Professionalism and Posthumanism in Early Years Practice

The OU’s conference on professionalism and posthumanism fascinated me as someone who has worked in campaigning around literacy and education in England and Scotland. I now work in early years practice while pursuing an education doctorate. During this time, I have witnessed policy changes come and go. Despite the frustrations of governments and institutions, I remain optimistic that we can work through them because we have to, especially with the looming challenges of the climate crisis. In my experience, the short-term illusion that the neo-liberal world offers can be alluring, but there is no silver bullet to anything. I have been influenced by Vivian Gussin Paley’s (reference) storytelling approach to literacy, which is subtle and complex and has stayed with me much longer than England’s national literacy hour policy. Therefore, the problem I focus on is balancing the demands of professionalism and posthumanism in the early years’ sector.

Solution 1: Use the principles of posthumanism to unite concerns for eco and social justice and inspire us to be direct yet positive and affirmative in conversations with colleagues, children, and their parents. My current work with posthumanism has revitalized and challenged me in equal measure. It has inspired me to keep questioning, unite eco and social justice concerns, and be more direct yet positive and affirmative in conversations with colleagues, children, and their parents. I used to take pride in NOT being a teacher, but I have learned to be careful not to seek to belong through an anti-identity. As someone who has chosen to take the ‘many-jobs’ and ‘multiple-identities’ route, I have gained freedom of thinking but also experienced disconnection and a lack of confidence. But it has been an overall positive experience because it has made me find ways of being optimistic rather than just becoming a grumpy, dissatisfied, or burnt-out employee (past experiences!). This session gave me a new perspective on nomadism.

Solution 2: Develop a nuanced understanding of professionalism that values the personal, bodies, and emotions in caring professions like working in the early years. I appreciate that professionalism is a lifelong pursuit (Wall, 2014), having values and striving to be the best version of oneself in any situation, whether paid or not. However, I resist the terminology because it opposes the personal bodies and emotions central to caring professions like working in the early years. I wonder why we worry so much about the word or concept of professionalism and whether it is only because the early years’ sector is often left out of it. Nevertheless, I happily embrace different words to describe my job and use my energies elsewhere. While I am currently employed in a role that I enjoy, I have experienced the fragility of my identity when it is too connected with jobs and employment. Therefore, I try to think of myself as a professional while at the same time concentrating on significant values in my life, not just the parts that provide income and status through paid work. I also wonder how those I teach or spend time with think of me and whether it matters. Parents may have a consumerist view of the early years’ experience (May-Yin Lim, 2015), but I try to understand it rather than feel overwhelmed.

In conclusion, my reflections on professionalism and posthumanism have made me question the language and concepts used to describe our work and identities. As we face more significant challenges in the future, it is essential to remain optimistic, keep questioning, and prioritize the values that guide our work and lives.

So, my question is – what does professionalism mean to you

by Sarah Barton

Sara Barton AL @ OU

 

 

 

Sarah Barton works in early years practice in Edinburgh and as an associate lecturer with The Open University. She is also a part-time professional doctorate student with the OU, researching the experience of young children with additional support needs and/or disabilities in early years forest and nature settings.

What do I mean by participants’ perspectives: do I take their word for it?

The context

When I began my EdD studies, as an OU insider researcher, I knew that I wanted to explore multiple perspectives around feedback practices and to focus non-judgementally on participants’ own perspectives.

Feedback emerges as a concern throughout the literature Carless et al, 2011 and amongst colleagues.  Empirical studies and pedagogical discussions around feedback practices tend to focus on one perspective, usually students’.  I aimed to consider all perspectives, without foregrounding one, a challenge from my ‘insider’ position Hellawell, 2006 as an OU tutor of many years.

In considering which perspectives were essential to explore to understand feedback practices within this context, three distinct participant groups emerged clearly in terms of their allocated roles within the feedback process.  These comprised those who study and pay for tuition (students), those who facilitate and deliver a pedagogical service by working directly with students (tutors) and those who design and write the module and monitor the process of its delivery and assessment, manage staff and appoint tutors (central academics).

Further, the literature tends to take a ‘problem/solution’ approach and in so doing makes prescriptive recommendations about how participants ‘should’ behave, such as what tutors should be trained to do, to make feedback effective Wakefield et al, 2014I wanted to explore perspectives without imposing solutions to identified ‘problems’, considering multiple viewpoints, rather than a single dominant one.

In order to stand back, to be non-partisan, I chose a broadly ethnographic methodology, informed by the principles of being exploratory, interpretive and concerned with context Blommaert, 2007.  I elicited participants’ perspectives via their questionnaire responses and semi-structured interviews conducted via telephone.

My problem

Although being an insider meant, to an extent, I was a participant, my in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives through their own accounts did not meet ethnographic tendencies to use the multiple methods of data collection Lillis, 2008 available, such as actual tutor feedback.  I did not view events in situ, like Tuck’s ethnographic study Tuck, 2012, considering the context of tutors’ feedback production.  Yet, I could not see how to achieve this immersion in the lived experiences of participants, without imposing, as I saw it, my interpretation of their actions; I wanted to stay with participants’ own accounts of their perspectives.

Two alternative solutions

I considered identifying a case study of one student/tutor experience to allow me to explore observations of behaviour and associated documents alongside my data from semi-structured interviews and open questionnaire questions.

Another option was to stay true to my original intention and to continue to focus on an in-depth exploration focusing only on my participants’ declared perspectives.  This is what I chose to do.

My question/s

Therefore, what do I/we mean by participants’ perspectives?  What leads to the greater ‘truth’, to rely on participants’ own accounts, inevitably filtered through the researcher’s lens, or must we make potentially intrusive ‘checks’ on what participants do in practice to achieve an in-depth exploration of their perspectives?

by  Dr Jane Cobb

I have been an Associate Lecturer at the Open University since 2002, tutoring mainly English Language modules.  I live in Stourbridge in the West Midlands with my husband, two adult children and three Romanian rescue (street) dogs.  My recent EdD and my current research interests concern the multiple perspectives around feedback practices around assessed writing in HE.  This is my first venture into blogging, and I am looking forward to this creative space, where colleagues can share, debate, and discuss issues arising around their research.