Academia through the lens of a secondary school teacher

Students working on a professional doctorate such as an EdD usually have to juggle work, family and study. It is not an easy task because, as practitioners, research is a whole new area, and we have less time to come to terms with it than our PhD peers. On the other hand, we have the knowledge and expertise of our practices that no one outside of them could have. Of course, in principle, combining theory and practice would be ideal for research, but in reality, combining the two presents a myriad of problems.

My transition into academia was challenging because of a long career in teaching in secondary schools. Having completed my EdD, I can now see that Action Research (AR) has been critical in my EdD journey as a researcher, guiding me in the correct direction for each mistake I made (and there were many).

The two reasons that AR helped me were:

  • AR follows a spiral of iterative steps encouraging the researcher to reflect upon the research process and observe it from an outsider’s point of view;
  • The research questions arise directly from practice rather than from the literature, as with more theoretical studies and allows for change, modification and progress in all areas, including the research questions.

Although there are many kinds of AR, my research focused upon two collaborative methods:

  • Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a large-scale study aiming at emancipation and change within organisations or communities (Cresswell, 2003).
  • Collaborative AR is when the researcher and a group of like-minded colleagues work together, often (and in my case) as research participants.

For example, I used Burns’s (1999) eleven-phase spiral framework when I needed a detailed analysis, and Altrichter, Kemmis, McTaggart and Zuber-Skerritt’s (2002) four-phase one when I needed a more comprehensive summary of what was happening

Using the AR methodology to organise notes and findings regularly throughout my research clarified what was happening and the best course of action. Measures included changing research questions, discarding unnecessary data and even changing the method of data analysis from a case study to a multiple case study towards the end of the study.

In conclusion, combining research and work has not been easy, but the most challenging thing was to perceive my practice through the eyes of an academic and not a teacher. In my experience, together with my excellent supervisors, AR was the solution. What challenges have other practitioners come across in their quest to combine work and research?

We would be grateful if you could let us know by sending a blog post to: WELS-Prof-Docs@open.ac.uk, please put BLOG as your subject.

by Dr. Lesley June Fearn @lesleyfearn

I achieved my EdD in 2021 regarding learning and teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) using online community projects in secondary schools. This interest stems from more than thirty years of experience teaching English (as a Foreign Language) and English literature in state schools in the south of Italy. During this time, I have continually experimented with new approaches and techniques, especially with technology, to motivate students in their schooling. Other areas of interest include Fine Art and English literature that I studied as a BA and MA. As far as research is concerned, I am particularly interested in Action Research and sociocultural paradigms.

Congratulations: Dr Stafford

Celebrating Dr Mary Stafford’s successful completion of her doctoral thesis.

Doctoral researchers abroad: negotiating language and identity in a multilingual context

colourful balloons and ribbon to say well done
Photo by Gaelle Marcel on Unsplash

Abstract

This research explores how language and identity are negotiated by study abroad doctoral researchers originally from China, Brazil, Iran and Ukraine whilst studying in France. The research questions investigated the language choices made in the contexts encountered by the SA doctoral researchers, how these choices were negotiated and the potential impacts of the use of both French and English on their identities.

To address the three research questions posed in this study I have used a case study framework to explore the SA doctoral researchers’ use of language, their possibilities of negotiation of language choice as well as how these experiences impact their identities using both emic and etic perspectives. A framework was developed from the literature review, using Bourdieu’s concepts of social and linguistic capital as well as habitus. Byram’s work on intercultural awareness was also of relevance, as was Lave and Wenger’s legitimate peripheral participation. For identity the Block, Norton and Ting-Toomey’s work provided a framework. A series of three semi-structured interviews were undertaken with SA doctoral researchers on an individual basis as the main research method, research with further individual interviews with supervisors to explore the questions from another
perspective. Other methods included questionnaires and observations of language use in context.

The findings show the uses and potential linguistic capital for both English and French often vary depending on the community, affecting access, even with the same members participating and impacting on identities. This can influence the investment of the participants in both languages and ultimately their experience in France. To improve participation SA doctoral researchers should learn a minimum of the local language prior to undertaking three years of study in a non-English speaking country. Investment in social English for local and study abroad doctoral researchers could contribute to better understanding through third space and communication.

You can read Dr Stafford’s Thesis here: EdD mary stafford.pdf (open.ac.uk)