Conference Agenda

Governments and universities across Europe have introduced several initiatives aiming to strengthen collaboration between researchers and practitioners as well as between different actors within different fields in education (Prøitz & Rye 2023, OECD 2022). We can observe variations of such initiatives, for example, in partnership agreements between universities and schools, and local authorities, in funding schemes that require collaboration between researchers and practitioners, and in the growth in professional doctoral programmes, in which applicants must have teacher education experience and preferably work in teacher education or in schools while doing their doctoral work (Prøitz & Wittek, 2019). In relation to such inititiatives the concept of third space is often used to describe, define, analyse and explain what these efforts entail.

This paper presents a systematic review study of how the concepts of “third space” is understood and used in education research. The background for the paper is grounded in a general observation of a sudden growth in the usage of the concept in education research. The literature "third space" is often characterized as a place or a space where integration of knowledge and discourses from different rooms meet and merge, for example when people's knowledge and discourses from home, local environment or network characterized as “first space”, meets and merges with knowledge and discourses within a formalized institution such as school or work “second space” integrates and form a common new knowledge base and discourse through collaboration and partnership in “third space”. (Moje et al. 2004).

The concept has been used in research as a suggestion, a hybrid solution addressing for example challenges related to the involvement of different groups of actors in research practice partnership, (Passy et al. 2018). The term "third space" originates in research that considers that different actors use different discourses from different contexts, research as well as own experiences, to understand the world (Lynch 2015). Hybrid thinking emphasizes that positions between areas of knowledge and different discourses can be productive, but also limiting to human activities and practices.

An interesting element in this thinking is that "third space" also can mean a reconstruction that defines a new, alternative situation and problem understanding based on mutual respect for the positions, experiences, knowledge and discourses of others (Moje 2004). It is important to emphasize that third room thinking does not mean that everyone should be converted to researchers, but that it involves establishing a common / common language that frames discourses where the actors with their genuine competence are given an equal role in the collaboration. It is only when the actors' discourses and knowledge can meet in a common discourse with a common one language that a third room will be able to safeguard the premise of equality.

Third-room thinking can be understood in at least three ways: As a way to build bridges between marginalized and academic discourses, as a way to navigate different environments with discourses and as a space where different and possibly competing ideas are brought together to challenge dominant discourses (Moje et al 2004). All three perspectives can help build down unwanted hierarchical structures and competing discourses between, for example, schools on the one hand and on the other hand higher education and research (Passy et al. 2018).

These contributions discussing understandings of the concept in question is however first and foremost theories and ideas about the concept, in this study we aim to map and systematize how third space as a concept is used in education research to provide an overview of potential patterns of understandings and what implication this might have for the further usage of the concept in the field of education.

Despite policymakers’ continuing emphasis on school-university partnerships in initial teacher education (ITE) and at least two decades of international research about partnership models of teacher education (e.g., Furlong et al., 2006; Reynolds, Ferguson-Patrick & McCormack, 2013; White, Timmermans & Dickerson, 2022) they remain problematic in their development and implementation. Lynch and Smith (2012) suggest that the term ‘partnership’ is often used as if there is consensus about its meaning, however without clarity about the roles and responsibilities of those involved, tensions and anxiety about the expectations and perceived potential changes can surface. Allen, Butler-Mader, and Smith (2010) in their research of teacher education partnerships, found that teachers and academics claimed to be generally unaware of the responsibilities of the other. Similarly, White et al. (2022) emphasise the complexities of working across institutional borders with multiple stakeholders. These 2 examples of empirical studies undertaken 10 years apart show the durability of the problem of understanding what partnership means in reality. Tensions can be further exacerbated when partnership models are policy-driven as part of major educational reforms.
Our research focused on the development of a partnership between a university offering teacher education and schools during a period of intense education reform across Wales. Given the continuing emphasis on partnership in ITE across European countries and beyond, it is relevant to those researching or developing school/university partnerships in other countries. There is an urgent need to understand more about how partnerships can be better negotiated during the early stages of their creation. In particular, how relationships can be developed and sustained in ways that enrich teacher education and reduce the anxiety and emotional labour that can distract attention and energy from the aims of a partnership model.
Our study explored the perceptions and experiences of individuals working as teacher educators across a university-school partnership during a national programme of education reform, which involved significant systemic change in ITE. We investigate how professionals working within the context of ITE have, negotiated what Furlong (2016) described as cultural change within the system. The research project has three phases; phase 1 data were generated from face-to-face discussion groups. To understand more about the agency of all involved in negotiating and implementing partnerships, data were analysed using the theoretical frame of agency presented by Emirbayer and Mische (1998). They argue it is possible to understand: ‘human agency as a temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past (in its habitual aspect), but also oriented toward the future (as a capacity to imagine alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a capacity to contextualize past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the moment)’ (p963).
Phase 1 findings, disseminated at ECER 2021, surfaced the relationship between the perceptions and experiences of agency of those involved in the partnership model and the emotional labour exerted. The mandated nature of partnership creation, resulting from policy directive, associated with the fast pace required, meant that agency was not afforded to teacher educators in the university to the same extent as those in schools. This situation led to markedly different experiences of emotional labour for these groups, not least because the stakes were significantly higher for teacher educators in the university than in schools (Livingston and Waters in press). This paper reports the findings of Phase 2 of the project in which survey data were collected to explore perceptions and experiences of ‘partnership’ and ‘joint responsibility’, 18 months into the enactment of mandated partnership working in ITE. During our presentation we will critique and discuss the implications for international research and practice in relation to negotiating teacher education partnerships.

This ongoing action research project (2022-2023) is situated in one school in Norway and explores the ways in which educational researchers/advisors and practitioners work together in a partnership, with the intention of creating knowledge and improving practice. The school is large by Norwegian standards (410 students aged 6-16, around 70 employees) and is in a small town with an average socio-economic profile. Our partnership with the school was established as part of a pioneer national initiative to support municipalities with persistently low achievement, which pairs schools with educational researchers acting in an advisory capacity. We have thus decided to describe our role as ‘researchers/advisors’. Avoiding the pursuit of quick fixes, the initiative supports schools over a three-year period to build the capacity and competency needed to bring about improvement (Utdanningsdirektoratet [Department of Education], 2022).

Having been teachers and school leaders before becoming educational researchers/advisors, we are mindful of the importance of building an ‘egalitarian, reciprocal, humanising’ relationship (Cook-Sather & Felten, 2017) with the teachers and leaders at the school. There was considerable potential for mistrust and disinclination towards us since we were brought in from outside to help raise achievement. The challenges of collaborations between academia and the practice-field are well documented (e.g. Posch, 2019). Thornberg (2014) findings from a Swedish study of interactions between external consultants and teachers underline the importance of consultants demonstrating contextual sensitivity, acknowledging local expertise and appreciating complexity. We are acutely aware of the need to position ourselves as ‘friendly outsiders’ (Greenwood & Levin, 1998), maintaining a balance between support and critique, being encouraging and creating space for discussion.

Prior to our involvement, the school had decided to prioritise raising achievement in literacy among the youngest students (aged 6-10), in line with the recently updated Norwegian national curriculum and a national intervention designed to improve foundation skills in schools. Rather than providing ready-made solutions, we want to create knowledge about how this might be achieved together with the leaders and teachers at the school. We are continually inspired by Deweyan inquiry, with its starting point in real-life issues to be investigated and encourages diverse outcomes and new understandings through action (Dewey, 1938). Furthermore, taking account of Nordic participatory traditions, we work to establish a democratic learning community together with the leaders and teachers at the school, in which we all participate as equals, albeit with differing roles (Jones, 2022). Theoretically aligned with critical pragmatism and social constructionism, we understand participation as essentially co-creative (Jones & Hall, 2022): knowledge, meanings and practices are produced through the interactions of people. In partnership with the school, therefore, we aim to bring about learning through active processes of inquiry founded on contextual cognisance and the appreciation of multiple possibilities and outcomes.

Following meetings with teachers in Years 1-4 (children aged 6-10) and the leadership team, as well as classroom visits, we proposed an action research project to both structure our partnership and create opportunities for collaborative knowledge-creation. We view action research as enabling the leaders and teachers to improve their practice, and also to develop our competence as researchers/advisors. Whilst our focus in the project is to support the school, we also create knowledge about the potential of the national initiative to bring about school improvement through egalitarian partnerships between schools and universities, and our roles as researchers/advisors in this. We seek to address power issues existing in such partnerships, allowing for more meaningful and mutually beneficial interactions between academia and the field of practice.

Our main research question is therefore:

How might an action-research project between a school and a higher-education institution contribute to mutual learning and improvement?