Transgressed Boundaries: Reflections on the Problematics of Culture and Power in Developing a Collaborative Relationship with Teachers at an Elementary School

Abstract

In this article the author reflects upon his experiences trying to develop a collaborative relationship with teachers in his role as a part-time science coordinator for their school. The author suggests that, despite his egalitarian intentions, he inappropriately transgressed institutional boundaries that demarcate the world of university-based researchers and public school teachers. In crossing these boundaries particular power relations were enacted that became an unstated yet powerful force in their relationship. Drawing upon a post-structuralist conception of power, the author interprets various critical incidents in his interactions with teachers as at least partially constituted by power relations that were constantly negotiated and contested in their relationship. Power is not viewed in structural terms of dominance and subordinance, but as circulating throughout the relationship and manifesting itself in various ways. Furthermore, these power relations are rooted in the historical development of universities and schools and serve as a backdrop for their relationship. This hierarchical relationship was inscribed into their relationship and manifested in various ways, ultimately mitigating against the development of a collaborative relationship.In this article I reflect upon the issues of culture and power I encountered in trying to form a collaborative relationship with the teachers at an elementary school, as we worked to change and improve their science curriculum. Although the teachers and myself felt that a productive relationship was formed, we agree that it was far from collaborative. In exploring my experiences at this school, I suggest that the development of a collaborative relationship was constrained because, in a number of instances, I inappro-

Providing Space for Teacher Renewal: The role of the facilitator in school-university partnerships

“…So just in … interaction with me it's almost like … somehow exploring the boundaries of me being an academic or me being there to help. (Facilitator 1) This role demarcation is also noted by Hayes & Kelly (2000), who suggest that schools often view university staff as 'experts' who are not aware of the 'real' life of schools. Many of the schools involved in this project had not previously participated in partnership programmes where the external partner acted as facilitator of change.…”

“…Other models focus on the relationship between university researchers and teachers (Feldman, 1993;Sachs, 1997b). Discussion related to both models has explored these partnerships in regard to the dimensions of, and tensions in, these collaborative relationships (Johnston et al, 1999;Hayes & Kelly, 2000).…”

She’s Not There

“…Even nuanced portraits of men become men-doing-women’s-work, making the ordinary world of women-doing-women’s-work seem strange as a focus (Brookhart & Loadman, 1996). The gendered work lives of female elementary teachers are still viewed through the lens of men and maleness, as secondary subjects, and even through the voices of male researchers writing their own experiences navigating gender and power against a backdrop void of women’s voices and experiences (Hayes & Kelly, 2000).…”

Collaboration and the Negotiation of Power

“…Differences may stimulate change and development among the participants, whereas similarities may encourage competition in relation to who can do things better, or what is more useful or relevant. Hayes and Kelly (2000) maintain that collaboration 'entails an equitable relationship, premised upon the sharing of power' (p. 452) which is not assumed in other arrangements such as cooperatives, partnerships or networks.…”

“…Thus an 'ethic of care' (Thompson & Gitlin, 1995) for relationships did not permeate the planning group. As Hayes and Kelly (2000) observe, participants in a collaborative relationship must be willing to consider the relationship 'as important in its own right and not simply the work or the product that results' (p. 467). In addition to the outcomes orientation, there was no institutional memory in the faculty of collaborative planning with teachers, and structures were not in place for ready access to the views of teachers since regular consultation with the teaching profession was not faculty policy and practice.…”