This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 20 November 2014, At: 05:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Curriculum StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20

Liberal irony and reflectiveteaching: a role for academiccourses in in‐service teachereducationJohn QuickePublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: John Quicke (1992) Liberal irony and reflective teaching: a role foracademic courses in in‐service teacher education, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24:4,315-325, DOI: 10.1080/0022027920240402

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027920240402

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

J. CURRICULUM STUDIES, 1992, VOL. 24, NO. 4, 315-325

Liberal irony and reflective teaching: a role foracademic courses in in-service teacher education

JOHN QUICKE

Since their inception in the early 1970s master's degree courses for servingteachers have made a distinctive contribution to in-service education in theUK. Located in institutions of Higher Education (HE) (Universities andPolytechnics), they have been able to keep alive the notion of teachereducation as opposed to training, and to provide a much needed stimulus tothe critical reflection on practice of which innovation is born. In recent years,due mainly to the changing needs of schools and the impact of Governmentpolicies, HE education departments have been forced to re-examine theircourse structures and rethink their recruitment strategies. Most full-timecourses have been run down because funds to second teachers are no longeravailable and nearly all provision is now part time and, increasingly,modularized.

With free-standing modules as the basic units for accreditation purposes,a more flexible response to in-service needs is possible. The aim is to provideteachers with more choice as to the nature and number of modules they cantake, the timing of their enrolment and the period of their commitmenttowards achieving an award. Under the CATS (Credit Accumulation andTransfer Scheme) it is now possible to accumulate credits for work carriedout in different institutions. Moreover, teachers can choose from a widerrange of types of module, varying from school-based, action enquiry projectsto taught courses of usually a term's length. In some cases, credit can beearned for work carried out on short courses or as a result of participation ininnovative curriculum development prior to registration.

The discussion in this paper focuses on a particular aspect of the 'mix' onoffer-namely, higher-education-based academic taught courses, which inmost institutions are still the dominant form of module. The aim is to explorethe contribution of such courses, and to provide a justification for theapproach to in-service teacher education they represent. Such a justificationis felt to be necessary because of the various criticisms which have beenlevelled recently by 'consumers'. For instance, in a survey carried out for theUniversities' Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET), some LEAS andteachers were critical of long award-bearing courses provided by highereducation institutions on the grounds that they were ineffective as a stimulus

J. C. Quicke is a Senior Lecturer in Education and Director of the Advanced StudiesProgramme in the Division of Education, University of Sheffield, Floor 9, Arts Tower,Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. He is a professionally qualified educational psychologist and workedfor several years in an LEA school psychological service. He has written three books: TheCautious Expert (Open University Press, 1982), Disability in Modern Children's Fiction(Croom Helm, 1985), and Challenging Prejudice through Education (Falmer, 1990).

0022-0272/92 $3-00 © 1992 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

316 J. C. QUICKE

for change, provided for teachers' personal career needs rather than schoolneeds, were taught by 'experts' who were unaware of teachers' and schools'specific needs and were generally too 'academic' (see Mortimore andMortimore 1989). So what, if anything, has changed? Might not thesecriticisms still apply to those modules in a modularized programme whichare more academic in nature?

The discussion begins with an examination of McNamara's critique(1990) of academic thinking which could be regarded as legitimizing some ofthe criticisms voiced by teachers and others. The argument is developed that(a) the problem at hand is to do with communication between two socialworlds, (b) there is nothing inherent in academic thinking which makes itinappropriate for teachers, (c) courses should provide an opportunity forteachers and academics to engage with each other's world, (d) criticalengagement with texts is a way to achieve this, and (e) the main aim of suchcourses should be to facilitate the teaching and learning of how to read texts.In the second half of the paper, the aim is to demonstrate how a particularform of text, the ethnographic case study report, might be read in ways thatenable teachers to get the best out of it for reflective purposes.

Two social worlds

McNamara's critique focuses on initial teacher training courses but hisquestions could also be asked about academic courses for serving teachers.He (1990: 149,151) probes the assumption that 'an induction into thetheories, concepts and language of the academic view of education willnecessarily lead to improvements in the quality of teachers' thoughts on theirpractices'. Although he is clearly not against thinking or reflection as such, hedoes raise questions about the kind of thinking teachers are encouraged toindulge in on academic courses. Such thinking he characterizes as 'the abilityto be aware of competing or alternative theoretical perspectives, the capacityto weigh arguments and evidence and respect intellectual integrity and theability to synthesize and form the balanced view'. His main objection to thisconventional 'academic' mode of thought is that it does not recognize orvalue the nature of everyday thinking in the concrete circumstances in whichteachers have to work - circumstances in which it is often necessary to deviatefrom conformity to 'prior canons of logical and rational thought' and where'good' practitioners act from a strong commitment to basic values andbeliefs.

This analysis of teachers' thinking is a necessary counter to those whoview the academic/teacher relationship simplistically as merely to do withquestions about the dissemination of research findings or the practicalapplication of academic theories. It is an analysis which identifies theproblem of communication between two concrete groups and which makesexplicit the very real but often glossed-over differences between them. Whileit is true that the 'worlds' of these groups overlap, that one person can belocated in both, and that attitudes and perspectives may vary within eachworld, the notion of separate groups who inhabit different 'life worlds' andtherefore have different interests is an important and useful one.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

LIBERAL IRONY AND REFLECTIVE TEACHING 3 1 7

However, McNamara's characterization of academic thinking as morerational, more thorough and more open than teachers' thinking is problema-tic. It is evident that academics' thought is not always of the explicit, highlyrationalized kind that McNamara suggests it is. Like teachers' knowledge,academics' knowledge will include 'common-sense' assumptions which arerarely questioned and routine practices underpinned by unarticulated beliefsand values. Such knowledge will reflect the survival concerns of institution-ally based academics and may be in tension with their expressed concerns foropen debate and unconstrained choice between theoretical perspectives.

Rather than distinguishing the two 'worlds' in terms of rational andirrational elements, it would be preferable, following Schon (1983), to lookupon both as involving knowing-in-action and reflection in action.Knowing-in-action is thinking-as-usual and deploys knowledge which is notconsciously reflected on. In Schiitz's (1971) well-known phrase it isknowledge which is often 'incoherent, only partially clear and not at all freefrom contradictions', but is nevertheless rational in the sense that it is themode of thought of rational actors bent on realizing their interests andfurthering common aims within a framework of social and materialconstraints. The form of this knowledge is pragmatic and academics have tobe just as pragmatic and practical in their own world as teachers are in theirs.It is knowledge which provides recipes about how to act competently inroutine situations and provides ready-made explanations for most everydayevents, but while it does often contain 'illogicalities', it must be 'sufficientlycoherent, clear and consistent' to give a participant 'a reasonable chance ofunderstanding and being understood' (Schiitz 1971). Rather than acceptingirrationalities when these occur, participants strive to be rational in their ownterms.

Reflection-in-action is a more rationalized and more systematic form ofthinking in action which is necessary when the 'smoothness' of practicalaction is for some reason interrupted. It usually involves making explicit thehidden assumptions which underpin practice and articulating the tacitknowledge which enables participants to 'get by' in everyday life. In both thesocial world of the academic and the teacher reflection-in-action will bestimulated by enquiry or research activity which is not just puzzle-solving(see Kuhn 1970) but challenges the existing parameters of knowledge-in-action.

However, it is not necessarily the case that action in one world willautomatically be stimulated by or relevant to action in the other. Forexample, teachers will not always look to the university as a resource forcritical reflection and as a catalyst for change. Teachers' own reflectiveactivity may even be inhibited and impoverished by contact with theacademic world. Likewise, academics might or might not be able to learn agreat deal about their own practice from the way teachers reflect on theirs.Thus it is not a question of working out a 'better fit' between two worldslocked together in the dichotomous embrace of the 'rational' and the'irrational', 'theory' and 'practice', the 'scientific' and the 'ideological', the'explicit' and the 'implicit' etc.; but rather one of exploring the various pointsof connection and the common ground in an historically contingentrelationship between two social worlds.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

318 J. C. QUICKE

The relevance of academe

And so, what is it about the academic world, its products, processes andvalues, which might be relevant to teachers? What is it that they might havein common? McNamara's (1990) description of academic thinking as theawareness of alternative perspectives and the capacity to weigh arguments,respect intellectual integrity and form a balanced view, is a useful startingpoint. As I have already suggested, teachers' knowing-in-action might not beof the time. The process of stopping and questioning or challenging whateverit is that one is doing can 'all too easily [lead] to paralysis and an inclinationnot to act'. This is relatively uncontentious, but it is beside the point, becauseeducational goals which 'good' teachers are trying to help their pupils toachieve. So what is wrong with it?

McNamara (1990: 149,151) seems to be making two points. The first isthat you can overdo it; you can be too critical and too reflective for too muchof the time. The process of stopping and questioning or challenging whateverit is that one is doing can 'all too easily [lead] to paralysis and an inclinationnot to act'. This is relatively uncontentious, but it is beside the point, becauseacademics who support the notion of critical reflection have never suggestedthat reflection should ever be split from action.

The second point is a more serious challenge to the academic mode ofthought. It concerns the 'alienating effect' of thinking; the effect whichsomehow loosens teachers' commitment to the basic principles whichunderpin their everyday activities and makes them less efficient teachers.'Good' teachers are said to have 'firm views about the process of education,their teaching styles and how they treat children'. The intellectual favours anironist style of thought which can lead to redescription of those fundamentalaspects of the teachers' world in terms which are often humiliating (and thusdebilitating) because they can make current beliefs look silly or obsolete.Teachers may and often do resist such redescription, but it is not clear whythey should be subjected to it in the first instance, particularly since 'ironistthinking' is not necessarily 'good' for them and does nothing to improverelationships between themselves and academics. The latter, of course, areoften responsible in their writing and research for redescriptions thatallegedly humiliate.

This important point is fleshed out by McNamara with quotes fromRorty (1989), according to whom 'ironist intellectuals' are in a position tohumiliate people because they are aware of the power of redescription.Redescription conveys to people the idea that their language-or to useRorty's (1989: 89) term their 'final vocabulary'- is 'up for grabs'. It can becruel because it can undermine their belief in the worth of their everydayactivities. Things they take seriously may even be mocked by looking at themfrom an alternative perspective. Thus a teacher may think he or she iscatering for the social and educational needs of the children in his or hercharge but may be described by the academic researcher as a social controlagent serving the needs of an unjust social system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

LIBERAL IRONY AND REFLECTIVE TEACHING 3 1 9

Liberal irony

However, if we pursue Rorty (1989: 91) further on the issue, it becomes clearthat for him the challenges to everyday thinking posed by ironist intellectualsare not inevitably humiliating. They can also be motivated by a 'liberal'concern to increase the awareness of cruelty in ourselves and sensitize us tothe oppression of others. While it is true that liberal ironists will not be able toproduce a definitive reason to care about suffering or be able to ground theirviews in a notion of a 'common human essence', they are compelled by a senseof 'common danger' that we can all suffer humiliation and by an understand-ing that 'the chances of being kind, of avoiding the humiliation of others, [is]expanded by redescription'.

In fact, far from being a mode of thought which is of questionable valuefor teachers, it could be argued with some force that ironism, whenaccompanied by liberal concern, is exactly the form of thinking that teachersshould be developing in themselves and their pupils if their practice is to begenuinely educational. Such thinking facilitates the realization ofeducational goals such as open-mindedness and the ability to act withempathy and humanitarianism; goals with which few people would quarrel atthe level of rhetoric.

Undoubtedly, the ironic form of thought is not for the fainthearted. Ittakes courage to act in the world on the assumption of the historical-locatedness and contingency of one's own language and value position. It isnot easy to accept that feelings of empathy with fellow human beings do notemanate from a power outside the concrete historical circumstances of one'sexistence. But what is the alternative? Do we want teachers to remainuncritical of firmly held views about teaching and learning because they arecommitted to them as absolute truths? Do we want teachers to beunconscious moralists and metaphysicians? Do we want them to eschewironism because it allows unflattering redescription, albeit redescriptionwhich for the liberal ironist is motivated by a genuine concern to 'see strangepeople as fellow sufferers' (Rorty 1989: xvi)? Or is it more keeping with thevalues of our educational discourse to argue that, whatever the appearances, ateacher who is not a liberal ironist cannot be an effective teacher?

Clearly, the position I am advocating here is that 'good' teaching isteaching which is self-reflective and encourages pupils to reflect on conceptsand experiences; which critically accommodates all redescription that seeks agenuine liberal reconstruction of current practice; and which alwaysattempts to be sensitive to the possible hurt caused to pupils by the wayteaching and learning are organized in schools. If thinking is alienating, thenthis would be a 'good thing' if the practice which teachers become alienatedfrom was illiberal.

What I am suggesting is that the ideal relationship between academicsand teachers would be one based on an agreed understanding of the value ofliberal ironic thought. As we know, such a relationship cannot be taken asgiven. It has to be carefully constructed. Whether or not shared meaningswill be achieved will depend largely on whether each group can cope with theinstitutional constraints which might prevent them acting imaginatively andempathetically. In Rorty's Utopia human solidarity is not a fact to berecognized but a goal to be achieved by imagination.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

320 J. C. QUICKE

Text-based courses

The hope, then, is that academic courses would provide an opportunity forteachers and academics to engage critically with each other's world and thatsuch engagement would stimulate teachers' reflection-in-action. There areseveral forms which such courses can take, but in the following discussion Ishall be concerned with the text-based course which is the most typical andconventional form. The question is: how can texts be used in a way thatenables teachers to get the best out of them? My preoccupation in thisinstance is with the teacher as learner and the academic as teacher-educator,which is not to say that this is delimitative of the whole relationship. Clearly,a 'good' course should be mutually beneficial in a spiralling way, so thatacademics should also be learners and learn more about teachers' world,which should make their teaching more effective, and so on.

The discussion starts from the assumption that it is often the case thatprevious encounters with academic texts in academic settings has been off-putting. Teachers have been confronted with texts which in their form andstructure are 'foreign' (see Bines 1989: 27) and while it is inevitable thatdifferent worlds have different conventions the barrier this represents toteachers engaging with texts has been underestimated. Teachers capacitiesfor deriving meaning from the text and making links to their own practice,therefore, is what courses should seek to develop and guidance is required onhow to read texts in ways which will facilitate teachers' reflection-in-action;and not just any form of reflection but that which is in line with the valueposition I have outlined.

In formulating guidelines for reading texts on academic courses, theteacher-educator should bear in mind the value position of liberal irony. Inorder to avoid humiliating teachers, the first aim should be to demystify thetext. This can be done in a number of ways, but crucially it involves askingquestions about the author's point of view, his or her value position andwhether or not the text is trustworthy. Which texts are chosen is also animportant matter. Some texts can be off-putting precisely because they seemto discourage questions which would demystify them. The language, formand structure of the text convey messages which seem to deny that it iswritten from a point of view. The reader is encouraged to regard the text as'objective', as written by a disinterested observer, as the work of an 'expert',as 'scientific' and having a 'status' above and authority over the reader. Suchtexts can be engaged with and brought down to size, so to speak, but thereseems little point in asking teachers on courses to repeatedly read andevaluate texts of this nature, since it may well reinforce their views about the'foreign' nature of academic texts. They should surely experience as soon aspossible the value of engaging with text by using texts which are moreaccessible, less distant and more inviting to the reader?

Reading ethnography

To demonstrate how such texts might be critically engaged with, let usconsider ways of reading one particular type of academic text- the ethno-graphic case-study report. This is not to suggest that this is the only form of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

LIBERAL IRONY AND REFLECTIVE TEACHING 321

text which it would be appropriate to use on text-based courses, but it iscertainly one which has obvious potential for generating challengingredescription. As Rorty (1989: xvi) points out, ethnography is one of themain genres for the task of producing the 'detailed description of whatunfamiliar people are like and the redescription of what we ourselves are like'so that human solidarity can be created and human communicationfacilitated.

In reading an ethnographic text from a liberal ironist perspective thereare many questions that one would wish to ask which relate to thetrustworthiness of the text. Can we believe it? How thorough is the study?How rigorous is the application of its chosen methodology? etc. A usefulbreakdown of some of the major concerns here has been provided by Guba(1981) in his discussion of the criteria of trustworthiness in relation to what hedescribes as the 'naturalistic' paradigm. The concerns are common to allresearch endeavours, but are differently conceived within each paradigm.Thus within the naturalistic paradigm truth value is interpreted as thecredibility of the report, i.e., the extent to which it is isomorphic not with asingle reality but with 'respondents' perceptions of the multiple realitieswithin people's minds'. Applicability for the naturalistic researcher refers tothe transferability between two contexts which is dependent on the extent towhich they are similar; consistency is translated as dependability, andneutrality as conformability.

Credibility can be improved by such methods as prolonged engagementat a site, persistent observation, peer debriefing and member checks;transferability by collecting 'thick' descriptive data; dependability usingoverlapping methods and stepwise replication, involving, for instance, teamsworking in parallel and cross-checking developing insights; and confirma-bility by, for example, carrying out a confirmability audit, where it isascertained that every interpretation is supported by evidence. If theseprocedures had been carried out, then we might assume the researcher hadtaken the key concerns seriously. Thus, in relation to credibility we wouldexpect some evidence of the respondents' own interpretations having beencarefully considered and of the researcher having continuously checked hisor her interpretations with respondents. Guba (1981: 85) suggests that'enquirers ought to document both having made member checks as well asways in which the enquiry was altered'. Other procedures include resear-chers exposing themselves to a jury of peers and following rules such as 'noitem of information ought to be accepted that cannot be verified from at leasttwo sources'.

Statements that certain procedures had been followed do not inthemselves, of course, guarantee the quality of the research. Merely beinginformed in a report as part of a methodological introduction that memberchecks were carried out, or that peer review or an audit took place, will notusually be sufficient to persuade the reader that the researcher carried out hisor her enquiries imaginatively and empathetically, and really had beensensitive to the feelings of participants and appreciative of their viewpoint.

In judging the insightfulness and appreciativeness of texts, perceptions ofthe quality of the 'thick description' and 'thick interpretation' are a crucialelement (see Denzin 1989). Thick description is supposed to capture the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

322 j . c. QUICKE

lived experience of participants and the meanings which are part of thatexperience. It goes beyond the superficial aspects and gives details of thesignificance of the experience for all the persons concerned. 'Good' thickdescription is not glossed; that is, it provides details of actual experiencesrather than statements which summarize or compress that experience. Itbuilds on participant observation and biographical methods, contextualizesthe actual flow of experience historically and in terms of interactions withothers. Thick interpretation interprets thick description. It attempts toreveal the various perspectives that exist in any piece of social interaction andinterprets them in a way that is isomorphic with the interpretations of thepersons being studied. The researcher's further interpretive work builds onthis process.

If thick description is not 'good' then the author will not have 'set thescene' in a way which persuades the reader that he or she really doesunderstand the everyday world of the reader, i.e., the teacher. The aim is toproduce a mundane observational account, not at this point to redescribe orchallenge the reader's experience. If this fails, then later redescription willlack credibility, because it will not have been grounded in a description of theworld which the reader recognizes. Redescription will only be takenseriously if the reader has some sense that the author knows approximatelywhat it is like to be in the shoes of the person or persons being observed. If theauthor is perceived as a 'poor' observer, who lacks empathy, then why shouldhis or her interpretations which 'go against the grain' be taken into account?

The importance of irony

Having sensed that the author appreciates 'what it is like' to be a teacher orpupil in a classroom or other relevant location, the reader should welcomeredescription because of the challenge or potential challenge it represents.Authors' interpretations should disrupt common-sense thinking, not merelyreflect it. A particularly important characteristic of ethnographies which arechallenging in this respect involves the use of irony. The author is concernedwith revealing the unintended consequences of intended action. He or shelooks for irony without necessarily finding it, but the text should indicatewhether there has been such a search. The author might show an inclinationto point up similarities between events and people which are unexpected; tohighlight differences which no one noticed; to demonstrate how phenomenathat are opposites seem to require each other; that motivation whichappeared sincere or genuine was in fact not so; that therapy was manipul-ation; that what was considered to be evil did contain an unacknowledged'good' (see Atkinson 1990). The role of metaphor is important. Similaritiescan be detected by viewing the social world through a new root metaphor,e.g., conceiving society as drama or as an organism.

Many texts are ironic on a number of levels. Pupils may see themselves ashaving identities which are the opposite to those constructed for them byteachers, but through the work of the self-fulfilling prophecy may ultimatelycome to view themselves as teachers see them. Fantasy becomes reality,reality fantasy. The story of the author's interpretive work often has a certain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

LIBERAL IRONY AND REFLECTIVE TEACHING 3 2 3

'logic' of dramatic irony which as Brown (1977: 174) points out has threeelements, 'First there is a juxtaposing of opposites... the association of whatwas unexpected. Then the... reversal of one term to its opposite [which]must be as inevitable as their initial association... Finally, there is dramaticresolution, a synthesis of thesis and antithesis at a higher level'.

A number of other criteria have been discussed by Zeller (1987) whosework on the presentational aspects of texts is summarized in an article byLincoln and Guba (1990). Four rhetorical criteria are considered: the unity ofthe text, its coherence, consistency and 'logic and harmony'; overallorganization, where the same critical literary criteria are used as whenjudging a novel or a short story; simplicity and clarity; and craftsmanship, suchas the text's power and elegance, its courage and creativity, its openness andproblematic nature, and independence:

. . . a construction ought not to be a passive acceptance and/or restatement of someoneelse's construction.... Rather, it should be the product of an active process, a kind ofpersonal hermeneutic.... The writing should demonstrate the intellectual wrestlingthat the writer went through...

The self of the author need not be made explicit, but his or her voice in self-questioning mood should be detectable. This may be revealed by the authorentering a dialogue with him or herself and using an exploratory, enquiringstyle. The text should convey some sense of how the author as researcherrelated to the 'scene' of action. Has the author considered his 'position' inrelation to the research? Is there an expression of the tension between the'nearness' of being a participant and the 'farness' of being an observer(Atkinson 1990: 19). Lincoln and Guba (1990: 54) refer to the need for someportion of the text being given over to conscious reflexivity, such as reflectionson the researcher's personal experience of field work. The inquirer also hasan obligation to be 'self-questioning, self-challenging, self-critical and self-correcting'.

Concluding comment

The teaching situation involves a three-way interaction between teacher,academic teacher-educator and text. The meeting ground is the text and theprocess is to compare different perspectives in the hope that a commonground of liberal irony will be realized and mutual understanding accom-plished. Of course, the written text is not the only medium through which thetwo 'worlds' communicate, but it is always the most important one on anacademic course. The guidance offered on 'reading' texts gives onlyguidelines. It would be contradictory in terms of liberal ironist values toprovide such guidance within a pedagogical framework which permitted nonegotiation.

The argument is that learning to 'read' texts in the way described abovewill act as a stimulus to teachers' reflection-in-action and enhance the qualityof that reflection. In general what is good for research is good for practice,and vice versa (see Altrichter and Posch 1989). For example, like goodresearchers, good teachers will appreciate the historical contingency oflanguage, selfhood and community. They will be alive to possible ironies,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

3 2 4 J. C. QUICKE

unintended consequences and contradictions between declared aims andactual practices. They will actively seek to construct and reconstruct theclassroom world in line with a vision of the liberal community. They willacknowledge the importance of reflective activity, even if this is demandingof time and energy, often requiring them to wrestle with ideas for longperiods. They will understand the value of finding their own 'voice' in aworld of determined identities. They will seek to improve their understand-ing of how pupils can be humiliated in schools. They will recognize the valueof 'thick description' and make every effort to understand pupils' culturalperspectives, and individual biographies. Descriptions of pupils would notbe glossed and they would be critical of policies, e.g., on assessment, whichdemanded glossed descriptions. At the same time it would be recognized thatdescribing pupils could never be as immensely detailed and as metaphor-freeas, for example, the behavioural sciences and many of the government'scurrent policies demand.

Do such courses meet the criticisms sketched earlier? The dominantmodel of the learner is usually still individualistic, the focus being on theindividual teacher's reflective activity, but I would repudiate the idea thatthese courses are, therefore, mainly concerned with helping teachers furthertheir personal careers rather than with assisting the school to meet its in-service needs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who make thiscriticism do so on the ground that what is beneficial for an individualteacher's practice is not necessarily good for the school. But it is difficult toimagine circumstances where the goals of teacher education of the kind that Ihave outlined, if realized, could ever fail to contribute in some way toimprovements in educational practices in the school as a whole. Of course,which.teachers go on courses may or may not be in line with a management'sperceived priorities, but that is another matter.

One might even go so far as to suggest that text-oriented academiccourses in higher education institutions are often more relevant and morelikely to meet the school's needs than many school-based 'practical' courses.The latter are often too short and concerned with training rather thaneducation; and do not allow enough distance from the minutiae of everydaypracticalities of sufficient personal space for reflective purposes. Evenpractical projects and action-enquiry-type modules on award-bearingcourses are not always as relevant to reflection-in-action as one mightimagine. The processes do not always include attempts to be genuinely opento new experiences and alternative perspectives, with the result that theproducts are often superficial, written in a pseudo-scientific style and tooobviously locked into a sectional perspective within the micro-politicalframework of the school. While there is no doubt that the agenda of academiccourses is to some extent imposed on teachers by academic teacher-educators, the ethos of such courses, if liberal, may allow more autonomy forthe teacher than management-inspired training courses on staff developmentprogrammes.

As for the criticism that such courses are taught by experts who are out oftouch, if this is still the case then it needs to be remedied. But it is a feature ofmuch good research that researchers do not see themselves as experts and ifwhat is good for research is good for teaching then teacher-educators should

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

LIBERAL IRONY AND REFLECTIVE TEACHING 325

not see themselves as experts either. The challenge for the academic andresearch community is to carry out research and produce texts which are of'good quality' in terms of at least some of the criteria sketched here. Whetheror not they will be able to do this will depend on the degree to which they canmaintain intellectual integrity in an increasingly market-oriented andcommercially minded research community where concern for survivalbreeds a 'safe bet' rather than a genuinely innovative and risk-takingmentality.

References

ALTRICHTER, H. and POSCH, P. (1989) Does the 'Grounded Theory' approach offer a guidingparadigm for teacher research? Cambridge Journal of Education 19 (1): 21-31.

ATKINSON, P. (1990) The Ethnographic Imagination (London and New York: Routledge).BINES, H. (1989) The development of study and research skills on in-service courses. British

Journal of In-Service Education 15 (1): 25-28.BROWN, R. H. (1977) A Poetic for Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).DENZIN, N. (1989) Interpretive Interactionism (Newbury Park, London and New Delhi:

Sage).GUBA, E. G. (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 29 (2): 75-91.KUHN, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press).LINCOLN, Y. and GUBA, E. (1990) Judging the quality of case study reports. Qualitative

Studies in Education, 3 (1): 53-59.MCNAMARA, D. (1990) Research on teachers' thinking: its contribution to educating student

teachers to think critically. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16 (2): 147-160.MORTIMORE, P. and MORTIMORE, J. (1989) School-focused in-service training in England and

Wales: the challenge to higher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15 (20):133-139.

RORTY, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne:Cambridge University Press).

SCHÖN, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, (London: Temple Smith).SCHÜTZ, A. (1971) The stranger. In B. R. Cosin, I. R. Dale, G. M. Esland and D. E. Swift

(eds) School and Society, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 32-38.ZELLER, N. (1987) A rhetoric for naturalistic inquiry. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana

University, Bloomington.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

5:08

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14