Meeting with both supervisors today which was great. I’m really grateful that they both made time for the meeting.
This was my first stab at getting something down on paper – I decided to start with a brief skim over the surface of the policy context, more in the spirit of a symbolic gesture towards starting the writing process than anything else and as expected I will need to make significant changes and extend it quite a bit as well. We discussed the various different elements of the policy context concerned and also had a good old thrashing about of my research questions. There are all sorts of possibilities with these: the policy story would be a very interesting one to pursue in the context of my study, but my instinct is to stick with the themes of process, purpose and effects when people engage in Learning Rounds. Because of the paucity of research in this specific area, the scope is fairly large, but instinctively I feel that this is the focus I would like to keep my attention on – maybe future studies can address the other questions:-)
The philosophy issue was also raised today. I still feel inadequately clued up to be able to make a choice here but I know I need to work it out. I suppose there is a bit of an irresistablity about some of the French philosophers and their theories – Derrida, Deleuze, Latour, and Foucault, the one I feel I can relate to best. If philosophers were cars these guys would be flashy Lamborghinis – definitely a bit more glamourous than Habermas and some of the other critical theorists (please don’t take my analogies seriously, Habermasians), but the structural and cultural ideas in the morphogenetic/morphostatic cycles of Margaret Archer’ critical realism does seem to fit this study very well. I suppose the big question is, does it fit my world view as well? That’s the question I’m not sure about. I actually really liked the concept, imagery and philosophy of bricolage, but I don’t think it could be a philosophy by itself.
Methods and practical issues like sample also were raised today, as we have been looking at these in the most recent workshops. Thinking about this but that’s for another post.
So for our next meeting which has been scheduled I need to do a deeper descriptive account of the policy context and separate out the very short critical section I had here and relocate this in the literature review.
I also need to keep reading and I’m aiming to outline the concepts for discussion in the literature review and have that ready for the next workshop. Helpful reading for me to follow up inculded: Schatzki; Salomon; Knorr-Cetina; Elder-Vass. I’ll be looking closely at Supovitz for policy refraction theory and the Education in theory book lent to me as well as carrying on my reading on policy. TLCs. teacher professional learning etc. Next meeting -30th September 10am.
- #glaikit Alison Fox analysis Anna Beck ANT Archer Asylum Bourdieu Callon Cate Watson CfE Collegiality conference CPD Critical realism curriculum for excellence deconstruction Derrida education Edutalk Elmore Foucault Glow Greg Whitby improvement inequality instructional core interviews languages leadership Learningcommunities Learning Rounds literacy Literature review masters methodology methods migrants peter mayo mixed ability observation online CPD online learning ontology Organisational Learning PhD PLCs poetry policy poster presentation PRD ProPEL PU refugees research Robert Owen Ruth Leitch RWL8 schools of inquiry SERA SERA 2012 Silverman social theories Social theory Sociology of translation system change Tara Fenwick teaching&learning Teaching Schools technology TETW transition TSF Wednesday seminars wordcloud workshop
Blogs I Follow
- The Language Gym
- Carol's Learning Curve
- Objet petit a
- Centre for Social Ontology
- Cat's eyes
- Pragmatic Education
- IOE LONDON BLOG
- AGENT SWARM
- Foucault News
- Nick Hopwood
- The Research Whisperer
- Just Trying To Be Better Than Yesterday
- Mark Carrigan
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
- 22,671 hits