Intersections of race and space in establishing identity as an African-Canadian teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2), 133–143. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2011.591137. Murphy, M.  S., Pinnegar, E., & Pinnegar, S. (2011). Exploring ethical tensions on the path to becoming a teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 97–113. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2015). Knowing, becoming, doing as teacher educators: Identity, intimate scholarship, inquiry. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Pinnegar, S., & Murphy, M. S. (2019). Ethical dilemmas of a self-study researcher: A narrative analysis of ethics in the process of S-STEP research. In R. Brandenburg & S. Donough (Eds.), Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher education (pp.  117–130). Singapore: Springer. Pinnegar, S., Hamilton, M. L., & Fitzgerald, L. (2010). Guidance in being and becoming self-study of practice researchers. In L.  Erickson, J.  Young, & S.  Pinnegar (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on self-studies of teacher education practices: Navigating the public and the private: Negotiating the diverse landscapes of teacher education (pp. 203–206). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices SIG. Slife, B. D. (2004). Taking practice seriously: Toward a relational ontology. Journal of theoretical and philosophical psychology, 24(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091239. Tidwell, D., & Fitzgerald, L. (2004). Self-study as teaching. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V.  K. LaBoskey, & T.  Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 69–102). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter 8

Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing Kathleen Pithouse-Morgan and Anastasia P. Samaras

Abstract  We are teacher educators who facilitate and participate in transdisciplinary self-study research communities in our respective home countries of South Africa and the United States of America. Our comparable experiences first brought us together in 2012, intending to learn from each other’s work in facilitating these communities. Digital technologies made possible new, virtual ways of connecting the projects we are enacting in transdisciplinary groups. This work is situated within our evolving conceptualization of polyvocal self-study research. In this chapter, we explore why and how we use and develop literary-arts inspired approaches in composing creative accounts of our scholarly work and analysis. We exemplify our self-­ study writing process to serve as a resource for others as we consider impetus and impact – both for and beyond the self – as we ask, “What difference can poetry and dialogue make to self-study scholarship?” Taken as a whole, our chapter illustrates the generativity of making time and space for arts-inspired playful writing. Significantly, the chapter highlights the need for universities to acknowledge and support such faculty efforts in methodological innovativeness. In that manner, faculty will be encouraged to move the field forward by exploring unanswered questions with new methods rather than relying only on traditional methods and replicating what others have already discovered. We offer our learning as an invitation to others to consider forming co-creative virtual spaces for exploratory writing that can contribute to changing the status quo for professional knowledge and practice on a global level. Self-study scholars begin with wonderings about their professional practice and research their own questions in their own contexts. Although research topics vary, a

K. Pithouse-Morgan (*) School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] A. P. Samaras College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_8

137

138

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

shared purpose is to challenge, deepen, and extend professional learning and knowledge to make a difference in practice for self and others. Fundamental to this, is awareness of the professional person as an active agent for change. In other words, self-study researchers position themselves as central characters who take purposeful action in their stories of professional growth. By embracing a self-study stance, teacher educators, teachers, and other professionals undertake to re-imagine their practice and contribute to the well-being of others (Kitchen, 2020; LaBoskey, 2004a; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2015a). As “a body of practices, procedures, and guidelines used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry” (Samaras & Freese, 2006, p. 56), self-study methodology is distinguished by certain qualities. These include openness, reflection and reflexivity, critical collaborative inquiry, transparent data analysis and process, and improvement-aimed exemplars of professional learning, ways of knowing, and knowledge generation (Barnes, 1998; LaBoskey, 2004b; Samaras, 2011). Self-study of professional practice can be enacted through a variety of methods (LaBoskey, 2004b; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). This methodological elasticity has motivated self-study researchers to combine techniques and explore and design new methods to advance their inquiries (Tidwell & Jónsdóttir, 2020; Whitehead, 2004). Self-study scholarship frequently displays the methodological inventiveness recognized by Dadds and Hart (2001) in the work of practitioner-researchers who “reached out for their own unique ways of doing or writing up their research, in response to the perceived needs of their particular project and their own preferred thinking and representational styles” (p. 3). Significantly, methodological inventiveness in self-study research has extended beyond methods of data generation and analysis into innovative modes and designs for self-study research writing (LaBoskey, 2004a; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2020b). Building on pioneering work of qualitative researchers who devised imaginative and evocative approaches for writing as inquiry (for instance, Ellis, 1991; Richardson, 1993), creativity in self-study writing has been inspired by an array of knowledge fields. These include, among others, the literary arts. Self-study scholars have used a range of literary modes, such as dialogue and poetry, to infuse their writing with emotion, complexity, and unique insights (East et  al., 2009; Galman, 2009; Guilfoyle et  al., 2002; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2020a). In the literary arts, dialogue can enable readers to come to understand more about the characters in a story and to see how growth happens through interaction between characters (Coulter & Smith, 2009). Correspondingly, dialogic writing has been used to portray how exchanges with trusted peers can deepen and extend individual self-study researchers’ professional growth (see Bullock & Sator, 2018; Martin et al., 2020). Poetry is “a literary form that transforms lived experience into poetic language, the poetic language of verse” (van Manen, 1990, p. 70). And self-­ study scholars have used the aesthetic, figurative, and rhythmic qualities of poetic language to generate imaginative and evocative insights into professional learning and practice (see Grimmett, 2016; Hopper & Sanford, 2008; Johri, 2015; Pithouse-­ Morgan et al., 2019).

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

139

In this chapter, we explore why and how we use and develop literary-arts inspired approaches in composing creative accounts of our scholarly work and analysis. Informed by Mishler’s (1990) conception of trustworthiness in inquiry-guided research, we exemplify our self-study writing process to serve as a resource for others. We consider impetus and impact – both for and beyond the self – as we ask, “What difference can poetry and dialogue make to self-study scholarship?”

8.1  Putting Our Self-Study Scholarship into Context We are teacher educators who facilitate and participate in transdisciplinary self-­ study research communities in our respective home countries of South Africa and the United States of America (USA). Our comparable experiences first brought us together in 2012, intending to learn from each other’s work in facilitating these communities. Digital technologies made possible new, virtual ways of connecting the projects we are enacting in transdisciplinary groups (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2017; Samaras & Pithouse-Morgan, 2018). This work is situated within our evolving conceptualization of polyvocal self-study research (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2015b; Samaras & Pithouse-Morgan, 2018; Samaras & Pithouse-­ Morgan, 2020). The theoretical roots of our polyvocal self-study research are in Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1984) detailed study of polyvocality (which he described as polyphony). Bakhtin explored polyvocality as a narrative method in the fiction of Fyodor Dostoevsky, who interplayed diverse voices and perspectives in his writing. Polyvocal narrative methods are also evident in the work of contemporary authors such as American novelist Toni Morrison (1992) and Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2006). These authors interweave different voices and viewpoints in their novels. From our perspective, literary-arts inspired enactments of polyvocality – exemplified by “plurality, interaction and interdependence, and creative activity” (Pithouse-­ Morgan & Samaras, 2019, p.  7)  – extend ways of performing and representing self-study scholarship. Self-study scholarship has been characterized by interaction and collaboration (Barnes, 1998). Our polyvocal self-study research has moved us to a multifaceted understanding of working with others as “critical friends” (LaBoskey, 2004b, p.  848). We recognize how our critical friendships are made possible through dynamic and creative inquiry with others (Samaras, 2011; Samaras & Pithouse-­ Morgan, 2018). Published writing produced within and across our transdisciplinary self-study research communities in South Africa and the USA exemplifies co-­ creativity (collective creativity) through the co-composition of poetry (Chisanga et al., 2014; Samaras et al., 2016), dialogue (Dhlula-Moruri et al., 2017; Pithouse-­ Morgan & Samaras, 2018), and vignettes (Hiralaal et  al., 2018; Samaras et  al., 2014). Members of these self-study communities (as featured in Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2020b, pp. 435-436) have found that creative writing practices can have many benefits. For example, they can “show different layers in [the] thinking and

140

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

the emotions that were part of the self-study process” (Lungile Masinga) and “allow the voices of others to be heard” (Refilwe Matebane). Imaginative writing can also be “of service to [readers]” (Thelma Rosenberg), and “[help] to transform…practice” (Anita Hiralaal). A literary arts-inspired fusion of poetry and dialogue has enabled and enriched our longstanding transcontinental self-study research conversations, which we have described as thinking in space (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2017). Our explorations in using poetry and dialogue are not limited to our interactions with each other. We readily shared and enacted the method with our students and colleagues as we collectively and extensively examined our work in supervision and facilitating self-­ study learning communities and over time (Pithouse-Morgan et  al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018). That work also allowed us to study what we had learned across our universities, which we captured through dialogue and poetry with colleagues from each of our universities (see Samaras et al., 2015, 2016).

8.2  C  ombining Poetry and Dialogue as Virtual Bricolage Self-Study Through our continuing (often daily), mostly online, critical friend exchanges over the past eight years, we have evolved in our work as self-study facilitators, researchers, and writers. In that process, we have designed and performed a virtual bricolage self-study method (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2017, 2019; Samaras & Pithouse-Morgan, 2020). We understand bricolage as working on something in an improvisational way, with materials that are freely available (Bricolage, 2018a). As bricoleurs, we let our questions direct our self-study research. We have combined methods and conceived new approaches, often through letting go and letting things unfurl (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2019, 2020a). Integral to our virtual bricolage self-study method has been the combination of poetry and dialogue for expressing and exploring our individual and mutual learning. In our writing, we have used a variety of poetic forms and modes for data generation, representation, and analysis (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2017; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2019; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2020a). Our poetry is often complemented by a series of short dialogue pieces that tell a polyvocal story of lived experience in self-study research (see, for example, Pithouse-­ Morgan & Samaras, 2017, 2019). The dialogue pieces are composed using extracts from personal data sources, such as audio recorded conversations or email conversations.

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

141

8.2.1  Looking Back at Our Published Self-Study Poetry Because of our familiarity with poetry as a research practice, it has become almost instinctive for us to begin a new piece of writing with poetry. To start writing this chapter, we looked back over our portfolio of published self-study poetry to consider its impetus, process, and impact. In response to our guiding question, we selected six exemplars of our co-authored poems, composed and published over five years (Pithouse-Morgan et  al., 2016; Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2015b, 2017, 2019, 2020a; Samaras et al., 2015). In what follows, we offer a brief overview of the pieces of writing in which the poems appear. We point out how and why our poetry was generated and how we used it in different ways as we played with poetic forms in our writing over time. “The Power of ‘We’ for Professional Learning” (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2015b) is the opening chapter of the edited book that introduced our conceptualization of polyvocal professional learning. Drawing on theoretical thinking and the literary-arts, we explored how conversations across disciplines, specializations, institutions, and continents can contribute to reimagining professional practice and collaboration in transformative, pluralistic, and creative ways that intensify improved learning for self and others. We used extracts from our transcontinental e-mail communication before and during the book process to make visible our interaction with each other as we developed our book proposal and engaged with chapter proposals submitted by the contributors. The dialogue that resulted demonstrated our learning as editors. We closed the chapter with a poem inspired by our conversations. “Breathing Under Water: A Trans-Continental Conversation about the ‘Why’ of Co-Facilitating Transdisciplinary Self-Study Learning Communities” (Samaras et  al., 2015) presents a transcontinental dialogue with six other colleagues. The conversation explored our personal and professional impetus for co-facilitating transdisciplinary self-study learning communities in the USA and South Africa. In this chapter, we brought together our many voices in a multiperspective and multiverse dialogue as we asked ourselves and each other why we facilitate self-study research. We openly assessed our learning through a series of academic and personal–professional conversations through face-to-face and virtual exchanges using a bricolage self-study method. Our inner and meta discoveries were cataloged through poetry. The chapter served as an invitation to others to extend the conversation about co-facilitating transdisciplinary self-study research. In “Exploring Methodological Inventiveness through Collective Artful Self-­ study Research” (Pithouse-Morgan et al., 2016), we collaborated with Lesley Coia and Monica Taylor to extend our shared history of innovative self-study research conducted in duos. In this article, we demonstrated how we combined our conceptualizations of polyvocal professional learning (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2015b) and co/autoethnographic research jamming (Coia & Taylor, 2014). We documented how we invented a virtual polyvocal research jamming method using a unique combination of rich pictures, poetry, vocal performance, dialogue, and dance

142

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

to create an organic representation of our collective learning over time. The article offered new possibilities for exploring how imaginative expression and perception can enrich self-study research. Subsequently, in “Thinking in Space: Virtual Bricolage Self-Study for Future-­ Oriented Teacher Professional Learning” (Pithouse-Morgan, & Samaras, 2017), we continued to reflect on our online research conversation as a duo. We dialogued about facilitating transdisciplinary self-study learning communities with university faculty. We introduced our virtual bricolage self-study method using dialogic tools to generate, analyze, and represent data: (1) emails (2) letter-writing, (3) the co-­ creation of two online mood boards, (4) photographs, and (5) poetry. Extracts from our emails and letters documented how we discovered similar sources of inspiration and influence in our work. Recognizing our sources of inspiration provoked new insights about the generative potential of understanding and openly communicating the personal and professional impetus for our work. For “Polyvocal Play: A Poetic Bricolage of the Why of our Transdisciplinary Self-study Research” (Pithouse-Morgan, & Samaras, 2019), we created a poetic bricolage composed of frequently used words in three of our published research poems. We asked, “Why? Why does our work together exist? And why should anyone care?” Through composing a poetic bricolage, we were able to see and communicate how our manifold interests, practices, and methods have converged to support dynamic co-learning and re-learning. Discovering the why of our work generated a deeper understanding of our attraction toward transdisciplinary scholarship, which offers university faculty diverse possibilities for co-learning and co-creativity. In “A Sense of Place: Exploring Place and Identity Through Virtual Bricolage Self-study Research” (Pithouse-Morgan, & Samaras, 2020a), we offered an account of a new episode in our longstanding transcontinental research conversation. We demonstrated how we combined memory-work and poetry as virtual bricolage self-­ study to wonder how inquiring about our past informed our understanding of how place informs our professional identity development. We described how we composed and exchanged oral and written memory pieces in response to a guiding research question. And we demonstrated how we formed a sequence of poems using words and phrases from our memory pieces. We shared how we pulled together short segments from our memory pieces to create a dialogic response to each line of our final poem. This co-creative exploration of place and identity generated new insights for each of us and expanded our understanding of each other and our critical friendship.

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

143

8.2.2  Creating a Poetic Bricolage To move our current inquiry forward, we inserted the text of our selected six poems into an online vocabulary visualization tool, Word Sift (http://wordsift.org), which generated a word cloud that made visible to us our 50 most frequently used words (Fig. 8.1). We then picked words from the word cloud as starting points (see Fig. 8.2) for creating a “poetic bricolage” (Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2019, p. 5) using the text of the six selected poems as source material. In the arts, bricolage signifies “construction or creation from a diverse range of available things” (Bricolage, 2018b). Constructing a poetic bricolage from available material offered by our published poems offered a “container . . . for a gradual distillation of our multifaceted and complex learning, experienced over time” (Pithouse-­ Morgan & Samaras, 2019, p. 7). We chose to arrange the poetic bricolage using the traditional Japanese Renga design, which is a type of linked-verse poetry usually generated by two or more poets as a kind of conversation (see Poets.org, 2004). To create a Renga, one poet writes the first stanza, which is three lines long with a total of seventeen syllables (5/7/5). The next poet adds the second stanza, a couplet with seven syllables per line (7/7). To create our Renga (see Fig. 8.3), we followed this pattern, with Kathleen composing the three-line stanzas and Anastasia composing the corresponding two-line stanzas. However, we blended poetic tradition with digital technology by co-creating the Renga over several days via emails between South Africa and the USA. For each stanza, we began with a word from the word cloud (shown in bold in the Renga) and then put together the rest of the stanza around that central word.

Fig. 8.1  A word cloud showing the 50 most frequently used words in six published poems

144

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

Fig. 8.2  Eight focal words selected from the word cloud

Fig. 8.3  A Renga poem: “Polyvocal Poetic Play”

Heart Polyvocality Space Learning Difference Methodology Growth Inventiveness Polyvocal Poetic Play (March, 2020) Witness, the brave heart A whole heart healing process Re-membering self Knowing and re-knowing self Through polyvocality Create open space For sharing, interaction Active listening Diverse, dynamic learning Research professional practice The power of “we” Self, difference, confluence In many voices Multiple professionals Making methodology Growth, inspiration Challenge, deepen, and extend… Change is possible! Power of inventiveness Impact - bringing new knowledge

8.2.3  Creating a Dialogic Bricolage As we arranged the Renga, we saw how each stanza could serve as an entry point for further exploration and dialogue. Building on this, in response to the Renga, we created a dialogic bricolage by combining excerpts from published dialogues that accompanied the six selected poems. We lightly edited our chosen extracts for flow and coherence. In what follows, each stanza of the Renga is followed by an exchange between our two distinctive voices from different contexts.

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

145

Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue (March, 2020) Witness, the brave heart A whole heart healing process Remembering self Anastasia: I have been studying and designing elements of facilitating self-study methodology along with Kathleen, who has been doing similar work with her colleagues in South Africa. And, for me, as from the USA, I was so surprised that facilitating self-study in the South African project wasn’t for the same purposes. In South Africa, there is largely the theme of healing and having a safe place. After apartheid, there’s a lot of anger and hurt and pain, and those words came out. Kathleen: Place – being born into apartheid South Africa, and becoming an adult in post-apartheid South Africa, is fundamental to who I have become and am becoming as a university educator and researcher. Looking back as an adult, I see what I did not notice as a young child – the exclusive whiteness of my early schooling, set in a white suburb in apartheid South Africa. That exclusivity feels suffocating and sad. My appreciation of the pedagogic value of many of my learning experiences as a schoolchild is marred by repugnance for that stifling uniformity. I am so grateful that I don’t still live and learn in the racially exclusive world of my childhood. And, in my teaching and my research, I try never to forget that. Anastasia: I am from another generation, historical time, and context than Kathleen. I did not grow up in the South African apartheid era, but in the USA, where racial divisions were and sadly remain prominent. Things change slowly and sometimes do not seem to change at all. Knowing and re-knowing self Through polyvocality Anastasia: How wonderful we have both had the opportunity to participate in and facilitate, as you so beautifully stated, “multifaceted educational encounters that excite my curiosity and expand my ways of knowing, seeing and being in the world…continually changed by these interactions…developing a taste for wide-ranging learning.” Kathleen: Learning is always an adventure because I don’t know where it’s going to end up. I’m not sure what we’re going to find out. I really enjoy that process and that feeling of not knowing. Anastasia: I’ve been able to really grow and be inspired by transdisciplinary polyvocal experiences. Create open space For sharing, interaction Active listening Kathleen: What is emerging is an emphasis on polyvocality, dialogue, conversations, collaboration, and collegiality as the lifeblood of self-study of professional practice. Polyvocal learning conversations happen through self-study of professional practice, and also, such discussions contribute to professional learning. And this learning is enhanced through bringing a mindful, multi-perspective awareness of our encounters with the world and the people who inhabit it. Anastasia: I’ve been continually enriched by my experiences in moving out of my lens. We just assume everybody is from our world, don’t we? And it really limits our understanding and theirs. That’s been where I’ve been able to really grow and be inspired by transdisciplinary polyvocal experiences. I thought, “Wow! I never thought of self-study research being used

146

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

in ways that were out of my own context.” So, in terms of thinking about facilitating self-­ study in different geographic locations, that was a really good experience for me. Kathleen: We all (understandably) tend to take our own contexts for granted. Still, in transdisciplinary, transnational, transcultural spaces, we need to engage in processes of cultural, linguistic, and disciplinary translation and explication. It’s because of that dynamic interaction that we keep learning. Diverse, dynamic learning Research professional practice Anastasia: Books have been written on self-study and a specific discipline or according to various self-study methods and with a focus on teacher educators’ professional practice, but the polyvocal calls for a seamlessness that transcends that. Kathleen: If I were not working beyond teacher education in our self-study community, my teacher education practice would be much poorer, much less interesting. For me, that has been one of the greatest gifts of this transdisciplinary research project. Anastasia: I work as a self-study scholar, studying my teaching and exploring and inventing self-­ study methods with colleagues who work outside my discipline and college. Those collaborations led me to new discoveries beyond my wildest imagination! The power of “we” Self, difference, confluence In many voices Anastasia: We remarked on the power of the “we” to develop the “I.” We each grew in our individual understandings because, and only because of the collaboration; it wasn’t possible to learn what we did alone. Despite living and working on different continents, we continue to collaborate, invent, and to play virtually – and at the edge of possibilities for learning. Kathleen: When we got together with our co-facilitators to talk about our experiences in the self-­ study learning communities in South Africa and the USA, we were very interested to see what would come out, what would be similar, and what would be different. Anastasia: Our focus is on the many voices, whose voices, and the so what and for whom of this group of professionals working with others and beyond the self. Multiple professionals Making methodology Kathleen: There is a growing interest in self-study of professional practice beyond teaching and teacher education. I think that the “so what” question, or as Claudia Mitchell always asks, “What difference does this make anyway?” (2008, p. 366), is vital to make some sense of what the field of transdisciplinary self-study looks like – in relation to the well-mapped area of self-study in teaching and teacher education. Anastasia: Yes, new landscapes to travel. Improvement aimed for other fields. The Self-Study of Professional Practice is really just emerging, and our work with practitioners who are not all teachers has landed us at this new entry port to explore what difference this does and can make! What can other fields learn from a methodology that has mainly been used by teachers, for teachers? We have observed the crossover impacts. Our questions drive the study, and then we adapt any method(s) that allow us to study them.

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

147

Kathleen: I think that the transnational, transcultural contributions are an important innovation. Also, the focus on methodological inventiveness. Growth, inspiration Challenge, deepen, and extend… Change is possible! Kathleen: We developed a deep and dialogic understanding of why we are drawn to facilitate the development of transdisciplinary self-study communities. Anastasia: We both appreciated our work in taking us to the edge of possibilities and especially when we did not know where our initiatives would take us. We have given ourselves permission to play with new ideas and pedagogies and ways to research those. We sanction and value play with passion and purpose for ourselves and for our students and encourage our diverse students and colleagues to keep exploring. It does get complicated because we are breaking so much new ground, so we have to be patient with the process. Kathleen: One of the connections that has been very strong between the self-study learning communities in South Africa and in the USA has been our focus on creativity and the arts. ­Arts-­inspired research practices have worked well for us to visualize our changing use of self-study methodology through place, space, and time. Power of inventiveness Impact - bringing new knowledge Anastasia: It’s the creative side that I must nourish. I am now playing with the idea of creating a mood board with digital and visual art faculty at the university for a third faculty self-study group. That’s a lot of bricolage and sparked by my letter writing with you, Kathleen. Kathleen: I love the idea of creating a bricolage from our already constructed poetry. We might focus our gaze on how self-study works as a polyvocal methodology – using combinations of methods and inventing new methods  – similar to Bakhtin’s special polyvocal artistic thinking. Anastasia: Kathleen spoke of the unknown results, and I saw that in both of our stories. We embraced our inventiveness, which remains prominent in our work as self-study teacher-­ scholars and, as Kathleen noted, having a good long time of exploring in different ways – a flow “in a different world.”

8.3  Returning to Our Eight Focal Words We have been working in co-creating in self-study research for almost a decade, and yet this new piece of writing allowed us to pause and ask: “What difference can poetry and dialogue make to self-study scholarship?” In responding to this question, we return to the eight focal words selected from our word cloud: heart, polyvocality, space, learning, difference, methodology, growth, inventiveness.

148

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

8.3.1  Heart Poetry and dialogue can be entry points for self-study researchers to access and portray the emotions that give life to human experience and yet are often disregarded or downplayed in written accounts of research. Playing with language and form in poetic and dialogic ways can bring passion and purpose to the writing. And when self-study researchers begin to infuse their writing with elements of the literary arts, this can set their imaginations alight in ways that reanimate professional practice.

8.3.2  Polyvocality Our engagement with polyvocality in our writing has enabled us to understand and express how dialogic encounters with diverse forms of seeing, knowing, and doing can intensify professional learning and knowledge for ourselves and others. Polyvocal ways of writing in self-study illustrate the intrinsic value of plurality and heterogeneity, opening up new pathways for reimagining self in relationship with diverse others.

8.3.3  Space Our thinking in space has generated creative, multidimensional writing that could not have been produced by us as individual researchers. This distinctive writing practice has emerged from exploring in-between the very different contexts in which we live and work, in-between our distinct personal and professional experiences, and in-between disciplinary and methodological domains. We have each grown in our understandings of our work and selves as self-study researchers and facilitators because and only because of this shared creative writing space.

8.3.4  Learning We see ourselves as lifelong learners. We embrace that self-study scholars are unique researchers in the design element of using multiple methods to explore their questions. Along with self-study colleagues, we have further recognized a need for a beginner’s mind which “stresses openness and the ability to explore without preconceptions” (Smith et al., 2018, p. 279) – a willingness to explore, embrace mistakes, cultivate, collaborate, experiment, learn, and share.

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

149

8.3.5  Difference Self-study requires not only studying the self, but also considering the impact of this work with others and for others. This is what Weber (2014) described as “the potential ripple effect in/of self-study for learning and growth for many” (p. 8). We have experienced the value of making public our inquiries in imaginative and engaging ways so that others become interested in learning with us. The ripple effect means that the work is taken up for critique and continuing conversations about making a difference to professional practice, often with broader implications for social change.

8.3.6  Methodology What we have worked to capture in this chapter is the importance of not getting stuck in the status quo of what method or methods can be used to explore our questions and represent our inquiries. We offer to the self-study school of thought and action our enactment of polyvocal self-study bricolage as a writing practice. Our bricolage involves designing and interlacing artistic and literary methods and doing that virtually, given the distance of our professional settings. We worked on cataloging our collaborative history of what difference our co-creativity has made for us as self-study scholars. We have explored the impact we have witnessed of using artistic virtual bricolage for us, for our students, and for our colleagues. That history of our co-creativity in writing is now documented for us and others in our imaginative play with poetry and dialogue.

8.3.7  Growth Looking back on our work together and now through the conduits of poetry with dialogue has enabled us to see the development of our polyvocal transdisciplinary thinking and design over time. We better understand how our conversations invited us to think more freely in open co-creative spaces, to invent virtual bricolage self-­ study we did not know was even before us. This writing allowed us to look back and celebrate our work with our self-study colleagues and students who joined us in our explorations and discoveries and the ways we have each grown personally and professionally.

150

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

8.3.8  Inventiveness We are innovators in the development of research methods that diverge from the conventional to “enable new, valid understandings to empower practitioners to improve their work for the beneficiaries in their care” (Dadds & Hart, 2001, p. 169). Embracing the arts in multiple formats  – including our earlier work with poetry, mood boards, visual research artifacts, dance, dialogue, and choral reading – has inspired our methodological inventiveness, which has expanded our way of knowing, thinking, and writing about self-study.

8.4  Looking Forward We hope that our work will offer some creative inspiration to self-study scholars, both novice and more experienced, who might feel hesitant about using arts-inspired modes in their writing. Our collaborations with many students and colleagues who have no formal training in the arts have substantiated our belief that creativity is an innate human characteristic. We have experienced how self-study researchers who might not see themselves as artists can come together and enjoy playing with elements of the arts. The arts allow us to see ourselves and others in ways we could not see otherwise. And so, the hands-on experience of composing poetry and dialogue, especially when it is done with trusted critical friends, can infuse professional practice and research with inventiveness, emotion, and fresh insights. Taken as a whole, our chapter illustrates the generativity of making time and space for arts-inspired playful writing. This is particularly valuable in a higher education milieu that often seems to favor linear production and measurable outputs over the extemporary processes of mutual learning and discovery. Importantly, the chapter highlights the need for universities to acknowledge and support such faculty efforts in methodological innovativeness. In that manner, faculty will be encouraged to move the field forward by exploring unanswered questions with new methods rather than relying only on traditional methods and replicating what others have already discovered. Playing with concepts and techniques together have provided us with stimulus and courage to keep playing as we realize the impact of our experimenting – both for others and ourselves. We offer our learning as an invitation to others to consider forming co-creative virtual spaces for exploratory writing that can contribute to changing the status quo for professional knowledge and practice on a global level.

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

151

References Adichie, C. N. (2006). Half of a yellow sun. Farafina. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Ed.). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 Barnes, D. (1998). Foreword: Looking forward: The concluding remarks at the Castle Conference. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. ix–xiv). Falmer Press. Bricolage. (2018a). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. https://www.merriamwebster.com/ dictionary/bricolage Bricolage. (2018b). In the Online English Oxford Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/bricolage Bullock, S. M., & Sator, A. (2018). Developing a pedagogy of “making” through collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 14(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.201 7.1413342. Chisanga, T., Rawlinson, W., Madi, S., & Sotshangane, N. (2014). Enacting reflexivity through poetic inquiry. Educational Research for Social Change (ERSC), 3(2), 21–36. http://ersc. nmmu.ac.za/view_edition.php?v=3&n=2#. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2014). A co/autoethnography of feminist teaching: Nomadic jamming into the unpredictable. In M.  Taylor & L.  Coia (Eds.), Gender, feminism and queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices (pp.  157–168). Sense. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­6209-­686-­8_11. Coulter, C. A., & Smith, M. L. (2009). The construction zone: Literary elements in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09353787. Dadds, M., & Hart, S. (2001). Doing practitioner research differently. RoutledgeFalmer. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203469514. Dhlula-Moruri, M. N., Kortjass, M., Ndaleni, T., & Pithouse-Morgan, K. (2017). A stove, a flask, and a photograph: Learning together through object inquiry in self-study research. In D. Pillay, K. Pithouse-Morgan, & I. Naicker (Eds.), Object medleys: Interpretive possibilities for educational research (pp. 81–98). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­6351-­194-­0_6 East, K., Fitzgerald, L. M., & Heston, M. L. (2009). Talking teaching and learning: Using dialogue in self-study. In D. Tidwell, M. Heston, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-­ study of practice (pp. 55–72). Springer. Ellis, C. (1991). Emotional sociology. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 12, 123–145. Galman, S. (2009). Trading in fables: Literary and artistic methods in self-study research. In C. A. Lassonde, S. Galman, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 129–149). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087906900_009 Grimmett, H. (2016). The problem of “Just tell us”: Insights from playing with poetic inquiry and dialogical self theory. Studying Teacher Education, 12(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.108 0/17425964.2016.1143810. Guilfoyle, K., Placier, P., Hamilton, M.  L., & Pinnegar, S. (2002). Exploring the concept of dialogue in the self-study of teaching practices. In C.  Kosnik, A.  Freese, & A.  P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (Vol. 1, pp. 96–103). OISE/UT. Hiralaal, A., Matebane, R., & Pithouse-Morgan, K. (2018). Learning through enacting arts-­ informed self-study research with critical friends. In J. K. Ritter, M. Lunenberg, K. Pithouse-­ Morgan, A.  P. Samaras, & E.  Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting of self-study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay (pp. 295–312). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8105-­7_26. Hopper, T., & Sanford, K. (2008). Using poetic representation to support the development of teachers’ knowledge. Studying Teacher Education, 4(1), 29–45. https://doi. org/10.1080/17425960801976339.

152

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

Johri, A. K. (2015). Multiple narrators: Using double voice poems to examine writing personas. In K. Pithouse-Morgan & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Polyvocal professional learning through self-study research (pp. 173–196). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­6300-­220-­2_10. Kitchen, J. (2020). Self-study in teacher education and beyond. In J.  Kitchen, A.  Berry, H.  Guðjónsdóttir, S.  M. Bullock, M.  Taylor, & A.  R. Crowe (Eds.), 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp.  1–22). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1. LaBoskey, V.  K. (2004a). Afterword: Moving the methodology of self-study research and practice forward: Challenges and opportunities. In J.  J. Loughran, M.  L. Hamilton, V.  K. LaBoskey, & T.  Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 2, pp.  1169–1184). Kluwer Academic. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­6545-­3_29 LaBoskey, V.  K. (2004b). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J.  J. Loughran, M.  L. Hamilton, V.  K. LaBoskey, & T.  Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 2, pp. 817–869). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­6545-­3_21 Martin, R., Astall, C., Jones, K., & Breeze, D. (2020). An indigenous approach to Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) in Aotearoa New Zealand. Studying Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2020.1732911. Mishler, E.  G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415–442. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.60.4 .n4405243p6635752 Mitchell, C. (2008). Getting the picture and changing the picture: Visual methodologies and educational research in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 365–383. https:// doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n3a180 Morrison, T. (1992). Jazz. Alfred A. Knopf. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­9512-­2_4. Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A. P. (Eds.). (2015a). Polyvocal professional learning through self-study research. Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­6300-­220-­2 Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A. P. (2015b). The power of “we” for professional learning. In K. Pithouse-Morgan & A. P. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­6300-­220-­2_1 Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A. P. (2017). Thinking in space: Virtual bricolage self-study for future-oriented teacher professional learning. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Being self-study researchers in a digital world: Future-oriented research and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 133–150). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­39478-­7_10. Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A.  P. (2018). “Many stories matter”: Taking a polyvocal stance in learning about teaching of self-study. In J.  K. Ritter, M.  Lunenberg, K.  Pithouse-­ Morgan, A.  P. Samaras, & E.  Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting of self-­ study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay (pp.  313–328). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8105-­7_27. Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A. P. (2019). Polyvocal play: A poetic bricolage of the why of our transdisciplinary self-study research. Studying Teacher Education, 15(1), 4–18. https://doi. org/10.1080/17425964.2018.1541285. Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A.  P. (2020a). A sense of place: Exploring place and identity through virtual bricolage self-study research. In E.  Lyle (Ed.), Identity landscapes: Contemplating place and the construction of self (pp.  20–33). Brill | Sense. https://doi. org/10.1163/9789004425194_003 Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A.  P. (2020b). Methodological inventiveness in writing about self-study research: Inventiveness in service. In J.  Kitchen, A.  Berry, S.  M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 427–460). Springer. https://doi.org/10.100 7/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_13-­1s.

8  Polyvocal Poetic Play with Dialogue: Co-creativity in Self-Study Writing

153

Pithouse-Morgan, K., Coia, L., Taylor, M., & Samaras, A.  P. (2016). Exploring methodological inventiveness through collective artful self-study research. LEARNing Landscapes, 9(2), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v9i2.786 Pithouse-Morgan, K., Chisanga, T., Meyiwa, T., & Timm, D.  N. (2018). Flourishing together: Co-learning as leaders of a multicultural South African educational research community. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20(3), 102–125. https://doi.org/10.18251/ ijme.v20i3.1607 Pithouse-Morgan, K., Madondo, S., & Grossi, E. (2019). The promise of poetry belongs to us all: Poetic professional learning in teacher-researchers’ memory-work. In K.  Pithouse-­ Morgan, D.  Pillay, & C.  Mitchell (Eds.), Memory mosaics: Researching teacher professional learning through artful memory-work (pp.  133–153). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­97106-­3_8. Poets.org. (2004). Poetic form: Renga. https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/poetic-­form-­renga Richardson, L. (1993). Poetics, dramatics, and transgressive validity: The case of the skipped line. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-­8525.1993. tb00113.x. Samaras, A. P. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. SAGE. Samaras, A.  P., & Freese, A.  R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices primer. New  York: Peter Lang. Samaras, A. P., & Pithouse-Morgan, K. (2018) Self-study research in a polyvocal professionalcommunity design. (pp. 245-257). In J. K. Ritter, M. Lunenberg, K. Pithouse-Morgan, K., A. P. Samaras, E. & Vanassche, E., (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting self-study research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8105-7_23 Samaras, A. P., & Pithouse-Morgan, K. (2020). Polyvocal self-study in transdisciplinary higher education communities. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, H. Guðjónsdóttir, S. M. Bullock, M. Taylor, & A. R. Crowe (Eds.), Second international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 1291–1322). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_43-­1. Samaras, A.  P., Karczmarczyk, D., Smith, L., Woodville, L., Harmon, L., Nasser, I., Parsons, S., Smith, T.  M., Borne, K., Constantine, L.  S., Mendoza, E.  R., Suh, J., & Swanson, R. (2014). The shark in the vitrine: Experiencing our practice from the inside out with transdisciplinary lenses. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(4), 368–388. https://doi. org/10.1177/1541344614551637. Samaras, A. P., Pithouse-Morgan, K., Chisanga, T., Conolly, J., Constantine, L. S., Meyiwa, T., Smith, L., & Timm, D. N. (2015). Breathing under water: A transcontinental conversation about the “why” of co-facilitating transdisciplinary self-study learning communities. In K. Pithouse-­ Morgan & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Polyvocal professional learning through self-study research (pp. 231–252). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­6300-­220-­2_13 Samaras, A.  P., Pithouse-Morgan, K., Chisanga, T., Conolly, J., Constantine, L.  S., Meyiwa, T., Smith, L., & Timm, D.  N. (2016). Networkism: Transcontinental dialoguing about co-­ facilitating transdisciplinary self-study professional learning communities. In D.  Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 163–170). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). Smith, L., Constantine, L. S., Sauveur, A., Samaras, A. P., Casey, A., Evmenova, A., Hudson, S., Lee, S., Reid, E. S., & with contributions from Ericson, R., Ewell, M., Lukes, L., Muir, S., Nelson, J., & Poms, L. (2018). Dwelling in the question: Professional empowerment through complex visual self-study. In J. K. Ritter, M. Lunenberg, K. Pithouse-Morgan, A. P. Samaras, & E. Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting self-study research (pp. 275–294). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8105-7_25 Tidwell, D. L., & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2020). Methods and tools of self-study. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S.  M. Bullock, A.  R. Crowe, M.  Taylor, H.  Guðjónsdóttir, & L.  Thomas (Eds.), 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp.  1–50). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_12-­1.

154

K. Pithouse-Morgan and A. P. Samaras

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. State University of New York Press. Weber, S. (2014). Arts-based self-study: Documenting the ripple effect. Perspectives in Education, 32(2), 8–20. Whitehead, J. (2004). What counts as evidence in self-studies of teacher education practices? In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 2, pp. 871–903). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­6545-­3_22.

Chapter 9

Visuals as Meaning Making Deborah Tidwell and Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir

Abstract  In this chapter we revisit our use of visuals in our writing as a means of sharing how we use graphic facilitation and how others might employ similar processes in their professional work. We describe how the work we do with visual representations helps us to make meaning within our professional lives and our research. Svanborg discusses her work through short vignettes of professional experiences from practice that have meaning. These short stories provide the context and the purpose for Svanborg’s use of visuals in her note taking, teaching, and research. Deb uses a narrative approach to describe her use of visuals in self-study of practice as an administrator at her university. We provide a brief review of the theoretical support for the scholarly use of visual representation, followed by discussions of Svanborg’s use of visuals across different settings and contexts and Deb’s use of object and nodal moment drawings as data in examining practice. We have found that using diverse ways of meaning making have strengthened our understanding of our practice, generating three insights that inform the larger field of scholarship and writing: (1) the use of object, drawing, 3-dimensional sculpture, or collage artifacts provide a meaningful context for discussing practice; (2) the use of drawings helps to explicate those moment-specific and context-rich experiences that inform meaning making, thinking processes, and actions found within professional practice; and (3) the value of arts-based data such as three-dimensional sculpture or collage lies in enabling the elicitation of meaning within professional practice. Visuals have long been a part of meaning making in educational research in the form of charts and graphs to show data and to provide explanations to the reader. But beyond data presentation, visuals have been used to present contexts in studies, such as photographs of classroom settings and of participants engaged in practice. The notion of using visuals is neither unfamiliar to educational research nor to the D. Tidwell (*) University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. R. Jónsdóttir School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_9

155

156

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

self-study community. In self-study research, visuals are used for more than presentation of data, but as representations of data and as part of the analysis process. As stated in our chapter on methods in self-study (Tidwell & Jónsdóttir, 2020) in the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practice, Second Edition, “Arts-based and creative methods in self-study have been a part of the self-study community from its inception” (p. 23). Both Svanborg and Deb, as self-study researchers and as professors in teacher education, have long used arts-­ based approaches in our practice and scholarship. Deb has used the idea of the nodal moment (e.g., Tidwell, 1998, 2002, 2006; Tidwell & Manke, 2009) to bring to life her experiences in her own teaching, and has extended that work to her students in her approach to reflection in literacy assessment field experiences. Svanborg has used arts-based visuals in her research (examining practice through visuals), in her teaching (reflections of teaching through visuals), and in her professional work (visuals as a meaning making form of note taking). In this chapter we revisit our use of visuals in our writing as a means of sharing how we use visuals and how others might employ similar processes in their professional work. We describe how the work we do with visual representations helps us to make meaning within our professional lives and our research. Svanborg discusses her work as “small stories” (Kim, 2015, p.  260), which are compact and short vignettes of life or experience that have meaning. These short stories provide the context and the purpose for Svanborg’s use of visuals in her professional work. Deb uses a narrative approach to describe her use of visuals in a self-study of practice as an interim department head at her university. In the sections that follow, we provide a brief review of the theoretical support for the scholarly use of visual representation, followed by discussions of Svanborg’s use of visuals across different settings and contexts and Deb’s use of object and nodal moment drawings as data.

9.1  T  heoretical Support of Visual Representation in Research and Practice The argument in using arts for knowledge making is articulated by Eisner (2008) in his description of the three areas represented in arts-based research: the practical knowledge emerging from local circumstances and contexts, the production of making something, and the power of one’s control over producing and discriminating knowledge. A review of arts-based methods in self-study research revealed an array of processes that “represent the social, cultural, and meaning-making contexts from which experience and engagement are derived” (Tidwell & Jónsdóttir, 2020, p. 24). Weber (2014) argues that using arts-based methods enable researchers to more broadly examine an experience through alternative lenses that help in meaning making. More specifically, Weber addresses the value of the image in being able to

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

157

capture and visually frame a concept in relation to an individual’s interactions with the world. Literature on arts-based methods in research offers researcher-driven use of visuals in data articulation, data collection, and data analysis. Drew and Guillamin (2014) in their research on a process they term interpretive engagement used participant-­generated photographs in a three stage process for analysis. Bland (2018) provided insights into the use of child-generated drawings as a data source, focusing on evaluating the quality of drawings in terms of viability as data. These research examples focus on art-based data that come from others of whom they are studying, where the visuals are used as a source to determine efficacy of the artifacts. In self-study, the use of arts-based approaches assumes a value in the data sources a priori - the arts-based data are assumed to have value because of the very intention and nature of its creation. Self-study researchers have used visuals in multiple ways, as the data within a study, and as the impetus of the analysis process, as well as findings where the visual represents the meaning derived from the analysis of data. Some examples of visual representation in self-study include the use of photos as visual representations (e.g., Griffiths et al., 2006; Parker et al., 2016), the creation of collages (e.g., Jordan-Daus, 2016; Magubane, 2014), the use of objects to examine beliefs and meaning in their practice (Dhlula-Moruri et al., 2017), and the use of drawings (e.g., Griffiths et  al., 2009; Raphael et  al., 2016; Tidwell & Manke, 2009). Roberts and Woods (2018) argue the process of making a collage allows reflection and brings forth different forms of understanding which can elicit hidden or unconscious aspects of experience. As explained by Butler-Kisber (2008), the benefits of engaging in the development of a collage “can mediate understanding in new and interesting ways for both the creator and the viewer because of its partial, embodied, multivocal, and nonlinear representational potential” (p.  265). Pillay et al. (2017) describe research with object as a partnership between what can be known from the visual and what is extracted from that visual and understood through the written/narrative. As Mitchell (2017) explains, “the analysis of material objects offers the possibility of theorising abstract concepts in a grounded manner and, in so doing, expands the possibilities of what counts as evidence in research” (p. 14). Dhlula-Moruri et  al. (2017) highlight this visual-written symbiotic relationship within object research, where the visual provides the impetus for the written that, in turn, transforms the understanding of the esthetic into knowledge-making insights regarding professional practice. Tidwell and Manke (2009) describe the use of drawn nodal moments as providing that personal context within professional engagement that highlights the meaning behind practice. Drawing has been an approach that both of us have used in our professional work to represent meaning in different contexts. The use of drawings in self-study research has taken many different forms, including such uses as visual metaphor, nodal moments, visual design, and diagramming to reflect meaning (Griffith et al., 2009; Raphael et al., 2016; Tidwell & Manke, 2009). In their use of drawings to capture their understanding of administrative work, Tidwell and Manke (2009) found that the use of drawing a nodal moment created a deeper understanding not

158

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

only of that particular moment but also of a larger dynamic that the moment represented. This understanding sees drawing as creating that context for meaning that helps the researchers to understand both the subtle nuances and the larger themes within their professional work. This idea of providing that context for meaning through drawing was demonstrated in the use by Griffiths et al. (2009) of drawn diagrams to represent their research process that included word clouds reflecting their engagement and photos depicting their work space. The meaning that they derived from their data was represented in a drawn visual reflecting the summative understanding of the collaborative power of their work as seen through a visual metaphor of ...an iceberg constructed of the five researchers floating in the water, facing each other in a circle with their arms supporting each other. Their heads are floating above water but the bodies (of their research collaboration) are hidden below water. This metaphor of meaning reflected their understanding of the complexity of collaboration, where, as an iceberg, it appears smooth on the surface, but below are the depths that are jagged and unknown. (Tidwell & Jónsdóttir, 2020, p. 28)

Raphael et al. (2016) used drawings as one source of data in their research to examine their collaboration in their self-study research. They used drawings to summarize the meaning derived from their research through a gallery walk seen by the researchers as their publication of results. Across these uses of drawing as visual representations, meaning making emerges from both visuals as data and visuals as summative results.

9.2  The Use of Visuals in Svanborg’s Professional Work Svanborg began using drawing as a means to interpret what she heard from others in professional settings, and to summarize key points. She sees her use of visuals as a form of graphic facilitation which assists her in meaning making and helps her remember key information. Graphic facilitation is a growing practice in organizational contexts and is gradually emerging in educational contexts (Hautopp & Ørngreen, 2018). The use of pictures in graphic facilitation can increase engagement and understanding, and promote reflection and deep learning (Espiner & Hartnett, 2016). Graphic facilitation is a process, often at group meetings, where a facilitator draws on large pieces of paper on a wall images and utterances he or she hears from discussions and or presentations (Hautopp & Ørngreen, 2018). Graphic facilitation is interpretive, as the graphic facilitator listens to the story in the conversations or presentations, translating verbal and nonverbal inputs into visual forms (Hautopp & Ørngreen). Espiner and Hartnett (2016) argue that graphic facilitation is used to develop a visual language and produce a complex holistic picture that is easily understood and remembered. Svanborg has used graphic facilitation for note taking, within coursework, and for self-study research.

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

159

9.2.1  Visual for Note Taking of a Meeting Once at a conference in January 2015 in Denmark, I noticed a woman sitting near me with a large notebook (circa A4x2) drawing simple images and adding a few words. I was impressed and could immediately get that she was making notes from the lecture. When I returned home, I decided to try this method and procured a similar large notebook with blank pages, and took it with me to the AERA conference in Chicago. I used the same approach but was very dependent on using words with the images I drew. However, I managed to make the words more visual by drawing or writing them often in capital letters and in colors. The notes I drew when listening to Gloria Ladson Billings’ key address (see Fig. 9.1), enabled me to get a quick overview and helped me review the main points from her speech that was rich in content and laden with serious messages. This particular visual made me very aware of several different types of injustices that previously I knew of but not at a deeper conscious level. And even though the realities she was expressing were clearly rooted in the American reality, I realized there were many things we, in Iceland, needed to be aware of – both injustice in general but more specific issues in becoming a more multicultural society. Iceland is becoming more diverse and we often do not realize what kind of threshold or barriers others experience across the world. These are global issues, and this visual representation

Fig. 9.1  Listening to Gloria Ladson Billings at AERA - visual notes (page 2 of 2)

160

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

sharpened my awareness of social injustices. The impact on my use of visual representation encouraged me to broaden my use across different professional settings.

9.2.2  I nterpreting for and Engaging Students: Graphic Facilitation In my work with students at the university, my colleagues and I emphasize the importance of developing a sense of professional identity. Teachers’ professional identities have been seen as consisting of their practical theories that are made up of their personal understandings and beliefs about their practice, that develop through experiences from practice, reading, and listening or learning from others’ practice (Handal & Lauvås, 1987). Dalmau and Guðjónsdóttir (2002, 2017) developed the concept Professional Working Theory (PWT), which consists of professional understanding that evolves through the constant interplay of professional knowledge, practical experience, reflection, and ethical or moral principles. In work with my colleagues, PWT has both been a focus of our own research and a comprehensive undertaking in our courses. Developing and teaching the course Working in Inclusive Practices (WIP) from 2012, in collaboration with two colleagues (Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Karen Rut Gísladóttir), I enjoyed the emphasis on artistic and versatile teaching methods we used as a way to engage students and enact the core of our pedagogy. We encouraged and supported each other in trying new and creative methods and we often used visual representations to emphasize or engage students, such as choosing imagery for the slides we used or having them interpret their learning in legos or artistic 3-dimensional displays that were sculpture-like in their appearance (see Fig. 9.3). In autumn 2015, Hafdís was presenting to a group of students in the WIP course the pedagogy of inclusive education and encouraged me to do a visual representation of the talk. I stood near Hafdís, by a flip chart that faced students, and sketched my interpretation of her message (see Fig. 9.2). I started on top of the chart writing in big letters the words in Icelandic for The Pedagogy of Inclusive Education—and symbolic of the diversity of learners we were emphasizing, I made each letter a different color. After I began with a simple sketch of a house, meant to symbolize a school, I quickly added drawings of people in the house, one of them in a wheelchair. I also wrote the word school above as the core point where the rest of the drawings and words would flow from that source concept. I had to work quite quickly and it seems that, without thinking, I worked the parts on the paper as I would write a story or text from left to right moving down. But it was not quite linear and if I saw an empty space above or in-between, I would fill that with a symbolic drawing or word in line with Hafdís´s talk. This activity became a graphic facilitation for students and me as I listened to the presentation, translating verbal and nonverbal inputs into visual forms (Hautopp & Ørngreen, 2018).

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

161

Fig. 9.2  Interpretation of a presentation about inclusive education

The overall image that gradually emerged highlighted main points in Hafdís´s talk with images and words interpreting and summing up the ideas behind inclusive education and indicating what it required in practice. In some ways, this activity can be seen as knowing in action and reflection in action (Schön, 1983), and at the same time producing a visual that was explanatory and even persuasive (Olofsson & Sjölén, 2007).

162

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

Fig. 9.3  3D art work to interpret understanding

Our emphasis on using visuals in the course emerged in different ways. Some ways were with our own teaching, while others were with experiences we provided to our students. In our teaching, we emphasized more visual representation in what we presented in our lectures with an emphasis on symbolic pictures and pictures that represented a concept we were discussing about teaching and practice (examples from teachers). We encouraged our students to engage in more visual representation of meaning in their own work. One of the tasks assigned students was to watch a movie of choice about teachers and teaching. When they get to class, or distance students working on their own, they are asked to visualize one important scene from the movie that made an impression on them and write about it for five

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

163

minutes. We ask them to bring, and we bring, lots of recyclable materials and when they are done writing they come together in small groups (most often those that watched the same movie in a group of three to five). They share their written thoughts with each other about chosen scenes from the movie. They negotiate which scenes they want to interpret and display in a visual symbolic 3-dimensional art sculpture. In this process, they decide whether they want to display the overall message of the film, or represent just a specific scene. They also consider what is represented in the display in terms of something important in the film, challenges, or solutions. They have 50 minutes to work on this and then come together in the large group and present their displays. The group that presented the display above (see Fig.  9.3) watched two films, October Sky and Life is a Stage. They found in both films similar themes - namely, how people often limit children's abilities and restrict their opportunities to express themselves and grow. They explained the visual in terms of a stage: In Life is a Stage there is an actual stage and in October Sky there is a kind of stage where the boys set their rocket to launch. On the rocket we wrote “Ideas rocket,” and on the red plaques, “Everyone has the right to blossom according to their own capacities,” and “Resilience, openness, positivity and attitudes make a difference”. Then the characters from the movie gather all around the rocket, and they are very different, they all have something to contribute, they all have their specific abilities, certain strengths. (Translated from Class Recording, 2017.02.06)

The presenters concluded that it is not always the school system to blame for restricting children’s growth, but in these two films the parents were the ones who were limiting the children and their space to grow. This kind of work we have our students do, is an integral part of our practice and reflects the spirit of our professional working theories. Sometimes this kind of artistic and hands-on work is met with hesitation and doubt as some students expect more bookish approaches at the university level. But most of them become surprised at how powerful the process and the outcomes can be and it opens their eyes to the affordances of this visual language. Through this work, they have the opportunity to engage with their own practical knowledge emerging from contexts they choose and create their own knowledge and understanding, thus having the control over producing and discriminating knowledge (Eisner, 2008). Such work has been one of the important threads in the WIP course, where we want students to be empowered and have the professional confidence to be heard as specialists in inclusive practices. Visual language has the potential to engage students in a different way, emotionally, creatively, and academically, going beyond the verbal context of learning. Visual language is a graphic language for expression, engagement, and understanding as we have seen it emerge in students’ work.

164

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

9.2.3  Data Collected as Visuals in Self-Study During the years 2016-2018, I led a group of eight arts (fine arts and performing arts) and “verkmennt1” teachers representing three school levels in Iceland in the development of action research on their practice. They focused on the research question, how do I go about supporting student creativity in my classroom? At a certain point, I realized we needed to move beyond technical descriptions and dig deeper into our understandings of practice. I felt I needed support by doing a self-­ study on my role in the process and sought collaboration with my colleague Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir in doing so. We discussed how we could support the group to move forward in their thinking about their practice and how they could uncover and realize their professional working theories. Hafdís suggested asking the teachers, at the next meeting, to make a collage that would represent how they wanted to be as teachers. In the process of making the collage, we gave the teachers a prompt and a space for reflection where they could elicit their own understandings and potentially hidden aspects of their professional working theories (Roberts & Woods, 2018). At the next meeting with the group, we asked the teachers to make a collage that displayed how they wanted to be as a teacher. They chose different colored tag boards (16.5” X 23”) and selected, cut out, and glued on their boards images and words from magazines, pamphlets, and advertisements to represent how they wanted their identities as teachers to be displayed visually. They also gave us a short oral presentation about how they interpreted the collage and what they wanted it to represent. Guðrún Halldóra, an upper secondary visual arts teacher described her collage (Fig. 9.4) and the professional working theory she elicited. Her emphasis was on students getting to know the creative process in a classroom that allowed them to experiment and take risks. My aim is that students experience the creative process in visual arts and try out different ways of working. For this to happen they must feel secure and that they have freedom to explore and experiment. The communication within the classroom must be characterized by friendliness and respect. I try to be guiding and encouraging without passing judgment for mistakes. Mistakes are a good way to explore new paths and act outside the comfort zone. To dare to create you must dare to destroy.

She also suggested that tending to students was similar to cultivating flowers, “its a bit like watching them grow, each at their own pace and in different ways” (Class Recording, October 2017). She emphasized that students experience feeling like artists and they are shown respect. This is an example of how the collage represents her perception and sense-making of who she wants to be as a teacher, making her inner dialogue visible as a collection of images and in spoken words. This way she

1  Verkmennt refers to three independent subjects in the Icelandic curriculum: Smíði: learning to design and make things from metal, glass, wood, plastic, and stone; Textiles; and Home Economics.

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

165

Fig. 9.4  A visual arts teacher´s professional working theory as a collage

was making her internal realities external using the collage to make sense of her dialogue with her professional identity (Weber, 2008).

9.2.4  Visual as Summative Understanding I have also used visuals for summative understanding in my self-study collaboration with Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir, focusing on how we experienced doing research alternating between two languages, Icelandic and English. We collected data with walk and talk analytical meetings (Guðjónsdóttir & Jónsdóttir, in press) we recorded our discussions as we walked and talked about a collection of 14 of our publications, and then analyzed the recordings and publications. We were hesitant and somewhat stuck in writing what we were discovering related to our focus on alternating between two languages in our professional work. I always find it useful to make visuals to represent what I am thinking and have them talk back to me, so to speak. I decided to draw a summative representation of all the papers thus mapping the collaborative research journey as a whole (see Fig. 9.5). The drawing shows a sketch of all the papers in a timeline with symbolic figures behind them representing us as authors. Most often, we three (Hafdís, Karen, and I) wrote the papers but sometimes two of us authored the publications with the support of the third (blurred figure). Only two of the 14 papers were written in Icelandic (image of Iceland peeking out behind two papers). Analyzing the picture, Hafdís and I were able to see that although different foci and issues emerged throughout our collaborative studies, we could unravel a strong thread of translanguaging, constantly alternating between two languages and sometimes

166

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

Fig. 9.5  Summative representation of understanding - mapping a research journey (Guðjónsdóttir & Jónsdóttir, in press, permission given to use this published visual)

intermingling them all through our work on the 14 papers. This visual mapping of our data sources allowed us to explore our journey as a whole and also investigate the items that made up the elements in the whole map. Doing this visual summary and analytical image helped us to move on in our writing and focus on telling the story of how translanguaging in self-study enhanced and cultivated our professionalism.

9.2.5  V  isual as the Third Language in Clarifying Interpretation Many people doodle or scribble as they listen to others talk and I (Svanborg) have for a long time done so. I have noticed that since I started taking visual notes at conferences that my doodles that often are done unconsciously have become more focused and meaningful and helped me to clarify core messages. In October 2020, we had our first on-line educational conference at the School of Education at the University of Iceland. As I listened to Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir´s presentation about action research and self-study in education, I started doodling as a response to her talk, representing my understanding and interpretation and accentuating certain

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

167

Fig. 9.6 Clarifying interpretation and understanding in a visual language

focal points. I felt she was really explaining the characteristics and core of self-­ study well and that became the central focus of my drawing. As often in my doodles, I wrote individual words or pairs, and at first I wrote in Icelandic and English without thinking specifically about it. As I noticed, I decided that the rest of the words that came to mind would be in English, so translanguaging became my way of interpreting and note taking from the talk I heard in Icelandic to a visual representation with English words (see Fig. 9.6). The image in Fig. 9.6 became the third language in translanguaging, translating, and interpreting from Icelandic to English and imageries. The image was my way of documenting my interpretation and clarifying my understanding in a visual language. In this case, this was a bit of a visual conversation (Mills, 2020) with me about Hafdís´s talk. The image iterated and concentrated the core of what self-study is about as Hafdís presented it, according to what I found interesting and helpful. My dialogue with the picture showed self-study as a powerful methodology that I can apply to my work. At the core is the self-study-person who cares for students and people she engages with (the heart) and embraces all kinds of individuals (open arms). It tells me that self-study is about your own work, your practice, and that it can be eye-opening and disruptive and has the power to change your views. It reminds me that acknowledging feelings in self-study research is important and that challenges in my practice can support my professional development.

168

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

9.3  The Use of Visuals in Deb’s Professional Work In my use of visuals, I began with the idea of having students use a nodal moment in their tutoring (a particular event within a specific time period) to reflect upon practice (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2010). Students were asked to freeze a moment in time and draw that image to represent the context, the actions, and the teaching-­ learning dynamic. To achieve this, I provided what I called a crash course in drawing, where I provided my students with some ideas about how to draw expression and stick figure bodies, as well as how to draw perspective from a horizon point and from a two-point horizon. For those students who enjoyed drawing, this was a preferred version of reflection and a step away from the traditional what happened, how did the child respond, how did I respond in my teaching, plans for the future. Instead, students were asked to think about the context of their teaching, and to determine the dynamics between the student and the text, the student and reading, the student and writing, and the student and the tutor (themselves). The intent was to have a deeper understanding of the dynamics that happens in their teaching moments. While students were able to articulate more clearly the context and dynamics in their teaching, the use of visuals to provide the grounding for that discussion varied across students. Ultimately, students who enjoyed drawing embraced the experience with enthusiasm and spent a great deal of time preparing their visual, from which they would develop the narrative about practice. However, students who did not enjoy drawing, while feeling more comfortable about being asked to develop a visual from the initial drawing tutorial, often drew the same stick figure picture again and again, each week, with the discussion varying with the context of the lesson and the actions within the lesson. Ironically, while they did not enjoy the drawing, they did agree that focusing on a moment in time and delving deeper into that moment in terms of connections between the student and the text, reading, writing, and engagement was helpful in thinking about their practice. From this nodal moment experience with my students, I realized that visuals (which I do enjoy drawing) might be of use in my own self-study of practice. My earlier work with visuals in self-study used moments in time (nodal moments where a specific high node or low node in my practice was reflected in a drawing). This use of drawing as data focused on dynamics within my instruction. More recent use of visuals (e.g., Tidwell et al., 2019; Tidwell & Jónsdóttir, 2017; Tidwell & Manke, 2009) included the use of drawings and the object as data in examining my professional work in administrative positions. Over the last three years, I have had the interesting distinction of being one of the senior faculty members in my College at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI). What this translates into is someone who has been there longer than the others in the college, and who has an understanding of the history as a lived experience rather than as a documented one. Because of this, I was asked often to take on interim positions in administration (department head, associate dean, director of a literacy center, and coordinator for the EdD program) to help support the college as they moved forward in searches and reorganization of programs. As an administrator, I drew when I had complex issues or issues that

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

169

frustrated me. The process of drawing helped me better understand the context and helped to make sense of the issue. The following is a self-study of my work over the 2017-2018 academic year I served as an Interim Department Head. Data sources included an object and five drawn nodal moments.

9.3.1  Objectives for My Self-Study The objectives for this self-study were twofold, relating specifically to arts-based data use. The first objective was a personal one, using object as a source of data in examining my practice. This is a form of data use that was new to me, and intrigued me as a creative reflective source for practice. To that end, I chose the use of an El Dia de Los Muertos figure to represent my experiences as an interim administrator. The second objective was to use drawn nodal moments during my year-long tenure as an interim administrator to represent those critical episodes within my administrative work in order to capture my actions within and my thinking about my practice. Both objectives for data use addressed the focus within my research question, how do my actions and thinking as an interim administrator reflect my understanding of professional practice? Individuals engage in self-study as a method for examining practice in order to seek to “understand the relationship between the knower and the known” as well as seeking “to understand what is the form and nature of reality” (Kuzmik & Bloom, 2008, p.  207). I sought to better understand the relationship between me as the knower and the known in my professional work, which had changed drastically over the course of one year as I took over the role of an administrator. As a full professor in our Department of Curriculum and Instruction, I was approached by the Dean of the College to step in for one year as the interim department head while we searched for a permanent department head. Part of the reasoning for asking me to take on this role centered on my years of experience in the department and my role as a full professor. I saw this dynamic process of thinking about my thinking (and examining my understanding of my decision making in the moment) as critical aspects of examining my practice as an educator ensconced in the role of administrator. Further, self-study researchers examine their own practices in order to influence and empower their own professional practice (LaBoskey, 2004; Kristinsdóttir et  al., 2019). This empowerment through the understanding of practice is the cornerstone to my self-study as an administrator, to understand how my actions reflect the values I hold and the intent found in my professional work.

170

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

9.3.2  Methods for My Self-Study In developing my self-study research design, I wished to better understand the relationship between me as the knower and the known in my professional work as an interim administrator for my university. “In order to guard against the inevitable limitations of individual interpretation …self-study is interactive at one or more stages of the process” (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 821). In my process of examining my data, the trustworthy nature of my analysis was critical in explicating meaningful insights from my practice. My efforts to ensure trustworthiness focused on the analysis of my data in partnership with two critical friends, where I endeavored to illuminate my “methods for transforming the data into findings, and the linkages between data, findings, and interpretations” (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 853). I used a constant comparative method (Dye et  al., 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to analyze the language I had used in my writing about the object, and my writings for each of my nodal moments. Each phrase or statement was analyzed for meaning. Phrases/statements often carried more than one meaning. Each meaning was listed as a separate category code. As phrase/statements were analyzed, they were gathered under each category code. Each new meaningful category that was created was compared to the categories already existing and if new meaning was gathered a new category was created. Each category was defined by the text subsumed under that label. I met during this process with my critical friends to confirm the category development and to ensure that the meaning/definition within each category was evidenced within the language of the accumulated statements. As category refinement began, category definitions that shared similar qualities were re-­ evaluated for possible consolidation and renaming and defining of the category.

9.3.3  Object as Data One source of data was an object, a skeleton statue eight inches in height, representing El Dia de Los Muertos, the celebration of the Day of the Dead in Mexico (see Fig. 9.7). Throughout my life in the United States, the celebration of El Dia de Los Muertos was a vibrant part of the holiday season (California, Colorado, Arizona, even Iowa). The plastic skeleton I used as my object was painted in colorful designs, and was animated so that when a button was pushed on its ribs, it would play a happy song and dance forward. This artifact represented both the frightful aspects (its initial appearance) of becoming a full-time administrator for the first time in my professional career, and the joy (represented in the song and dance) of the work that unfolded. I developed a narrative to describe the role of the object in my professional work, including its meaning to me both in negative terms and in positive terms, and the ways in which I used the skeleton over my year-long administrative work.

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

171

Fig. 9.7  El Dia De Los Muertos figure

Analysis of the skeleton as object provided insights into my understanding of how I address the day to day work and the embedded challenges that come with being a university administrator. My results from analyzing the reflections on the use of an object to discuss my administrative practice were similar to results found by Dhlula-Moruri in her object research work with her colleagues (Dhlula-Moruri et  al., 2017). She and I both found that object inquiry helped us “appreciate the person” (p. 94) we were becoming. For Dhlula-Moruri, it was on becoming an academic; for me, it was on becoming an administrator. My object reflections revealed a focus on outcomes in my practice as represented in my engagement with faculty and staff, my addressing of issues that emerged, and the counterpoint between my fear of the role of administrator and the surprise in discovering my joy of the day to day work.

9.3.4  Drawn Nodal Moments as Data The second source of data was five nodal moments which were drawn at specific times in my work where I felt compelled to draw. These nodal moments reflected tensions that were occurring in my work, when I had confusions within my work, or when something occurred that I felt was positive and successful. The five nodal moments occurred across the year, with two drawn and reflected upon through written text in the fall semester, and three (including the summary drawing of my year as an administrator) drawn and reflected upon through written text in the spring semester. The written reflections included both a brief description of the moment

172

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

(providing context), followed by an ongoing reflection of that moment. The initial written reflection occurred at the time of the drawing. Additional comments and reflective insights were added throughout the year, as the nodal moments were reviewed and additional reflection occurred. To better understand the first nodal moment, it is helpful to know the context in which this moment occurred. In Spring 2017, the entire College of Education at UNI moved back into the building, which had been in renovations for two years. During that time, we had been displaced across campus in various buildings and had spent two years as a very disjointed college. Spring 2017 brought all of us back to the building, with updated technology, new office furniture that we had been able to pick from a range of layout choices and types of furnishings, with the reorganization of the building giving the college departments a sense of anticipation and community spirit in getting back to our own building and our own offices and services (curriculum library, advising office, technology support team, new coffee house in the open space second floor area). Life seemed pretty good after two years away. The first nodal moment reflects a faculty concern over the changes in our new building. The first nodal moment (see Fig.  9.8) was drawn at the beginning of the fall semester. I was hesitant to actually include this moment in my data as the person who contacted me was genuine in her distress and concern. But it was a pivotal first event in my role that helped shape how I engaged as leadership, the term our dean often used for department heads and faculty in leadership roles. In August, a senior faculty member in our department came to me with a concern about her health. She had been experiencing rashes and was feeling poorly. She had felt a sense of decline since we moved into the building in the spring and had researched information on

Fig. 9.8  Nodal Moment #1 – August 2017

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

173

the impact of technology on individuals’ health. When she came to me, she had expressed concerns not only about her own health but also about the health of the community. As she came into my office, I immediately stood up and thanked her for coming in to share her concerns, asked her to take a seat, and to tell me what she thought was happening. My initial internal reaction was to think, “What? Our new building??? The great technology!!! What?!?” But I found myself reframing my inner voice rather quickly to a context of concern and genuine interest, with a focus on trying to help her relax, feel safe to talk, and feel heard. I remember my first post-What? response was to stop and think how I would I feel if I believed the technology in the building was making me ill. I contacted the different offices on campus to have the building reviewed for health safety and worked with the faculty member to have her moved to a first-floor office where she felt she could more safely work. The second nodal moment occurred later in the semester, as I began to make sense of (and actually enjoy) the problem solving required by the many tasks of a department head. Figure 9.9 shows my drawing of a nodal moment that reflects that complex dynamic of problem solving across multiple tasks in my role as department head. I saw these demands (budget, faculty concerns, faculty evaluation, scheduling of courses, student needs, and faculty and program needs) as community-based decision making that included input and feedback from those individuals who would be affected by my decisions. As the spring semester began, I became frustrated with my daily schedule that was literally back-to-back meetings often requiring me to “change horses midstream” (nodal moment comment, February 2018) when moving from one meeting to the next (see Fig. 9.10).

Fig. 9.9  Nodal Moment #2 – October 2017

174

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

Fig. 9.10  Nodal Moment #3 – January-February 2018

There was very little time to prepare for what was coming next in my schedule which often led to confusion for me in the initial few minutes of the next meeting. This was due partly to my open-door policy as well as having the secretarial team accessing my calendar in order to set up appointments. Part of my solution to this nodal moment insight was to maintain the open-door policy with changes in how the department office set up appointments, including segue time between each scheduled meeting. In addition, as I began meetings, I started using a background context overview provided by me and those attending to help set the tone and purpose for each meeting. The second nodal moment for the spring semester (and fourth nodal moment for the study) was drawn in April 2018, reflecting pure exhaustion on my part as department head (see Fig. 9.11). At the end of the academic year, each faculty member receives a letter from the department head highlighting their strengths, needs, and continued appointment in the department. I spent many hours developing these letters. As a faculty member I understood how powerful these letters can be for promotion and tenure, as well as a permanent record of academic work over a year. Viewing this process through the lens of a faculty member placed a heavy burden on me for not only accurately portraying their year-long efforts, but also choosing language within the letter that reflected the department’s authentic respect for their efforts and genuine concern for their needs. The final nodal moment was a summary, of sorts, for the year. While I enjoyed the problem solving aspects of leadership, and appreciated having the opportunity to work with faculty in supporting and developing department programs, there was a constant barrage of data sources that were to be addressed throughout the year. This final nodal moment (see Fig. 9.12) reflects my confusion and frustration with

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

Fig. 9.11  Nodal Moment #4 – April 2018

Fig. 9.12  Nodal Moment #4 – June 2018

175

176

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

summarizing individual and programmatic efforts through a set of data points. This need for quantitative summary data I found both minimalists in its approach, and disrespectful (in that the data did not reflect the work and efforts made).

9.3.5  What I Learned about My Practice Analysis of the skeleton as object provided insights into my understanding of how I address the day to day work and the embedded challenges that come with being a university administrator. My results from analyzing the reflections on the use of an object to discuss my administrative practice were similar to results found by Dhlula-­ Moruri in her object research work with her colleagues (Dhlula-Moruri et al., 2017). She and I both found that object inquiry helped us “appreciate the person” (p. 94) we were becoming. My object reflections revealed a focus on outcomes in my practice as represented in my engagement with faculty and staff, my addressing of issues that emerged, and the counterpoint between my fears and joys of being an administrator. It was evident that I saw my role through the lens of being a faculty member first and foremost, and an administrator ancillarily, which influenced my reflections. This was true as well with my written reflections for the five nodal moments. I found that the nodal moments worked in concert with my discussion of the object, reflecting those tensions, successes, and confusions that emerged over the year. As with Ndaleni in her object research, I too, found “that understanding of some hard-­ to-­grasp concepts can be facilitated when objects are used” (Dhlula-Moruri et al., 2017, p. 94). Across my writings for both the object and the nodal moments, the larger themes focused on my intentions as an administrator. The five emerging themes centered on my administrative intentions included: negotiating meaning, attending to protocol, addressing needs, defending faculty autonomy, and contextualizing through humor. Negotiating meaning was reflected in my engagement with faculty, staff, and other administrators. Much of my confusion and tensions involved the clarifying of meaning in my continual struggle to understand the management of my schedule and time, and in negotiating data and data reporting. In working with administrators within the College and across the University, my object reflections highlighted issues of clarity of meaning through emails, meeting agendas, and meetings themselves which, for me, were rife with tensions and confusions. Attending to protocol represented the intention on my part to work within the system in ways that would enable the flow of our work and our communication as a department to be effective. My intent was to pay closer attention to what the protocols were and how they worked in order to make sense of process. Negotiating meaning and attending to protocol often interplayed with one another in my efforts to make sense of my role. Addressing needs reflected my intent to work with faculty (and staff) to address their concerns and queries. This most clearly revealed my stance as an administrator operating through the lens of a faculty member, working in concert with the theme

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

177

of defending faculty autonomy. Faculty autonomy issues often occurred through my administrator engagement with other administrators at my level or higher in the University. Some nodal moment reflection addressed faculty, but there were several reflections of the object that addressed the issue of faculty autonomy. Consistent across the data were the uses of humor to contextualize my administrative work. Whether drawing moments that embedded humor within the context of the tension or success, or reflecting upon practice, humor was seen across my data as a frame for reflecting my practice and as a tool for expressing my understanding.

9.4  The Power of Visuals as Meaning Making Self-study assists in the advancement in the field of education through the truthfulness revealed in the results of “the construction, testing, sharing, and re-testing of exemplars of teaching practice” (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 821). For us, the use of visuals in our professional practice and scholarly writing reflects a journey of discovery. We have found in our own use of visuals that the context of our work and the circumstances in which we find ourselves professionally foregrounds our use of visuals to make meaning. We have found that using diverse ways of meaning making have strengthened our understanding of our practice. The results from our work with visuals provide three insights that we believe are significant to the larger field of scholarship and writing. First, the use of object, drawing, 3-dimensional sculpture, or collage artifacts provided a meaningful context for discussing practice. The object as reflecting professional meaning was insightful in the connections made to Deb’s role as a university administrator. This adds additional support to the work of Pillay et  al. (2017) on their use of objects for interpretation within educational research. Deb’s use of object as data further “illuminates the promise of objects in generating sociocultural and autobiographical interpretative portrayals of lived educational experience” and “expands scholarly conversations about what counts as data and analysis in educational research” (Pillay et al., 2017, p. 7). Second, the use of drawings helps to explicate those moment-specific and context-­rich experiences, which provide insights into meaning, thinking processes, and actions found within professional practice. Svanborg’s use of visuals to represent meaning making within her note taking serve as a catalyst for deeper meaning and richer expression of experience. Her drawings have helped her in understanding themes that emerge through those visuals, and key points addressed that linger later in the metaphor of the drawing. Through the visual she has been able to capture her thinking at that moment in time that provides a more holistic view of the experience, a capturing of the whole within the complexity of language and expression of content. The visual helps to access the meaning as expressed beyond words. She sees this as a deeper understanding that provides more than just words can express. Finally, the value of arts-based data such as 3-dimensional sculpture or collage enables the elicitation of meaning within professional practice. This was evident in

178

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

how the use of such visual representations provides an alternative source of data and an alternative space for expression that explicates meaning both in the process of creating and in the discussion and deconstruction of that visual artifact. We encourage those interested in approaching meaning making through visual representation to think about their own practice in terms of spaces where visual expression can occur. How might the gathering of data be represented visually? How might data, itself, be the visual? What spaces in practice might be served well through visual expression which allows one to explicate those moment-specific and context-rich experiences in ways that provide a greater insights and deeper understandings. We come back full circle to Eisner’s (2008) argument that the artistic methods have something for everyone, not only for artists. The use of visuals in scholarship and professional practice bring to the fore the importance and value of artistic expression in meaning making.

References Bland, B. (2018) Using drawing in research with children: Lessons from practice. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(3), 342-352. 10.1080/17 Butler-Kisber, L. (2008). Collage as inquiry. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 265–276). Sage. Dalmau, M., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2002). Improving teacher education practices through self-­ study. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practice through self-­ study (pp. 102–129). RoutledgeFalmer. Dalmau, M.  C., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2017). From the beginning to the future: Professional working theory emerging. In M. C. Dalmau, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Taking a fresh look at education: Framing professional learning in education through self-study (pp. 129–148). Sense. Dhlula-Moruri, M. N., Kortjass, M., Ndaleni, T., & Pithouse-Morgan, K. (2017). A stove, a flask, and a photograph. In D.  Pillay, K.  Pithouse-Morgan, & I.  Naicker (Eds.), Object medleys: Interpretive possibilities for educational research (pp. 81–97). Sense. Drew, S., & Guillemin, M. (2014). From photographs to findings: Visual meaning- making and interpretive engagement in the analysis of participant-generated images. Visual Studies, 29(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2014.862994. Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, A., & Coleman, S. T. (2000). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2), 1–10. Eisner, E. (2008). Art and knowledge. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 3–12). Sage. Espiner, D., & Hartnett, F. (2016). Innovation and graphic facilitation. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(4):44. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-­vol28iss4id298 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction. Griffiths, M., Windle, J., & Simms, M. (2006). “That’s what I am here for”: Images of working lives of academic and support staff. In D. Tidwell & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity (pp. 227–248). Sense. Griffiths, M., Malcolm, H., & Williamson, Z. (2009). Faces and spaces and doing research. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 101–118). Springer.

9  Visuals as Meaning Making

179

Guðjónsdóttir, H. & Jónsdóttir S. R. (in press). Writing our identities as teacher educators and self-­ study researchers in two languages In J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a method for the self-study of practice. Springer. Handal, G., & Lauvås, P. (1987). The practical theory of teachers. In G. Handal & P. Lauvås (Eds.), Promoting reflective teaching: Supervision in practice (pp. 9–29). Open University Press. Hautopp, H., & Ørngreen, R. (2018). A review of graphic facilitation in organizational and educational contexts. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.97 Jordan-Daus, K. (2016). Leadership and on finding my way through self-study. In D. Garbett and A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 197–205). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. Retrieved from https://www.aera.net/SIG109/ Conferences/Past-­Castle-­Proceedings Kim, J.  H. (2015). Understanding narrative inquiry: The crafting and analysis of stories as research. Sage. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2010). Going to the core: Deepening reflection by connecting the person to the profession. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry (pp. 529–552). Springer. Kristinsdóttir, J.  V., Jónsdóttir, S.  R., Gísladóttir, K.  R., Óskarsdóttir, E., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2019). Cultivating self-study: Developing a discourse to better understand a particular culture. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. Bullock, A. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices, Second edition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_49-­1. LaBoskey, V.  K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Springer. Magubane, S. E. (2014). Cultivating intrinsic motivation for learning technology: A teacher’s self-­ study. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Mills, J. (2020). Why we draw: An exploration into how and why drawing works. Retrieved from https://www.whywedraw.net/ Mitchell, C. (2017). Objects as subjects. In D. Pillay, K. Pithouse-Morgan, & I. Naicker (Eds.), Object medley interpretive possibilities for educational research (pp. 11–28). Sense. Olofsson, E., & Sjölén, K. (2007). Design sketching. KEEOS Design Books AB. Parker, M., Chroinin, D. N., Coulter, M., Walsh, C., & McFlynn, P. (2016). Snapshots: Teacher educator professional learning shaping teacher educator practices. In D. Garbett and A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 189–195). Proceedings of the 11th international conference on self-study of teacher education practices, Herstmonceux. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG109/Conferences/Past-­Castle-­Proceedings Pillay, D., Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Naicker, I. (2017). Composing object medleys. In D. Pillay, K. Pithouse-Morgan, & Y. I. Naicker (Eds.), Object medleys: Interpretive possibilities for educational research (pp. 1–10). Sense. Raphael, J., Hannigan, S., & White, P. (2016). A gallery walk: “Drawing out” understandings of collaborative self-study in teacher education. In D.  Garbett and A.  Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self- study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp.  109–118). Proceedings of the 11th international conference on self-study of teacher education practices, Herstmonceux. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG109/Conferences/Past-­Castle-­Proceedings Roberts, A., & Woods, P. A. (2018). Theorising the value of collage in exploring educational leadership. British Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 626–642. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory: Sage. Tidwell, D.  L. (1998). Distance. In A.  L. Cole and S.  Finley (Eds.), Conversations in community. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Self-study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (pp. 77–80). Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG109/Conferences/Past-­Castle-­Proceedings

180

D. Tidwell and S. R. Jónsdóttir

Tidwell, D. L. (2002). On stage: The efficacy and theatrics of large group instruction. In C. Kosnik, A. Freese, and A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-­ study. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (Vol. 2, pp.  111–116). Toronto: OISE, University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG109/Conferences/ Past-­Castle-­Proceedings Tidwell, D. L. (2006). Nodal moments as a context for meaning. In D. L. Tidwell & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity (pp. 267–285). Sense. Tidwell, D. L., & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2017, April 27–May 1). Analyzing visual representation as data. Online presentation at the Invisible College for Research on Teaching April 26 in San Antonio, Texas. Pre-conference for American Educational Research Association (AERA). Tidwell, D. L., & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2020). Methods and tools of self-study. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education, Second edition. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_12-­1. Tidwell, D., & Manke, M.  P. (2009). Making meaning of practice through visual metaphor. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 135–154). Springer. Tidwell, D., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Jess, M. (2019, April). Objective self-study of administrative work. Roundtable presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada. Weber, S. J. (2008). Visual images in research. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 49–58). Sage. Weber, S. (2014). Arts-based self-study: Documenting the ripple effect. Perspectives in Education, 32(2), 8–20.

Part IV

Crafting a Self-Study Texts

Chapter 10

Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two Languages Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir

Abstract  The international discourse of education as a discipline is in English, which presents interesting challenges for the many scholars from other languages and cultures. For us as teacher educators from Iceland writing in English is both a pathway into the educational discourse and somewhat of a barrier. As Icelandic academics, we must be able to read and write in both Icelandic and English, at a minimum. Additionally, we need to write in a way that not only engages academics and bureaucrats, but also student teachers, teachers, and parents. In this chapter, we – two Icelandic teacher educators and former primary school teachers – describe how our journey of writing as an inquiry in self-study has helped us develop our professional selves as teacher educators and researchers and as participants in the international educational discourse. We analyse and describe how navigating between Icelandic and English has come with challenges and affordances that have expanded and enriched our space for professional development. Translanguaging practices increased our agency as participants in an international discourse of education. A third space for development opened with self-study and translanguaging, catalysing our thinking, and pushing us to investigate our practices. We hope our stories will resonate with those of others that have to write in a second language and give an insight into the challenges and resources that come with working in, with and between two languages.

10.1  Introduction The international discourse of education as a discipline is in English, which presents interesting challenges for the many scholars from other languages and cultures. For us as teacher educators from Iceland, writing in English is both a pathway into the H. Guðjónsdóttir (*) · S. R. Jónsdóttir School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_10

183

184

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

educational discourse and somewhat of a barrier. Iceland is a country with a small population, but a strong sense of identity as an independent nation with its own language: Icelandic. One of Iceland’s national poets claimed – and many Icelanders still believe – that Icelandic has words for anything that can be thought of in this world (Benediktsson, 1945). As it turns out, our language, as rich as it is, does not always have the words we need to express our thinking in this postmodern context of doubt where no truth is absolute (Richardson & St Pierre, 2005). However, Icelandic does sometimes have words that express concepts that are not perfectly translatable to other languages, as they have connotations and roots in cultural and natural worlds so ingrained that we usually do not notice their deepest meanings and finest nuances. As Icelandic academics, we must be able to in both Icelandic and English, at a minimum. Additionally, we need to write in a way that not only engages academics and bureaucrats, but also student teachers, teachers, and parents. In this chapter, we – two Icelandic teacher educators and former primary school teachers – describe how our journey of writing as an inquiry in self-study has helped us develop our professional selves as teacher educators and researchers and as participants in the international educational discourse. We analyse and describe how navigating between Icelandic and English has come with challenges and affordances that have expanded and enriched our space for professional development. We hope our particular stories will resonate with those of others that have to write in a second language and give an insight into the problems and resources that come with working in, with and between two languages.

10.2  Theoretical Framework Writing can be an act that introduces our thinking, our beliefs, and our stance; for academic educators, the act of writing is a part of the job. They cannot but write and publish. For us it is an act for which we must navigate between two different languages. To help us understand what it means to write, especially in another language than our own, we have explored the literature, and discussions with academics who have supported us in our writing through the years. In this chapter, we focus on the importance of agency, writing as an inquiry, and translanguaging as a language practice.

10.2.1  Professionalism and Teacher Agency An important part of teachers’ professionalism is agency, their active contribution to shaping their profession and its conditions. Agency is not something that people own as a property, capacity, or competence, but rather something that people do (Biesta et al., 2015). Professional agency, including teacher agency, is often understood as problem-solving. However, professionals, including teachers and

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

185

educators, do not simply solve problems that are given to them; they are also involved in working out what the problem is – they are not only involved in problem-solving, but also in problem setting (Biesta, 2019; Schön, 1987). The work of educators is not just about doing; it is about the doing informing practice and how that doing is captured, reflected on, deconstructed, and reconstructed in the effort to learn from experience (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). The development of educators can be viewed as a learning process that combines theory and practice in ways that help build knowledge (Freire, 2005; Loughran, 2010; Van Manen, 1999). Furthermore, to empower their learners, educators need to recognize their identities, their differences, and their roles. They must realize that they are the makers of their culture, their professional discourses, and their understanding of the concepts. They should not leave that completely to policymakers or other professionals, but be the “doers” (Biesta, 2019; Freire, 2005). To make this happen, it is important that educators and teachers participate in the discourse, making their tacit knowledge known by presenting their inquiry and learning. Using their professional agency, teachers must understand how their professional theories evolve through the interplay of professional knowledge, practical experience, reflection, and ethical principles. “Professional Working Theory” (PWT) is a term that explains and represents this important element of the profession. Systematic critical reflection and collegial dialogue is important to develop and present one’s PWT (Dalmau and Guðjónsdóttir, 2002). When teachers explore their practical theories in the experiences and challenges of practice, they become a source of empowerment and open up the potential for individual and institutional growth (Jónsdóttir & Gísladóttir, 2017). To be agents of change and take part in transforming teacher education requires well-informed participants who understand the nature of education as well as their professional roles and identities. Collaborative self-study of shared teaching and learning experiences has helped us to extract the complex thinking, decision-­ making, and pedagogical rationale that support the professional work of teacher educators (Loughran, 2004). Self-study inquiry has supported us in identifying our visions, values, and beliefs so that we can better strengthen professional development – and by publication, also deliberately influence the development of teacher education. Ingrained in the ideology of self-study is the obligation to share findings by writing about them, which also serves to develop the researchers’ voices and enacts professional agency (Loughran, 2004, Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2010). Writing is thus a way of doing research, sometimes understood as writing as inquiry, or writing to understand your actions and share them with others (Lauer, 2000).

10.2.2  Writing as Inquiry In writing about our research, we adhere to the understanding that writing equals thinking, and that it is only in the act of writing that we can make sense of the evidence that we have gathered. Information does not serve as evidence until we do

186

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

something with it in the process of writing (Lauer, 2000; Werder, 2016). We use writing as a method of data collection, as a method of data analysis, and as a way to think, breaking down the distinction in conventional qualitative inquiry between data collection and data analysis (St. Pierre in Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005). We can get only so far in developing and explaining ideas by talking about them, but we can create new knowledge by writing about them: …it is only through the act of composing that can get to certain ideas. Only talking about them or trying to hold them in our minds just will not take us to these deeper understandings. In this way, composing is a kind of magical way of creating new knowledge for ourselves and others as we participate in a scholarly conversation. (Werder, 2016, p. 3)

Richardson (2001) claims that writing and what you write about and how you write it shapes your life, and this is true of our writing as inquiry. Writing is a knowledge-making activity, as it is a way to understand the world and thus to create new knowledge and a way to develop as a participant in the world (Werder, 2016). St. Pierre explains well how we understand writing as inquiry: “…for me writing is thinking, writing is analysis, writing is indeed a seductive and tangled method of discovery” (in Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005, p. 967). Writing to understand our practice has shaped who we have become and are becoming as professionals. For many, to begin to write, is a challenging act, but as soon as something is written down that might appear in the final account, we have begun our writing (Wolcott, 2001). Wolcott points out that writing reflects our thinking, or as he indicates, is our thinking, but that it is also a way to uncover the holes in our thinking. To help us express our thinking and write our understandings in a language other than our own, we have used practices that can be seen as translanguaging.

10.2.3  Translanguaging As a native Icelandic speaker doing my master’s and doctoral studies in English, I (Hafdís) often experienced frustration and internal conflict. Believing that the use of a language is a social practice replete with agency and meaning, I felt I was in a situation where I didn’t have the vocabulary needed to explain my views or participate in the academic discourse. However, my fellow doctoral student Mary Dalmau, from Australia, created a space for me to participate in discussions using a mixture of English and Icelandic. This was before the year 2000 and I had never heard of the term “translanguaging,” which in the literature is explained as an approach that is centred on the practices of bilingual people rather than on the languages themselves (Garcia, 2009). Translanguaging views a bilingual person’s first language as valuable, generative, and powerful (Poza, 2017). Mary would tell me to talk in Icelandic and I did; then, little by little and without realizing it, I moved into English. In so doing we would centre our practice and understanding in the discussion, not in the language itself. I used both languages because sometimes it was easier to say something in English, while other times I would prefer Icelandic. This practice of

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

187

translanguaging helped me engage more deeply with the content. Poza (2017) pointed out that translanguaging should not be thought of as something unusual or noteworthy, but rather as an ordinary form of communication used in communities throughout the world. However, at this time in my life, the learning space Mary created seemed unusual to me. I had been taught that the language you use needs to be perfect – word choice, pronunciation, and grammar – and mine was not. It was also emphasized to separate languages, spoken and written, as had been the key principle of instruction for a long time (García, 2014). The concept of translanguaging is not only a descriptive term that captures bilinguals’ language practice; it is also a mean to unlock the voices of the language of minoritized students (García & Leiva, 2014). It relates to the fluctuation between languages, the developing of the conceptualization of a language, and changes in former conceptualizations and linguistic norms (Poza 2017). Translanguaging is not only a bilingual discourse or a pedagogical method for supporting learning. It is also a way for bilingual learners to self-regulate and advance their learning and by using the method the learner goes between and beyond different linguistic structures and systems (Velasco & García, 2014). By speaking, writing, signing, listening, reading, and remembering, the multilingual language learners transmit information and their values, identities, and relationships (Li, 2011). Thus, we can ask if the concept of translanguaging could be helpful to understand more than academic achievement issues or a scaffold for emergent bilinguals, and if it could also refer to social relations and power structures. If so, then evidence of it would be found across ages, communicative contexts, and social standing (Poza, 2017). Li and Hua (2013) argue that it is important to look through the lens of translanguaging in bilingual studies because it enables us to understand how everyday practices and identities are rooted in the communities to which the learners belong, and how they constantly shift, develop, and transform accordingly. It is the broad meaning that we would like to refer to in our research and writing.

10.3  Methodology and Research Methods Self-study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) is a way of examining, learning, and better understanding one’s own practice as an academic educator (Loughran, 2004). The focus is on the nature and development of personal and practical knowledge. It is a form of practitioner research in which the researchers examine their own beliefs, learning, practices, processes, contexts, and relationships (Berry & Crowe, 2010). Many find self-study complex, because it is about a study of the self and by the self. Samaras and Freese (2006) suggest that S-Step is defined by the role of the self as a researcher, studying one’s own situated practice, and at last by the purpose of the study. The purpose of this study was to understand our journey of writing as an inquiry in self-study and how it has helped us craft our professional selves as teacher educators and researchers. The aim was to analyse how navigating between Icelandic and English has come with both challenges and

188

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

affordances. The research question guiding this investigation was: How has navigating between two languages Icelandic and English influenced our space for professional development? To conduct an effective self-study it is helpful to keep the following five areas in focus as a paradigm: the inquiry is personally situated, critically collaborative, and designed to improve learning; in addition, it involves a systematic and transparent research process, and results in knowledge generation and presentation (Samaras, 2011). We used this paradigm as our research frame. Our data sources, data collection, and data analyses are elucidated in Table  10.1 (Tidwell & Jónsdóttir, 2020).

10.3.1  Data Our data is retrospective, consisting of archives, audio recordings, and reflective notes.

Table 10.1  Data and data handling Nature of data Retrospective data Archives

Recordings

Reflective notes

How data was gathered Analytical process Data sources Collected: Drafts Chapters Articles

Analysis I Wrote summaries of each manuscript Symbolic drawing (see Fig. 10.1) Group data with common themes Emerging findings written up as draft chapters Listened with Recorded discussions an open mind – general from: Walk & Talk content noted Meetings Groups of Writing: themes Journals emerging E-mails Messages

Analysis II Challenges Solutions Interesting points New themes identified with a special focus on language

Major points written up, both with a special focus on language and self-study New themes found across the first themes – focusing on language barriers and affordances

Analysis III Writing up from new themes – some initial themes kept Analysing through discussions and through writing and rewriting Honing: reading findings, discussing, adding, eliminating – writing to satisfaction of the research question

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

189

Fig. 10.1  Our papers from 2012 to 2020 – data and a part of analytical process

10.3.2  Data Sources and Collection Our data collection spans our collaboration from 2012 to 2020. We did not intend to write about our experience of becoming academic writers in two languages, but when the question came about, we realized that we had a plethora of appropriate data to facilitate our inquiry into our professional identities (Pithouse-Morgan et al., 2016). We are using retrospective data to analyse our experiences with a special focus on writing in a foreign language as we became academic writers. Over the 8-year period, we collaborated to improve our teaching and our students learning through self-study. Other self-study researchers keep pointing out that there is no special self-study research method or single correct way to collect or analyse data; it all depends on what we would like to understand better (Loughran, 2004; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2010 Tidwell & Jónsdóttir, 2020). In the time span from 2012 to 2020 we, along with our colleague Karen Gísladóttir, collectively and sometimes in collaboration with others, wrote 14 papers (see Appendix), 12 in English and only 2 in Icelandic (Fig. 10.1). We worked on data gathering and analysis together as we used self-study as an integral part of our collaborative teaching and to develop our work. To understand better how we have developed our academic writing in two languages and answer our research question we collected all 14 papers. During our

190

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

collaborative writing we kept journals, both personal ones and a collaborative one. We exchanged thoughts and ideas through email and text messages. For a few weeks we met at lunchtime and took a walk for about 30–40  minutes to talk about our progress in the study and reflect on what we were discovering. We recorded these walk-and-talk meetings and analysed them. We also recorded our discussions in other focus meetings.

10.3.3  Analytical Process The analysis is drawn from the retrospective data: the archives, recordings, and reflective notes (see Table 10.1). We use ideas and models from scholars that have influenced us through the years to make sense of our data, our writing processes and our development as professionals in teacher education. The analysis process: Stage One: A. Archives (a) We made a list of all articles and chapters on which we have collaborated. (b) We scanned all our published papers and wrote a short summary for each manuscript. (c) We grouped the manuscripts and to better understand the process through the years we made a symbolic drawing (Fig. 10.1). The drawing supported us to see our journey through the years and to get an overall view of what we had published. The drawing also helped us to get a feeling for what we had in our hands and to capture some key moments. We grouped these data with common themes, and wrote up emerging findings as draft chapters. B. Recordings (a) We attempted to listen with open minds, and noted general content. C. Reflective Notes (a) We identified groups of themes that emerged. Stage Two: We read through all the summaries, consulted recordings, and reflective notes, and added to the draft chapters. Stage Three: We read carefully through our emerging chapters and colour-coded text that responded to the research question. We used those points to revamp the findings and create a new analysis, producing new themes that were more focused on answering the research question.

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

191

By consulting our data, we wrote our stories and presented them as narratives in our findings on a timeline where we share how we have constructed and developed our identities as teacher educators and researchers. Our stories depict how we explored the little known (in Iceland) research field of self-study, focusing on challenges and benefits of writing in two languages.

10.4  Findings: Writing Our Professional Identities The analysis of the narratives in our study led to the identification of four themes: writing with confidence in our specialties; collaboration – writing to create a space for professional growth; writing in and for an inclusive and empowering community of academics, and expanding the community of self-study teacher educators in Iceland.

10.4.1  Writing with Confidence in Our Specialities The first two papers Hafdís and Svanborg wrote were on how we collaborated as we began teaching a graduate-level course in inclusive education. One was a chapter in English in the 2012 self-study conference book; the other was in Icelandic, our native language, late in the same year. Collaborating on teaching the course, “Working in inclusive practices” (WIP) and doing a self-study, we began to discover each other’s professional strengths while analysing how we practiced our ideologies and how we could make the course better. The course was about practicing inclusive education by using the approaches of innovative education (Jónsdóttir & Gísladóttir, 2017). As Hafdís is a specialist in inclusive education and Svanborg a specialist in innovation and entrepreneurial education, we were both confident in our respective areas and had both written our PhD theses in English. While neither of us was completely confident in English – especially academic English – this experience helped us considerably in writing in English about our process in the course, which concerned our specialities. In the article in English we give attention to explain the context, our educational system for teachers. There we need to explain something that is from our everyday lives and we must try to step out of our everyday lives and look at it from the view of an outsider. (Reflective notes)

In discussing our data, we usually started by using Icelandic and shifted to English gradually. This gave us an opportunity to really scrutinize the meaning of the key concepts we were using. Hafdís was already well versed in self-study, but for Svanborg these discussions were a pathway to get to know self-study and the literature available about the methodology in English. There was no literature in

192

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

Icelandic on self-study at that time, but there was a growing fund of knowledge and writing about action research. In the Castle Conference chapter about the WIP course, we did not spend much effort explaining self-study in teacher education, as we were writing for an audience that was familiar with self-study. But writing the Icelandic paper was different. We used the opportunity in the Icelandic article to present S-STEP as a methodology, as it was little known in Icelandic academia. One considerable challenge was to find a concept in Icelandic that would capture the meaning of self-study of teacher education practice. We worked through the problem by carefully explaining what the self-study methodology was about using whole phrases like: ‘teacher educators’ research into their own practice.’

10.4.2  C  ollaboration – Writing to Create a Space for Professional Growth The third collaborative publication was about how we, together with our colleague Karen, developed group supervision of master’s students. Through our work together, we discovered how collaborating on this challenging task expanded the resources available to us and grew our collective competence as supervisors. Doing self-study on our collaboration and writing about it in English built on our data that was in Icelandic and our conversations, while analytic work pushed us to scrutinize carefully everything we wanted to translate into English. Sometimes we could not find the precise words we needed in English, and we would have to think the initial thought anew. Sometimes we had to express the feeling we wanted to convey in English rather than just translating word for word. As we discussed our data in Icelandic, we realized that our collaboration helped us develop important supervisory issues, but also our English language skills. As we helped each other improve our English, we realized that our collaboration depended upon reciprocal trust that allowed our collective visions to emerge through our writing in English. … we realized through this self-study that our collaboration opened a space not only for reflection, but also for producing new and constructive solutions and sometimes shifting and negotiating roles. We had created a third space where we could safely question dominant categorizations of culture and identity, languages and different discourses, support each other, and get to know ourselves as professionals. (Jónsdóttir, et al., 2015 p. 10)

A third space emerged through this work, a space to understand our work more deeply – an expansion of understanding born from the fact that we needed to scrutinize carefully what the words we used in each language meant and how the words we chose were a part of who we were becoming – the professional identities we were writing as part of our inquiry and practice. The space was created through our dialogue as a part of our self-study interacting with each other, and expanded further by the translation between two languages.

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

193

As we read or write in English, we do not question the vocabulary as we do in Icelandic, we take the words as they are facts, that the explanation is a fact, we would never make up a word in English as we do when we write Icelandic. We try to understand it as it is explained by others, we use it as we see others use it, but the deep feelings or doubts don’t occur in English. It is more like it is learned. Sometimes we learn a word that we think covers what we are trying to write and then we use it again and again and sometimes we overuse it. Challenges might be one such word. (Reflective notes)

The space afforded an additional opportunity for us to develop as professionals, although we did not at first realize that the challenges of travelling between two languages also offered certain gains that pushed us to dig deep. This space was not there before, but opened as we developed our work and collaboration through self-­ study and the constant journey with and between the two languages (Analytical meeting, January 2020). We also wanted to introduce our findings in Icelandic and share them with the academic teacher education community in Iceland. However, we did not manage that step until much later. We found writing in English for the self-study community to be constructive and empowering for our collaboration and growth as educators, even though it was still quite a challenge. Writing and presenting in English continued to be a part of the development of our collaboration, allowing us to create a space to develop as teacher educators.

10.4.3  W  riting in and for an Inclusive and Empowering Community of Academics Although writing our findings in English was challenging, we continued to write and publish in English and use that language to “write out” our identities as professionals. The self-study community offered us a framework and a step-by-step approach that we found supportive and engaging, even though it meant writing our findings in English. Reading the literature in English, attending and presenting at S-STEP conferences, and taking part in discussions and conversations helped us to start thinking about educational issues in English: “I started to have conversations in my head in English” (Svanborg, reflective journal, November 2019). Our collaborative research and writing in English for the self-study community started with small articles, which we then expanded and deepened as book chapters or reviewed articles. This expanded our thinking and helped extract what we have found to be at the core of our work: excavating the core of our professional working theories. Writing for a self-study audience in English, despite the language barriers we inevitably experienced, was in many ways more appealing than contributing to a non-existent self-study discourse in Icelandic. Before sending our self-study writings for review, we always had an English speaker who was a native English speaker edit our writing. That step was very important, especially because the professional was well-versed in educational language, creative, and respectful of what we were

194

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

trying to say. Nearly always, reviewers’ responses to our self-study papers were very constructive, albeit critical and thorough. Similarly, we found the conferences on self-study in teacher education, where we had to present in English, very supportive while also offering critical and meaningful conversations. Our experience of the responses of the international professionals of self-study to our work has been that they practice the ideology of the critical pedagogy that guides their work. In an analytical meeting, we concluded that one of the reasons we had written much more in English about our self-study work than in Icelandic was that there was a culture in the English-speaking and -writing self-study community that offered us space and support to publish our findings: S: It is interesting to realise that at first, we wrote one paper in English and then another in Icelandic and then a bunch of articles and chapters in English and none in Icelandic. It is as if the English language surroundings and the S-STEP culture gives us clearer opportunities to express our findings... HG: It creates spaces for us. The self-study community creates a space for us to write. That’s just it. S: And it takes us such a long time and a lot of writing in English to finally write the next paper in Icelandic. HG: And we were working on it off and on for many years before finally finishing it. We always pushed back on our to-do list. (Analytical meeting, January 13. 2020)

We felt we were writing for and in a community that required quality but also displayed professional caring. The challenge is not only found in writing in English but also in Icelandic. The space to develop as professionals in the Icelandic language and culture was narrower than that which we found writing about our development through self-study in English. We saw that our professional identities were developed and written in the English language – as that was the language in which we have written our findings – and thus developed as professionals in teacher education. English is also our academic language, as the bulk of self-study literature is still in English. We are brought up in the “clean tongue” spirit, the policy that demands that new concepts are created in the Icelandic language and not just taken directly from English or other languages. Influenced by that spirit, we find it important to have a theoretical and academic foundation for our sciences in Icelandic. There is a strong tendency for modern Icelanders to ‘splash’ their Icelandic vocabulary with English words, causing people to worry about the future of the Icelandic language. It was a big achievement for us to finally get our findings and the self-study methodology supporting us published for the second time in our native language. It was actually quite a struggle. Hafdís urged us in early spring 2018: If we don’t write this article now in Icelandic it is never going to happen. We have started writing it four times and now we must see it through NOW. It has important information for Icelandic academics about supervising masters’ students and for Icelandic teacher educators about self-study in teacher education. (E-mail, 6 March 2018)

One way of understanding why we have mainly written about our research in English is as a response to the common maxim that ‘no one is a prophet in her own

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

195

country’.1 Although we do not see ourselves as prophets, we still feel we have an important message to convey for Icelandic education about the self-study of teacher education. One of the challenges we identified as we investigated our writings over the past 8  years was the challenge to be convincing in another language than our own. Translating directly from Icelandic to English can come out quite silly, even hilarious. Sometimes we have had to really ponder about what we mean by certain words in Icelandic so we can convey the meaning we want to share in English. With the support of a good editor and the probing questions and constructive advice of reviewers we have been able to come closer to expressing our thinking and findings in English as well as, or even better than, in Icelandic. A part of this challenge is the need to carefully explain our conditions and our situation in teacher education in Iceland, as reviewers sometimes pointed out and asked us to explain.

10.4.4  E  xpanding the Community of Self-Study Teacher Educators in Iceland In the last paper we analysed, we had expanded our self-study group and collaboration to include – in addition to the three of us (Hafdís, Svanborg, and Karen) – two other colleagues who also had been using self-study in their research. The chapter “Cultivating Self-Study: Developing a Discourse to Better Understand a Particular Culture” included narratives from each of us and our collective stories and also the challenges of writing self-studies in English at the same time as we attempted to develop a vocabulary for self-study in Icelandic. Producing our self-studies in two languages has included data gathering, thinking, discussing, analysing, and writing. We gathered data, discussed, and analysed in Icelandic, gradually developing the discussions into writings in English (mostly). In our meetings we interspersed our Icelandic with English words that were often more easily accessible to us in the moment. By translanguaging in this way, we have been creating our professional identities and gradually developing a scholarly self-­ study discourse in Icelandic: ...we have developed scholarly terms in our native language to be able to discuss within our community of practice the theoretical and methodological approach we have adopted in researching our own practice. Analysing our vision, values, and beliefs helped us gain an understanding of our professional identities and become active change agents within our professional lives as we developed self-study of teacher education practices. (Kristinsdóttir et al., 2020, pp. 1–2)

In the chapter we identified how writing about self-study was challenging in Icelandic, as we did not have the appropriate vocabulary to use to describe and

1  Originally from the Bible: “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country…” (Luke 4:24, RSV 2 CE).

196

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

discuss the methodology – which has no ontological foundation in Icelandic. Iceland has an official policy to use our native language for new concepts rather than adopt them directly from other languages (Eiríksson, n.d.; Law nr. 61/2011). Thus, we felt obligated to find suitable words in Icelandic, which has been challenging for the concept of self-study. In developing our own self-study language in Icelandic, we found that action research had already laid a certain foundation for our work. Action research has been developing in Iceland from the 1980s under the Icelandic word ‘starfendarannsóknir’ (literally, ‘practitioners’ research’). In Iceland, action research has gradually gained respect and recognition in the academic community. Self-study arrived about 20 years later in Iceland and has mostly been presented in English, as our own writings exemplify. Writing the self-study articles in Icelandic shows our search for our professional identity as self-study researchers in Icelandic. In the chapter, we discussed the nuances and connotations of words we experimented with to capture the meaning of self-study: Direct translation of self-study is ‘sjálfs-rannsókn’ which has the connotation in Icelandic culture as being directly connected to psychology. ‘Sjálfs-rannsókn’ refers to looking inward, reflecting on your personal identity and not your professional self. We have tried using different words and combinations of words to express the concept, always trying to convey the professional ground that self-study practice is built on. One combination we have used is ‘fagleg starfsrýni’ that translates to ‘professional inquiry’, but we found that to be missing the ‘self’ that is such an important part of self-study and the part of realizing how intertwined our personality is with how we do our work. (Kristinsdóttir et al. 2020, p. 6)

In discussing our work, we often use the English word ‘self-study’ within sentences in Icelandic. In our 2018 paper in Icelandic, however, we started to use the word ‘starfstengd sjálfsrýni’ (literal meaning: ‘practice-related self-inquiry’) to capture the meaning of self-study. We believe this concept will be accepted and used. The struggle to write in two languages about our professional development has also given us additional depth in the new interlingual space our self-study has created for us. In striving to find appropriate words in Icelandic to discuss the methodology of self-study, we had to dig deep in the process of coming to know and understand our practice. To translate into Icelandic, we had to reflect on the meaning of ‘self’ in self-study and thus sharpen our understanding of the ontology and epistemology of S-STEP.  In so doing, we have gained an ontological sense for our stance as professionals and created a space or dialogue and understanding of educational practice. The creation and development of a self-study discourse in Icelandic has been hesitant and careful but well supported by the engrained international discourse in a vast fund of publications and conferences in English. We hope that our expanding community of self-study researchers in Iceland will continue to write in Icelandic about their research.

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

197

10.5  D  iscussion – Empowered by Translanguaging and Self-Study In this inquiry we sought to answer the question: How has navigating between Icelandic and English influenced our space for professional development? In seeking to answer this question, one of our main realisations is that translanguaging has expanded our space for development as professionals in education. Translanguaging in self-study has helped to unlock our voices (García & Leiva, 2014) as Icelandic researchers and paved the way for us to express and share our experiences and understandings. It was interesting to realize how translanguaging, practiced in our everyday practices and rooted in our communities, supported us to develop and transform (Wei & Hua, 2013). Our collective reflections and translanguaging discussions about our findings have been the final step that excavates the core we are looking for and helps us understand the layers of influences on us as professionals (Korthagen, 2014). Writing and rewriting our conclusions extracts the professionalism that has been developing through these conversations between data, theories, reflections, and ideologies. The self-study literature in English gave us a solid methodological and ethical foundation. In building on this foundation, we have been writing our professional self-image through self-study, alternating between English and Icelandic. The first steps in our collaborative self-studies were bolstered by confidence in our own and each other’s specialties; specifically, the confidence of knowing the vocabularies of inclusive education and innovation and entrepreneurial education in both Icelandic and English. However, we were not confident in writing in Icelandic about self-study, and we trod lightly in our first Icelandic article  – although we really wanted to present and explain the affordances of self-study for Icelandic readers (Guðjónsdóttir & Jónsdóttir, 2012). At that time, we had not yet used generative powers of Icelandic to create the concepts we needed to explain and discuss self-­ study with the efficacy of English (Poza, 2017). To enact our professional agency, we needed to understand how our professional theories depended on our knowledge, experience, reflection, and ethical principles (Dalmau and Guðjónsdóttir, 2002; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2010). Through our research and writings, our professional working theories have continued to develop in the 9  years of our collaborative self-studies. By doing self-studies of shared teaching and learning experiences we have managed to extract the complex thinking, decision-making, and pedagogical rationale that supports us as teacher educators (Loughran, 2010). Collaboration and self-study have created an important space for professional growth (Berry & Crowe, 2010; Loughran, 2004; Jónsdóttir et  al., 2015; Pithouse-Morgan, et  al. 2016). Translanguaging has expanded and deepened that space. Taken together, self-study, collaboration, and translanguaging have supported us in becoming the change agents we want to be (Biesta, 2019; Freire, 2005). However, we feel that as self-study advocates in Iceland, we have a long way to go to make a lasting impact. This mission has started and is expanding

198

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

(Kristinsdóttir et al., 2020), as we believe our efforts to localize self-study discourse has the potential to improve teacher education in Iceland.

10.6  Conclusion Writing as inquiry, scrutinizing data, and writing to understand our practice has shaped who we have become and are becoming as professionals. Language, in the form of the texts we have produced, has contributed to our sense of who we are as people and professionals in teacher education. The discourses for self-study available to us are still limited in Icelandic. The world of English language – the self-­ study international world and developing culture  – presented discourses that expanded our space to think. A sort of ‘new world’, a third space for development opened as the discourse of self-study and translanguaging, catalysed our thinking and pushed us to investigate our practices closely to see what drives us, what kind of ethics guide our work, and how they emerge in our work. Our writings in English and in Icelandic are expressions of our practice and how we think and understand our work. It is important for those who speak English as a first language to also hear other voices and experiences from diverse contexts and encourage non-English researchers to share their stories. The opportunities we received by doing self-study and presenting it in English provided a space to accumulate knowledge and ways to develop scholarship internationally and at home. Translanguaging practices have increased our agency as participants in an international discourse of education. By writing our stories and sharing them, we aim to give others insight into our experiences as we navigate between writing and thinking in two languages. We want to open our doors and invite other self-study researchers to participate in our experiences and learning as non-English authors and we encourage others to do the same.

Appendix – Papers for This Study in Order of Publication 2012 1. Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2012). Preparing teachers for teaching a diverse group of learners in a changing world. In J. R. Young, L. B. Erickson & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), The Ninth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. Extending Inquiry Communities: Illuminating Teacher Education Through Self-Study (pp. 151–154). Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England: Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. 2. Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir og Svanborg R.  Jónsdóttir. (2012). Háskólakennarar rýna í starf sitt: Þróun framhaldsnámskeiðs í kennaramenntun. Ráðstefnurit

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

Netlu  – Menntakvika menntakvika2012/008.pdf

2012.

Retrieved

from

199

http://netla.hi.is/

2014 3. Guðjónsdóttir H., Gísladóttir K.  R., Jónsdóttir S.  R. (2014). Collaborative supervision of master’s projects: A self-­ study by three university-­ based teacher educators. Changing Practices for Changing Times: Past, Present and Future Possibilities for Self-Study Research. Proceedings of The Tenth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, UK, 2–7 August 2014. Dawn Garbett and Alan Ovens (Eds.). 2015 4. Jónsdóttir, S. R, Guðjónsdóttir, H. & Gísladóttir, K. R. (2015). Using Self-­ study to develop a third space for collaborative supervision of master’s projects in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 11(1), 32–48. 5. Guðjónsdóttir, H., Jónsdóttir, S. R., Gísladóttir, K. R. (2015). Creating meaningful learning opportunities online. Bank Street Occasional Paper Series 34. Retrieved from: http://www.bankstreet.edu/occasional-­paper-­series/ 2016 6. Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir & Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir. (2016). Emancipatory pedagogy for inclusive practices, enacting self-study as methodology. In D. Garbett & A.  Ovens (Ritstj.) Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 299–304). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). ISBN: Q 978-0-473-35893-8 7. Svanborg R.  Jónsdóttir & Karen Rut Gísladóttir. (2016). Strengthening teacher identity through development of professional working theory. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (eds.) Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp.  449–454). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). ISBN: 978-0-473-35893-8 2017 8. Guðjónsdóttir, H., Jónsdóttir, S. R., & Gísladóttir, K. R. (2017). Collaborative supervision: Using core reflection to understand our supervision of master’s projects. In R.  Brandenburg, K.  Glasswell, M.  Jones & J.  Ryan (Eds.), Reflective theory and practice in teacher education (pp. 237–255). Springer. 9. Svanborg R Jónsdóttir & Karen Rut Gísladóttir. (2017). Developing teachers’ professional identities: Weaving the tapestry of professional working theory. In M. Dalmau, H. Guðjónsdóttir & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Taking a fresh look at education: Framing professional learning in education through self-study (pp. 149–168). Sense.

200

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

2018 10. Svanborg R Jónsdóttir, Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir og Karen Rut Gísladóttir. (2018). A vinna meistaraprófsverkefni í námssamfélagi nemenda og leiðbeinenda. Tímarit um uppeldi og menntun. 27(2), 2018, 201–223. https:// doi.org/10.24270/tuuom.2018.27.10 11. Guðjónsdóttir, H., Jónsdóttir, S. R., & Gísladóttir, K. R. (2018). Enacting ethical frameworks in self-study: Dancing on the line between student agency and institutional demands. In Dawn Garbett & Alan Ovens (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-study as a means for researching pedagogy, (p. 59–66). Herstmonceux, UK: S-STEP, ISBN: 978-0-473-44471-6. 2019 12. Guðjónsdóttir, H., Jónsdóttir, S. R., & Gísladóttir, K. R. (2019). Creating a Space for Teachers to Reflect on their Learning and Become Empowered as Professionals.In D. Mihăescu & D. Andron (Eds.), Education Beyond the Crisis: New Skills, Children’s Rights and Teaching Contexts, (p. 142–146). Sibiu: “Lucian Blaga” University Publishing House ISBN: 978-606-12-1659-8. http://www.isatt2019.org/ISATT2019_conference_ proceedings.pdf 13. Gísladóttir, K. R., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2019). Self-study as a pathway to integrate research ethics and ethics in practice. Í Brandenburg, R., og McDonough, S. (Eds.) Ethics, Self-Study Research Methodology and Teacher Education. Bls. 81–95. Singapore: Springer. DOI https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-32-9135-5 2020 14. Kristinsdóttir J.V., Jónsdóttir S.R., Gísladóttir K.R., Óskarsdóttir E., Guðjónsdóttir H. (2020). Cultivating Self-Study: Developing a Discourse to Better Understand a Particular Culture. In: Kitchen J., Berry A., Guðjónsdóttir H., Bullock S., Taylor M., Crowe A. (eds) International handbook of selfstudy of teaching and teacher education, 2nd edition. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_49-­1

References Act nr 61/2011. (2011). Lög um stöðu íslenskrar tungu og íslensks táknmáls. Retrieved from: https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2011061.html Benediktsson, E. (1945). Ljóðmæli. Ísafoldarprentsmiðja H/F. Berry, A., & Crowe, A. R. (2010). Many miles and many emails: Using electronic technologies in self-study to think about, refine and reframe practice. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 83–100). Springer.

10  Writing Our Identities as Teacher Educators and Self-Study Researchers in Two…

201

Biesta, G. (2019). Teaching for the possibility of being taught: World-centered education in an age of learning. English E-Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 4(2019), 55–69. [thematic research]. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.  L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25. Dalmau, M., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2002). Improving teacher education practices through self-­ study. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practice through self-­ study (pp. 102–129). RoutledgeFalmer. Eiríksson, E.  P. (Ed.). (n.d.). Íslensk málstefna. Eiríkur Páll Eiríksson. Retrieved from http:// www2.fa.is/Islenska/503/mal/malst.html Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. Continuum. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145) Orient Blackswan. García, O. (2014). U.S. Spanish and education: Global and local intersections. Review of Research in Education, 3(38), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X13506542 García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A.  Blackledge & A.  Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp.  199–216). Springer. Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2012). Háskólakennarar rýna í starf sitt: Þróun framhaldsnámskeiðs í kennaramenntun. Ráðstefnurit Netlu – Menntakvika, 2012. Retrieved from http:// netla.hi.is/menntakvika2012/008.pdf. Jónsdóttir, S. R., & Gísladóttir, K. R. (2017). Developing teachers’ professional identities: Weaving the tapestry of professional working theory. In M. Dalmau, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Taking a fresh look at education: Framing professional learning in education through self-study (pp. 149–168) Sense. Jónsdóttir, S. R., Gísladóttir, K. R., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2015). Using self-study to develop a third space for collaborative supervision of master’s projects in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 11(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2015.1013026. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2014). Promoting core reflection in teacher education: Deepening professional growth. In L. Orland-Barak & C. J. Craig (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Part A) (pp. 73–89). Emerald. Kristinsdóttir, J. V., Jónsdóttir, S. R., Gísladóttir, K. R., Óskarsdóttir, E., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2020). Cultivating self-study. In J.  Kitchen, A.  Berry, H.  Guðjónsdóttir, S.  Bullock, M.  Taylor, & A. Crowe (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education, 2nd edition (pp. 1419–1438). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_49-­1. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_49-­1-­. Lauer, M. L. (2000). Four worlds of writing: Inquiry and action in context. Pearson. ISBN-13: 978-0321102973. Li, W. (2011). ‘Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code-and modeswitching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 370–384. Li, W., & Hua, Z. (2013). Translanguaging identities: Creating transnational space through flexible multilingual practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 516–535. Loughran, J. J. (2004). Learning through self-study: The influence of purpose, participants and context. In J.  Loughran, M.  L. Hamilton, V.  LaBoskey, & T.  Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp.  151–192). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Routledge.

202

H. Guðjónsdóttir and S. R. Jónsdóttir

Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2010). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology and practice. Springer. Pithouse-Morgan, K., Coia, L., Taylor, M., & Samaras, A. P. (2016). Polyvocal research jamming: A quartet enacting methodological inventiveness in self-study. In D. Garbett & A Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 27–36). Proceedings of the 11th international conference on the self-study of teacher education practices, Herstmonceux, England. Poza, L. (2017). Translanguaging: Definitions, implications, and further needs in burgeoning inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education, 6(2), 101–128. Richardson, L. (2001). Getting personal: Writing-stories. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(1), 33–38. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E.  A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.  K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 959–978). Sage. Samaras, A. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Sage. Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. Peter Lang. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the profession: Jossey-Bass. Tidwell, D. L., & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2020). Methods and tools of self-study. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education, 2nd edition (pp. 377–426). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_12-­1. Van Manen, M. (1999). The language of pedagogy and the primacy of student experience. In J. J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 13–27). Falmer Press. Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.893270. Wei, L. & Hua, Z. (2013). Translanguaging identities: Creating transnational space through flexible multilingual practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 516–535. Werder, C. (2016). Chapter 10 – Writing as inquiry, writing as thinking. The Research Process: Strategies for Undergraduate Students, 10. https://cedar.wwu.edu/research_process/10 Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.

Chapter 11

Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-­ Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor Robyn Brandenburg

Abstract  This chapter offers insights into my practice as a self-study researcher, writer, and editor. I have reflected on what lies beneath the words – what thoughts, frameworks, and orientations inform and shape my practice? This chapter is divided into two sections. Section One focuses on the role and impact of critical-incident moments, conversations, and interactions as springboards for writing and examining the importance of hunting assumptions. I examine the lens used to frame my writing; methods for self-study writing, and the differences and similarities in writing chapters, books (sole-authored and co-edited), and journals, including the consideration of the audience. Section Two examines ethics and editing and addresses the influence and impact of co-editors as critical friends and the creation of communities of practice through writing, editing processes and practicalities, ethical editing frameworks, and dealing with tensions and sensitive data. Making the process of writing explicit has revealed new learning, particularly in relation to the connection between my writing cycle and the key characteristics of self-study research methodology.

This chapter, prompted by an invitation to elaborate on my writing as a self-study researcher, is, in essence, a meta-reflection of my orientation, processes, people, and publications, as well as of my cumulative learning and the impact that this has had on my pedagogical practice. This chapter progresses from an initial individual focus to an evaluation of the role and research impact of collegiate connections, which have often been formed through conference attendance and discipline links.

R. Brandenburg (*) School of Education, Federation University, Ballarat, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_11

203

204

R. Brandenburg

11.1  “Who Owns the Data?” While conducting member checks for transcripts of interviews as part of an international self-study research project, one participant replied that they would like to include the transcribed data as part of an autobiography. This prompted us, Robyn and Sharon, the researchers, to question who owns the data, and the following e-mail extracts detail our search for clarification: E-mail correspondence sent to the Chair of the Human Research Ethics Committee Sharon: … in line with our ethics, we sent transcripts to participants for checking, and one has responded saying that reading the transcript transported her … and that she would like to use the piece in her own autobiographical writing. We are thinking about the possible implications of this and wondering what it means from an ethics permission standpoint?While waiting for the reply from the HREC, I wrote to Sharon:

From: Robyn (to Sharon) Date: Tuesday 7 March 2017 … I have done a bit more research and this was in our PLIS (Plain Language Information Statement): “Participation in the research is voluntary and refusal to participate requires no explanation. Should you elect to participate, you are entitled to withdraw your consent to participate and discontinue participation at any time until data is processed without prejudice”.The data has been processed … so perhaps that is the answer … Sharon’s response is as follows:

From: Sharon (to Robyn) Date: Tuesday 7 March 2017 Hi there Yep, that’s a good point. I guess it becomes slightly murky because of the member checking, which means that they can change things from the data should they wish, and, theoretically, could then withdraw at the member-checking stage because the data hasn’t been analysed at that point … (McDonough & Brandenburg, 2019, p. 357)

The response from the Human Research Ethics Committee indicated that the committee believed that the participant owned the data as it was their lived experience and that the researcher owned the transcript. It also suggested that the participant paraphrases the transcript when publishing, using data as the common link, but not use the transcript verbatim. We agreed that there wasn’t specific guidance on this issue in the National Statement that it was not an easy question to answer. Identifying and examining this dilemma prompted the creation of the book, Ethics, Self-Study Research Methodology and Teacher Education (Brandenburg & McDonough, 2019). Sharon and I have worked together for more than a decade, and our professional collaboration has been built on trust, shared ethics, constructive conversations, humour, and the ability to critique research and writing with clarity and relaxed honesty. The ethics book, the journal article, and the numerous conference presentations (pre-COVID-19) were the result of the self-study research project that focused on pedagogical confrontations and teacher educators’ work. So, how does writing happen? What stimulates writing, and what factors either inhibit or enable writing as a self-study researcher? This chapter focuses on the reasoning that underpins my writing and reveals my metacognitive thinking.

11  Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor

205

11.2  Beginning with “the Self” Writing as a self-study researcher begins with “the self” (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009) and is a complex, multilayered process (Fletcher, Ni Chroinin & O’Sullivan, 2016). In this section, I focus on the role and impact of critical-incident moments, conversations, and interactions as “springboards” in writing and examining the importance of “hunting assumptions” (Brookfield, 1995). I then describe the development and engagement of a writing lens as a framework for writing, methods for self-study writing, and the differences and similarities between writing chapters, books, and journals and selecting and addressing an audience. Throughout this section, I refer to examples from practice and conclude the section with my writing framework and the connection it has with key self-study research methodology characteristics.

11.2.1  C  ritical Conversations, Incidents, and Moments as Writing and Research Stimulus When I was reflecting on writing this chapter, I was drawn to the impact that critical-­ incident conversations and moments had played and continue to play in the initiation of my writing (Brandenburg & Gervasoni, 2012; Brookfield, 1995; Kosnik, 2001; Loughran & Brubaker, 2015; Tripp, 1993; Woods, 1993). One learning that became apparent to me while reviewing the stimulus for each of my published books was that each one of them had been the result of a question, a problem, a critical conversation, or a conference research presentation. For example, my PhD thesis, Learning and Teaching in Teacher Education: A Self-Study (Brandenburg, 2007), had been the result of a pre-service teacher writing ‘practice what you preach’ in 2002 as an end-of-semester university evaluation, and the most confronting and unexpected realisation for me was that I believed I was practising what I was preaching. This teacher’s comment prompted me to research the literature that related to reflective practice in teacher education, which was then followed by me commencing my PhD and becoming initiated into the self-study community of teacher education practice. The co-edited volume, Teacher Education: Innovation, Intervention and Impact (Brandenburg et al., 2016), was the result of a discussion with colleagues regarding the devaluing of conference papers in terms of them being considered a valid research output measure. Federation University Australia hosted the annual Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA) Conference in 2016, and presenters were invited to submit chapters based on their conference papers for publication in the volume. This inaugural book marked the beginning of a publishing partnership between the ATEA and Springer Publishing, a partnership that continues to produce quality national and international research. The co-edited volume, Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education (Brandenburg et al., 2017), was the result of a group of colleagues gathering after a

206

R. Brandenburg

symposium presentation based on reflective practice at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) conference. As researchers, we held a collective ideal to understand more about reflective practice and how reflective theory was interpreted and enacted in teaching in multiple learning and teaching contexts, both nationally and internationally. This volume identifies and examines multiple theoretical and practical views of reflective practice, views which are so often taken for granted and under-examined. This writing collaboration has produced a collective insight into the professional thinking and practice of teachers and highlights the impact of reflective practice. All the volumes mentioned initially developed from critical conversations and interactions, which then led to discussions about needing to know more and contributing to new knowledge, and in doing so, closing the gaps evident in pedagogy and practice. In the following section, I examine my writing process and highlight the importance of “assumption hunting” and assumption examination as an orientating writing lens.

11.2.2  Developing and Enacting a Writing Lens While I am influenced by Dewey’s (1933) theories of experiential learning and the influence of reflection in learning, both assumptions and assumption hunting (Brookfield, 1995) have acted as a tool and a lens through which I have researched and written about my practice. When I was completing my PhD and conducting ongoing self-study research of my practice, I came to understand more about identifying and challenging my often very firmly held assumptions regarding learning and teaching. Using Brookfield’s (1995) book Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher as a guide, I identified and examined my assumptions – paradigmatic, prescriptive, and causal – and have researched the impact of these assumptions on my practice as a teacher educator (Brandenburg, 2008, 2009; Garbett et  al., 2018; McDonough & Brandenburg, 2012). After many years of writing about my teaching, I have now internalised these as a guiding framework for practice and as a lens through which to examine and write about my practice. While assumptions have become my framing lens, self-study researchers use various lenses and frameworks through which to write about and examine practice as teacher educators, including tension, (Berry, 2007), axioms (Senese, 2008), anecdotes (Loughran, 2004), and intimate scholarship (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2015). The lens may be a personal driver and/or become a shared lens or framework. For example, Pinnegar and Murphy (2019) use the intimate scholarship framework to “uncover embodied knowing through autobiography and action, and explore the coming to know process based in dialogue … as [they] navigate lives and experiences in the educational world” (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2014, p. 153). A common feature of self-study writing is that the process predominantly begins with conversations and is discourse based (East et al., 2009; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2017). It also focuses on building relationships through “attentive dialogue” (Russell & Martin, 2019, p. 133). For me, the intersection between critical incidents, conversations and

11  Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor

207

moments, and assumption hunting often provides the stimulus for writing about research and enables me to identify my theoretical orientation.

11.2.3  Methods for Self-Study Writing Researching and writing about practice using self-study methodology means I am continually asking “why” questions about my practice: The purpose [of self-study] is to improve practice … in order to maximise the benefits for the … preservice and in-service teachers and their current and future students. Thus, the aim for teacher educators involved in self-study is to better understand, facilitate and articulate the teacher-learning process … It is enormously complex, highly dependent on context and its multiple variations, and personally and socially mediated. (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 858)

The majority of self-study researchers reference and implement LaBoskey’s (2004) characteristics including the research being: (a) self-initiated and focused, (b) improvement-aimed, (c) interactive at all stages, and (d) use of multiple and primarily qualitative methods and exemplar-based validation. A further expectation is that this new learning will be enacted in practice (Loughran, 2010). This chapter has created a new revelation for me—my writing process reflects and correlates closely with the self-study characteristics. My research and writing reflect a typical sequence: identification of the critical incident, event, conversation or moment in teaching or research; personal journal writing, often written as narrative; analysis of the incident using Kosnik’s (2001) framework; reflective feedback (verbal, written, and/or publication); and ultimately a change or modification to my practice. Self-study research is data driven. Interviews, fieldnotes and journaling, “freewrites”, observations, critical incident identification, and analysis are all methods I use to gather information for writing about my teaching and pedagogy. In the next section, I provide a description of the cycle as it occurs in practice.

11.2.4  T  he Writing Cycle: Critical Incidents, Data Gathering, Interaction, Analysis, and Enactment in Practice The critical incident I examine in this section relates to a tutorial session whereby I entered the mathematics classroom as two groups of pre-service teachers (PSTs) were organising themselves to present their workshop findings to the class. This was my first meeting with them, and I detected a sombre mood when I entered the classroom; there was a sense of resistance. Following the initial presentation, the PSTs completed their verbal and written peer marking, which was 20% of the final grade for the course. As I collected and scanned the feedback, I noticed a discrepancy between the written and the verbal feedback: the verbal feedback was positive and generic, yet the written feedback was critical. During the class, I also noticed

208

R. Brandenburg

peer-to-peer gestures and smiles. I stopped the class. I discussed the issues with the class, including responding to one PST statement that “they will be marking us and we don’t want to upset them”; requested PST “freewrites”; wrote my narrative about the incident; and completed a critical incident analysis (adapted from Kosnik’s framework, 2001). I chose to submit this research to the Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives journal as this publication focuses on reflection and the impact of reflective practice in multiple disciplines (Brandenburg, 2020). I had a research “story to tell”, one that was immersed in my lived experience; one that had managed to halt my teaching; and through systematic reflective practice, one that had created new knowledge concerning pedagogical practice. For me, preparing and submitting a research-based manuscript continue my lifelong learning journey as a writer, creator, and composer of knowledge. I am also a reader and consumer of research and consider these activities to be a crucial form of professional development. In making a decision about where to publish, I am influenced by the nature of the research; the research story I want to share; the audience I want to share it with; and the timing and timeliness of publishing the story. Journals provide opportunities for timely publication and therefore the choice of if, where, and when to publish largely lies with the author, the journal editors, and the journal reviewers. In contrast, writing a chapter, a sole-authored book, or a co-edited book can be a more serendipitous and lengthy process, one that can be self-initiated and self-directed or one that is initiated through a colleague’s invitation. The identification, examination, and writing of this critical incident have prompted many changes in my practice, including scaffolding PST understanding regarding reflection and feedback; introducing each new cohort to the importance of assumption hunting and examination; and providing a suite of reflective practices so that PSTs can select and develop their own reflective framework. Reflecting in an on practice can be a transformative experience (Brandenburg & Jones, 2017). My writing framework has developed over many years, and through systematically examining my experiences as a teacher educator, I have been able to capture the process that enables me to make sense of my learning through experience. In Table 11.1 (Kosnik, 2001), the characteristics associated with self-study as a research methodology according to LaBoskey (2004) and Loughran (2010) are listed first in each cell followed by the aspects of my writing cycle (bold) that closely link with those characteristics (Fig. 11.1).

11.2.5  W  riting Chapters, Writing Articles, and Editing Books: Same, Yet Different My underlying intention and motivation for writing are to understand more about my practice and, in doing so, contribute new knowledge to my field. Sharing this knowledge is predominantly through writing chapters and journal articles and

11  Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor

209

Table 11.1  Example of critical incident analysis Components of the critical incident analysis Researcher journal notes Context Critical conversation with a third-year tutorial group related to feedback on peer presentations Narrative (described in detail in article) Detailed description of event as it occurred My response indicated that I cared about student learning and understood that What was my response to the the students’ voices had not been heard. They were frustrated, were disappointed and had adapted a system of response that showed they were event saying avoiding levels of confrontation. about me? I am ethical in my approach to learning and teaching as demonstrated by my response. (I returned the next week with a letter to the group, asking them for permission to write about this session. I explained that as a teacher-educator researcher, I wanted to improve teaching and learning through reflecting on practice. I had learnt much from this session: What is said and unsaid; that supportive and trusting learning environments are essential for honest feedback to be given in the spirit that is intended; and that more is understood about learning and teaching mathematics when there is a sense of freedom for thoughts to be expressed.) I developed a consent form, which was explained by a colleague when I had left the room, and the students then completed it. I am a researcher of my practice and am committed to learning from experience and enacting this new learning. I value student feedback. What are the values inherent I value relationships that are honest. I chose to encourage and elicit the student voice regarding the critical in my decision situation by promoting an open discussion of the issues that were of concern and the to them and then asking them to complete a freewrite post-­session). This situation? meant that I needed to accept some responsibility in that I had not ensured that they had been adequately prepared and scaffolded in relation to feedback. We make assumptions that by the third year of a bachelor of education Actions and understandings degree, students have been carefully introduced to critical feedback and have been exposed to group-learning situations where this is encouraged, and issues/ supported, and developed. (the development of critically reflective questions for practitioners is a key university graduate characteristic.) teacher Students need to be taught how to offer constructive feedback from a educators/ professional, not a personal platform. education Not all teachers (ongoing/tenured and sessional) have the same level of understanding, and therefore, they may also require support Teacher educators need to be sensitive to, and adapt their teaching to, students’ needs. Teacher educators need to have the skills to intervene and enable students to express their concerns without fear. Students need to feel safe, and only when they do so, will they contribute to discussions in an open and honest manner

R. Brandenburg

210

5. Improvement aimed and enactment in practice Changed practice as teacher educator

4. Exemplar-based validation Publications, presentations

1. Self-initiated, selffocused Critical incident identification 2. Predominantly qualitative methods Reflective writing, narrative, journaling, critical incident analysis

3. Interactive at all stages Connecting with PSTs, colleagues, professional network

Fig. 11.1  The writing cycle. (Adapted from LaBoskey, 2004)

writing sole-authored and co-edited books. There are distinct similarities as well as subtle yet significant differences in writing for a suite of publication outputs. The first point to consider is who is the audience. When writing and framing an article, a chapter, or a book proposal, I am mindful of the audience, and for me, it is the teacher educators, the pre-service teachers, and educators more broadly. The content includes learning and teaching in higher education, mathematics curricula and pedagogy, reflective practice, and self-study methodologies. Developing connections with colleagues within each of these disciplines has been paramount in cultivating professional relationships, and it is these relationships that produced enduring writing collaborations. The self-study community offers opportunities for collegial writing, leading writing, and mentoring new colleagues. Invitations to collaborate often emerge from a common interest in a discipline, a theoretical orientation, a context, or a pedagogical approach. Regardless of the impetus for writing, whether it has been prompted by a critical incident or conversation, an invitation, or a problem of practice, the motivation for me has always been curiosity. The ultimate aim of my writing is to contribute to teacher education as well as teaching and learning more broadly. Choosing a journal with an audience in mind is critical, and it is important that the scope of the journal is identified in the early stages of crafting an article. I familiarise myself with the writing expectations, which include the theoretical framework, the data its analysis, the research literature, and the outcomes. In contrast, while writing a chapter includes similar processes to journal article writing, there is greater scope for different types of written expression. Chapter writing often focuses on my ‘lived experiences’ (van Manen, 2018) and the connections between the experience and the research of my pedagogical practice as a teacher-educator

11  Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor

211

researcher. Chapter writing also provides a forum for discourse and commentary, reflection and evaluation, and creativity and opinion. I have written many sole and co-authored chapters, and each experience has been unique. Individual chapters provide the opportunity to shape and create writing that relates to lived experiences in specific contexts. For example, I have written multiple chapters that have focused on reflective practice, critical incidents, challenging assumptions, and mathematics and teacher education. Being invited to write a chapter indicates that the editor values the contribution you can make or have made as a researcher, and an edited book based on a particular theme provides an audience with a “snapshot” of the research, practice, and outcomes that relate to that theme or discipline (Brandenburg, 2009, 2011). While chapter writing, in contrast to journal writing, provides a more open framework, both publications include drafting, note-taking, redrafting, and reading fields of idea-shaping literature, which is a non-linear, messy process. This first section has focused on my individual approach to writing and has explored the impact of critical moments, conversations, and interactions that became springboards for writing. The multiple methods for self-study writing, and the differences and similarities in writing chapters, books and journal articles, including the consideration of the audience, highlight that there are multiple writing pathways as a self-study researcher, which requires the writer to select from many options and “choose their own adventure”. Section two focuses on collaborative writing and, in particular, writing co-edited books.

11.3  Leading the Writing of a Co-Edited Volume For me, as a self-study writer, it is editing that broadens and extends the research conversation. The second section of this chapter focuses on the processes, practices, and approaches involved in writing and co-editing a book, a largely under-examined process (Williams & Hayler, 2016). Co-editing a book is a collaborative, rigorous, and rewarding process. It requires the establishment of author and editor relationships and ongoing negotiation throughout what is often a lengthy process. Writing and editing a co-edited book require a deep and extensive knowledge of the field and an understanding of the contributors’ research. As Hamilton and Pinnegar (2017) state, “to enact good research, researchers must have a sense of their stance in the world, often just an implicit subtext. In S-STEP, we expose that stance” (p. 12). My most recent edited book, Ethics, Self-Study Research Methodology and Teacher Education (Brandenburg & McDonough, 2019), highlights the many issues and responsibilities that an editorial team must consider and address when developing and publishing a manuscript. The issue outlined in the “Who Owns the Data?” section prompted us to wonder if other researchers had experienced a similar response to member checking of transcripts. The response was that it had never been encountered before. We then

212

R. Brandenburg

questioned our own ethics and ethical practices as writers and publishers of research. What is our responsibility? Have other self-study researchers experienced similar ethical dilemmas in their research practice? We subsequently developed a proposal for the publisher and invited teacher education academics to submit chapters for this volume. We also realised that there was a need for a dedicated volume that focused on ethics and self-study research. The proposal was accepted, and the writing process began.

11.3.1  Co-Editors as Critical Friends The role of critical friends has been extensively researched in the self-study of teacher education practice (Fuentealba & Russell, 2017; Fuentealba et  al., 2020; Loughran & Brubaker, 2015; Petroelje Stolle et al., 2018). Being more than a professional collaboration, critical friends provide a sounding board to discuss new ideas and concepts. A key aspect of a critical friendship is the provision of constructive feedback in a supportive and trusting environment, which, more often than not, strengthens the friendship and leads to professional empowerment (Schuck & Russell, 2005). As Schuck and Russell (2005) suggest, it can be difficult to assess your own work and reframe it, and for this reason, the personal subjectivities that professional colleagues hold can be addressed. In this way, through a process of ongoing critique, our individual assumptions and default behaviours are challenged (Loughran & Brubaker, 2015). As an editor, I embrace critique and challenge. Editors, as partners and members of teams in the publication process, are involved in the co-construction of knowledge regarding the emerging publication, and integral to a successful editorial partnership is the ability to ask provocative questions and offer critique. Critical conversations for my most recent co-edited book were conducted almost daily in the initial stages of planning as our ideas needed to be clarified. Editorial roles and responsibilities are determined early in the organisational process, and they include the maintenance of the correspondence and content and the administration and ongoing monitoring of the process. Collaboration with the chapter authors and maintaining connections through updates, requests for drafts, and adhering to timelines is essential, as is celebrating the completed and published volume. A deep understanding of the content and the contextual knowledge of the field is imperative, and it requires further extensive reading of the relevant literature both within and across the field of education and in other disciplines. Understanding the editorial role is critical as it sets the foundation for the content and the structure of the book. The editorial team essentially determines what the final structure and overall author contribution will be, which often requires the team to make difficult decisions. Such decisions may result in a chapter not being accepted for publication or authors being advised that improvement is necessary before their work can be included in the volume. Generally, chapter submissions are rejected primarily because the content does not “fit” the proposal or the quality of the writing

11  Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor

213

has not been appropriate, even after authors have received detailed and descriptive feedback on draft chapters. Editing a book in many ways parallels and replicates the fundamental principles of self-study, both as a methodology and as a community of practitioners who examine, research, and write about practice. The importance of a community of practice cannot be underestimated. My first co-edited book, Pedagogies for the Future: Leading Quality Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (Brandenburg & Wilson, 2013), emerged from a desire to capture the quality learning and teaching within one university and across disciplines. Its genesis was provided by a university billboard stating that the university was awarded “5 Stars Teaching for 5 Years Running”. The desire to know more about five-star teaching prompted a commitment to research the impact of our teaching on student learning in higher education, and while I had a genuine curiosity and variety of approaches, our individual styles and histories provided an opportunity to identify the sophisticated approaches and practices that we used. Besides creating a university community of practice, we also highlighted the diversity of our approaches, pedagogical strategies, and philosophies that underpinned each educator’s practice. This initial experience of coordinating the production of a book highlighted my understanding that editing is a sophisticated and challenging experience and foregrounded the need for ethical insight and practice as an editor.

11.3.2  Ethics and Editing Much has been written about what it means to be an ethical educational researcher (Brandenburg & McDonough, 2019; Craig, 2019; Kitchen, 2019), and the relevant literature focuses on the conduct of research that is underpinned by ethical responsibilities, obligations, and practices. In Ethics, Self-Study Research Methodology and Teacher Education, Sharon and I examined the role of ethics in self-study research and “metaethics”, a practice that “asks questions about the meaning of ethical words, the logic of justifying moral decisions and the reality of moral properties” (Ginsberg & Mertens, 2013, p. 2). Editing a book demands an approach to practice that predominantly reflects a metaethics approach to editing. Being self-­ study researchers enabled us as editors of this volume to be explicit about our practices and maintain an ethical lens at the same time. Just as ethics has been described as a “wicked problem” (Brandenburg & McDonough, 2019, p. 166), editing a book reveals further wicked problems, and while these problems cannot be pre-­ determined, they can be anticipated. Just as teachers are aware of noticing, identifying, and examining teachable moments, editors need to be aware of the identification of the ethical issue and, second, the use strategies and approaches that will address the issue or tension. Inevitably, editors are faced with choices regarding the ways to address issues. An example Sharon and I addressed when editing Ethics, Self-Study Research Methodology and Teacher Education is highlighted in Lynn Thomas’s

214

R. Brandenburg

(2019) chapter “Risk-taking in Public Spaces: Ethical Considerations of Self-Study Research”. In her chapter, Thomas (2019), a highly regarded self-study scholar, reveals the challenges and ongoing negotiations and conversations regarding the self-study of practice as a methodology that she had encountered at her university. Her challenges related to cultural issues (French and English); Institutional Review Boards and ethics committees who had a limited understanding of the self-study research methodology; the need to protect pre-service teachers; and the impact of the power differential as a teacher educator researching her own practice: In my own context, it is also essential at this time for me to revisit the ethical considerations of undertaking self-study research. At this point, the obvious stance to take is ensure that my colleagues and my institution are given the opportunity to learn about the self-study of teacher education practices and its benefits for improving teacher education. I have a moral responsibility to educate my colleagues so that they will be in a position to judge the ethical values and possible potential harm of future self-studies submitted for ethical approval not just by me, but by anyone choosing to adopt this methodology as a means to learning more about, and eventually improving their practice, whether they are writing in English or in French. (p. 163)

Working through these issues as a collaboration enabled Sharon and me to share our understandings and insights, and in many ways, the process became one of researcher professional development and increased understanding. Editors and researchers experience challenges in what can and should be shared, and the ethical guidelines and internalised framework that shape the decisions. Kosnik and Beck (2009) highlight the challenge of dealing with, and the reporting of, sensitive findings. In their study, Teacher Education for Literacy Teaching, they identify an incident that arose from their self-study and reveal their decision in addressing a sensitive issue: As we began to write papers for journals and conference presentations, we were faced with a serious dilemma. We had some extremely sensitive findings regarding particular instructors… Since this research was at an institutional level, we knew we had to tread carefully… After much soul-searching and consultation, we decided it would be too risky to reveal certain findings. (p. 225)

As an editor, my ethical framework guides my editorial practice, and respect and reciprocity are two key dispositions that underpin successful and ethical editing: respect for the author, as well as for their time and commitment, is imperative, as is the need for reciprocity. Reciprocity requires that there are mutual benefits for both the contributing authors and editors, and these benefits often are more than a published chapter in an edited book (Brandenburg & McDonough, 2019). Reciprocity ensures that there are ongoing and meaningful conversations regarding contributions, which lead to the development of new understandings. This symbiotic, mutually beneficial process often demands more time than both parties may have originally anticipated.

11  Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor

215

11.4  Conclusion The self-study of teaching and teacher education practice (S-STEP) community and the associated methodologies continue to gain traction internationally as a powerful, culturally inclusive, and engaging education research paradigm (Lunenberg et al., 2020). Consequently, the research outcomes from self-study research and writing impact the ways that pedagogy is understood and enacted by teacher educators and, therefore, can be instrumental in improving teacher education programs globally. This chapter has provided insights into the practices that I have developed and embraced as a self-study researcher, writer, and book editor over the past two decades. My research has often been initiated by a critical interaction, conversation, event, or moment, which has then been followed up by personal narrative and journaling, and data collection, and analysis, with the ultimate outcome being changes to my pedagogical practice. This process has become an internalised cycle and has been the result of selecting, massaging, and trialling approaches and strategies that “fit”. Individual positioning as a “self-studier” has meant that writing about writing has led to new revelations, and I have never been surprised by the insights into my own pedagogy that have been revealed through being attentive to critical and teachable moments; gathering and analysing data; and sharing this knowledge with the education community. Individual writing is one key element of self-study research, and what I have highlighted in this chapter has been the dual importance of an individual contribution and the development of research and writing partnerships, which often then lead to professional partnerships and effective communities of practice. Edited books, co-authored chapters in edited books, and journal articles have all been important research outcomes. A co-edited book begins with a good idea; it begins with a desire to contribute knowledge to a field; it begins with a problem or dilemma in practice that has no obvious answer; or it begins with sharing questions of practice with colleagues. Collective wisdom is gained through collaborative writing and research. Such writing partnerships require respect for self and others, an ethical orientation to practice, and personal and professional dispositions such as negotiation and resilience (McGraw & McDonough, 2019; Pennington et al., 2012). In the initial chapter of my first co-edited book, Pedagogies for the Future: Leading Quality Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (Brandenburg & Wilson, 2013), Loughran (2013) wrote: Together, the authors have collaborated to bring this project to fruition ... they have issued an invitation for others to do the same. Responding to that invitation is what change is all about, and it is through change that higher education can then genuinely claim to be challenging the status quo and turning rhetoric into reality. (p. 10)

Creating and responding to invitations to write about research practice takes courage, dedication, and commitment. The outcomes of this research have provided rich, data-based insights from self-study researchers that challenge the status quo and contribute to changes in teacher educator practices. We all benefit from understanding and embracing the process of writing about practice.

216

R. Brandenburg

References Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator. Springer Netherlands. Brandenburg, R. (2007). Learning and teaching in teacher education: A self-study. Unpublished thesis. Monash University, Australia. Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy: Self-study of a teacher educator’s practice. Springer Netherlands. Brandenburg, R. (2009). Assumption interrogation: An insight into a self-study researcher’s pedagogical frame. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 195–211). Springer Netherlands. Brandenburg, R. (2011). How students teach you to learn: Using roundtable reflective inquiry to enhance a mathematics teacher educator’s teaching and learning. In S. Shuck & P. Periera (Eds.), What counts in teaching mathematics: Adding value to self and content (pp. 77–92). Springer Netherlands. Brandenburg, R. (2020). Enacting a pedagogy of reflection in initial teacher education using critical incident identification and examination: A self-study of practice. Reflective practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives Journal, 22(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14623943.2020.1821626. Brandenburg, R., & Gervasoni, A. (2012). Rattling the cage: Moving beyond ethical standards to ethical praxis in self-study research. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 8(2), 183–191. Brandenburg, R., & Jones, M. (2017). Toward transformative reflective practice in teacher education. In R. Brandenburg, K. Glasswell, M. Jones, & J. Ryan (Eds.), Reflective theory and practice in teacher education (pp. 259–273). Springer Singapore. Brandenburg, R., & McDonough, S. (Eds.). (2019). Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher education.. Springer Singapore. Brandenburg, R., & Wilson, J. Z. (2013). Pedagogies for the future: Leading quality learning and teaching in higher education. Sense. Brandenburg, R., McDonough, S., Burke, J., & White, S. (Eds.). (2016). Teacher education: Innovation, intervention and impact. Springer Singapore. Brandenburg, R., Glasswell, K., Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (Eds.). (2017). Reflective theory and practice in teacher education. Springer Singapore. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. JosseyBass. Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-­ study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21. Craig, C. J. (2019). Positioning others in self-facing inquiries: Ethical challenges in self-study of teaching and teacher education practice. In R. Brandenburg & S. McDonough (Eds.), Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher education (pp. 29–43) Springer Singapore. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D. C. Heath & Co. East, K., Fitzgerald, L. M., & Heston, M. L. (2009). Talking teaching and learning: Using dialogue in self-study. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 55–72). Springer Netherlands. Fletcher, T., Ni Chroinin, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2016). Multiple layers of interactivity in self-study of practice research: An empirically-based exploration of methodological issues. In D. Garbett & A.  Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study research as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 19–26). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). Fuentealba, R., & Russell, T. (2017). Critical friends using self-study methods to challenge practicum assumptions and practices. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp.  227–234). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP)..

11  Behind the Words: Insights from a Self-Study Researcher, Writer, and Editor

217

Fuentealba, R., Hirmas, C., & Russell, T. (2020). Introducing self-study of teacher education practices into another culture: The experience in Chile. In J.  Kitchen, A.  Berry, S.  M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 1–17). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_47-­1. Garbett, D., Brandenburg, R., Thomas, L., & Ovens, A. (2018). Shedding light on our practices: Four assumption hunters on a quest. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-study as a means for researching pedagogy (pp. 441–448). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). Ginsberg, P.  E., & Mertens, D.  M. (2013). Frontiers in social research: Fertile ground for evolution. In D.  M. Mertens & P.  E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 580–613). SAGE. Hamilton, M.-L., & Pinnegar, S. (2015). Knowing, becoming, doing as teacher educators: Identity, intimate scholarship, inquiry (Advances in research on teaching) (Vol. 26). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-­368720140000026009. Hamilton, M.-L., & Pinnegar, S. (2017). Self-study of teaching and teacher education practices methodology and the digital turn. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Being self-study researchers in a digital world (pp. 11–29). Springer. Kitchen, J. (2019). Ethical issues in reporting on teacher candidate perspectives in a cultural diversity course: Increasing trustworthiness, protecting participants, and improving practice. In R. Brandenburg & S. McDonough (Eds.), Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher education (pp. 97–115). Springer Singapore. Kosnik, C. (2001). The effects of an inquiry-oriented teacher education program on a faculty member: Some critical incidents and my journey. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 2(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940120035532. Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2009). Teacher education for literacy teaching: Research at the personal, institutional, and collective levels. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 213–229). Springer Netherlands. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­9514-­6_1. LaBoskey, V.  K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M.-L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Springer Netherlands. Loughran, J. J. (2004). Learning through self-study: The influence of purpose, participants and context. In J. J. Loughran, M.-L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 151–192). Springer Netherlands. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Routledge. Loughran, J. (2013). Stepping out in style: Leading the way in teaching and learning in higher education. In R. Brandenburg & J. Z. Wilson (Eds.), Pedagogies for the future: Leading quality learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 5–11). Sense Publishers. Loughran, J., & Brubaker, N. (2015). Working with a critical friend: A self-study of executive coaching. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 11(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2015.1078786. Lunenberg, M., MacPhail, A., White, E., Jarvis, J., O’Sullivan, M., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2020). Self-study methodology: An emerging approach for practitioner research in Europe. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, S. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir, & L. Thomas (Eds.), 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 1–30). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1_47-­1. McDonough, S., & Brandenburg, R. (2012). Examining assumptions about teacher educator identities by self-study of the role of mentor of pre-service teachers. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 8(2), 169–182.

218

R. Brandenburg

McDonough, S., & Brandenburg, R. (2019). Who owns this data? Using dialogic reflection to examine an ethically important moment. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 20(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2019.1611553. McGraw, A., & McDonough, S. (2019). Thinking dispositions as a resource for resilience in the gritty reality of learning to teach. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 589–605. Pennington, J.  L., Brock, C.  H., Abernathy, T.  V., Bingham, A., Major, E.  M., Weist, L.  R., & Ndura, E. (2012). Teacher educators’ dispositions: Footnoting the present with stories from our pasts. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 8(1), 69–85. Petroelje Stolle, E., Frambaugh-Kritzer, C., Freese, A., & Persson, A. (2018). What makes a critical friend? In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-­ study as a means for researching pedagogy (pp. 147–154). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M.-L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology and practice. Springer Netherlands. Pinnegar, S., & Murphy, S. (2019). Ethical dilemmas as a self-study researcher: A narrative analysis of ethics in the process of S-STEP research. In R.  Brandenburg & S.  McDonough (Eds.), Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher education (pp. 117–130). Springer Singapore. Russell, T., & Martin, A.  K. (2019). Making the ethical reflective turn in self-study of teacher education practice. In R.  Brandenburg & S.  McDonough (Eds.), Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher education (pp. 131–152). Springer Singapore. Thomas, L. (2019). Risk taking in public spaces: Ethical considerations of self-study research. In R. Brandenburg & S. McDonough (Eds.), Ethics, self-study research methodology and teacher education (pp. 153–164). Springer Singapore. Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. Routledge. Van Manen, M. (2018). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge. Williams, J. J., & Hayler, M. (2016). Professional learning from the process of co-editing journeys of becoming. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 147–153). Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). http:// www.castleconference.com/conference-­history.html. Woods, P. (1993). Critical events in teaching and learning. The Falmer Press.

Chapter 12

Organizing and Writing an Article Reporting a Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Tom Russell

Abstract  This chapter attempts to be both a guide and a stimulus for the writing of a report of research using self-study of teacher education practices methodology. Typical headings in a report are discussed one by one, including the important topics of ethical review, the role of a critical friend, trustworthiness, and responding to feedback from reviewers and editors. Discussion of what a self-study report is trying to accomplish includes reference to the familiar gap between the theories we profess and the theories implicit in our actual teaching practices. Researchers are urged to focus on practices, how practices have changed, and how teacher candidates have responded to changes. To address the reality that the title, abstract, and conclusions of an article are essential to drawing in readers, three articles from Studying Teacher Education were selected for discussion. In light of the tendency for teachers and teacher educators not to provide their students with explanations of why they teach as they do, the chapter closes with a recommendation for the greatest possible transparency in a self-study report. Painting is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do. (https://gohighbrow.com/edgar-­degas/) Teaching is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do. (Adapted from Edgar Degas, with thanks to Fernando Murillo)

Some researchers are probably quite good at preparing a manuscript for submission to a journal; I count myself among those who find such writing to be challenging. Fifteen years as coeditor of Studying Teacher Education certainly sharpened my ability to spot shortcomings in the work of others; it is still difficult to apply those skills to my own writing. Perhaps the challenges I experience derive from my focus on studying my own teacher education practices. This means that the research I seek to report is relatively new in the world of educational research, given that the

T. Russell (*) Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kinston, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 J. Kitchen (ed.), Writing as a Method for the Self-Study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2498-8_12

219

220

T. Russell

label “self-study of teacher education practices” only appeared when the special interest group was formed in 1993. Prior to 1980, most doctoral students in education only learned quantitative research methods. In Boston at the 1980 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, a huge audience seemed stunned when four highly respected researchers sat on the stage and declared that research methods could also be qualitative. As we know, general textbooks on research methods now attend to both qualitative and quantitative methods, and textbooks that focus exclusively on one or the other are common. As LaBoskey (2004) wrote in her handbook chapter that is essential reading for those who wish to study and report their own teacher education practices, “since the aim is greater understanding rather than immutable law, the methods of self-study are largely qualitative” (p. 821). “Though there is diversity in the methods we use to study our professional practice settings in self-study methodology, the majority of it is qualitative” (p. 850). Here, I will not attempt to summarize LaBoskey’s chapter on self-study methodology; I recommend it to all as an excellent introduction. A subsequent chapter in that handbook focuses on the issue of distinguishing between action research (long recommended to all teachers) and self-study of teacher education practices. That chapter (Feldman, Paugh, & Mills, 2004) closes with a very important insight into self-study: “What makes self-study distinct is its focus on the self in a way that has opened our eyes to the importance of identifying and changing our ways of being humans who are teacher educators if we are to make significant changes in the ways that teachers are prepared” (p. 974). I cite this statement for its reference to making significant changes in the ways that teachers are prepared. One of my principal recommendations for all reports of self-study is that they include attention to changes in practice and the effects of those changes on those learning to teach. It is one thing to study practices to better understand them; better understanding does not necessarily include changes in practices. If the goal of self-study of teacher education practices research is to improve teacher education, then we must expect changes in our practices.

12.1  An Online Resource for Manuscript Writers To begin, I recommend taking advantage of the author tutorial Writing a Journal Manuscript provided by SpringerNature at https://www.springernature.com/gp/ authors/campaigns/writing-­a-­manuscript. That document is obviously written generally rather than with this chapter’s specific focus on self-study of teacher education practices. The perspectives that follow are driven in part by my experiences as an editor of Studying Teacher Education from 2005 to 2019.

12  Organizing and Writing an Article Reporting a Self-Study of Teacher Education…

221

12.2  Typical Headings in Reports of Research In this section of the chapter, I discuss articles reporting self-study in terms of the headings typically found in research reports. In quantitative research, it was rare to see people writing in the first person; passive voice was very common. Fortunately, the development of qualitative research has helped us move into first-person styles; certainly, first-person writing is appropriate for reports of self-study of teacher education practices.

12.2.1  Title Your article’s title may be its single most important feature. The title is the first impression for the prospective reader, and so you want a title that is not only clear about content but also inviting. Remember to consider a question as a title; I think my best-ever title was Can reflective practice be taught? (Russell, 2005). Personally, I recommend referring to your report as an article rather than as a paper; leave the term paper for conference papers.

12.2.2  Abstract and Keywords The abstract of your article is the second impression for the prospective reader. Typically, each journal recommends a word limit for abstracts. The challenge is to be both clear and concise. Some journals request that no references are included in the abstract, and in most cases, this is a good idea. Often writers end with phrases such as “directions for future research are suggested.” Personally, I prefer an abstract that ends with at least one or two important findings so that I am not left guessing about the nature of the article’s conclusions. A strong title and clear indication of conclusions in the abstract increase the chances that a reader will continue to read your article.

12.2.3  Introduction The term Introduction is not necessary as a heading; the opening paragraph or paragraphs are obviously the introduction. Your opening words describe the context and purpose of your research. Here again, the writer’s goal is to draw the reader in by describing an important issue and by pointing to engaging reading to follow.

222

T. Russell

12.2.4  Research Questions A concise set of research questions serves as an outline for your article. Research questions often evolve as research proceeds. Here you want to inform your reader of the questions you are providing answers to. Keep your questions clear and focused, presented in the sequence in which you will respond to them in all that follows.

12.2.5  Theoretical Framework/Literature Review This section of your article sets out the conceptual perspectives you used in addressing your research questions. This is the most obvious section for indicating the literature that supports and has preceded your research and the literature that is relevant to analysis of the data that you collected.

12.2.6  Research Methods Here, a researcher sets out the research methods used and the literature that supports them. For reports of self-study research, the most obvious guiding document is LaBoskey’s (2004) chapter in the International Handbook of Research on Self-­ Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices. Many self-study reports set out and are guided by the five criteria discussed in that chapter: Self-study research is “self-initiated and focused,” “improvement-aimed,” “interactive,” “using multiple, primarily qualitative methods,” and providing exemplar-based validation (validation based on examples of normal practice) (pp. 840–853).

12.2.7  Ethical Review During my time as an editor of Studying Teacher Education, I saw few references to researchers obtaining ethical clearance for the self-study they wished to publish. When I realized that I wanted to do a self-study of my physics methods course in my last year (2018–2019) before retirement, I applied for and was granted ethical clearance. In the preceding year, the university’s General Research Ethics Board (GREB) established a category for self-study research, thanks to the efforts of a colleague in the Faculty of Education who was chairing GREB at the time. Table 12.1 shows the categories for non-medical research ethics applications at Queen’s University. The category for self-study application forms is described in the following words: This application form is to be used for all research where self-study is the only type of research being conducted. Research that includes an element of self-study in combination

12  Organizing and Writing an Article Reporting a Self-Study of Teacher Education… Table 12.1 Categories for general research ethics board application forms at Queen’s university

223

Standard application form Instructor course-based research assignment application Multi-jurisdictional research application form Secondary use of data application form Self-study application form

with other forms of research should use the standard application form available through TRAQ.  At the university, the most common use of self-study is in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). However, not all SoTL is self-study nor is all self-study SoTL. NEW FORM - as of July 31, 2017.

As I invited teacher candidates at our first class to participate in my self-study research, it was not only reassuring but also essential to know and be able to tell them that I had been granted ethical clearance. I recommend doing so in most, if not all, self-study research. For broader and more extensive discussions of ethical issues in self-study research, Mitchell (2004) and Brandenburg and McDonough (2019) are highly recommended.

12.2.8  Data Analysis and Interpretation Finally, we reach the essential point of your article. What data did you collect, how did you analyze it, and how will you present illustrations within your overall argument? The richer and more powerful your data, the greater the impact on your reader and the stronger your overall argument. You may wish to separate interpretation of the data from your presentation of data and illustration of your analysis.

12.2.9  The Role of a Critical Friend Many articles about conducting a self-study of teacher education practices recommend including a critical friend in the design, data collection, and data analysis. The data we collect in a self-study are intended to give us new insights into our teaching and our students’ learning. When we report those insights, they represent a teacher educator’s newly gained professional craft knowledge that is being shared with other teacher educators; we hope that others will examine and critique our findings. A critical friend—one who understands our beliefs and our professional goals—can be invaluable when it comes to identifying assumptions implicit in our practices that may not be as obvious to us as they need to be. Schuck and Russell’s (2005) self-­ study of critical friendship offers 11 conclusions about the place of critical friendship in self-study. The contribution of a participating critical friend is an important element in any article reporting a self-study.

224

T. Russell

12.2.10  Trustworthiness Quantitative research methods are generally expected to meet defined standards of rigor and validity. We are all familiar with references to the familiar standard in quantitative research: p