11: Foucault and the Practice of Educational Development: Power and Surveillance in Individual Consultations

Abstract

A common goal ofeducational development isto create a neutral. "safi"place for clients in individualconsultations. Such an approach. while well intentioned. obscures the multiftceted web ofpower threading through and around our work. Using Michel Foucault's theories ofsovereign and disciplinary power, we trace the flnns that power can takein specific types ofconsultations (small group instructionaldiagnosis. course evaluations. and videotape). While power isalways "dangerous•..it is less likely to bedamaging ifweare conscious ofitspresence and impact-and ofourown participation in itscomplexity.Peter Felten is Assistant Director of the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, and he teaches courses in history and American and southern studies. His current research explores how emotion shapes learning in service-learning courses, and how teaching and learning in history are changed by the use ofvisual in addition to textual sources.Deandra Little is a full-time lecturer in the English Department at Vanderbilt University and teaches courses in English and women's studies. Her current research interests include the ethics and efficacy of reimagining the classroom as a site for community-building, both within courses using social software and as a bridging between course and the larger community through service learning.Allison Pingree is Director of the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, and teaches courses in English. American and southern studies. and women's studies. Her current research interests include emotion in the classroom, one-on-one teaching and mentoring, and leadership and organizational change.

Authenticity in academic development: the myth of neutrality

“…We define authenticity as referring, 'to an inner self that can recognize performative demands and act knowingly and mindfully in response to them' (MacKenzie, McShane, & Wilcox, 2007, p. 47), drawing on Ball's (2000) definition of performativity. We agree with Felten, Little, and Pingree (2004), when they warn against the widely held illusion that a consultation can be 'value-free, neutral, unimpeded, or not substantially shaped by power dynamics' (p. 182), and argue that authenticity and ethical interaction, not neutrality, should be the ideal we pursue. We will consider seven mental models employed by developers in their consultations with academics and discuss how conscious consideration of a developer's orientation (Land, 2001), allegiance, and intention can assist in the achievement of more authentic one-to-one interactions with academics.…”

“…In this context the developer's job is to tactfully extract what amounts to a confession (MacFarlane & Gourlay, 2009), in which the teacher admits to committing certain mistakes and relates a critical incident that caused the teacher to embark on change, concluding with a plan to introduce new scripts into his or her teaching repertoire that will align more closely with currently approved attitudes and behaviors. The opportunity to record in writing his or her own perspective ostensibly lessens the teacher's resistance to surveillance, providing a way for the teacher to share disciplinary power, in the Foucauldian sense of self-surveillance (Felten et al, 2004), over him-or herself.…”

Continued growth, increasing complexity: Examining the evolving role of the Canadian educational developer

“…They feel EDs must remain critical and aware of what discourses they are forwarding and sustaining, and that these are not bias-free or neutral. Felten et al (2004) counsel critical consciousness as a means to resist institutional agendas and promote an authentic approach. Holmes et al (2012) forward the metaphor of EDs as a middle power country, like Canada and Australia, in that although said countries lack the influence and resources of some great power countries, they are still able to leverage change through creativity, collaboration, and cooperation.…”

Intersections of Identity and Power in Educational Development

“…For example, Little and Green (, 206–207) found that developers they interviewed often struggled with the bluntness of the word “power,” preferring instead to talk of “institutional visibility,” “clout,” and “influence.” While this reluctance may be in part cultural, some of the examples cited by Little and Green describe an intentional separating of educational development from “official” power, such as evaluative power over faculty. However, just as there are real implications for the power we lack, we must be aware of the power that we can—and do—exercise over others (Brookfield ; Felten, Little, and Pingree ). And this is why we need to understand how power works in our field in an intersectional way, because single‐axis approaches “fail to interrogate or interrupt, and thereby perpetuate, systems of domination and subordination” (Greenwood , 28).…”