Confronting and Addressing Vulnerability in the Context of an Inquiry Community

• In Event: Roundtable Session 39
  In Roundtable Session: Transitioning From Teachers to Teacher Educators: Forming and Sustaining an Inquiry Community

Abstract

Objectives:
Cochran-Smith & Lytle (2009) define teacher research as systematic, intentional inquiry by practitioners about aspect of practice made public and open to the critiques and questions of others. They describe research on one’s practice as extending beyond the teacher as an individual and being inclusive of students and their work. These two conceptions implicate the prevalence of vulnerability in teacher research. This paper will highlight issues of vulnerability that arise when practitioners publicize their practice and reveal how participation in an inquiry community can help to assuage negative perceptions of vulnerability and empower practitioners to effectively address ethical concerns surrounding vulnerable subjects.

Theoretical Framework and Methodology:
This presentation builds from the overall theoretical framework by drawing from multiple perspectives to consider vulnerability, collaboration, and inquiry. To effectively address issues of vulnerability that arise when practitioners decide to engage in self-study and make their practice public, teachers and teacher educators must embrace an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), become “critical friends” by taking on the dual role of researcher and participant (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), so as not to impose, but work alongside participants (Freire, 1974). Teacher educators and teachers, adopting self-study and inquiry, can critically reflect and participate in community to reduce the potential problems created by feelings of vulnerability.

Similar to the session’s other presentations, this paper utilized a self-study methodology to systematically reflect on our work in an inquiry group.

Data Sources:
Following the ongoing nature of self-study methodology, data were collected from notes from inquiry group meetings, notes from a visit to another inquiry group, reflection and journal entries, and blog posts from the course in which the inquiry group was established.

Conclusions:
The decision to make one’s practice public in the context of an inquiry community places practitioners in a vulnerable position. Teachers (and teacher educators) may mask failures and highlight successes, as opposed to reflecting critically on their holistic practice. Vulnerability is often perceived as a weakness, with many teachers not being willing to give outsiders an inside view of the challenges they encounter in practice. Through insight from Cochran-Smith (2012), as well as the experience of our inquiry community, we learned that making one’s practice public is not a sign of weakness, but of learning, particularly when done in the context of a professional and supportive inquiry community. Practitioners must also consider that electing to publicize their practice is a decision to expose something that is not theirs alone to tell (Hammock, 1997). Through our inquiry, we learned that self-studies by teachers and teacher educators must consider vulnerable subjects (Pritchard, 2002) involved, namely students who “come to school expecting to learn, to be taught, not to be subjects or participants of research” (Hammock, 1997, p. 260). Expanding these discussions from teacher to students continues to advance the critical inquiry on vulnerability within inquiry groups.

Author

• Shanee A Wangia, Boston College