Centrifugal–Centripetal Dynamics in the Dialogical Self: A Case Study of a Boundary Experience in Teacher Education

Abstract

The dialogical self is conceptualized as a dynamically shifting collection of relatively autonomous I-positions. A boundary experience is an event or situation where tension experienced between conflicting I-positions leads to reconfiguration within the dialogical self. In a boundary experience, uncertainty or a challenge can trigger decentering (centrifugal) movements which can disrupt the self’s contingent stability. These movements can be counterbalanced by centering (centripetal) movements aimed at restoring continuity and consistency. Investigating a boundary experience as a process in motion, this individual case study explores centrifugal–centripetal dynamics in the dialogical self of a preservice teacher during a challenging school placement. Data used in the study derives from reflective/reflexive writing in the form of daily contributions to an online discussion between the participant and a dialogue partner. Findings point to the presence of two alternately complementary/conflicting I-positions in the participant’s teacher identity system and shed light on the roles played by meta- and promoter positions in addressing identity tensions. Recognizing how a boundary experience can be distributed across a range of events, each of which can contribute to processes of reconfiguration, the study underscores the importance of investigating transformative experiences in contexts of professional learning.

Keywords:

• Dialogical self
• boundary experience
• teacher identities
• school placement

Introduction

The theory of the Dialogical Self (Hermans, 2003) offers a perspective on identity that emphasizes its narrative construction, and evolutionary dynamics. In Dialogical Self Theory (DST) (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010), the self is conceptualized as a complex, holistic entity that is divided into functional subparts (Valsiner, 2004). Following Bakhtin (1984), the central idea in DST is that the self is made up of a series of autonomous but interrelated components of identity, or ‘I-positions’, each of which is endowed with a voice. As a dynamically shifting collection of voiced positions, the dialogical self can be conceived of as a society of the mind, and as having a “dialogical disposition” (Hermans, 2008, p. 187). Within the dialogical self, the I has the capacity to move from one position to another. Functioning as characters in a story, or actors on a stage, I-positions interact dialogically. They can express varying perspectives and become engaged in processes of agreement and disagreement. The imaginal space within which the I moves is immanently entwined with the physical and social spaces of contexts, events, and relationships. In this way, shifts that take place between the voices that speak not only reflect the changing circumstances of the contexts in which the person finds themselves, but also contradictions within the self (Hermans, 2001a; Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010).

In contemporary society, professional life involves encounters with demanding situations. In the face of challenge, shifts take place within the self. When responding to a particularly challenging event, or when encountering a situation that is novel, or that presents a dilemma, the self seeks to strike a balance between uncertainty (threats, but also possibilities for growth and innovation), and consistency (dispositions favoring coherence). In the theory of the dialogical self, these processes are conceptualized as decentering (centrifugal) and centering (centripetal) movements (Hermans, 2019).

Decentering movements have particular relevance in times of change, and when new experiences in a person’s life require a reorganization of identity (Hermans, 2014). They can be most clearly manifested when encountering situations that are novel or attractive, unexpected or ambiguous, or which pose a challenge or a threat. As Hermans (2014, p. 136) explains, the self can be subjected to decentering movements when a person “enters a new, confusing, or challenging learning situation or has to face disappointment, failure, or misfortune”. Centering and decentering movements are dynamically interrelated. Often, decentering movements will be the triggers for centering movements (Hermans, 2019). Following a decentering movement, the response of a centering movement can be generative; it can function to maintain openness to change and prevent the self “from becoming rigid and overly conservative” (Hermans, 2019, p. 32). Equally, when a decentering movement shifts the self into a period of discontinuity, centering movements can function to restore equilibrium. In this way, centering movements can operate as “counterforces” that bring order to the self. As Hermans (2019) explains, the two movements need to be understood as “mutually complementing forces, which need each other in order to find a balance between change, challenge, and innovation on the one hand, and consistency, coherence, and order on the other ” (p. 32).

In counterbalancing disruption, or curbing unrestrained innovation, the self can recruit the services of particular types of voiced position. These positions have a capacity to mediate when conflicts arise, to bridge between opposites, and to support the creation of new I-positions (Hermans, 2013, 2014, 2019). One of these positions is a meta-position. A meta-position provides a distanced view of the repertoire of I-positions. Functioning as an “observing ego”, a meta-position enables the self “to leave specific and specialized positions and to take a ‘helicopter view’” (Hermans, 2013, p. 86). Through dialogical exchange with the various I-positions, and by engaging with the varying views that each position expresses, a meta-position provides the possibility for reflected observation, and permits a balanced evaluation of positions that are, or could, come into conflict. Through the scrutiny of a meta-position, a particular I-position can become more generally prioritized. It is in this way that a meta-position can facilitate organization of the self beyond the immediate point in time. Because evaluative circumspection allows for “a more encompassing view on self and world”, a meta-position supports cohesion and continuity (Hermans, 2013, p. 86).

Like a meta-position, a promoter position provides direction within the self. While a meta-position offers an overview of the self, a promoter-position identifies possibilities for development, and can be understood as promoting innovation (Hermans, 2013, 2019). Promoter positions have a “compass function” for the self as a whole. They have an openness to the future, and they provide direction in ways that enable disparate I-positions to achieve a degree of integration and, in some cases, to come together “to form adaptive and productive combinations” (Hermans, 2019, p. 37). While promoter positions support continuity by building on the past, they also facilitate innovation by offering a view of the future. In this way, they create a balance between stability and change (Hermans, 2013, 2019).

Centrifugal–centripetal dynamics in boundary crossing situations

In a globalizing world, where change and diversity are the hallmarks of social and professional life, DST’s conceptualization of centrifugal–centripetal dynamics has an important role to play when investigating identity development in boundary crossing situations (Hermans, 2019). While meta- and promoter positions are regarded as central in maintaining coherence and continuity in times of transition, empirical work is scarce (Meijers & Hermans, 2018; Monereo & Badia, 2020). A recent exception is research by Assen et al. (2018). In a case study of four university tutors working with problem-based learning (PBL), Assen and colleagues examined the emergence and functions of meta-positions. In this study, participants reflected on how their approaches to teaching might mesh with course objectives and students’ needs. Participants were able to identify prominent I-positions within their teaching selves and could begin a process where these positions were interrogated from a distance. Showing how interpersonal (collegial) dialogue could facilitate inner dialogue within the self, Assen et al. (2018) demonstrated how an emergent meta-position could enable participants to identify interrelations between I-positions, and, in this way, gain a better understanding of the challenges involved when acting as a PBL tutor.

Boundary experiences

In Assen and colleagues’ (2018) study, tensions between competing I-positions—e.g., ‘I as member of the PBL group’, and ‘I as authoritarian teacher’—were conceptualized as a boundary experience (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005). A boundary experience is an event or situation where a teacher experiences tension between conflicting I-positions, and senses being at “the boundary of an existing self-concept” (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005, p. 424). It is an experience that will often lead to reconfiguration within the dialogical self (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005). When a currently pertaining identity configuration is no longer adequate in dealing with an extant situation, and when the person’s current capacity for understanding or action is constrained, the dilemma that arises can be the source of inner conflict. As Geijsel and Meijers (2005) explain,

[b]oundary experiences happen when a person, trying to participate more fully (centrally) in a social practice, encounters a situation in which one is unable to function adequately because one cannot fully identify with the new situation and its exigencies. Such a significant event causes ‘existential insecurity’, forcing the individual to see themselves—and often others too—in a different perspective. (p. 424, original emphasis)

When a novel situation or event means that “a person’s default response no longer brings positive meaning or direction” (Lengelle & Meijers, 2015, p. 20), a natural response is to seek the recovery of well-being. This can be done by avoidance, or through coping. However, since avoidance is rarely possible in professional contexts, boundary experiences need to be addressed.

Case study research

The decentering and centering movements that lie at the heart of a boundary experience need to be examined in relation to the personal, social, and professional contexts in which identity reconfigurations take place, and in ways that capture adaptive dynamics. This makes a case study approach particularly suitable. Individual case studies are sensitive to the complexity of the individual. When conducted during periods when identity development can be expected to be intense, individual case studies can provide insights into changes taking place within the self (Hermans & Salgado, 2010).

While the theory of the dialogical self has been developed through multiple individual case studies (e.g., Hermans, 2001b; Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 2004), beyond clinical contexts case studies are less common. Equally, while boundary experiences have been examined in case study work (e.g., Meijers & Lengelle, 2012), investigations are generally retrospective, and often focus on a pivotal incident, or turning point. As a means of studying a boundary experience as a process in motion, and with the aim of exploring the adaptive dynamics of centering and decentering movements within the self of a preservice teacher during a challenging school placement, the current study uses an individual, longitudinal case study methodology. However, before outlining the purpose of the research, and the study’s objectives, a review of research into preservice teacher identity development during school placements is first presented.

Identity development and school placements

For many preservice teachers, learning to become “someone who teaches” (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011, p. 315) presents a significant challenge. Preservice teachers can find themselves confronted with situations where personal values and beliefs about teaching do not always align with the expectations of other stakeholders in teaching and teacher education. Tensions can stem from conflicts between personal and professional values, and from dissonances between current and idealized perceptions of who they are, and who they want to become as a teacher. For many preservice teachers, their education is a period in life characterized by uncertainty and emotional strain (Beauchamp, 2019).

Among the varying settings of a preservice teacher’s education, school placements can be those where some of the most challenging identity events take place. A school placement is a period when contradictions between personal and professional identities can be most acute (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009, 2011; Hong, 2010; Trent, 2013). The transition from the structured environments of campus-based learning into school classrooms can be an emotionally charged and destabilizing experience where identities and emotions constantly shift (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009, 2011). While a school placement can provide excitement and exhilaration in connecting with young people, and in the self-discovery of being “credible in teaching”, it can also be demoralizing and demotivating (Bloomfield, 2010, p. 232).

In school placements the development of a professional identity takes place in the context of shifting relationships with mentors and students, and involves complex, in-the-moment negotiations with important others (e.g., Bloomfield, 2010; Izadinia, 2015; Van Rijswijk et al., 2013). While preservice teachers can become deeply involved in identity exploration in a context where “previous meanings regarding both teaching and learning [can be] challenged on a daily basis” (Ó Gallchóir et al., 2018, p. 140), they often lack the support and guidance of faculty mentors and preservice colleagues.

For some students, practice learning, and healthy identity development, can be systematically frustrated by negative experiences. In a challenging or “problematic” placement, uncertainty and psychological distress are common experiences (Johnston, 2010, 2016, 2020). In problematic placements, difficulties reported by preservice teachers include accessing time with mentors (who are often forced to prioritize other responsibilities), and a lack of validation by other teachers. While in some problematic placements, mentors can be highly controlling, in others responsibility for teaching can be handed over without negotiation or support. This can leave the preservice teacher feeling isolated and lost (Johnston, 2016). While surveys suggest that as many as a quarter of preservice teachers experience a problematic placement (e.g., Donaldson, 2011), problems can multiply when the placement takes place in a challenging school. In a challenging school—a school that is hard to staff and where students come from families with lower-than-average educational attainment—problems associated with classroom management and lack of motivation can create challenges for all those involved in education (Day, 2014).

Purpose

A teacher’s identity can be understood as a configuration of meanings which “change constantly when new elements are given a place and are related to experiences” (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005, p. 425). In a school placement, tensions between conflictive conceptions of what it means to be a teacher can be intense and can constrain opportunities to develop a coherent identity (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Johnston, 2016). However, in common with other situations where identity tensions develop and play out at the level of interpersonal interactions, there is a paucity of research that investigates identity development at the day-to-day level (Kunnen & Metz, 2015). Drawing on Hermans (2013, 2014, 2019) conceptualization of centering and decentering movements within the self, and Geijsel and Meijers’ (2005) notion of a boundary experience, the purpose of this individual case study is to explore preservice teacher identity development at the day-to-day level, and in the context of a challenging school placement. In pursuit of these objectives, the following research questions were formulated:

RQ1: What I-positions can be identified in the participant’s teacher identity system?

RQ2: What are the adaptive dynamics, and what roles do meta- and promoter positions play?

Method

The research takes a case study approach (Hermans & Salgado, 2010), and makes use of interpersonal, dialogical data. Through the application of the theory of the Dialogical Self (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010), and use of reflective/reflexive writing as means of stimulating engagement with identity (Lengelle & Meijers, 2015), a systemic and dynamical understanding of the participant’s identity development during the school placement is sought (Valsiner, 2004). The single case longitudinal design, and the discourse analytical method make it possible to identify changes in identity that are revealed in interpersonal dialogue, and which can be understood as emergent from interactions between the constituent parts of the participant’s identity system.

Setting

The study was carried out at a university in the western part of Sweden, and with students enrolled on a five-year program providing a qualification to teach English in Grades 7 to 12. At the point when data collection began, students were beginning their second year, and about to start a five-week placement.

Exploration of identity development was one of the aims of the placement. This was facilitated by reflective/reflexive writing (Lengelle & Meijers, 2015). Students were put into pairs, each student carrying out the placement at a different school. Using a secure online tool, students were required to write daily reflections on identity experiences, and to discuss these reflections with their partners.

In creating a dialogical engagement with identity, Lengelle and Meijers (2015, p 24) highlight the value of “reflective/reflexive writing”. This refers to writing practices that are intended to take the individual beyond a “narrow range of experience”, and to enable experiences to be perceived “from a range of viewpoints and potential scenarios” (Bolton, 2010, p. 10, quoted in Lengelle & Meijers, 2015). Reflection and reflexivity differ in that reflexivity explicitly recognizes how the self is multi-voiced. Reflexivity is promoted by interpersonal dialogue. As Lengelle and Meijers (2015) have noted, optimal conditions for understanding a boundary experience are created when a story of the self is told to relevant others. When the individual is engaged in sustained identity-focused reflexive discourse with a trusted other(s), it becomes possible to be simultaneously both inside and outside the self. This makes it possible to view and interpret a disconcerting situation from the perspective of an I-position, and from the perspective of a meta- or a promoter position (Assen et al., 2018; Lengelle, 2016; Lengelle & Meijers, 2015).

Students were given instructions and coaching about the writing process, and they were invited to reflect upon and write about situations when they had been aware of identities. The instructions given to students are provided in the Supplemental Online Material.

Participant

For the current study, one student was selected. Anna (a self-chosen pseudonym) was 23 years old. Having always wanted to work with people, and being a person who had always enjoyed reading and literature, Anna had gravitated toward a career in teaching, and hoped to become an upper secondary teacher of English and Swedish.

While the online writing provided important opportunities for identity exploration for all students, for Anna it was particularly valuable. While an extended placement can be challenging for all beginning students (Trent, 2013), for Anna the placement was especially demanding. Anna’s mentor had a range of responsibilities and limited opportunities to provide support and advice. Often, Anna was asked to carry out teaching while her mentor worked with other student groups. While these experiences are highly characteristic of a problematic placement (Johnston, 2016), Anna’s placement was additionally challenging in that it took place at a school where educational attainment was lower than the national average, and where staff turnover was high. Located in a rural community, at this school a majority of the students’ parents lacked education beyond the upper secondary level. Many students lacked motivation for learning and struggled to see the value of developing skills in English.

For Anna, the commitment to engaging in reflective/reflexive writing provided more than just an opportunity to develop insights into her professional development. In the absence of systematic feedback from her mentor, the responses she received from her partner provided an important source of moral support.

Together, these reasons meant that Anna was particularly suitable as a case study participant. In the section that follows, the procedure of the study is described.

Procedure

Data generation

The primary data source in this study are Anna’s contributions to the online discussion. The dialogue between Anna and her partner consisted of 74 unique contributions, 35 of which were written by Anna. The average length of Anna’ substantive contributions (i.e., not simply words of encouragement for her partner), was just under 300 words. Contributions were written in Swedish.

Anna was also interviewed at the beginning, during, and at the end of the placement. Interviews were carried out by the first author (interview one), and by the second author (interviews two and three). The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into her expectations and hopes for the placement (interview one), and her experiences as a student in her mentor’s classroom (interviews two and three). In the current study, data from the first interview is used as a means of identifying I-positions at the beginning of the placement.

Analytical procedures

Analyzing the data, we adopted a constructionist approach (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). We used a method developed to investigate identity dynamics in dialogical data generated at frequently spaced intervals (Henry, 2016, 2019, 2021). Employing discourse analytical techniques (Coyle, 2006; Potter & Wetherell, 1995), this method aims to identify I-positions and dialogical relations (Bell & Das, 2011; Duarte & Gonçalves, 2007). Data from the initial interview and the online contributions were coded in a similar manner, and in chronological order.

The analytical procedures were as follows. Both authors read the contributions to the online discussion and the interview transcript. Discussions about emerging insights then took place. Thereafter, the first author carried out the following steps. First, the written contributions were read again several times. Carrying out these readings, the aim was to gain an experience of the text as a reader, to develop an understanding of what the text was doing, and how this was accomplished. In the next stage, the data was coded. The coding focused on instances where an I-position (the articulation of a distinct teacher identity) or a meta- or promoter position (a perspective on identity voiced from a distance) could be discerned. On each occasion an I-position/meta-position/promoter-position was identified, the text segment was shaded using the comment function in Word. Text extracts were copied into the comment box, along with emerging interpretations and notes about the context. In a further step, these extracts were examined in greater detail. Here, the aim was to understand the function of an utterance in the context of discourse relating to interactions and identity experiences.

Thereafter, the second author critically reviewed these analyses. Discussions between the two authors then took place. Because the aim was to achieve interpretive consensus, the analyses of the first author were sometimes refined. In this way, an understanding of developmental patterns emerged. In a next step, member-checking was carried out. Here, the aim was “to explore whether results have resonance with the participants’ experience” (Birt et al., 2016). We met with Anna and described the study’s theoretical framework, methodology and findings. Anna was then provided with a draft of the manuscript. About two weeks later, we met again and talked about the analyses and findings. Anna was asked if she recognized the identity tensions described in the manuscript. Anna described how she recalled the events that she had written about, and how she recognized herself in our interpretations of what she had written about.

Ethics and the role of the researchers

The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (decision number 2019-03372). Information about the research was provided to the participant, together with assurances of confidentiality, that participation was voluntary, and that withdrawal was possible at any time. Written consent was obtained.

Both authors were teachers on the program. The second author was the joint coordinator for the placement. In this role, she carried out assessment visits, the aim of which were to evaluate students’ teaching abilities and personal development. For this purpose, she visited the participant during the penultimate week of the placement.

Results and discussion

The results are presented with the aim of casting light on the adaptive dynamics of the participant’s identity development. Drawing on data from the interview at the beginning of the placement, I-positions in the participant’s dialogical self are first identified. Thereafter analyses are directed to examples of reflective/reflexive writing (contributions to the online discussion). Tensions are examined, and attention is drawn to the emergence and functions of meta- and promoter positions. To contextualize these analyses, an insight into the challenges of the placement is first provided.

Learning to teach in a challenging context

Throughout their dialogue, Anna and her partner shared insights into the demands of working and learning in their respective schools. For Anna, many contributions involved reflections on the challenges of working in classrooms where students lacked motivation, and where teachers seemed to lack strategies for maintaining discipline and generating engagement. A section from Anna’s first contribution illustrates the nature of these challenges:

EXCERPT 1 (day 1)

The final lesson was a Swedish/English lesson. 80 minutes. First, they had silent reading for 20 minutes and then self-study. For the last 30 minutes they watched an episode from a series. Half the students did nothing during that lesson. Some sat and worked. Others went off to get a bit of peace and quiet. Ongoing discussions during the day between me and my mentor and even other teachers about how you can get students motivated. One teacher was sorely frustrated after her German lesson and said that if the only thing she could do to make students happy during lessons is to show a film, then she might as well change jobs. There is a general approach to school that they should do as little as possible and then go home, which creates a huge challenge for the teachers.

Identifying I-positions at the start of the placement

In the initial interview, Anna described her sense of self as a teacher, and how she wanted to be as a teacher in her mentor’s classrooms. At the center of her thoughts was the need to establish positive teacher–student relationships. Having spent a 2-week placement at the school in the first semester of the program, Anna was aware of the difficulties she would face during her internship. Most particularly, she identified the challenge of motivating students and helping them to appreciate the importance of education. She described her sense of self as a teacher as being someone who is caring and empathetic, someone who can create a homely atmosphere in the classroom, and someone who can engage students in learning as a route to achievement:

EXCERPT 2 (initial interview)

You want to become like a teacher who has very good contact with the students so that there is a positive atmosphere in the classroom, like, well, that things get done and that you feel that it [teaching] has given them something. I have always had this image that I will be the one who brings juice on Fridays, just so that everyone is happy, you know, a little cosy, the cosy-teacher. But of course it’s easier when you are at a small school. You get better contact. You know, like ‘here we respect each other, but we also have good communication’. To be liked. Of course you want that. But also seeing that you can help students, that you can accomplish something meaningful.

At the start of the placement, two complementary I-positions can be discerned. Each represents a central dimension of Anna’s emerging teacher identity. These are someone who creates a positive environment in the classroom, a ‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’ I-position (“I have always had this image that I will be the one who brings juice with her on Fridays, just so that everyone is happy, you know, a little cosy, the cosy-teacher”), and someone who helps students to achieve, a ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-position (“that things get done and that you feel that it [teaching] has given them something/seeing that you can help students, that you can accomplish something meaningful”).

I-positions are sensitive to the social environment. In contexts of professional practice and learning, I-positions are constructed in interactions with social others, and in relation to specific working tasks. In education, an I-position representing a particular manifestation of a teacher’s identity will index “a specific way of pursuing and achieving a particular educational aim” (Badia et al., 2020a, p. 3). For this reason, it is important that changes taking place in a teacher’s identity system are understood in relation to “the contingencies that occur during teaching” (Monereo, 2019, p. 5).

Tensions between I-positions throughout the placement

As revealed in the reflective/reflexive writing of the online discussion (Lengelle & Meijers, 2015), the configuration of Anna’s teacher identity changes over the five weeks of the placement. To illustrate these dynamics, we offer a close examination of four contributions. The first three center around challenging experiences. Written on consecutive weeks, and involving the three school grades with which Anna worked (7, 8 and 9), in each of these contributions Anna writes about an English lesson that had taken place earlier during the day. The final contribution was written following the assessment visit to the school by the second author.

In the first of these contributions, Anna describes a lesson that was “not very successful”. In this class, students were working with a travel-themed blog, an activity that Anna had designed. The underpinning idea was that students should imagine they were traveling in an English-speaking country, and that they would blog about their experiences. At the beginning of the contribution, Anna describes how the quiz at the start of the lesson (the Kahoot) was too demanding for many of the students and how, after the activity had been introduced, many had not been interested. Reflecting on how things turned out, Anna writes that the aim of the lesson had not been accomplished: “The plan that they should have uploaded a post by the end of the lesson has not been achieved”.

EXCERPT 3 (day 7)

Today I held my second lesson which was the final lesson for grade 7. They were going to continue working with their blogs. This lesson was not very successful, I started with a Kahoot with a few different words that can be encountered when you travel, the level of the quiz was a little too high but anyway it was a challenge for them. When they were going to start to work, it was difficult for me to make myself heard, I spoke with a raised voice but the only thing that would have possibly helped (or so it felt at the time) was if I were to shout, which I don’t want to do and will not do. It was clearly noticeable that many pupils in the class were not at all interested and found the activity boring, one pupil didn’t understand why it would be useful to be able to find flights to another country since his parents would do it for him if he was going on a trip. The pupils did ask a lot of questions though and wanted help, some groups worked well, some started to create pictures where they pasted their faces into places they were going to visit and thought that it was a fun assignment. So opinions were divided but the feeling of not being heard when you try and explain, help, guide means that you can feel a little pointless. Doubtless a feeling many teachers have had once or twice… Hope it will be better on Friday when the lesson is in the middle of the day! The plan that they should have uploaded a post by the end of the lesson has not been achieved.

Highlighting the students’ differing motivational responses—some groups had seemed to enjoy the activity and were able to maintain focus, while others lacked interest and did not appear to see the task as meaningful or relevant—Anna’s narrative reflects her own ambivalence. In addition to the disappointment of negative responses to an activity that was intended to be motivational, “It was clearly noticeable that many pupils in the class were not at all interested and found the activity boring”, Anna describes frustration in not succeeding in creating a positive working climate: “it was difficult for me to make myself heard, I spoke with a raised voice but the only thing that would have possibly helped (or so it felt at the time) was if I were to shout, which I don’t want to do and will not do”. Describing the disillusionment connected to “the feeling of not being heard when you try and explain, help, guide means that you can feel a little pointless”, her sense of self as a ‘creator-of-positive-feelings’ and as an ‘enabler-of-student-achievement’ are both challenged.

In a boundary experience, a disconcerting situation can be understood from the perspective of a particular I-position, and in ways that enable the I-position (or combination of I-positions) to be viewed and interpreted from a distance (Hermans, 2013; Lengelle & Meijers, 2015). In Anna’s account of these events and her emotions, a shift in perspective takes place. Having reflected on the lesson from the perspectives of the ‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’ and the ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-positions, Anna’s contribution ends with a perspective voiced by a different position. In expressing the view that the disillusionment she experiences may not be an unusual emotion for a teacher “[d]oubtless a feeling many teachers have had once or twice…” this perspective is voiced by a meta-position. A meta-position functions to provide an overarching view of the self, and of the self in relation to others. It enables continuity to be maintained in the face of difficulty (Hermans, 2019). With both the I-positions in Anna’s teacher identity system challenged by what took place, the voice of the meta-position offers an ‘explanation’ of these events. Providing a means of coping, it functions to ‘normalize’ the source of the threat, and, in this way, enables consistency within the self to be maintained (Lengelle & Meijers, 2015).

In the next excerpt (a contribution from the following week), the emergence of a meta-position has a similar function in maintaining cohesion within the self. However, in the challenging situation described here, the two I-positions in Anna’s identity system are brought into opposition. In a long contribution (700 words), Anna describes how, after numerous attempts on varying previous occasions, she had finally succeeded in getting two students to engage in meaningful work. However, when these two girls did eventually get started, Anna was forced to interrupt their workflow since her mentor had planned for the class to watch a film during the final twenty minutes of the lesson. Here, the meta-position functions to resolve the conflict that arises:

EXCERPT 4 (day 11) (abridged)

It felt so nice that they had found the motivation to learn and to talk and to actually dare to speak English with me! I felt a little hard with them, maybe tired after a long day or being affected by the attitude they had always previously shown toward the teachers and towards me. But suddenly I think they understood a little that it is important how you spend your time, but also daring to ask for help, this was clearly noticeable when we discussed [things], that they wanted more attention when they said things correctly and help when they couldn’t find the words. Of course, I believe that it is more rewarding to discuss in this way compared to watching a film, and if I could have redone the day, I would have remained with them and continued talking. But a part of me feels that it was good that they understood that their time is valuable sometimes and that they understand that they might not realize this until one day they stand there and it’s too late This is not how a teacher should think, we are there to help them succeed! But when they don’t seem to have any form of self-discipline or interest they have to realize in some way that it is important to make good use of their time and to plan ahead!

In this contribution, Anna describes how her interaction with the students meant that they shifted from a state of disaffection to one of engagement, and how this generated positive emotion. Nevertheless, the contribution ends with her expressing frustration and disillusionment. Anna’s description of how she handled the situation, and how she felt about her response, reveals how the two I-positions in her teacher identity system are brought into conflict. In dialogue between the two positions, the perspective voiced by the ‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’ I-position “It felt so nice that they had found the motivation to learn and to talk and actually dare to speak English with me! I felt a little hard with them, maybe tired after a long day or being affected by the attitude they had always previously shown toward the teachers and toward me” stands in opposition to the perspective voiced by the ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-position “a part of me feels that it was good that they understood that their time is valuable sometimes and that they understand that they might not realize this until one day they stand there and it’s too late”. While the perspective voiced by the ‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’ I-position emphasizes a commitment to creating conditions of comfort and security (which can instill confidence and enable the girls to take the plunge and speak English), the perspective voiced by the ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-position emphasizes that opportunities for learning are not to be lightly squandered.

As the dialogue reveals, neither of these two perspectives offers an adequate solution for understanding the event. Unresolved, a conflict between I-positions can trigger insecurity and prompt a reconfiguration of the identity system. As in the previous excerpt, this contribution shows how the voice of a meta-position emerges in the dialogue. Here, the function of the meta-position is adjudicative. In the face of conflicting perspectives voiced by the two I-positions, the voice of meta-position offers mediation: “This is not how a teacher should think, we are there to help them succeed! But when they don’t seem to have any form of self-discipline or interest they have to realize in some way that it is important to make good use of their time and to plan ahead!”. A meta-position provides opportunities for the evaluation of contradictory perspectives. It can mean that one position can become prioritized over another (Hermans, 2019). Through the mediating role of the meta-position, the voice of the ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-position appears as more persuasive.

In the third contribution analyzed here, further insight is gained into the mediational function of a meta-position:

EXCERPT 5 (day 16) (abridged)

One group worked somewhat better and everyone participated and wrote their own post-its and collected everything they could. The other group consisted of 4 boys and 2 girls, the girls did everything, one boy did nothing at all and another boy went out and continued with his blog because he thought it was too boring and he didn’t understand anything. The positive thing with the lesson was that they could solve the murder and both groups got it right, so I don’t think it was too difficult. What I didn’t succeed with was to motivate them so that they thought it was a fun activity, it was almost as if they understood that it doesn’t affect our grades so we won’t bother too much. I have a lot of criticism to give myself after this lesson because I didn’t do it well, but at the same time it is comforting to have this with me next time I do it, now I know what works and what could be done better. Something tells me grade 8 will approach the activity differently and find it more motivational, it is also an area that they are working with in Swedish so it won’t feel entirely out of context. I feel however that it isn’t demanding to speak in front of the class, either in English or Swedish. A year ago it would have felt embarrassing, so I am proud about crossing that stage. I feel however that I don’t know how to tackle pupils who for example won’t work because it’s boring and hard when I in my naivety think that it’s a fun activity that I have put a lot of time into, my first reaction unfortunately, is being a little frustrated, maybe even irritated, I know that in such situations the pedagogical side of me should come to the fore but it can be hard to know what to do in such situations. Because how much can you cosy up to pupils and only do fun things? When the fun things are not fun for pupils who can’t be bothered? The answer of course is experience.

In a teacher’s dialogical self, an I-position references a particular way of pursuing an educational aim in the context of contingencies pertaining to a particular teaching situation (Badia et al., 2020a; Monereo, 2019). As with the event in focus in the previous excerpt, Anna’s desire to create a stimulating and interactive classroom environment, and to generate a positive response to learning, reveals how the two I-positions (‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’ and ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’) can function in harmony. However, in telling the story of how the lesson unfolds, it is the perspective of the ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-position which is foregrounded. The focus of the narrative is predominantly on the responses of students who did not engage with the activity, and who failed to benefit from the learning opportunity: a boy “who did nothing at all”, and another who, “went out and continued with his blog because he thought it was too boring and he didn’t understand anything”. Little is written about how the activity did seem to be motivational for the majority of students. Rather, emphasis is directed to how, in relation to reluctant students, Anna’s motivational ambitions were thwarted: “What I didn’t succeed with was to motivate them so that they thought it was a fun activity”.

Frustrated once again in her attempts to create conditions that could enthuse demotivated students, and which could engage them in learning, Anna is highly self-critical: I have a lot of criticism to give myself after this lesson because I didn’t do it well. In her reflective/reflexive writing, Anna confronts herself with the recognition of how, in all three classes, her aim of creating a stimulating environment and engaging reluctant students in meaningful learning had failed to generate the hoped-for response. It is with an equal measure of despondency and self-insight that she writes that: “I feel however that I don’t know how to tackle pupils who for example won’t work because it’s boring and hard when I in my naivety think that it’s a fun activity that I have put a lot of time into”. A meta-position permits a long-term view of the self (Hermans, 2013, 2019). In suggesting that disillusionment and frustration may recede as she becomes more pedagogically skilled—“I know that in such situations the pedagogical side of me should come to the fore”—it is the voice of a meta-position that speaks. As in the previous situation (excerpt 4), the meta-position offers a means of addressing and coping with the stress and discomfort attaching to the events that took place.

While a meta-position permits evaluation of conflictive positions, it is not without its own biases. In the process of creating distance and mediating between positions, a meta-position can be attracted—cognitively and emotionally—to a specific I-position (Hermans, 2013, 2019). Here, the emergent meta-position in Anna’s dialogical self triggers interrogation of the perspective voiced by the ‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’ I-position. In this light, the questions “Because how much can you cosy up to pupils and only do fun things? When the fun things are not fun for pupils who can’t be bothered?” can be understood as critical perspectives voiced by a meta-position actively involved in processes of prioritization.

Prompted by engagement in reflective/reflexive writing, a reorganization of the self can be seen to take shape. From a position of distance, the perspective voiced by the meta-position questions the values associated with the ‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’ I-position (doing “fun things”). With the recognition that many students (currently) lack the capacity to engage in activities designed to stimulate motivation, it is the values associated with the ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-position that appear more attractive.

Facilitating resolution: the role of a promoter position

In a process of dialogical reflexivity spanning the five weeks of the placement, a reorganization of Anna’s teacher self-concept can be observed. While at the beginning of the placement the two I-positions coexist in harmony—the two perspectives complementing one another—toward the end of the period they become conflictive. As Healy et al. (2018) have observed, “during difficult boundary experiences, I-positions may act in opposition to each other, contributing self-conflict and self-criticism dialogues to the individual’s narrative and leaving them stuck and unable to productively work through their challenges” (p. 177, original emphasis). However, through the process of reflective/reflexive writing, the individual can be removed from the present (Lengelle & Meijers, 2015). While in some circumstances a meta-position can enable identity tensions to be addressed in ways that allow a particular perspective to prevail, in others conflict resolution can be facilitated by a promoter position.

For Anna, resolution of the tension caused by the (now) conflicting I-positions involves an adaptive reconfiguration of the self-concept where her sense of self as a teacher is better matched with the challenging contexts in which she finds herself. In a contribution to the online discussion that Anna writes immediately after the assessment visit, interrogation of the two conflicting I-positions is facilitated by a promoter position:

EXCEPRT 6 (day 20)

Feels really nice and valuable to have had the evaluation but a recurring problem I notice is two things: It’s hard to adapt activities to suit pupils when I don’t have a good idea about the level they’re at. Also I feel I don’t have broad base of knowledge to draw on when planning lessons. What I mean is linking to syllabus goals is tricky and I get stuck in creating activities that are extra motivational and appreciated by pupils when what I really want to do is to create activities that more clearly improve pupils’ learning of English. It’s even harder when you have classes where the large majority of pupils don’t work and getting them engaged requires either activities they enjoy or more valuable activities with a clear goal which they know will benefit their grades or learning. This is not a set of excuses but rather a challenge to myself to succeed in creating lessons that I am proud of, and that can engage pupils in a profitable way.

In contrast to a meta-position, which can facilitate shorter-term organization of the self, a promoter position seeks longer-term solutions to dialogical conflicts (Hermans, 2013, 2019). Promoter positions have an openness to the self’s future development and a “compass function” for the self-system as a whole. As Hermans (2019) explains, a promoter position can “integrate a diversity of new and already existing positions in the self, ‘integration’ used in the sense that different positions are brought together to form adaptive and productive combinations” (p. 37).

With an eye to the future, the emergent promoter position facilitates evaluation of the conflicting perspectives voiced by the two I-positions. A promoter position can “orient the learner toward positive action and identity reformation” (Healy et al., 2018). In recognizing how she could “get stuck in creating activities that are extra motivational and appreciated by pupils when what I really want to do is to create activities that more clearly improve pupils’ learning of English”, the reflection at the end of Anna’s contribution signals that a reconfiguration in her teacher identity system may be taking place. The words “This is not a set of excuses but rather a challenge to myself”, and the identification of the challenge, “to succeed in creating lessons that I am proud of, and that can engage pupils in a profitable way”, reflect the perspective of the promoter position. They point to a process of co-adaptation where the two (conflictive) I-positions can interact in converging ways, and which (potentially) can give rise to a new, hybrid position: “me-as-a-teacher-who-engages-students-in-constructive-learning”.

Conclusion

In programs of professional education, workplace learning involves a crossing of boundaries, and a transition from one set of institutionalized practices and perspectives to another. Boundary crossing—the negotiation of transitions between contexts of experience—is central to professional learning (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). Boundary crossing requires that students reconsider assumptions, shift perspectives, and adapt flexibly to new situations and challenges (Bronkhorst et al., 2013). In contexts of boundary crossing, reconfigurations of the self are likely to take place (Hermans, 2019). In boundary crossing contexts, encounters with novel and often unanticipated situational contingencies can trigger decentering movements within the self. When decentering takes place, spaces for new identity positions are opened up, and the horizons of the self can be expanded (Hermans, 2019). While innovation within the self is a precondition for identity development, and a necessary part of functioning as a professional person in the rapidly diversifying contexts of contemporary working life, destabilizing (centrifugal) movements need to be counterbalanced by centering (centripetal) movements that support continuity.

In this individual case study, analyses of the participant’s contributions to an online discussion have shed light on adaptive dynamics at the day-to-day level (Kunnen & Metz, 2015). At the beginning of the placement, two I-positions could be discerned. While one I-position referenced the participant’s sense of being an inspiring teacher who could generate positive emotions (‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’), the other referenced the sense of being a teacher who was effective in facilitating learning (‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’). At the outset of the placement, these identities coexisted in harmony. However, as the demands of working in this challenging environment created increasing tension, the relationship between the two I-positions shifted.

Analysis of the participant’s reflective/reflexive writing revealed how, when I-positions became conflictive, the emergence of a meta-position enabled the differing perspectives to be ‘managed’. Initially, a meta-position provided a means of maintaining stability within the system by offering an ‘explanation’ of the challenges encountered. Siding with neither position, it functioned to play down the possibility of conflict. Subsequently, however, the function of a meta-position appeared to change. As time passed, the exigencies of working in these challenging classrooms meant that the two I-positions became increasingly contradictory, and difficult to reconcile. While a meta-position provides an opportunity to evaluate contradictory selves from a position of distance, it is not without biases. When mediation could no longer effectuate a reconciliation, the conflict was ‘solved’ by the favoring of the perspective voiced by the ‘me-as-an-enabler-of-student-achievement’ I-position. As the placement continued, the perspective voiced by the other position (‘me-as-a-creator-of-positive-feelings’) was increasingly critiqued.

However, following further opportunities to reflect on identity development provided in an assessment visit, in the final contribution analyzed here (excerpt 6), conciliation could be seen. Here, analysis of the participant’s reflective/reflexive writing indicated the emergence of a promoter position. A promoter position facilitates conflict resolution by ‘suggesting’ longer-term, future-oriented solutions. Amongst these solutions are opportunities for an adaptive ‘bringing together’ of existing positions in productive combinations (Hermans, 2019). As the placement neared its end, the participant was able to draw together her identity experiences in a productive way, and to map out a route for future development. In prospection facilitated by the promoter position, opportunities arise where the two I-positions can (potentially) converge into a new consolidated position: “me-as-a-teacher-who-engages-students-in-constructive-learning”.

Contributions and implications

In a school placement, identity development can be intense. Because identities can shift rapidly between and during interactions and events, identity development needs to be investigated in relation to “what a teacher thinks and what a teacher does in the context of his or her professional status at a given time and place” (Badia et al., 2020b, p. 867). Because I-positions reflect the social, situated, and adaptive dimensions of teacher identities, the configuration of a preservice teacher’s teaching self-concept will be sensitive to changes in ways of acting, shifts in educational intentions, and the dynamics of interpersonal relations. This study has opened a window onto the day-to-day dynamics of a preservice teacher’s identity development. It has shed light on centrifugal–centripetal dynamics within the dialogical self, and it has provided an illustration of the roles that meta- and promoter positions can play in achieving coherence and continuity.

As a further contribution, the study underscores the importance of investigating boundary experiences in contexts of professional learning (Meijers & Hermans, 2018). While boundary experiences have been identified as the drivers of teacher identity development, in previous research they have generally been studied as watershed events in a teacher’s identity trajectory (e.g., Assen et al, 2018 ; Lengelle & Meijers, 2015). Here, rather than viewing a boundary experience as a specific event, or a critical incident that triggers a reconfiguration of a teacher’s identity system, and which is in some way pivotal in identity development, the concept is applied to a period where identity development can be unusually intense. We believe that there is considerable value in recognizing that a boundary experience can also encompass a dynamically shifting transformative state that is distributed across a range of events, each of which can contribute to a reconfiguration of the self in a nondeterministic manner. When attention is focused on interactions in classroom contexts, and when configurations of I-positions are investigated at the day-to-day level, an experience of discontinuity (no matter how small, or seemingly trivial) can be understood as a part of a sequence of accumulating events which, together, can constitute a boundary experience.

In framing a challenging period of a teacher’s education as a boundary experience, the concept can be used in teacher education in ways that can support positive identity development. When conditions “for the formation of a reflexive consciousness” (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005, p. 424) are carefully created, students gain opportunities to explore and engage with identity tensions that can lie at the heart of a boundary experience. By producing and analyzing journals, logs, process diaries, and other types of reflective narrative, preservice teachers can develop situated understandings of the dynamics that underly developmental processes and, in this way, can become “process researchers of their own development” (Henry & Tynkkinen, 2017; Steenbeek & van Geert, 2015). For preservice teachers who find themselves in a challenging placement, the framing of an internship as a boundary experience not only provides a means of making sense of identity-relevant events that might otherwise appear to be disparate and unconnected, but also a means of understanding how tensions can arise, and how coherence can be achieved. Engagement of this sort can support students in coping with the day-to-day demands of working in challenging classrooms.

Limitations and future research

An important limitation of the study involves the single-case design. While in relation to other individuals, generalization is not possible—situational experiences and identity dynamics will always differ between people—generalization is possible in relation to observed process characteristics (Van Geert & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, 2005). It would therefore be valuable if centrifugal–centripetal dynamics, and the roles of meta- and promoter positions are explored at the day-to-day level in other contexts of professional identity development. In relation to often lengthy programs of teacher education, and the challenge of student retention, it is important that early-program identity experiences are better understood. In this respect, findings from continued case study research can provide an important platform upon which models for preservice identity exploration can be constructed (e.g., Henry, 2021; Vedder-Weiss et al., 2018). When this happens, students can become better equipped to deal with the many challenges that can be experienced during a school placement, or any other demanding component of an educational program. It can mean that they are more likely to remain in education, and, in the longer-term, within the teaching profession.