Abstract
The aim of this study is to get an insight into how members of a research project group describe and interpret the dynamic relations in the group in running a research project investigating improvisation in teacher education. The empirical data consists of field notes from the research group meetings and project events in the initial phase of the project, and from retrospective interviews with the research project group a year later. The data was analysed in an abductive process in light of the concept of power and the concept of the group as an interpretative zone. The findings indicate that there is ‘a touch of power’ when reflecting on followership and leadership, conflicts and professional disagreement, and unity and multiple perspectives.
Introduction
Vignette
To get funding for a research project seems for many outsiders like winning the lottery, but when getting the money, it seems like the participants go ‘undercover’, coming to the surface again after some years when the money has run out, the research project’s results are shortly to be presented and the scientific grades are hopefully achieved. It seems that this ‘life’ while participating in a research project is a little mysterious, shows only the glimmering side of the coin. (Field notes, inspired by an unknown source)
Every member of the RPG being examined in this study works in teacher education, bringing with us our university college’s 175-year history. This implies a deep respect and curiosity for the aims of the IMTE project. Thus, using ‘the inner perspective’ to describe and interpret power relations and processes in a research group is a complex undertaking (Espeland, 1999). My research questions are as follows: (1) ‘How do members of the RPG describe and interpret power agents and events?’ and (2) ‘To what extent is there room for multiple perspectives in the initial review phase of the IMTE project?’ In order to answer these questions, I use the lens of Foucault’s concept of ‘power’, being aware that my study is giving just ‘a touch of power’. The concept of power is not a stable entity which can be operationalised in a strict way, and thus it can be a challenge to explore power processes in an empirical study.
Theoretical perspectives
Foucault’s aim was to investigate people’s relations when developing what they perceive to be ‘truth’. Power relations are overarching; we are integrated into them. Power relations are not only relationships in everyday communication, but are also ‘a way in which some act on others’ (Foucault et al., 2003: 137). Power is inscribed in actions; it is not something we give our consent to. These actions are, however, not apparent and direct. Foucault compares having power with the concept of government (Foucault et al., 2003: 138) and with the action of conducting others. Foucault adds that wherever and whenever there is power, there is resistance. Thus, a participant has the opportunity to choose his or her own path of resistance, including making alliances with other actors (Foucault and Gordon, 1980). Power must be analysed ‘as something that circulates’ – the individual is ‘an effect of power’ (Foucault and Gordon, 1980: 98). Who is ‘in charge’ in different discourses is a matter of power. Power is not limited to individuals, but is also tied to practices (Rønbeck, 2012a). Foucault’s main aim was to be ‘on the border’ – always in dialogue with what might be seen from a different perspective (Steinsholt, 1994: 702). Foucault reminds us of the hidden or unconscious power hegemony in colleagues’ discourses and practices. Our understanding is developed in an invisible hierarchy and in power alliances (Steinsholt, 1994). Power and knowledge are tied together, having the potential for ‘action, change and critique’ (Biesta, 2013: 73).
Foucault’s perspectives might be relevant for research methods and reflection studies (Rønbeck, 2012a), but we must be aware that he would have been ‘wryly skeptical about the growth of “Foucault studies”’ (Foucault et al., 2003: vii). His theories must be understood in the light of historical, political and philosophical trends in France, in Foucault’s case, and in Europe as a whole (Foucault and Gordon, 1980: 230). He also had a deep interest in education (Hultqvist, 2004), although his influence here seems to be more indirect.
Following these arguments, I propose that RPGs contain different power agents and positions such as leaders and followers, but that these are dynamic. The group will develop mechanisms to handle different events, rules and rituals. Knowledge is developed through negotiations between different actors or groups deciding what it is or is not legitimate to say (Wasser and Bresler, 1996). This can represent a kind of disorder that must be controlled, or perhaps excluded (Hultqvist, 2004; Rønbeck, 2012b). Especially in organisations and institutions, there seem to be challenges regarding power relations or, more specifically, trying to reproduce existing power relations (Foucault et al., 2003: 139).
In everyday speech, the concept of power is often related to a negative kind of hierarchy, with someone ‘at the top’ defining what the subjects underneath have to do or mean, and using tools like punishments or rewards. Hultqvist (2004) argues that Foucault’s concept of power is much more positive than how we ordinarily understand it. Foucault underlines the connection between power and freedom as follows: Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are ‘free’. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several kinds of conduct, several ways of reacting and modes are available. (Foucault et al., 2003: 139)
Several critics have questioned how we can trust Foucault: Is knowledge based on power or is knowledge based on freedom and the absence of power? Steinsholt (1994) argues that Foucault’s work is not intended to be prescriptive for how to handle the future, but that it is trying to problematise the ‘here and now’. Foucault’s main aim was to liberate and to engage oppositional voices.
Foucault’s aim of ‘differences’ is a reminder of the ideal of multiple perspectives in qualitative studies. There is a vast body of research on group work and team work in general, but very few studies have focused on ongoing processes in RPGs. In a study of such a group, Wasser and Bresler (1996) discovered the presence of symbolic gestures and ritual actions. This group needed a long period of clarification for how to define and understand important concepts, as well as to develop trust and tolerance. The authors argue that it is fruitful to use RPGs as an interpretative tool, as the members can develop trust and collaboration, and critically reflect on processes and events. They represent multiple viewpoints while at the same time allowing for frustrations and conflicts to appear. In an interpretive group, members can support each other or disagree with each other. They can contribute with different personal and professional skills, but there must be enough time for them to communicate (Wasser and Bresler, 1996). There is also the danger of individuals ‘marking their territory’ to secure their position and power. According to Foucault, such positions are dynamic and can only be achieved when using different research methods (Foucault and Gordon, 1980).
Thus, what happens in an RPG in the initial phase seems very central to the further development of the project. According to Paoli (1996), traditionally, the composition of such a core group appears to be important, such as ensuring diversity to avoid ‘groupthink’, but it also seems important to focus, up to a certain level, on the homogeneity of members’ values and to have a high level of work involvement. Further, previous joint work experiences seem to be positive for the development of the project. However, based on qualitative observations and a quantitative study on the role of the people in the core group of a construction project, Paoli (1996: iii) argues that none of these factors appear to be of great importance for the functioning of such a group. Paoli, like Wasser and Bresler (1996), found group processes to be very important. Unexpectedly for Paoli (1996: iii), groupthink had a positive impact on the result of the project. The group process seemed to be very important for the performance of the construction of the project, and conflicts were seen to be functional up to a certain level, as they opened up different perspectives; therefore, I will argue that RPGs must learn to handle conflicts in a constructive way. However, it is crucial to note that Paoli’s (1996) quantitative study was based on participants’ answers about productivity and its effects in construction projects, but she also, as a part of the study, carried out qualitative participant observations in one core group in their group meetings. Paoli suggests that the analysis and findings might be different in a study in a more stable organisation, but my assumption is that Paoli’s findings are relevant for my study in the IMTE project at our university college, as she combines qualitative and quantitative methods, and focuses on the participants and human perspectives.
Methods
This qualitative study is based on case study methodology (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994), where I ‘investigate[d] a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context’ (Yin, 1994: 13), but I was also inspired by ethnography (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2008; Hammersley and Atkinson, 1996), and I spent an extended period of time in the field in order to gain authentic knowledge of the group culture. Denzin (2000: 401) argues that the role of power in daily life can be revealed, for example, in texts and narratives. Getting this authenticity, however, must be problematised. Foucault questions what is constructed as authentic or truth, whereas Denzin (2000: 407) is more open: ‘truth is something we find when we get there’. Thus, as a researcher, I had to be aware of multiple perspectives.
This study was carried out in the initial (review) phase of the IMTE project (January 2013 to August 2014) and in a retrospective study in the spring of 2015. I have field notes from the RPG meetings, including theoretical and methodological reflections, and steering documents for the IMTE project. Based on an abductive analysis of these field notes, I found it relevant to focus on the RPG’s descriptions of processes and events – for example, milestones or turning points – and the RPG’s experiences of making room for multiple perspectives. The field data from 2013 and 2014 was the background for my design of the qualitative retrospective interviews in 2015, carried out with each of the group leaders and general members of the RPG. I have used triangulation to strengthen the validity and reliability of the study by these different methods to analyse the phenomena (Kvale, 1997). By taking a first-hand perspective, I had to be aware of my attitudes and pre-knowledge when interpreting the data. Being a member of the RPG offered me the opportunity to be ‘onstage’, participating in meetings and discussions. As far as I could recognise, there were no formal or informal subgroups or alliances behind the scenes, but perhaps the reason for this understanding was my own bias, diminishing my ability to act as a reflective researcher.
I used retrospective individual interviews (each lasting approximately 45 minutes) to learn about each RPG member’s reflections (Kvale, 1997). This was based on strategic selection (Patton, 2002) and the assumption that the RPG was well oriented towards and had ownership of the project. Based on my interview guide, I asked the RPG members (two leaders and, at that time, four general members) about their experiences and interpretations of the events and routines in the initial phase of the project. I had the power to define which situations to focus on, to choose my informants and to control the interview context. It was difficult to maintain analytical distance, as I also functioned as a knowledge producer. Fieldwork in one’s own culture can cause nearness and understanding, the disadvantages of which can be cultural blindness and missing important details. It is difficult to embrace both dialogues and relations in an interpretative process (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1996), and I tried to be aware of oppositional voices.
I carried out the analysis using an abductive process, going from empirics to theory and vice versa. I began by writing field notes describing ‘what was going on’, and I later analysed these through the lens of Foucault’s concept of power, searching for new perspectives in my observations and field notes (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Kvale, 1997; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Yin, 1994). I followed the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data, 2 and gained informed consent from each participant, assuring them of their anonymity. The informants were told that they could withdraw from the study at any time without giving an explanation, and they could also give comments on my findings.
Findings
Based on Foucault’s perspectives on the concept of power, supplemented by Wasser and Bresler’s (1996) concept of the research group as an interpretive tool and Paoli’s (1996) findings regarding core group processes, I have followed two analytical threads in my investigation: power agents and events, and room for influence from multiple perspectives. These threads seem to be strongly interwoven, forming a kind of holistic picture. However, there are some outliers that reflect ambiguity and challenges (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2008); these are addressed more thoroughly in the discussion section of this article.
Power agents
A main finding was that the RPG described the IMTE project’s organisational model as very complex. On the one hand, the four general members in particular found their role to be somewhat unclear. On the other hand, all of the members of the RPG said they had power. Perhaps the reason for this was an existing academic accepting the possession of power, influenced by Foucault’s concept. Foucault states that power has to be explored by focusing on actions, rather than to describe power as a stable entity, or knitted to be member of a stable group. Thus, we may question the benefit of highlighting the RPG as part of a formal organisational model, within a kind of hierarchy. The IMTE project features many participants at different levels, including student teachers, teacher educators, project leaders, members of the RPG, practicum teachers, school leaders, PhD students, the dean, the principal, the director, subject coordinators and an international advisory board. Master’s degree student teachers have also been included in some aspects of the IMTE project. Thus, regarding the creation of a strict organisational model for the IMTE project, the definition of power agents and events is risky.
To me, the RPG seemed to be a stable inner circle, but it also served as a mediator between other groups and participants. Who were the real power agents in the IMTE project was therefore confusing. According to Foucault, we have to be aware that there might be some invisible examples of exclusion; during the review phase, there were changes regarding how to become a member of the IMTE project, with more responsibility required for active participants: There has been a change in IMTE: if you want to be involved, you have to be active yourself, making an application for what you yourself want to do in your own part of the IMTE project. You have to be active yourself, presenting your own ideas. Instead of waiting for an invitation to choose among some given possibilities, it is rather the opposite. This may be recognised as exclusive. (general RPG member)
One of the leaders of the RPG carried the formal title of ‘project leader’ (PL1), while the second leader held the title of ‘research leader’ (RL1). Usually, both of them were called project leaders. PL1 had to ‘pull strings’ in terms of coordinating different tasks and being responsible for the project’s progression. RL1 was responsible for the project’s themes. Both leaders stressed that they collaborated, bringing with them their research competence and national and international networks. The other general members of the RPG perceived these networks to be very valuable for the legitimacy of the project, representing, on the one hand, what might be called hierarchic academic power. However, on the other hand, the project leaders seemed ambivalent in carrying out their power in a hierarchical, steering way, although they surely felt the responsibility to focus on progressing the project. Several times throughout the research process, they stressed the need for progress, reminding the RPG that: ‘We need to be more productive!’ (PL1). I interpret this as an expression of the need for ‘powerful products’, such as summaries, small reports and research papers, instead of focusing on fluent relations and processes in the project group, as Foucault reminds us to do. However, this duty to deliver tangible, academic results in the initial phase was not communicated in a clear way to the RPG, but instead was probably understood as something that would emerge naturally. This notion of the ‘natural’ development of knowledge by reading and discussing in an open and friendly climate might indeed have been questioned following Foucault’s critique of power in searching for the ‘truth’; however, I found few examples of such dialogues in my analysis.
Foucault underlines the importance of ‘different voices’ in a group, but the general RPG members commented that the project leaders were speaking ‘with one voice’, and this they found positive. However, the whole RPG underlined that there must be room for multiple perspectives, and the project leaders agreed that they had and used power: ‘As a project leader, you have significant power regarding defining the professional directions of the project, the choice of participants and their different roles, and the allocation of resources’ (RL1). I perceived that all of the RPG members accepted this comprehensive leadership role to conduct others, but the reasons for this acceptance might be complex. All of the members of the RPG knew each other very well, so it could be difficult to argue against this all-embracing leadership role. It seemed academically acceptable to declare that all the members had power, but perhaps this understanding hid less visible power relations that were distributed among the RPG. If nothing else, the general members could use their power to resist in silence, such as by not producing articles and papers quickly enough, but my impression was that there were no reasons for concluding that such conscious resistance existed; probably the reason was that the members were too busy with other tasks or assignments.
According to Wasser and Bresler (1996) and Paoli (1996), the composition of an academic or a core group is important, regarding both the members’ professional knowledge and their personal qualifications. In the RPG, the general members represented several different subjects, including the Norwegian language, arts and crafts, mathematics and pedagogy. The project leaders’ formal and real authority in the project seemed to go unquestioned, probably because they are professors and had managed to write a successful application, thus obtaining money and authority from the Norwegian Research Council to lead the project, as well as the power to dispense awards and sanctions to the project’s participants. The roles of the general members seemed to be more unclear, and there were several times when they asked the leaders about their specific responsibilities. Perhaps they were not aware of how time-consuming it was to develop a research project. Another reason could be that they had different career goals that they hoped to achieve via this project, as mentioned in the vignette. Questions about the general members’ functions were thus not explicitly answered in the initial research phase, but the project leaders underlined that this group had a special responsibility to fulfil their plans for the parts of the study for which each had secured funding. Perhaps this carried with it a sort of ‘wiggle room’, giving room to work out more invisible and informal power, as we, according to Foucault, ought to be aware of.
Formally, a project leader has the possibility of bringing sanctions into effect. However, the project leaders never dispensed official sanctions to the RPG members for not being well prepared at each meeting. The general members of the RPG were followers, and a kind of stable hierarchy of leaders and followers existed. However, Foucault reminds us to be aware of the dynamics between leaders and followers regarding changing or intertwining positions. Both formally and informally, the project leaders had the authority to drive the progression and processes of the study, but I found very few examples of a direct steering strategy, probably because such steering was interpreted not to be academically accepted. However, some of the participants retrospectively asked for more steering from the project leaders, bringing RL1 to ask for the faculty leaders to ‘make things happen’. The RPG found its collaboration with the IMTE project’s international advisory board (six members) to be very useful, as it offered support and new perspectives throughout the research process, perhaps representing Foucault’s reminder of the importance of ‘different voices’. However, the following quotation from a general RPG member might illustrate the advisory board’s critical function: ‘My feeling is that their [the advisory board’s] impression is that the IMTE project should be more structured’. However, this ‘feeling’ was not discussed in any of the RPG meetings. For me, this question about freedom and structure in collaborative groups seems to be a never-ending discussion (see Paoli, 1996; Wasser and Bresler, 1996).
Power events
A second main finding was that social and professional events seemed to be an important part of developing a collaborating culture in the RPG. When developing a group culture, it is fruitful to include social and professional events in a dynamic interplay (Espeland, 1999; Paoli, 1996; Wasser and Bresler, 1996), as power is mediated in routines, rituals and events. Following Foucault, we probably have to be reminded of the need for a critical eye regarding power in these events, as the outcome and relevance for the RPG members in the IMTE project varied from very positive to somewhat negative. Certainly, all of the formal group meetings, normally held in the same room, seemed to have a positive outcome. These routines and events functioned as a break, or a professional refresher, for the members. Thus, structure seemed to be very important in this part of the RPG process, and all of the members underlined that the project leaders took care of this in a positive way, by good communication and organisation. The agenda for the meetings was, however, not always strictly followed. During my interviews, both of the project leaders, as well as the general members, said that they had a kind of power to alter the agenda if they had other ideas or proposals; however, the general members rarely took the initiative to change the agenda. Thus, there was a kind of inconsistency between what was expressed as an ideal and what could be observed. This underlines the importance of combining data from observations and interviews, and gives attention to Foucault’s focus on actions when exploring power.
When themes were delayed in the meetings, these most often were theoretical issues. The concrete plans for the meetings and practical problem-solving were given priority. This focus on the administration of project events gave the impression of the leaders having formal power, and that the general members silently accepted this. Perhaps Foucault’s warning of power as fluid, dynamic and relational was experienced as too complex to handle in practice.
There were several social events included in the review phase, such as dinners at local restaurants with the advisory board and other guests to develop friendship and collaboration. There were also tours in the district to show members local places of interest, for example, or to visit the project leaders’ homes. Most of the participants found these events enjoyable, but perhaps one reason for this was that it was an honour to be invited, and thus perhaps a little impolite to interpret them as negative power events. However, we also have to remind ourselves of Foucault’s point underlining the positive potentiality of power.
The review period also contained several professional events – sometimes only for the RPG members and the international advisory board, but at other times including PhD students, the ‘outer circle’ or the whole staff at the faculty. These events were experienced with both positivity and ambiguity by the members of the RPG. A trip to Cracow for the whole staff was perhaps the most powerful event in the initial phase; it aimed to build a culture of collaboration and competence (Paoli, 1996; Wasser and Bresler, 1996). The RPG members were very active during this tour, as they could offer insight into the research field through their own studies related to the IMTE project. However, this may have hidden a more refined power agency distributed among the general members of the RPG.
One milestone – or what I interpret as a power event for the RPG – was writing an application (in July 2014) to arrange a symposium at an international conference. However, the application was not accepted, and this refusal was very disappointing for some of the members; it was interpreted as a lack of sufficient preparation on the part of the project leaders. After this, the RPG sent an application to another international conference, but this was also rejected. The RPG did not discuss the reasons for these refusals. This lack of discussion might be interpreted in two ways: (1) attending the conference was not seen as important in the review phase, so the members did not work hard enough on the proposal, or (2) this refusal was an important academic sign from an international research body that the application did not satisfy their academic claims for the conference. In hindsight, the project leaders displayed some ambiguity about how important they felt it was to attend the conferences, recognising that such conferences required participants to present results rather than questions while still in the initial research phase. It seemed that some of the general members of the RPG wanted to present preliminary results and get feedback on their ‘work in progress’. However, perhaps the members of the RPG did not have a common conception about the differences between the leaders and the general members, and these different expectations should have been clarified at an earlier stage. Some of the members’ expectations in the initial phase were not fulfilled, causing a brief feeling of there being a vacuum in planning what to do when registering this powerful, unintended result of not reaching a milestone. However, it is important to note that, since these initial rejections, the project members have participated in many international conferences.
Room for multiple perspectives
A third main finding in my study was that, to a great extent, there was room for multiple perspectives in the initial phase of the IMTE project. As mentioned, Foucault, Wasser and Bresler (1996) and Paoli (1996) all underline that it is an academic ideal to give time and room for different voices and multiple perspectives in a research project. However, in my study, there were some limitations and challenges to this openness. In the review period, the members of the RPG differed in their commitment to writing notes or drafts for articles, for example; the amount of funding they received and how much time they had to devote to the RPG seemed to vary. This raised the question of diversity and coherence in an RPG (Wasser and Bresler, 1996). PL1 explained that there must not be too much dissonance in the IMTE project. This also brought up the questions of resonance and consonance (Paoli, 1996), focusing on how essential it is that the members are active and give feedback to each other. Regarding consonance, it seemed difficult for the RPG to develop a common definition of improvisation. Probably the reason for this was that there is no interdisciplinary common definition (Holdhus et al., 2016). Other limitations for giving room for multiple perspectives were the aims and the time limits of the IMTE project. The project leaders underlined that the participants had to revisit their plans and research questions according to the aims of the main study. The ‘flow’ of power in the RPG was thus not really free, as the RPG’s activities had to be in accordance with the application to the Norwegian Research Council for funding, which was a key steering document but not often mentioned in RPG meetings. Wasser and Bresler (1996: 13) argue that, in a research group, it is important to develop an interpretive zone in which to discuss and conceptualise knowledge: ‘a zone [in which] unexpected forces meet, new challenges arise, and solutions have to be devised with the materials at hand’. Thus, in order to explore power processes, we have to be aware of the possibilities and limitations in context. The RPG described the concept development processes in a positive as well as problematic or ambivalent way: My interpretation is that there has been a good and fruitful climate in the RPG, balancing inclusion and critical discussion in a productive way. The different voices have been heard and had the opportunity to influence the project as regards both rationale and values. (PL1) I have a feeling of catching something … and then … as you feel you have collected it, you slip … and then the balls are rolling away, and then … at the next meeting … you have to collect them again. (general RPG member)
As mentioned, Wasser and Bresler (1996) underline the importance of dissonance and the richness of multiple perspectives in RPGs. There must be room for clarification, but one has to be aware of how and whom ‘marking the territory’, thus representing what I call ‘a touch of power’. It seemed that the present RPG tried to balance these ideas of dissonance and consonance, and it also focused on the challenge of allowing sufficient time to discuss relevant matters during its meetings: ‘There has been room for different views or basic ideas, but there has also been the question of time: Do we have time to reflect on different questions?’ (general RPG member).
During the literature review process, the RPG realised that there were several traditions and different characteristics regarding the concept of improvisation. Its strategy was to distribute small tasks to the members in order to make reading the research literature more manageable. The RPG developed matrixes that the members could fill out as they reviewed articles. In spite of this, the literature review in the IMTE project became a huge task, and the RPG found it difficult to gain an oversight of improvisation in this way. This caused some frustration for the general members of the RPG, but, in Foucault’s terms, such frustration can have positive potential. In the review phase, the PhD students involved in the IMTE project and some of the teacher educators were asked to write articles about the improvisational traditions they belonged to. Finally, three RPG members were chosen to write a review article, with contributions from the rest of the RPG and some members of the outer circle, particularly from specific subject areas. Looking back, this was complicated and perhaps not the most productive strategy. It was unclear who were the ‘owners’ of the articles and who had the power to determine how the work would progress. The general members wanted PL1 and RL1 to give more concrete instructions regarding the timeline and scope for each article. Perhaps they did not want to be responsible for the academic products, and where satisfied to be followers, with a kind of limited power.
Based on data from my field notes from the RPG meetings, it seemed that the members proposed that improvisation is something that ‘becomes’ or is ‘fluid’. The group decided to focus on improvisation both in a professional context and in everyday practice. However, the discussion on the matter ended in confusion about what direction to take. Some of the general members asked the project leaders to display authoritative leadership, but the project leaders declined to do this. However, they asked the general members for project progress and production on several occasions. There was recurring confusion and frustration within the RPG about the concept of improvisation. I relate this discussion to the question of conflict and power versus openness for multiple perspectives. According to Foucault, there is a close relation between power and conflict. Often, these two concepts are perceived as equal and negative, but power and conflict can also become productive (Einarsen and Pedersen, 2007). In a traditional understanding, conflicts have to be avoided because they are destructive or counterproductive. Paoli (1996) underlines the importance of, to a certain degree, having a low level of conflict and focusing on handling conflicts in a constructive way.
In the retrospective interviews, all of the informants said that they had not observed conflicts in the RPG. However, in my field notes from 2013–2014, I commented that there were some discussions which I interpreted as expressions of conflict. Perhaps the reason was that I had an old-fashioned, negative conception of conflict. It is also difficult to know if the RPG was conflict-shy or if the members did not differentiate between personal and professional conflicts (Paoli, 1996). The RPG members seemed – as did I – to look at conflict as something negative that had to be avoided, and they found it difficult to speak about it. That being said, irritation, professional disagreements and discussions seemed to be acceptable, probably because the participants felt that there was room for objections, and they could contribute with their proposals and find solutions without using power: There have been some small irritations, but I would not describe these as conflicts. But irritations must be ‘laid on the table’. (RL1) There were, however, a lot of discussions in the RPG, and the members have been open to this and have not been offended by disagreement. (general RPG member)
The explanation for this seeming absence of conflict might be found in the composition of the RPG, where ‘none of the members were seeking conflicts’ (general RPG member). The collaboration went as the members expected. If the collaboration had not functioned, they may have given reasons such as ‘[the] members have too much to do with other tasks’ (RL1) or ‘there had been unclear rules for the different roles the members should have’ (general RPG member). Another explanation is that beneath the harmonious surface, accepting disagreement and multiple perspectives could be due to indifference rather than professional disagreement : Perhaps it is lack of interest, rather than being hindered, that characterises the knowledge-building processes. Perhaps we are not so interested in listening to the others. We do not try to hinder them. The RPG has not developed great enthusiasm for the project. There is too little linking us together. Things could have been more structured, organised and compulsory. I want more structure and discussions in smaller groups. (general RPG member)
Summarising discussion
Here, I summarise and comment on my three main findings, highlighting the descriptions and interpretations of power agents and events, and the question about room for multiple perspectives in an RPG when running an academic research project. Finally, I will comment on some potentialities and limitations in my findings that require further investigation, as there are some loose ends to tie up when using the lenses of Foucault’s concept of power in interpreting the RPG’s conceptions of power agents and events, and to what extent there is room for multiple perspectives in the IMTE project. To be humble, I call my findings ‘a touch of power’, as this is a qualitative study with few participants, related to a study where I am an insider. However, I propose that my findings will also influence the next phases of the project. Because I am an insider, it is difficult to capture the other participants’ descriptions and interpretations of the RPG in a holistic way. Thus, how to understand power relations through developing interpretive zones in an RPG still remains somewhat mysterious to me, but my curiosity has increased.
Power agents and events
As mentioned, a central aim for Foucault is to question who are the participants and what is the ‘truth’, describing and interpreting who are the power agents in our academic RPG, as power is fluid and dynamics, expressed in the participants' actions. The organisational model contained in the IMTE project is very complex, and even the project leaders seemed to find overseeing it difficult. This indicates the importance of reflecting on what is going on and who is ‘in charge’ of power in an RPG. The organisational map illustrates some formal facts about the different participants, but a model does not capture the dynamics between participants, even in a small group (Paoli, 1996; Wasser and Bresler, 1996) – although the RPG in our case was a relatively stable group. Foucault reminds us to problematise a traditional hierarchical understanding of power, continuously asking if there are refined, invisible processes and relations between different small groups and individual participants. My experience is that it has been difficult to operationalise Foucault’s concept of power in an empirical study in a Norwegian teacher education context. We have to balance between structure and openness, and critique and potentiality, in our interpretations of power agents and events.
In our academic RPG, it seemed relevant to differentiate between project leaders and the general members regarding responsibility and independence, but this included a risk of the general members not taking leadership roles in executing obligatory academic products on time. To a certain degree, the general members’ roles seemed to fluctuate between being followers and being active, independent participants, aware of having power. This fluctuation reminds us not only of Foucault’s warning to be sceptical and dynamic, but also of what I see as the danger of becoming incapable of handling – for example, when the power products, like academic articles and reports, did not reveal in time . In the initial phase of the project, the general members of the RPG, to a small degree, reflected on their own power, acting as followers rather than powerful agents in the meetings. They later became more powerful mediators between several other participants and groups in the IMTE model. However, after the initial phase, the general RPG members universally declared having power in the review phase. However, they did not display any doubts about whether this was a perception, memory or reality. Here, Foucault’s critical approach is fruitful, reminding us to reflect on ‘who is in charge’.
In the initial phase, the project leaders faced the dilemma of power events in how to guide the processes towards ‘academic power products’ and milestones. It seems productive to establish a research culture with routines, rituals and social and professional events (Espeland, 1999; Wasser and Bresler, 1996) but, in my study, I found that individuals differed in how they experienced these routines and events regarding their relevance as powerful milestones. One surprising finding was that having milestones such as participating in conferences and writing articles had unintended results. It therefore seems important to be proactive and clarify intentions and expectations regarding milestones. In the present case, this concept was a metaphor for a turning point or an important happening that should be reflected on. For me, some of the milestones seemed to become what I call ‘stumbling blocks’ when causing frustrations for some general members. A project leader’s wisdom and competence could have proved valuable, for example, if the leaders had deemed writing articles and participating in conferences to be feasible milestones. However, we might add that stumbling blocks can potentially become very powerful learning tools, as we have, according to Foucault, to reflect on how and why unexpected things happen.
Unity and multiple perspectives
In an academic research group, it seems important and fruitful to develop an open climate for multiple perspectives and dissonance in a productive way (Wasser and Bresler, 1996). Foucault’s main aim was to be ‘on the border’, seeking differences and new perspectives. In the IMTE project, with limited aims and funded by the Norwegian Research Council, the RPG had to balance between the aims of multiple perspectives, focusing on academic freedom versus influence from limited, particular improvisational traditions and time constraints.
In the initial phase of the IMTE project, the members expressed this focus on multiple perspectives to be an ideal way to avoid groupthink; however, I noted a distinct vacillation from multiple perspectives to unity, represented in the discourses about consonance or dissonance in terms of concept-building and methodology. For an RPG, it is an academic ideal to be open to different perspectives in concept-building. This ideal was reflected in the RPG regarding how improvisation was understood in different subjects and professional traditions (Holdhus et al., 2016). The members attempted to gain multiple perspectives in the research field via a literature review, discussions, presentations, and so on; however, in the review phase, this approach became overwhelming, resulting in either the problem of choosing a common definition, trying to take a holistic perspective, or using several partial studies with no or very little overlap. The ideas of multiple perspectives and openness seemed to be a dominant aim in the initial phase, but these were interwoven with some ambiguity regarding feasible results and visible changes. I will therefore offer some reflections regarding the concepts of power, conflict and professional disagreement, as these seem to illustrate the limits and balance of multiple perspectives.
Foucault proposes that there is a close connection between power and conflict. Regarding power relations and processes, my findings indicate that in the RPG there was some confusion about the existence and value of conflict in the research process (Paoli, 1996). When the project leaders clearly stated that they had power in their interviews, I imagine they expected that the volume of conflicts would be high, supposing that the followers would not (always) agree with their decisions. In the RPG, the concept of conflict in general seemed to represent something negative, and it was replaced by the concept of professional disagreement, which was clearly acceptable as a research strategy. However, this implied that it was difficult to question what was a conflict and what was professional disagreement. I interpret this question as an example of a larger academic discourse in teacher education (Rønbeck, 2012b). When focusing on the power of diversity, it seems that ‘everything goes’. However, if the idea is to get back ‘on track’ and progress further without defining a common vision or goal for the track, a dilemma emerges. This is a paradox regarding how normative the leaders must be or want to be. According to Foucault, one has to understand the situation in light of historical and contextual processes, which can be negotiated. In the initial phase, the RPG discussed several different improvisation traditions, which led to a very time-consuming literature review process. However, I think that these discussions and reflections will serve as an important basis for the further development of the research project (Wasser and Bresler, 1996).
Concluding remarks
Inspired by Michel Foucault’s concept of power, I have analysed how members of an RPG describe and interpret power agents and events, and to what extent there was room for multiple perspectives in the initial phase of a research study in a Norwegian teacher education context. I have identified ‘a touch of power’ regarding agents and events, and that, to a large extent, there was room for multiple perspectives in the RPG. In particular, I have become aware of the dynamic relationship between the RPG’s leaders and followers regarding ownership and power. The RPG seems to be a core group when investigating improvisation in teacher education. A central dilemma has been how to understand and carry out power, as such processes might reveal a different understanding of central concepts. Conceiving of power is complex when stating that power is invisible and dynamic, but we might be reminded that Foucault underlines the dimensions of fluency and force as positive. My findings remind me to continuously question who is in charge and what is going on when someone is trying to tell the ‘truth’. However, this ideal of multiple perspectives can also lead to a never-ending scepticism, with the risk of what we thought of as positive milestones resulting in frustration and disappointment. My study indicates that the concept of conflict needs to be revisited in the present RPG, hopefully resulting in a constructive approach to dealing with the concept of conflict versus professional disagreement, and the question about freedom versus steering. In our case, the delimitations between conflict and disagreement remain.
Finally, my study has revealed that there is no linearity to the RPG’s processes; rather, the processes are partial and cyclical, with turning points and ‘stumbling blocks’ appearing throughout. However, it seems important to develop a positive and trustful climate between the different actors in the RPG. This might become the basis and force for further reflection on improvisation in teacher education. Following Foucault, it is crucial to look for the ‘touch of power’ in the small traits and utterances in everyday life with the aim of gaining new and unintended insight into processes and relations in RPGs. How this approach will be further realised will only emerge once the IMTE project is completed.
Footnotes
Author Note
Kjellfrid Mæland is now affiliated to Faculty of Teacher and Cultural Education, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.