INTERACCIÓN DE LAS REDES SOCIALES

One issue facing the trustworthiness of the findings and analysis in this research was the influence of power relationships between researcher and the participants. Issues of power in research came to the foreground particularly during the 1980s (Demirdirek, 2009). At the same time, it was highlighted that those being researched should be referred to as participants rather than subjects, data were elicited rather than collected (Demirdirek, 2009) and outcomes were shared rather than used to control (Das, 2010). In considering power in this way it reflected my epistemological position.

Power was not an entity that is held by a participant (Das, 2010) rather it moves between the roles of the participants (Das, 2010). It is dynamic and belongs to all participants in all the roles that the participants played. As the power moved during the research it altered the dynamics between the participants (Burton, Brundrett & Jones, 2008) depending on the role they were playing at the time. In order to elicit data when embracing power as part of the epistemology of a research study, innovative research methods were needed to reveal the layers of thinking of each participant through dialogue (Demirdirek, 2009). Dialogue enabled participation and relied on trust between participants. It could shape the past and the future through the reflective nature of the dialogue (Das, 2010) on the inter- and intra- personal planes. In every instance of talk, power was negotiated (Riley, Schouten & Cahill, 2003). In addition identities or roles of the participants shaped the dialogue. This research employed bespoke pedagogical tools, designed to elicit dialogue by all participants in all the roles which they play in interacting with each other. These enabled the participants, through scaffolding the dialogue on the interpersonal plane, to be powerful in whatever role they were in at the time (Mukherji & Albon, 2015). In this study this is particularly complex due to the changing nature of the roles that the participants play. For example, the student teacher can be both the teacher (more knowledgeable other to the children/learners facilitating learning through their ZPD) and a learner as the children take on the role of the more knowledgeable

others, feeding back to the student teacher on their understanding of their own learning and in turn guiding the student teacher through their ZPD. It is on this basis that it can be considered that all participants had some power during this research process in expressing their views because the positions that they took during the research shaped the power dynamics of the study.

This approach to the research meant that there were no objective data (Demirdirek, 2009) owing to the participants sharing information from their own perspectives in their own words, highlighting further the importance of transparency in the research methodology as a whole (Das, 2010). One way of reducing issues of power is to adopt an appropriate research methodology as discussed above. In these case studies I shared some personal characteristics (ethnicity, gender, age, class) with some of the participants (mentors, student teachers, children) however these were dissimilar to some of the other participants namely student teachers, children or mentors from minority ethnic groups, males and under twenty five. However the main similarity between participant and researcher was the connection of experience in primary schools and also the role of a learner. These commonalities helped reduce the social distance between me and the participants through an understanding of common experiences which helped to build rapport leading to a better understanding of the dialogue captured between participants (Das, 2010).

The nature of this research led to considerations of issues of power because of the complex relationships and roles with which the participants were involved at different times during the research process (Mukherji & Albon, 2015). Already existing were the power dynamics between the student teacher and the children, the mentor and the student teacher and the university and both the student teacher and mentor. Conventionally the power rests with the mentors in a student teacher/mentor relationship as they are seen to be the expert. Equally this is also so between a student teacher and the children where the student teacher is seen to hold the power. One aspect typical of many teacher/learner relationships is that learners seek to give the answer that the teacher expects. It could be that they were looking for the answers that they wanted to find and therefore perhaps also, not hearing what was being said. Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2007) call this transference. It was therefore important that all coursework, completed as part of assessments that were also used as data in this study, were moderated according to university processes. In addition it was

stressed that participation would not affect the assessment of coursework and that student teachers could withdraw, without prejudice at any time. The sample was selected after completion of the marking and moderation of work, as Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2007:60) note there could be potential issues around the student fulfilling a course requirement and seeking professional advancement through his/her study. However, integral to overcoming this issue of power is that both parties operate in their ‘modus operandi’.

It is possible that power issues, relating to ethical parameters, may have existed but in recognising the agency of each of the participants I attempted to manage barriers positively and actively to enable the voices of the participants to be heard.