Negotiations left behind: in‐between spaces of teacher–student negotiation and their significance for education

Abstract

This paper argues against a view of curriculum as a means for moulding students into, and making teachers accountable for, something pre‐determined and singularly governed by qualification demands of the labour market. It makes a case for the value of inter‐subjective teacher–student relationships in education and addresses the significance of negotiations and their open‐endedness. This paper draws its empirical material from case studies for which interviews were the main source for gathering data. The data analyses were made using the AtlasTi software designed for qualitative analysis. In the empirical material were found instances of negotiations in which inter‐subjective relationships are established and maintained; negotiations that are rendered obscured or even invisible from a qualification purpose but that influence the educational processes. The results show that teachers and students creatively use potentials within contextual conditions to attain relationships which sometimes constitute a precondition for education.

Keywords:

• critical research
• curriculum studies
• negotiation
• spatial dimension
• teacher–student relationship

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our warm thanks to the following persons: Professor Gert Biesta, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK, for contributions to the theoretical framework and valuable comments. Professor Janice Rice in Alabama, USA, Silvia Edling, Uppsala University and The Curriculum Studies Seminar, Department of Education and Economics, University of Gavle, for insightful and useful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

1. Biesta traces the roots of this language of learning to the development of new theories of learning that shifted attention from teacher to student activity, to post‐modern critique of the modern project of education, to the explosion of learning with an emphasis on individual learning and to the erosion of the welfare state (Biesta 2005: 17–19).

2. As of May 2010.

3. Lindensjö and Lundgren (2000) use the concept of area of formulation for this level and the concept of arena of realization for the classroom level.

4. The interviewed teachers are: Adrian, a Mathematics/Science teacher in secondary school; Erik, also teaches Mathematics/Science but in upper secondary school; Anders, recreational pedagogue who works in school with children and youth who have recently arrived in the country; Lotta, teaches History/Swedish/Religion in upper secondary school; and Gunilla is a secondary teacher teaching within the Individual Programme in the upper secondary school. Individual Programme, especially for students who are not eligible for national programmes due to their not meeting the requirements for passing grades in Swedish, English, and Mathematics (http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/374/a/1217, accessed December 11, 2007).

5. The first theme concerned their personal background, the second dealt with their career history, the third theme explored important influences as a teacher, and the fourth what they did in order to foster democratic citizens; this is a stated purpose of education which is not connected specifically to one subject.

6. Please note that it is not meaning per se which is negotiated; the notion of negotiation of meaning is used within other research traditions (cf e.g. Wenger 1998).