DRAFT FOR COMMENT presented at IPDA 2014
Listening to old wives tales: small stories as the stuff of professional
learning
Corresponding author: Alex Kendall, Birmingham City University
Alex.Kendall@bcu.ac.uk
Authors: Melanie Gibson, Clare Himsworth, Kirsty Palmer, Helen Perkins
Abstract
In this paper we share the outcomes of an HEA funded project to take up
Nutbrown’s challenge to “push out from the safe(er) boundaries of established
methodologies” (2011:241) in Early Years research to explore the value of autoethnography and the telling of small stories, what Lyotard calls ‘petit récit’ (Lyotard,
1979), to the processes of doing and learning about research in the context of
professional learning in the Early Years. We offer a rationale for the use of creative
methods in professional learning and describe the process of working with identity
boxes and symbolic objects, to produce a collection of auto-ethnographic narratives,
the old wives tales of the title, through which to explore practitioners’ experiences
of professional identity formation. We go on to consider the opportunities these
methods, which facilitate a dual identity of researcher and participant, offer for
reflexive learning about practitioner positionality within the knowledge-making
practices of Early Years professional education. Towards a conclusion we reflect
upon and theorise about, the meanings that participant-researchers make about
their career trajectories and make the case for auto-ethnography and paraethnography as useful pedagogic modalities for dynamic and reflexive professional
learning in the Early Years specifically and the professions more widely. We mobilise
Patti Lather’s notion of methodological proliferation to re-think professionalism as a
wild profusion of possibilities.
November 27th 2013
1
Introduction
This paper represents an attempt to re-think the work of professional education and
the becoming professional in ways that seek to trouble discursive constructions of
early years work and early years workers and ‘constitute friction in the molar
machine’ (Massumi: 1992:06) of conventional, policy dominated curricula, what we
might call after Deleuze striated spaces territorialised by state apparatus. We discuss
work undertaken for an HEA funded project through which we sought to take up
Nutbrown’s challenge to “push out from the safe(er) boundaries of established
methodologies” (2011:241) in Early Years research.
The project, which brought together colleagues from a higher education institution
and a further education institution in the Midlands of England to work with students
on a Foundation Degree (FdA) programme, sought to achieve a number of
concurrent and entangled intentions: to enable undergraduate students studying in
an HE in FE setting to play with research approaches/methods that move beyond the
orthodox qualitative paradigms that tend to characterise undergraduate research
programmes in the social sciences and push out instead towards (or as the Deleuze
would have it would have it ‘plug in’ to the) ‘post’ ontologies/methodologies; to
engage students simultaneously in a piece of ‘real’ collaborative research about
becoming a degree level Early Years Practitioner and in so doing to (re)position them
newly in relation to the epistemologies of their field of study, Early Years Education
(EYE).
Here we share the project and its context, a description of an assemblage of
“empirical material” (after St Pierre, 2013) about becomings that we amassed
(noticed, read, made, collected, curated) and our readings and re-readings of our
material through the competing lenses of established frames in the literature. How,
we wondered, did our material talk back to a literature within which the voices of
early years workers as ‘participants’ are, as St Pierre would have it (2013) often
“represented on a golden platter for readers” and largely absent from any
interpretive frame. In addition to resisting the traditional orthodoxies of voice that
November 27th 2013
2
imply a centred human(ist) subject we challenge what MaClure calls the “panoptic
immunity” of the researcher as “liberal subject who is entitled to interrogate and
dissect the lives and business of others while preserving the privacy, intactness and
autonomy of his (or her) own ‘secret self’ (Miller 1988:162)” (MaClure 2013:168).
We go on to argue that the discussions of the positionality of early years teacher as
embodied subjects inhabiting striated spaces of class, gender and labour markets
that dominate the literature serve to fix, contain and bind our understanding
through the kind of arborescent logic that Deleuze and Guattari describe (2010). We
make the case instead for rhizomic narrativisations that take up the threads of little
stories, something like Lyotard’s ‘petits ecrits’ perhaps, of becoming an early years
worker. In doing so we pay attention to the “entanglements of language, matter,
words and things” (Maclure 2013:171) and move towards altogether different ways
of thinking that open up new possibilities for professional education as a space
where epistemologies and ontologies are made rather than learned. Towards a
conclusion we make the case for professional education as an assemblage, a
“process of making and unmaking” (Jackson and Mazzei 2013:3) within which the
material as well as the discursive are implicated. This demands, we suggest, new
pedagogies, pedagogies of profusion perhaps, akin to Lather’s methodological call,
(2006) that enable disruption of legitimate, or what Deleuze and Guattari might call
molar, forms of professional knowledge and facilitate instead the plugging in of
alternative theoretical perspectives to think through with theory (Jackson and
Mazzei, 2013) the dilemmas of the professional field. Towards concluding we argue
that professional education must deny the ‘nowhere’ of the neophyte practitioner in
relation to context and facilitate recognition and exploration of an always already
entanglement with the professional field.
Project overview
The project that ignited this work was funded by the HEA Research Methods in the
Social Sciences funding call and brought together teachers from social science
disciplines at a modern university in the Midlands and a large general further
education college in the West Midands to create a reflexive research methods
curriculum using innovative and creative research processes as a dynamic medium
November 27th 2013
3
for teaching research methods. The project team was keen to recontextualise
strategies that one team member had put to work on postgraduate and professional
doctorate (EdD) programmes to stimulate thinking in the post-structuralist frame, on
the basis that undergraduate research in the ‘soft’ social sciences tends to be
informed by more orthodox qualitative approaches that have their origins in a
humanist, structuralist position.
Designed specifically to support education practitioners (across the phases) who are
new to research the approach draws on auto-ethnographic, investigative approaches
to pedagogy developed by project team members (Bennett, Kendall & McDougall
2012). This approach engages the student in a reflexive approach to data production,
including visual and sensory approaches after Pink (2007, 2009), analysis and
presentation activities to position themselves epistemologically and ontologically in
relation to their field of study. This means that students learn through doing, rather
than simply learning about research methods as a set of abstracted concepts. As
such learning is embodied, experiential and entangled and the often nearest to hand
metaphors of the detached, objective researcher, Usher and Scott’s (1996) ‘Naïve
Postivist’, operating within a value-free social science problematised.
This approach facilitates easy access to ‘primary data’, or what we might want to call
in resistance to the scientific, ‘empirical material’ (after St Pierre, 2013), for novice
researchers since the focus of enquiry is their own entanglement, and that of their
peers and tutors, within the field of study. This then opens opportunities for tutors
and students to co-construct and experiment with meanings around identities,
purpose and processes. As such it has the potential to explore concepts of ‘self’ and
others through collaborative learning that enhances social and cultural
understanding. Research skills, such as writing development are organically
embedded in the process as the production of early personal narratives liberates
new researchers from impersonal, academic forms of writing (Nash, 2004) enabling
them to build confidence as they, reflexively, explore conceptualisation of academic
voice. Through an on-going process of reflection and refinement this approach helps
students and tutors expand their understanding of qualitative research, using visual
November 27th 2013
4
and textual methods in a way that is practical, accessible, creative and innovative. At
the same time through the on-going sharing of the texts, artefacts and writings they
produce students are constructed/construct themselves as novice researchers
through their interaction with the complex processes and dynamics of peer review in
the social sciences.
Plugging-in
We worked with a group students in the final year, of an FdA in Early Childhood
Studies (ECS). Foundation Degrees are two year vocationally orientated
programmes introduced in the United Kingdom in 2000. FdAs in ECS formed an
important part of the former New Labour government’s strategy for workforce
development and the ‘responsiveness’ of higher education institutions to the needs
of early years employees and employers. Though universities develop and deliver
FdAs, often with further education college partners, these qualifications are
increasingly subject to regulatory standards owned by and implemented through a
government funded quango, the Children’s Workforce Development Council
(CWDC).
Two of us, Alex and Helen, collaborated to develop a two-week programme, mapped
in to the Research Methods module students were following on their FdA, designed
to plug the group in to new ways of thinking, doing and being with research. We
introduced the idea that learning about research would be experiential and
structured around a piece of collaborative research about becoming an early years
practitioner. We explored the idea of turning research in on ‘ourselves’ as
students/subjects always already entangled in practice and ‘becoming’ and autoethnography as a strategy for the production of empirical material.
A qualification of how we want auto-ethnography to mean in this context is
important here. We turn in on itself the criticism from writers like Delamont (2007)
that auto-ethnography is too experiential, cannot fight familiarity, and that it focuses
on the wrong side of the power divide (2007: 3) and instead positively embrace
these characteristics as driving motivations for putting it to work. Auto-ethnography
November 27th 2013
5
here is mobilised as an act of subjective story-telling through which the student
constructs an autobiographical personal narrative – ‘a petit récit ’. This narrative is
not understood to be ‘truthful’ in any totalising sense but is of interest because it
represents a temporary projection or moment of textualised identity. Taking poststructuralist notions of ‘self’ as a starting point where ‘self identity is bound up with
a capacity to keep a particular narrative going’ (Gauntlett, 1991: 54) these narratives
articulate the expressed trajectories of ‘individual identities’ in relation to the
possible textual field. What is important here is not the realities or truth of
experience or action but the process, the selection and mobilisation of particular
discursive positions to do particular sorts of identity work.
Through our discussion of auto-ethnography we opened up and expanded
definitions of what might be ‘counted’ as data and the curatorial, productive role of
the researcher as an agent of, rather than conduit or receptacle for, meaning making
and taking. We would we suggested: make objects; tell stories; listen to stories;
discuss our object and story making; curate and share symbolic objects; take pictures
and audio recordings; and discuss our thoughts and feelings uninhibited by research
conventions, interviews, structure or systematisation, along the way. We would
‘count’ all of this as empirical material offering ways in to grappling with our own
entanglement.
We read Nutbrown’s (2012) A Box of Childhood: small stories at the roots of a career
and explored the work of a range of academics and practitioners that plays selfconsciously/reflexively with issues of identity and representation: Kelly ClarkeKeefe’s on visual arts, poetics and subjectivities (2008); David Gauntlett’s (2006)
work on the use of ‘identity boxes’; Bonnie Soroke’s (2004) ‘zipper’ workshops; and
Kendall’s work (Bennett et al 2011) on the use of artefacts in professional education.
We then held two workshop sessions. In the first the group produced and shared
identity boxes to explore their trajectory towards the FdA programme and becoming
an academic.
November 27th 2013
6
This was followed by face-to-face discussion about conceptualising and doing
research and being researched which was followed up by further discussion on the
(pre-existing) group blog. In the second workshop students chose symbolic objects
around/through which to assemble their own stories of/about becoming a
practitioner.
Again this was followed by face-to-face reflection and discussion and a consideration
of how these methods could be put to work in the project proposals they were
producing for their module assessment and the projects they would go on to do in
the BA ‘top up’ most were going on to complete.
The final ‘writing about stage’ of the project was voluntary and an open invitation
was issued to students and teachers to come together to ‘plug-in’ theory to the
amassed empirical material. We want our ‘writing about’ to run counter to notions
of ‘writing up’ and to be homologous with the theoretical milieu from which the
project was imagined, that is to say we hope it is exploratory rather than
November 27th 2013
7
representational. We contest the conventions of ‘writing up’, the ‘the static writing
model’ criticised by Richardson 2001:924). Richardson locates this model within a
viridicular truth discourse; ‘given to science [in the 19th century] was the belief that
its words were objective, precise, unambiguous, noncontextual, and nonmetaphoric’
(ibid. 924/5). Within this model writing is not only conceived but practised in very
particular ways ‘I was taught, however, as you were too, not to write until I knew
what I wanted to say, until my points were organised and outlined’ (ibid. 924). She
goes on to argue:
No surprise that this static writing model coheres with mechanistic scientism
and quantitative research. I will argue that the static writing model is itself a
socio-historical invention that reifies the static world imagined by our 19thcentury foreparents…. The model has serious problems: it ignores the role of
writing as a dynamic, creative process; it undermines the confidence of
beginning qualitative researchers because their experience of research is
inconsistent with this writing model; and it contributes to the flotilla of
qualitative writing that is simply not interesting to read because adherence to
the model requires writers to silence their own voices and to view themselves
as contaminants. Social scientific writing, like all other forms of writing, is a
sociohistorical construction, and, therefore, mutable…(ibid. 924)
Rather a description is a ‘gloss’, “a typification of the presumed meaning of such
events” (Stanley 1993:214). Such understandings conceive a ‘crisis of representation’
(Beach 2001) in which ‘writing about’ is necessarily and inevitably a complex,
arbitrary, subjective, and partial, practice that works not to describe the ‘real’ but
rather to “police, produce, and constitute a field” (Lather 1999: 5) in these terms we
recognise that writing about research is “not representing the world but writing it”
(Usher, 1997:33) and researchers are, like literary writers, “world-makers” (ibid.
p35). We approach our writing very much as othered to this account of scientific
representational writing, using our writing and thinking with writing as an
opportunity to find ways in to our empirical material that affect us. We write instead
like Richardson “I write because I want to find out. I write in order to learn
November 27th 2013
8
something that I did not know before I wrote it” (ibid. 924).
We borrow Jackson and Mazzei’s (2012) reading of Deleuze and Guattari’s (2000)
notion of ‘plugging in’ to think through a self-conscious attention to working with/in
theory. In A Thousand Plateaus Delueze and Guattari (2000) write “when one writes,
the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be plugged into,
must be plugged into in order to work” (2000, 4). Jackson and Mazzei mobilise this
notion of plugging-in “as a process rather than a concept” (2012: 1) a putting to work
to produce something new. Foucault urges us to use his ideas like
…little tool boxes. If people want to open them, or to use this sentence or
that idea as a screwdriver or spanner to short-circuit, discredit or smash
systems of power, including eventually those from which my books have
emerged…so much the better (Foucault (1975) interview with Roger pol Driot
in M. Morris and P. Patton Michele Foucault: Power Truth Strategy).
Similarly Massumi recognises a similar invitation from Deleuze and Guattari to “lift a
dynamism” (Massumi, 1992:8) out of their work and put their concepts to work as a
‘tool box’ so as to “pack a potential in the way a crowbar in a willing hand envelops
an energy of prying” (ibid). In what follows we plug in ideas from a number of
theorists in ways that have enabled us to grapple with our own entanglement and to
problematise and re-think the processes of professional education. We seek not
resolution in our promiscuous play with theory but revolution (Massumi: 1992:8).
On pronouns – the ‘we’ and ‘us’ and the ‘we and the ‘us’ that write
The ‘we’ and the ‘us’ of this paper is multiple and various and ‘we’ ‘each’ are bound
and committed to its content in various and perhaps competing ways. It is possible
that it is not a ‘truth’ or ‘truthful’ for any or all of us and we don’t force it to become
this, instead it is something like a composite representation of our conversation,
something like a bricolage an assemblage perhaps? ‘We’, purposely and selfconsciously have not made distinctions between the ‘us’ of writing and the ‘us’ of
November 27th 2013
9
telling, producing, making and resisting the bounded notion of five discrete authors
as the point of origin of this paper. Instead we write in/to the flow of our – we, us,
them – entanglement with the field of study.
…the ‘self’ that writes this is neither the constant rationalist nor the
presenter of a totalising narrative. (Rhedding-Jones, 1997: 197)
one must take responsibility for inventing or producing one’s own self
(Foucault 1984: 39)
Who are we as a group of writers? There is self-consciously no ‘I’ in this paper. Like
Jackson we refuse a “ narrative ‘I’ – or the molar ‘I’ – that is expected to give a full
representation for the listener to easily consume and comprehend; the narrative or
molar ‘I’ tricks readers into thinking that they have the full picture.” (Jackson,
2010:584). We recognise Foucault’s notion of the author functioning as an
“ideological product: the functional principle by which in our culture one limits,
excludes, and chooses; in short, by which one impedes the free circulation, the free
manipulation, the free composition, decomposition, and recomposition…In fact, we
are accustomed to presenting the author as a genius, as a perpetual sign of
invention” (Foucault, 1991: 119). We are ‘we’ in the multiple, plural and duplicitous
sense, “…each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd” (Deleuze and
Guattari: 2000:3), perhaps what Jackson calls a ‘becoming-I’ (Jackson 2010). We
keep our names as Deleuze and Guattari do, “out of habit, purely out of habit. To
make ourselves unrecog-nizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but
what makes us act, feel, and think. Also because it's nice to talk like everybody else,
to say the sun rises, when everybody knows it's only a manner of speaking” (2000:3).
We use the academic convention of positioning ourselves alphabetically
knowingly/with intent/affectively and metaphorically to flatten out our relations
with production and to draw attention instead to our conversation as a dynamic,
productive place/space charged with our collective grappling as we folded in and
out. Folding (need to say more here on folding and flattening from Jackson and
Mazzei)
November 27th 2013
10
We are purposeful in our choice of folding and flattening to describe our
methodological practice that rejects the intepretivist stance and that
embraces the mutually constitutive nature of which Barad writes. The ‘intraaction’ that characterized our process was made of re-considering the mutual
constitution of meaning as happening between researcher/researched;
data/theory; and inside/outside. The data and theory are folded into one
another whereby this process results in a ‘new inside/outside’ (2012:11)
We introduce ourselves in a ‘manner of speaking’ only and resist the notion that our
backstories provide a beginning or starting point for our analysis (Jackson and
Mazzei, 2012). Clare and Melanie were students in the group but have dual roles in
the college as a lecturer and assessor respectively working on National Qualifications
Framework level 3 courses. Both also have experience in practice-based settings.
Kirsty graduated from an ESC degree a year ago and is a newly qualified teacher of
the FdA. Helen is Head of Early Years Education (EYE) at the college within which the
work took place, is studying towards a Doctorate in Education and has a background
as a practitioner. Alex is a university professor with a background in teacher
education and practice experience in further education. In our diffused/varied ways
we are all always already entangled with the field of professional education, none of
us ‘more’ or ‘less’ but simply in difference, as St Pierre contends “we are none of us
nowhere, there is no nowhere, you are always already somewhere and your job is to
figure out where to go.” (St Pierre, 2013b). This paper shares something of that
figuring out toward St Pierre’s challenge to “forget and refuse” to create new
descriptions and “new concepts in our conversations” (2013a).
Likewise it’s important to make clear that this piece may or may not function as a
resolved narrative for each or any of us.
November 27th 2013
11
Poking Around
We make use of Jackson and Mazzei’s (2012) notion of “poking around in the
literature” to resist grandiose, totalising and reductive accounts of the work of the
‘literature review’ as impartial and systematic. In structuralist approaches to
research training students are encouraged to think about a variety of things: how to
‘search’ for literature; how to record and reflect upon findings; how to take a critical
approach to the work read; and how to ensure that sourced work and ideas are
referenced accurately and appropriately. What they are generally not taught is how
the ‘discourse’ of the literature review operates. That is to say the ways in which a
literature review is seen to ‘authorise’ the arguments and ideas which it
contextualises and to which it plays ‘host’. The literature review is used as a
mechanism for imparting ‘authority’ and ‘validity’ and its partiality is always
unspoken and un-explored. Whilst it seeks to stand in for/capture the ‘real’ or truth
of ‘the field’ instead it “police[s], produce[s], and constitute[s] a field” (Lather 1999:
5). Here then we use ‘poking around’ to draw attention to the always, already
partiality of ‘reviewing the literature’. Instead we engage with literature as part of
our assemblage of empirical material and bring together a discussion of the ‘hot
spots’ (Maclure 2013: 172) in our readings. That is to say moments of recognition,
“movement, singularity, emergence” (ibid 171) “gut feelings [that] point to the
existence of embodied connections with other people, things and thoughts.” (ibid:
172).
Territorialisation of Early Years Work
In our previous work (Kendall et al 2012) we have talked back to Osgood’s (Osgood
2006:4) question about recent workforce reform in the EYE sector “What does
'professionalism’ for this occupational group mean?” Here our conversation takes a
new turn. Here we want to think through these attempts to newly inscribe versions
of legitimate professional knowledge as examples of what Deleuze and Guattari
might call ‘territorialisation’ of the field of EYE by a state apparatus. By
territorialisation we mean the ‘capturing’ of territory to form striated space and
November 27th 2013
12
“fixed, recognizable meaning” (Jackson & Mazzei: 2012: 12). We explore this in
relation to making of knowledge and making of subjects, that is to say the knowing
about of early years work and the being of early years workers.
Knowing About
In previous work (Kendall et al 2012) we have plugged in Bourdieu’s ideas of
reproduction and distinction to explore the dominant discourses underpinning the
recent history of professionalisation in England. We described discourse
characterised by a commitment to skills, techniques, measurability, outcomes,
standards and certification through qualifications converging at the site of a
competent and rational humanist subject – the (in most cases female) early years
worker. We were drawn to Urban’s (2009) recognition of this version of
professionalism as a new paradigm within which professionals must be re-known, reshaped and disciplined and through which 'a maze of regulation, accountability,
universality and technocratic measurability' are legitimated in the name of 'quality'.
We noted, both in our own work and that of others, that similar arguments have
been made about the renegotiation of professional identities through the imposition
of cultures of instrumentalism (see for example Ball, 2003) in other sectors of
education (McDougall et al, 2006, Kendall & Herrington, 2009) or what Ball (2003)
calls the 'terrors of performativity'. Citing Apple (2004) Moss (2010) argues that this
is an outcome of a ‘new hegemonic bloc’ “of neo-liberals and neo-conservatives…the
former emphasising the relationship between education and the market, the latter
agreeing with the…emphasis on the economy but seeking stronger control over
knowledge, morals and values through curricula, testing and other means” (Moss
2010: 12).
For the purposes of our previous paper we emphasised a separation of newly known
‘professional’ forms of knowledge production, distribution and application, through
which the ‘new professional expert’ who embodies and reproduces (Moss, 2010: 15)
scientific knowledge to produce evidence-based or 'right' (good/best) practice
comes to be known (Urban, 2009) and distinguishable from the profane ‘yet to be
November 27th 2013
13
professionalised’ practitioner and their (un-legitimised) everyday knowledge which
might be re-cast as unskilled, non-professional and in the domain of the vernacular.
In Distinction Bourdieu (1986) understands this process of legitimising and
delegitimising or othering particular forms of knowledge as a process of
consecration. For Bourdieu the systems and practices of formal education and its
institutions are instrumental in this process as “the educational system defines noncurricular culture (la culture ‘libre’), negatively at least, by delimiting, within
dominant culture, the area of what it puts into its syllabuses and controls by its
examinations,” (Bourdieu 2002:23) and through the technologies of curricula, Marx,
for example, argues of the examination that it “is nothing but the bureaucratic
baptism of knowledge, the official recognition of the transubstantiation of profane
knowledge into sacred knowledge” (Marx, K. cited in Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990:
92). In the modern context of professional education, and specifically the ‘reeducation’ of early years professionals (it is important to note here that the generic
label early years professional has been appropriated to name the new authorised
status of Early Years Professional or ‘EYP’) , the education system might be
understood more broadly to encompass the full range of agents acting on the
domain of professional learning such as sector skills councils (CWDC) and
qualification regulators such as FdF. Thus through Bourdieu’s lens we might interpret
recent policy-making in relation to early years professional education as key
movements in the ‘consecration’ of new knowledge regimes within this knowledge
field.
Urban (2009) argues that the system of professionalisation is constructed to create
an order of scarce resources, knowledge and skill that is presented as being general
but which is the manifestation of a particular and specific discourse. Drawing on
Foucault's notion of discourse as systematically constructing the forms and objects
of which it speaks, Urban understands this strategy as a way of asserting control
over individual behaviour towards making distinctions between forms of knowledge,
those who speak and those who are talked about, as well as where this talk happens
and the forms it takes. Thus knowledge construction belongs to the domain of
November 27th 2013
14
course designers, regulators and awarding bodies (for example those listed above)
and is ‘transferred’ to those who must put it into practice (a skilled workforce)
through programmes of vocational education. In the UK a range of structural
technologies serve to enforce and reinforce such understandings such as FdF
programme endorsements, Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) quality
gradings and workforce data returns at both local and national levels.
We suggested that logically extended this argument would imply that the ‘new
subjects/professionals’ would be doubly bound (internal and external regulation) to
index their professional identity to new knowledge relations, the “prevailing habitus
of Early Childhood Education” (Urban, 2008:135) and in so doing re-know, be reknown and re-value (and de-value?) their pre-existing understandings of their own
practice and in turn their sense of their professional worth, status and identities.
‘Being’ an early years worker
Our recent readings of the literature suggest that the subjects of early years practice,
Early Years Students and Teachers (EYTs), represent a site of significant contestation
around which ideas about class, gender and agency are played out through
competing notions of the Early Years subject - particular kinds of subjects doing
particular kinds of activities.
Colley et al recognise this attunement to the ‘prevailing habitus’ discussed above as
‘vocational habitus’ (2003:489) by which they mean an active and agentive process
of orientation towards the dominant identities of the workplace. They describe by
way of example a habitus of ‘loving care’ to which students EYTs must orientate
themselves in both idealised and realised ways, “without aspiring to the idealized
habitus, students might become too harsh and the student may become
‘unsuitable’. Without the tempering effects of the realized habitus, students might
be overwhelmed by the emotional demands of the work.” (2003: 489). Rejection of
or resistance to the vocational habitus is likely, they suggest, to result in exclusion.
Vocational habitus, they continue, “does encourage ‘a reflexive project of the self’
November 27th 2013
15
but…this project is often tightly bounded, both in relation to one’s existing habitus
and in accordance with a disciplinary discourse about the self one has to become.
The process of learning as becoming is one that is actively constructed by students,
but the possibilities are not boundless for most young people in VET [vocational
education and training]” (2003: 492). Elsewhere Colley contends that vocational
habitus in the early years is infused with a commitment to motherly love arguing
that in such conditions the education of early years workers is an act of “symbolic
violence…likely to continue as long as capitalist edubusiness has an interest in
making profits by offering motherly love for sale in the nursery”(2006:6). Skeggs has
argued that “the institutional organisation of the caring curriculum provides
frameworks, hierarchies and subject positions which bear specific ideological and
cultural meanings associated with femininity and household structures” (Skeggs,
1988:132) and that as a consequence take up of courses leading to caring
occupations such as early years work, is most likely to be by women. In her own
work Skeggs observed that many women “had previous experience of caring, either
through their own families, similar courses at school or through paid caring such as
babysitting...[and]...therefore feel caring is something they are capable of” (Skeggs
1988:138). Osgood (2005) suggests that a combination of this sort of notion of workof-the-home with a National Childcare strategy designed to enable women to reenter the labour market works to position childcare as “not ‘real’ work but a
mechanism to enable others to participate in careers that are afforded status,
prestige and relative wealth” (ibid, 290). This dimension to childcare work is, she
argues, largely absent from public debates.
However Osgood refuses to accede to the oppression of structuration, the
regulatory gaze, and draws on Francis’ (2001, cited in Osgood 2006) notion of ‘new
agency’, which “incorporates both deterministic structural arguments and human
agency” (ibid, 10) and contends that we are not only positioned within structures
that are beyond our control but also simultaneously positioning ourselves and
others. This complex dialectic, Osgood suggests, opens up space for alternative ways
of understanding identity construction within the context of an increasingly highlyregularised working context. Drawing on Judith Butler’s (1990) notion of identity and
November 27th 2013
16
performance to describe a more active, agentive professionalism that is
performatively constructed. This reading allows her to recognize a mobile, strategic
ambitious and confident EYT who mobilises EY work advantageously to achieve
particular personal, social, economic and cultural functions. She notices “the selfassured and wise ECEC professional who challenges the status quo…can muddy the
water and offer the chance of a reconfigured professional identity and counterdiscourse” (2006:12). Osgood’s analysis opens up the opportunity to imagine the
subversive worker able to confront and resist “prevailing and dominant
understandings of professionalism” (2006:14) towards a “transformative agency”
(ibid) that might imagine new possibilities for the being and doing of early years
work.
What emerged for us from our reading is the significance of the dialectic of structure
and agency to interpretations of early years workers’ experience, the constant push
and pull against which childcare becomes both “a site of agency and a site of
boundaries” for workers (Vincent and Braun 2010). What was obscured for us was
the entanglement of the writers in the being and doing of their work. Whilst we
glimpsed momentary surfacings of researchers “secret selves”
I related to the students in the classroom as a teacher, and in the nightclubs,
pubs, sports centres and homes, eventually as a friend. Sometimes I
participated, often I observed. Many interviews, individual and group, open
and closed were used. More often than not general conversations raised
interesting points. (Skeggs DATE: 133)
These material ‘I’s that wrote, interacted, saw, felt and noticed, were rapidly
obfuscated by the illusory yet seductive appeal of the systematic and scientific:
“indefinite triangulation” fixed the meaning tight and the authority of “the study”
replaced the fluidity of I.
In this respect empirical analysis provided the means for firstly, capturing the
structural and cultural phenomena at the level of everydayness (Apple,
November 27th 2013
17
1982); secondly, by researching the students within a college, the study was
able to analyse the structure and dynamics of the institutional parameters of
FE; (Skeggs Date: 133)
Resisting coding – feeling for hotspots in our material
Our empirical material yielded easily, passively even, to the dominant codes that
emerged through our reading. Over a lovely dinner at our writing retreat we were
able to count examples of, to us by now familiar (Kendall et al 2012), narratives of
mothers and grandmothers re-tracing the patterns drawn by Skeggs of moving
tentatively from private, un-paid caring responsibilities in to the casualised but more
formal context of ‘third sector’ voluntary work and finally in to the public sphere of
care as paid work. We were able to interpret the role of different actors, agents and
networks, personal, social and educational, that played in to our journeys of
‘becoming’, in Colley’s (2003), sense professional. And we recognised the familiar
contours of the structural barriers that seemed to frustrate or play against
aspiration, commitment and ambition – metaphors of physical barriers, walls,
staircases and caves standing in for institutions, classed and gendered positionings
and the intricacies and contingencies of everyday life, relationships and experience.
We were cheered by ladders, ropes and parachutes that we interpreted as
expressions of determination, movement and mobility facilitating moves between,
beyond and through, and forcing new perspectives on and new relations with people
November 27th 2013
18
and points of departure. We suggested at subjects and identities in transition, on the
move, in flux and told stories of progression, transformation and realisation of goals,
a playing out of the kind of dialectics discussed above; we were both positioned and
positioning at the site of early years work.
Maclure warns us however to be suspicious of coding. Coding, she reminds us
(2013:167) can offend on a number of accounts
“it positions the analyst at arms length…encouraging illusions of interpretive
dominion over an enclosed field, and making” 167
“researchers code; others get coded” 168
“coding assumes and imposes, an ‘arborescent’ or tree-like logic of
hierarchical, fixed relations among discrete entities…even it if it is not
displayed in the form of a tree diagram” it creates a grammar that “ always
pre-exists the phenomena under investigation” 167
She urges us instead to resist the “disciplinary rage for meaning” (ibid 170), to be
more open-ended and tentative in our sense-making and to heighten our
sensitivities towards ‘hot-spots’ in our data. “In place of the cerebral comforts of
ideas and concepts, or as well as these, we could acknowledge those uncomfortable
affects that swarm among our supposedly rational arguments, moments of nausea,
complacency, disgust, embarrassment, guilt, fear and fascination and threaten to
undo our certainty and self-certainty by, again, allowing bodily intensities to surge
up into thought and decision making” (172). These “gut feelings” she goes on “point
to the existence of embodied connections with other people, things and thoughts,
that are far more complex than the static connections of coding”. (ibid)
Here we want to describe and draw on two “hot-spots” in our material and how they
startled our thinking about professional education for EYTs.
The first was acknowledgement of our very visceral response to our own
entanglement in research processes. We no longer saw research as a “surface”
November 27th 2013
19
activity and described new sensitivities towards ‘the researched’, expressed by one
of us as “honour” and “respect”, that prompted a new disquiet about our own
positionality within the reading we’d done . We were in the words of one of our
colleagues “humbled” by listening to the sometimes “very intimate stories” of others
and interested in the differences as well as similarities in the stories we told. We
shared “phases of emotions” in our stories, visualised shades of light, dark and
colour in our own stories and noticed them in the stories of others. We were part
perplexed part stimulated by how “making and doing enabled stories to be shared
without just words”. We paused at length to consider the differences in telling
stories ‘cold’ through identity boxes, we’d come to this activity without advance
warning other than ‘bring a box’ to the session, and what we perceived as the more
measured, considered, rehearsed stories we told through the objects we’d selected
and charged as we made them with our projected meanings and those pressed and
infused by others. We wondered about the different kinds of performances we were
giving and the different reactions and responses (annoyance v honouring, respect v
mistrust) we had to them. For us, the physical, embodied, material experience of
telling our stories and listening to our stories opened up an important hot-spot, a
point of wonder in our material.
The second hot spot in our material was the description by one of us of what it felt
like to read Nutbrown’s A Box of Childhood. She’d read, enjoyed and felt she’d “got
it” but had begun to mistrust it’s worth and value because of its perceived
accessibility “if you read something hard you feel you’re reading something
academic…this felt less academic because it was easier to read”. It seemed like a
number of ideas were at play here about relationality, positionality but also about
the grappling nature of ‘becoming’ (again in Colley’s 2003 sense).
These hotspots marked points of departure in our conversation points at which we
wondered not what does academic professional education mean but what does it
do. How does it work with a sense of the rational/irrational and how does it make us
‘know’ and ‘feel’? What kind of ‘human’ subject (Briadotti REF) does it make of us?
We began to wonder how do contemporary discussions about EYTs – the what ‘they’
November 27th 2013
20
do, what ‘they’ know, how ‘they’ mean, that we have noticed in the literature – help
work, paradoxically in our view, the insulation in Bernstein’s (REF) sense, or perhaps
the refrain after Deleuze (REF), of reductive forms of professional education that
position EYTs as subjects caught up in a binary dialectic, exercising power or not.
What, we asked, if instead professional education stopped listening to conversations
and instead was constituted and constituting of conversation? A conversation that
we might imagine moving us beyond the dialectic of structure and agency towards
something more nebulous, entangled, flatter, in the Deluezian sense (REF XXX), and
provisional?
This conversation feels, at least for us, like nascent and difficult terrain that is at
times difficult to speak, at once formed and present but also elusive and difficult to
hold in our minds-EYS, the itch we can’t quite scratch, something like Lather’s
“stammering knowing” (1997:288) perhaps?
Lather’s discussion of religious and de-colonising methodologies catches our eye.
Citing Hardt and Negri (2000:128 in Lather 2006:44) She reminds us that the
“colonial world never really conformed to the simple two-part division of a
dialectical structure…reality always presents proliferating multiplicities…reality is not
dialectical, colonialism is”. She goes on to discuss the “god-centric epistemology” of
Daa’iyah Saleem which she reads as standing in for “the very tensions of (noncontaintment) of the discontinuous other, producing knowledge within and against
academic intelligibilities” (2006:41) and Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s “cautionary tales…told
from an indigenous Maori perspective…through the eyes of the colonized” (2006:44)
against “Western ways of knowing” (ibid) and suggests that such efforts provide a
different kind of academic voice (2006:44). We began to wonder whether we might
read a similar sort of methodological colonialisation into the representations of EYTs
we’d encountered in our poking around in the literature, in this case a colonialising
representation of classed cultures. If so, how might the counter-task of
methodological de-colonialisation that Lather outlines be re-contextualised as a
pedagogical mandate for EYT professional education?
November 27th 2013
21
The task is to listen for the sense people make of their lives in order to attend
to how thinking gets organized into patterns, how discourses construct and
constitute with a sensitivity to issues of appropriation that does not revert to
romantic ‘too easy’ ideas about ‘authenticity’ in negotiating the tensions
between both honoring the ‘voices’ of research participants and the demand
for interpretive work on the part of the inquirer (2006:50)
The key she continues is to locate the researcher “within the context of the research
in a way that disrupts ‘subjective/objective’ binaries and accounts for the conditions
of its own production” (2006:51). She urges a radical proliferation in research
training that works against polar oppositions towards recognition of something like
Delueze’s “thousand tiny sexes” (2000). Such “nomadic conjunctions” she suggests
“produce fluid subjects, ambivalent and polyvalent, open to change, continually
being made, unmade and remade” (2006). A pedagogy framed in this way, we
argue, offers a very different way of understanding becoming, a becoming that is
always already in motion, fluid and in flux and quite different from Colley’s, perhaps
not linear but certainly rationally projected move from novice to professional. So
what might/could we imagine a pedagogy of movement and proliferation be like?
New departures for professional education?
We return to the ‘old wives stories’ to begin to sketch out what we might call a
paralogical pedagogy that is investigative, dynamic, generative, self-consciously and
reflexively interpretive and seeks out unintelligibility. A pedagogy of wonder
perhaps, after Maclure’s analytic practice that recognises itself as “just an
experiment with order and disorder, in which provisional and partial taxonomies are
formed but are always subject to change and metamorphosis as new connections
spark among words, bodies, objects and ideas” (2013:181).
- reflexivity about positionality
November 27th 2013
22
We start with an invitation to be reflexive about positionality and appropriate from
Literacy Studies the impulse of Gee’s Bill of Rights for “minority and poor children”
(2000:67). Gee’s ‘Bill’ seeks to “facilitate for students and teachers alike the
development of provisional models that help them to describe, observe and analyse
different literacies rather than just learning and teaching one literacy as given.”
(Street, 1997:54). Gee proposes reflexive and meta-awareness, critical framing and
the right to transform and produce knowledge as necessary strategies for socially
just forms of literacy education and we recognise here a productive schema for
forms of professional education that work against the grain of the molar machine.
For EY professional education this might mean describing and exploring both the Big
D (Gee 2011) stories, “the combination of language, actions, interactions, ways of
thinking, believing and valuing and using various symbols, tools and objects to enact
a particular sort of socially recognizable identity” (2011:201), that pattern the
becomings of EY workers and their ‘little d’ figured worlds, “their socially and
culturally constructed ways of recognising particular characters and actors and
actions and assigning them significance and value” (Gee 2011). We might want to
call this a ‘pedagogy of entanglement’ through which a commitment to the always
already of our somewhere-ness (see St Pierre above) nudges de-territorialisation of
the arborescent logic of professional orthodoxies towards a “rhizo-curriculum” that
acts as “a release point for thinking in new and imaginative ways” (Riddle 2013:12).
We offer up the story making and sharing we have engaged in throughout this
project, as practitioners, researchers and writers as a such a “release point”.
- Rhizo-curriculum, little stories of professional learning
We can begin to see that a pedagogy founded on this set of ideas might look quite
different to the practices and processes we’ve been used to. In contrast to the old
binaries of legitimate and illegitimate knowledge a rhizo-curriculum would commit
to having “lost its innocence and its faith in ‘victory narratives’” and recognise
instead “ that its truths are always partial and provisional, and that it can never fully
know or rescue the other.” (Maclure 2010:1). The rhizo-curriculum would be process
orientated, not focused on the study of authorised or legitimate texts as they
November 27th 2013
23
contribute to the arborescent orthodoxies of the professional discipline but
exploration and analysis of everyday entanglements with/in the field, a restless
mapping and re-mapping as Stewart explains
Deleuze and Guattari (1987) assert that the rhizome is ‘a map and not a
tracing’ (p. 12, emphasis in original). Tracings and reproductions, they argue,
are a part of all arborescent logic, and lead to codified complexes with closed
or fixed structures, whereas maps are open and connectable to other
dimensions. Maps, for Deleuze and Guattari, are ‘oriented toward
experimentation in contact with the real’ (p. 12). Maps are part of a rhizome
as they enable connections between fields, yet at the same time allow for
revision: ‘it is detachable, reversible, susceptible to constant modification. It
can be torn, reversed, adapted to any kind of mounting, reworked by an
individual, group or social formation’ (p. 12). The map of Deleuze and
Guattari’s rhizome encourages thinking and thought that is ‘networked,
relational and transversal’ (Colman, 2005, p. 231). For Deleuze and Guattari
the very ‘fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, “and … and … and …”’
(p.25) (Stewart: 27)
We begin to see that the work of the teacher in this version of professional
education is not to teach about but to problematise, grapple, de-familiarise, unsettle
and undo - to enable students to work with/in the ruins towards new possibilities.
We want to propose the kind of auto-ethnographic story-telling we’ve engaged in
through this project as a useful strategy towards this ‘undone’ kind of curriculum. In
this dynamic the work of the teacher is to facilitate and scaffold learners autoethnographic story-telling, and to accept and embrace the uncharted, as yet
unknowable learning spaces that emerge; learning spaces that, we assert, are
charged with productive possibility. Of course the idea of the teacher as facilitator is
not a new one. See for example the influential work of Knowles on ‘androgogy’
(1975). What is new in the rhizomatic turn is the objective of facilitation. Rather than
describable, learning in this dynamic becomes unpredictable, paralogical in Lyotard’s
November 27th 2013
24
terms, “a collection of ‘“petits ecrits”, little narratives, that resist closure and
totality” (Zembylas, 2000: 160). These little narratives are contrastingly less
ambitious than the grand old narratives of professional disciplines, but stress “the
particularity of events in our lives …particularity [that] makes impossible the
existence of an authority who can speak from a universal perspective without
invoking his or her ideology” (2000: 161).
Zembylas’s account of a paralogical science education offers a useful reference
point for imagining the conditions of the rhizo-curriculum. He argues that
in science children’s natural curiosity is ‘subordinated to logical forms’ (Zembylas,
2000: 161), and suggests that children can teach us ‘in their invitation to free
ourselves to speculate about the foundations of the universe as an infinite series of
alternate versions of experiences which never cease to amaze us’ (2000: 160).
Rather than something ‘naturalistic’, what we understand Zembylas to be
acknowledging is the plurality of story-telling as it deviates from “the conventions
of a Habermasian consensus. What this means for science education is a rejection
of what he calls a ‘persistent faith in the “force of the better argument”’ (2000:
166), in other words a rejection of the logocentrism of scientific knowledge
“which is always marked by the effects of status, power and influence” (2000: 166).
The alternative, paralogical science classroom might, in contrast, question ‘the very
context of argumentation, which is always marked by the effects of status, power,
and influence’, and ask ‘Who has the power in a classroom? Who is seen as the
legitimator of knowledge? What is the role of other ways of knowing such as
intuition, imagination and emotion?’ and how does the ‘the very nature of science
knowledge as taught through our textbooks as well as the evolution of modem
knowledge that calls for more specialisation exclude the subjective aspects of
teachers’ and children’s knowing’ (2000: 165)?
The account of a paralogical science education we see here calls for both an
undoing, of the normative mythologies that construct what we might call ‘subject
science’ and an invitation to invent new possibilities that are not: “pre-sented in our
current discourses. Legend, myth, history, science, intuition, and emotion share
November 27th 2013
25
common boundaries. Their domains oscillate into one another so that the idea of
ever distinguishing between them becomes more and more chimerical”
(Zembylas, 2000: 166).
Zembylas’s ideas here resonate with Maclure’s sketch of the baroque, an
approach to qualitative enquiry which seems pertinent to the kinds of ethnographic,
paralogical pedagogy we are outlining here, which resists the mastery discourses
that tend to characterise classroom-based paradigms of educational research.
Maclure’s baroque methodology favours a fragmented, dislocated undoing
characterised by movement over composure, estrangement of the familiar,
disorientation and loss of mastery (Maclure, 2006a: 8) towards a ‘frivolity’ (2006b)
that undoes and is undone. And it occurs to us that this type of approach might
usefully form the basis of a very different kind of professional learning that
seeks to reinscribe teacher/student relations and the subject/object of study
towards a seriously ‘frivolous’ or ‘baroque’ pedagogy, posturing ‘new imaginaries’
for the relation of the researcher to the object’, the becoming professional to the
professional field. We can imagine with Maclure a peepshow that:
brings the viewer into an intimate relation with the object, one into which
desire, wonder and otherness are folded, and out of which something might
issue that would never be seen by shining a bright light upon the object in the
empty space of reason and looking at it as hard as possible. But the
peepshow also calls attention to the compromised, voyeuristic nature of the
researcher gaze and the unavoidable absurdity of the research posture. To
view the delights of the peepshow you have to bend down, present your
backside to public view, put yourself at risk. (Maclure, 2006a: 18)
Towards concluding – lines of flight
Towards a conclusion we want to open up rather than close down our narrative, to
keep in our mind’s eye the possibility of lines of flight or “ ‘path[s] of mutation’
brought about by the production of connections between entities that previously
November 27th 2013
26
were implied; the result is a release of ‘new powers in the capacities of those bodies
to act and respond’ ” (Stewart 2012: 30). And so we depart with questions that
might be posed by a revaluation of professional education towards new forms of
pedagogical practice and an engagement with the event.
How did you come to be in this professional space?
What are the markers or ‘hot spots’ in your narrative?
How does your narrative compare to the narrative/s of others? What are the points
of difference? Consensus?
What does it mean to be a professional in your context? What is the difference
between a professional and a non-professional? Who decides?
How would you describe your experience in your professional context? What does it
look and sound and feel like? How does this compare with what you read about?
What different kinds of spaces, places and opportunities are there for making and
taking meanings about what it means to be professional in your area?
What does it mean to be a producer or consumer of meanings in these spaces and
places?
What different kinds of associations and affiliations do you make? With whom?
For what purposes?
What does it mean to be a rule-maker or rule-breaker in your professional
context/s?
Who or what does professional education serve in your context?
November 27th 2013
27
What different identities do you take up in different spaces and places? What role/s
do these perform? How are they similar? Competing?
References
Beach, D. (2001) ‘Artistic representation and research writing’ in Reflective Practice
Vol. 2, No. 3
Bennett, P., Kendall, A., McDougall, J. (2011) After the Media. London: Routledge
Bourdieu, P. reprinted (2002) Distinction, A social critique of the judgement of taste,
London: Routledge
Clark-Keefe, K. ‘Between Antagonism and Surrender: Using Art to Dwell More
Resolutely in Irresolution’ paper presented at Discourse, Power and Resistance
Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University, April 2008.
Colebrook, C. (2002) Understanding Deleuze NSW, Australia: Allan and Unwin
Coleman, R. & Ringrose, J. (2013) Deleuze and Research Methodologies. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh
Helen Colley, David James, Kim Diment & Michael Tedder (2003): Learning as
becoming in vocational education and training: class, gender and the role of
vocational habitus, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 55:4,
471-498
Delamont, S. (2007) Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association
Annual Conferenece, Institute of Education, University of London, 5–8 September
2007.
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (2000) A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia
London: Continuum.
Foss, P., Meaghan, M. (1979) Michel Foucault: Power, Truth, Strategy. Sydney: Feral
Publications
Foucault, M. (1984) The order of discourse', in Shapiro, Michael, J. (ed) Language
and Politics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Gauntlett, D. (2002) Media, Gender, Identity, Routledge: London
November 27th 2013
28
Gauntlett, D. (2006) Creative Explorations. London: Routledge.
Gee, J.P. (2000) New people in new worlds: networks, the new capitalism and
schools in Cope, Bill., Kalantzis, M. edn Multiliteracies Routledge: London
Jackson, Alicia. Y., Mazzei, L. (2012) Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research.
London: Routledge
Jackson, Alicia, Y. (2010) Deleuze and the girl, International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 23:5, 579-587
Lather, P. (1997) ‘Drawing the line at angels: working in the ruins of feminist
ethnography’ in Qualitative Studies in Education. Vol. 10, No. 3, 285-304.
Lather, P. (1999) To be of use: the work of reviewing. Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp2-7
Lather, P. (2006): Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with:
teaching research in education as a wild profusion, International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in
Education, 19:1, 35-57
Lillis, T. M.(2001) Student Writing, London: Routledge
Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. (G.
Bennington, & B. Massumi, Trans.) Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press
Maclure, M. (2010) Qualitative inquiry: where are the ruins? Keynote presentation to
the New Zealand Association for Research in Education
Conference, University of Auckland, 6-9 December 2010
Maclure, M. (2013) ‘Classification or Wonder? Coding as an Analytic Practice in
Qualitative Research’ in Coleman, R. & Ringrose, J. Ed (2013) Deleuze and Research
Methodologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Massumi, B. (1992) A Users Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Meaghan, M., Patton, P. (1979) Michel Foucault: Power Truth Strategy. Australia:
Feral Publications
Nutbrown, C. (2012) A box of Childhood: small stories at the roots of a career,
International Journal of Early Years Education, 19:3-4, 233-248
November 27th 2013
29
Osgood, J. (2005) Who Cares? Classed Nature of Childcare. Gender and Education.
Vol 17, No. 3 289-303
Osgood, J. (2006) Deconstructing Professionalism in: resisting the regulatory gaze.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Volume 7, Number 1. pp. 5-14
Rhedding-Jones, J. (1997) The writing on the Wall: doing a feminist post-structuralist
doctorate [1]' in Gender and Education, Vol 9, No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Richardson, L. (2001) ‘Writing: A method of Inquiry in Denzin, Norman. K., Lincoln, Y.
S.. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage: London
Robert Hodge and David Tripp (1986) Children and television : a semiotic approach.
Cambridge: Polity
Riddle, S. (2013) Looking for Madness in the Method: Rhizo-becoming in Education
Metaphors for, in and of Education Research Edited by Warren Midgley, Karen
Trimmer and Andy Davies Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Stewart, A. (2012) Uncharted waters: An outdoor environmental education
rhizocurrere Unpublished PhD Thesis, La Trobe University, Australia.
Skeggs, B.,1988 Gender Reproduction and Further Education: domestic
apprenticeships, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9:2, 131-149
Soroke, B. (2004) Images presented at RaPAL conference, University of Lancaster,
July 2004.
Soroke, B. (2013) Resliance, Humour, Abundance and Play at
http://zipperartadultliteracy.blogspot.co.uk
Stanley, L. (1993) ‘Methodology matters!’ in Robinson, V., Richardson, Diane. (ed)
Introducing Women’s Studies, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan
St Pierre, E. (2013a) Keynote to the Summer Institute for Qualitative Research,
Manchester Metropolitan University, July 2013
St Pierre, E. (2013b) workshop Summer Institute for Qualitative Research,
Manchester Metropolitan University, July 2013
Street, B. (2001) Contexts for literacy work: the ‘new orders’ and the ‘New Literacy
Studies’ in Crowther, J., Hamilton, M., Tett, Lyn. (ed) Powerful Literacies, Leicester:
NIACE
Street, B. (1999) The implications of the ‘New Literacy Studies’ for Literacy Education
in English in Education, Vol. 31, 3.
November 27th 2013
30
Usher, R (1997) ‘Telling a story about research and research as storytelling:
postmodern approaches to social science research’ in McKenzie, George,. Powell,
Jackie., Usher, Robin. (ed) Understanding Social Research: Perspectives on Method
and Practice.
Vincent, C., Braun, A. (2010) ‘And Hairdressers are Quite Seedy…’ the moral worth of
childcare training. Contemporary Issues in Early Childood. Volume 11 Number 2
Young, M. (1999) Knowledge, Learning and the Curriculum of the Future, London: IOE
November 27th 2013
31