Developmental discourses as a regime of truth in research with primary school students

Abstract

While developmental discourses have been heavily critiqued in relation to education systems, less attention has been paid to how these impact the data collection process in classroom research. This article utilises Foucault’s concept of regime of truth to highlight the pervasiveness of developmental discourses when conducting research in primary schools. Such a theoretical framing makes explicit how developmental discourses work and are constructed as ‘truth’, which limit the possibilities for alternative perspectives. This article shows how this regime of truth works in practice by reflecting on qualitative research conducted with two age groups in two primary schools in Australia, focusing on the researcher’s navigations of these discourses. In particular, this article examines the impact of developmental discourses on conducting research with multiple age groups, initiating research, choosing methods for data collection, and negotiating power relations and ethical practices.

Keywords:

• Developmental discourses
• regime of truth
• data collection process
• age
• primary school

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Kate Cadman, Janet Whitten, Dr Yarrow Andrew, my thesis supervisors, and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on the ideas developed in this article. Thank you also to the students, staff and parents who participated in the research.

Notes

1. See, for example, Blaise (2005), Browne (2004), Burman (2008, 2013), Cannella (1997), James, Jenks, and Prout (1998), MacNaughton (2000, 2005), Morrow and Richards (1996), and Walkerdine (1984, 1988).

2. In South Australia, ‘primary school’ is the most common term used to describe the elementary years of schooling. Most primary schools include children from 5 years old (Reception) to 12 or 13 years old (Year 7), although alternative groupings and terminology are sometimes used in different schools and education sectors.

3. Following the lead of Thorne (1993, pp. 8, 9), aligned with my desire to treat the students as capable of participating in the research, and considering the connotations that the word ‘children’ has, I decided to describe the young participants as students rather than ‘children’. The concept of students, of course, also has particular meanings and implications. Children/young people are positioned as students in schooling contexts where there are particular institutionalised power relations upheld between students and teachers, and broader discourses, such as those about development, are influential.

4. At Socrates Primary, Year 6 was the final year of primary school, whereas at St Catherine’s Primary, Year 7 was the final year. Both schools started at Reception. The names of all schools, teachers, and students are pseudonyms.

5. There is not space to expand on this here, but it should be noted that developmental discourses are not as prevalent in the same way in all countries or locations, which only serves to highlight that they are constructions (Woodhead, 1998).

6. Renold’s PhD research in two schools in England had originally included Year 2 classes (6–7 years old) and Year 6 classes (10–11 years old), but she focused on the two Year 6 classes because she found the older students easier to work with (and was interested in their discussions of gender and sexuality) (1999, pp. 25–31). Similarly, Swain’s PhD research had initially aimed to consider masculinities in Year 3 (7–8 years old) and Year 6 (10–11 years old) but due to time and the need for ‘depth’ he researched only Year 6 classes (in three schools) (2001, pp. 104, 372).

7. McNamee and Seymour (2013), reviewing the three main childhood journals, note that few researchers gave justifications for why specific age groups were chosen for inclusion in research.

8. For rare exceptions where parental consent was not gained to conduct research with children and young people see David et al. (2001, p. 361) and those referenced in Balen et al. (2006, p. 37).

9. For an interesting discussion of multiple (ethical) discourses researchers engage in, see Loveridge and Cornforth (2014) who discuss three different yet inter-related discourses: protectionist (avoiding harm, gaining consent from adult gatekeepers), participatory (including marginalised voices and attempting to fully engage children), and post-structural (asking questions about understandings and relationships of power). They argue that researchers are likely to engage in various overlapping versions of these, and therefore it is ethically important to reflect on the problems and potentials of each approach (Loveridge & Cornforth, 2014, p. 469).