Supervision meeting 26th May 2014

The pace of things is increasing in advance of my forthcoming review and the agenda for this meeting was focused more or less on my draft report which I need to submit 2 weeks before the meeting. My date is August 28th, so I have all summer to stress about this.

So as my project gathers pace I need to think more and more concretely about it, tighten the focus on what questions I am going to ask and make sure the methodology supports and articulates with the literature and questions I’m asking.  I’m hoping for a successful outcome to the review – this will mean that I am deemed competent enough to conduct the research I’m proposing and the decision will be made on how well I can justify the choices I’m making about every aspect of the project design so far. So all going well I’ll be able to pilot some methods early next school session and begin fieldwork sometime after that, hopefully around September.

I submitted a draft report for discussion at this meeting. Discussion with Mark was as usual hugely helpful and encouraging. There is work to be done but apparently it’s about 90% of the way there.  I know what I need to do. Certain parts of its need re-structuring or refocusing and I need to align my research questions more closely with my methodology. And I need to flesh out my methodology.

I will be doing a case study which is underpinned by critical realism as a theoretical framework and the methodology will be congruent with this.  I’ve been skirting around critical realism for a while and it’s only now that I am really beginning to see how useful it will be for me. I think part of my avoidance has been the language and expression of some of the writing – not the most accessible, but in terms of theory and philosophy I guess it’s never going to be easy.

So after discussion I have a clearer understanding of what purpose it will serve. What I want to look at is learning rounds as social processes – interactions among humans within existing structures and conditions. Critical realism, and in particular Margaret Archer’s model of analytical dualism gives me a way to frame this study and analyse the processes involved in these interactions and observe what changes might or might not be taking place. . From what I know about the literature around professional learning communities so far is that most of it is  a-theoretical, only some of it is empirically based and little of it looks at the actual processes involved in the work these PLCs do. My study aims to illuminate these processes. It will hopefully provide some new empirical knowledge which is supported by social theory for an under-researched area. Having already conducted a literature review into learning rounds and instructional rounds I can say with certainty that no empirical studies have been carried out into this and reached publication. Only five peer-reviewed papers were identified to consider as part of this literature review.  I hope that the work I’m about to embark on will ultimately provide something useful for the profession that will be recognised as an academically sound piece of research. Let the grafting begin!

Posted in PhD, Social Theory, supervision, Teacher Education | Leave a comment

Conference season

Conference season

Been a bit laggy on the updates – it’s busy conference season in academia-land coming up so I’ve been preparing for two forthcoming events: the Stirling School of Education Doctoral Conference and ProPEL. The doctoral conference is an internal one for all the SoE post-graduate research students and ProPEL is a big international conference for professional practice, education and learning. I’m working on my presentation about my study for the doctoral conference, but here is a wee preview of the poster I’ve prepared for ProPEL – it’s my first one! Hope you like it. Please leave a comment if you feel the urge!

Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Seminar series: Professor Peter Mayo 28/3/2014

We had a guest speaker at the latest in our research seminar series.  Professor Peter Mayo is Head of Education at the University of Malta and he was talking about his latest book, The Politics of Indignation. This talk was concerned with one specific chapter in the book on migration in southern Europe.  Critical pedagogy, sociology of education and social theory feature as his research interests.

It was clear from the beginning that we would be presented with a radical perspective on what is an utterly desperate situation.  Professor Mayo opened with a shocking statistic: 20 000 migrants have drowned in their attempts to cross the Mediterranean from Africa to southern Europe in the last 20 years. That’s 1000 bodies per year. And these are the ones who had survived war, rape, the desert, the journey to the coast. It couldn’t really be any further from the idealised image of the Med more commonly suggested in the media, and also perhaps reflected in many people’s holiday experiences or aspirations.  I have been aware of reports of dead refugees washed up on southern Italian beaches and , and have read Partir, a moving, tragic but excellent fictionalised account by Moroccan author Tahar Ben Jelloun of a migrant’s attempt to cross the Straits of Gibraltar. This isn’t mainstream fiction however, (not available in translation into English) and the aforementioned reports aren’t commonplace in the UK.

The migration debate is topical. It’s a policy which is supported by the SNP, but hasn’t really surfaced as a major feature of their independence campaign yet. Maybe it never will. The arguments to support it are usually economic. Migrants are trafficked as human commodities in order to provide a cheap and necessary source of labour in a globalised economy.  Colonialism alone is not to blame for the wretchedness suffered by these people in their quest to find the better life in the promised land of their colonial power.  The problem is they too often find the Promised Land has closed its doors to them; the discourses of security treat them as criminals and rob them of their dignity, their possessions and even their freedom to express themselves in direct defiance of the Geneva Convention. Political intransigence inside Europe on this issue has created a value system which prioritises security over human life and the perversity of globalisation has made both a necessity and an object of loathing out of the migrant among some (perhaps working class) communities – divide and rule.

The discussion opened up into a broader treatment of activism and groundswell movements, and neo-liberalism in higher education and how globalisation is working to marginalise radicalism and social justice in research and recruitment.   It was a fascinating session, and a real pleasure to meet Professor Mayo. He was hopeful that in Scotland we have values in our education system which might mitigate the appalling racism he described. Whether we do or not, we certainly have a responsibility to ensure that inter-ethnicity is developed in a positive way.

There are some signs of hope. One of them for me is the fantastic work done by a close friend of mine, Maggie Lennon in the Bridges Programmes she set up and manages. Bridges find employment and education opportunities for refugees and asylum seekers. It has many successes to boast of and should be celebrated as a shining example of social entrepreneurship working for justice and integration. There is so much scope for educators to learn from this project, and maybe vice-versa.  There’s also a massive need for more programmes like Bridges if migrants are to be considered as more than economic commodities in Scotland, and elsewhere.


Posted in Disadvantage, PhD, Social Theory, Teacher Education | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Teaching Schools – an outsider’s (possibly flawed) impression

Earlier this week I attended a BELMAS event in London about teaching schools. It’s been a while since I‘ve been at an event like this and I really enjoyed it.  Why did I go? We often look across the border with a measure of fear and trepidation, observing the paradox of rapid pace of change and a seemingly reactionary approach to curricular reform, so it’s interesting to find out more about this change. It’s not directly relevant to my practice, but as my study is about how teachers learn in practice – I want to be aware of a wider perspective on how this is developing, not only in Scotland. It’s very much an emergent policy at the moment; it clearly has some supporters and evangelists, and some critics. Even within this there are aspects which are supported or criticised more than others. So what are teaching schools and how do they work?

Teaching schools or teaching school alliances are designated networks of schools who take responsibility for teacher education, both initial teacher training and CPD. They can be single or multiple school alliances and their partners must involve a Higher Education Institute. They need to be deemed outstanding by the inspectorate (Ofsted) to be able to apply for this status. The status is designated by the National College, who have a role in developing and supporting these school alliances. Student teachers must apply through UCAS and then various routes are available to them (Schools, Direct, Teach First) to get their qualification. Schools and the HEIs are funded to take on students. The financial costs and incentives in applying/becoming a teaching school alliance are not clear to me – there are definitely market-forces at work here, but I’m not sure exactly how they work.

There are six main priorities that these schools are tasked with. These are

  1. Leading development of a school led ITT system (they still call it teacher training in England, whereas in Scotland we tend to use the term teacher education. Nicer in lots of ways, I think).
  2. Lead peer-peer development
  3. Identify and develop leadership potential
  4. Provide support for other schools
  5. Designate and broker Specialist Leaders of Education (SLEs)
  6. Research and development

As a policy, the intention is clearly to decentralise power to schools, but not all schools, only the ones deemed outstanding by the inspectorate. John Stephens from the National College said that there will be an “irrevocable shift [of power]” from the centre to schools by 2016. These schools/networks have massive autonomy. As various speakers through the day demonstrated, they can develop their own leadership programmes and planned joint or shared practice development across schools; they have the freedom to collaboratively plan e.g. an inter- school collaborative enquiry with the help and support of a HEI partner; organise secondments or job exchanges within their alliances; run accredited masters’ level CPD sessions; they can also grow their own teachers.Capture

There are clear opportunities for a different way of “knowledge mobilisation” within the system: a long-standing problem for educators and policy-makers. Prof Chris Husbands suggested   the teaching schools model might provide a way to create –understand–share and then act on knowledge in practice? This would represent a significant “paradigm shifting innovation” (as opposed to a “consensual innovation” which I think we are quite good at in Scotland. Is an innovation that has been arrived at by consensus really an innovation? (Question for another day perhaps).

Some elements of this are appealing, others raise interesting questions. Professor Chis Husbands observed that in spite of the fact that the National Colleges sees this as a “government-neutral” initiative i.e. it will have a lifespan longer than that of the current government, few policy intentions ever really embed themselves. He questioned the desirability of the “irrevocable shift” and the medical schools analogy upon which the model is supposedly based. There has been a fair amount written about the medical/educational comparison, and I don’t want to go into this too much here, but some scholars (Gert Biesta, for example) expose it as a fundamentally flawed analogy, (as does Chris Husbands) and justify the argument around “being a student is not an illness just as teaching is not a cure” ( Biesta 2007, p8).

Sustainability of the system is also under scrutiny: both in terms of finances and support, but also the vulnerability schools are exposed to by the compulsory “outstanding” rating. If this changes for any reason (in the lead school), be that staff movement, absence or refocused priorities then the system could collapse, and this will impact all schools in the alliance, not just the one with the less favourable Ofsted rating.

There are tensions and paradoxes in this concept, but it clearly has strengths and appeal. The one overwhelming impression I was left with at the end of the day was the pervasiveness of Ofsted in all discourse around teaching schools. There is a clear accountability agenda underpinning all of this, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but when an evidently able, experienced, energising and dynamic executive leader of a school alliance demonstrated some very impressive work (and difficult challenges too) carried out inside this framework, then summarised it by commenting that “you’re only as good as your last set of Ofsted data,” I felt disappointed. Is that really the best we can aspire to for young people? I hope teaching schools can do better than that.


Posted in CPD, innovation, leadership, Teacher Education | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment



Our next PhD workshop approaches and this time as well as sharing some of our own writings, outlines of our studies and other readings we will be having a go at Derrida. I was almost looking forward to this one, since I did a bit of dabbling with deconstruction in the latter stages of my undergraduate degree, but that was a long time ago. It was very current at the time though (late 80s). I took a trip to Paris in my final year to meet with the poet I was investigating as the subject of my dissertation. I got a flight for £19 and stayed free of charge in the famous Shakespeare and Company bookshop. I also went to a Derrida talk – it was somewhere near Les Halles, and disappointingly I can’t remember much about it except for his wild hair and lots of enthusiastic fawning students, with whom he engaged very openly, a bit like the students in this documentary.


Deconstruction rejects the certainties of critical theories (binaries and hierarchies like class structure, gender etc) and offers an undefined “other” ontology. The other; L’autre, or l’avenant as Derrida has sometimes referenced disrupts our experience of how language constructs and gives meanings to reality, by opening up spaces beyond traditional understandings. There is a strong focus on discourses and texts in deconstruction, but Derrida would claim that discourses are never mere linguistic entities, they organize our ways of thinking so that they become ways of acting in the world. This interplay between concepts and texts is mentioned in Merceica (2011) as “being both inseparable and mutually contaminating for each other.” (p 201) In 12 lecons de Philosophie, Derrida exemplifies this in his essay “le langage” by (de)constructing the essay around the telephone conversation he has with the commissioning editor inviting his contribution. The effect is challenging and readable and it left me with a feeling that the philosophy I was trying to understand was embedded, or internal to the text, not conceptually represented by it or external to it, if that makes any sense.

We are reading the three Derrida chapters in Murphy (2013), which offer practical and theoretical interpretations of Derrida.  Irwin (2013) attempts to make connections between Marxism and deconstruction in educational research. I’m not massively convinced about this, but that is probably more a reflection of my own limited understanding of this philosophy. Although there is a radical dimension to his work I haven’t been struck by any overtly political references in Derrida, whether that might be class structures or calls to arms. I’m looking forward to hearing what the others have to say on this.

There is also a commonality running across at least 3 of the readings, and that is that Derrida is being used as a response to some sort of constraint, and in doing this, new knowledge is allowed to develop. I wonder how this connects to the justice/social justice dimensions of research, and I think this might be why the connection with feminist analytical approaches might be so clear (if it is clear!).

The other readings deal with more practical examples: a deconstructivist approach to a new geography curriculum in NE England, and a piece on using Derrida with student teachers in reflective writing  Winter (2013) gave a really helpful practical example of “praxis” – the reciprocity of theory and practice which had been discussed in Irwin (2013) as she described the process she and colleagues went through to deconstruct their traditional (constrained) understanding of the geography curriculum and open up a new space  for this work – they created an “other. ” This was not a new version of a known script, it was something different altogether, with new epistemologies of geography and new understandings of school policy, practice, structures and culture.  It’s been claimed that deconstruction is not a process or a theory to be overlaid on some project – Winter shows in this study how the lived experience of deconstruction (what I understand as the “metaphysics of deconstruction” (Winter 2013, p197)) gives rise to “the other.” I’m not sure that the personification of the other is altogether helpful. Would it be easier to understand as a state of being – otherness, for example, rather than a being itself?

Other (!) readings to be re-visited will include Ian Munday (2013) on Derrida, Teaching and the Context of Failure, some more on methods of writing and our own critical shared writing with colleagues, as well as an outline of our individual studies. The pace of things is beginning to change, I’m hoping I’ll be in a position to start moving ahead with my study very soon, All this philosophy is great fun but I need to be getting on!

Derrida, J 1985: Douze leçons de philosophie. La découverte/Le Monde, Paris

Irwin, J, 2013: Derrida and educational research: an introduction in In Murphy, M (ed) Social Theory and Educational Research, Routledge, Abingdon 2013 p 171 -183.

Merceica, D, 2013: Engaging with student teachers on reflective writing: reclaiming writing: in In Murphy, M (ed) Social Theory and Educational Research, Routledge, Abingdon 2013,  p 200 -211.

Munday, I 2011: Derrida, teaching and the context of failure, Oxford Review of Education, 37:3 403-419

Winter, C, 2013: Derrida meets Dracula in the geography classroom.  In Murphy, M (ed) Social Theory and Educational Research, Routledge, Abingdon 2013 p 184-199.

Posted in PhD, Research, Social Theory | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Michel Callon and the Scallop Fishermen

fishing net

Ethically sourced photos from John Johnston’s cc flickr search tool

I’ve always loved coastlines – living in Banff in the north east of Scotland for most of my school days has left me with a rather sentimental hankering for rocky shores, the sea, fishing boats, big waves and harbours. We’ve been spending holidays in western France, near the atlantic for nearly 20 years now and I’m developing a similar rather dewy nostalgia for the big altantic skies and coast, wild horses on salt flats and artisanal fishing scenes like the one above. It’s all so charmingly low-tech (at least it is in my romantic imaginings, anyway!).

So you might imagine with my recent tentative dabblings with actor-network theory I was quite intrigued when my PhD colleague Julia mentioned in conversation with Tara (see last post)at our last PhD workshop  the light-bulb moment she had when she read Michel Callon’s  chapter on ANT  (Callon 1986) in Power, Action and Belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (J Law, ed. 1986) which narrates an interesting tale of the scallops and fishermen of Brittany’s St Brieuc bay. Julia isn’t alone, Tara told us – this is the  switch that illuminated ANT for many people, apparently.  I had to read it.

The chapter starts by outlining four pivotal “moments of translation” (Callon 1986 p196)identified in the analysis of an investigation into declining scallop population in the St Brieuc bay. These are problematisation; interessement; enrolement  and mobilisation,(processes which build and change the network – see Callon 1986) and a detailed study of how translations (the micro-negotiations which shape or change the network and its actors) such as these,  can give an account of how power relationships are constructed, maintained or destroyed within the network, and how certain actors go about getting other actors to comply. Callon goes on to explain how previously favoured methods of sociological analysis are no longer adequate  to explain matters of science and technology in stylistic ways (because sociologists tendency to censor actors when they talk about themselves or social backgrounds); theoretical ways (Callon suggests we need to accept that natural sciences are as  unstable and uncertain  as social sciences, therefore they can no longer play different roles in analysis) , and methodological ways (the identities of actors is problematic and needs to be fore-grounded as such, not ignored) (Callon 1986). He proposes 3 principles to underpin a different sort of analysis: agnosticism in not privileging any one point of view or censoring any commentary from the actors on their “social environment” (Callon, 1986 p200); generalised symmetry in using the same vocabulary throughout the analysis for all actors-

“not chang[ing]registers when we move from the technical to the social aspects of the problem studied” (Callon 1986, p200)

and free association to remove distinctions between the natural and the social ; to

“follow the actors …..[ to see how they]… “build and explain their  world” (Callon 1986, p201),

avoiding imposing pre-conceived frameworks for analysis on them.

The actors in this network are three researchers, their associated scientific community; the scallops in various stages of development, and the fishermen. The scallops have been fished to species -threatening levels; the scientific community has developed (in Japan) a new technique of intensive scallop – farming; the fishermen having depleted the bay are concerned about their livelihoods and the researchers want to experiment with the methods from Japan in an attempt to  restock the bay. And so the story begins…..

The researchers defined the study around the central question of:  does the species of scallop in the bay anchor itself in a similar way to the ones in Japan?  The question may seem simple but in fact in posing it the researchers have made themselves indispensable in the network – problematisation. They have defined what other actors want: the fishermen and their desire for continued livelihood; the scallops and their desire to survive, and the scientific community and their desire to advance knowledge about scallop farming. They have “forged a holy alliance… induce the scallops to multiply” (Callon  1986 p204) and in doing so have  established themselves as an obligatory passage point (OPP) for the other actors in the network.(Callon 1986). Power passes through them in this passage point.

Interessement  works to include and exclude actors in the network. It seems to be often associated with devices. Interessement devices in this study are: the collectors and tow ropes used to help anchor the larvae which will hypothetically grow into scallops; the scientific knowledge generated by the researchers and their wider  community of colleagues.

“The devices of interessement create a favourable balance of power: for the first group, these devices are the towlines immersed in St. Brieuc Bay; and for the second group, they are texts and conversations which lure the concerned actors to follow the three researchers’ project. For all the groups involved, the interessement helps corner
the entities to be enrolled. In addition, it attempts to interrupt all potential competing associations and to construct a system of alliances. Social structures comprising both social and natural entities are shaped and consolidated.” (Callon 1986, p210).

Interessement therefore seeks a double whammy – to enrol certain actors in the network and to eliminate any competing relationships, e.g.  currents underwater, marine predators  or elements of doubt among the fishermen. Successful interessement results in enrolement in the network, and enrolement describes the

negotiations, trials of strength and tricks that accompany the interessements and enable them to succeed.” (Callon 1986 p212).

Not only is power  established in problematisation, it also works through interessement to develop the network and actor identities.

Mobilisation or who speaks in the name of whom? Representation is occurring often in this network to social and natural entities. The converse of representation is silencing certain voices – power is demonstrated in this way.  Some examples are the few larvae who do anchor themselves -they are invested with the power to represent the anonymous mass of larvae; the representatives of the  fishermen who accept without argument the proposals of the researchers: the authors of the research in Japan who represent the wider scientific community, there is uncertainty however over the question of whether or not the masses will follow their representatives, and this – this mobilisation  is the unravelling of the network. Transformation and displacement occurs; for example, the  scallops and larvae become numbers then tables and curves in data charts for the scientific community and the three researcher are imposed spokesmen and have become representatives for all the entities in the network. But…..will those they represent continue to act as their representatives assume they will? No! Dissonance and betrayal is their undoing!

The researchers thought they knew enough to say the larvae would anchor in the bay, but their experiment was not replicated year on year – the scallops became dissident, escaped from their collectors, or failed to anchor in the first place “representivity is brought into question” (Callon 1986 p 225) but not only for the shellfish, for the fishermen as well. A group of them mutiny and fish the scallops one Christmas eve – thinking no doubt of the reveillon feast ahead of them to celebrate Christmas. So the network is not stable, it is seriously disrupted, and its representatives are challenged  and betrayed by the actors they assumed to represent.

The different types of translation processes described in this study illustrate ANT in action – Callon concludes by saying it also demonstrates the power of representation in silencing majorities in claiming to give them a voice within a constantly  changing social  or natural world. It’s a fascinating  study and a very engaging tale. I’m not sure I had a lightbulb moment; I read and reread it several times, felt a bit more enlightened about ANT and  was very keen to find out what happened in the end. There is obviously loads more to say about this – it’s a much commentated and critiqued paper, but I think I’m done for now. Not sure if I’m over and out with ANT though – I might like to investigate further, but it will be for another study, not my PhD. I need to focus now on critical realism, social/cultural structures and agency……coming up next……….

_ Shells _

Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.) Power, Action and Belief: a new Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. 32: 196-233.

Posted in Methods, Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Theory investigations

This week’s Edutalk broadcast was about my friend Anna Beck’s study of the Teaching Scotland’s Future report as policy implementation in real time.  It’s fascinating work; challenging too – a bit like trying to hit a moving target I imagine, but I know I won’t be alone in looking forward to the happy day when Anna can share her full findings (and that’s not too far away, by the end of this year I think).

Anna has been using Actor-Network Theory (ANT)   as the  theoretical framework for her study, and the timing of the radio show this week has spurred me into action to try to sort out, or at least articulate my own understandings of this. ANT is sometimes also referred to as a socio-material approach (I don’t think these terms are inter-changeable), and it has several influential champions in Stirling, notably Professors Tara Fenwick and Richard Edwards, both of whom have gained international recognition for their work and contribution to this domain, so unsurprisingly, many of my PhD colleagues are using this approach in their research, and as a result we’re all exposed to it and some are considering it, among others as a possible framework for our work.

Ontologically, ANT doesn’t accept that there is a fixed external reality rather that there are multiple realities, made up of “actants” in different states of flux or change as they act upon each other in complex and dynamic networks.  “ANT treats networks as contested and precarious multiplicities which order practice, bodies and identities through complex enactments”(Fenwick 2010, p 119). The actants in the network can be human or non-human, e.g. objects, technologies, policy, documents, and the ANT approach insistently refuses to make a distinction between these two categories. This is the concept of “symmetry” in ANT terms.  In the paper cited above Tara Fenwick give useful explanations of the most prevalent concepts used in ANT.

Translation is another of the concepts or occurrences in the complex networks ANT describes. This occurs when actants of the network encounter each other and as a result change occurs – both to them and to the configuration of the network.  “Translation refers to the micro-negotiations among elements that work to shape or change them, and link them into extended chains of interconnected activity  ”(Fenwick 2010, p121).

Enrolment and mobilization are processes with draw in or shut out elements to the network.  “The processes of enrolment and mobilization work to include and exclude from the chains, and direct this activity such that the network is performed into existence” (Fenwick 2010, p121).

Stabilisation seems to happen when the network “stabilises” and starts to act of itself: quoting Tara again “[s]tabilization is what happens when the network appears to be complete and durable and to exercise force while concealing all the dynamic translations that have created it and continue to maintain it (Fenwick 2010, p121).

The paper I’ve cited here discusses standards in education when analysed using ANT. It’s a really helpful paper as an introduction to ANT. It appealed to me because it was concerned with educational standards, and I was interested to see how I might understand them in an ANT way. The fascinating thing is that standards are usually understood as “immutable” or in ANT terms “immutable mobiles” (Law, 2003 in (Fenwick 2010, p123). Immutable mobiles are actants which have “stabilised as a self-contained and self –evident object. The roiling messy, network(s) of invention, resistance and negotiations that produced the list [of standards] are rendered invisible” (Fenwick 2010, p123). What the paper reveals however is unsurprisingly, a very complex picture, with standards instead of being unitary and stable, or ”representational”  – describing “ pre-existing realities of teaching” (Fenwick 2010) the socio- material analysis she quotes (Mulcahy 2007) focusses on a “performative approach which treats standards as relationally enacted in various everyday practices” (Fenwick 2010, p129). No not only does an ANT analysis acknowledge the messiness of the process which brought the standards into being, it also makes space for the “healthy fissures, tunnels, folds and unmapped spaces” (Fenwick 2010 p129)  generated by differences in enactments of the standards within the network. These spaces might not be exposed with another theoretical analysis, and ANT proponents would argue that this is where the most interesting translations and enactments take place.

Considering the new professional standards in Scotland would be an interesting ANT study. How immutable are they in practice? How do educators translate them? What other actants are at work in the networks they are working within?  How representational and performative are they? What is happening in the spaces in-between the nodes of the network? How is power or force exercised in this network?

I think that’s someone else’s PhD. Coming up next –  Michel Callon and the scallop fishermen, but for now I’ll introduce you to the mightily impressive Tara Fenwick, in case you haven’t already come across her, via this short interview:

Fenwick, T. J.  2010: (un)Doing  standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy 25:2 117-133

Mulcahy, D, 2007 (Re)working relations of strategy and spatiality in education. Studies in Continuing Education 29:2 143-162

Posted in PhD, Standards, Teacher Education | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments