ABSTRACT
In my research project I have sought close collaboration with colleagues, two teachers, in order to understand and reflect upon their work and their influences. This has been achieved through the construction of narratives of experience. I have carefully considered the process of gathering data and the tensions in finding ways of analysing, reporting, and reflecting upon it, a process which has itself been interesting. I believe, as Desforges claims, that ‘if we can advance our understanding of intersubjective exchange we would enhance our pedagogic capacity by a quantum leap and massively extend our abilities to teach through a ‘pedagogy of mutuality’ (Desforges 2000: 26). My contention in this research has been to evidence this, not only in the
work of the two teachers chosen to represent and narrate such a pedagogic approach, but also in my own research practices. My intentions in the project have been to collect insider information and reflections, to translate this into outsider interpretations and to represent this for analysis. In this project, as researcher, I have tried to embody principles of encounter
described above, by collaborating with teachers with whom it was possible to work because of trusting reciprocal relationships, developed over time and in a range of contexts. I wanted to give them time to talk, to reflect and to narrate their values and their practice. This is, however, a process and not an event and I have consistently worried about damaging relationships and asking too much of them. It may be that my outsider self was not sufficiently detached from the work as I was, and remain, in awe of their practice and of their ability to engage in critical reflection of their values, their professional lives and their own narrations. However, by acknowledging this from the beginning and throughout the report I have claimed ‘authoritative knowledge’ as well as recognising ‘the ideology which is embedded in [my] own discourse, methods and theories’ (Holliday 2002: 15). Holliday also discusses the ways that qualitative researchers ‘spin ways of talking about reality’ (ibid.: 15) and in my research project such spinning rests upon the relationship with my two colleagues and is based securely on my knowledge of their abilities to reflect themselves and their work in narratives of experience. At the end of what may have been a gruelling period of self-reflection
for them, I believe the relationships to have remained intact. This way of working, as a relational researcher, was, I believe, a ‘best fit’ for me, although clearly there are lessons to be learned and some challenging ideas to pursue further. There are also implications for future projects in relation to the tools
employed and, in particular, examining the use of video material may repay further consideration. Film is a seductive media and, while I acknowledge its worth and the use of teachers’ own material, it became evident very quickly that these two teachers were, in many ways, beyond the level of simply interpreting film or even requiring it as a prompt. While both talked of finding the material ‘interesting’ (and they were indeed of high quality in content terms), they were much more motivated towards deep conversations of meaning and motive. Once they had both ‘confirmed’ through the video material that they were operating in familiar (if not identical) roles and patterns of behaviour, that in itself became sufficient to provide permission to safely range over the issues detailed earlier. The film then became the evidence that all three of us required to ensure that we shared the same language in our conversations about play, play pedagogies and play spaces. Rather than dig deeper into the play episodes themselves (although an interesting project to carry out with a more random sample, see Adams 2005: 213-27), my project became a study outside of that, concerned centrally with the people themselves and their narrations. Although they became almost a distraction in our research conversations, the video materials were fascinating for me to view and they helped in establishing themes and threads throughout. Teaching has been described as an art by Piaget (1959) and there is more
to uncover and present in relation to teachers as artists in early years practice but also through all educational phases. This links to another very significant and closely connected area of interest, which is to pursue the art of conversation, ‘common talk’ (Carter 2004), in classrooms and between children and children and their teachers, to identify how this may help children in making connections between elements of their everyday lives. Conversations were a central feature of this project, invaluable, informal and revealing and I also believe them to be contexts of creativity, at all levels.
