La prevención específica - inespecífica 29

Researchers generally quote student ‘participation’ under the construct of student ‘voice’.

The two terms (participation and voice) have been (and can be) used interchangeably (for example, see Seale, 2010; Maunders, et al., 2013; Buchanan, 2014; Seale, et al., 2014) but there are subtle differences between the two terms which need to be explored and discussed. When considering ‘voice’ as a metaphor, its meaning can be associated with disempowerment. It is usually applied within a context of giving participatory rights to a disempowered section of population, either from a rights, welfare, and moral or social justice perspective. Whether this group of people are children, people with disabilities,

38

minority groups, socially disadvantaged people or students, the main concern is regarding the empowerment of their social and, or, legal position within a given system (Kanyal, 2014a). This makes us believe that ‘voice’ is associated with critical theory and that any work done under this banner has a primary aim of empowering the oppressed, marginalised and neglected groups.

The term ‘voice’, in education, is also used in relation to the concept of representation (Freeman, et al., 2013; Freeman, 2014), which is likely to make us think about the structures and the tools that we commonly use in our institutions, for example, the feedback instruments used for gauging student and staff satisfaction. The tools, though vital for the running of any institution, predominantly display the functioning of policy makers. These functions, although inspired from the traditions of democracy, may take the shape of documentation, for example, from formal meetings to representation from students and staff groups. The representative tradition of democracy, which Fielding (2011) refers to as the ‘elitist’ approach, provides limited possibilities. He favours the classical tradition of democracy, participatory democracy, which he believes suggests ways of living and learning together and offers a more inspirational aspiration (Fielding, 2011). Without the traditional understanding of democracy, the concept of ‘voice’ may get conceptualised in an oversimplified structural form, making it rather bland and simplistic. For example, student voice may be viewed only as a tool for students to communicate their ideas and opinions to ‘represent’ their views. Student voice is much more complex than that and its implications need to be considered critically. Its application cannot be restricted to institutions’ operational work, for example, policies and formal feedback mechanisms, as the structures themselves do not have voice - but people do (Porter, 2008). That is why it is important to consider voice from a people’s perspective, which stresses the importance of implementing it from policy to a practice level.

This is where the term participation has implications. Participation, as a collective term, helps to research and understand student voice. Participation, as a term, evokes the use of various research approaches that help to facilitate an in depth understanding of students’

views and their voices, rather than the structural ‘snap shot’ from students’ feedback and other representative measures. The use of participatory approaches, in collective or

39

individual form, can give students the freedom to express their experiences and views in their own words (Maunders, et al., 2013).

Students’ participation can give a critical insight into student voice work, which is often labelled as ‘individualised’ and ‘authentic’ (Spyrou, 2011). Students’ participation, unlike ‘voice’, suggests that student voice is a social (re)construction of their attitudes and beliefs which are shaped by various external and internal factors (Spyrou, 2011), such as educational experiences; social groups; family, cultural and ethnic background; and many more. The study of students’ participation, therefore, is not restricted to critical theory but crosses boundaries with other theoretical perspectives, such as social constructivism (McIntyre, 2008). Hence, participation, within a research context, implies the use of various participatory approaches that can help to study student voice, but within a dialogic environment. It is the multiplicity in the exchange of ideas that gives

‘participation’ a more dialogic attribute than ‘voice’.

Both terms- student voice and participation- however, have been used interchangeably in educational literature, mainly in research involving students in decision making to build opportunities for meaningful learning experiences, for example, in the operational running of a learning environment and also in the delivery of the curriculum (Mitra, 2003). From now onwards, I aim to use the term ‘participation’ more in my thesis, as the focus is on the use of various approaches and techniques that help to understand students’

collective views within a given context.

Several researchers argue democracy to be the underpinning value driving any participatory research in education (for example, Fielding, 2004; Bovill, et al., 2011;

Cook- Sather, 2014; Bovill, et al., 2016), in the form of different representational and participatory democratic processes (Fielding, 2004, 2011; Little, 2009; Carey, 2013;

Freeman, 2014). I argued in Chapter Two how the English HE system is wavering between the political (representational democracy) and pedagogic (participatory democracy) use of student voice, with the current political drive supportive of the representational notions of students’ participation (Fielding, 2011; Carey, 2013), complementing a marketised view of HE (Carey, 2013). Students’ participation, therefore, has become a multi-dimensional concept encompassing various aspects of

40

students’ experiences. Its definition ranges from that of a broad sectorial approach, for example, the HEA’s view of student voice as the “values, opinions, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds of students within a HE community” (HEA, n.d., n.p.); to a more theoretical and practice based definition of students’ participation as “a theory and set of practices that position students as active agents in analyses and revisions of education” (Bovill, et al., 2011: 2); as well as an action oriented and collaborative view which regards students’

participation as “a genuinely shared, fully collaborative partnership between students and staff. Leadership, planning and conduct of research and the subsequent commitment to responsive action are embraced as both a mutual responsibility and energising adventure” (Fielding, 2012: 53). All three definitions, above, show social construction, agency and collaboration as the main features of students’ participation, all applicable within the context of my study.

I acknowledge that these are only some of the ways that students’ participation and their voice have been defined within educational contexts. I, therefore, do not intend to narrow the concept of participation solely to the notions of theory and action but, to contextualise students’ participation within my study, I have drawn upon the above three definitions, as they correspond with the pedagogical and research aspect of collaboration. My study, therefore, recognises the multiplicity in students’ participation, for example, it acknowledges that student voice can be a (re)construction of their attitudes and beliefs, shaped primarily by their personal, social and professional experiences (Dewey, 1938;

Spyrou, 2011); I recognise the importance of underpinning theoretical ideas on knowledge construction where I believe that knowledge can be co-created between students and staff (McIntyre, 2008; Bovill, et al., 2011; Cook- Sather, 2014) which, when applied in practice, can challenge the rigid ways of thinking and decision making (Pant, 2008; Richards, 2011). I also believe in a collaborative approach to promoting participation, with a commitment to the democratisation of both the content and methods of educational research (Kidd and Kral, 2005; Baum, et al., 2006). My definition of participation, therefore, coheres with the views of the above authors and sees it as a way to democratise education, focusing primarily upon the approaches that we can use to co-construct knowledge about pedagogical environments. I see co-co-construction as a collaborative process whereby the students work with each other and with staff; as well as their involvement having a direct impact on their learning and course experiences.

41

In addition to students’ participation and student voice, I have also used the terms participatory research and participatory work, at different places, in various chapters.

Although both terms draw inspirations from the democratic ethos of working together in social situations, there are certain methodological distinctions which are important to indicate. Participatory research, as a term, is used in places where I intend to acknowledge and draw upon the methodological implications of the research process; and participatory work, as a term, is used in places where the work may not be part of a research project but, rather, a part of professional practice, for example, tutors working collaboratively with students in curriculum planning and delivery, assessment and other wider pedagogical processes. Participatory research, as a term, therefore, represents a research methodology (as discussed in Chapter Five, section 5.1), whereas participatory work symbolises collective work between different participants within an educational environment, the origin of which may not necessarily be research. The idea behind using both terms is to signify the distinction between the scale of work, with ‘research’ being more methodologically inspired (taking inspirations from Kidd and Kral, 2005; Baum, et al., 2006; McIntyre, 2008; Bovill, et al., 2011 and Cook- Sather, 2014) and ‘work’ being more practically inspired (taking inspirations from Dewey, 1938; Pant, 2008; Spyrou, 2011; Richards, 2011). Both terms, however, are grounded in the principles of democracy, participation and knowledge construction, as discussed above.

Participation, therefore, helps to bring student voice from policy (structures) to human (more practical and dialogic) level. This, however, does not come without challenges. A closer inspection magnifies the challenges that tutors may face as they then have to listen to the diverse voices of students based on their age, gender, ethnicity, mode of study, nationality, social class, education history and more (Porter, 2008). Creating effective staff-student partnerships in itself can present issues, as some projects or processes may demand an appropriate level of skill and establishment of trust (Little, 2011). To enable effective participation, students may need further training and rapport building between students and staff to feel empowered and to exercise autonomy in research (Maunders, et al., 2013). Another challenge is the convention of authoritarian practices, mostly associated with traditional student-teacher relationships, which can dictate the development and application of tokenistic participatory processes. The adoption of participatory principles can therefore make us question the way we think about ourselves

42

and our practice (Woodhead, 2005). These principles have the potential to challenge the traditional view of authority by creating a shift in our thinking and recognising students as major stakeholders in education. Attention needs to be paid to the provision of genuine opportunities for participation, as student voice, when in conflict with other major stakeholders’ voices, can be disregarded in favour of more powerful interest groups (Baldock et al, 2009).

Despite these challenges, there are various research examples that show successful students’ participation and their involvement as co-creators of pedagogical planning (e.g.

Bovill, et al., 2011); of strategy development (e.g. Healey, et al., 2010); and as apprentice researchers and ‘change agents’ on learning and teaching projects (e.g. Dunne and Zandstra, 2011). Students can also contribute in decision making, including decisions about their learning and assessment, thereby influencing change (Manefield, et al., 2007).

Such collaborations benefit not only students but also the staff involved, fellow students, and institutions as a whole (Maunders, et al., 2013). This makes the field of students’

participation worth investing in, as the benefits can be realised at different levels, for example, at students’ personal learning level, group level (course group) as well as cultural and institutional level. Students’ participation in institutional processes can, therefore, be regarded as one of the major avenues through which “students can explore and construct their own learning, gain more control over the content, direction and method of learning and develop higher-order thinking skills” (Manefield et al., 2007: 5).

The participatory traditions also argue for the place of democracy in education, not only as a way of meeting individual needs and arriving at collective decisions and aspirations, but also as a “way of living and being in the world that intends a common good and the egalitarian freedom of democratic fellowship that shapes our daily encounters”

(Fielding, 2011: 12).