Meeting eye to eye: the power relations in triadic mentoring of the degree project in teacher education

ABSTRACT

This study highlights and discusses power aspects within discourses discerned in articulations on triadic mentoring in degree projects in teacher education in Sweden. Each mentoring triad consisted of a pre-service teacher, a professional teacher acting as co-mentor, and a university mentor. As teacher education is to be based on a scientific foundation and proven experience, a symmetrical and complementary approach was to be implemented. Data from interviews, logbooks, and observations of mentoring were analysed discursively using CDA. Two main discourses were distinguished: The hegemony of science, and A gateway to the profession and science: The potential third space. The study shows that the academic paradigm tends to overshadow the symmetrical and complementary approach, but that the third space, the metaphorical meeting outside of the participants’ comfort zone, potentially balances up the mentoring triads through the pre-service teachers’ ownership of the process.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher education
• degree project
• triadic mentoring
• third space
• power relations
• critical discourse analysis

Introduction

Two international trends dominate Swedish teacher education: the research-oriented academic and professional paradigm (Beach & Bagley, 2013; Råde, 2016). In Sweden, teacher training programmes have been subjected to an academisation since the 1970s (Prop, 2009/10:89), and the Education Act (SFS 2010:800), requiring that the teacher education is based on a scientific foundation and proven experience. However, the integration of academic and professional goals is not unproblematic. Råde (2016) argues that these two target areas sometimes have a bias, or a focus, on either target area. If scientific goals dominate teacher education, it is at the expense of professional goals. Conversely, focusing on professional goals can disadvantage goal fulfilment in terms of scientific aspects (Råde, 2016). However, degree projects can bridge this gap by approaching practice through action research (Sandberg & Fröjdendahl, 2023).

The pilot study described in this article is an attempt to bridge the gap between the academia and the teacher profession by engaging co-mentors in degree projects in teacher education programmes. Mentoring builds on long-term relationships (Irby, 2018). Participants in such mentoring collaboration share common characteristics, amongst others ‘comfortability with vulnerability and having the courage to share struggles’ (Kroll, 2017, p. 87). Building such collaborations between mentors and co-mentors require organizational structures such as mentor programmes, or other formalised collaborations. However, mentoring involving more than one mentor can be problematized, as the mentors might have different objectives due to power aspects (Lejonberg & Hatlevik, 2022). Traditionally, pre-service teachers only get an academic mentor, but in the current study, a schoolteacher works as a co-mentor in triadic mentoring. For co-mentors, who are professional teachers, an essential purpose of the mentoring process might be to socialise the pre-service teacher into the profession. For the university mentor, the main objective might be the scholarly training of the pre-service teacher (Henry & Mollstedt, 2021). The different objectives and the shift in the approach between the university mentor and the co-mentor can potentially affect the understanding of mentoring. This is true even when the parties are in agreement that their task is to support the pre-service teachers writing their degree projects, and even when both parties understand their crucial relational roles in the process of mentoring (Agricola et al., 2018; Hudson, 2016; Izadinia, 2015; Manderstedt et al., 2022; Nielsen et al., 2022; Wexler, 2019) and development of professional knowledge through mentoring (Templeton et al., 2022).

This empirical study draws on Degree Projects in Collaboration, carried out in 2021 (Viklund et al., 2021). The project sought to develop and test sustainable collaboration models for triadic mentoring between the university and schools. The concepts of symmetrical and complementary collaboration shaped the project (Uppsala University, 2023). The approach was the starting point for all parties in the mentoring triad, namely the pre-service teacher, the mentor from the university, and the co-mentor from the school. Thus, the pilot study questioned the traditional conception of mentoring as a process between an expert and a novice. While the study was carried out, data in terms of qualitative interviews, logbooks, and observations was collected. Four cases of triadic mentoring of the degree project in four teacher education programmes (Kindergarten, primary school, middle school, and high school) were studied.¹

Aim

This study highlights and discusses power aspects within discourses discerned in articulations on triadic mentoring aiming for a symmetrical and complementary collaboration between teacher education programmes and the teaching profession. The following questions have been raised:

• Which major discourses, with an emphasis on power relations, can be discerned in the articulations of pre-service teachers, co-mentors, and mentors regarding the mentoring of degree projects?

• Which strategies and positionings can be distinguished within the discourses with a bearing on these power relationships?

• How do roles articulated through positionings affect the symmetrical and complementary approach?

The first two questions are addressed in the Findings section, and the third in the Discussion.

Collaborative mentoring

Joint mentoring in teacher education constitutes a way of integrating theory and practice, thus bridging the well-known gap between the two. Steele (2017) explores models for collaboration between universities and schools through joint mentoring and found that mentoring entails challenges concerning pre-service teacher autonomy and ownership. For the pre-service teachers to become independent, it is vital to let them control the process from the beginning and adapt the mentoring to the specific project. Gustavsson and Eriksson (2015) point out that pre-service teachers’ questions during mentoring sessions tend to focus on academic traditions, linguistic aspects, and the structure of the degree projects, instead of discussing forms and strategies.

Sotos Serrano (2019) highlights three particularly important aspects of the mentoring process: the organization of the work, the mentor’s commitment, and empathy. Beneficial mentoring methods are characterized by mentor flexibility (Sotos Serrano, 2019). Several studies indicate that attitudes toward mentoring can affect the learning process (Hudson & Hudson, 2018; Manderstedt et al., 2022). Also, de Kleijn et al. (2016) emphasize the relational aspects of mentoring. Merket (2022) shows that an active mentor role might be thought to contradict a relationship where the mentee is reflective and active. One specific problem addressed by de Kleijn et al. (2016) concerns situations where the mentors are to support the master students’ writing process and assess the quality of the work afterward.

The relationship between mentors

In joint mentoring, the roles of the triad parties – the university mentor, the cooperating teacher (that is, the co-mentor), and the pre-service teacher – and the dynamics between those are, however, not on equal footing. Lack of information from the university and a wish for clarification of roles and tasks are seen as a problem (Steele, 2017; Taylor et al., 2014). As academic knowledge is essential when mentoring degree projects, joint mentoring may cause an asymmetric power relation between teachers and university mentors (Lejonberg & Hatlevik, 2022; Steele, 2017). A symmetrical and complementary approach is facilitated if both parties recognize each other’s knowledge and skills, and share responsibilities (Bergmark, 2020).

In Steele’s (2017) study, the co-mentors’ participation in the process may have contributed to a symmetric relationship, as the pre-service teachers met both mentors at the same time. The traditional mentoring in higher education, that is carried out with only an academic mentor, is presently accompanied by other forms. According to Harrison and Grant (2015), having a mentoring team, with possibilities to meet student needs and avoid the asymmetry of power, can be an alternative to a single mentor, but team mentoring does not always counteract hierarchical student-mentor relationships. Mtika, Robson, and Fitzpatrick (2014) show that collaboration among pre-service teachers, teacher educators, and teachers offered the pre-service teachers double support, integrating academic, pedagogical, and practical knowledge, even though mutual trust and recognition of the other’s contribution to the pre-service teachers’ learning did not fully develop.

The third space

According to Portelance, Caron, and Martineau (2017), teacher education must include experienced practitioners. Interprofessional collaboration requires dependence through shared responsibility to support the pre-service teachers’ learning process through a relational agency, where mutual respect is needed (Ben-Harush & Orland-Barak, 2019).

Researchers have emphasized the importance of a meeting place for joint mentoring, a third space for collaboration (Taylor et al., 2014). The third space is a metaphor for the meeting, and cross-border activities, of the participants in the mentoring triad, outside of the participants’ comfort zones, and for the joint creation of new knowledge (Lillejord & Børte, 2016). A climate of trust (Sheridan & Young, 2017) to develop a dialogic interaction (Talbot, Denny, & Henderson, 2018) is important. Symmetrical relationships in mentoring facilitates collaboration (Merket, 2022), unlike hierarchical relations. The lack of trust harms the triad, as relationships have not been given time to develop (Martin et al., 2011). Consequently, power relationships are an issue in collaboration.

The present study

The participating pre-service teachers were doing their last term of their teacher programme. The pre-service teachers and the mentors volunteered to participate in the project, while the co-mentors were headhunted through the professional research network in their municipality which has stated objectives for research and development work. An agreement was signed between the municipality and the university. All co-mentors have a teacher’s degree and an additional Master’s degree in Education Sciences. Table 1 shows the setup of the four triads.

Table 1. Data collected, and informants.

	Years of teaching experience in schools	Years of mentoring degree projects	Log 1 (April)	Log 2      (May)	Interview 1 (February)	Interview 2 (June)	Observation      (March/April)
Pre-service teacher A   High school Female, 26 years			x	x	x	x	x
Pre-service teacher B     Middle school   Female, 30 years			x	x	x	x	x
Pre-service teacher C    Preschool    Female, 40 years				x		x	x
Pre-service teacher D      Primary school  Female, 29 years			x		x	x	x
Co-mentor E     Middle school, Female, 44 years	17 years	0 years		x	x	x	x
Co-mentor F    High school    Female, 46 years	26 years	0 years	x		x	x	x
Co-mentor G    Primary school    Female, 52 years	17 years	0 years *	x	x	x	x	x
Co-mentor H    Preschool   Female, 43 years	13 years	0 years		x		x	x
Mentor I PhD, senior lecturer      Female, 63 years	23 + 20 years **	20 years	x	x	x	x	x
Mentor J   PhD, Associate Professor/Docent   Male, 50 years	7 + 19 years **	15 years	x	x	x	x	x
Mentor K    PhD, Associate Professor/Docent Female, 60 years	17,5 + 20 years **	18 years	x		x	x	x
Mentor L     PhD, senior lecturer Female, 48 years	10 ***+ 5,5 years	5 years				x	x

*Informal mentoring of pre-service teachers’ degree projects.  

**Teaching in schools and in teacher education   

***Working as Head of a school. 

Data

The data collection in all mentoring triads was coordinated by a research team leader, an associate professor with a high school teacher degree, not being a part of the mentoring triads. Three types of data – interviews, logbooks, and observations – were collected over a period of five months. Interviews were conducted twice (see Table 1). The participants in the fourth triad were only interviewed once due to a more limited degree project. Each interview lasted 30–60 minutes and was, with the permission of the participants, recorded, and then transcribed. A logbook was submitted twice (see Table 1), but as Table 1 shows, not all participants submitted their logbooks. Finally, each triad was observed during a mentoring session that lasted 60–90 minutes. The observer made notes and transcribed these notes.

Methodology

In educational studies, especially in classroom studies, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has widely been used (Rogers et al., 2016), to problematize the role of power within educational contexts (e.g. Manderstedt et al., 2022). In this qualitative, empirical study, Fairclough’s (1992) methodological framework CDA is used to identify power relations at the micro level, manifested in discourses.

According to Fairclough (2010), ‘discourse’ is a meaning-creating and definite way of talking about and understanding the world in a limited context, such as mentoring. The framework provides opportunities to combine society-oriented analyses with linguistic text analyses that reveal power relations expressed in texts. CDA also makes it possible to clarify the traits of different discourses through concrete text examples.

The CDA exposes how power relations are maintained or changed (Fairclough, 2010). Since language is historically situated and thus established, discourses are rather compelling, although they can be changed by (verbal) elements from different discourses operating together, or by acts of resistance – creative acts (Fairclough, 1992). The power relations regarding mentoring that have been shown in previous research may thus have changed. One consequence of discursive practices, according to Fairclough (1992), is that subject positions are considered important, as subjects can be positioned (or seek to position themselves) within different ideologies. Within a discourse, subjects are assigned social positions and these positions regulate what is possible to articulate in the current context and who has the power to express themselves.

Coding and analysis

Transcribed interviews and observations as well as written logbooks are considered ‘texts’ and can therefore be analysed linguistically. CDA is carried out in several steps (Fairclough, 2010), starting with the development of the study’s point of entry, which is often embedded in several theoretical fields. The dialectical relationship between these fields makes it possible to determine a so-called order of discourse that sets the framework for the analysis (Fairclough, 1992). Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) propose that an order of discourse should be set initially. For this study, the order of discourse focuses power relations in triadic mentoring. Against the background of this order of discourse, the meaningful articulations of the collected material are analysed, which in turn form discernible patterns that express discourses, that are possible ways of talking about power in triadic mentoring. There is a struggle between different discourses within a certain order of discourse. Consequently, discernible discourses, strategies, and positionings within these, as well as factors affecting the intended symmetrical and complementary collaboration in the pilot study, could be investigated by CDA. These aspects could potentially be perceived and expressed in different ways by the pre-service teachers, the co-mentors, and the mentors given their specific discursive practices.

A few inductive concrete steps describe the analysis: a) transcription of verbal data (interviews and observations), b) analysis of written texts (logs), c) categorization of the material and generation of initial discourses in relation to research questions and linguistic actions (cf., Fairclough, 1992), to examine similarities, regularities and contradictory elements in the statements, and analysis of different ways in which an object is referred to and d) identification of subject positions. Quantity in terms of frequency is largely irrelevant because a single articulation can have as much significance as repetitions within a discourse (Fairclough, 1992).

The research team started by reading the material individually, after which the impressions were discussed. Then categories of themes were collected by copying relevant sections that contained a particular category to a file. The sections in each file were then analysed in relation to the different groups in the triadic mentoring. While working on the analysis, workshops were used to discuss and test the discourses and the subject positions within them. In the following coding example, the process of coding is illustrated (see Table 2).

Table 2. Coding example.

Articulation	Categorization	Initial discourse	Discourse
‘As researchers, we have the opportunity and perhaps also the right to formulate research questions, and I do not think we can give it away’	Researchers responsible with a right to decide	Scientific and academic hegemony	The hegemony of science

Ethical considerations

The ethical codex of the Swedish Research Council (2017) guided both the project design and the data collection. All participants gave their informed consent to voluntary participation in the study. To ensure that the participants voluntarily submitted data, no reminders were sent when participants did not submit their logs. Therefore, data is missing in a few cases. To create trust while working with the data collection, one researcher held the interview or observed the mentoring session. Finally, the degree project was not assessed by the mentor.

Limitations of the study

Some limitations of the study should be noted. Firstly, the pilot study gave a limited sample of data. Secondly, the data could potentially be ‘arranged’ in that the participants knew that their statements would possibly be quoted in a paper. Thirdly, a sample of statements from volunteers may not be as representative as a statistical selection. Nevertheless, the credibility of the study has been considered. The limited sample led to the opportunity to collect data every month. The moral risks of collecting data among the participants were handled through an open discussion. In addition, the data triangulation, and comparisons of the analysis within the research team show great similarities in results, which strengthens reliability. The researchers are aware of the reflexibility problems connected to interpretations in CDA (Warburton, 2016) by showing transparency through descriptions of the research process and by providing text excerpts. Results should therefore be transferable to similar triads.

Findings

Two major discourses can be distinguished in the empirical data: The hegemony of science, and A gateway to the profession and science: The potential third space.

The hegemony of science

The first discourse concerns the hegemony of science in the triadic mentoring of the degree project. Although all degree projects in the current study have a practice-based approach, the articulations show that the academic perspective is given priority over the proven experience.

Among the pre-service teachers, there is a positive attitude towards science: ‘I am already keen on doing more research’ (D, interview 1). At the same time, the pre-service teachers position themselves as mediators of scientific perspectives, bringing research to the professionals (C, interview). Pre-service teachers express that new research findings and ideas seem to have difficulties reaching the school professionals: ‘teaching teams rarely read research papers’ (B, interview 2). The teachers’ opportunities to conduct scientific studies are described as limited. The dominating view is that research and science play a subordinate role in teachers’ practices and that the co-mentors are exceptions to the rule.

Despite the perception that teachers generally are not research-oriented, the pre-service teachers express their faith in the co-mentors’ scientific competence. The pre-service teachers value the input from both mentors, even where pre-service teachers make a distinction between the contributions:

In the beginning, you have no idea what is relevant to your study (…) and [the mentor] helps a lot. And [the co-mentor] has been very helpful in problematizing my questions and the purpose of my study [and] tells me about a lot of literature. (…) So, I think I get great help from both. (B, interview 1)

Nevertheless, the mentor’s scientific priority is undisputed: ‘I was told that the decision is mine, but that [the mentor] is my main mentor. If I choose to listen to one of them, it will be [the mentor]’ (C, interview). The priority given to the mentor should not be seen as a vote of no confidence in the co-mentor but rather as a sign of pragmatism; the pre-service teachers know that the mentor has knowledge of what is required for degree projects to pass.

The observations of the triadic mentoring show that co-mentors are active in the discussions of scientific aspects and that they ask questions about the theoretical framework and provide views regarding the outline of the degree project. The co-mentors express that having recently written a master’s thesis is essential for their willingness to position themselves: ‘We who recently have completed our master’s studies, we are thinking scientifically (…) Therefore, we are not afraid of that part of the mentoring’ (G, interview 1). Although the co-mentors state that they can contribute to scientific aspects of the degree project, they emphasize the mentors’ experience of academic writing: ‘Of course, the mentor is much more proficient in the scientific field’ (E, log 2). The co-mentors expect to ‘hold the pre-service teacher’s hand throughout the process, answer questions and be a helping hand’ (H, Interview).

From a power perspective, the fact that the co-mentors position themselves as inferior in terms of scientific competence can be interpreted as a strategy for dealing with challenges related to asymmetric mentoring. These statements show that the co-mentors are aware of and accept their subordinate position: ‘It is evident that [the mentor] can contribute more regarding research (…). I do not want our input to weigh equally on scientific issues’ (F, interview 2). The co-mentors agree that their colleagues have not kept up with science and research and would find mentoring challenging: ‘Academic writing is so far from them, so giving a pre-service teacher academic advice would be a huge step’ (G, interview 2).

The mentors, on the other hand, see themselves as scientific guarantors, and mentor I (Interview 1) articulates the need to ensure that the text is scientifically grounded. The mentors also emphasize that they have theoretical knowledge and practical experience of scientific writing processes, which enable them to ask critical questions, provide theoretical perspectives and ‘take out the direction’ (L, interview). There is also an awareness of the impact this has on the symmetry of the mentoring: ‘The pre-service teacher listens to me because [the pre-service teacher] knows that I have handled a hundred jobs before (…). So, my opinion probably outweighs the co-mentor’s’ (J, interview 1). Although practice-based research and collaboration with practitioners are becoming more common, some mentors emphasize the need to preserve their scientific precedence in these processes: ‘As researchers, we have the opportunity and perhaps also the right to formulate research questions, and I do not think we can yield that power’ (J, interview 2). Despite ambitions to achieve mentoring based on symmetry and complementarity, the proviso regarding the mentors’ prerogative in the scientific process highlights one of the main challenges in achieving symmetric mentoring.

The mentors emphasize that the co-mentors can contribute with scientific perspectives. The fact that the mentors consider themselves entitled to assess the competence of co-mentors is an expression of the academic hierarchy. When mentors emphasize the scientific knowledge of the co-mentors, this contrasts the expected image of teachers as a group, lacking knowledge of and interest in scientific processes and research. According to mentor J, the co-mentors in this pilot study differ from other teachers who are critical of the academy. Thus, J addresses the perception of a discrepancy between what the university teaches and the reality of professional teachers.

To sum up: Firstly, all groups relate to the mentors’ scientific superiority. There is a willingness to collaborate and perform practice-based research, but the asymmetric power relationship regarding scientific issues is considered natural and continuing. A challenge for symmetrical guidance is that all groups tolerate this imbalance. Secondly, according to all groups, the co-mentors are scientifically knowledgeable, through a master’s programme. Their further education promotes the balance in the mentoring by encouraging the co-mentors to position themselves scientifically, thus differentiating themselves from the image of teachers as a group characterized by uncertainty and disinterest in research. The pre-service teachers articulate how teachers do not seem to have time to assimilate research results or conduct studies. This view of teachers poses a challenge to symmetrical mentoring, as co-mentors must prove their competence before it is possible to meet at eye level. Thirdly, according to the pre-service teachers, carrying out practice-research in schools bridges theory and practice.

A gateway to the profession and science: the potential third space

In the second discourse, the potential of a third space, shared by the pre-service teachers, the co-mentors, and the mentors, is evident. However, all parties involved express uncertainty about how this potential third room can be designed and what strategies are required to implement it. Power is produced through various positions in this potential space and is revealed through articulations that consolidate the traditional structure, supporting the academic priority and, thereby, the mentor’s priority over the co-mentor. These opinions are, however, less salient than in the discourse The hegemony of science, and that the articulations are considerably more exploratory.

One strategy for succeeding in collaboration is to discuss and highlight the division of responsibilities. In the triads, the mentoring was set up in different ways and some approaches have worked better than others, seen from a power perspective. A mentor comments on shared responsibilities: ‘I have been more responsible for the scientific part of this work, but I think we have complemented each other quite well, anyway’ (I, interview 1). Strategies for making the triadic mentoring work have been central in terms of responsibility and power – especially for the mentors in that specific mentoring triad. Mentor I explained how they decided that the co-mentor should participate in all individual mentoring sessions. This triad also determined that the co-mentor was to participate in the mid-term seminar and the final seminar, which increased the authority of that co-mentor.

All co-mentors mention the benefits of triadic mentoring. A co-mentor comments on what they gain from the pre-service teachers’ degree projects, for example, that the pre-service teachers’ results may be ‘an eye opener for some of us, how we design our teaching. (…) It can be valuable for us to be reminded of variation in teaching’ (G, Interview 2). The articulations about the product’s significance focus on the pre-service teacher’s professional development. No articulation indicates that the degree project contributes to the mentor’s professional development, through in-depth subject insights. However, the mentors’ articulations acknowledge the benefits that they gain through the pre-service teachers’ proximity to the profession: ‘It brings me closer to the school as a mentor and (…) I can express myself with more authority about the school (…) if there is also an active teacher who (…) can, if necessary, correct me’ (J, interview 2). Another mentor discusses benefits that have arisen as the co-mentor contributes with thoughts in the mentoring process: ‘I also get ideas and thoughts based on what [the co-mentor] has raised. (…) I think it is an opportunity to see the perspective of others’ (L, interview). As shown, the mentors discuss what they gain from collaborating with the co-mentors.

The value of the profession can be distinguished in articulations concerning strategies and positionings in the mentoring. This is especially true of the pre-service teachers’ articulations. The pre-service teachers, who do not rely on traditional hierarchies between academia and schools, seem to find it easy to position themselves as part of both the university culture and the profession.

The co-mentors position themselves most strongly in matters concerning the pre-service teachers’ contribution to the profession, but also the profession’s contribution to the degree project. The pre-service teacher ‘gets access to the teachers’ meetings and thus the opportunity to identify problems perceived as relevant to the profession, (…) gets the opportunity to collect empirical data (…) and (…) will then have an arena to present the results’ (F, log 1). Other co-mentors comment rather sparingly on how a potential third space could be created – perhaps because they do not perceive that they are empowered.

Articulations from all parties in the mentoring triads emphasize the importance of joint mentoring. However, mentors do not assume the same tasks as the co-mentors. J emphasizes the mentor’s task of ensuring that the degree project course’s goal is achieved: ‘It is, after all, an education that the pre-service teachers must undergo. In fact, (…) to a large extent, the mentor at the university gets a coordination function, that is, that ensuring the pre-service teacher is also part of other [student] groups’ (Interview 1). There is an awareness of the power relationships:

The challenge is to include the pre-service teacher (…), to include the co-mentor so that there is no kind of … “I am a helper” (…). If this project is to be permanent, the co-mentors must experience that they are an integral and equally important part of this collaboration as the mentor, even if the mentor is the one who has the formal civil servant liability. (K, Interview 2)

This awareness of power asymmetries in the third space, however, is challenged by the hegemonic role of science. The formal liability of the mentor does not supersede the objective of implementing a symmetrical and complementary relationship in triadic mentoring, but all parties acknowledge it and must find ways to work around the built-in power asymmetry.

To sum up: In the discourse A gateway to the profession: The potential third space, there are several strategies to make collaboration work. The mentors’ words weigh heavily in the division of responsibilities – they position themselves strongly, as in creating a symmetrical and complementary approach. Also, in matters concerning collaboration and the value of the profession, the mentors position themselves strongly. Within this discourse, the co-mentors position themselves rather weakly.

Positioning in third space: a discussion

In this empirical study, positionings were identified through CDA (Fairclough, 1992, 2010). These positionings can be connected to mentoring but also to the roles adopted within the mentoring triads, as receivers, senders, and operators. The receiver is primarily open to influence and messages from others, for example, a sender who mainly intends to convey thoughts and knowledge. An intermediate role as an operator is identified. The operator receives and shares ideas and functions as a mediator in the third space.

Mentoring focuses on the building of relationships, and relationship is a frequent topic in research on mentoring (cf., Agricola et al., 2018; Hudson, 2016; Izadinia, 2015; Merket, 2022; Wexler, 2019). The findings show that co-mentors and pre-service teachers see triadic mentoring as relationship building. One emergent tendency is that the pre-service teachers seem to be more receptive to academic support from their mentor (cf., Harrison & Grant, 2015), and more receptive to support regarding practical issues from their co-mentor (cf., Gustavsson & Eriksson, 2015). The discourse The hegemony of science is privileged when the mentor’s academic prerogative is acknowledged, and one could argue that this positioning obstructs a symmetrical approach. Thus, the finding implies that the long-term relationship is seen as an issue for co-mentors and pre-service teachers, as future professional equals. In the mentoring process, the pre-service teachers position themselves as both receivers of the co-mentors’ professional experience, and as senders, conveying ideas from current research. There are statements indicating that some mentors consider triadic mentoring as the building of a long-term relationship with the co-mentor, for a symmetrical and complementary partnership in teacher education. Such a mentoring relationship is in line with the overarching objective of ensuring an education on scientific grounds and proven experience.

The analysis of data shows that co-mentors and mentors adopt the position of operators in the mentoring of the pre-service teacher. Mentoring is seen as a joint enterprise (cf., Sheridan & Young, 2017). Their common objective is to ensure that the pre-service teachers reach the targeted goal (Irby, 2018), and in that role, they are both acting as operators. There are factors challenging the pre-service teacher’s role in triadic mentoring. These challenges, in terms of time, limited experience of writing academically, etc., might make the pre-service teacher primarily a receiver of knowledge and, thus, create an asymmetry within the triad. Previous studies suggest that pre-service teachers need to be involved in and control the mentoring process (cf., Steele, 2017). Pre-service teachers who made an active choice when faced with two mentors’ suggestions became more independent and confident in the process (cf., Mtika et al., 2014), thereby assuming the role of operators.

The observations reveal how soon discussions between all three parties took off and at whose initiative. In some observations, it was at the discretion of the mentor, who in these mentoring sessions adopted the role of a tutor (cf., Irby, 2018), whose short-term goal was to oversee the improvement of a particular part of the degree project, for example, the method, or the theoretical framework. If the pre-service teachers chose to address the short-term goal by outlining their ideas and arguing for their standpoint, the pre-service teacher adopted the role of sender and operator in the mentoring process. Thereby, they claimed ownership of the process, which benefitted the symmetry within the triad (cf., Steele, 2017). Henry and Mollstedt (2021) argue that pre-service teachers construe their professional identity in interaction. Therefore, the initial phase of mentoring is crucial in making the pre-service teachers comfortable.

Only co-mentors fulfil all three roles within the triads. As experienced schoolteachers, the co-mentors bridge the gap between the teacher education and the profession (cf., Lejonberg & Hatlevik, 2022). The co-mentors often refer to a fluid mentoring role, by complementing the pre-service teacher’s and mentor’s work and by bringing the pre-service teacher’s results back to the schools. The co-mentors create an arena where the pre-service teachers produce and present degree projects which can contribute to the practice within schools (cf., Lillejord & Børte, 2016). Some co-mentors define themselves through their professional knowledge, as senders of experience in relation to the pre-service teacher. However, in relation to the mentor, the co-mentor becomes a receiver of academic knowledge, asking for advice. Again, the discourse The hegemony of science proves to be more prominent than the discourse on the third space. This, too, highlights the problem of adopting a symmetrical and complementary approach. A completely symmetrical relationship within the mentoring triad might not be expected, as the pre-service teachers were younger, less experienced, and in a subordinate position in relation to the mentors and co-mentors. As all but one participant are females, the current study does not yield sufficient empirical data to draw conclusions concerning the role of gender in the power structures of the mentoring triads.

The pre-service teachers claim benefits from operating co-mentors who can create a platform where they can collect the material for the degree project. Both pre-service teachers and mentors emphasize the co-mentors as meaningful senders in the mentoring, committed to their role, and want to help the student to succeed (cf., Hudson & Hudson, 2018; Kroll, 2017). Thus, it is not surprising that the co-mentors and pre-service teachers who already knew each other or alternatively started the process earlier, were more positive about the mentoring situation than co-mentors and pre-service teachers whose process was more delimited. Trust was built up between the participants, allowing for mentoring, something that previous studies suggest is difficult to build if relationships do not have time to develop (Martin et al., 2011). Furthermore, developing the relationship made it easier to be comfortable despite vulnerability, and shared risk-taking (cf., Kroll, 2017; Templeton et al., 2022). A focus on short-term goals and tasks of improvement (cf., Irby, 2018) might underscore hierarchies that contribute to the co-mentor assuming a subordinate position. One explanation could be that teachers have a disadvantage due to academic personnel having a higher degree and more academic experience (Bergmark, 2020). In the pilot study, the co-mentors could therefore be seen as disadvantaged, also due to their lack of experience in mentoring degree projects. However, their Master’s degree and their varying experience of mentoring pre-service teachers, or mentoring the independent work in high school.

The mentors are the most visible senders in the third space created by triadic mentoring. They frequently claim ownership, scientifically and structurally (cf., Gustavsson & Eriksson, 2015). The only exception is when it comes to the profession and school, where the mentors adopt the roles of receivers of knowledge from the co-mentor. The mentors seem to welcome the experiences, ideas, and other input from the co-mentors. Thus, one slight change regarding the role of the mentors was identified. The observations clarified that in triadic mentoring, the mentors try to break free from their role as exclusive senders, to achieve an equal partnership concerning power relations. This happened when mentors pass the question to the co-mentor and the pre-service teacher. Thus, one could argue that mentors try to make the mentoring more symmetrical and complementary by sharing the knowledge basis through the mentoring conversations (cf., Nielsen et al., 2022). The problem, however, is when the triadic mentoring is on the mentors’ terms. Furthermore, this study does not suggest that mentors do not always see the pre-service teachers as potential senders in the third space. Due to their earlier experience, the mentors often articulate the urge to start the process and provide the pre-service teacher with what they identify as a sustainable plan for the degree project. Although collaboration is essential for symmetry in relationships (Merket, 2022), the mentors maintain a hierarchical structure that does not promote the pre-service teacher’s ownership of the process, which is important for a symmetrical approach (Steele, 2017).

Obviously, there are challenges in the triads that make mentors mainly act as senders of knowledge. In previous research, one struggle seems to be that mentors have difficulty letting go of control (cf., Gustavsson & Eriksson, 2015). This can also be seen in the present study, for example, when mentors assume responsibility for the direction of the project and the project’s timeline. Ben-Harush and Orland-Barak (2019) conclude that symmetrical power relations connect with the acknowledgment of different cultures and equality-based labour. The dialogic approach in the mentoring process, allowing for different perspectives and experiences of teaching, learning and interaction (cf., Talbot et al., 2018) were observable in the triads most pleased with the triadic mentoring.

The result of this study shows that despite good intentions to fulfil the requirement and to collaborate inter-professionally, the academic paradigm is strong and can obstruct the attempts to implement a symmetrical and complementary mentoring (Råde, 2016). The result does, however, point to the possibilities created when meeting outside of the participants’ comfort zones, for the joint creation of new knowledge (cf., Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Templeton et al., 2022). This study shows, without doubt, that the third space, as this meeting is metaphorically called, will benefit from the pre-service teachers’ ownership of the process and project.

Conclusion and implications

The result of the empirical study shows that the articulations on triadic mentoring can be linked to two discourses and that the discursive positionings can largely be related to mentoring. Articulations focusing on scientific prerogative will, to a greater extent but not exclusively, relegate the pre-service teacher to the role of receivers and co-mentors to the role of operators, while mentors a priori are given and assume the role of senders in a mentoring situation. The discourse The hegemony of science challenges the symmetrical approach, as it implies a constituted hierarchy. By accepting the hegemony of science – as all parties seem inclined to do – the power imbalance will be maintained. The complementary approach seems easier to achieve. Triadic mentoring is an attempt to change the power imbalance through creative acts of resistance in putting in question the positionings. At present, the mentor is scientifically the most experienced party in the triad, but over time, if triadic mentoring will be more established, co-mentors gain experience, learn what the university requires of the pre-service teachers, and have constructive mentoring conversations about science and proven experience. This study suggests that the most pervasive shifts into the third space occur when pre-service teachers have the analytical tools and courage to take control over the process and product, not least because pre-service teachers are part of both the profession and the university world. Then the parties in the triadic mentoring can meet eye-to-eye.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was not supported by any funding agency.

Notes

¹ All translations into English of the data are made by the authors of this article.