The language Bill uses to describe his practice is very balanced, and delivered in a very thoughtful and calm way. His emphasis on certain things that are important to him is achieved by careful elaboration and examples, rather than raising the pitch of his voice or becoming forceful.
Bill is looking for his students to be able to argue from different standpoints but also to weigh up those standpoints and to take a position of their own from the evidence from each perspective. This ‘liberal tradition’ of education also characterises the discourse used. He often discusses issues in a way that is searching for balance and from a sense of both rights and responsibilities.
For example, when explaining the ‘Mother Hen’ practice cluster:
‘Wary of being too proactive, not wishing to be a pain; grown-up mature students, if
you have a problem don’t hesitate to contact me (all explained in introductory letter).
Don’t want to do a lot of chasing, being too school ma’amish.
Timing of assignments is a big issue with associate lecturers, as it upsets AL schedules; they are juggling a lot of demands, tend to be weaker than would like, would like to take a harder line.
I have even contacted previous associate lecturer to point out how leniency makes it
difficult for future associate lecturers.’
The evidence that Bill has contacted other associate lecturers may show that a community of practice is working, but in a different way to the ‘intense mutual negotiation’ witnessed by Wenger (1998) and his medical claim processors.
Bill is constructing for himself his own sense of pastoral support. He is keen to make sure that his students understand his availability, but is equally keen to create a space between himself and his students. The space prevents the relationships between tutor and students
from becoming overwhelming, and is maintained by implicit rules on the level and content of the contact. The rules are justified by a belief that he is dealing with mature students who have the ability to avail themselves of support when and if they need it, without his proactive intervention, which is, in itself, a possible indication of an implicit theory of what constitutes pastoral care of students.
There is still a need for control that comes out in the discourse and a fear that, by bending rules, things will get out of control and standards slip. He is concerned that students need a certain amount of rigour and discipline in order to achieve, and he would not be helping them by doing otherwise.
‘Once put a “L” in the assignment box because student had been very late for every
TMA without asking and felt I would be lying if allowed last assignment which was double-weighted, so chances for student very slim. Felt disturbed for a long time but felt there was a limit. Instructions urged you not to let other associate lecturers down
by not playing by the rules but left a bad taste.’
It is possible to describe Bill as experiencing the ‘post-modern’ condition in his practice, even though he did not articulate it in this way. His early background and experience of teaching gave him a traditional epistemological standpoint, with the wish to be in control. However, there has also always been a tension within him to be more relaxed and radical in his teaching. This is a reminder that often beliefs, values and practice do not always run in parallel, but form a complex mix that generates tensions within the individual and their practice.
The complexities of the ‘post-modern’ condition are shown with Bill’s revelation that traditional ideas of knowledge do not provide all the insights we need to have a better understanding of the world.
‘There aren’t any certainties. Used to think Psychology was the bee’s knees, it would
tell me how people tick, but it does not, it only gives inkling. We have to be pretty
humble about this, there are no magic wands.’
In the language Bill uses, there is a degree of functionalism, a stress on the practical
application and the tasks that need to be completed. Things like late assignments, therefore, become a considerable irritant, as they stop completion of a task.
The term ‘Mother Hen’ as a metaphor creates a picture of Bill having to chase up students, ‘clucking’ around them in order to get tasks completed. Although ‘Mother Hen’ may seem like a male-prejudiced metaphor, there are no chauvinistic tendencies in Bill’s discourse. Although sometimes an irritant, he is prepared to take on these more pastoral duties which have traditionally been associated with the female gender.
Bill’s discourse displays concern for not divorcing the academic content of the course from ordinary or familiar conversation. So, whilst expecting his students (and himself) to understand and use theory to explain issues, he is willing to use colloquial words to make sure he stays connected to his audience, for example, ‘little Hitler’, ‘school ma’amish’, ‘bee’s knees’ and ‘I have got my hands dirty’.