A NARRATIVE APPROACH EXPLORING NOTIONS OF JUSTICE IN EDUCATION

ABSTRACT

The use of narrative has been a time-honoured way of exploring complex ideas, and a valuable way to learn. An obvious example that epitomises this thesis, are the dialogues of Plato. Indeed, what gives significance to these dialogues is the way in which complex ideas are revealed through the struggles and conflicts of one or more characters. With this in mind, one of my aims is to present my own fictional dialogue that I have created between two academics who are in conflict over a student who is deemed to be ‘at risk’ by an educational institution as a means to explore notions of justice in education. Although there is much that can be learned about justice from formal arguments; however, I argue that narratives are useful devices to learn about complicated concepts, and at the same time, serve as a catalyst for debate about principles that are fundamental to education. Consequently, this article uses a narrative approach for the dual purposes of elucidating the concept of justice exhibited through the characters found in the narrative, which in turn offers the means in which to critically discuss and analyse the narrative in relation to justice in education.

Keywords:

• narrative
• narrative inquiry
• fictional narrative
• justice
• politics
• education

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Likewise, I would like to thank Maurizio Toscano (University of Melbourne, Australia) for his feedback on an earlier draft. Please note, an earlier version of this paper was presented in Brisbane (Australia) at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference in December 2019.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. A brief precursory survey under this topic will highlight a diverse array of literature. For some examples, see the following: School Choice and Social Justice (Brighouse, 2000), Justice (Brighouse, 2004), Educational Research: Ethics, Social Justice, and Funding Dynamics (Smeyers and Depaepe, 2018), Education and Social Justice (Zajda et al., 2006), Educational Equality (Brighouse et al., 2010), and Handbook of Research on Social Inequality and Education (Wisdom et al., 2019).

2. It is important to point out that this section is not meant to be a detailed account about narrative inquiry, but more a case of outlining both the context of narrative inquiry, and why I am using a narrative in this article. Although not exhaustive, for some interesting works on the emerging field of narrative inquiry and its various forms, see some of the following: Clandinin’s (2007) edited book titled, Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology, Clough’s (2002) book titled, Narratives and Fictions in Educational Research, Czarniawska’s (2004) book titled, Narrative in Social Science Research, Denzin and Lincoln’s (2017) latest edited book titled, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Maynes et al’s (2008) book titled, Telling Stories: The Uses of Personal Narratives in the Social Sciences and History, and Van Maanen’s (1988) book titled, Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography.

3. I am in agreement with Pring (2015) when he argues that the distinction between ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ research approaches is a false dualism (see Chapter 5 titled, ‘Quantitative and qualitative research: a false dualism’). More recently, Roberts’ (2018) chapter titled, ‘Theory as Research’ picks-up on this point, and argues that we need to shift the focus from ‘theory and research’, or ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ to ‘theory as research’ in educational research in order to close the gap between theory and practice.

4. It is worth noting that Pinnegar and Daynes (2007) in their chapter titled, ‘Locating Narrative Inquiry Historically: Thematics in the Turn to Narrative’ identify four themes in the turn toward narrative inquiry. These are as follows: (1) Narrative Turn #1: Relationship of Researcher and Researched. In this case, narrative turn #1 is characterised by a shift away from notions of ‘objectivity’ taken from a positivistic point of view to one of ‘subjectivity’ that has a focus on interpretation and meaning-making of individual subjects or agents; (2) Narrative Turn #2: From Numbers to Words as Data. Here, narrative turn #2 involves a move away from numbers to words as data; (3) Narrative Turn #3: From the General to the Particular. To understand narrative turn #3, the turn away from generalizability to a focus on the particular is meant to capture the power of an experience, setting and the specific people involved; and, (4) Narrative Turn #4: Blurring Knowing. The final turn highlights the multiple ways in which human beings come to make-sense of and understand human experience.

5. Rainbow-Diamond as a character in my narrative is meant to be from a minority group because minority groups tend to be over-represented as ‘at risk’ in educational institutions. My article picks-up on some of these reasons why this is the case, and the ‘dogma of care’ that has nothing to do with notions of care. Indeed, my use of the term ‘considerably different compared to the majority of students found in the faculty’ serves the purpose of exaggerating the notion of difference for the purposes of my article as it relates to social justice (i.e. recognition of difference). In taking the idea of difference from the majority further, noticeable physical difference, combined with being from the LGBTQ+ community, are obvious signs of difference that most people would easily be able to identify with in some form or another. Likewise, the use of non-binary or gender-neutral pronouns (e.g. ‘ze’ and ‘ze’s’) is yet another example of difference from the norm or majority that is now being used in everyday language that is clearly associated with a minority group because it originates from within the LGBTQ+ community.

6. My intention here is to emphasise the notion of rival and competing theories of justice. In this case, the current debate in the literature seems to be concerned with redistribution of resources (distributive justice) and the recognition of difference (social justice). Later, I intentionally introduce another rival theory of justice in the form of principles of justice for institutions (i.e. procedural justice). My point is to elucidate how each character in my narrative has responded to a set of rival and competing theories of justice in relation to a problem (i.e. a student deemed to be ‘at risk’ by an educational institution) that leads to incommensurable points of view. Indeed, the problem highlights how the issue is inescapable for each character because of who they are, how they understand justice, and the formal roles they embody in an organisation or institution. In a sense, this means that the issue will most likely not be resolved in an intelligible and rational way because the historical, social and cultural particulars of each character, along with their circumstances makes it nigh impossible. Interestingly, each character formulates and addresses the problem differently, and from their own point of view they think they are in the right, but each do not formulate and address the problem in the same way. This is the basis of incommensurable differences that are difficult to overcome easily, and part of the reason why procedural justice of the institution is often the final arbiter of these types of cases. For relevant literature that reinforces the points I have made, see: Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (MacIntyre, 1988), and Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition (MacIntyre, 1990). My latter point should not be interpreted that I am saying procedural justice is correct or right when it comes to justice, but more a case of highlighting what often happens when there is no common-ground or compromise reached in disputes or conflicts between parties in an educational institution.

7. My use of the term ‘dogma of care’ has been intentionally employed to highlight how the notion of care has shifted from something broadly relational, to care of academic performance. Indeed, it has become quite common in educational institutions to class a student as being ‘at risk’ because of their poor academic performance. The implied assumption being that by intervening earlier enough, a student will go on to satisfy any academic requirements, and so care becomes equated with academic performance. In a sense, this has become a ‘dogma of care’ because many academics or teachers hold the view that they are just embodying the principles or beliefs laid down by their institution as unquestionably true, when in fact the institution is only concerned about the retention of students so they can benefit financially from the student studying at the educational institution as long as possible. Unfortunately, this is a consequence of economic rationalism and neoliberal agendas in educational institutions, like universities. For work that reinforces my point about the ‘dogma of care’, see the following: ‘Pedagogies of care in performative schools’ (Dadvand and Cuervo, 2018), and ‘Pedagogies of performative care and school belonging’ (Dadvand and Cuervo, 2019).

8. This could potentially be a long list, and as a result, some questions worth considering of a secondary nature, are as follows: Why does Elizabeth seem to be more concerned about the feelings of Sarah compared to others in the narrative, like Andy or Rainbow-Diamond? If Sarah is at fault for a breach of the University’s Code of Conduct, then why is this ignored? Why is more weight given to Sarah’s point of view compared to Andy’s point of view as a senior academic and chair of the unsatisfactory committee? How can logic be gendered (i.e. male), as per Elizabeth’s claim?

9. John Rawls’ theory of justice is one of the most celebrated egalitarian theories of justice. For examples, see: ‘Justice as Fairness’ (Rawls, 1962), A Theory of Justice (Rawls, 1971), and Political Liberalism (Rawls, 1993/2005).

10 The policy of ‘special consideration’ in education is a practical example of equality of opportunity used by most universities. In most cases, special consideration policies are meant to support students to complete assessment tasks to the best of their ability, particularly if certain circumstances or experiences have significantly affected a student’s capacity to complete work to their normal standard. Of course, the test to ascertain what these certain circumstances or experiences are is difficult to determine with any accuracy sometimes, and hence why it can be the cause of much dispute and conflict. So too, is the significant and impact it has had on a student’s ability from the norm. If anything, what this alludes to is the complexity of applying the principles of equality of opportunity in an educational context.

11 On a side note, it is worth remembering that one aim of an educational system – such as a university – is to explicitly measure and report on student academic excellence, and in turn assign qualifications once certain conditions have been satisfied. Since Rainbow-Diamond was willingly prepared to participate in, contribute to, and ultimately cooperate in an educational system for mutual advantage means ze does not have a right to continue ze’s education if ze does not satisfy certain conditions as a student. In a sense, it could be argued that the act of enrolling as a student means ze is entering into a contractual relationship with the university where both parties have certain obligations and responsibilities. In this case, Rainbow-Diamond failed to fulfil one of ze’s crucial responsibilities, which was to submit work.