Paper EDW04583 ‘A nexus of relations of power in students ...Jl Ungaran 3 Malang, East Java, 65112 Indonesia Email: [email protected] Postal Address PO Box 3321 Norwood

A nexus of relations of power in students-as-researchers approaches

Jan Edwards 1

Paper EDW04583

‘A nexus of relations of power in students-as-researchers approaches’

Refereed paper for presentation at the Annual Conference of the Australian

Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, 28 November – 2 December

2004.

Jan Edwards

Institutional Address

University of South Australia

Holbrooks Road, Underdale,

South Australia, 5032

Email: [email protected]

Home address

Jl Ungaran 3

Malang, East Java, 65112

Indonesia

Email: [email protected]

Postal Address

PO Box 3321

Norwood

South Australia 5067


Jan Edwards 2

Abstract

This paper argues that an analysis of ‘power’ needs to be central to research

approaches that involve students and young people as researchers. This centrality of

power needs to be in the conceptualisation, enactment and reporting of students as

researchers approaches. A model of a ‘nexus of relations of power in students-as-

researchers approaches’ was developed for my study that investigated the

subjectivities of poor and working class young women and girls and Australian

government Mutual Obligations policies. This model is described in this paper, and

locates power at the centre of the students-as-researchers approaches developed for

the study.

Introduction

This paper begins with a brief review of the literature on students as researchers

approaches. In so doing, I identify the ways that power is described as being an

aspect to the planning, implementation and reporting of research approaches that

include young people as student researchers. I then describe the Foucaultian concept

of ‘power’ used as a basis for developing a model of a ‘nexus of relations of power in

students-as-researchers approaches’.1 This model was developed for my recent study

that investigated the ways in which the subjectivities of poor and working class

young women and girls were formed in response to Australian government Mutual

Obligations policies. My model specifically focuses on power as a central concern to

the planning, implementation and reporting of research approaches that include

students acting as researchers. I conclude this paper with a summary of the features

of the approach I developed. These are based upon the development of positive and

productive power relations between students-as-researchers, teachers and adult

researchers.

1 Students as researchers approaches are described in the US and UK as Students as Researchers. I use

the style put forward by the author, and in describing my own work in this study and my work in theSCSP I use students-as-researchers. When discussing students as researchers as a body of work andmore generally, students as researchers is used without the hyphens.


Jan Edwards 3

Section one: Research approaches involving young people as researchers

A variety of approaches have evolved for including young people in research

projects. Frequently, these young people are students enrolled in schools, and this is

often because of the greater ease in locating young people to work with. I have

previously identified and described the features of four main types of research

approaches that utilise students acting as researchers (Edwards 2004). These

approaches are; students-as-researchers, students as course work researchers,

students as collaborative researchers and, students as participatory and participatory

action researchers. To begin, I summarise the main features of each of these

approaches and describe how each of these includes considerations of power.

Students-as-researchers

Students-as-researchers approaches are typically conceived of as being part of a

larger research project that involves a number of strands. Two Australian examples

include the Students Completing Schooling Project [SCSP] (Smyth, Hattam, Cannon,

Edwards, Wilson & Wurst 2000), and the Information Technology, Literacy and

Educational Disadvantage project [ITLED] (DETE 1999; Comber & Green 1999;

Comber & Thomson 1999; Fraser 1999). In these projects, students-as-researchers

approaches were conceptualised as being part of larger research projects linked to

explicit research, curriculum and learning goals. These goals in turn were intended to

make a contribution to research and knowledge outside of the school and to the body

of knowledge more generally.

In the case of the SCSP, student insights sought were on the topic of students leaving

school early, while in the ITLED project, student insights contributed to research

findings about information and literacy practices of students experiencing

educational disadvantage. The insights provided by the student research groups

contributed to the findings of the larger research projects. Both projects had clear

commitments to involve students in the collection and theorisation of information

generated. As well, both projects aimed to publish student work. However, neither of

these projects locate power as central to the approach. As a researcher on the SCSP, I


Jan Edwards 4

feel comfortable with the benefit of hindsight offering a critique of how the SCSP

considered power.

The conceptualisation of the students-as-researchers strand of the SCSP did not give an

adequate account of power. In the discussion paper I wrote with another researcher

(Edwards & Hattam 1999) we raised the possibilities of power arising as an issue in

terms of:

How to deal with the inherent power differential between the Research

Team and the students-as-researchers—especially in relation to choice of

research problem, and how the information will be represented and

disseminated (Edwards & Hattam 1999: 9).

Outside of this brief statement, power is not dealt with in the students-as-researchers

strand of the SCSP in any significant way because we (the Research Team) were absent

from the classrooms when the actual teaching and research occurred. As researchers

we lacked the everyday knowledge and experience of the research group to either

observe or deal with power and its exercise within the students-as-researchers groups

or in any other ways. Consequently our written accounts did not adequately account

for issues and relations of power (Edwards 1999; Edwards & Hattam 1999). This style

of approach differs from what I describe as students as course-work researchers below.

The main differences are those described above are constructed starting from a specific

research question in a larger project, whilst students-as-course-work researchers

approaches are principally designed to fulfil certain course requirements.

Students as course-work researchers

The main body of work reported in the literature, best described as students as

course work researchers, emerges from the United States [US]. These approaches

tend to be based on the research work of an adult researcher as opposed to research

that involves students as members of a research group. Kincheloe and Stienberg

(1998) edited a collection of the work of their students postgraduate teaching

students reporting on their own research projects, often in their own classrooms

(Berry 1998; Prettyman 1998; Fitchman Dana 1998; Hinchey 1998). In the reports of

these studies, the adult researchers act independently as opposed to working


Jan Edwards 5

together with a research group of school age students or young people acting as

researchers.

Others, including Reynolds and Tehan (2001) and Prieto (2001) focus on research

approaches with university students as researchers. The study reported by Reynolds

and Trehan (2001) is notable because they consider issues of power. Their critical

approach focuses on journal writing, with students encouraged to reflect on socio-

political issues such as gender, cultural marginalisation and power. Prieto’s (2001)

study in Chile involved university students working with school age students to

develop new ways of teaching. Again in Australia, Wilson (1998) worked with school

aged students to examine the school curriculum. These approaches have in common

a top-down approach with the primary purpose of student involvement being to

fulfill postgraduate and school course requirements.

Students as collaborative researchers

The enlistment of students acting as researchers as either paid or unpaid assistants to

university researchers is a feature of what I describe as students as collaborative

researchers. There are a number of studies in the US that report payment of students,

including Farrell, Peguero, Lindsey and White (1988).2 Nairn and Smith (2002) in

New Zealand (NZ) offer a five point rationale for involving peer researchers

including the possibility of the research process empowering students; and, offering

the possibility of students becoming involved in political action.

Others have enlisted their students as unpaid collaborators. For example, Schwartz

(1998) collaborated with his students who assisted him with photocopying and other

tasks. Described interchangeably as ‘research assistants’ and ‘collaborators’ it is

difficult to ascertain the precise role of the students as researchers. It appears from

the description of their activities by Schwartz that power over the research,

processes, outcomes and publications remained with him, despite him seeking

permission of his research assistants to speak at conferences about their work

together.

2 See also Farrell (1990, 1994).


Jan Edwards 6

A study with primary aged student researchers in the US is reported by Nespor

(1998) who illustrates how the students he worked with attempted to take control

and assert some power over the research findings. The students found a way to

‘articulate collective complaints without fear of interruption or sanction’ (p. 381).

This is an important point that shows how students as researchers approaches can

assist students to find ways to exert power. It does however beg the question about

the existing power relations within the class that led students to act in these ways.

Students as collaborative researchers approaches have in common, power relations

embedded in hierarchical institutions and an apparent absence of student

engagement in the theorisation of the information they generate for adult

researchers. As well adult researchers remain in control of the process and outcomes

including publication, while payment creates relations of employment, typically

embedded in power.

Students as participatory and participatory action researchers

Student Action Research for University Access (SAURA) in Australia, involves

young people working with adult researchers investigating the access of themselves

and their peers to university. The process is aimed at empowering students and

involves demystifying universities for those with little information about higher

education. This approach has been used with students over a number of years,

(Atweh & Dornan 1997; Atweh & Burton 1995; Campbell, Cook & Dornan 1995;

Atweh, Chrsitensen & Dornan 1998; Atweh Cobb & Dornan 1997). Whilst

empowering the students in relation to university access, students appear to act at

the direction of adults in the research process investigating a predetermined topic.

The power they have in the conceptualisation and the research process itself remains

unclear.

A study by Shultz (2001: 4) reports how she worked with young ‘at-risk’ women, to

co-construct research projects so their ownership was shared’. Shutltz raises issues of

power only at a superficial level, that is she claims that power was examined with

the students, however she provides no detail as to how this may have occurred. This

study is best described as a participatory mentoring program for ‘at-risk’ students,


Jan Edwards 7

and involved Schultz developing one to one relationships with students through

providing assistance to them to complete personal tasks. It would appear from

Shultz’s description of her work that these relationships were not power neutral.

Like Schwartz (1998), Schultz (2001) asked permission to use students’ work at

conferences. Regardless, power relations in students as researchers approaches are

much more complex than this.

A further body of work in Australia is the Student Action Teams (Holdsworth 1998,

2000, 2001; Holdsworth, Stafford, Stokes & Tyler 2001). These studies along with

those reported by the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools (Groundwater-Smith

& Mockler 2003), in Australia, and those funded by the United Kingdom’s [UK]

Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC] (Raymond 2001; Fielding 2001; Bragg

2001; Crane 2001; Crudas 2001; Kirby 2001; Mitra 2001; 2002) all focus on issues in

schools and within local communities.3 This focus is common amongst participatory

and participatory action research approaches. The approaches take place within

existing institutional arrangements, and students are asked to promote researching

and promoting change within institutions that have investments in already existing

social and political power.

In the US, Diedre Kelly (1993) reflexively and critically reports on her work with

participatory action researchers. Power within the research group and in the school

are acknowledged by Kelly (1993: 9) who found:

[U]nequal power relations affected the research process in two distinct,

nested contexts. Within the research group, it shows how differences

among student researchers were sometimes used to gain power and

display such undemocratic behavior as racism and sexism. In the wider

field of action, an analysis is made of the dilemmas that arose as we tried to

implement small-scale actions that seemed to threaten the authority of

teachers and administrators both within the alternative school and the

conventional schools that fed into it (original emphasis p. 9).

A critique of student research is provided by Kelly (1993) who assumed an

anaesthetised and idealised student cohort and was surprised to find the student

3 See also MacBeath, Myers & Demetriou (2001) and Ruddack, Arnot, Reay & Lanskey (2002).


Jan Edwards 8

world to be less than ideal. Kelly worked with students marginalised within schools

and investigated issues and ‘school practices such as tracking, academic failure, and

in-grade retention that marginalize students’ (1993: 9). Kelly’s work is notable

because of the reflexive discussion of power relations both inside and outside of the

research group.

In summary, the key features of students as participatory and participatory action

researchers approaches show a focus on change within a school or institution whilst

simultaneously working within existing institutional arrangements. At the end of

these projects, students are often left with the task of negotiating change within

institutions and structures that may prefer to maintain existing social and power

relations. As well, these approaches are focused on the production and collection of

student ‘voice’.4 Below, I identify the key concerns with the literature on the variety

of students as researchers approaches and briefly describe some concerns with the

concept of ‘voice’ in students as researchers approaches.

Section two: The problems with students as researchers approaches

There are a number of issues that emerge and my focus here is on power and how

power operates in a variety of students as researchers approaches. Rather than draw

on conventional theoristaions of power, I use Foucault’s conception of power as a

productive capillary force located in the social practices of everyday life (Foucualt

1977). I elaborate on Foucault’s concept of power as I describe a nexus of relations of

power in students-as-researchers approaches. This model as developed and used in

my study considers the many ways in which power manifests in research approaches

that utilise students acting as researchers. I identify below, a number of different

layers, levels or ‘relations of power’ (Foucault 1977: 200). In this section, I develop the

model, a ‘nexus of relations of power in students-as-researchers approaches’. A

‘nexus’ is defined by the Macquarie Dictionary (1996: 1200) as ‘a tie or link; a means

of connection’.

4 I deal with the topic of ‘voice’ in students as researchers approaches in more detail in Edwards (2004).


Jan Edwards 9

Giroux (1997) argues that language, meaning and meaning-making in schools are

discursively constructed by dominant discourses, and indeed different school cultures

produce different power relations.

Within schools, discourse produces and legitimates configurations of time,

space, narrative, placing particular renderings of ideology, behaviour and

the representation of everyday life in a privileged perspective. As a

‘technology of power,’ discourse is given concrete expression in the forms

of knowledge that constitute the formal curriculum as well as in the

structuring of classroom social relations that constitute the hidden

curriculum of schooling (Giroux 1997: 121).

Not only does this occur, but pedagogical practice is aimed at the submission,

controlling and constraining of ‘difficult students’. This means that the lived quality of

voice, ‘are all dissolved under an ideology of control and management’ (Giroux 1997:

124). These approaches of control and management are evident in all forms of

conservative and contemporary schooling, and under these circumstances, students as

researchers approaches arranged within a curriculum organised around the transfer of

a top-down imposed knowledge, means that issues of power must always be central to

the ways in which these approaches are conceptualised, enacted, reported and

discussed.

It is necessary for students as researchers approaches to always contest the relations of

power. As the above brief review of the literature demonstrates, few researchers

engaged directly and in detail with issues of power. Furthermore, many of the above

mentioned studies either did not raise issues of power in schools, or when they did so,

raised them in simplistic ways and struggled to find ways to connect power relations

at this micro level to the broader socio-political economic constructs in which they are

constituted (Nairn & Smith 2002).

Power and Foucault

Rather than draw on conventional theorisations of power, I use Foucault’s conception

of power as a productive capillary force located in the social practices of everyday life

(Foucault 1977). There were three main phases Foucault’s writing about power:

‘archaeological’, ‘genealogical’ and ‘care of the self and ethics’. In an interview (1988:

103), On power, Foucault states:


Jan Edwards 10

The way in which power is exercised and functions in a society like ours is

little understood. … And I don’t believe that the question of ‘who exercises

power?’ can be resolved unless that other question of ‘how does it

happen?’ is resolved at the same time.

The main tenets of analysis of power after Foucault (1977, 2000) include the following:

power is productive not repressive; it constitutes subjects as in knowledge through

discourse; it belongs to and is possessed by all of those involved, but it is exercised

differently and at different times. In Discipline and Punish (1977: 194), Foucault writes:

We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative

terms: it ȇexcludes’, it ’represses’, it ’censors’, it ’abstracts’, it ’masks’, it

’conceals’. In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces

domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge

that may be gained from him belong to this production.

Relevant to this study however, is Foucault’s discussion of power in The subject and

power (1982). Here, Foucault (p. 220) describes power as ‘always a way of acting upon

an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action.

A set of actions upon other actions’. Adopting this simple and partial explanation of

power at this point, enables me to describe issues of power existing in students as

researchers approaches that address complexities that the above discussion has raised.

Previous accounts of students as researchers approaches do not conceptualise, theorise

and examine multiple layers of power. As such, power in institutions such as schools is

conceptualised as being merely exerted in top-down ways by teachers in relation to

their students, by administrators in relation to teachers and students and so forth.

Rarely are there accounts about students as researchers approaches that recognise

students as having power in any other way than as exhibiting behavioural issues.

Indeed, Foucault (1982: 218) describes power in educational institutions such as

schools as ‘a block of capacity-communication power’. What he means is that:

… the disposal of its space. The meticulous regulations which govern its

internal life, the different activities which are organised there, the diverse

persons who live there or meet one another, each with his own function,

his well defined character—all of these things constitute a block of

capacity-communication power (p. 218).


Jan Edwards 11

My project aimed to understand the relations between Mutual Obligations policies and

subjectivities and how policy subjects are regulated. Therefore, such an understanding

of power, enables me to identify eight forms of power within students-as-researchers

approaches that I problematise and conceptualise below.

These forms of power are both connected as a nexus and separate in the respect that

each is a distinct form of power. That is, following Foucault (1982), power is

conceptualised as a ‘block of capacity-communication power’ where power shifts and

moves, dependent on the relations between and amongst those present; it is therefore

best described as flexible, movable, and contingent.

The eight forms of power that I identify can be discussed and analysed separately and

together. Power around the research project and its outcomes is the first form of power

that I discuss. Second, I conceptualise that there is a form of power operating in the

school and related administrative issues that impact on students as researchers

approaches. Third, there is power around ‘disruptive students’, not only in the ways

that schools manage them, but how the students as researchers themselves choose to

manage them and questions about power, ethics and consent. Fourth, amongst the

research group itself, power relations are evident. Power relations between the

researchers, teacher and student research group is the fifth form I discuss. Power as a

curriculum issue, the sixth form, is distinct from the seventh form of power,

assessment and reporting.

Students as researchers power is the eighth type of power identified. Power, when

exerted by young people, often takes the form of behaviours constructed by adults and

institutions as negative. Often the power can be exerted by students through passive

resistance. It can be devalued by adults as bottom-up power, and seen as agentless.

When spoken about by adults this power is described in value laden terms that

privileges an adult perspective.


Jan Edwards 12


Each of the types of power described above, and illustrated below is not discrete. The

types intersect with each other in complex, dynamic and relational ways. The students-

as-researchers approach I have developed aims to address the gaps in previous

approaches, therefore, my analysis of other approaches has been and continues to be

critical. Aiming to be critical following Foucault (1990: 107), does not ‘mean a

demolition job, one of rejection or refusal, but a work of examination that consists of

suspending as far as possible, the system of values to which one refers when testing

and assessing it’.

The following discussion maps my conceptualisation and the complex, intersections

between these forms of power within students as researchers approaches.


Jan Edwards 13

11111111

Figure 1: A nexus of relations of power in students-as-researchers approaches

Power nexus 1: Power around research and its outcomes

The first conceptual type of power that I discuss is power around the research and its

outcomes. Adults instigate and conceptualise students as researchers approaches, both

in their roles as teachers and as researchers. It can be expected that adults have power

over the ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘how’ and ‘if’ of these approaches, their occurrence

and the determination of their outcomes. As such, students are often invited to

investigate an issue in a narrowly defined area, chosen by an adult teacher or

researcher. The outcomes and modes of reporting of students as researchers

Students asresearchers

power

Groupdynamics

Power,consent and

ethics

Curriculumpower

Professionalpower

Assessmentand reporting

power

Power aroundresearch and its

outcomes

Administrativepower


Jan Edwards 14

approaches are generally defined within the scope of a project constructed by adults

and negotiated with students (DETE/Edwards 1999b) In this negotiation, power

relations are again evident.

Power nexus 2: Administrivia

Forms of power within school and administration systems exist and function at a

number of different levels. For example, the space a program occupies on the school

timetable reflects the value placed on it by those in the school who have power

through their status. Schools which participated in the Bedford Schools Improvement

Project ([BSIP] Raymond 2001) timetabled student research outside of regular

classroom time and in the marginalised lunchtime space, as did Nairn and Smith

(2002). Few have been able to locate projects within the valued curriculum and

timetabling of the school. In conceptualising my approach I recognised the importance

of occupying a place within existing curriculum and I attempted to integrate the unit of

work across existing curriculum frameworks, occupying timetable space and

embedding the students-as-researchers approach as an integral feature of the valued

curriculum of the school. This was necessary at that time to make the approach work,

and to have it considered important by students and staff alike.

Deidre Kelly (1993) also managed to locate students as researchers within the valued

curriculum and privileged timetable space of the school. In terms of power in the

school, Deidre Kelly argues that the project was:

[S]haped by what those with more power would allow us to do, aimed at

encouraging the students themselves to change. None of the ‘collaboration’

was geared to allowing the high school students to have a direct impact on

changing the institution. Instead, with teachers and administrators now in

the lead, individual ‘solutions’ were applied to largely structural

problems… (p. 17).

These types of power relations are reflected in many schools where problems are

positioned as belonging to individuals, rather than acknowledging the structural

nature of what is wrong with schools. For example, timetable space, curriculum and

assessment and reporting operate in schools alone, collectively and powerfully with

complex intersections. It is often not possible to speak of each one in isolation.


Jan Edwards 15

However, the point I understand Kelly (1993) is making is that in order to resist

change, teachers and administrators can seize the agendas designed to make students

powerful. Fielding (2001: 1) inquires ‘… are we presiding over the further

entrenchment of existing assumptions and intentions using student or pupil voice as

an additional mechanism of control?’ This question needs to continue to be asked

about students as researchers approaches.

However, occupying a place in the valued curriculum and school timetable does not

necessarily make something valued by the students themselves, and this is a matter I

take up when discussing the withdrawal of consent by students in the section below.

Power nexus 3: Power, ethics and consent

Students described as being ‘disruptive’ or who show forms of resistance are exerting

agency. Resistance and disruption by students can be constructed as occurring along a

continuum between aggressive and passive. There are a number of potential forms of

disruptive power in students as researchers approaches. For example, students within

the research group may disrupt in ways that can be constructed or represented as

negative. Such power relations can be seen circulating in everyday classroom life.

There is also the power of passivity that results in mindful withdrawal, or ‘internally

dropping out’ (Fine 1991). Resistance in classrooms can manifest as participation and

also non-compliance. This intersects with my point above, that students themselves

may not necessarily see this learning as valuable, or interesting, as in the case of Nairn

and Smith (2002)

I raise this issue because informed consent and ethics is not only about students as

researchers understanding these issues and how they apply to those they interview,

but it also applies to the teachers and researchers working with the students as

researchers groups. For example, in researching others we are mindful of our

responsibilities to those we research. However, by enlisting students as researchers in

our research, what are our obligations to them? What happens when a student

participating as a researcher withdraws their consent? How do we manage this

withdrawal when the research task is included in the curriculum? These issues are


Jan Edwards 16

often not mentioned in research literature reports of students as researchers

approaches.

In her account of participatory research in schools Kirby (2001), raises the issue of

informed consent around children being interviewed by other children, stating that ‘[a]

child should be able to withdraw their consent at any time, for a rest, [or] to stop

completely. It can be hard for a child to tell an adult or a peer that they no longer want

to continue…’ (p. 76). Farrell et al (1998) used this possible future withdrawal as a

rationale for paying students to participate as researchers, arguing that payment

created an incentive for student researchers to complete the work. Payment therefore

operates as a and obligation and form of power over students, where students as

researchers refusing to complete the work is not conceived of as students

demonstrating their power over their own lives, interests and learning. That is,

payment or financial reward as coercion is a way of removing any power that students

might have to exert agency over their role in the research process. In many ways then

the insertion of a students as researchers approach within the curriculum and

timetable might achieve the same result where withdrawal might mean failure.

The literature, generally, leaves aspects of students as researchers’ power and agency

unexplored. I deal with the issue of power among and between members of students

as researchers groups below and tackle other forms of students as researchers power

further on. In the approach I planned, I aimed to develop a group as interested and

excited about the research as myself. However, recognising this is not always possible,

I therefore planned alternative assessment tasks for those few who might want to

withdraw from the research. The alternatives ensured that students were not

disadvantaged in assessment and reporting and kept me true to my commitments to

students about not disadvantaging those who chose to withdraw.5

Power nexus 4: Group dynamics

Power between and amongst members of the research group is discussed by Reynolds

and Trehan (2001) in their exploration of difference within a participative research


Jan Edwards 17

design with their postgraduate students. Reynolds and Trehan (2001) highlight how

group members rejected the research process as a pedagogical approach and utilised

humour and ridicule as the ‘”power” subgroup’s main mechanism’ for resistance (p.

363).

Similarly, Kelly (1993), who worked with school age students, identified both internal

and external power relations as affecting the research group. She wrote that ‘the story

of this project is as interesting for what did not get asked, researched and proposed for

action as what did … the role that internal group dynamics played in suppressing

certain interests and questions while legitimizing others’ (p. 16). Kelly’s observations of

power are significant given that many researchers have remained silent about this

issue in students as researchers approaches. This silence further contributes to the

romanticisation of students as researchers approaches as always being democratic

through significant student participation.

In my approach, I taught students skills, specifically, to enable them to participate in

group processes. This was to ensure that group leadership was established through

shared group norms and that the skills for listening to others were explicitly discussed,

developed and practised. In so doing I attempted to teach the value of respect for

others and for their ideas. These ideals are those that teachers continue to strive

towards in the classroom everyday. The above intersects with the notion of

professional power that I discuss below.

Power nexus 5: Professional power

Between the university based researcher, the teacher and the students as researchers

group, power operates in a range of different ways. For example, teachers have the

power to allow the university based researcher into the classroom and to exert control

over what happens with the students as researchers group on a daily basis, as well as

power in influencing how the research plan is devised and enacted. The university

researcher has power over the conceptualisation of the research and authority over

intellectual authorship. In the SCSP, I and other members of the research team found

5 The Information Sheet and Consent Forms for this study provided to and signed by students at the

beginning of the study included a statement that students who chose to withdraw would not be


Jan Edwards 18

that teachers only wanted guidance from us about research methods, (Edwards 1999)

preferring to have the classroom to themselves. Therefore, we were at a distance and

power relations between the research team and students-as-researchers did not arise.

In this present project I worked in a school. Therefore, I negotiated on a daily basis the

activities of the research group as both teacher and researcher. Because of this, I am in

a better position to identify the roles of each participant in the study and the social

relations between us. Others, for example Schwartz (1988), did not identify the

relations between himself and his research assistants/collaborators as being embedded

in relations of privilege and power. Similarly, Schultz (2001) did not identify her

relationships with students as problematic. For example, Shultz (2000) states that she

helped student researchers to run errands. Whilst this can be taken as relationship

building, it raises questions nonetheless about the creation of obligations or relations of

power between researchers and students. How much of this professional power can be

described as coercion ? How much teaching requires coercion, particularly for groups

described as ‘at-risk’? Professional power intersects with the issues raised in the earlier

section on consent and ethics.

Power nexus 6: Curriculum power

Curriculum, assessment and reporting are sites of power in the institutional context of

the school. I deal with curriculum first. What is taught, how it is taught and in whose

interests is a reflection of power relations in broader social contexts (Cherryholmes

1999; Pinar 1998, 1995). The school curriculum is a site of contestation, with groups and

individuals at various levels, competing for attention, status and control. Few

researchers have managed to find a space for students as researchers within the

officially sanctioned curriculum mandated by a school authority. One of the costs of

inserting students as researchers approaches within the sanctioned curriculum is that

the demands of curriculum frameworks may impact on the research. An approach that

is intended to be collaborative and co-operative may become shaped and constrained

by curriculum frameworks designed around a competitive academic curriculum

(Edwards 1999).

disadvantaged in any way.


Jan Edwards 19

Power nexus 7: Assessment and reporting power

Assessment and reporting practices also reflect and are constitutive of power relations.

Assessment and reporting power intersects with power produced through the

curriculum and administrative bureaucracy. The insertion of students as researchers

approaches into curriculum and assessment and reporting processes is therefore

problematic. This is because practices and products of learning are assessed and

valued according to mandated curriculum frameworks. The published accounts that I

have described earlier do not mention how and if the research work completed by the

students as researchers was assessed. This is a silence in accounts about students as

researchers approaches.

Power nexus 8: Students as researchers power

This notion of sharing power and authority with students is one that schools,

administrators and teachers have always found difficult. All students as researchers

approaches are conceptualised around this sharing of power and authority. The

difficulties arise in how the students as researchers approaches are played out in

schools when relations of power intersect with the ideals of the approach. Curriculum,

assessment, reporting and timetabling are a few of the sites where the notion of

students having power is contested. There are many ways that student power in these

approaches can be subverted. The challenge is to find ways in which students as

researchers’ power and agency can productively find a place both in and outside of

schools.

I identified previously how students as researchers may have power through passive

forms of resistance, non-compliance and mindful withdrawal. Others have written

about students as researchers as having the power to disrupt and harass others

(Reynolds & Trehan 2001; Kelly 1993). I conclude this paper with a description of my

students as researchers approach that is based around positive and productive power

relations between students-as-researchers and adult researchers/teachers.

My approach also recognises that students-as-researchers groups also have power and

this can be manifested in a range of ways. For adult researchers involved in these

approaches, either as teachers or researchers, reflexivity and self-reflexivity need to be


Jan Edwards 20

present for honest and open accounts of power and its various manifestations to

emerge.


Jan Edwards 21

Section three: Planning a students-as-researchers approach

In this next section I describe some further features of an ideal approach to planning,

implementing and documenting a students-as-researchers approach. I have identified

these features from my reading of the literature and my practical experience teaching

in schools and developing school and system curriculum. In essence, what I propose is

a model of having students as researchers approaches influenced by praxis. This

section is organised in the following way. To begin, I identify reflexivity and self-

reflexivity as central to my approach. I then discuss the romantic and idealistic notions

that are features of students as researchers approaches. In contrast, I suggest an

approach that is critical of itself, not only in practice, but in the ways in which accounts

might be written to contribute to the advancement of a range of students as researchers

approaches. I then describe developing my students-as-researchers approach that

encourages students to question the construction of knowledge, both in the already

existing curriculum and in relation to the research of others and of themselves. These

are important in a study that examines gender, class and subjectivities and how it is

possible to work with young people as students-as-researchers to investigate

contemporary social and political issues in their communities.

Research skills

Some of the projects described above in the review of the literature have attempted to

explicitly teach students research skills. These training programs are described in the

literature as: lasting a day; sometimes run by university researchers; and, some

programs include the teachers as part of the group being trained. The inadequacy of

existing approaches as they are described in the literature stems from the following:

• They do not engage students in the process of thinking about research

done by others, in any critical way;

• Nor do they engage students in examining the construction of

knowledge. It is assumed that students know what research is when in

fact there are a number of ways of thinking and speaking about

research;


Jan Edwards 22

• Programs lasting an hour or a day or two can do nothing more than

introduce rudimentary knowledge to students and such programs fail

to engage them in thinking about bigger issues;

• The general failure to include students as researchers in the theorisation

of data suggests that those providing the training either believe that

students are incapable of doing so, or they are not conceptualising the

approach adequately;

• As well, the issues of ethics, informed consent and other matters

affecting students as researchers, normally attended to as a matter of

course by trained social researchers, are not described in the literature.

It appears that these issues are regarded unproblematically by those implementing

students as researchers approaches. Finally, it is because of the above that students as

researchers approaches lack rigour and their findings are often not disseminated

outside of the school, except in rare cases. I will deal with each of these issues in turn

and describe how the approach I developed sets out to address the above concerns.

Reflexivity

Feminist praxis requires ‘evidence of reflexivity and self-reflexivity of researchers and

a willingness to be open to criticism’ (Weiner 1994: 140). The approach that I propose

involves reflexivity, in the sense that it requires the researcher to be aware of the way

that research positions some with power and some without. My description of the

nexus of relations of power in students-as-researchers approaches in the preceding

section shows that I am aware of the way that power operates in research and in

schools.

The approach that I developed not only identifies what has been done in the past but

also identifies what could be done in the future. That is, students as researchers

approaches discussed earlier are not located in relation to what has occurred in the

past. Therefore, there has not been a process of building on the experiences of others

either in practice or in the literature. As well, in the reporting of the research I aim to be


Jan Edwards 23

as critical of my own work as is possible, with a view to contributing to the ways that

students as researchers approaches are understood, described and discussed.6

Self-reflexivity

When using the term self-reflexivity, I mean the presence of the researcher in the

accounts they write of their research and an identification and discussion of successes,

failures and events that occurred in the field. When difficulties are identified in

students-as-researchers approaches they are often around issues such as

administration and organisation of students, and other topics about which it is

considered safe for a researcher to admit to weakness. Often the flaws described are

outside of the control of the researcher and this form of disclosure is safe. A

consequence of remaining safe means that continued romanticisation of students as

researchers approaches occurs. In reporting on my approach I have identified my own

failures so that these might contribute to the advancement of students as researchers

approaches. Therefore, I seek a balance between ensuring professional safety and

welcoming critique.

Critical engagement

Students as researchers approaches are complex and complexly enacted. The literature

review above, demonstrates the diversity of approaches and ways that students as

researchers are conceptualised and carried out. I locate myself and my approach in

feminist and poststructural theories. I describe what this means below.

Thinking critically and constructing knowledge

Critical literacy skills are important and these skills are taught to students as part of my

students-as-researchers approach. In so doing, I encourage students to look at what

has gone before and what might come after. Students are invited to examine how

knowledge has been constructed in the past, and the various ways that truth is socially

constructed, and by whom and in whose interests.

Knowing what research is?

Students often rely on what they already know about constructing research and there

is a tendency in the approaches discussed in my review of the literature to rely on

6 These issues are discussed more fully in Edwards (2004).


Jan Edwards 24

survey instruments. As well, in schools, it appears that, generally students are taught

survey approaches, and might consider that all research is done in this way. The

students-as-researchers approach I developed challenged students to critically examine

data collected and students were invited to explore a range of other ways to collect and

analyse information.

Theorisation of data

In my approach I aimed for students to theorise their own data. In their training, they

were taught the skills of concept mapping and other practical processes such as

writing the key ideas on index cards and arranging them, in an effort to assist students

to theorise their own data. Students were also responsible for the completion of a final

written report with the aim that they would present their findings to audiences inside

and outside of the school. There are risks in allowing students to theorise their own

data, and these risks are discussed in detail in Edwards (2004).

Ethics and informed consent

Researchers planning students-as-researchers approaches should follow the guidelines

on research ethics and informed consent within their own institutions and disciplines.

When planning my approach, I aimed to teach the students-as-researchers about ethics

and informed consent because I was delegating the field work to them. How they

interacted with the poor and working class young women and girls they interviewed

was something that I was concerned was handled with respect, honesty and integrity.

As well, there was a responsibility on my part that follow up discussions back in the

classroom were respectful of the young women and their circumstances. The approach

I developed and taught included information and instruction about ethics, informed

consent and respect for research participants.

Knowledge and knowing

I have mentioned the subject of knowing what research is above, and stated that

research skills around critical literacy need to be explicitly taught. The following

intersects with the topic above. Here I discuss in greater detail precisely what I mean

by knowledge, knowing, and constructing young people as ‘knowers’. One of the main

aims of my students-as-researchers approach was to position students as ‘knowers’. By


Jan Edwards 25

knowers, I mean that their knowledge of their worlds is valued and considered to be

important.

When I describe students as knowers, I am supporting their right to be regarded as

legitimate holders of knowledge about themselves and their worlds. Students and

young people clearly ‘know’ things. The whole concept of youth research and student

research is based on the premise that students and youth should be asked for

information and that they have access to information that adults do not.

By constructing students-as-researchers as ‘knowers’ I am arguing that

students and youth have a means to explore and understand what it is that

they know about their own worlds and the world around them. I also aimed to

investigate issues of current and future importance to these young people,

located as they are, at the margins. These issues for investigation are the bigger

issues such as policies that impact on their own lives and those of their

communities, generally considered to be off limits or outside of the scope of

what students and young people are asked to investigate. As well, there is

much research interest in young people and subjectivities, but young people

themselves are rarely if ever invited to work with researchers to investigate

these issues.

Conclusion

Students-as-researchers approaches need to consider issues of power more fully in the

conceptualisation, implementation and reporting of students that utilise students

acting as researchers. Students-as-researchers approaches are ideally placed to provide

a means to work with students to examine subjectivities. An examination of

subjectivities can occur at a number of different levels. These include the subjectivities

of the researchers, the students and the researched. As I envisage them, students-as-

researchers approaches should involve a critique of society, a critique of values, beliefs

and social constructions and a challenge to how each of us develops these. Therefore,

the students-as-researchers approach I conceptualised for this project was ideally

positioned to assist in the investigation of the formation of subjectivities and an

examination of power has been central to this task.


Jan Edwards 26

References

Atweh, B. & L. Burton (1995). ‘Students as researchers: “Rationale and critique.Ȉ’ British

Educational Research Journal 21(5): 561-575.

Atweh, B. & L. Dornan (1997). SARUA* Project: Training and Resource Manual. (StudentAction Research for University Access), Queensland University of Technology,Queensland University of Technology.

Atweh, B., A. Cobb, & L. Dornan (1997). ‘Students as partners: Potentials anddilemmas in Action Research.’ Paper at Australian Association of Research inEducation Conference. Brisbane, 30 November - 4 December 1997.

Atweh, B., C. Christensen & L. Dornan (1998). Students as action researchers:Partnerships for social justice action. Action research in practice: partnerships for social

justice in education. B. Atweh, S. Kemmis & P. Weeks. London, Routledge: 114-138.

Berry, K. S. (1998). Reclaiming wonder: Young students as researchers. Students as

researchers: Creating classrooms that matter. S. R. Steinberg and J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.).London, Falmer Press: 20-32.

Bragg, S. (2001). ‘Taking a joke: Learning from the voices we donȇt want to hear.’ Forum

43(2): 70-73.

Campbell, J., A. Cook, & L. Dornan (1995). ‘Empowerment through students-initiatedaction research: Exploring tertiary paths in a multiply disadvantaged school.’ Education

Research and Perspectives 22(1).

Cherryholmes, C. (1999). Reading pragmatism. New York, Teachers College Press.Comber, B. & B. Green (1999). More than just literacy: Information Technology Literacyand Educational Disadvantage research and development project. Adelaide,Department of Education, Training and Employment: 1-157.

Comber, B. & P. Thomson (1999). ‘Just new learning environments: New metaphorsand practices for learners and teachers in disadvantaged schools.’ Paper written for theInformation, Technology, Literacy and Educational Disadvantage Research Project,Department of Education, Training and Employment, South Australia.

Crane, B. (2001). ‘Revolutionising school-based research.’ Forum 43(2): 54-55.

Crudas, L. (2001). ‘Rehearsing for reality: young womenȇs voices and agendas forchange.’ Forum 43(2): 62-66.

Department of Education, Training and Employment [DETE] (1999). InformationTechnology Literacy and Educational Disadvantage [ITLED] Project, Department ofEducation, Training and Employment [DETE] Adelaide, access date 28 September2000, <http://www.oac.schools.se.edu.au/itled/>.


Jan Edwards 27

Department of Education, Training and Employment [DETE] & J. Edwards (1999a).Students-as-researchers approach: Facilitating student research into social issues. Adelaide,Department of Education, Training and Employment [DETE] [written by JanEdwards].

Department of Education, Training and Employment [DETE] & J. Edwards (1999b).Students-as-researchers (web site). Department of Education, Training and Employment[DETE] Adelaide, access date 4 May 2004,<http://www.studentsasresearchers.nexus.edu.au>.

Edwards, J. (1999). Students-as-researchers. Paper presented to the Annual Conferenceof the Australian Association for Research in Education and New Zealand Associationfor Research in Education, Melbourne. November 27 – December 2 1999, AARE,Melbourne, access date 21 April 2004, <http://www.aare.edu.au/indexpap.htm>.

Edwards, J. & R. Hattam (1999). Students-as-researchers: Beyond silenced voices.Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE), Adelaide, access date 21April 2004, <http://www.studentsasresearchers.nexus.edu.au>.

Edwards, J. (2004). Policing and practising subjectivities: Poor and working classyoung women and girls and Australian government Mutual Obligations policies.unpublished PhD Thesis. University of South Australia, May 2004.

Farrell, E. (1990). Hanging in and dropping out: Voices of at-risk high school students. NewYork, Teacherȇs College Press.

Farrell, E. (1994). Self and school success: Voices and lore of inner-city students. Albany NY,State University of New York Press.

Farrell, E., G. Peguero, R. Lindsey & R. White (1988). Giving voice to high schoolstudents: pressure and boredom, ya know what Iȇm sayin’? American Educational

Research Journal 25(4): 489-502.

Fichtman Dana, N. (1998). Social Studies teaching and learning: A descriptive analysisof concept mapping. Students as researchers: Creating classrooms that matter. S. R.Steinberg and J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.). London, Falmer Press: 167-187.

Fielding, M. (2001). ‘Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: New departures or newconstraints in the transformation of 21st century schooling?’ Forum 43(2): 100-109.Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. NewYork, State University of New York Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London, Allan Lane.


Jan Edwards 28

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and

hermeneutics (2nd Edition). H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow. Chicago, University ofChicago Press: 208-226.

Foucault, M. (1988b). On power. Michel Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture: interviews

and other writings of Michel Foucault. L. D. Kritzman (Ed.) A. Sheridan et al (Trans). NewYork, Routledge: 96-109.

Foucualt, M. (2000a). Governmentality. Essential works of Foucualt 1954-1984: Power. J.D. Faubion. London, Penguin & The New Press. 3: 200-222.

Fraser, V. (1999). ‘Students as Researchers in the Project.’ Department of Education,Training and Employment (DETE) Adelaide, access date 28 September 2000,<http://www.oac.schools.sa.edu.au/itled/>.

Garcia, F., J. Kilgore, P. Rodriguez & S. Thomas (1995). ‘ȈItȇs like having a metaldetector at the door” a conversation with students about voice.’ Theory into Practice

34(2): 138-44.

Giroux, H. A. (1986). ‘Radical pedagogy and the politics of student voice.’ Interchange

17 (No 1): 49-69.

Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture and schooling.Boulder, Westview Press.

Groundwater-Smith, S. & N. Mockler (2003). ‘Learning to Listen, listening to learn.’Professional Educator 2(4).

Hinchey, P. H. (1998). Nurturing critical dispositions in the classroom. Students as

researchers: Creating classrooms that matter. S. R. Steinberg and J. L. Kincheloe. London,Falmer Press: 33-48.

Holdsworth, R. (1998). ‘Schools that create real roles of value for young people.’ Paperat the 4th UNESCO-ACEID International Conference: Secondary Education and Youthat the Crossroads. Bangkok, Thailand, 10-13 November.

Holdsworth, R. (2000). ‘Schools that create real roles of value for young people.’Prospects 30(3): 349-362.

Holdsworth, R. (2001). ‘Youth participation’. Charting the course ACT and SE NSWRegional Youth Services Conference, Batemanȇs Bay (n.d).

Holdsworth, R., H. Stafford, D. Stokes & D. Tyler (2001). Student action teams: An

evaluation 1999-2000. Melbourne, Youth Research Centre, Faculty of Education,University of Melbourne.Kelly, D. M. (1993). ‘Secondary power source: High school students as participatoryresearchers.’ The American Sociologist 24(1): 8-26).


Jan Edwards 29

Kincheloe, J. L. & S. R. Steinberg (1998). Students as researchers: Critical visions,Emancipatory insights. Students as researchers: Creating classrooms that matter. S. R.Steinberg and J. L. Kincheloe. London, Falmer Press: 2-19.

Kirby, P. (2001). ‘Participatory research in schools.’ Forum 43(2): 74-77.

MacBeath, J., K. Myers & H. Demetriou (2001). ‘Supporting teachers in consultingpupils about aspects of teaching and learning, and evaluation impact.’ Forum 43(2): 78-82.

Macquarie (1996), reprinted (1991: 2nd edition). Macquarie dictionary. Chatswood,N.S.W, Macquarie Library.

Mitra, D. (2001). ‘Opening the floodgates: Giving students a voice in school reform.’Forum 43(2): 91-94.

Mitra, D. L. (2002). Makinȇ it real: Involving youth in school reform. Annual Meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1-4 April 2002.

Nairn, K. & A. Smith (2002). ‘Young people as researchers in schools: The possibilitiesof peer research.’ Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the AustralianAssociation for Research in Education: ‘Problematic futures: educational research inand era of ....uncertainty.’ Brisbane, Australia. 1-5 December 2002.

Nespor, J. (1998). ‘The meanings of research: Kids as subjects and kids as inquirers.’Qualitative Inquiry 4(3): 369-388.Oldfather, P. (1995). ‘Songs Ȉcome back most to themȈ: Studentsȇ experiences asresearchers.’ Theory into Practice 34(2): 131-37.

Pinar, W. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and

contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, Peter Lang.

Pinar, W., Ed. (1998). Curriculum: Toward new identities. Garland Reference Library ofSocial Science ; v. 1135. New York, Garland Publishers.

Prettyman, S. (1998). Writing and passing notes: Resistance, identity and pleasure inthe lives of teenage girls. Students as researchers: Creating classrooms that matter. S. R.Steinberg and J. L Kincheloe. London, Falmer Press: 64-76.

Prieto, M. (2001). ‘Students as agents of democratic renewal in Chile.’ Forum 43(2): 87-90.Raymond, L. (2001). ‘Student involvement is school improvement: From data source tosignificant voice.’ Forum 43(2): 58-61.

Reynolds, M. & K. Trehan (2001). ‘Classroom as real world: Propositions for apedagogy of difference.’ Gender and Education 13(4): 357-372.


Jan Edwards 30

Rudduck, J., M. Arnot, D. Reay & C. Lanskey (2002). Student consultation, communityand the democratic tradition. Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, 1-4 April 2002.

Schultz, K. (2001). ‘Stretching the boundaries of participatory research: Insights fromconducting research with urban adolescents.’ Australian Educational Researcher 28(2): 1-28.Schwartz, J. (1988). ‘The drudgery and the discovery: Students as research partners.’English Journal February 1988: 37-40.

Steinberg, S. R. & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.) (1998). Students as researchers: Creating classrooms

that matter. Falmer Press Teachersȇ Library Series. London, Falmer Press.

Smyth, J., R. Hattam, J. Cannon, J. Edwards, N. Wilson & S. Wurst (2000). Listen to me,

Iȇm leaving: Early school leaving in South Australian secondary schools in the late 1990ȇs.Adelaide, Flinders Institute for the Study of Teaching (FIST), Department of EducationTraining and Employment (DETE), & Senior Secondary Assessment Board of SouthAustralia (SSABSA).

Weiner, G. (1994). Feminisms in education: An introduction. Bristol, USA, OpenUniversity Press.

Wilson, S. (1998). ‘Curriculum theorising amongst secondary schoolstudents.’ Curriculum Perspectives 18(3): 23-32.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments and toGeoffrey Sanderson for editing assistance.

Documents

Paper EDW04583 ‘A nexus of relations of power in students ...Jl Ungaran 3 Malang, East Java, 65112 Indonesia Email: [email protected] Postal Address PO Box 3321 Norwood