Towards a relational understanding of teacher autonomy: The role of trust for Canadian and Finnish teachers

Abstract

We argue that teacher autonomy should be conceptualised differently from its current form, that confines teacher autonomy to the individual, or to freedom from control. Here, we investigate the role of trust concerning teachers’ perceptions of their own autonomy, embedded in differing contexts and relations. To display contextual variations, we study qualitatively a sample of Canadian and Finnish upper-secondary school mathematics teachers. Our findings reveal that trust plays a decisive role in whether teachers feel autonomous or not, and that trust plays a central role in relationships teachers have at work. Furthermore, trust is articulated differently according to the teachers’ context. Based on our findings, we argue that a reconceptualisation of teacher autonomy is needed. A relational conceptualisation of teacher autonomy, highlights its inherent relationality and contextual sensitivity, provides new insight into the teachers’ work, and supports more empowering ways for teachers to exert a proactive influence on their autonomy.

Introduction

Autonomy in teachers’ work is important for several reasons. It is identified as a basic psychological need for their profession (Deci and Ryan, 2000), and is at the origin of teachers’ feelings of professionalism and competency. In the literature, the importance of teachers’ sense of autonomy is consistently highlighted (Day, 2002; Strong and Yoshida, 2014) and deemed one of their most desired conditions (Hargreaves, 1993; Smith and Ushioda, 2009). Teachers’ positive perception of autonomy correlates with their job commitment, satisfaction, efficiency and retention (Day and Kington, 2008; Parker, 2015; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2009; Yu-hong and Ting, 2012). A positive sense of autonomy is essential for teachers’ wellbeing and development. It can additionally ensure space to adapt education for the culturally diverse and differentiated needs of modern classrooms (Prichard and Moore, 2016; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2009).

Influential studies related to teacher autonomy often provide a rather narrow and traditional understanding of the concept or treat it as a secondary focus (Salokangas and Wermke, 2016). The literature generally focuses on the factors that either enhance or erode autonomy, aiming to rapidly and efficiently fix related problems for the benefit of students. Indeed, a large part of the autonomy literature in the field of education pertains to supporting students’ autonomy (Cakir and Balcikanli, 2012; Smith and Erdoğan, 2008). The literature related to how teachers perceive their own autonomy has emerged more recently (Strong and Yoshida, 2014). Its underpinnings, however, remain rather traditional and individualistic. When the simplest expression of autonomy is defined as ‘the capacity for self-governance’ (MacDonald, 2002a: 194), and with the etymology of autonomy referring to self (auto) and law (nomy), the conception of an autonomous individual being self-ruling and making uncoerced decisions is expected. It follows that teachers’ perception of their autonomy reflects the common traditional understanding of teacher autonomy, which considers teachers to be mainly isolated from relations (Nelsen, 2010) and free from control (Cakir and Balcikanli, 2012; Shaw, 2008). The current literature rarely focuses on non-individualistic conceptualisations of autonomy, or on empowering teachers to enact changes to improve their own autonomy. Adverse effects stemming from teachers’ powerlessness with respect to their individualistic understanding of autonomy have been observed, for example, in teachers isolating themselves to their self-confessed detriment, in order to feel more autonomous and in control (Paradis et al., 2015).

This article challenges the traditional conceptualisation of individualistic autonomy. We argue that this conceptualisation should be replaced by a broader, more relational conceptualisation of autonomy since manifestations of teacher autonomy are necessarily entwined in relationships. We are interested in teachers’ sense of autonomy via the relational conceptualisation of autonomy. As opposed to an individualistic conceptualisation of autonomy where individual teachers generally seek freedom from control, relational autonomy highlights the inextricable relational nature of autonomy, which relies on the webs of social and institutional relationships and structures (MacDonald, 2002a, 2002b; Mackenzie and Stoljar, 2000). Relational autonomy has been discussed in various fields, such as philosophy, law, medicine, bioethics, and nursing (Goering, 2009; MacDonald, 2002a, 2002b; Mackenzie and Stoljar, 2000; Twomey, 2015). While its application in education is scarce and recent (Nelsen, 2010), applications of relational autonomy could advance the understanding of teacher autonomy.

The literature identifies trust as being important in discussions about autonomy (Lundström, 2015). This discussion pertains to the typically trusted status of professionals in society and, in return, the fulfilment of their duties by those professionals in an uncoerced and expert manner (Lundström, 2015). In the case of teachers, this equation is unfortunately not that simple. Trust in teachers is reported to be established upon their behavioural history or upon larger social discourses (Adams and Forsyth, 2010; Bryk and Schneider, 2002). Our study sheds light on how teachers in different social contexts perceive trust and its maintenance based on their own social discourses. The literature often reports on the most contentious trust relationships in schools, which are those between different hierarchical positions – here, between teachers and principals (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Louis, 2007). While this relationship is certainly an important one, other relationships involving trust are as important. Our study addresses trust perceived by teachers in relation with their autonomy and other school actors, and how these trusting relationships are articulated in different contexts.

The literature additionally highlights that teacher autonomy can differ from one school context to another (Salokangas and Wermke, 2016) and focuses on addressing the different kinds of control that teachers experience in different locations. This literature, however, tends to overlook cultural components that may impact teachers’ perceptions of autonomy. Arguably, teacher autonomy is rooted, better illustrated, and understood within specific contexts, such as cultural and subject-related contexts. For example, in a study based on a sample of Canadian and Finnish upper-secondary school mathematics teachers (Paradis et al., 2018), similarities and differences were highlighted between participants. The similarities included the ability of teachers from both contexts to describe their areas of greatest autonomy inside their classrooms. Additionally, they felt that the mathematics curriculum is overtly charged and that the high-stakes examinations directed their teaching. Still, some differences were found in how these teachers perceived their autonomy. Due in part to cultural elements, the Finnish participants had a highly positive overall sense of their autonomy, perceiving it to be almost impossible to undermine despite various pressures. They reported themselves to be free from oversight, which was not the case for their Canadian counterparts. The Canadian participants saw their autonomy decreasing over the years with the increase of external control and monitoring of their work.

Since we consider autonomy to be relational and trust to be important for positive relationships (Louis, 2007), we want to determine what role trust, mainly trust imparted to teachers, plays in teachers’ perception of their own autonomy, embedded in differing contexts and relations. In doing so, we chose to contrast Finnish and Canadian teachers as there are obvious commonalities between the two nations with regards to education, allowing for a fair juxtaposition. Both Finnish and Canadian societies have displayed a will to maintain public services and strong public education (Beese and Liang, 2010). This is one aspect of which both nations contrast with, for example, the UK and US, where accountability incentives are more market- and competition-based (Williams and Engel, 2012). Both Canada and Finland have had significant successes in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), especially in mathematics assessments, which is noteworthy in our study as our participants are mathematics teachers. Teachers in both countries are required to obtain the equivalent of a Master’s degree, providing them with a specific knowledge base to best foster learning (Beese and Liang, 2010). Most teachers in both contexts belong to professional associations that provide standards of practices and a code of ethics (Fédération des Syndicats de l’Enseignement, 2013; Opetusalan Ammattijärjestö, 2019). On the other hand, there are also some significant differences regarding teachers’ work in the respective contexts (e.g., status and position of teachers in the society, controls on teachers, etc.) which further prompted our decision to explore teachers’ perceptions of their autonomy, and see whether these were also similar or different, and if so why.

Our qualitative study explores and compares selected Canadian and Finnish upper-secondary school (students 14–18 years old) mathematics teachers, and it aims to draw conclusions based on the contrast of our Canadian and Finnish participants’ cases. While acknowledging the well-researched individualistic conceptualisation of autonomy, we focus on the important relationality of teacher autonomy, aiming to empower teachers in order to enhance their professional status, self-efficacy, impact and decision-making (Lee and Nie, 2014). We also wish to support teachers’ agency with respect to their own autonomy, rather than simply being reactive to controls on their autonomy, which is more likely for teachers who have a traditional understanding of autonomy (Vangrieken et al., 2017). The research questions guiding this study are as follows: What is the role of trust for upper-secondary school mathematics teachers’ perception of their autonomy? How is trust in teachers articulated in different teaching contexts, in this case by Canadian and Finnish teachers? Based on the review of literature and key concepts present in the research questions, we will now present the conceptual framework that oriented our understanding, analysis and discussion of our data.

Conceptual framework

Traditional conceptualisation of teacher autonomy

Autonomy has a long history lodged mainly in individualistic values of freedom, which are especially esteemed in Western contexts (Smith and Ushioda, 2009; Stoljar, 2013). Autonomy used to be associated with uncertainty and fear, but it has become a desired individual asset (Clement and Vandenberghe, 2000). An autonomous agent has been traditionally characterised as one who ‘reside[s] in an impenetrable inner citadel, a place immune from external influences’ (Nelsen, 2010: 334) and has been generally defined as an individual making choices without undue interference from external parties (MacDonald, 2002a, 2002b; Mackenzie and Stoljar, 2000; Stoljar, 2013). Although the concept of teacher autonomy is more recent (Juntunen, 2015), it is still depicted in rather traditional and individualistic terms (Hargreaves, 1993; Vangrieken et al., 2017). Teacher autonomy has been defined as teachers making decisions regarding their own teaching (Shaw, 2008) and as the independence teachers feel in their institutions, allowing them to make decisions inside their classrooms (Cakir and Balcikanli, 2012).

Other studies view teacher autonomy in slightly more encompassing terms but remain focused on freedom from control. For instance, some studies also include teachers’ work environment (Pearson and Hall, 1993; Pearson and Moomaw, 2005), but in terms of a teacher’s capacity to control them. McGrath (2000) described teacher autonomy as freedom from control and included a self-directed component. Even in more recent definitions and conceptualisation, Strong and Yoshida (2014) kept the element of freedom from demands and latitude to do work but superposed areas of operation (inside and outside the classroom). While different elements have been layered onto the teacher autonomy definition and conceptualisation, the focus largely remains on freedom from control, mainly inside the classroom. Those conceptualisations regard teachers as isolated working entities and do not properly account for all the interdependencies of social and institutional relationships that are inherent to teachers’ work.

Relational conceptualisation of teacher autonomy

We argue that teacher autonomy has a wider scope and should be developed as an alternative to the well-researched individualistic traditional conceptualisation of autonomy. We therefore use the conceptualisation of relational autonomy, which involves the aspect of relationality in the teachers’ work, seldom used in the field of education until now. The application of relational autonomy has been discussed in relation to power structures and oppression (Mackenzie and Stoljar, 2000). We, however, make no such assumption of teachers being an oppressed group. Instead, our study expands on the conceptualisation of MacDonald’s (2002a, 2002b) autonomy of professionals, noting that relational autonomy requires supportive conditions that allow genuine opportunities for a capable agent to act in a professionally autonomous manner (see also Mackenzie and Stoljar, 2000).

The supportive conditions required for relational autonomy are divided into supportive social and institutional relationships (MacDonald, 2002a, 2002b; Mackenzie and Stoljar, 2000). Institutional characteristics are related to legislated powers for teachers, such as licenses and credentials, standards of practice and ethics, and a specific knowledge base (Evetts, 2014; Ingersoll and Perda, 2008). Related to this, supportive institutional relationships can mean support for teachers provided by their unions and credentials. Supportive institutional relationships can also mean general confidence in teachers’ qualifications and competencies, and positive perceptions of teacher status, professionalism and expertise. Supportive social relationships exist in positive interpersonal relationships among school actors, built upon mutual trust, respect, support and confidence. For instance, a teacher is likely to be relationally autonomous if he/she has positive social relationships based on respect and support from parents and principals, and positive institutional relationships based on general trust in teachers’ expertise, qualifications and competencies as well as positive perceptions of teachers’ status and professionalism.

According to MacDonald (2002a, 2002b), the two conditions – supportive social and institutional relationships – must be in place to provide genuine opportunities for teachers to make autonomous choices. A genuine opportunity, as explained by Robertson (cited in Barfield et al., 2002), is better supported without fear of punishment or unknown, or without a clear mandate to fulfil. In this respect, in a study about Canadian and Finnish teachers’ autonomy (Paradis et al., 2018), all of the teachers have reported on limited opportunities for genuine autonomous action, mainly due to high-stakes examinations. Nevertheless, depending on their perception of the supportive conditions, teachers may arguably differ in their perception of the provision of genuine opportunities for autonomous actions in their work.

Trust and teacher autonomy

In this study, the meaning of trust echoes that of Louis (2007: 2) where ‘trust is defined as confidence in or reliance on the integrity, veracity, justice, friendship, or other sound principle, of another person or group’. As such, the trust considered in this article is mainly encompassed by the confidence and reliance on the integrity and competencies of teachers, as individuals or as a profession, by others (such as parents, principals, students, society and even other teachers). Thereby, trust is inherently relational; the nature of its formation and sustenance is through relationships (Adams and Forsyth, 2010). The importance of trust has been studied in educational settings (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Day, 2002; Edwards-Groves et al., 2016; Farini, 2012; Kochanek, 2005; Louis, 2007). Trust involves interdependencies between the understanding of each party’s own obligations and expectations of the obligations of the other party (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Farini, 2012; Louis, 2007). Traditionally, among schools, trust was built upon specific shared expectations. Principals were expected to support and protect teachers and their work from the interference of external parties that were not deemed qualified to make educational decisions. Teachers, on the other hand, were expected to provide professional expertise and high-quality teaching to the students (Day, 2002; Farini, 2012; Louis, 2007). In such an arrangement, if both parties systematically and consciously uphold their obligations, showing support and diligence in doing so, trust can be created or enhanced between parties (Bryk and Schneider, 2002). Such trust is generally best developed over time and with repetition (Adams and Forsyth, 2010; Edwards-Groves et al., 2016).

Trusting relationships can become fragile when their underpinnings shift (Farini, 2012), for instance, with current mandates for high-stakes examinations. The deterioration of trust on either relational or organisational levels can lead principals to want to control teachers (Louis, 2007). Trust can also turn into distrust, and this is reported to have profound, harmful outcomes for all actors. As Codd (2005: 204) mentions, ‘trust breeds more trust and conversely distrust breeds more distrust, producing virtuous or vicious circles’; in the case of teachers, this may lead them to lose their feeling of commitment towards teaching and the principal, their motivation and, eventually, their autonomy (Farini, 2012; Lundström, 2015). It is, however, important to be mindful that individual factors, such as ‘unique personal experiences, expectations, emotions, and personal attributes’ (Adams and Forsyth, 2010: 131), can influence one’s inclination to trust.

Different mechanisms can be used to instil trust. One could rely, for instance, on preconceived ideas or reputation to trust a new teacher despite lacking a prior relationship (Bryk and Schneider, 2002). One can also rely on institutional trust that is based on the expectations that an institution will uphold its obligation (Louis, 2007). For example, parents can have immediate institutional trust in schools, expecting that the school will fulfil its obligation to educate and protect their children. This type of trust can enhance trusting relationships between parents and teachers, which is also deemed important and consequential (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2009). Similarly, trust in teachers can be based upon their professional status (Day, 2002); these professionals are expected to provide their expertise to achieve the best teaching outcomes. Trust is, therefore, intertwined with professional judgement and autonomy (Lundström, 2015).

As such, trust and teacher autonomy are tightly interwoven concepts. When the status and work of teachers is respected and trusted, in other words, when school actors have confidence in the professional work of teachers, teachers should feel supported and not controlled by others (Lundström, 2015). Supported to work freely, teachers who feel entrusted, arguably, should also perceive autonomy in their work.

Background of the study

To illustrate and contextualise autonomy and trust in both nations, we will here discuss further systemic similarities, but mainly differences between the two contexts represented and compared in this study. In addition to comparable PISA results, to Canadian and Finnish teachers holding Master’s degrees to teach and to the prevalence of public education in both systems, more similarities can be noted. Teachers and their teaching are not submitted to inspections in either nation. The salaries of teachers in Canada and Finland are comparable, but, in proportion to the gross domestic product of each nation, with Canadian teachers enjoying a slightly higher pay share (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012). Investment in education by both nations is also comparable, with about 6% of government spending in education, as per reported in 2008 (Couture and Murgatroyd, 2012). While those similarities allowed for a fair contrast between the two contexts, the systemic differences between them are more evident in the relationships between people among the education systems of both countries. It is among those systemic differences that this study’s focus becomes most meaningful.

Over the last three decades in the Canadian province of Quebec (education in Canada is managed on the provincial and territorial level (Watt-Malcolm and Barabasch, 2010)), the reduced teaching time coupled with incoherence in the system caused by overlapping reforms has induced an increase in accountability (Tardif, 2013). Scholars, the media and, consequently, parents have felt increasingly entitled to contest the pedagogy used by teachers, which perpetuates uncertainty towards teachers’ expertise. In this suspicious climate, there is an urgency to control teachers (Tardif, 2013). Therefore, teachers’ professional status has suffered as the interference from external (and unqualified) parties has undermined the prestige and confidence that once were imparted to the teaching profession.

In comparison, the respect, importance and trust in Finnish teachers and education over the last century are well documented (Niemi, 2012; Tirri, 2014). There is a common understanding among Finns that Finnish teachers are autonomous, especially since the decentralisation movement of the 1980s (Niemi, 2012; Tirri, 2014). Power, responsibility and discretion were then delegated to the local actors in education. Teachers’ unions were actively involved in curriculum reforms (Niemi, 2012). A common administration style adopted by Finnish principles is distributed leadership (Paulsen et al., 2016) which encourages teachers to make their own decisions inside and outside their classroom. Therefore, the limitations posed on teacher autonomy are rather scant comparing Finland to other nations (Tirri, 2014). With this level of trust and confidence imparted to teachers, their expertise is well established, and their autonomy is not commonly contested (Juntunen, 2015). In fact, the particular prestige associated with the teaching profession consistently draws some of the highest-achieving students (Tirri, 2014). Finnish teachers are well-considered by most members of their society, which is not the case for Canadian teachers.

Methods

Research participants and data collection

The data collection for this study involved interviews with 12 Finnish teachers from six different schools, and 11 Canadian teachers (from the province of Quebec) from eight different schools. Teachers were invited to participate in the study as part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation, via email or in person. The selection strategies used to recruit those participants were snowball selection (Mishler, 1986; Patton, 1990) and criterion selection (Patton, 1990). The latter relies on the criterion by which all the information-rich cases are chosen. Here, all the participants had to be upper-secondary school mathematics teachers to students in the last three years of their secondary education, and teaching for at least eight years, as this would enable them to elaborate on changes in their autonomy over time. Canadian teachers were interviewed in their French mother tongue while Finnish teachers were interviewed in English. The one-on-one interviews lasted between 40 and 180 minutes, and all their audio were recorded. The narrative interviews about autonomy were generally more open than semi-structured, at least in the beginning of the interviews. We wanted to prompt narratives that encompass the teachers’ perceptions and experiences that are most significant to them (Polkinghorne, 1995). In the beginning of their interview, teachers were asked to tell how and why they became mathematics teachers and to recount landmark events of their teaching careers. Afterwards, a varied number of open questions were asked in relation to the teachers’ narratives, to their autonomy and relationships in their context. For example, teachers were asked to describe times they felt control over their work, and asked about their assessment of different relationships at work. The questions were formulated in an open way (see e.g., Mishler, 1986); for example, teachers were asked to tell about the relationships they have with their principals.

In line with our inductive approach, when the data was collected, teachers were not specifically asked about autonomy and trust. Rather, and due to wanting to obtain their own subjective views on the matter, open questions were posed through which teachers could tell about their work openly and under their own terms. During the interviews, when teachers indeed spoke about autonomy, the interviewer took those opportunities to steer the discussion in that direction, in order to obtain more in-depth data. Trust emerged as a reoccurring theme in all the interviews, tightly bound to teachers’ autonomy.

For the purposes of this article, in the findings, we will present the data excerpts from four Finnish teachers (Matias, Pirkko, Saara and Tuomas) and four Canadian teachers (Dominic, Ian, Juliette and Simone). The excerpts of these eight participants were selected because their accounts were the most explicit and comprehensive, and because the content of their interviews was deemed most representative of the dataset. These cases were considered rich example accounts of how teachers perceive their autonomy and were selected for their specificity, through the critical case and the intensity selection methods (Patton, 1990). Additionally, with the inclusion of these particular participants, we provide a gender-balanced account of teacher autonomy in each context.

Data analysis

The narrative data collected in this research was analysed with a categorical-content approach (Lieblich et al., 1998). Our analysis yielded descriptions of themes based on paradigmatic reasoning, also known as analysis of narratives (Polkinghorne, 1995).

The interview data of all 23 participants was transcribed verbatim. The data in French was translated to English by the first author (who also conducted the interviews), which made it easier to ensure that the meaning expressed by Canadian teachers was captured as accurately as possible. All of the transcribed text was imported into the NVivo software in order to code the data and identify themes and categories. While the research questions and interview topic provided to some extent certain codes, the coding was inductive. As such, all the data was read several times and sections of text were labelled systematically and themes emerged. For instance, sections of interviews such as ‘Teachers are told more and more what to do’ were labelled as Constraints on autonomy, sections such as ‘Our headmaster trusts all the teachers’ were labelled as Perceived trust from principal. Those labelled sections naturally accrued and were grouped into broader themes, such as Autonomy or Relationships with principals (Lieblich et al., 1998; Lutovac and Kaasila, 2014). Even though all interviews focused on autonomy, topics such as relationships and trust emerged from our inductive analysis. For the purposes of this article, we looked more closely into the content of categories (formed by grouping different themes) that were directly related to the intersection of autonomy, relations and trust. We deemed this intersection of categories useful to address our research questions pertaining to the role and articulation of trust in relation to teachers’ perception of their autonomy, since trust and autonomy are strongly related to relationships. Data excerpts discussing autonomy, relations and trust in one instance were extracted and pooled together. Reading and organising those excerpts, sub-categories emerged inductively. Those sub-categories are: Trust in relationships with colleagues; Trust in relationships with principals; Trust in relationships with parents; and Trust and relationships in wider educational and cultural contexts. The content of these sub-categories was carefully examined. This process yielded the extraction of particularly illustrative data excerpts from all participants, and their interpretation.

It is at that point that eight teachers were selected for this article, and their excerpts will be presented in the next section. While only eight teachers were chosen to illustrate the entanglement of trust and autonomy in relationships and contexts, the general conclusions drawn from those excerpts could also have been drawn from the ensemble of the participants.

Findings

In this section, we examine and compare the role of trust in Finnish and Canadian teachers’ perceptions of autonomy. Trust is addressed here as occurring in relationships with colleagues, principals, parents and others. We illustrate each sub-category with Finnish and Canadian data excerpts, and examine the variations in how trust is articulated between these two groups of teachers, as well as the variations within the groups.

Teacher autonomy is bolstered by trust in relationships with colleagues

Finnish teachers discuss how trusting relationships with colleagues induce a sense of independence:

In our school with my colleagues, we have trust in each other, no problem . . . I feel like if I’m free to do my work independently as I wish. I feel also that [colleagues] trust in me, and they give me self-confidence. (Tuomas)

We have great colleagues here, and I get lots of help from them. Colleagues would never come to me and say that you should do this or that. (Matias)

We have really good collaboration with all the math teachers . . . I think I have never heard about teachers who are not responsible. (Pirkko)

We cooperate a lot with other math teachers. So, we have quite good spirit among our teachers . . . And I think that it’s because of the cooperation we have all the time that kind of puts us on the same level. (Saara)

From the above excerpts, we see that the Finnish teachers – Tuomas, Matias, Pirkko and Saara – have mutual respect and trust with their colleagues based on supportive and cooperative work. Tuomas specifically mentions trust among colleagues, and he emphasises the independence he perceives from that trust. Matias, Pirkko and Saara emphasise the cooperation or collaboration in their work with colleagues and their lack of judgement of each other’s work. In that sense, the simple presence of trust between colleagues seems to prevent interference in one another’s work, promoting independence and, therefore, a sense of autonomy. Canadian teachers report about different experiences:

Teachers are suspicious of one another. (Simone)

The teachers are judging themselves [each other] a lot. (Ian)

I think there are some teachers that should not be teaching. It’s a big debate. These teachers should have been assessed better back when they were doing their teacher training. (Juliette)

I know that some teachers have a tendency to be less competent, and the school board is usually more on their case. . . . I think teachers should be assessed. (Dominic)

Unlike their Finnish counterparts, the Canadian teachers – Simone, Ian, Juliette and Dominic – highlight judgement and distrust in their relationships with colleagues. Simone and Ian refer to distrust while Juliette and Dominic exemplify the distrust some teachers have towards their colleagues’ competencies, expressing doubts about the qualifications of their fellow teachers and the thoroughness of their training. The reported distrust makes teachers such as Simone and Dominic want to intervene by assessing others and, thereby, can reduce the teachers’ sense of independence. As reported in both contexts, the nature of relationships with colleagues can have incidence on teachers’ perception of autonomy. Here, Finnish and Canadian cases represent respectively positive relationships with colleagues enhancing a sense of independence, and negative relationships with colleagues impeding a sense of independence.

Teacher autonomy is bolstered by trust in relationships with principals

An important variation can also be observed between contexts with regards to how trust is articulated in relationships with principals. To refer to their direct superior, teachers in the following quotes interchangeably use the terms: principal; head (of school); headmaster; superiors; admin; administration; and board:

The headmaster, he also trusts us . . . He understands that his duty is to serve us, and to serve the school. So, he gives us really broad freedom. And actually, I have never had a principal who has shown any need to control my doings. (Tuomas)

The head really supports us and trusts us – that we do the work that needs to be done and that the teacher knows what to do. They know teachers are doing their best, and they have well-trained teachers. . . . I can go to the headmaster with any kind of problems, and he will definitely support us. (Matias)

In the Finnish examples above, principals appear to uphold the obligations and expectations of their roles, reinforcing trusting relationships with teachers. As clearly stated by both Tuomas and Matias, the principals’ trust in teachers’ expertise, qualifications and competencies positively marks their relationships with teachers, as the relationships explicitly involve respect, support and confidence. This trust contributes to those Finnish teachers’ sense of autonomy in their work. Canadian teachers report differently about their relationships with principals:

Principals need to trust and support us. They turn into managers and consider money before all things . . . They don’t ask enough for teachers’ input. Sometimes they will pay better attention to some research that will suit their financial focus . . . There has been a diminishing in the autonomy . . . But the school admin is supposed to trust me and that I will get the students to succeed. (Ian)

My superiors think that some teachers can’t be autonomous and can’t be trusted to do certain things. (Juliette)

I felt that we were less and less professionally treated [by the administration] . . . They have to trust us! . . . [The administration is] not capable of arguing with the parents anymore. It’s always the teacher’s fault . . . When problems or issues happen, there’s more trust in the students than in the teachers sometimes. (Simone)

Ian, Juliette and Simone mentioned that the principals often do not support them, which seems to be a traditional expectation held by teachers that is now being disregarded by principals. Juliette perceives distrust from her principal while Simone and Ian, in particular, noted low mutual trust between themselves and the principals; those relationships explicitly involved low respect, low support and low confidence. Manifestations of distrust from principals are conveyed by Simone, who mentions that teachers do not feel treated as professionals and are often asked to justify themselves. Ian and Simone perceive themselves as not being prioritised, which in turn impairs their sense of autonomy. The low level of trust from principals impairs those relationships and these teachers’ sense of autonomy. Hence, the nature of relationships with principals can have an influence on teachers’ perception of autonomy. Here, Finnish and Canadian cases represent respectively supportive and trusting relationships with principals enhancing their sense of autonomy, and non-supportive and distrusting relationships with principals eroding their sense of autonomy.

Trust in relationships with parents can bolster teacher autonomy

While a variation in the perceptions of relationships with parents is reported among our participants, this variation is less marked than in relationships with colleagues or principals, where the variation between contexts (trust in Finland and distrust in Canada) was stark. The variation between contexts here is more nuanced; distrust in Canada is still manifested, but trust is less clearly manifested with parents in Finland:

[Parents] also trust that the teacher knows what to do. It’s weird that we are so trusted, but I don’t know, it works. (Matias)

The parents, they don’t make contact. Do they really trust on us, or . . . do they think, ‘Those teachers, they do their best, and nobody can do it better’? (Tuomas)

We are not very often in contact with parents. (Pirkko)

Parents also trust that the teacher knows what to do. We try our best to teach everything needed. (Saara)

Since the Finnish parents are not really in contact with the teachers, it seems difficult, at least for Tuomas, to assess whether teachers are indeed trusted or the parents simply do not dare or care to intervene. Matias explains that he is not sure where all this trust comes from and why teachers are ‘so trusted’ by parents. Tuomas, Pirkko and Saara do not explicitly feel distrusted by parents. The parental lack of intervention could be due to Finnish teachers’ rather prestigious status and perceived responsible work as reported by Matias, Saara and, to some extent, Tuomas. Unlike the Finnish teachers, our Canadian participants perceived manifestations of distrust from parents:

The parents don’t understand lower grades in advanced math. They think the teacher is incompetent. They all want you to explain yourself . . . I feel like parents are sneaking in a lot and take away a lot of autonomy from teachers. We always have to justify everything we do. (Juliette)

I also have to give more and more feedback to the parents. (Dominic)

The parents asked, ‘Can you calculate the grades again? Can you change that, can you make easier exams?’ (Simone)

Juliette and Simone explain that parents contest teachers’ grading or examinations. Juliette and Dominic report that they must increasingly provide justifications to parents; this can be considered a manifestation of distrust from parents through increased accountability. While Dominic and Simone report on having to respond or report to parents, Juliette explicitly mentions that parents think teachers are incompetent, thereby explaining their urge to control teachers and ask them to report, diminishing their sense of autonomy. Contrasting both contexts, Finnish and Canadian cases represent respectively non-intervention of parents versus negative relationships with parents where acute accountability and distrust erodes teachers’ sense of autonomy.

Trust and relationships in wider educational and cultural contexts

Aside from relationships with colleagues, principals or parents, teachers also reported on the autonomy they perceive and trust they feel in relationships in the wider educational and cultural contexts in which they work:

I can do whatever I want in my class . . . So basically, I think that I’m trusted that I do what I have to do and can do it in my own way. (Saara)

One of the attractive points of teaching is definitely the autonomy. . . . Nobody is telling me how to teach. (Tuomas)

I like the way I work in the classroom because nobody’s watching . . . There is freedom. (Matias)

I’m trusted that I do what kind of things we have to teach in a certain course. So that is autonomous . . . I think that I have more freedom because I trust myself that I know so much. . . . Nobody has ever questioned my professionality. Nobody asks me to report; in Finland, I think teachers are very independent . . . I couldn’t even imagine what it would be like if I was not trusted. [I would ask] ‘How come I’m not trusted any longer when I have done [teaching] in a proper way for years now?’ So, it would affect my self-confidence if I was not trusted. I think that it would have a bad influence on the students as well if the teacher was not trusted, and maybe the students would stop trusting the teacher. (Pirkko)

Saara, Tuomas, Matias and Pirkko explained that they are normally trusted to teach in their classroom without being monitored, and consequently, they generally perceive that they have a lot of freedom and autonomy. Trust is key and omnipresent in their work; it is synonymous with autonomy. This is especially clear when Pirkko uses ‘autonomy’ and ‘trust’ almost interchangeably. Relationships in general are rather positive for these teachers as the wider culture trusts their expertise, qualifications and competencies (Niemi, 2012; Tirri, 2014). The teachers’ professional status seems high; Saara, Tuomas, Matias and Pirkko mention they are allowed to work independently. Saara and Pirkko explicitly report being trusted, and Pirkko infers that this feeling is common for teachers in Finland, especially when she discusses the various negative impacts on her work would she not feel trusted. Conversely, Canadian participants perceive their relationships as being generally distrustful:

We study in university for four years, and we still aren’t treated professionally . . . More respect for the teacher is needed. If we change the image we have of teachers and the teaching profession, it would give back some prestige to the profession. (Juliette)

We’re not technicians, we’re not doing the same thing and repeating it all the time in the same way . . . Now we are decreasingly autonomous on that side. . . . We are increasingly asked to report and be accountable . . . [Teachers should be assessed] so we can give this great profession all the prestige it should have. (Dominic)

We don’t always use the expertise of the teachers, and we take away part of their autonomy by not doing that. . . . Teachers are told more and more what to do and how to do it, like technicians. (Simone)

We want to have passionate teachers, but do you really want no one anymore going into education because it’s increasingly sucking so bad [due to decreased autonomy]? We will end up with people that have no other options. (Ian)

Juliette (and Simone in relationships with principals) do not feel treated like professionals; Dominic and Simone feel treated like technicians with little autonomy. A major concern for Dominic, Simone and Ian is that their professional status has depreciated over the years. This could be due to the distrust present in many relationships, accentuating the accountability on their work and causing their professional autonomy to diminish. Juliette and Dominic explicitly highlight the overall depreciated value of teachers and teaching as a concern for the prestige of that profession. Ian expresses concern that this devalued status will decrease the quality of newly recruited teachers. This would lead to more distrust and further increase the need to monitor teachers, thereby further reducing their autonomy. The trust in Canadian teachers stemming from the general culture appears to be rather low, as is their professional status. In both Canadian and Finnish cases, the nature of relationships in wider educational and cultural contexts has an influence on their perception of autonomy at work. Here, Finnish and Canadian cases represent respectively positive and supportive societal relationships enhancing teachers’ sense of autonomy, and distrusting societal relationships hindering teachers’ sense of autonomy.

Discussion

Answering our first research question, our findings reveal that trust in relationships with others plays a decisive role in whether teachers perceive themselves to be autonomous or not. All our participants made allusions or explicit remarks that point to the link between the concepts of trust and autonomy. For instance, some teachers reported that they are entrusted to teach what needs to be taught in their own way, displaying a direct connection between trust and autonomy. Others reported that some teachers are seen as incompetent, are not trusted and, thereby, are asked to report which impairs their sense of autonomy. Whether teachers’ relationships at work profit from the presence of trust or not, teachers either feel free to work in an independent way or feel controlled and accountable, thereby directly influencing their perception of autonomy. The concept of teacher autonomy is, therefore, highly dependent on relationships, which makes the concept of teacher autonomy inherently relational.

Our findings also reveal that trust plays a central role in the relationships that teachers have at work and is fundamental in the assessment of these relationships. The teachers’ relationships with colleagues, with principals and with parents were articulated in terms of trust, and the variations between each of these relationships were highlighted. For instance, the teachers in our study who described these relationships as being generally positive were also more likely to feel that they were trusted. This was manifested via examples of cooperation with their colleagues, support from their principals based on their professional qualifications and a lack of parental interference in their work. The meaning of trust for teachers’ relationships stretched beyond the local school context into the wider educational and cultural context. For instance, when teachers highlighted negative relationships and the feeling of their qualifications and professional competencies being questioned, the status or prestige of their profession contributed to this feeling of lack of trust. In this sense, teachers also based the assessment of their relationships at work on the trust they perceived their profession as having on a more general level. The nature of relationships with others generally has an influence on Canadian and Finnish teachers’ perception of their autonomy.

Answering our second research question, our findings reveal that trust is articulated differently according to the teachers’ context, in a similar way to teacher autonomy (Paradis et al., 2018). Teachers in different contexts operate under different historical and cultural conditions and discourses (Niemi, 2012; Paradis et al., 2018; Tardif, 2013; Tirri, 2014), and the ramifications of this can be observed in our data. For example, our Canadian participants noted the lack of trust or actual distrust in relations with parents, principals and even among teachers who have similar schooling and competencies. Teachers allude to a general technician treatment; being monitored rather than being treated as trusted professionals (Day, 2002; Farini, 2012; Lundström, 2015). How principals and the general public see teachers’ competency is the key area in which Canadian teachers experience distrust, leading to an undermined sense of autonomy. Feeling distrusted, teachers express distrust in turn towards principals and colleagues. This low level of mutual trust articulated by the Canadian teachers indicates that they seem to be stuck in cycles of distrust (Codd, 2005; Tardif, 2013), losing to some degree their commitment towards their own obligations towards their principals (Farini, 2012; Lundström, 2015). In this sense, arguably, Canadian teachers articulated trust more critically in comparison to their Finnish counterparts. Our Finnish participants mainly described their relationships as involving high levels of trust; at times, some teachers were puzzled as to where all of this trust originated. We can question the extent of their awareness about what trust entails. Do they believe they are trusted because of a well-known rhetoric of trust in Finnish teachers (Niemi, 2012; Tirri, 2014) – because of a default quality that accompanies a teacher status in Finland? It could also be that trust is related to teacher autonomy, which is part of the cultural story of Finnish teachers (Paradis et al., 2018). Indeed, Finnish participants tended to articulate trust as a synonym for autonomy.

We acknowledge the limitation of our study in terms of its small scale and are aware that the different locations, along with individual teachers’ characteristics, have an impact on their perceptions. For many reasons, we are not suggesting that our findings should be generalised to all Finnish and Canadian teachers, especially since their views of autonomy are so polarised, which is not necessarily the case in other aspects of their work. These teachers in the two contexts were merely used as examples to compare and illustrate how autonomy is perceived differently in various contexts and cultures, and that those variations may have larger, international implications. We argue that meanings of teacher autonomy in context should be explored more. In addition, it appeared beneficial to give voice to teachers to discuss autonomy freely, without the guidance by theoretical constructs or very specific questions. In this sense, our study showcased how to obtain data that more closely reflects what autonomy really means from the teachers’ perspective, as their perspectives differed from the ones featured in the literature.

One of the central elements traditionally upholding teacher autonomy in the individual realm is freedom from control (Cakir and Balcikanli, 2012; Shaw, 2008); however, our findings indicate that this understanding of teacher autonomy is insufficient. This is especially evident in the case of our Finnish participants, who do not discuss their autonomy in terms of control but, rather, in terms of trust. Moreover, a traditional understanding of autonomy is vague and binary – teachers either feel free from control or not. For instance, if teachers feel free from control, they could automatically associate this freedom with autonomy. This is concerning because, while freedom from control can mean autonomy in some cases, it could also mean a lack of care or knowledge about what teachers do in their classrooms. In such cases, teachers can perceive illusionary autonomy in the lack of control and, thereby, be discouraged from striving to improve perhaps deficient levels of actual autonomy. On the other hand, if teachers with the same understanding of autonomy feel controlled, they could associate it with a lack of autonomy. In such cases, teachers could possibly react by isolating themselves in their classrooms to avoid control and feel autonomous (Clement and Vandenberghe, 2000; Paradis et al., 2015). The previous examples illustrate how the conceptualisation of teacher autonomy should not heavily rely on the simple presence or absence of control of their work as this provides a narrow perspective and few opportunities for teachers to enact changes to their own autonomy.

Our findings point to the need to reconceptualise teacher autonomy to include inherent relationality, trust and contextual sensitivity. First, teacher autonomy is inextricably relational, and it needs to be understood as, constructed in and determined by these relations. Second, teacher autonomy could be conceptualised in terms of trust, as it appears to be a decisive factor in whether a teacher feels autonomous or not. As seen in our findings, the accounts of autonomy cannot be separated from the accounts of trust. Third, the traditional conceptualisation of teacher autonomy in the current literature does not sufficiently highlight the importance of the context. This conceptualisation overlooks that teacher autonomy can mean different things to teachers depending on the school in question as well as the wider cultural contexts in which they operate. In order to reconceptualise teacher autonomy, the amended conceptualisation of relational autonomy (MacDonald, 2002a) is useful as it contains elements such as relationships between teachers, school actors and the general public. We highlight here that, with a larger emphasis on trust and context, this relational conceptualisation would provide a more comprehensive understanding of teacher autonomy.

Our study contributes to the literature about teacher autonomy in our argumentation that we need to shift the understanding of teacher autonomy to a more contextually and socially bound direction. A relational conceptualisation of autonomy based on relationships, trust and context may support teachers’ practice by helping them to better understand their own position as well as that of others. This more comprehensive understanding of autonomy may empower teachers by providing them with more avenues to exert active influence on their own autonomy rather than just reacting to external inputs on it. This study has implications for school actors as a relational understanding of autonomy may help teachers, principals, board members and even students to gain a deeper understanding of conflicts in autonomy and find new ways towards solutions. Finally, Hargreaves (1994) argues that because teachers’ collegiality has been increasingly aspirational, preferred over individualism which is deemed the opposite, educational policy-makers have in high priority to eradicate teachers’ individualism. As such, our study directly provides an interesting avenue to tackle that priority.