Conference Agenda

General description and research objectives

A growing amount of studies show that cooperation between researchers and teachers is important for teachers to develop their pedagogical practices in physical education (PE) (Fernandez-Rio & Iglesias, 2022; Parker et al., 2021). However, such studies have first and foremost been interested in the outcomes of these collaborations (for example Goodyear, 2017; Leirhaug et al., 2020), while the collaborative practices themselves has been more of an implicit focus (Bjørke & Casey, 2022). For example, is knowledge about how researchers experience their dual role as researchers and facilitators in such projects limited. What we do know however, is that researchers’ role is conceived to be complex (Bjørke & Casey, 2022; Moen & Bjørke, in review), and that facilitation is a specific skill that needs to be learned and practiced (Parker et al., 2021). Little is however known more specifically about what this complexity entails and how it eventually evolves and changes over the course of a project. The purpose with this paper is to contribute with knowledge on what professional role(s) researchers go in and out of when working in close collaboration with teachers, and how these are being negotiated. Consequently, the research question guiding the paper is: How do researchers negotiate their professional roles over a collaborative research project with teachers?

Theoretical framework

In order to grasp what roles researchers’ experience during a two-year collaborative development project, a mainstream conception of the term roles as “patterns of behavior and expectations associated with a position” (Roberts, 2009, p. 240) is relevant. At the same time, when studying how researchers negotiate their professional roles during the project period Goffmans theory, which describes the theatrical performances that occur in face-to-face interactions, will be utilized. Goffman conceptualize social life consisting of two opposite scenarios: The “front”, which is the formal and public stage, where people act in certain ways as persons as they would like others to view them. Further, he talks about people being “backstage” which refers to people being in a setting where they do not have to ‘take on’ professional roles because they are not on the professional stage. In other words, they are not posing (Goffman, 1959). Goffman’s theory helps us understand that social life, in this case the researchers’ roles in a prolonged collaborative research project, is grounded on the balance between front- and backstage, based on the idea that a person is like an actor on a stage. Role performance, how a person expresses the role, is thus relevant. Goffman believe that we use “impression management” to present ourselves to others as we hope to be perceived. He points to the relevance of viewing each situation as a new scene, and that individuals perform different roles depending on who is present (Goffman, 1959).

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on the way we live our lives, particularly regarding the way we work, learn and communicate with others (Hooper et al., 2020; Teti et al., 2020). Significantly, during the Covid-19 pandemic, researchers across the globe were also required to rethink their approaches and find alternative ways to undertake planned studies (Kara & Khoo, 2020; Howlett, 2022). For many researchers in the social sciences, a core change was that data collection via interviews and focus groups moved from being largely ‘in person’ to being undertaken in digital spaces. While technology (e.g., communication software such as Zoom, Skype or Microsoft Teams) has significant benefits here – facilitating ‘real-time’ conversations between individuals, often over spatial and temporal distances – it has been argued that it also creates some challenges and requires researchers to reflect on their perceptions, both of what fieldwork is and how it is done (Howlett, 2022). In this presentation, we undertake such reflection in relation to the impact of Covid-19 on our own research and consider the challenges involved in exploring difficult topics through online conversations. In doing so, we draw on our experience of delivering a series of online research workshops with pre-service physical education (PE) teachers, designed to explore our work around trauma-aware pedagogies (TAP) for PE (Quarmby et al., 2022).

Childhood trauma is recognised as a significant issue that has been exacerbated by factors associated with the Covid-19 pandemic (WHO, 2020). Trauma is thought to result from a range of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (Felitti et al., 1998; Smith, 2018) and is understood to be an overwhelming experience that undermines a person’s belief in the world as a good and safe place (SAMHSA, 2014). It has been noted that the impacts of trauma can often ‘play out’ in young people’s behaviour within various social contexts, including within the field of school (e.g., via disengagement, disruption, conflict with others). As such, there are growing calls for practitioners to become ‘trauma-aware’ (O’Toole, 2022), including those working specifically in the context of PE (Quarmby et al., 2022). Our recent work in this area has sought to engage pre-service teachers of PE in conversations about trauma and how best to understand, recognise and respond to it in practice. Such conversations are often challenging, given that ‘trauma’ can be a sensitive topic and practitioner experiences are very much context specific. Moreover, they are made more difficult, perhaps, when undertaken in an online environment where participants - often unknown to each other - are physically distanced and conversations/interactions are less direct (Howlett, 2022).

Within this presentation, we draw on this recent work and look to articulate some of the efforts undertaken to address this challenge, focusing in particular on the use of GIFs (Graphics Interchange Format - a type of digital file in which the size of images/short animations are reduced to facilitate easier access and sharing) as a data collection tool and as a means of articulating complex ideas, experiences and perspectives. GIFs have been identified as being particularly valuable in terms of their capacity to engage others, to express moods and to tell stories (Wallbaum et al., 2016; Biggs et al., 2021). Moreover, in addition to being used/taken at face value, they can be repurposed or reinterpreted, allowing them to be taken out of their context and applied in a more abstract way (Bakhshi et al., 2016). As such, we argue that there is value in considering the role GIFs may play in both generating data and facilitating difficult conversations within a research context.

‘Alternative education settings’ (AES) is the term used internationally to describe schools or programmes that serve young people who are not succeeding in ‘traditional’ school environments. These settings offer pupils an opportunity to achieve in different contexts adopting different, and often innovative, approaches to learning (Aron, 2006). It is important to note, however, that there is some variation with regard to the terms adopted for AES globally (Forterms et al., 2023). For example, in Finland, it is referred to as Flexible Basic Education (FBE), while in Australia, such settings are known as Flexible Learning Options (FLO). In England, however – where the study that this presentation reports on was located – the term alternative provision is employed. Alternative provision refers to education arranged by local authorities for children and young people of compulsory school age who, because of reasons such as school exclusion, short or long-term illness or behaviour issues, would not otherwise receive suitable education in mainstream schools (DfE, 2013). Within England, this includes settings such as pupil referral units (PRUs), alternative provision academies, free schools, and hospital schools.

According to the latest report in January 2022, there are approximately 35,600 pupils attending alternative provision settings in England (DfE, 2022). Young people attend alternative education settings for many reasons, often because of a combination of academic, economic, behavioural, social, cultural and/or emotional issues, which have caused them to become disengaged or excluded from mainstream schools (Mills & McGregor, 2010). In fact, those attending alternative provision are often identified as being ‘at-risk’ or marginalised, may have suffered neglect or trauma during their childhood, or come from low socio-economic backgrounds (Forterms et al., 2023). Moreover, it has been reported that one in two pupils in alternative provision in England has social, emotional, and mental health (SEMH) as their primary category of special educational need (SEN) (House of Commons, 2018). Importantly, a key ambition of alternative provisions settings is to re-integrate pupils into mainstream education and they endeavour to do so by re-engaging pupils with learning, as well as promoting their social and emotional development.

It is here that physical education is perceived to play an important role here, given that it offers a means of engaging young people in positive youth development (Holt, 2016), reducing risky behaviours (Audrain-McGovern et al., 2006), and providing opportunities for the development of healthy and supportive peer friendships and adult relationships (Eime et al., 2013; Vella et al., 2014). It has even been argued that physical education can serve as a therapeutic setting for learning and practising social objectives (Ayvazo and Aljadeff-Abergel, 2019). As such, physical education may represent an opportune space within alternative provision schools for re-engaging disaffected pupils with learning. However, no prior research exists exploring physical education within alternative provision schools either in England, specifically, nor internationally. As such, the potential of the subject for supporting pupils within alternative provision settings remains somewhat theorised.

The aims of this presentation are therefore twofold: (1) to examine young people’s experiences of physical education in alternative provision settings and (2) to reflect on the challenges of conducting research with young people in alternative provision schools, as well as the opportunities.