lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 959–965

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Teachers as researchers in a major research project: Experienceof input and outputq

C. Smith a,*, A. Blake b, K. Curwen a, D. Dodds a, L. Easton a, J. McNally b, P. Swierczek a, L. Walker a

a University of Stirling, United Kingdomb University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 October 2008Received in revised form2 June 2009Accepted 8 June 2009

Keywords:Research partnershipTeacher–researcherCommunity of enquiry

q The full title of the project was ‘Enhanced CompetProfessional Development’ and was funded by the ECouncil of the UK (RES-139-25-0122).

* Corresponding author. 45 Kaim Crescent, BathgaUnited Kingdom. Tel.: þ44 01506 656691.

E-mail address: colin.a.smith@btinternet.com (C. S

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.004

a b s t r a c t

Teachers have long participated in collaborative research. However, they have generally had direct stakes inthe outcomes. Teachers in the Early Professional Learning (EPL) Project used their insider status to gatherdata not directly related to their own practice. Lessons for integrating a group of teacher–researchers intoa major project are discussed. Some of these are practical, but also cover their unexpectedly experiencedinitial isolation within the project team, that has relevance for both forming and theorising communities ofenquiry. An outline for a new concept of teacher–researcher begins to emerge that may influence thedirection of educational research.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Teachers have been involved in forms of collaborative researchwith academics for some time, even if that may often have involvedlittle more than administering questionnaires (Johnson, 1975).However, even when teachers are more deeply involved than this, itis difficult to find examples of collaborative research that do notinvolve teacher–researchers studying their own practice, in eithertheir own classrooms or within the wider school community.Consequently, they generally have direct stakes in the outcomes(Smith & Walker, 2007).

Various forms of this type of research can be found in the yearsthat follow 1975. For example, teachers may research individually,but meet as a group with academic researchers. (Capobiancoa &Feldman, 2006; Evans, Lomax, & Morgan, 2000). Sometimesa common theoretical framework may be supplied by the academics,for example, approaches to learning disabilities (Klinger, Arguelles,Hughes, & Vaughn, 2001) or mastery learning (Posthlethwaite &Haggarty, 1998), and applied across the classes of the staff involved.In other examples, teachers individually identify issues they wish toresearch and work singly and closely with an academic mentor

ence-Based Learning in Earlyconomic and Social Research

te, West Lothian EH48 1ER,

mith).

All rights reserved.

whose role is to offer a different perspective from which deriveschallenging questions concerning teacher research and develop-ment of practice (Angelides, Evangelou, & Leigh, 2005). One impetusfor teacher participation is often involvement with an academiccourse, such as a masters programme (Campbell & Jaques, 2004;Capobiancoa & Feldman, 2006; Evans et al., 2000). For some,research (finding out) is a motivation in itself (Watkins, 2006).Perhaps related to this, another stimulus to engagement is partici-pation in major projects such as Professional Development Schools(PDS) (for example, Clark, 1999) or the Teaching for Understanding(TfU) Project (Wiske, 1998).

There is an expectation, therefore, that teachers will be able toapply any useful findings themselves and that others will see theseapplications, and so also adopt them. Involvement of teachers inthe EPL project was relatively unusual in that the teacher–researchers were used as ethnographers to gather data not directlyrelated to their own practice. That is, their insider status facilitatedthe collection process but they were obtaining data, and contrib-uting to interpretations, that they would not necessarily usethemselves in their everyday work, but which were intended tolead to interventions and induction strategies beneficial to newteachers and, through these, to the profession as a whole.Dissemination has to be through academic channels and also tothose colleagues (policy makers, head teachers, new teachers’supporters, for example) in positions to effect change.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on aspects of the input andoutput processes involving the teacher–researchers (TRs) that maybe of interest to other projects of a practice-related nature. First,

C. Smith et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 959–965960

there are lessons to be learned for ensuring integration of a group ofTRs into a major project that also allows them to establish theiridentity as a team. Some of the lessons concerned help with tech-nical matters but the TRs were also unsure of their input role untilcertain issues concerning isolation were resolved. That the TRsshould feel isolated was not expected by all involved in the friendlyand relaxed context of the early days of the EPL project. Thisexperience can be articulated in terms of Cassidy et al.’s (2008)description of ‘communities of enquiry’. Second, once the aboveissues were resolved, the roles of TRs in the EPL project evolved tobecome what may be a new concept of teacher–researcher thatcould be further developed in other projects, where the practitioneras researcher may enhance the research design. This conceptderives from the combination of the TRs’ inputs and outputs for theproject. Before reflecting on these features of the input and outputof the TRs, it is necessary to give some background to the initialthinking behind their recruitment and initial relationships.

2. Recruitment of teacher–researchersand initial relationships

The EPL project was conceived to enhance the learning of newteachers by developing, evaluating and disseminating a research-based, practical model of early professional development, and to addvalue to previous approaches by integrating outcome-orientedcompetencies with informal learning, context and identity. Theproject was a multi-method study that used ethnographic data asa basis for model building, as well as the development of fivequantitative indicators of new teacher development. Based on theexperiences of 154 new teachers in 45 schools in Britain, the four-year study found that the developmental experience of new teachersinvolved seven empirical dimensions of learning: the emotional,relational, cognitive, material, structural, ethical and temporal. Thesedimensions represented a largely informal process of professionaldevelopment and identity formation, which reflected the essentiallyrelational nature of teachers’ work as well as the psychosocialaspects of early professional development, neither of which isreadily captured in professional standards for teaching in the UK.

The project’s initial design was drawn up by a group of academicsat Stirling and Manchester Metropolitan Universities and involvedthe recruitment of secondary school teachers to form a group ofteacher–researchers who were initially to undertake ethnographicresearch in their own schools (Gray et al., 2005; McNally et al., 2004).A team of six experienced teachers was recruited to this role, each forone and a half days per week. This number was regarded as givingthe group ‘critical mass’ and an ability to cover the range of tasksrequired by the project (Gray et al., 2005). Choosing these sixteachers turned out to be a relatively protracted affair for theacademic team, with little guidance from the literature. (McNallyet al., 2004). Forty practicing teachers applied, thirty two wereinterviewed, and thirteen were selected from these for a short listand further interview. The six selected were not the only possibilities(in fact, one withdrew due to promotion and was replaced). Theywere, however, a group that the academics could see working asa team. Reflecting on the selection process and panel discussion, theacademic team felt that the following ‘criteria’ had emerged as themain considerations in choosing teachers as researchers:

C capable, respected colleagueC approachable – a ‘friendly face’ – and part of a wider school

communityC access to people and situationsC thinker but not paralysed by reflection – ‘doer’ who could also

thinkC not closed mind or dogmatic

C offers some insight into new teacher experienceC ability to engage in explanatory dialogueC genuine interest and not a pure career moveC energy and commitment to see the job throughC operates well within a group of peers

(McNally et al., 2004, page 5).

From the outset, relationships between the TRs themselves, andwith the academics, were very cordial. The TRs participated in twotraining meetings and a conference also involving academics fromStirling and Manchester Municipal Universities who were bothdirectly and indirectly associated with the project. Research trainingcovered an introduction to ethnography through specified readingand workshops, supervised by project co-director Professor IanStronach, prior to their first research interviews, with similar coverageof transcript analysis and developing grounded theory, guided byproject co-director Professor Nick Boreham. These sessions drewspecifically on Hamilton (1999) and Coffey (1999), more generally onSpradley (1979) and Glaser (1978), and used some case study excerptsas a basis for more reflexive discussion. Thus, the teacher–researchers’training covered interview approaches, the need for sensitivity to theemergence of data, theoretical refinement, styles of reporting and alsoan awareness of their ethnographic selves.

On these occasions, the ability of the TRs to engage in dialoguewith the academics, operate with peers and to draw on their ‘insiderstatus’ to contribute to interpreting the situations that new teacherswere likely to find themselves in, was immediately obvious. Forexample, at the conference, all TRs engaged vigorously in the debatearound the conference table concerning the nature of teaching.Perhaps, this subject was close to the TRs’ experiences but thedebate became academic in that various metaphors for thinkingabout teaching were considered and this, plus the unfamiliar settingof an ‘academic roundtable,’ could have been intimidating. That itwas not was not only due to any qualities of the TRs, but also due tothe friendly and accepting manners of the academics. This rapportcontinued after the formal session with many animated discussionsoccurring before and during dinner. Furthermore, the Stirling team(academics and teacher–researchers) continued to meet fortnightlythroughout the data-gathering phase of the project. These meetingswere also very sociable.

So, how did it arise that the TRs could feel isolated from eachother and from the academic team and what are the lessons forfuture projects that draw upon this research design? We havegrouped our reflections on this question under the followingheadings: Introducing The Teacher–Researcher Role to the Schools;Gathering Interview Data; Transcribing Data; Identity Issues;Bridging Cultures. This allows a general progression from reflectionon issues that are more directly practical or technical towards thosethat have potentially theoretical interest for concepts of teacher–researchers. Nevertheless, there are inevitably some overlaps sincethere is no simple way of categorising the varied experiences of theTRs. Although they were all secondary school teachers, the TRstaught in different schools with different characteristics, haddifferent backgrounds, and their interviewees were very different.Perhaps the overall message of this paper derives from that.A sociable team, at least in the circumstances described below, canconceal feelings of isolation and concern about one’s contributionsto its work.

3. Introducing the teacher–researcher role to the schools

An early duty of the TRs was to establish the project within theirschools. Crucial to this is the support of the school’s seniormanagement, mentors of the new teachers (NTs), and their heads ofdepartment. In practice, obtaining this was no great problem. In the

C. Smith et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 959–965 961

case of the Head Teachers, permission was required to apply for theteacher–researcher role and, for two, application for the role hadbeen suggested by the Head in the first place. So, there was little todo at this stage, other than to update the management on theexpected form of the data gathering. Similarly, perhaps due to theTRs’ experience and knowledge of their own schools and the staffinvolved, explaining the project to those appointed as mentors forthe new teachers and to their Heads of Departments wentreasonably smoothly. Where problems did arise, the TRs weresecure enough in their status in the school to resolve them. Forexample, one mentor had heard of the appointment of a teacher–researcher as meaning that she would be out of a job – the TR was‘being appointed to work with new teachers.’ Once the true situa-tion was diplomatically explained, the mentor became supportive.Another TR had to firmly decline the suggestion by the HeadTeacher that she take on the role of assessing the NTs, as well as herresearch role. This would have compromised the latter. However,the need to resist this sort of pressure had not been anticipated andis, perhaps, something to remember for future selection processes.

There was also no great difficulty, it transpired, in approachingthe NTs, explaining the basis of the project, ensuring them ofconfidentiality and convincing them that the project was worth-while. They generally presented as keen to get involved and gavethe impression that this was based on wanting to make thingsbetter for others, despite not having experienced much of theinduction process at this point.

So, introducing the project to their schools may have been theleast problematic of the TRs’ experiences, as they were all wellenough established in their schools to deal reasonably effectivelywith issues that arose. However, first concerns about their relativecontributions also arose, as it emerged that each teacher–researcherhad a different number of NTs to work with – from one to ten – asallocation of NTs to schools was decided by authorities just prior todata collection. These NTs all had to be invited to participate, withimplications for data gathering discussed next.

4. Gathering the interview data

The first phase of the ethnographic research was conducted inthe teacher–researchers’ schools by interviewing the NTs and byobserving first hand the conditions in which their learning occurred.The rationale of this relatively new research approach rested uponprevious experience of the academic team and their reading of theliterature which suggested that conventional interviews by externalresearchers have difficulty getting at tacit learning processes; beingembedded in the workplace, it was reasoned that the TRs wouldhave naturalistic opportunities for gathering richer evidence con-cerning the activities and social transactions of the new teachersin their schools (McNally et al., 2004). The second phase involvedthe teacher–researchers in interviewing new teachers in othersecondary schools. The third phase took place in primary schoolsand also involved some observations of new teachers’ teaching. Allthe phases involved meetings, in which the academic researchersand teacher–researchers reported to each other on progress, devisedor modified research processes and instruments, or debated inter-pretation of the data. In thus emphasising the advantage of insiderresearch, the research team was aware also that social institutions,such as schools, can be characterised by what Schon calls a ‘dynamicconservatism [. that] constantly pulls practitioners [and presum-ably therefore practitioner-researchers] back to a status quo ofnorms, rules, skills and values, which become so, omnipresent as to[.] go unchallenged’ (Anderson & Herr, 1999: 17). So although itwas reasoned that the TRs would have ‘unique opportunities todocument the hidden transcripts’ within schools (Anderson & Herr,1999: 18), the debate within these regular project meetings took the

form of a democratic, critical rigour that functioned in part to modifythe effects of any such ‘institutional barriers’ (Anderson & Herr,1999: 17). In the latter stages (see below), the TRs also, when it wasfelt necessary, would meet amongst themselves to discuss issues orprepare for dissemination events. The problems discussed in thispaper were largely felt in the first phase and one outcome of the TRs’own group meetings was the opportunity to share them.

Initially, the intention was to interview each NT weekly foraround twenty minutes. However, this turned out to be difficultwithin time constraints. These emerged even though both the TRsands NTs were on reduced teaching timetables, but this does notguarantee sufficient overlap. Also, not every NT wanted to committo once a week so, for most TRs, interviewing settled, when time-tabling allowed, into meeting each NT approximately every twoweeks, as the NTs seemed to find this acceptable. However, due tothe differences in number of NTs in each school, this still led touncertainty for the teacher–researchers. Some worried that theywere collecting too little data, others that they were collectingquantity rather than quality and that their transcribing (see nextsection) might be suffering.

At the outset, the structure of the interviews was discussed andwhether the TRs should adopt a common approach, using the samequestions. The academic researchers felt that, due to the emphasison the ethnographic nature of this phase and the need for a moreopen-ended interviewing approach, that the TRs should conducttheir interviews in their own individual ways. As we shall see later,although it was perhaps useful to the research, it may havecontributed to the feelings of isolation that developed among theTRs. As the project progressed, transcripts were discussed and moreguidance emerged regarding what questions to ask. This made theinterviewing process easier.

So, in summary, the issues that need to be dealt with whilegathering interview data include finding suitable accommodationand times for the interviews. For the latter, timetables emerged asa surprising constraint, even though the participants appear to havea lot of non-class contact time. Projects using this design may need towork more closely with timetablers. Although it is perhaps desirableto have open interviewing in the early stages, this can give theteacher–researchers a feeling of insecurity; interviewing feels easieronce agreed lines of questioning are followed. It is also necessary tobe realistic as to how many interviews are possible. Transcribing, thesubject of the next section, has to be considered in this context.

5. Transcribing the interview data

This was by far the most time consuming task in the project’sfirst phase. It had been agreed that transcribing, in the first phase atleast, would assist TRs to become familiar with their data. However,there was a learning curve to negotiate. The time required fortranscribing was another constraint on time for interviews. TRswith more NTs to interview were under pressure to either do fewerinterviews, or to be selective in their transcription, perhaps para-phrasing or skipping some sections. The latter was rejected infavour of transcribing verbatim as there was a danger of losingvaluable data and/or some of the tone and expression used by theinterviewees. The wisdom of this was confirmed when the full dataset was compiled. Only then could the significance of what was saidbe assessed relative to the whole.

The time needed for transcribing heightened some of the prob-lems related above. For example, school colleagues do not distinguishclearly between ‘teacher and teacher–researcher times.’ The TRs hadto handle this in different ways, depending on circumstances. Ifapproached in school, one TR adopted the strategy of saying firmly,‘I’m at Stirling.’ For others whose project time was blocked together, itwas possible to go home to do the transcribing. Others had to

C. Smith et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 959–965962

reschedule their time, perhaps using the project time in school to domarking and preparation work, then using the evenings at home fortranscribing. Dressing casually as a signal to others seemed to workfor one TR who had a whole day block for the project.

To conclude this section, collecting and transcribing data, evenwith digital voice recorders, was very time consuming. In retrospect,it might have been useful for the TRs to have had some training inthis technology (although product awareness and expertise diddevelop during the life of the project). Transcribing also returned theTRs to the problem of maintaining participant confidentiality intwo ways – where to do it and how to store the results? Solutionsincluded working at home and using personal laptops, but somefirmness with colleagues was still required for those working inschool. What is evident is a tension for the TRs between beingexisting members of (school) communities, with their own partic-ular boundaries of confidentiality that are comparatively open withregard to sharing the work and experiences of their members, andbeing researchers needing to keep raw data confidential to protectits sources. This leads us to identity issues.

6. Identity issues

As noted earlier, the EPL made novel, or at least unusual, use ofTRs. They did not research their own practice within the school. Infact, the focus of the project was not directly on the practice of theTRs’ colleagues either, but on how new teachers learn. The practicesobserved in schools were the contexts in which the learning of NTswere facilitated or restricted. Of course, it was expected that a resultwould be an ability to describe practices that support new teachers’learning. A justification for the project is that it would provideinformation that would be useful to the teaching profession and toeducational policy makers. Much of what has been said in the abovesections regarding the experiences of the TRs can be argued torevolve around practical issues. The value in recounting them is toraise awareness for future projects. What follows below also haspractical implications. However, it also touches, perhaps, on theo-retical issues concerning the nature of ‘communities of enquiry’(for example, Cassidy et al., 2008), and perhaps even a postmodernrewriting of research that places practitioners, researchers and theresearched in a ‘fruitfully ambiguous role’ (Stronach, Allan, &Morris, 1996: 503). Whereas Fine, Weis, Weseen, and Wong (2000:124) would likely interpret the experience of the project’s Teacher–Researchers as moving across the ‘researcher-researched hyphen’,Stronach and MacLure (1997) would just as likely resist the solutionthat such a shift in position implies, and prefer instead the idea ofpractitioners and researchers coming to live at the hyphen. Theysuggest, in fact, that the role of a researcher should be one of‘trickster’, whose business might be to prevent solutions to gettingsafely across any practitioner-researcher-researched divide.

As indicated above, within their particular role, and the issues itraised for them, lay some identity issues for the EPL project’s TRs.Other factors contributed to identity uncertainty – ones theyreflected later (Smith et al., 2005), they had also not anticipated. Forexample, the TRs were often the subject of light-hearted banter intheir schools – ‘enjoying your holiday at the university,’ or ‘comingback to real work.’ The TRs also found themselves feeling guiltyabout working from home. They had not appreciated how theteacher mindset compels you to only regard work as real if it isdirectly connected to the pupils. Another unexpected outcome forsome of the TRs, arising from the emphasis on confidentiality, wasthat some NTs perceived them as impartial and trustworthy andfound it cathartic to discuss concerns with them. NTs would,therefore, come to them for advice. This could cause difficultieswhen the concerns arose from relationship difficulties with othermembers of staff who might now regard the TR with some suspicion.

So, on the TRs’ minds were questions like: ‘What is my role?’‘Can I accomplish it?’ ‘How do I cope with its demands, such asknowing what to ask or maintaining confidentiality?’ ‘How doesmy data compare with others and is it helping the project?’ ‘How doI balance being a teacher in my school with the demands of ethicalresearch?’ ‘How do I cope with changing perspectives of mycolleagues and reassure them that I am not undermining them,without giving away confidences?’ These questions were, it is nowrecognised, exacerbated by the feeling of isolation that existedbetween the TRs themselves and between the TRs and theacademics. This isolation is interesting because it occurred, asdescribed earlier, in an atmosphere of conviviality. Observing thegroup meetings, one would have an impression of a team at workand, indeed, there was. Nevertheless, the TRs could be in the teamwithout fully experiencing themselves as completely belonging.How could this happen?

First, there was the early format of the interviews describedearlier. Being left to ask the questions that occurred to them, theTRs inevitably noted that the data sets they were collecting differed.They asked different questions, or the same ones in differentways. Also, some NTs seemed to talk more spontaneously thanothers. One would talk at length while another would be almostmonosyllabic in response to similar questions. To experiencedresearchers, these differences are probably commonplace and theyare more easily able to respect the actual data they collect, but theTRs had no criteria to judge its quality. So, although the researchdesign was familiar to all participants (open approach to inter-viewing initially, followed by a progressive focus, and moredirected questions, as apparently salient issues emerged at thefortnightly meetings), this, along with the welcoming and mutuallyrespectful nature of the meetings, was not enough to prevent thefeelings of isolation. It was only when two TRs found themselvesearly for a meeting and able to talk more privately that theydiscovered shared concerns. The result of this was to request timefor the TRs to meet on their own. This was readily agreed. The resultof these meetings was to identify that there were at least threeother contributory factors to this experience of isolation. Meetingas a group and identifying these issues contributed considerably toresolving the feelings of isolation.

First, although friendly and mutually respectful, the meetingsstill managed to fall into a pattern that did not allow for discussionof the TRs own experiences and so no opportunity of mutualsupport. The meetings mainly comprised the TRs feeding backindividually on their recent interviews. From this the direction ofthe next interviews could begin to be identified. Other tasksincluded identifying possible job satisfiers or other items to be usedin the design of the research instruments to be used in the project.This left little time for further issues and the TRs simply left andreturned to their own schools. These schools were scattered acrossthe country and the TRs had different roles within them. Theytaught different subjects, had different cross-curricular roles, andthe schools themselves had different operating traditions. Comparethis to the TRs perception of the position of the Stirling academicswho seemingly could meet more or less at will to support eachother in their project duties, through both formal and informalchannels, and who, perhaps naively, assumed that the TRs also hadsuch contact by email, telephone or in person.

Second, and probably as a result of the above, the academicswere able to quickly develop a theory and terminology for discus-sing the data that could be used at the meetings but was not sharedby the TRs. A contributory factor to this theory and terminology wasthe research background that gave rise to the project, and a case canbe made for not revealing too much of this to the TRs early in theproject, in case it influenced the directions of the interviews. At anyrate, it is, perhaps, an inevitable difference between the academics

C. Smith et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 959–965 963

and the TRs, but, at this stage, it did make the TRs feel that theywere not really part of the research team and were falling behind.

A third factor is the failure of the planned communication tool,webct, to get off the ground. It will never be known how much itwould have helped counter the feeling of isolation in this particularproject but it seemed to have the potential to open up discussionsbetween the TRs and between the TRs and the academics. However,it did not get going, due in part to an initial reluctance on the partof the university to grant access from outside the campus, andthen due to difficulties of access by some TRs from their homecomputers. There was probably an optimum time in the early phaseof the project for the TRs to experiment with webct and begincommunicating. Once the priorities arising from the rounds ofinterviewing, transcribing and team meetings began, however, thattime seemed to have passed.

So, the TRs in this project, and any similar types, are asked tooperate in more than one culture – the teaching culture, their ownculture as TRs and the shared culture of the whole research team. Ineach of them, there is a process of adjustment to go through. In theteacher culture, one has to adjust to perceptions by oneself andothers of the research role in a culture that has different values andways of operating, while still being an active member of thatculture for the majority of the week. The TRs also need time toformulate their own shared culture – or perhaps, more accurately,to form a tribe (Cassidy et al., 2008). It seems that being able toshare one’s experiences is enough to overcome feelings of isolationand mentally to deal with their causes. There is also a need to formbridges somehow with the academics in the whole team. As thefollowing quote suggests, the first phase of the project will inevi-tably involve these sort of processes of adjustment. The question is,what sort of bridging can be put in place to minimize them or bettersupport participants through them.

It should be understood that community will not be formedinstantly by virtue of individuals meeting; community evolves,grows and develops over and through time. Communitiesdevelop and evolve their discourses and those initiating thecommunity usually take the lead in establishing that discourse.Participants work together and will arrive at private languagesthat carry meanings and understandings particular to thatcommunity. Given that education can be construed as a practicalfield, as a field of research and enquiry and as an academicdiscipline in its own right, constituent members of a communityof educational enquiry will tend to come from a range of disci-plines or academic ‘tribes’ (Becher & Trowler, 2001) and, asa consequence, arrive with a set of terms, languages, jargons andunderstandings that will influence the new community forming.It should be noted that even though members of a communitycome together in a shared sense in that they are forminga community with a common purpose, each will equally belongto a range of backgrounds and tribes beyond the connection thathas brought them together. (Cassidy et al., 2008, pp. 219–220.)

7. Bridging cultures

The major lesson from the above is that time is required forcommunications to be truly established between all members ofthe team. It is only when the TRs were able to come together toform their ‘own tribe’, so bridging the differences between theirown backgrounds and school cultures, that they could then workmore effectively with the academics and tap into the terminologyand theory they were developing, and make their own contribu-tions to its development. To the TRs, the ‘default position’ for theacademics seemed to involve an ability to meet, more or less at will,to support each other in the project’s tasks. Although needing

specific organisation, the TRs were able further to develop theirown identity and to support each other through their own meet-ings. Another outcome of this was that they began to take on tasksspecific to themselves, including preparing for dissemination atboth academic conferences and workshops involving teachers andpolicy makers, and writing for fellow professionals (e.g. Smith,2006, 2007; Smith et al., 2005; Swierczek & Smith, 2006; Walker,2007). These focussed on such issues as the TRs’ own experiencesand the lessons for other projects and the questions that schoolsand local authorities needed to ask if they wanted NTs to feelwelcome and have their professional learning facilitated. Organis-ing meetings for the TRs themselves early in similar projects is,therefore, important. If perceived problems did not exactly evapo-rate, their impact was greatly diminished by the opportunity toshare them and other creative opportunities were opened up.

Another factor in bridging the gap between the academic and TRtribes was a mini-conference. The feeling that this was necessarybegan to be shared as data began to accumulate, with a consequentneed to come together to further its interpretation and significancefor how new teachers learn. This removed any remaining doubts forthe TRs that they were not really involved in the more globalinterpretations of the data. The issue for this and other projects isthat this point is only reached when there is sufficient data todiscuss. Again though, awareness by the different tribes that thistime will come as they meet together individually and together canonly be useful.

Finally in this section, if projects can get electronic conferencesworking from the outset, perhaps, structuring in some early topicsbefore the major work begins, this should be helpful in allowing thetribes to begin to share discourses. However, it is interesting to notethat the most productive relationships seemed to develop in thisproject when the TRs were able to form themselves into a cohesiveand distinct group with their own sense of identity. Once this wasachieved, the whole team seemed to combine more effectively or,at least, was experienced as more satisfactory.

8. A new concept of teacher–researcher?

In this section, some speculations are offered, based on therecruitment of the teacher–researchers and the way they worked inthe EPL project, that begin to outline the possibility of developinga new concept of teacher–researcher. Let us tease out some possiblysalient features.

a) The teachers involved are from different subject backgroundsand schools and had no direct personal investment in the outcomesof the project.

Other projects may involve teachers from different subjectbackgrounds, but generally participation is granted to those whovolunteer (Smith and Walker, 2007). There also tend to be commonthreads, such as working for the same local authority. Also,although they may come from different subjects, the TRs’ subjectexperience is often relevant in the sense that it is intended to beimproved in some way by the project – directly or through changesbrought about in school conditions and/or policies (see openingdiscussion). In contrast, the teacher–researchers for the EPL projectwent through the fairly intensive competitive selection processdescribed earlier and the teacher–researchers were, to a greaterdegree than usual, free from a direct personal investment in theoutcomes. The teacher–researchers in the EPL project could bedescribed, therefore, as combining relative disinterest or impar-tiality with being insiders. Any improvement in practice was not ofobvious direct benefit to them, but more as a benefit to theprofession as a whole. Indeed, even the academic members of theresearch team have some interest as members of the public

C. Smith et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 959–965964

in improvements to how the teaching profession operates. If,however, academics can be described as ‘disinterested outsiders’when conducting research in schools, the teacher–researchers inthis project are probably as close as it is possible to get to being‘disinterested insiders.’

b) Collecting data impartially is a prime responsibility.

This role as disinterested insiders was important in the datacollection. TRs who collect data relevant to their own practice havea direct stake in implementing implications in their practice whichmay influence the data collected, or its interpretation. In the EPLproject, the focus is not on the TRs’ own or their school’s practicebut on a topic (the experiences of new teachers) across schools andauthorities to draw general conclusions. So, although the teacher–researchers initially collected data in their own schools, the focus ofanalysis was not particular to them, enabling more impartiality ingathering it.

Another factor is that the quality of the data collected dependedas much on the teacher–researchers as the academics. As estab-lished practitioners, the teachers had ‘up-to-date’ knowledge of theworking environment the academics wished to explore. Theadvantage of this for the academics was that their questions aboutsuch things as the mechanics of implementation could be answered,relevant advice given, suggestions made and issues anticipated: ‘.we gained insider insights and up-to-date advice that we could nototherwise have gained’ (academic A).

Conducting interviews has been a key feature of the TR role inthis project. The quality of the data collected seems to reflect, forexample, that it is easier for new teachers to talk more openly orfreely to a fellow teacher knowing there is this common under-standing of the job. It was probably easier for TRs to understanda response and develop the next question. They spoke the profes-sional language that the new teachers were in the process oflearning. As one academic put it:

I think the TRs’ work showed us that it is possible for ’insiders’ toget a view on what’s happening (e.g. via new teacher responses). that the different and difficult demands of teaching andresearch can be handled by the right people (Academic B)

One possible indicator that the data collected was relatively free ofbias was the fact that the teacher–researchers could be surprised bywhat they found in their own schools – there was an element ofsurprise, even for the insiders (Walker, 2007). So, in summary, theEPL project, through its teacher–researchers, seems to have managedto collect data that it would not otherwise have gathered; data that ismore likely to meet the academic criterion for as much objectivity aspossible, yet is simultaneously of use to practitioners – though theoverall paradigm was naturalistic and appealed more to criteria suchas credibility and transferability e.g. Lincoln and Guba (1985).

c) Data was first gathered in their own schools, then in otherschools at their own level (secondary) and subsequently ata different level (primary)

Perhaps a unique feature of the way TRs were used in the EPLproject was their movement out of their own schools in the secondyear of the project to conduct interviews and be first line contactswith both the managers and NTs in other schools. Obviously, thisinvolved a loss of some insider knowledge. This loss was extendedfurther in the third year when the focus turned to primary schools.However, in both cases, the teacher–researchers were stillsufficiently inside to find that sharing their own professionalbackground was a good way to introduce the project to the school(Walker, 2007). It was still relatively easy for the TRs to engage withthe new teachers as fellow teachers and collect data. From the

academic point of view, there was an opportunity to broaden thedatabase to provide a test of the theoretical model of earlyprofessional learning that had been developed in the first phase ofthe project. Therefore, in this phase the teacher–researchers wereable to act as disinterested insiders in novel contexts and this seemsto be an extension of an already new concept of teacher–researcher.

d) It involves a real working partnership between the academics’knowledge of research and teachers’ ‘insider knowledge’, so thatthey influenced the research process and, to an increasing degree,led to them presenting their own ‘takes’ on the data.

As described above, the two groups, academics and teachersformed a team and learned about each other’s worlds. As disin-terested insiders, the TRs contributed an ability to be open andhonest and so provide a unique insight into the world that theresearchers wanted to explore. However, there are other aspects tothe partnership. The TRs obviously have had an experience openonly to a few – namely, participating in a major research project asresearchers, not subjects. They have learned new skills and havegained knowledge of the research process, as well as coming tobetter appreciate its importance (Smith et al., 2005; Swierczek &Smith, 2006; Walker, 2007). Obviously, the technical contributionto the research process, data analysis and its placement within theliterature still forms the major responsibility of the academics.However, as their skills and knowledge developed, the teacher–researchers became more confident in their own contribution tothe quality of the research process and instruments, as well as ofinterpretation of the data. One indicator of the trust and respectdeveloped is the willingness of the academics to submit theirwriting for comment to the teacher–researchers. One outcome forthe academics from this was a greater awareness of how theymight talk or write past some of their intended readershipthrough the (excessive) use of particular forms of technicalterminology. They have also benefited from comment on theirdata analysis.

I got some very useful feedback on my analysis of probationercases, e.g. Lesley was able to add to how I saw ’April’ by sendingme further material and comment on what I had said based onthe transcripts alone. (academic B)e) They developed their own identity as a coherent team thatcomplemented the academic researchers in dissemination.

As described above, the TRs came to form a ‘team within a team’.They worked as a unit when it came to presenting the project fromtheir own perspective to academic conferences or presenting itsimplications to practitioners, local authorities and policy makers(Dodds, 2009; Smith, 2006, 2007, 2009; Smith & Walker, 2007;Smith et al., 2005; Swierczek, 2007, 2009; Swierczek & Smith,2006; Walker, 2009). Naturally, the academics are heavily involvedin dissemination in the usual ways. Thus, the academic and teachermembers complement each other in dissemination.

9. Conclusion

One metaphor that emerged as a description of new teachers’experiences of their early days was that of a roller coaster. The TRsalso experienced something of a roller coaster as they struggled tofind their identity and make their contributions to the inputs andoutputs of the EPL project. There are practical and theoreticallessons to be learned from these experiences. Foremost among thepractical lessons for projects of the type and scale of the EPL projectis the need to really open up communication between all types ofteam members. Good communication of one type (the fortnightly,friendly and, in their own way, productive team meetings)

C. Smith et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 959–965 965

can actually disguise the need for other forms of communicationbetween members and deny them the opportunity to shareconcerns. There is also a lesson for theorising the nature ofcommunities of enquiry. The earlier quote from Cassidy et al. (2008)highlights the need to recognise that they often involve the comingtogether of different tribes with different languages and under-standings. Avenues of discourse between these differences need tobe ensured before the community can function truly efficientlyin pursuit of its goals. This may also require recognising that partsof that community need also to operate as sub-communities.Certainly, the experience of the EPL project supports this, as the TRsneeded the opportunity to come together as a tribe within thecommunity of enquiry involved. It should not be assumed thata common factor e.g. that they are all secondary school teachers, issufficient to ensure that such a tribe forms automatically. Coming,as they did, from different school, subject and geographical back-grounds, the TRs were essentially individual tribes who needed theopportunity to form a new tribe with a shared identity.

Implicit in the design of the EPL project was a new concept ofteacher–researcher – one of not researching own practice and,therefore, being relatively disinterested or neutral with regard tothe outcomes. As disinterested insiders, the teacher–researcherswere able to play an open and honest role in both collecting thedata and in its interpretation while keeping a separate andcoherent identity in the dissemination process. From this, the EPLteam as a whole were able to identify both a model of teachers’early professional learning and practical questions for schools andlocal authorities to consider in supporting this learning. One testof the utility of this developing concept of teacher–researcherwould be to apply it to other research issues. These would beissues in which generalisable models are possible that are bothexplanatory and form a basis for intervention, such as (Smith &Walker, 2007): the implementation of new initiatives (e.g.Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland,1 and models of how schoolscope); development planning process as a school learning processand the role of HMIe Quality Indicators;2 learning specialist roles,such as pupil support and support for learning, and whether theEPL model and its dimensions help to explain the learning of theseroles; policy and practice in learning how to work with difficultchildren and with gifted pupils; the nature of the relationaldimension of learning for the school in other areas, such asschool-home partnerships and school-local authority relation-ships. In addressing such practice-based issues, the employment ofteacher–researchers as disinterested insiders might offer newdirections for educational research.

References

Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: is there room forrigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities. EducationalResearcher, 28, 12–21.

Angelides, P., Evangelou, M., & Leigh, J. (2005). Implementing a collaborative modelof action research for teacher development. Educational Action Research, 13,275–290.

1 A major initiative driven by the Scottish Parliament that aims to describe thepurposes of learning from ages 3 to 18 and all learners’ entitlements. The purposesof learning are built round the development of four capacities: successful learners,confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. Entitlementsinclude a broad education and personal support. http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/buildingthecurriculum/entitlements/index.asp.

2 The criteria used by Government Inspectors (HMIe) when assessing schoolperformance. They are grouped into various categories such as: the extent thatschools engage learners in high quality activities, the degree to which learnersachieve success and quality of leadership at all levels (HMIe, 2006).

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiryand the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: SRHE/Open UniversityPress.

Campbell, A., & Jaques, K. (2004). Best practice researched: teachers’ expectations ofthe impact of doing research in their classrooms and schools. Teacher Devel-opment, 7, 75–90.

Capobiancoa, B. M., & Feldman, A. (2006). Promoting quality for teacher actionresearch: lessons learned from science teachers’ action research. EducationalAction Research, 14, 497–512.

Cassidy, C., Christie, D., Coutts, N., Dunn, J., Sinclair, C., Skinner, D., et al. (2008).Building communities of educational enquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 34,217–235.

Clark, R. W. (1999). School-university partnerships and professional developmentschools. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 164–177.

Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity.London: Sage Publications.

Dodds, D. An age at least to every part: a longitudinal perspective on the earlyprofessional learning of teachers’. In J. McNally, & A. Blake, (eds) Improvinglearning in a professional context: A research perspective on the new teacher inschool. Routledge: London, 2009.

Evans, M., Lomax, P., & Morgan, H. (2000). Closing the circle: action researchpartnerships towards better learning and teaching in schools. Cambridge Journalof Education, 30, 405–419.

Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research,representation, and social responsibilities. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed).. London: Sage.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Gray, P., Boreham, N., Cope, P., Corbin, B. McNally, J., Stronach, I., et al. (2005) User

Engagement and Research design in the EPL Project. Paper presented at theTLRP Conference.

Hamilton, M. (1999). Ethnography for classrooms: constructing a reflective curric-ulum for literacy. Curriculum Studies, 7(3), 429–444.

HMIe. (2006). How good is our school? The journey to excellence. Livingston: HMIe.Available at. http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/hgiosjte.pdf.

Johnson, D. (1975). Enlisting the participation of teachers in research. ResearchIntelligence, 1(2), 38–41, Proceedings of the 1975 BERA Conference.

Klinger, J. K., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. J., & Vaughn, S. (2001). Examining theschoolwide ‘‘spread’’ of research-based practices. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,24, 221–234.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. California: Sage Publications.McNally, J., Boreham, N, Cope, P, Gray, P., Stronach, I. & Corbin, B. (2004). First steps

and second thoughts on method: beginning to research the learning of newteachers. Paper Presented to the TLRP annual conference, Cardiff.

Posthlethwaite, K., & Haggarty, L. (1998). Towards effective and transferablelearning in secondary school: the development of an approach based onmastery learning. British Educational Research Journal, 2(4), 333–353.

Smith, C. (2006). Welcoming and integrating new teachers into our schools: 1)school buildings and school systems. Secondary Headship(Issue 49), 6–7.

Smith, C. (2007). Welcoming and integrating new teachers into our schools: 2)social relations and delivery of lessons. Secondary Headship(Issue 50), 8–9.

Smith, C. The implications of early professional learning for schools and local author-ities. In J. McNally, & A. Blake (eds) Improving learning in a professional context: Aresearch perspective on the new teacher in school, Routledge: London, 2009.

Smith, C., Curwen, K., Dodds, D., Easton, L, Gray, P. Swierczek, P., et al. (November2005) Teacher–researchers in a major research project: some reflections andlessons learned. Paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research Associ-ation Conference, Perth.

Smith, C. & Walker, L. (2007) Is a new concept of teacher–researcher emerging fromthe EPL project? Paper presented ISTE Conference, Stirling.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Reinhart andWinston.

Stronach, I., Allan, J., & Morris, B. (1996). Can the mothers of invention make virtueout of necessity? An optimistic deconstruction of research compromises incontract research and evaluation. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4),493–509.

Stronach, I., & MacLure, M. (1997). Educational research undone: The postmodernembrace. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Swierczek, P. (2007) Teaching: A welcoming profession? Paper presented at theannual conference of the International Society for Teacher Education, Stirling.

Swierczek, P. Making room for new teachers: the material dimension in beginningteaching, In J. McNally, & A. Blake, (eds) Improving learning in a professionalcontext: A research perspective on the new teacher in school, Routledge: London,2009.

Swierczek, P., & Smith, C. (2006). Research as a learning experience. Presentationgiven at EPL Project Dissemination Day. November: Stirling University.

Walker, L. (January 2007) Teacher–Researchers in the early professional learningproject. Paper presented to TLRP Technology Enhanced Learning Seminar onDeveloping Research Capacity, Edinburgh.

Walker, L. Linda’s story: a new teacher’s tale. In J. McNally, & A. Blake, (eds)Improving learning in a professional context: A research perspective on the newteacher in school, Routledge: London, 2009.

Watkins, A. (2006). So what exactly do teacher–researchers think about doingresearch? Support for Learning, 21, 12–18.

Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding. Linking research with practice.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.