Conference Agenda

As Bourdieu (1993) outlines, academia situates itself as a ‘field’ with its own set of mechanisms that reproduce social inequality, and exerts forms of power that can inhibit innovation, as the capital that academics possess, and the ways in which they are encouraged to enact membership of the field (e.g. through the production of academic papers), can serve to elevate intellectual capital, at the expense of valuing knowledge generated or experienced in different fields (or sectors). This theorisation of course assumes that the primary motivation for academics is to enhance their position in the Higher Education field. I would argue, however, that for many researchers, including myself, the motivation to make a difference to society and generate impact from research takes primacy, resulting in a lack of consensus in the field. This lack of consensus creates a space in which it is possible to counter the negative effects of exerting academic status through particular methodologies and pedagogies (Naidoo 2004). I argue that this space enables the development of new practices in educational research that consider and facilitate the academic as relationally situated within the social context in which the relationships are enacted and necessitates a deeper examination of the processes of research practice partnerships in different contexts.

I suggest that mediating knowledge in this way and promoting equity within research can be pursued by adopting an ‘active pedagogy’, in other words, a process that can enable learning, requiring change in both the learners and the facilitators of that learning. Freire (2001) enables a conceptualisation of an active pedagogy as the dialogic discovery of new knowledge which leads to reflection and effective action. In this way, pedagogy is seen as instrumental in creating impact or change, and co-creation (or co-production) provides a space in which dialogue, criticality and reflection can be nurtured. Any form of pedagogical practice values some forms of knowing above others, so members of a partnership need to explore and adopt reflexivity about their own ideological, political, socio-economic and organisational baggage, value positions and ethical stance.

Activist research involves being open to a change in what Beach and Vigo-Arrazda (2021) term our ‘habitus of organic intellectualism’. By this they mean that by working with others in co-constructing knowledge, researchers develop new embodied understandings about their responsibilities in enacting social justice. Drawing on a body of research undertaken during the last five years, I will present a conceptual model of co-learning for research practice partnerships that are working together to enact change and draws on theory to examine the ‘practice’ of research as pedagogy, i.e. a process of co-learning (rather than a process of teaching or knowledge transfer) that is multi-modal and multi-dimensional. This model is one that considers the context of research practice partnerships and has relevance for such partnerships across Europe.

The national strategy for quality and collaboration in teacher education, Teacher Education 2025 (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017), highlights the importance of establishing stable and mutually beneficial partnerships between teacher education institutions and the early childhood education sector. One area of focus in the strategy is to strengthen practical training and research collaboration through preschool-university partnerships and the establishment of teacher education kindergartens.

University of Agder, UiA, has since 2019 worked in partnership with 3 kindergartens in the surrounding area. These kindergartens are partners in the project “Pilot Lærerutdannings-barnehager” (Pilot Teacher education Kindergartens). Within this partnership, UiA has chosen to focus on the knowledge area of Leadership, Collaboration, and Development (LSU) in the 6^th semester, which is the last semester of the early childhood education teacher training program. Teachers from this knowledge area at UiA are central to the partnership with the teacher education kindergartens.

The guidelines for early childhood education teacher training (DMER, 2018) emphasize the importance of practical studies in transforming a student into a professional. The guidelines also focus on the vital role of practice in ensuring students' progress concerning pedagogical leadership. In the students’ practical period in the 6^th semester, guidance and supervision are important for achieving these goals. This is the last practical period before students go out into the “real world” and take on full responsibility as educators in kindergartens.

Previous endeavors have focused on supervision from a broad perspective or emphasized particular aspects of the kindergartens professional's role (e.g., parent-teacher collaboration and learning environments). The current project has a more targeted focus, formulated in a supervision plan for all teachers involved in the project. This intervention is aimed at creating more meaningful goals for supervision. Bordin (1983) argues that a shared understanding of these goals is necessary. Unclear goals provide a poor basis for cooperation in the supervision context and contribute to the dialog being characterized by “casual talk” and a lack of progression. This weakens the student’s experience of being met and understood (Bordin, 1983).

The purpose of the intervention is to see whether participants more easily identify themselves in the role of kindergarten teacher educators in cooperation with the university. Pedagogical leadership is a central theme in the supervision plan, and the project will aim to strengthen students’ development of their own leadership role in the 6^th semester of the kindergarten teacher training program. Our aim is to co-create and develop a model of supervision methods “tailored” towards three core areas of LSU:

1. Leadership. Strengthening the supervision towards the student’s own leadership role.
2. Cooperation. Strengthening supervision of students’ leadership of cooperation in the preschool.
3. Development. Focus on the ability to lead pedagogical development.

Caring and responsible teacher-student relationships are of great importance in higher education (Healey, Flint, & Harrington, 2014). However, the educationally disruptive and life-threatening crisis due to the war in Ukraine has dramatically changed what can be expect from these partnerships. This multi-crisis we are witnessing in Ukraine has disrupted existing paradigms of teacher-student partnerships, magnifying both teachers’ and students’ vulnerability and enforcing a complete reprioritization of what is important in life. Yet, receiving and providing an education under such circumstances could become a driver for hope and resilience for both teachers and students (Eliot 2005). Caring teacher-student partnerships may have the potential to improve the psychological and physical wellbeing of people to overcome this humanitarian crisis. When teachers normally plan their teaching, they base this typically on pedagogical and subject specific needs. However, these unprecedented circumstances demand approaches that go beyond the subject focus. Caring partnerships can reinstall hopefulness in times of despair and are particularly valuable for strengthening the feeling of safety that is being transformed under the crisis conditions. In times of war-related insecurity, the feeling of safety implies that being together with somebody (physically or virtually) and trust of other people is more essential than physical safety (McEvoy, 2019), while continuity of care during the separation from family, friends and social isolation is an urgent need (Bürgin, 2022). Following up on this argument this work will focus on the role of safety and safe spaces in partnerships in education.

The works of Boostrom (1998), Gayle, Cortez, & Preiss (2013), Callan (2016) and Fast (2018) are helpful in defining the notion of safe space. In the presentation I will focus on the exploration of the details of a digital safe space in a partnership of teachers and their students in the context of the war in Ukraine.