Document1
Title: Cameos, supporting roles and stars: Citation and reflection in the
context of initial teacher education
Author: Dr. Jonathan Hughes a b
Affiliation: a Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships, The Open
University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
Email Address: j.e.hughes@open.ac.uk
Corresponding Author: bDr Jonathan Hughes, Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative
Partnerships, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United
Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1908 655 491
Fax: +44 (0) 1908 659 305
Abstract
Background
Reflection is well-established as an important part of teacher education, but it is also
the focus of critical enquiry. This means that reflection is of interest to those who
wish to explore its use to produce ‘better’ teachers. It is also of interest to scholars
who are interested in the wider implications of reflection, for example, in relation to
power and social control.
Academic articles are the primary medium through which ideas and practices are
communicated. However, they can only contribute if they are accepted for publication
on the basis of making a contribution to knowledge. To be seen in this way, a journal
paper needs to cite earlier work to show understanding of this work and how this is
being augmented.
Purpose
This paper aims to initiate an academic debate of citation practices which, it argues,
should be based on an awareness of current practices and a willingness to share, and
even change, them. To facilitate the debate and the development of a better
understanding of citing and its implications, the paper offers a tripartite citation
framework.
Sources of evidence
The extensive citation analysis literature is reviewed to provide a context for an
examination of the variety of citation practices found in 24 papers which all focus on
initial teacher education and which cite the same critical paper (Fendler, 2003).
Main argument
This paper argues that there is value in differentiating three categories of citation,
labelled ’cameo’, ‘supporting role’ and ‘star’. These categories do not make
judgements about what counts as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ referencing. Rather, they provide a
way for authors to assess how they are citing and what the possible consequences may
be. These can include an apparent lack of understanding not just of a cited paper but
1
Document1
also of the wider literature. This means that citation which is not being carefully
managed can undermine an argument.
Conclusions
This paper concludes that there is there is a need to initiate an academic debate about
citation which is premised on the development of self-awareness about current
practice and its consequences. Such a debate could bring about a number of benefits.
It would encourage individual scholars to develop self-aware and ethical citation; it
would also clarify current expectations about citation and enable academic
communities to reflect on whether enquiry is well served by them.
Key words
Citation, reflection, referencing, teacher education, pre-service teachers
1. Introduction
This paper has two distinct but inter-related purposes. First, it considers different
approaches to the citation of a particular paper ‘Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors:
Historical influences and political reverberations’, (Fendler, 2003). Second, it
explores the implications of these practices for reflection in initial teacher education.
For this dual investigation, this paper draws on and situates within the wider literature
of citation analysis the notion of ‘mongering’ (Curt, 1994, pp. 12 and 73).
‘Mongering’ appears twice in Textuality and Tectonics where it is used to suggest “a
common trade of interpretation and telling clever stories” (Curt, 1994, p. 73).
However, despite these limited appearances in a book from outside citation analysis
literature, the concept of mongering is a useful one. Dictionary definitions only give
‘monger’ as a combination form, as in fishmonger, cheesemonger, rumourmonger and
warmonger (Oxford University Press, 1998, p.1193) where they denote dealers in
those commodities. The aspect of mongering that this paper exploits is that such
dealing requires an expert use of knowledge in a social context and can act as a
reminder of the complex interactions underpinning citation practice.
One aspect of these interactions is what makes for a convincing argument. It is clearly
important that it is coherent and well-supported by relevant evidence but how citation
is managed and presented is also crucial in an academic paper. Citation practices have
important mongering or dealing functions. They signal that the author knows and uses
the required conventions. Citing recognised authorities establishes that the author
understands the key issues they put forward.
The use of mongering aligns this paper to an extent with the literature on citation
focused on the importance of persuasion, in particular Gilbert (1977, p.115) that
scientific papers are essentially ‘tools of persuasion’. Citing helps to persuade readers
by showing how knowledge accepted as valid is incorporated, by justifying positions
adopted and by highlighting what is new in the citing paper. Citation is viewed as a
resource which is marshalled to increase the likelihood of impressing peer reviewers
and readers.
The approach taken by authors, including Gilbert, contrasts with citation analysis
literature focused on developing citation indices to recognise status and influence.
2
Document1
This approach is the target of criticism, which links it to an idealised, ‘storybook’
science (Cronin, 1984, p.1) claiming to be engaged in the objective pursuit of truth. In
this view, citations are a “precise, unambiguous representation of a subject that
requires no interpretation and is immune to changes in terminology” (Garfield, 1979
in Brooks, 1986, p. 34).
Such comments provide easy target for the ‘persuasionists’. The view of citation as
‘precise’ and unambiguous’ is called into question in two main ways. The first is that
different classifications have used different categories. However, despite the fact that
the development of these schemes “has not been a cumulative endeavor” (Small,
1982, 300), parallels between them can be identified, such as the inclusion of some
forms of negation and of affirmation of the cited work. In addition all the schemes had
a ‘perfunctory’ (or equivalent) category which “consistently captures the largest
fraction of citations” (Small, 1982, p.301).
The second way in which the nature of citations has been problematised involves the
issue of citer motivation. The use of citation analysis to measure “scientific
eminence” made it apparent that “no one knows why authors give references”
(Brooks, 1985, p.223). This problem remained unresolved despite attempts to explore
citer motivation (see Brooks, 1985 and 1986, Shadish et al, 1995, Wang and White,
1999 and Harwood, 2009). These studies show that authors can be unclear about why
they cite. They may try to offer something to serve as a justification or forget why a
citation was chosen (Shadish et al, 1995).
The infrequency of citer motivation studies, combined with a developing interest in
the ‘larger intentions’ driving citers, paved the way for ‘the persuasion hypothesis’
(White 2004, p. 108). ‘Referencing as persuasion’ (Gilbert 1977) exerts a lasting
influence to the extent that it can be argued this view “has won” (White, 2004, p.108).
However, without denying that academic papers need to persuade, the suggestion that
persuasion alone accounts for all aspects of citation practices should be questioned.
‘Persuasion’ simply replaces a scientific motive, “establishing the truth”, with a social
motive, “citing to attach to a tradition respected for truthfulness” (White (2004, p.
109). Ascribing citation practices to the need to persuade alone also suggests that
researchers are in thrall to social factors and lack agency. However, such agency
could derive from a commitment (however flawed) to the principle that ‘good’
science and ‘good’ academic writing is worth striving for.
The concept of mongering is useful here as it helps to address this limitation of
persuasion by recognising that the dynamic and contested contexts of academic
writing do not just comprise the rhetorical devices (including citation) which Gilbert
(1997) suggests are at the heart of ‘persuasion’. In contrast, mongering reminds us
what is needed to ‘deal’ in good science. An unwarranted citation may be persuasive
but it does not necessarily mean that good science is being mongered.
While citation analysis literature may divide over whether citation is unambiguous or
is socially constructed, it is united in the assumption that all academics have an equal
grasp of citation practices as if these are automatically imbibed in the course of
academic development and despite the lack of clarity about acceptable practice. This
paper acknowledges that writing about how academics cite may raise quite different
issues from those arising from writing about their conceptualisation of reflection. In
3
Document1
any academic discourse, differences of opinion can be anticipated. Critical reviews
question aspects of research methodology or data analysis but, unless inaccuracies are
found, it is rare for citation practice to be considered in this way. This may reflect an
assumption that authors are fully formed academics who know how to reference
‘properly’ and that examining such practices risks appearing judgemental. This paper
does not adopt such a stance but argues that this issue should be aired in a critically
aware debate about academic citation practices. The framework in this paper (cameos,
supporting roles and stars) is offered as a way to enable fellow-academics to engage
in this debate.
This paper relates citation to reflection and thus needs to set out how these terms are
understood. For ‘reflection’, this is somewhat problematic. Fendler (2003) avoids
providing such a definition in order to be able to explore what are seen as significant
issues. The main concern of this paper is also to consider the impacts of referencing
practices on how reflection is presented. This approach entails an understanding of
reflection as a situated and contested concept which uses power to discipline preservice teachers. Citing as a concept is less problematic; the paper concurs with Frost
(1979, p. 399) that citation refers to both “the work cited … (and) … to the action of
citing”. ‘Reference’ and ‘referencing’ are similarly understood.
2. Outline of Fendler’s paper
Key aspects of Fendler’s original paper are set out as the basis for considering the
different approaches to citing and their implications for reflection. Fendler identifies
three criticisms of reflection. First, she affirms Zeichner's (1996) stance that
“reflective practices have not helped advance teachers’ roles in schools” (Fendler,
2003, p. 16). Second, and echoing Gore's (1987) research, she asserts that “reflective
practices serve to reinforce existing beliefs rather than to challenge assumptions”
(Fendler, 2003, p. 16). Third, she claims that “reflective practices tend to provide
instrumental analyses of teaching and ignore issues of social justice” (Fendler, 2003,
p. 16). Fendler then argues that teacher reflection tends to be insufficiently
historicized, which results in reflection ending up in a “confusing morass of
meanings” (Fendler, 2003, p. 17). It is argued that if “historical and discursive
complexities” are not recognised, “tensions in the discourse of reflection” will go
unnoticed and reflection will seem to be an uncontested domain (Fendler, 2003, p.
17). In Fendler’s view the operation of power is inevitable and results in versions of
reflection becoming dominant.
Fendler’s view that reflection is best seen as a historicised and contingent social
practice highlights the value of a critical theoretical framework. Fendler uses
Foucault’s (1979/1991) “analytic of power as governmentality … for thinking about
the politics of reflection” , noting that this concept emphasizes how “historically
specific power relations construct what is possible to think” (Fendler, 2003, p. 21).
Fendler’s approach leads her to urge educational researchers to constantly question
assumptions if they wish to avoid similar oversights.
The classification system in this paper derives from an analysis of 24 papers which
cite Fendler, (2003) and are concerned with teacher education, are in electronically
accessible and peer-reviewed journals (rather than books or dissertations), are written
in English and are available through my own University’s library. This results in one
group of authors where Fendler’s paper is used in ways that can be compared to a
4
Document1
cameo appearance in a movie, a second group where the use of the paper is analogous
to a supporting role and a third group where the paper is accorded star status.
This paper takes each category (cameo, supporting role and star) in turn. The citing
papers which fall into that category are given. There follows a sub-section in which
the features of the citation category are outlined. A further sub-section sets out the
implications for reflection. These sub-sections enable the paper to demonstrate that
different approaches to citation make possible suggestions that the citing papers can
result in particular readings not just of the cited paper but also of the substantive topic.
Each section concludes with a discussion of the implications of each approach to
citation.
3. ‘Cameo’ citation
In movies, actors in cameo parts appear only briefly. Such actors are often wellknown and it is thought their appearance may contribute to a film’s public appeal.
They generally play little or no part in the development of the main narrative. The
analogy is used to signal how Fendler is referenced. Like the actor, Fendler’s paper
gets a credit despite the fact that ideas in her paper have contributed little to the
author’s own narrative.
The group of nine authors who cite Fendler as an cameo includes Melville et al
(Melville, Fazio, Bartley, & Jones, 2008), Strand (Strand, 2006), Phillips and Carr
(Philips & Carr, 2009), Poulou (Poulou, 2007), Rosaen et al, (Rosaen, Lundeberg,
Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008), Miller et al (Miller, Nicholas, & Lambeth, 2008),
Hechter and McGregor (Hechter & McGregor, 2008); Dogani, (Dogani, 2008), and
Russell (Russell, 2005).
3.1 The features of cameo citation
There are three features that can signal ‘cameo’ citation in this first group of nine
papers. The first is that there is just one reference to Fendler’s paper. A single
reference does not, of itself, imply cameo citation unless it is also brief and
generalised. Two examples will suffice:
“There is a sizable literature on pre-service teacher reflection (Fendler, 2003).”
(Melville, Fazio, Bartley, & Jones, 2008, p. 48).
“The scope of pre-service teacher reflection is well documented in the literature
(Fendler, 2003, Melville, 2008).”
(Hechter & McGregor, 2008, p. 19).
These citations are examples of perfunctory references (Small, 1982) in that they say
little about the arguments made in either the citing or the cited papers. The second key
feature of this approach to citation is the practice of supporting generalized points
with a batch of references. This example illustrates this feature:
“Although the concept of reflection has not been clearly defined yet and there is an
ironically unreflective usage of the terms (Calderhead, 1989), there is general
agreement in the literature on the importance of unfolding student-teachers’ reflective
thoughts, in order to improve their teaching (Francis, 1995; Penny et al, 1996,
Griffiths, 2000, Fendler, 2003), and there are considerable number of training
5
Document1
programmes with a reflective orientation (Carter, 1997, Matthews, 1998, Veronesi
and Varella, 1999, Wood, 2000, Edwards et al, 2002)”.
(Poulou, 2007, p. 92).
This example includes 11 named authors1. This figure ignores those who are not
named and are included as ‘et al’. This number of authors might appear to support
Russell’s assertion that there is “healthy and important debate about reflection”
(Russell, 2005, p. 199). However, the idea of a debate implies that these voices are
given a hearing. This is undermined by Russell’s single citation of Fendler:
“There is also healthy and important debate about reflection; writers such as Fendler
(2003) might challenge the approach offered in this paper.”
(Russell, 2005, p. 199)
This comment is enigmatic as it is not made clear whether such a challenge is
peripheral or whether it presents a radically different viewpoint. Although cameos are
generally speaking roles, they may not always have much of substance to say. This is
accentuated in the third feature of this approach to citation which is that direct
quotation is not found very often within this group. Only Strand gives a reference that
includes a page number and this is in order to repeat something originally found in
Dewey (Strand, 2006, p. 32). Thus ‘cameo’ citation of Fendler has three
characteristics. It is marked by single citation, inclusion within a batch of references
and by a lack of direct quotation.
3.2 Implications for reflection
‘Cameo’ citing in this case makes it possible to suggest certain commonalities in
relation to key features of reflection. The first is a recurrent assumption that the early
development of reflection in teachers will develop stronger professional identities and
better teachers. Strand argues that “critical-reflection skills” are required for
“successful professional lives” (Strand, 2006, p. 29) while Phillips and Carr highlight
“becoming a teacher through self-reflexivity” (Philips & Carr, 2009, p. 210).
Reflection and being able to critique personal experience is also viewed as “one of the
cornerstones of teacher professionalization” (Poulou, 2007, p. 92). Some of the ways
in which this transformation can occur are given by Melville et al who suggest that
reflection can “teach novices to temper their judgments, to replace unsubstantiated
opinion with ... grounded belief that is constantly in flux and open to revision”
(Melville, Fazio, Bartley, & Jones, 2008, p. 480).
This paper argues that, taken as a whole, the authors in this group present a view of
reflection in which professional practice and professional identities develop along
positive trajectories at least partly because students learn ‘how to’ reflect. In these
cameo citations no allowance is made for the idea that reflection might be problematic
or difficult. This means that the cameo citers appear to believe that the main problems
arise when student teachers are reluctant to engage in reflection. An example is
provided by the recognition that “not all pre-service teachers reflect as much or as
deeply as teacher trainers hope … some students do not know how to reflect, some do
not want to reflect …” (Strand, 2006, p. 31).
1
References included in quotations from papers citing Fendler are not given.
6
Document1
Another feature of reflection which comes to the fore in this group is the assumption
that a higher order of reflection is required to become a professional teacher than is
required for personal life. Thus Russell comments that “reflective practice differs
profoundly from our everyday sense of reflection” (Russell, 2005, p. 199) while
Miller talks about “deep level reflection” ” (Miller, Nicholas, & Lambeth, 2008, p.
361). The view that reflection can be taught implies that some forms of reflection are
of a higher order than others. Thus student teachers may be capable of indulging in
naïve or descriptive reflection but require the input of teacher educators in order to
engage with fully fledged, ‘deep’ reflection. This does not mean that reflection is
inherently problematic, rather that teacher educators have to make sure that strategies
are in place so that it is successfully taught. Thus teacher educators may need to use
modelling and “explicit instruction” (Russell, 2005, p. 199). The need for ‘explicit
instruction’ is echoed by Miller et al (Miller, Nicholas, & Lambeth, 2008, p. 361) who
suggest that it is invaluable “in the early stages of teacher identity (re)construction” to
encourage “engagement in critically reflective practices, and to make way for these
skills to become part of their everyday repertoire for teaching”.
The overt link between reflection and professional (re)construction emphasises a view
in which reflection is presented as crucial to teacher formation. However, its
importance leads to various suggestions to ensure that teachers in initial education are
well inculcated into reflective practice. In contrast to recommending ‘explicit
instruction, other authors seem to favour a more laisser-faire approach. For example,
Hechter and McGregor (2008, p. 25); suggest “giving opportunity through personal
insight” (while Phillips and Carr (2009, p. 223) suggest that pre-service teachers must
be allowed enough “space and opportunity … to engage deeply in critical thinking
and reflexivity”). Authors who use cameo citations also display a concern (often
arising from studies they have conducted) with the pragmatic aspects of reflection
instruction. These are not always consistent with each other. Poulou (2007, p. 106)
argues that “reflective training” should come after the end of teaching experience
because course work makes it “hard for student-teachers to engage in reflection”). In
contrast, Dogani (2008, p. 127) favours providing ‘controlled situations’ “long before
…they… enter the school routine”.
Calls for further studies are frequently found amongst this group of cameo citers.
Strand (2006, p. 40), for example, suggests a comparative examination of what sorts
of student reflections result from “various types of reflective tasks given during preservice training” Melville et al (2008, p. 477) suggest that studies which compare the
differing perceptions about teaching of pre-service teachers would be useful to help
them “move toward the perceptions of their more inquiry experienced colleagues”.
3.3 Summary of the implications of cameo citation
This paper argues that cameo citation of Fendler (2003) makes it possible to discern a
representation of reflection with three key aspects. The first stems from how ‘noncompliant’ views of some student teachers are glossed over. This underpins the
suggestion that the view of reflection given in the citing paper is not one that requires
any challenge and is essentially unproblematic. The second is the clear assumption
that reflection leads to ‘better’ teaching and more ‘professional’ teachers. What counts
as better teaching or being more professional is not explained but cameo citers seem
to believe that better teachers will reflect more which will, in turn, make them even
7
Document1
better teachers. The third feature of reflection suggested by cameo citation is that it
can be taught to student teachers or, at the very least, the input of teacher educators
can improve the quality of their reflection.
It is not claimed here that these three features are the only way in which reflection can
be construed in the works in this category. Rather, the argument is that the citation in
this group makes plausible this account of reflection. This paper argues that the issue
is whether this reading of reflection was intended or not. It is perfectly legitimate to
argue, for example, that ‘better reflection’ can be taught. The concern arises if the
idea that reflection is unproblematic or can be taught arises unintentionally as a result
of the way that citation is managed.
Cameo citation also runs the risk of appearing not to have grasped key aspects of the
cited paper and, as a result, to call into question understanding of the literature.
Fendler (2003) calls for a questioning of reflection which derives from her view, that
in initial teacher education, reflection is inherently problematic. However, these
concerns are obscured as a result of cameo citation practices. By making possible an
understanding of reflection as unproblematic, cameo citing makes it more difficult for
readers to develop understanding of the topic in hand. It is this paper’s contention that
if authors are more aware of such implications, they will be more likely to question
their own use of this form of citation.
4. ‘Supporting role’ citation
A second group of authors are identified who cite Fendler in ways which recognise
and make clear at least a part of her position on reflection without necessarily
showing a consistent relationship with the cited paper. This ‘supporting role’ group
comprises the following five papers: Dome et al (2005), Amobi, (2006), Husu et al,
(2008), Collin and Karsenti, (2011) and Yesilbursa (2011).
4.1 The features of supporting role citation
The first feature of this category is that there is some, perhaps fleeting, recognition of
an aspect of the cited paper. The ways in which the citing papers achieve this varies.
One way is to cite Fendler more than once. Yesilbursa and Dome et al both make two
passing references while Amobi mentions Fendler three times. This allows greater
scope to show a grasp of at least one point made by Fendler as well as making it
possible to balance a reference which seems to convey little meaning with a rather
more meaningful one. A good example is provided by Yesilbursa’s citations. On the
one hand this paper suggests:
“Descriptive reflection … is necessary for these teachers, whose primary concerns are
gaining competence in teaching (Fendler 2003).”
(Yesilbursa, 2011, p. 112)
This is similar to cameo citation and could easily be seen as a ‘perfunctory citation’
(Small, 1982). However, this author provides one other reference, accurately noting
that Fendler sees Dewey and Schön as “contradictory” (Yesilbursa, 2011, p. 105). The
ways in which the different categories reflect Fendler’s use of these ‘icons’ is not a
focus of this paper but is brought in here to illustrate a key difference, namely that the
‘supporting role’ category does contain clues to at least one aspect of the cited paper.
8
Document1
A similar pattern is found in Amobi’s paper. In isolation the following could be seen
as a cameo reference:
“However, the popularity of the term (reflection) has increased variability in its
meaning, interpretation and application (Sparks-Langer; Fendler, 2003).”
(Amobi, 2006, p. 26).
However, Amobi goes on to use a direct quotation:
“While Fendler wondered, “What does a teacher have no right to know about a
student?” (p. 22).”
(Amobi, 2006, p. 30)
In contrast to the first quotation, the second does hint at an important aspect of
Fendler’s paper: namely, the issues around reflection as a form of disciplinary
governmentality. However, this citing paper also helps to identify the second feature
of supporting role citation, which is that the relationship with the cited paper is not
always consistent. Suggesting that the ideas of Dewey and Schön can simply be
described as “the wellspring that provides intellectual and practical energy to the
paradigm of reflection espoused in teacher education programming” (Amobi, 2006, p.
26) makes it is clear that this part of Fendler’s argument is not being used in this
citing paper.
This group of papers also includes (as does the cameo group) single citations of
Fendler. However, in this group single citation is mitigated by the use of direct
quotation, which can be viewed as the third feature of this category. Most of the
supporting role papers use direct quotation; the exceptions being Yesilbursa and Husu
et al. The potential power of direct quotation is illustrated by the one found in Collin
and Karsenti:
“Today’s discourse of reflection incorporates an array of meanings: a demonstration
of self-consciousness, a scientific approach to planning for the future, a way to tap
into one’s authentic, inner voice, a means to become a more effective teacher, and a
strategy to redress injustices in society … it is no wonder that current research and
practices relating to reflection tend to embody mixed messages and confusing
agendas. (Fendler, 2003, p.20)”.
(Collin & Karsenti, 2011, p. 570)
Thus the supporting role group evidence a small but important shift in some of the
referencing practices used. Taken together, these have the important consequence of
making it possible to discern at least part of Fendler’s concerns. In this process the use
of direct quotation is particularly significant as it allows immediate access to these
concerns.
4.2 Implications for reflection
The actual citation practices differ within these five papers but they are grouped
because they do seem to share recognition of issues of either a theoretical or practical
nature associated with reflection. These papers make it possible to appreciate that
9
Document1
there may be a debate about reflection. However, they do not adopt a consistent stance
towards the cited paper. This makes it difficult for readers to substantially extend their
understanding of reflection in initial teacher education. Thus, Amobi notes that some
reflective techniques (such as student-teacher diary and journal style records) that are
used in teacher education can lead to “emotion-laden, ritualistic confessionals from
students (Brookfield, 1999; Fendler, 2003)”. As noted in the previous section, this
author also repeats Fendler’s question about what teachers should not know about
their students (Amobi, 2006, p. 26). These comments do illuminate points made by
Fendler. However, implicit in the suggestion that ‘novices’ engage in a basic
(descriptive) form of ‘emotion-laden’ reflection is a view that there are different
forms of reflection which can, potentially, be ranked hierarchically. This means that
these citation practices contribute to a view of reflection that is sometimes at odds,
and sometimes concurs, with the discussion in the cited paper.
The approach to citation adopted by authors, including Yesilbursa and Amobi, makes
it possible to interpret their work as being concerned to ensure that their (essentially
unproblematic) representation of reflection remains in the lead role, dominating over
the ‘supporting role’ accorded to Fendler’s paper. Thus Amobi sees “the engagement
of pre-service teachers in continual reflection” as the “quintessential element that
breathes life into high-quality teaching” (Amobi, 2006, p. 24). Similarly, Yesilbursa
argues that reflective practice seems to be “the ideal approach to teacher education” as
it “places the teachers at the centre of their own development as they analyse and
evaluate their own practice …” (Yesilbursa, 2011, p. 104).
This paper argues that the other three papers in this group (Dome et al, 2005; Husu et
al, 2008 and Collin and Karsenti, 2011) also adopt citing practices which may appear
to accept aspects of the Fendler’s criticisms but which actually ensure that their view
of reflection leads. Thus Husu et al recognise that Fendler has “argued against the
imprecise use of the concept of reflection” (Husu, Toom, & Patrikainen, 2008, p. 38).
However, this recognition does not preclude an argument which focuses on “fostering
the teacher’s ability to reflect on their teaching and learning and thereby improve their
professional knowledge and its delivery” (Husu, Toom, & Patrikainen, 2008, p. 37).
Another example is provided by the inclusion of Fendler’s suggestions that reflection
can support “deeply embedded racist assumptions” (Dome, et al, 2005, p. 79) and that
the introduction of “a social dimension to reflective practice” can help overcome “the
conservative tendencies of reflection” (Dome, et al, 2005, p. 81). Despite this the
focus remains one of pre-service teachers having “the tools to engage in reflection and
problem solving to better serve their students” (Dome, et al, 2005, p. 64).
The final paper in this ‘supporting role’ group is Collin and Karsenti (Collin &
Karsenti, 2011) who include a substantial quotation (given above) from Fendler.
While that quotation gives a clear picture of aspects of Fendler’s paper, Collin and
Karsenti resemble other authors in this group in that they continue to justify their
version of reflection which insists that because “reflection has become a mandatory
professional competency in many initial teacher training programs … it must be
developed in pre-service teachers” (Collin & Karsenti, 2011, p. 569).
4.3 Summary of the implications for supporting role citation
There are subtle but important distinctions to be made between cameo and supporting
role citation. These differences include the inconsistent recognition of aspects of the
10
Document1
cited paper. This recognition is variously marked, for example by the use of direct
quotation or by some recognition of the theoretical frameworks which underpin
Fendler’s paper.
This form of citation does make it possible to discern elements of the debates around
reflection that Fendler sees as being central. However, by partly revealing on-going
tensions around reflection, authors in this group throw into relief their commitment to
a narrative which sees reflection as a key aspect of teacher education. This dichotomy
highlights that supporting role citation in this instance plays a role in leading to an
inconsistent view of the role of reflection. In some ways this outcome is more
problematic that the one that cameo citation leads to. Cameo citation may intend to
promulgate a particular viewpoint. However, it seems unlikely that an author would
deliberately want to present the sort of inconsistent argument that may be inferred
from supporting role citation.
5. ‘Star’ citation’
Here the analogy draws on the way that stars in a movie are pivotal to the action. This
group comprises the authors whose approach to citing Fendler and whose ensuing
representations of reflection can be characterised in this way. The group comprises
Seifert (2004), Zemblyas (2006), Zemblyas et al (2006), Akbari (2007), McNay and
Graham (2007), Phillips and Carr (2007), Segall and Gaudelli (2007), Ding (2009),
Ross (2011) and Hallman (2011).
5.1 The features of star citation
For some of the authors, the features of citation that are linked to the first two groups
(cameo and supporting role) are again evident. For example, Seifert’s approach to
citing Fendler does not initially look very different from that adopted by authors in the
other groups. There is no direct quotation and there is just a single reference to
Fendler:
“A closer look though, suggests that reflection and reflective writing usually serves
too many purposes to guarantee these results (of making teachers feel like teachers)
(Rodgers, 2002; Fendler, 2003).”
(Seifert, 2004, p. 13)
Phillips and Carr (2007) also make just one reference to Fendler’s 2003 paper. Segall
and Gaudelli (2007) only include one reference to Fendler within a list of four
references to make a general point that “prevailing practices regarding reflection
within teacher education have been challenged on various grounds” (p. 77). Ross
(2011 p. 113) also makes a single reference to Fendler to note that “discourses around
reflective writing in education are confused and confusing”. McNay and Graham only
refer to Fendler once in order to quote just two words:
“As Fendler (2003) advised, teacher educators must be cautious about unintended
consequences of reflection that might ‘inadvertently undermine’ (p. 23, emphasis in
the original) a research or professional development agenda.”
(McNay & Graham, 2007, p. 232)
Although Ding refers to Fendler twice, both these occurrences are in the same
sentence which acknowledges that “reflection contains a wide range of meaning” and
11
Document1
that “academic reflective practices assume that teachers are unable to reflect without
direction from experts” (Ding, 2009, pp. 66-67)
It is harder to list features for this form of citation than is the case for either cameo or
supporting role, particularly when very different approaches to citing Fendler’s paper
are apparent. One striking difference is the amount cited. In contrast to the two words
used by McNay and Graham, other papers cite Fendler at length. Zemblyas et al
(2006), Akbari (2007) and Hallman (2011) all cite Fendler’s paper more than once.
Zemblyas et al is presented as a discussion between its four authors in the course of
which the 2003 paper is frequently mentioned. Akbari (2007) cites Fendler 14 times,
including 11 direct quotations, many of which are extensive (one runs to some 74
words). This approach means that Akbari gives a comprehensive representation of the
key arguments in Fendler’s paper. Her account of reflection as a historicized and
contingent practice is well captured by Akbari, as are Fendler’s reservations about
“confessional journal writing” (Akbari, 2007, p. 199). Hallman (2011, pp. 533, 534,
535 and 541) refers to Fendler six times. Three of these references include specific
page numbers, although there are no direct quotations.
Given these differences, this paper argues that the key feature of this group is that,
irrespective of the number of words cited, there is an important, consistent and
transparent relationship with the cited paper. Although the papers in this category tend
to affirm Fendler’s stance there is no reason why a ‘star’ relationship should not be
based on a critical stance.
5.2 Implications for reflection
Despite the differences between the extensive citation of the sort carried out by
Zemblyas et al, Akbari and Hallman and the more minimal approach of others,
reflection is represented in ways which have important shared characteristics. Key
among these ideas is that reflection is a contested domain. Thus McNay and Graham
(2007) accept that “reflection is the key to developing a vision of education” (p. 231)
and that it is “widely accepted as necessary for good teaching” (p. 232). However,
like Segall and Gaudelli (2007, p. 77), they acknowledge that there is “no consensus”
and that it is “rarely defined with precision” (McNay & Graham, 2007, p. 231). This
stance is more in line with that taken by Fendler and is different from that found the
first two groups because the focus is on the inherent problems within reflection itself
rather than on students being reluctant to engage in reflection. Within this group,
reflection is seen as both widely accepted and as being the focus of little consensus.
As Phillips and Carr (2007, p. 562) note, these features are both consequences of the
fact that reflection is implicated in “normative discourses (which) define what a ‘good
teacher’ might be”.
Within this category, reflection is also seen as being subject to on-going theoretical
dissension. The authors in this group contribute (as does Fendler) to a historicized
understanding of the variety of meanings, purposes and justifications that have built
up around reflection. For example Akbari points out that “most of the papers and
books which attribute the genesis and growth of the idea (of reflection) to these two
thinkers (Dewey and Schön) intentionally or inadvertently distort the differences”
(Akbari, 2007, p. 196). This sort of awareness allows other theoretical frameworks to
be brought into play. Thus Akbari (2007) brings in Descartes and feminism alongside
Dewey and Schön; while Ross (2011) compares how Moon uses Dewey, Habermas,
12
Document1
Schön and Kolb. Hallman (2011, p. 534). argues for a Bakhtinian analysis “to attend
to the local-level influences on individual teacher reflections”.
The use of a variety of conceptual frameworks further contributes to the sense that
reflection must be viewed as a problematic and historicized practice. Authors
including Akbari (2007), Zemblyas et al (2006) and Ross (2011) follow Fendler’s
lead and use Foucault’s ideas to highlight the confessional aspects of reflective
practices (such as journal writing) while Zemblyas cites Fendler (2003, p. 21) to argue
that reflection “can function as a disciplinary technology whose purpose may be
obscure or unrecognized because ways of thinking are subject to and produced by
social practices of discipline and normalization” (Zemblyas, 2006, p. 297). Ross
(2011) also shows that Foucault’s ideas can frame reflection as a practice which
“normalises surveillance of students’ emotional and developmental expression, and
produces rituals of confession and compliance” (p. 117) and that “reflective practices
in higher education always produce certain subject positions and power relations” (p.
113).
5.3 Summary of the implications for star citation
The paper has argued that, compared with the first two groups, ‘star’ citation practices
are more likely to present a view of reflection in line with that originally presented by
Fendler. However, as with cameo and supporting role citation, the need for author
self-awareness remains. The ‘faithful’ use of Fendler results in a view of reflection
that is not far removed from the view found in the original paper. This has the
advantage, particularly where citation is extensive, of giving a good, if second-hand,
account of the issues raised by Fendler. An important function of citation is to reflect
earlier thinking, but this can itself raise issues. Of all the authors discussed in this
paper, Akbari draws on Fendler most heavily. Whether this is ‘good’ academic
practice is debateable. There is a risk that such an approach might be deemed to be an
unreflective adherence to the original which restricts the scope for novel thought. It is
possible, perhaps, to focus too much on a cited paper and to allow its argument too
much dominance.
However, this paper argues that the critical self-awareness that authors in the ‘star’
group bring to bear on reflection means that they can view its inclusion within teacher
training differently from authors in the cameo and supporting role groups. Authors in
both these groups see reflection on practice (because it can be represented as
unproblematic) as something whose place within the education of teachers can be
assumed. It requires no further justification. A rather more critical approach raises
different questions. As Ding (2009, p. 67) notes “criticisms raise serious questions
about the value of both experience and reflection as essential motors of teacher
autonomy”. However, this does not mean that its use should be abandoned in the
initial formation of teachers; Ding (2009, p. 67).continues by pointing out that “it is
very hard to envisage teacher autonomy without reflection on theory and practice as
well as experience of autonomy as teacher-learners”.
McNay and Graham (2007, p. 234) suggest that the notion of reflection although
problematic is “worth rescuing”. Foucauldian ideas about governmentality,
disciplining and confessional offer useful starting points but there are others. For
example Zemblyas highlights the importance of differentiating the “practices of
13
Document1
reflection that are transgressive and those that are complicit with existing power
hierarchies” (Zemblyas, 2006, p. 297).
6. Conclusion
This paper has noted how Curt (1994) urges social scientists to have regard to how
ideas are ‘mongered’ and has offered a framework which compares different ways in
which citation practices monger the role of reflection in initial teacher education. This
framework comprises three categories (cameo, supporting role and star). Initially
these categories were developed in order to make sense of the range of citation
practice associated with the selected cited paper (Fendler, 2003). In conducting this
analysis, quite basic aspects of citation appear to result in unintended consequences
which carry potentially significant implications for the credibility of a citing paper. In
this instance, different approaches to citation appear to display different levels of
understanding of the implications for reflection in initial teacher education.
This paper is very aware of also being engaged in an attempt to ‘monger’ this
framework. However, it is offered as a starting point to enable academic authors to
become more aware of their own citation practices as well as initiating a much-needed
debate about these practices and their role in scholarship. This debate needs to be
informed by academic self-awareness and by a realisation that while ‘perfect’ citation
may be an unreachable goal, our work will be enhanced if we are more critical about
why and when we cite.
14
Document1
References
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on Reflection: A Critical Appraisal of Reflective
Practices in L2 Teacher Education. System, 35, 192-207.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.12.008
Amobi, F. A. (2006). Beyond the Call: Preserving Reflection in the Preparation of
'Highly Qualified' Teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring, 23-35.
Brooks, T.A. (1985). Private Acts and Public Objects: An Investigation of Citer
Motives. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(4), 223229.
Brooks, T.A. (1986) Evidence of Complex Citer Motivations. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 34-36.
Collin, S., & Karsenti, T. (2011). The Collective Dimension of Reflective Practice:
The How and Why. Reflective Practice, 12(4), 569-581.
doi:10.1080/14623943.2011.590346
Cronin, B. (1984) The Citatation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in
Scientific Communication. London, Taylor Graham.
Curt, B. C. (1994). Textuality and Tectonics:Troubling social and psychological
science. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Ding, A. (2009). Tensions and Struggles in Fostering Collaborative Teacher
Autonomy Online. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 65-81.
doi:10.1080/17501220802655490
Dogani, K. (2008). Using Reflection as a Tool for Training Generalist Teachers to
Teach Music. Music Education Research, 10(1), 125-139.
doi:10.1080/14613800701871595
Dome, N., Prado-Olmos, P., Ulanoff, S. H., Garcia Ramos, R. G., Vega-Casteneda,
L., & Quicho, A. M. (2005). "I Don't Like Not Knowing How the World
Works":Examining Pre-service Teachers Narrative Reflections. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 63-83.
Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher Reflection in a Hall of Mirrors: Historical Influences and
Political Reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16-25.
doi:10.3102/0013189X032003016
Foucault, M. (1979/1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller,
The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, (pp. 87-104). University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Frost, C.O. (1979). The Use of Citations in Literary Research: A preliminary
Classification of Citation Functions. Library Quarterly, 49(4), 399-414.
Garfield, E. (1979) Citation Indexing-Its Theory and Applicationin Science,
Technology, and Humanities. New York, NY, John Wiley.
Gilbert, G.N. (1977). Referencing as Persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7, 113122.
Gore, J.M. (1987) Reflecting on Reflective Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
38(2), 33-39. doi: 10.1177/002248718703800208
Hallman, H. L. (2011). Shifting Genres: A Dialogic Approach to Reflective Practice
in Teacher Education. Reflective Practice, 12(4), 533-545.
doi:10.1080/14623943.2011.590343
Harwood, N. (2009). An Interview-based Study of the Functions of Citations in
Academic Writing across Two Disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 497518. Doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001
15
Document1
Hechter, R. P., & McGregor, L. D. (2008). A Confucian Framework for Categorizing
Elementary Pre-service Teachers' Expectations of their Science Methods
Course. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 17-28.
Husu, J., Toom, A., & Patrikainen, S. (2008). Guided Reflection as a Means to
Demonstrate and Develop Student Teachers' Reflective Competencies.
Reflective Practice, 9(1), 37-51. doi:10.1080/14623940701816642
McNay, M., & Graham, R. (2007). Can Cooperating Teachers Help Student Teachers
Develop a Vision of Education? The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 224-236.
doi:10.1080.08878730709555404
Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A., & Jones, D. (2008). Experience and Reflection:
Pre-service Tcience teachers' Capacity for Teaching Inquiry. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 19, 477-494. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9104-9
Miller, M. G., Nicholas, E. L., & Lambeth, M. L. (2008). Pre-service Teachers'
Critical Reflections of Arts and Education Discourse: Reconstructions of
Experiences in Early Childhood and Higher Education. Contemporary Issues
in Early Childhood, 9(4), 354-364. doi:10.2304/ciec.2008.9.4.354
Oxford University Press (1998). The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Phillips, D. K., & Carr, K. (2007). Illustrations of the Analytic Memo as Reflexivity
for Pre-service Teachers. Education Action Research, 15(4), 561-575.
doi:10.1080/09650790701664005
Philips, D. K., & Carr, K. (2009). Dilemmas of Trustworthiness in Pre-service
Teacher Action Research. Action Research, 7, 207-226.
doi:10.1177/1476750308097027
Poulou, M. (2007). Student-teachers' Concerns about Teaching Practice. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 91-110. doi:10.1002/sce.20207
Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008).
Noticing Noticing: How Does Investigation of Video Records Change How
Teachers Reflect on their Experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59,
347-360. doi:10.1177/0022487108322128
Ross, J. (2011). Traces of Self: Online Reflective Practices and Performances in
Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 113-126.
doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.530753
Russell, T. (2005). Can Reflective Practice be Taught? Reflective Practice, 6(1), 199204. doi:10.1080/14623940500105833
Segall, A., & Gaudelli, W. (2007). Reflecting Socially on Social Issues in a Social
Studies Methods Course. Teaching Education, 18(1), 77-92.
doi:10.1080/10476210601151599
Seifert, K. (2004). Learning To Feel Like a Teacher. Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy(32), 1-25. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1993/3043
Shadish, W.R., Tolliver, D., Gray, M. and SenGupta, S.K. (1995). Author Judgements
about Works They Cite: Three Studies from Psychology Journals. Social
Studies of Science, 25, 477-498.
Small, H. (1982) Citation Context Analysis. In B.J. Dervin and M.J. Voight (Eds.)
Progress in Communication Sciences, Volume III, (pp. 287-310), Ablex
Publishing, Norwood, NJ.
Strand, K. (2006). Learning to Inquire: Teacher research in undergraduate teacher
training. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29-42.
16
Document1
Wang. P. and White, M.D. (1999). A Cognitive Model of Document Use During a
Research Project. Study II. Document Selection. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 50, 98-114.
White, H.D. (2004). Citation Analysis and Discourse Analysis Revisited. Applied
Linguistics, 25(1), 89-116.
Yesilbursa, A. (2011). Reflection at the Interface of Theory and Practice: An Analysis
of Pre-service English Language Teachers' Written Reflections. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 104-116. Retrieved from
http;//ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss3/6
Zeichner, K. (1996). Teachers as Reflective Practitioners and the Democratization of
School Reform. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez, Currents of
Reform in Pre-service Teacher Education (pp. 104-214). Teachers College
Press. New York, NY.
Zemblyas, M. (2006). Work-based Learning, Power and Subjectivity: Creating Space
for a Foucauldian Research Ethic. Journal of Education and Work, 19(3), 291303. doi:10.1080/13639080600776847
Zemblyas, M., Espinet, M., Milne, M., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). Understanding
Teacher Change in Terms of Agency/Structure. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 1, 353-366. doi:10.1007/s11422-006-9012-2
Word Total (including author details) - 7833
17