The Politics of Epistemology and the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices

Ardra L. Cole and J. Gary Knowles

Department of Adult Education

The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto

252 Bloor Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6

Paper presented at the International Conference,

Self-Study in Teacher Education: Empowering our Future,

Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England August 5-8, 1996

 

The Politics of Epistemology and the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices

In spite of the burgeoning interest in the self-study of teacher education practices (as represented in recent literature in the area, and by membership in the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association, for example), self-study within the context of the academy is still very much an alternative form of research and practice that represents a challenge to the status quo. As such, it is as yet a marginalized activity. And, it is marginalized precisely because of its potential to challenge and change. In this paper we offer an explication of and explanation for the current status of self-study research on teacher education. In so doing we hope to offer some clarity with respect to the nature and scope of the struggle for acceptance of self-study work in the academy, and some ideas on a course of individual and collective action that might be taken by members of the self-study of teacher education practices community. The broad question guiding our discussion is: How do we, as a community of researchers committed to self-study both in theory and in practice, create a legitimate space for ourselves and our work both within our own institutions and within the broader teacher education and academic communities?

 

We organize our paper through the use of a series of questions: What is "self-study of teacher education practice"? What is the broad intention of those who engage in self-study of teacher education practices? What concerns do self-study researcher-practitioners have about engaging in such work? What are the reasons for and bases of these concerns? How is the status quo challenged by self-study? And, How and why is self-study research? We conclude with a discussion of the role of self-study in teacher education reform and a call for community action to promote self-study as a powerful reform mechanism.

 

The nature and intention of self-study of teacher education practice

What is "self-study of teacher education practice"? What is the broad intention of those who engage in self-study of teacher education practices? Although the self-study of teacher education practices takes many forms, broadly speaking, it has two main purposes. Teacher educators, many of whom were classroom teachers prior to entering the academy as university-based educators, engage in self-study both for purposes of their own personal-professional development and for broader purposes of enhanced understanding of teacher education practices, processes, programs, and contexts. Sometimes both of these purposes are made explicit in self-study work; sometimes one is implicit in the other. The purposes are not mutually exclusive. The former purpose typically has a largely practical (often pedagogical) focus and is usually self-oriented in that the general aim relates to the ongoing improvement of one’s own (pedagogical) practice. The latter purpose has a broader aim more generally related to the production and advancement of knowledge about teacher education practices and the programs and contexts within which they are situated. Both purposes have to do with refining, reforming, and rearticulating teacher education.

 

Self-study for purposes of self-understanding and professional development is essentially being thoughtful--in a Deweyan sense--about one’s work. It is reflective inquiry, similar to that widely advocated for teachers. As a form of professional development self-study is inherently valid and defensible as a sound (pedagogical) professional practice. Its practice has obvious inherent benefits for learners as well as for teachers, and within academic contexts where progressive teaching is valued, so too are those who engage in self-study. As a form of research (that is, a process aimed at the production and advancement of knowledge), however, self-study meets with opposition and, in light of that, teacher educators who engage in self-study of teacher education practices all too readily are made aware of their vulnerable and marginal status within the academy.

 

Concerns about self-study

What concerns do self-study researcher-practitioners have about engaging in such work? It has been only in the last decade that the teacher education professoriate has been the subject of any significant amount of research reported in the teacher education literature. And most of these reports represent traditionally-based examinations of the professoriate, its responsibilities and roles, and its problems. Reports on self-study of teacher education practices are an even more recent occurrence and, relatively speaking, literature on the topic is scant. But over the past few years the self-study of teacher education practices has begun to acquire a scholarly and organizational presence in the teacher education community.

 

Publications such as Teachers Who Teach Teachers (Russell & Korthagen, 1995) and two special issues of Teacher Education Quarterly: Self-Study and Living Educational Theory (Pinnegar & Russell, 1995) and Beginning Professors and Teacher Education Reform (Knowles & Cole, 1996) are substantial volumes on the topic. They are preceded and followed by numerous other journal articles by a variety of authors in the area. The institution and rapid growth of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group (S-STEP SIG) of the American Educational Research Association, and the first annual international conference on the self-study of teacher education practices held in East Sussex County, England in 1996 (for which this paper was prepared) evidence substantial community interest in self-study. Thus, self-study has achieved a presence as a bona fide process and topic of concern and focus in the teacher education community (that is, if marketability from a publisher’s standpoint and interest as shown by S-STEP SIG membership and conference attendance are legitimate yardsticks to judge its authenticity).

 

And yet, in many presented and published accounts, and even more so in informal conversations, self-study researchers explicitly voice concerns about the perceived legitimacy of their work within the context of the academy. In many such situations, concerns are voiced by those applying for tenure and promotion, and by those new to the academy. In a recent publication we raised questions about the merit of our own self-study work from an institutional perspective and its professional development merits for us. From a pedagogical standpoint, and based on our beliefs about the importance of understanding ourselves as persons and professionals in the contexts within which we live and work, there is no question that we need to continue to commit ourselves and our time to self-study work. . . . What we do not yet know, however, is whether our [research] currency of self-study has a sufficiently high exchange value. In other words, in the eyes of institutional evaluations and assessments: Are the publications viewed by those who work with us as contributing to the institution and field? Is this work published in "the best" journals? Do funding agencies have sufficient interest in the kind of work we do? How does it contribute to work within the local institutional context? Will it contribute to "institutional recognition"-elevated status for the employing body? (Cole & Knowles, 1995, p. 148)

 

In the epilogue of Teachers Who Teach Teachers, Russell and Korthagen (1995) comment on the historical tensions and dilemmas--which we would say still exist--associated with attempts to challenge the traditions of the academy. They assert that survival, for those who engage in alternative forms of research and practice including self-study, depends on individuals’ abilities to keep hidden their non- traditional beliefs and practices and show a traditional face to the academic public. A failure to live with this split-personality syndrome was, and still is, punished by expulsion from academia-tenure positions generally open only to staff members with a sufficiently long list of publications in the field’s traditional journals, which generally support the old research paradigm. Moreover, the academic world has other means to safeguard its dominant paradigms; publications that are regarded as out of the mainstream are often just not cited [or reviewed favourably] by the veterans in teacher education. (Russell & Korthagen, 1995, pp. 188-189)

 

Those of us who have had our self-study work (or other reflexive accounts) reviewed for publication by unsympathetic contemporaries can attest to the conserving nature of the review and publication process. Collectively, we are all too familiar with having our work characterized as "narcissistic", "self-indulgent", "egocentric", "solipsistic", and so on. Getting self-study work published is often a challenge in itself. Happily, most of us are not intimately familiar with the punishment of "expulsion from academia-tenure positions"; however, since this response to the challenging of tradition is the most poignant on all counts we refer to a couple of examples that give witness to Russell and Korthagen’s assertion.

 

Gary Knowles who described himself in a recent interview as "someone who challenged the status quo and came off second best" (Cole & Knowles, 1996, p. 118) was recently denied tenure at a high profile research university in the United States of America. We cite a passage from that interview. [Gary]: . . .For the most part it seems, the [negative tenure] decision rested on an assessment of my scholarship. . . . Also, given that a good part of my scholarship was directly related to my responsibilities as a teacher [educator] (parentheses in original), and some of it was "self study", it’s my guess that those of the committee who were very traditional researchers had difficulty with the practical orientation of much of my work. (p. 112) Although the "real" reasons for the tenure decision will never be known to anyone but the committee members who made it, we surmise without a great deal of risk, that the decision rested in Gary’s blatant insistence to "be true to himself", "to look in the mirror each day and say that I haven’t sold out in order to obtain some level of professional security and intellectual freedom" (p. 116). He was unwilling to play the split-personality game, and he was punished by expulsion.

 

Another example which is perhaps more obvious and straightforward in its explanation is that provided by Jack Whitehead who is at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. Jack is well known within the self-study of teacher education practices community for his notion of "living educational theory" which presents a challenge to teacher educators to understand the educational theories and values they practice and to make themselves accountable to themselves and their students. To many teacher educators, and especially those committed to self-study, this is not an outrageous viewpoint by any means although, interestingly but not surprisingly, it is also very close in spirit and intent to Gary’s position. To the status quo of the academy, however, Jack’s ideas were seen as "disturb[ing] of the good order and morale of the School of Education" (Whitehead, 1994, p. 5). Beginning in the 1970s, his attempts to challenge the traditions of the university by freely expressing the values that constitute his educational relationships were met with abject rejection: failures of his two PhD dissertation submissions, and a threat to terminate his employment. As is indicated in a letter from the University Council from which Jack quotes, several years later he was punished once again for his writing and education activities: "Your activities and writings are a challenge to the present and proper organization of the University and are not consistent with the duties the University wish you to pursue in teaching and research" (p. 6).

 

Hence, while engaging in self-study research may seem like an innocent and well meaning endeavour, it is not necessarily perceived as such by the governing forces of the academy. There are, at present, many snares for the unwary.

 

Self-study and the status quo perspective of the academy

What are the reasons for and bases of teacher educators’ concerns about engaging in self-study? How is the status quo challenged by self-study research? Concerns about institutional responses to self-study mainly are rooted in issues associated with tenure and promotion since most of those engaged in self-study research do not have full rank and status security. The reward structure of the academy is straightforward and, for the most part, universal. Publications are most meritorious; the more the better, of a particular perspective, style, or genre, and in prestigious refereed journals. What counts, in most contexts, are publications that represent the dominant epistemology of positivism. Research, by extension, should follow the scientific doctrines of positivism and meet criteria of objectivity, measurement and quantification, predictability, and generalizability, and be presented in relatively detached, impersonal ways. Self-study research is antithetical to all of these principles. Although multiple means of representation are possible and are used, in general self-study research is personal, subjective, practically-oriented, qualitative in nature, and usually creatively communicated in narrative form.

 

In addition, universities tend to base their status and reputations on the construction of academic knowledge which is judged by standards of abstraction and obscurity. According to Myers (1995), abstraction and obscurity are built-in safety features that help to conserve, insulate, and protect academic reputations. Self-study research, by its "up-close and personal" nature, renders both individuals who conduct it and their affiliated institutions vulnerable and accountable. Self-study researchers lay bare for public scrutiny aspects of themselves, their practices, and their institutions. This effectively disarms the safety features that render academic institutions, and those within them, untouchable. It razes to ground level the ivory tower. It enables the commoners to peek inside.

 

We do not mean to suggest that teacher education institutions are not interested in the improvement of teacher education; they just do not want to see themselves as part of the problem. After all, historically, the academy’s role is to solve social and practical problems not contribute to them. Schön (1983), citing Veblen (1918/1962) describes the situation this way: Quite simply, the professions are to give their practical problems to the university, and the university, the unique source of research, is to give back to the profession the new scientific knowledge which it will be their business to apply and test. Under no conditions are the technical men [sic] of the lower schools to be allowed into the university. (p. 36) And, we would add, under no conditions are those in "higher schools" to be allowed to behave or to be seen as the technical men and women of the lower schools.

 

Publicized research that is both personal and practical in its orientation not only endangers the reputation of the academy but also is, by virtue of its very nature, part of a political agenda to challenge traditional conceptions of what counts as knowledge and research. It is not in the best interests of the academy (and those who align themselves with the academy) to support such an agenda. (Self-study work that is true to its nature and spirit leaves no holds barred, no processes sanctioned, and no topic sacred.) In addition, self-study researchers’ vulnerability might be further explained by their status within the academy. Typically, those engaged in self-study are teacher educators committed to teaching, the teaching profession, and teacher education reform. As such, they already are self-identified marginals and typically do not hold positions of power within the academy. Ducharme (1993) indicates that many faculty in education and other disciplines who are involved in the preparation of teachers choose not to identify themselves as teacher educators, most likely because of the low status of teacher education in the academy. It is no secret that schools of education are the least powerful members of the academic community. Hence, self-study researchers remain a marginalized group challenged to demonstrate how their self-study work counts as research.

 

Self-study as research for teachers and teacher educators

How and why is self-study research? In many ways self-study researchers vying for legitimacy in the academy face challenges similar to those met by qualitative educational researchers over the past couple decades. In essence, self-study research is qualitative research focused inward. It utilizes the characteristic qualitative research tools of observation, interview, and artifact collection, although clearly with different kinds of goals and emphases. And it adheres to the same standards of rigour as qualitative research. Given how qualitative research has gained in status, there is hope for a similar outcome for self-study research. But, of course, unless self-study processes are applied more widely, such as in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, and the like, chances are that this progression of acceptance will not happen with the same potency nor at the same pace.

 

A similar parallel can be drawn between self-study of teacher education practices research and the teacher research movement. In effect, self- study of teacher education practices is a form of action research, the hallmark of the teacher research movement As such, and by extension, we might think it should be deemed the same kind of acceptability (although it must be noted that action research also has a long history of contentious struggle in the academy). The action research and teacher research movement have very successfully fought for the legitimacy of teacher research. And, in the struggle, the political stance of the movement as an epistemological challenge to the status quo conception of both knowledge and research have been made explicit. Kincheloe notes: The critically-grounded teacher-as-researcher movement is designed to provide teachers with the analytical tools to overcome . . . conservative and liberal blindness. Researching teachers would possess the ability to challenge the culture of positivism, exposing the origins of many of the constraints which obstruct their ability to implement educational strategies that respond to the experiences and lived worlds of students from all backgrounds. (Kincheloe, 1991, p. 65-66) But while there are obvious similarities between teacher research and teacher educator research, which in theory suggest a similar kind of acceptance, in practice acceptance is curtailed by a major contextual distinction.

 

It can be argued that the success of teacher research being accepted as bone fide research is conditional, and the condition relates to the traditional hierarchical relationship between schools-as sites of practice-and universities-as sites of theory. Even though the teacher research movement was successful in removing total control over educational research and theory development (especially as it pertains to the improvement of classroom practice) from those socially and traditionally sanctioned as academic experts, the hierarchy of status still applies. Kincheloe observes, "Even after their involvement in educational action research teachers are reluctant to say that they really did research; even if they admit to having done research they maintain that it was unscholarly or of low quality" (Kincheloe, 1991. p. 18). "Real" research is carried out by "real" researchers-experts from the academy: examine any teacher action research periodical and it is clear that members of the academy still dominate those of the classroom. And, as John Elliott (1989) reminds us, action research already has been coopted by educational managers and policy makers (and, we would add, academics) who have and apply a technocratic agenda. Thus, in a very real sense, action research has yet to meet with wide acceptance in the academy. Especially questionable is that work which obviously incorporates socio-political agenda.

 

What would happen, then, if researchers in the academy were sanctioned by their institutions and the broader academic community to throw off their "expert" mantles and act like ordinary, curious people with practically oriented questions, including questions that might challenge "the system"? How then could universities hold onto their status as elite societal institutions?

 

Even if self-study research "measures up" according to criteria used to judge qualitative research in general or action research in particular, it is not likely to be readily sanctioned by the academy--not because it is methodologically flawed but because it is epistemologically and politically "flawed". Thus, the more important question is not how or whether self-study is research but rather how can it be openly practiced by teacher educators without fear of reprisal from the academic community.

 

Self-study and teacher education reform: Challenging the status quo

Self-study researchers are individually and collectively committed to teacher education reform. As Guilfoyle, Hamilton, Pinnegar, and Placier (1995) observe:

We study our own practices. . . . Whatever we want our students to do in their own practices- study and reflect, use innovative pedagogy, be a change agent-we ask of ourselves. . . . Our practices as teacher educators re-create and redefine teacher education. . . . They have the most potential to help us understand what it means to teach, to teach teachers, and to gradually re- create education practices. (p. 53)

Action research or teacher research is noted for its reformative purpose and power. Yet we know that reform is a slow and uphill struggle. The self-study of teacher education practices movement has the same kind of potential for substantive and systemic reform of teacher education.

 

Whitehead (1995) suggests that through self-study teacher educators can help to transform what counts as educational knowledge and educational theory in the academy. While we agree that individual and local change efforts often have greater impact than systemic top-down measures, it seems to us that in order for the power of self-study as a reform mechanism to be realized, collective will and action are required. The struggle for legitimacy in the academy is a political struggle. And, as in other political struggles, organization and solidarity are key. The S-STEP SIG and the Self Study of Teacher Education Practices conference are two critical first steps forward on the path to empowering self-study within the academic community. Our challenge now is to continue to forge the path to empowerment with confident and purposeful strides.

 

To conclude we offer several practical (and obvious) ideas for moving forward with self-study research. In so doing we do not intend to define or map out the scope of self-study work, but, rather, to frame and propel individual and collective action. The ideas are listed in three clusters: research and publishing; community building, and political action.

 

Research and Publishing

 

To promote self-study research we could endeavour to:

· take care to explicate goals, intentions, and processes of individual and collective self-study work so that appropriate appraisals can be made about the value of such work;

· work toward maintaining the integrity of self-study research through explicit adherence to methodological standards (broadly defined);

· make clear the epistemological and methodological issues associated with self-study work by focusing on its unique strengths rather than on its dichotomous relationship with more traditional research approaches;

· focus self-study work on issues/matters/processes/problems that also have value to others, and make explicit how self-study work contributes to the broader understanding (and reform) of teacher education.

 

Community building

To further develop and extend our organizational presence we could strive to:

· continue "community building" activities such as the present conference;

· maintain and build on the various networking efforts already established by self-study researchers so that those who are at the boundaries of self-study and more traditional research practices can enter into the conversations;

· facilitate the work of colleagues and graduate students who wish to initiate their own self-study research and, if appropriate, join with them in collaborative self-study work;

· work towards establishing "centres" of self-study in local institutional contexts.

 

Political action

To effect more thoughtful and sustained responses to self-study we could:

· engage other faculty and administrators in conversations about the integral value and place of self- study in ongoing professional, program, and institutional health and development;

· make self-study processes (and work) a central component of ongoing course, teaching, and program evaluation;

· increase the scope of activities of self-study work by writing for "popular" audiences as well as scholarly and professional ones;

· become part of publishing, tenure and promotion, and grant agency decision-making groups where and when possible;

· become politically savvy, active, and expressive with regard to focused energies on academy and school reform through self-study.

 

And, finally, to sustain focus and overall purpose it is important for each of us engaged in self-study work to:

· acknowledge that individual self-study activities are part of a larger teacher education reform movement.

 

References

Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1995). Methods and issues in a life history approach to self-study. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education, London: Falmer Press (pp. 130-151).

Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1996). Reform and "being true to oneself": Pedagogy, professional practice, and the promotional process, Teacher Education Quarterly, 23(3), pp. 109-126.

Ducharme, E. R. (1993). The lives of teacher educators. New York: Teachers College Press.

Elliott, J. (1989). Studying the school curriculum through insider research. Paper presented at the International Conference on School-Based Innovations: Looking Forward to the 1990s, Hong Kong.

Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., & Placier, M. (1995). Becoming teachers of teachers: The paths of four beginners. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education, London: Falmer Press (pp. 35-55).

Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. London: Falmer Press.

Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (Eds.), (1996). Beginning professors and teacher education reform (theme issue). Teacher Education Quarterly, 23(3).

Myers, C. B. (1995, April). The importance of self-study in teacher education reform and reaccreditation efforts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Pinnegar, S., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1995). Self study and living educational theory (theme issue). Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3).

Russell, T., & Korthagen, F. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education. London: Falmer Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Veblen, T. (1962). The higher learning in America. New York: Hill & Wang. (Originally published in 1918).

Whitehead, J. (1994, April). Creating a living educational theory from an analysis of my own educational practices: How do you create and test the validity of your living educational theory? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Whitehead, J. (1995). Educative relationships with the writings of others. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education, London: Falmer Press (pp. 113-129).

 

We acknowledge the generous support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Ideas in this paper exploring the relationship between self-study and teacher education reform were facilitated by a research project on beginning teacher educators and teacher education reform.