A Comparative Case Study on the Application of Self-Study Methodology to Teacher Research in Early Childhood Education and to Doctoral Studies in Educational Leadership

• In Event: Self-Study Researchers Make a Difference for Innovation in Practice

Abstract

The Self-Study SIG developed some 20 years ago with explicit focus on teacher education practices and emphasis on qualitative and arts-influence research. The SIG arose due to a relative lack of research on teacher education practices, and as a reaction against the then dominant stance of positivism within educational research. As the methodology has developed, scholars from fields beyond teacher education have taken interest. In my work, I have found strong affinities between Self-Study and my teaching in early childhood education, resulting from our program’s focus on teacher research. On the other hand, I have faced challenges promoting Self-Study as a viable methodology for students in our doctoral program in education leadership, despite that I teach courses in research methods. This study examines contrasts between my experiences in light of my evolving identity as a methodologist, and to understand lessons Self-Study offers to educational research, as well as challenges it faces.
Self-Study provides a framework for examining problems of professional practice, and as LaBoskey (2004) emphasizes, finding solutions that explicitly address social justice goals. For teacher research, lessons from Self-Study have been easy to draw, and include at least five aspects: the value of addressing identity in educational reform; the importance of supplementing systematically collected data with material drawn from a lifetime (Berry, 2007); the importance of establishing transferability of findings despite the focus on self (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001); and the importance of rigorous and transparent analysis to provide warrant for claims (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2000; LaBoskey, 2004; Loughran & Northfield, 1998).
In my teaching within the doctoral program, however, it has been harder to make such connections. To begin, Self-Study is not well represented in the broader educational research literature, so educational leadership students have few models. Another issue is the perceived rigor and scope of Self-Study research. Doctoral students and some dissertation committees expect research be broader than a study of a person’s own practice, and may also misunderstand the rigor of an approach based on data collected through an enhanced normal practice. I have also wrestled with my own concerns that Self-Study may not meet program or student goals.
This study is based on an analysis of what has worked in my MA-level teaching and resistance I have faced as I began to apply Self-Study practices to my doctoral-level work. Data include syllabi, student work, interviews, and reflective journals. Issues include: unit of analysis; formality of prose, format, and paper organization; focusing on social justice through critical analysis of one’s practice; and advising students how they can make self a key analytic element in a range of methodologies. One implication is the value of facilitating understanding through connections with similar approaches including narrative inquiry, the counter-narratives and emphasis on positionality found in Critical Race, Critical Disability, and Critical Feminist Studies (cf. Delgado Bernal, 2002; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Valente, 2012), and uses of memoir in arts-based inquiry.

Author

• Barbara A. Henderson, San Francisco State University