Commonality AND difference? Attempts to escape from theoretical dualisms in emancipatory research in education

Professionalism and performativity: the feminist challenge facing early years practitioners

“…New managerialism/neoliberalism has been reflexively and progressively theorised as masculinist within the feminist academic community. Key proponents of this position include Walkerdine (2003), Reay (1998) and Francis (2001), amongst others. The central argument I present in this paper is from a feminist poststructuralist position, from which I endeavour to demonstrate the theorisation behind the conflation of new managerialism/neoliberalism and a masculinist project of professionalism.…”

“…Francis (2001) points to four central tenets which unite diverse feminist perspectives: a concern with gender; a perception of women as generally disadvantaged in gender relations; a perception of this gender inequity as problematic; and a consequent aim to emancipatory reform. She illustrates the problematic interplay between feminism as a modernist 'grand narrative', agency as an ability to proactively make decisions and resist oppression, and poststructuralist theories which promote the idea of power through discourses wherein the individual lacks agency.…”

“…But applying Francis's (2001) model enables us to understand professional identity as a negotiated, shifting and ambiguous entity mediated by personal experience and beliefs and values about what it means to be a practitioner and the type of practitioner an individual aspires to be. Moyles (2001) argues that to establish professionalism early years practitioners are required to exercise reflection, high levels of professional knowledge, self-esteem and self-confidence, which she argues many early years, female practitioners lack.…”

Narrative methods in the nursery: (re)- considering claims to give voice through processes of decision-making.

“…As a consequence of the work of second wave feminists, research has become a more reflexive endeavour, more attention is paid to power relationships and responsibilities in research, and sensitivity to debates about knowledge (how it is created, endorsed or identified and by whom). The emphasis on reflexivity, the consideration of power within research relationships and the potential for harm to come to participants has been foregrounded in much feminist writing (Francis, 2001;Hey, 1997;1999;Oakley, 1981;. Meantime, post-strutural theorising has encouraged researchers to problematise and dismantle, and whilst this has been taken up in productive ways by numerous feminist scholars (Davies, 2000;Francis, 2005;Hey 1999;Walkerdine et al, 2001,) it has not been without tensions.…”

“…The convergences of feminism(s) and Foucault were influential in framing the study. Whilst the tensions between Foucauldian and post-structuralist feminist theory are well rehearsed (Francis 2001;Ramazanoglu 1994;Tamboukou & Ball 2003) I draw attention to the uniting aspects as summarised by Diamond & Quinby (1988). The authors claim that both theoretically focus upon identification of the body as a site of power, through which docility is accomplished and subjectivity constituted; local and intimate operations of power rather than an exclusive focus on the supreme power of the state; the crucial role of discourse in its capacity to produce and sustain hegemonic power and emphasise the challenges contained within marginalized discourses; and criticism of the ways in which western humanism has privileged the experience of the masculine elite as it proclaims essentialized claims to truth, freedom and human nature.…”