Though they recognised that the changes they had experienced were part of something bigger and more pervasive, the participants also offered insights and expressed opinions on the part played by their leaders and managers. They felt that there had been a lack of communication. This had led to them feeling distanced from what was going on, and to a lack of ownership and involvement in the changes. They were rendered as passive objects, used at will by those who held significant power within their institution.
Angela expressed a view that things could have been done differently. She claimed that:
If you don’t understand the changes are what they are for and nobody has helped you to perhaps recognise opportunities or how it might work or how this change might fit into something bigger, then it’s a big expectation that people might contribute positively to it.
149 She saw that providing information and explanations might have helped the people involved to feel more empowered and more actively involved. They would have felt both valued and trusted.
There was a belief that the next level above of leaders and managers were also being used themselves, to pass on messages from those at the most senior level and were, thus, equally dis-empowered. It may also be that, those ‘at the top’ in turn were subject to ever- higher discourses, so that it becomes increasingly difficult to determine the origins of the discourses. Nevertheless, Clandinin (2006) points out that all such discourses are human constructions and that these reside in all of us, we each have a part in constructing and sustaining these. Hence, we all have accountability at some level.
However, this accountability can be interpreted in various ways. Those at a senior level could have shared their plans and ensured that the views of all stakeholders were sought, as a mere cosmetic exercise to secure co-operation and, ultimately, compliance, apparently open communication thus being used to manipulate a response. Allowing the teacher educators’ involvement under such terms would have been dishonest, in implying that they had choices. Moreover, those involved may have come to believe that they did have some ownership when asked to offer their own views, even as they were aware of the fact that they were being manipulated by their leaders, ‘mis-recognition’ in Bourdieu’s terms, within this. In essence, this is dishonesty to and with oneself.
Providing a platform for people to speak out and to be listened to does not sit easily with the agendas integral to neoliberalism; the focus on performance and accountability leads to a particular kind of management. Creating a genuinely more democratic system within the large-scale structures of higher institutions may be difficult, but it appeared that there had been little attempt to try. Whilst many of the changes were not about transparent choices, but were rather part of the process of performativity recognised by other researchers such as Ball, there could have been a more open dialogue about what was happening so that there was no sense in which people felt ‘kept in the dark’. The power dynamic associated with this had created a climate of fear and anxiety. Instead, dilemmas
150 could have been shared and communication more open and respectful of colleagues. This would enable all those involved to figure their world and their place within it rather differently. What teacher educators do could be valued more openly. There can be few jobs with so much potential to influence a future generation of teachers and their students. At a more localised level, it may still be possible to return to the collegiate notions of practice that some participants recalled. An open recognition of the value of mutual support between colleagues and of the place that they can play in developing others, including those new to the academy, may pave the way for this. Participation in meetings could be facilitated rather than restricted by expedience and timetabling. Small changes can lead the way to bigger ones; things do not always have to be imposed from the top down but can be allowed to develop organically. Big and brave questions could be asked requiring individuals to step back and reflect, to ‘hover over’ what was happening.Holland et al (1998) assert that standing back can rupture the taken-for-granted and lead to commentary and recognition. This commentary and recognition can provide the seeds of change, in that they can create new cultural resources for meaning making (1998).
The ongoing studies that some of my participants were engaged in had enabled them to do this, but not all their colleagues were involved in such study. However, it is one thing to reflect on an issue within the confines of a discussion or a written assignment. It is entirely another to ‘put one’s head above the parapet’ and say these things to a wider audience. Hammersley- Fletcher (2015:198) had advocated that those involved in ITT continually question and re-evaluate what is happening in the world of education. Writing this thesis has been my own attempt to answer the powerful discourses operating within my context, and, in doing so, I have been able to exercise my professional agency. However, asking individuals to do this publicly may not be without risk in a culture of managerialism, where the future is uncertain. Publication of research can allow for this, but not all audiences will choose to access such research. Yet the ideas need to be shared if things are to change. The storytellers need to have a way of resourcing their personal agency in order to give them the confidence to share ideas and shape their worlds. So much depends on how those involved see, or story themselves, what identities they choose to develop within their context.
151 In some cases, the teacher educators had recognised things for what they were. Several mentioned the neoliberal agenda explicitly and the fact that they realised that what was going on was not unique to their own context but was part of something bigger. In recognising this, they were able to retain a modicum of local control as they worked on their projects of developing their identities in practice, fulfilling a professional role in which they could take pride. They talked a great deal about the prevailing discourses and of how these had attempted to position them. They addressed these and had resisted where they could, finding ways to be colleagues, teacher educators and managers in keeping with their own beliefs and history-in-person. They storied themselves as being able to draw upon a range of resources, including their own professional study and their relationships with their colleagues. Recognising this has enabled me to have a glimmer of hope, within what seemed a very dark and sad story. This notion that people will continue to struggle and to hold fast to what is important to them, however devalued they feel, gives some degree of optimism for the future.