Abstract
The theory of practice architectures is a useful theoretical, methodological and analytical tool for educational research. The use of the theory is emerging as germane in early childhood education research. This article explores concepts from the theory as applied in an early childhood education research project. The article focuses on the concept of stirring in, a view of learning advanced by the theory of practice architectures. To describe and analyse the process of stirring in, the article draws on the experiences of the first author, a doctoral candidate, researching in early childhood education, her field of professional experience. Using key elements of the theory of practice architectures, this article discusses how both the experiences of being a doctoral candidate and researching her own profession were catalysts for being stirred in to the practices of a researcher. Coming to the research as an experienced early childhood educator, the doctoral candidate experienced tension between the practices of a researcher and her ingrained practices as an educator. This tension, combined with the ‘doing’ of data collection, contributed towards the doctoral candidate’s stirring in to data collection practices. Authors of the theory of practice architectures argue that in the process of being stirred in to new practices, participants in the practices can experience a change akin to a transformation, what we describe as a sense of becoming. In this article, we show how the doctoral candidate learned to put aside practices associated with her role as an early childhood educator and began to embrace practices associated with the role of researcher, initiating her sense of becoming a researcher. The purpose of the article is to build on previous work to demonstrate how the theory of practice architectures can be used to examine the process of being stirred in to new practices.
Keywords
Introduction
The theory of practice architectures has been successfully used to interrogate educational practices in the primary, secondary and tertiary sector. The theory is increasingly being applied in early childhood education (ECE) research (Rönnerman et al., 2017; Salamon et al., 2015) and to examine the learning associated with becoming a researcher (Rönnerman and Kemmis, 2016). Of particular advantage in examining the process of becoming as a learner, is the notion of stirring in. Stirring in is an analogy used within the theory of practice architectures to describe learning (Kemmis et al., 2017). The notion of stirring in focuses on learning as initiation into practices. This notion diverges from a traditional epistemological view of learning as a knowledge-based psychological process (Kemmis et al., 2017). Stirring in to practices sees learning as an ontological process of ‘being and becoming’ (Kemmis, 2018). It is the process of ‘learning how to go on’ in the actions, language and ways of relating of a particular practice (Kemmis et al., 2017). The concept of stirring in helps us to see education as more than the transmission of a predetermined set of skills and knowledge. It guides us to see learning as an ongoing process assumed and performed in a variety of ways. The process of stirring in to practices encourages ‘individual and collective self-expression, individual and collective self-development and individual and collective self-determination’, all of which can result in a change or transformation, a sense of becoming someone new (Kemmis et al., 2014: 27).
The purpose of this article is to build on previous works (see Grootenboer and Edwards-Groves, 2018; Kemmis et al., 2017; Mahon et al., 2018; Rönnerman and Kemmis, 2016) to demonstrate how key elements of the theory of practice architectures can be used to understand the process of stirring in to practices. This article focusses on the practices of a researcher. We draw on the personal experiences of a doctoral candidate in the journey of becoming a researcher. The experiences discussed took place as the doctoral candidate conducted research for her doctoral studies. Her practices in conducting the research were influenced by the ‘high-quality’ ECE 1 environment where the research took place, aspects of the doctoral programme in which she was enrolled and her previous experience as a practitioner in ‘high-quality’ ECE. These multiple influences and the experiences of ‘doing’ the practices of data collection were catalysts for being stirred in to the particular actions, language and ways of relating associated with data collection practices. Significant in the stirring in process was a tension the doctoral candidate felt between her previous role as a practitioner and her new role as researcher, creating the need to be further stirred in to data collection practices. Stirring in occurred in multiple ways, including self-stirring in and stirring in by others, each contributing towards the doctoral candidate’s developing feeling of becoming a researcher.
This article is in three parts. It begins with a discussion on the theory of practice architectures, including motivation for its use and a brief explanation of elements of the theory relevant to this discussion. Following this is an outline of the research in which the discussion of the article takes place. In the third section, previously discussed elements of the theory of practice architectures are applied to describe and analyse the following: how particular arrangements shaped data collection practices; experiences that were the catalyst for stirring the doctoral candidate in to new ways of speaking, acting and relating in data collection practices; and the multiple ways in which stirring in took place, leading to the doctoral candidate’s feeling of becoming a researcher. The doctoral candidate discussed in the article is the first author. To evoke the personally reflective nature of the discussion, the remainder of the article is written in the first person, from her perspective.
The theory of practice architectures
The theory of practice architectures, a substantive practice theory, offers a detailed framework for investigating and transforming practices. Predominantly focussed on education, authors of the theory argue that it is through formation of and changes in practices that positive transformation for individuals and communities occurs (Edwards-Groves and Grootenboer, 2015; Kemmis and Smith, 2008; Mahon et al., 2016). These authors see education as ‘a morally informed endeavour’ (Kemmis and Smith, 2008: ix), aimed at living well in ‘a world worth living in’ (Kemmis et al., 2014: 27). With positive transformation in mind, the authors prompt us to ask the question ‘What is wise and moral in this time and place for these people and for the development of empowered and capable individuals and communities?’ (Edwards-Groves and Grootenboer, 2015; Kemmis et al., 2014; Kemmis and Smith, 2008). Authors of the theory see that educational research, like education itself, has a potentially transformative power (Kemmis, 2018).
As an impassioned educator, I have engaged in critical reflective practice and at times challenged education traditions for the benefit of children and communities. As I began my doctoral studies, I felt a strong affinity with the theory of practice architectures due to its focus on the transformation of education practices (Kemmis, 2018; Kemmis et al., 2014). As an ontological theory, the theory of practice architectures aligns with the theoretical underpinnings of ECE. This is evidenced in similarities between the philosophy of the theory of practice architectures and the Australian ECE curriculum framework, Belonging, Being & Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF). Like the theory of practice architectures, the EYLF describes ‘children’s lives as characterised by belonging, being and becoming’ (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2009: 7). The EYLF emphasises the importance of identity, well-being and connectedness to the world in ECE (DEEWR, 2009: 8), rather than the primacy of a predetermined set of skills and knowledge. In the light of the alignment between the theory of practice architectures, my personal philosophy and the approach of ECE, I view the theory as valuable in examining ECE practices and my own research practices – both having a potentially educational and transformative power.
The theory of practice architectures provides a range of concepts and a detailed framework for examining practices. Elements key to the discussion in this article are the concept of stirring in, praxis and a practice architectures framework.
Learning as ‘stirring in’ to practices
The analogy of stirring in draws on a number of previous ideas, in particular, Wittgenstein’s (1963) notion of ‘learning how to go on’ in practices and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Kemmis et al., 2014, 2017). By using the analogy of stirring in, Kemmis et al. (2017) challenge the traditional view of learning as resulting from the transmission of knowledge and reposition it as a process of being stirred in to practices. The metaphor of stirring in evokes the notion that the ‘ingredients’ of learning (such as knowledge, skills, capabilities, norms and values) come together and are actioned in the form of practices, and that the development of practices is the end goal for learning and education (Kemmis et al., 2014). The term stirred suggests movement and dynamism and conveys the ‘happenstance’ of everyday learning (Kemmis et al., 2017).
Stirring in occurs in a variety of ways. Stirring in can occur through participation in the ‘doing’ of practices or by watching and listening (Kemmis et al., 2017). Stirring in may be driven by other participants in the environment, by an outside person, such as a teacher, or through agency, where one stirs oneself into practices (Grootenboer et al., 2017). Self-stirring, for example, may be prevalent in the case of self-directed adult learning, or child-led play-based learning. The many ways of stirring in can happen in isolation or simultaneously. In the words of Kemmis et al. (2017), the notion of being ‘stirred in’ is what happens when people, perhaps tentatively or as novices, enter the sayings, doings and relatings [. . .] of a practice. In their tentative practicing, they experience and explore the practice architectures that enable and constrain their interactions in the world as they practice [. . .] and what they learn is [. . .] how to go on [. . .]. (p. 51)
In this article, I discuss the way I, as a doctoral student, tentatively entered the practice of data collection and the multiple ways in which I was stirred in to the practice. My tentativeness was based on both lack of previous experience in data collection and the fact that I was researching in the field of my previous professional experience, ECE. The latter point caused me to slip into the role of educator; a role with different actions, language and ways of relating to that of a researcher. This conflict of roles during data collection created a tension that became a catalyst in my learning how to go on in data collection practices and the role of researcher. Experiencing this tension led to my stirring in in multiple ways. While being stirred in through ‘doing’ the practice, I was self-stirred through my own agency, by others involved in the practice and by others external to the practice (Grootenboer et al., 2017; Kemmis et al., 2017). In identifying the multiple ways in which I was stirred in to data collection practices, I highlight the interconnected and interactional nature of learning (Kemmis et al., 2014).
Kemmis et al. (2014) suggest that, while being stirred in to new practices, learners can experience a change or transformation akin to a sense of becoming someone new. Grootenboer and Edwards-Groves (2018) suggest that engagement in learning practices is linked to the formation of identity. For example, being ‘stirred into the practices of mathematics’ leads to the development of one’s mathematical identity (Grootenboer and Edwards-Groves, 2018: 3). In the discussion in this article, I demonstrate how changes in my data collection practices gave me the sense of becoming a researcher, a sense that could be described as the development of my researcher identity. A concept used within the theory of practice architectures to support change and transformation, and one I have drawn on in my work as an early childhood educator and as a researcher, is the concept of praxis.
Praxis
Praxis is a classical philosophical concept referring to the simultaneously reciprocal process of reflection and action (Kemmis and Smith, 2008; Salamon, 2017). Authors of the theory of practice architectures draw on two key perspectives on praxis. First, from Aristotle, praxis is considered the making of wise and moral decisions for the good of individuals and humankind (Kemmis et al., 2014). Second, from Marx, praxis is viewed as a morally, socially and politically transformational activity with ‘history-making’ potential (Kemmis and Smith, 2008). In practical terms, praxis is the process of applying theory and experience to make wise and moral decisions and actions in the light of ‘what is best?’. Of course, the question of ‘what is best?’ is always contestable, always changing and always individual (Kemmis et al., 2014). In an educational context, praxis involves making decisions and actions in consideration of what is best for individual learners, communities of learners and society as a whole (Kemmis and Smith, 2008). In a research context, praxis can be a form of making decisions and acting on what is best for the research, for participants in the research and for the researcher in ‘learning how to go on’ in research. In the research discussed in this article, as in previous ECE education research (see Salamon, 2017), employing a reflexive-praxis stance guided me to ask and answer questions about ‘what is best?’, thus contributing to improved research and research practices.
In the theory of practice architectures, practices are key to praxis. Practices are defined by Kemmis et al. (2014) as ‘a form of socially established cooperative human activity’ (p. 31) that are ‘socially and historically’ located acts of being and becoming. They are the everyday individual and collective activities through which we achieve praxis (Kemmis and Smith, 2008). The theory of practice architectures provides a framework useful for exploring the concept of praxis through practices and, subsequently, the notion of stirring in to practices.
A theory of practice architectures framework
The framework provided by the theory of practice architectures attends to both the individual and the social aspects of practice. On the side of the individual, the theory describes practices as being made up of sayings, doings and relatings, which, broadly speaking, relate to the language, actions and ways of relating involved in a practice. On the side of the social, Kemmis et al. (2014) describe practice architectures as the factors that prefigure, enable and constrain practices. Practice architectures consist of the cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements of the site in which the practice occurs. Rönnerman and Kemmis (2016) summarise the three kinds of practice architectures as follows:
Cultural-discursive arrangements, in the medium of language, in semantic space, that make possible the sayings of the practice (what is said in and about the practice).
Material-economic arrangements, in the medium of activity or work, in physical space-time, that make possible the doings of the practice (what is done in the practice, amid what material arrangements and set-ups).
Social-political arrangements, in the medium of power and solidarity (belonging), in social space, that make possible the relatings of the practice (how people relate to one another and the world in the practice) (Rönnerman and Kemmis, 2016: 95).
Although these arrangements prefigure practices, they do not determine the unfolding of practices. Both the practice architectures and the practices themselves are fluid and dynamic, resembling a living entity (Kemmis et al., 2014). In addition to the practice architectures, practices are influenced by practice traditions. Practice traditions are the interactions that set the practice within the broader history of the practice, either within the individual site or beyond (Kemmis et al., 2014). The sayings, doings and relatings, practice architectures and practice traditions are key elements of the theory of practice architectures that form a framework for analysing practices. I will now outline the context from which the discussion in this article takes place.
The context
The discussion in this article derives from application of the theory of practice architectures in my doctoral studies research project in ECE. My research is nested within a larger research project funded by the Australian Research Council titled Exemplary Early Childhood Educators at Work. Being part of the larger project provided me access to other early childhood researchers also employing the theory of practice architectures. My project is a qualitative case study contributing to the larger project’s focus on the work of educators in ‘high-quality’ ECE services. Case study research provides ‘an in-depth understanding of a case’ (Creswell and Poth, 2018: 100). The ‘case’ in this research was a multi-site case consisting of three ‘high-quality’ early childhood services in Australia. The choice to purposefully select ‘high-quality’ services was to align the study with the overarching Exemplary Early Childhood Educators at Work project. The rationale in the Exemplary Early Childhood Educators at Work project for selecting ‘high-quality’ services was to ensure that data identified insights associated with high-quality ECE. Selection of ‘high-quality’ services was based on the Australian national assessment and rating process administered by the Australian Children’s Education and Care Authority (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2017).
In my study, the theory of practice architectures is being applied as a theoretical, methodological and analytical tool to examine early childhood educators’ working in ‘exemplary’ services conceptualisations of risk-taking. I entered the research as an experienced and passionate early childhood educator. As an educator, I have always worked to develop high-quality practices. This goal has seen me collaborate with colleagues to explore and reflect on ‘what is best’ for children, families and society. This goal is also what led me to research. Within the academic world, doctoral studies are viewed as a training ground for research practices. Through both guided and self-directed learning, the doctoral programme is embedded with opportunities to gain new skills, understandings and experiences that initiate the process of becoming a researcher (Thompson and Walker, 2010). Choosing to research in my field of previous experience and on the topic of risk-taking, about which I feel passionate, has provided an opportunity to develop my thinking as an educator and to potentially contribute to positive change in ECE practices.
The discussion in this article focusses on the process of data collection. The research employed the multiple data collection methods of interviews (formal and in-situ), observation and document gathering. Data collection methods were designed around the theory of practice architectures framework (as described earlier). Interviews and documents were used to access educators’ sayings, observations were used to access educators’ doings and interviews and observations were used to access educators’ relatings. Data collection took place over a period of 8 months, with 3–5 weeks spent in each site. This article focuses on the first 5 weeks of data collection in the first site and the data generation method of in-situ interviews. In-situ interviews took place during observations of the 27 participant educators as they engaged in the everyday practices of ECE. In-situ interviews were informal in nature and were initiated by either me or participant educators. In-situ interviews were used to elicit educators’ perspectives on events or activities that may contain risk-taking. Data were recorded in the form of audio recordings and field notes. I also kept a reflective journal throughout data collection. The reflective journal and transcripts of audio recorded conversations with educator participants were the main source of information for the discussion in this article.
In the next section of this article, I use concepts from the theory of practice architectures to describe and analyse how practice traditions and two interconnected ‘sites’ interacted to shape my initial experiences in data collection, how a tension caused in the doing of data collection initiated the multiple ways that stirred me in to improved data collection practices, and how this stirring in led to the subsequent feeling of becoming a researcher.
The practice architectures that shaped the practice of data collection
‘Practices unfold in relation to the particulars of the sites of their unfolding’ (Kemmis, personal communication, 14 October 2017). As described earlier, practices are also shaped by practice traditions. My data collection practices unfolded within the practice traditions of high-quality ECE and two interconnected sites: the site of the doctoral programme and the site of data collection. In the following section, I discuss the practice architectures of the practice traditions and the two interconnected sites that were most influential in shaping my sayings, doings and relatings as I tentatively entered the practice of data collection.
Practice traditions of high-quality ECE in Australia
High-quality ECE in Australia provided cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements that shaped my data collection practices. In Australia, the National Quality Standards (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2017) encourage early childhood educators to engage in collaborative practice. Collaborative practice involves working with colleagues to critically reflect on practices with the aim of delivering high-quality teaching and learning programmes. To achieve collaborative practice, educators engage in reciprocal dialogue. Reciprocal dialogue involves sharing observations, analysing, reflecting and planning. Collaborative practice and reciprocal dialogue are practices that support praxis and praxis supports high-quality ECE. Often, the experience of engaging in collaborative practice and reciprocal dialogue results in close collegial relationships between educators. These collegial relationships can aid praxis by giving educators a safe and supportive space to share and develop ideas. Collegial relationships can be developed within services or through visiting other services. As an educator striving towards high-quality practices, I am familiar with collaborative practice and reciprocal dialogue. Through many years of engaging in these practices, I have experienced close collegial relationships and felt fulfilled by working together with others to advance high-quality early childhood practices.
The site of the doctoral programme
The site of the doctoral programme includes cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements that shaped my data collection practices. Key arrangements relevant to this discussion are research training workshops and events, preparation of a research proposal and communication with doctoral supervisors and research peers.
Participation in research training workshops and events
As part of the doctoral programme and the larger research team of which I am a part, I participated in research training workshops provided by the university and attended research meetings and events with the larger research team. Research training workshops focused on a range of topics including theory and methodology. These workshops began to develop my understanding of research paradigms and available choices in research, and brought to light issues such as subjectivity, rigour, trustworthiness and the role of the researcher. Events as part of the larger research team included an introduction to the theory of practice architectures where I began to develop my understanding of the theory and possible research methods.
Preparation of the research proposal
In the institution in which I am enrolled, doctoral candidates prepare a research proposal. The research proposal, written within the context of the broader experiences of the doctoral programme (as discussed earlier) and through intensive engagement with research literature, compels a doctoral candidate to make decisions about the aims and intentions of the research and strategies for enacting those decisions (Thompson and Walker, 2010). One of the aims of my research, in line with the theory of practice architectures, was to inspire positive transformation of ECE practices. Of particular interest to the discussion in this article is my intended way of achieving this. I articulated in my research proposal that although I acknowledged the influence of research on the people and practices being researched, I did not intend to enact research whereby changes in participants’ practices were a deliberate and active part of the research process itself. I proposed to position myself in a reflexive-praxis stance to minimise my influence on participants’ contribution to the data (Cooke, 2017). In addition, I stated my intention to publish the thesis as a series of journal articles. This intention identified my hope of transforming practices through the dissemination of findings (Atkins and Wallace, 2012), rather than during the research process itself.
Communication with doctoral supervisors and research peers
Integral to my experience as a doctoral candidate is regular communication with my supervisors and research peers. From the beginning of my candidature, I have had 1 hour fortnightly online meetings with my supervisors and with research peers connected to the larger project. My relationship with my supervisors is a respectful and positive mentoring relationship. During meetings, I update them on the progress of my work, discuss ideas and receive feedback and advice. Supervisory meetings provide a regular opportunity to share my experiences as a novice researcher, ask questions and make plans for moving forward. My relationship with research peers is also positive and respectful, although more collegial than the relationship with my supervisors. Meetings with three research peers are facilitated by an experienced researcher at the university and are an opportunity to share experiences and our individual learning journeys. As members of my supervisory team and research peer group also work within the early childhood sector, they have a familiarity with and understanding of the context of my research. For example, they understand the practice traditions of high-quality ECE.
The site of data collection
The site of data collection itself provided additional cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements that shaped my sayings, doings and relatings in the initial stages of data collection. Of significance was my knowledge of participants’ reasons for joining the research project and the high-quality practices of the educators in the service. Educators primarily chose to participate in the research project because they saw it as a way of supporting reflective practice and ongoing learning in the quest towards ‘high-quality’ ECE. Many participating educators were interested in the topic of risk-taking and articulated this to me before the start of data collection. As high-quality educators, participants were familiar with collaborative practice and reciprocal dialogue. In addition, several of the participating educators’ key to the discussion in this article had worked together previously and had sought each other out when moving to this service. This suggests that, like me, they enjoy the solidarity of close collegial relationships.
The above arrangements worked together to shape my sayings, doings and relatings in the practice of in-situ interviews. I will now describe how these sayings, doings and relatings unfolded in the initial stages of data collection.
Engaging in the practice of data collection
The purpose of the theory of practice architectures is not to break apart and single out the individual aspects of practice. Rather, it serves an analytical function (Rönnerman et al., 2017) to help us see ‘the world more relationally’ (Kemmis et al., 2014: 227). In fact, attempting to separate the sayings, doings and relatings of practice is challenging since in real-life all three work together interactionally (Kemmis et al., 2014). In the light of this, the sayings, doings and relatings of my practice of in-situ interviews are discussed concurrently, demonstrating how they unfolded in reality.
When I first began the practice of in-situ interviews in the familiar environment of an early childhood setting, I assumed the sayings, doings and relatings akin to the familiar role of a high-quality early childhood educator. I treated participant educators as collaborative colleagues and engaged in reciprocal dialogue. I asked them questions, listened to their responses and contributed my own observations, ideas and analyses. As educators in the services participating in my research were high-quality educators, they were familiar with and welcomed this reciprocal dialogue. They asked questions, offered their own ideas and waited eagerly for my responses. The following is an example of a conversation I had with one of the participating educators:
I was watching the children here and I saw a child asking another child to pass the bowl of soup and I wondered whether asking other children to do things is risky, because they could say no?
Yeah, I guess it could be. But if we step in to reduce the risk, are we micromanaging children’s risk and if we do that, how will they learn to assess that for themselves? . . . If we’re always stepping in how will they then feel like they can do it on their own and getting that sense of autonomy and agency of being able to do things for themselves?
Yeah. I guess then that’s a risk for us isn’t it? It actually reminds me of an article I read the other day . . . (ideas from article were shared)
That’s really interesting, I haven’t heard of that before.
By engaging in reciprocal dialogue such as this, I began to feel a personal connection, a sense of solidarity with participant educators. I realised that I had been missing the close collegial relationships I had previously experienced in early childhood environments and I welcomed the opportunity to engage in conversation, particularly on my self-chosen topic of risk-taking, and to develop positive collegial relationships. It seemed to me that many of the participating educators also felt this connection. They smiled when I approached and showed enthusiasm for conversation. The practice of reciprocal dialogue also appeared to satisfy participants’ reasons for joining the research project, this being to develop their ideas, knowledge and practices around the topic of risk-taking. The process of reciprocal dialogue was providing opportunities for sayings, doings and relatings that contributed towards educators’ praxis. One particular educator told me that she had gone home from work excited about the research, sharing this excitement with family and friends, a sign that she may also have felt a sense of solidarity.
Feeling at home in the familiar environment of ‘high-quality’ ECE and experiencing a positive connection and sense of solidarity with participant educators served to encourage me in the practice of reciprocal dialogue. Concurrent with this initial approach to in-situ interviews, I was influenced by the various elements of the doctoral programme, as described earlier. For example, I attended a research presentation put on by the university. At this presentation, I heard the early childhood researcher Andi Salamon speak about her PhD research experiences collecting data in the familiarity of the ECE environment. Andi shared how during the data collection process she had reflected on how much to interact with the children; should she blow their noses and answer their questions? or should she play the role of non-participant observer? Hearing about Andi’s experiences was one of the arrangements that prompted me to reflect on whether the sayings, doings and relatings of my approach to in-situ interviews were in line with the aims of my research and the role of researcher, as described in my research proposal. Reflecting while continuing to engage in the doing of in-situ interviews (engaging my reflexive-praxis stance) revealed a tension. This tension was between the familiar practices of the role of early childhood educator and the new practices of the role of researcher. It is this tension and the doing of in-situ interviews that was key to initiating my stirring in to new in-situ interview practices and the feeling of becoming a researcher.
Reflecting on the aims of my research and the role of the researcher, as described in my research proposal, I realised that the aims of collaborative practice in the role of high-quality early childhood educator and the aim of in-situ interviewing as a strategy for enacting the intentions of my research are different. In collaborative practice, the aim is to develop shared ideas and understandings, whereas in my research the aim was to gather participants’ thoughts and ideas with minimal influence from the researcher. I wrote about this tension in my reflective journal: I find myself wanting to engage in collegial discussions i.e. you tell a story, I tell a story, and then I realise that this is not my role as a researcher. This is particularly challenging with the educators that I have good rapport with- I just want to ‘chat’ with them, share and learn.
In addition to this tension, I experienced an ‘interplay of action and reaction’ (Kemmis, personal communication, 11 December 2018) that exposed the effects of my reciprocal dialogue. Examples of conversations with participants include the following:
‘So, I’m wondering if . . .’
‘Right. I got it, yeah, yeah’
‘Something I am starting to think about is . . .’
‘You’ve got me thinking now. Hmm. I’ve never thought about it like that before’
This action and reaction interplay revealed that the thoughts, ideas and observations I was sharing with participant educators were influencing their contributions to the research data more than I had intended. My interactions were more fitting to the role of early childhood educator, rather than the role of researcher as described in my research proposal. Again, I wrote about this in my reflective journal: I think the two educators who I spoke with quite a bit at the beginning [. . .] have maybe been influenced by the initial talking I did with them. They both admitted that they have been influenced by me and that they have done lots of thinking about it.
Both the tension and the interplay of action and reaction were the first stages of being stirred in to new sayings, doings and relatings of in-situ interviewing, which in turn stirred me in to improved research practices.
Stirring in
As discussed earlier, stirring in can occur in a variety of ways. Being stirred in to new sayings, doings and relatings of in-situ interviewing initially took place through the doing of the practice, as discussed earlier, followed by self-stirring through my own agency and stirring in by others external to the practice, notably doctoral supervisors, research peers and authors of research texts.
Self-stirring, initiated through my own agency and my reflexive-praxis stance, prompted the question ‘What is wise and moral in this time and place for this research and for the people involved in this research?’. To answer this question, I initiated further stirring in by others external to the practice, namely my doctoral supervisors and research peers. The positive mentoring relationship I experienced with my doctoral supervisors enabled me to speak honestly about my experiences and concerns and seek advice. I expressed the challenges I was experiencing in the initial stages of data collection. In one meeting I stated, ‘I am finding the process of my own influence in the research challenging’. I initiated advice by asking ‘What is my ethical responsibility in the research?’ and ‘How much should I allow myself to engage with participants and how much should I maintain the stance of objective observer?’. I recorded advice from my supervisors in my reflective journal. I noted the importance of not leading participants and always using open-ended questions. This advice stirred me in to a process of re-crafting interview questions. I trialled various options and at times I let participating educators know that I was using a new questioning technique. I continued to use a range of questions throughout interviews, maintaining that different educators respond to questions in different ways and therefore using a variety of questions leads to richer data. For example, for some educators, the question ‘Have you observed any of the children taking any risks this morning?’ encouraged a period of thinking followed by a detailed response. For other educators, the same question resulted in a quick and brief response, yet the question ‘Can you tell me about this activity?’ elicited thinking and a detailed response. My supervisors also reminded me of the aims of my research as set out in my research proposal. They reminded me that I had chosen to inspire transformation of practices through dissemination of findings in journal articles and not during the research process itself. As such, I needed to stay true to the role of the researcher in line with the intentions of my study.
The positive collegial relationship I experienced with research peers enabled me to share my initial experiences with data collection, opening the possibility that they may have had similar experiences and may have ideas to share. Noteworthy information I gained from meetings with research peers was the interview techniques of ‘silence’ and ‘active listening’. Using silence in interviews is a way of avoiding overwhelming the participant with a constant flood of questions (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015). Silence gives participants time to process questions, reflect and then contribute to the conversation when they have something significant to share (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015). Active listening works in tandem with silence. It is what the researcher does both while the participant is speaking and during the silence. Active listening is listening closely to what participants say and how they say it. It supports thoughtful crafting of follow-up questions (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015). Both of these techniques had a significant influence on the way I was stirred in to new in-situ interview practices.
My stirring in by others external to the practice helped to clarify my role as researcher in the light of the aims of my research and gave me new ideas and techniques for in-situ interviewing. Putting these ideas and techniques in action, I began to enact a new set of sayings, doings and relatings in the practice of in-situ interviews; sayings, doings and relatings that were more aligned with the role of researcher as intended in my research proposal, rather than the role of early childhood educator in collaborative practice. As I enacted new sayings, doings and relatings, a new action and reaction interplay took place. This new action and reaction interplay led to further changes in my sayings, doings and relatings of in-situ interviewing.
The new action and reaction interplay was initiated because of the new technique of ‘silence’. While learning to sit with the silence was a key development for me and began to foreground my role as researcher, for participant educators, it was an unexpected change. Participant educators had become used to reciprocal dialogue in our interactions and appeared to wait for me to add my thoughts to conversations. At times, the silence felt awkward and some participants filled the silence by asking directly ‘Do you think that is the right thing to do?’. This kind of question is indicative of the reasons for the educators’ participation in the research – as an opportunity for learning and growth. As stated previously, I felt a strong desire to support the participants’ learning and to give back to them as a way of thanking them for their participation in the research – a relating in support of the solidarity I was feeling with educators. Feeling a return to the initial tension, I searched for ways to manage this new action and reaction interplay, including finding ways to respond to direct requests for advice or feedback. I wrote about this in my reflective journal, again demonstrating my reflective praxis-stance. One way of managing this situation was to be upfront with educators about the tension I felt and the subsequent change in my practices. I explained to some educators, I really want to share my thinking with you, but I’m not going to because it will influence your thinking too much! Maybe I’ll keep a list of all the things I wanted to share with you and tell you at the end.
This offer to return was warmly welcomed by participants and gave me a sense of maintaining solidarity while being true to the aim of the research.
As data collection progressed and I settled into the new sayings, doings and relatings of data generation through in-situ interviews, I began to feel like I was becoming a researcher. Entries in my reflective journal show evidence of this increased confidence, including statements such as ‘I feel that I have nailed the not talking bit and am developing my ability to ask probing questions and then listen’ and ‘I have gotten much better at the question, listen, probe, listen’. This feeling of confidence indicates the changes that took place as I was stirred in to data collection practices. Feeling more confident in interview techniques such as using open-ended questions, sitting with silence and active listening, I began to feel more like a researcher. An entry in my reflective journal expresses this, ‘The other new feeling is that of a researcher rather than a colleague’. This change in my ‘being’ in the role of researcher was due to the various arrangements that shaped, enabled and constrained by developing research practices. Of particular influence on my learning how to go on in research practices was the doing of practices, attendance at university events, conversations with supervisors and research peers and the reflexive-praxis stance that I positioned myself in at the beginning of the research. Combined together, these arrangements supported, as Grootenboer and Edwards-Groves (2018) might suggest, the development of my identity as a researcher.
Conclusion
Using the theory of practice architectures, I have analysed my experiences of being stirred in to data collection practices and the role of researcher. By identifying the cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements of early childhood practice traditions and the two sites of my research project, I have been able to describe and analyse what shaped my approach to in-situ interviews in the initial stages of data collection. Key influencing arrangements were the practice traditions of collaborative practice in high-quality ECE, aspects of the doctoral programme in which I was enrolled, such as meetings with supervisors and research training workshops, and the ‘high-quality’ nature of the service in which data collection took place. These arrangements led to a tension as I engaged in the doing of data collection; a tension between the role of early childhood educator and the role of researcher as intended in my research proposal. This tension and the action and reaction interplay that took place in the doing of data collection, initiated my self-stirring into new sayings, doings and relatings for in-situ interviewing. Self-stirring, initiated through my own agency and my reflexive praxis-stance, led to seeking advice from supervisors and peers after which I developed new techniques for interviewing, such as silence and active listening. As I applied new sayings, such as new kinds of open-ended questions, and new doings, such as sitting with silence and active listening, and new relatings, such as being open and honest with participants, I began to feel more confident in the practice of data collection through in-situ interviews. This confidence prompted the feeling of becoming a researcher.
The purpose of this article was to demonstrate how the theory of practice architectures can be used to describe and analyse the process of stirring in to practices. The analogy of stirring in repositions learning as a process of initiation into practices. As described earlier, Kemmis et al. (2014) define practices as ‘a form of socially established cooperative human activity’ (p. 31). Practices involve ‘characteristic forms of understanding (sayings), modes of action (doings) and ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings)’ (Rönnerman and Kemmis, 2016: 95). This article describes and analyses how, through participation in the practice, self-stirring through agency and others external to the practice, I reached ‘new forms of understanding about’ data collection practices, ‘new modes of action for’ engaging in in-situ interviews for data collection and ‘new ways of relating’ to participants in the ‘doings’ of research interviews (Rönnerman and Kemmis, 2016: 110). I have outlined the importance and value of researcher training, positive and respectful relationships and regular communication with supervisors and research peers and a reflexive-praxis stance when conducting PhD research. I have demonstrated how these arrangements supported my learning how to go on and subsequent feeling of becoming a researcher. By discussing the experiences of a novice researcher through the lens of the theory of practice architectures, and in particular, the notion of stirring in, this article provides useful insight into the development of novice researchers as well as an understanding of learning as being stirred in to practices.
