Welcoming Dialogue- Positioning students as stakeholders in the research interview.

Ms Fiona Trapani and Dr Christine Redman

Overview of presentation

Introduction-

Why and how a researcher can utilise a PMMM* as a “Welcome dialogue” opportunity

Theoretical frame - meaning making

Outline of Method- relationship dynamic

Elsa case study- example of relationship building

Conclusion- Welcoming Dialogue- as a Method

*PMMM: Personal Meaning Making Map (Falk et al 1997)

Introduction – (why and how)Problem, ideas and aims

• PhD Research - Important to me

• Why should the students in my sample care? -The need to honour stakeholders

• Shared data, Shared story, Shared ownership -conjointly constructed narrative around learning through “passion projects”.

• Ethics- Pairs of students, time, consent

• Building relationships -visiting researcher- becomes an insider perspective.

PhD is exploring students’ perceptions of their learning in creative & contemporary

contexts? (Passion Project- student inquiry)

Start with a picture…

Methodological frame- Roberts’ (1996) triangle

Literature- underpinning methodology

• Agency (Giddens, 1993)

– ‘Me’ as researcher– Students as stakeholders – sharing their

experiences and ideas around learning.• Identity (Linehan & McCarthy 2000)

– Initial perception of ‘Adult’ and ‘child’– Shift focus to empower child.

• Rights and Duties (Redman & Rodrigues, 2008)

– Ethics- Clearly outlines ‘non-negotiable– Researcher as ‘supportive outsider’

Literature- underpinning methodology

• Story lines and positioning theory (Harre & Van Langenhove, 1996)

– Conversation as narrative- dialogical construction of meaning- “Do and Say”

• Cover, Secret and Sacred stories

(Clandinin and Connelly, 1996) – Building relationships to generate data that

gives more than a cover story.

Methodology- creating a safe place

• Exploring student’s perception of learning in ‘passion project’.

• 2 Interviews- PMMM* focused, student directed

a) Discussion and drawing PMMM (Falk et al, 1997), with reflection on PMMM.

b) 2 or more weeks later: Semi-Structured Interview, reflecting on PMMM.

c) Students choose Pseudonym

d) Students have ‘right of reply’ to examine and edit the transcripts.

*PMMM: Personal Meaning Making Map (Falk et al 1997)

So what? Student perspective

• Data indicates that students enact their agency to show aspects of their identity.

• I made 2 additional visits to her school, at Elsa’s request, as she wanted to share her next pieces of work with me.

• Identity- PMMM clear student control, and identification that I am a supportive adult.

• Rights and duties- recognised, respected and

developed.

So what?- researcher perspective

• The research interview is seeking to develop a dialogical relationship in a short time frame.

• “Welcoming Dialogue” encompasses:– Agency of researcher and student to co-author

storylines.– Identity of researcher and student; be prepared

to shift to share data, story and ownership.– Rights and Duties may shift- don’t fear this

‘unknown’ -be mindful of ethics (Rachael’s caution yesterday).

Methodological frame- Roberts’ (1996) triangle

Conjointly constructed interview – Agency, Identity and Rights and Duties = strong narrative and story developed for further analysis

References

• Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Professional Knowledge Landscapes: Teacher Stories, Stories of Teachers, Schools Stories, Stories of Schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.

• Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1997). The effect of Visotors’ agendas on Museum Learning. Curator, 41(2), 107–120.

• Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method (2nd ed.). Stanford, California: Polity Press/Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

• Harre, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning Theory: moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

• Linehan, C., & McCarthy, J. (2000). Positioning in Practice: Understanding Participation in the Social World. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 435–453. doi:10.1111/1468-5914.00139

• Redman, C., & Rodrigues, S. (2008). Researching the relationships in the Technologies of Self : Habitus and Capacities “Oughtness” influences discursive practices. In AARE 2008 International Education Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia. (pp. 1–10).

• Roberts, D. A. (1996). Dialogue Epistemic Authority for Teacher Knowledge : The Potential Role of Teacher Communities- A Response to Robert Orton *, 26(4), 417–431.