Conference Agenda

In this paper I share the results of the analysis of a case study of a Social Education student through a qualitative enquiry with a narrative approach (Clandinin and Connelly, 1994, 2000; Van Manen, 2003, 1990). It delves into her experience and formative trajectory within the Practicum course of the Bachelor's Degree in Social Education at the University of Malaga (Spain); a course that took place during three consecutive years, oriented to the realisation of training practices in profesional contexts.

The focus of this study, which is part of a larger thesis project, is to approach the development of professional knowledge in the initial training of social educators in the context of this subject. Being a social educator requires more than just knowing what to do and how to do it. Social education professionals develop their profession in situations and problems that cannot be solved by applying knowledge, but by developing practical knowledge that allows them to make situational judgements about what is appropriate and desirable (Biesta, 2013, 2017) at each moment and with each person.

Initial training plays an important role in the development of professional identity and critical thinking that allows students to construct their own knowledge, which is indispensable for the educational profession exercise: determining who they want to be and how they want to do their profession. That is, learning to act on the basis of who they are, becoming aware of their own pedagogical being and taking responsibility for their actions (Blanco and Sierra, 2013).

In this sense, this context of theoretical-practical and professional training is one of the most important and highly valued subjects within the Degree in Social Education, mainly due to its proximity to professional practice. During these practical periods, students attend socio-educational centres attached to the university, for several days a week, and are accompanied by an academic tutor. This tutor may have a group of several students at a time who are accompanied in their training path: (i) individually and periodically through the reading, revision and return of different reflective writing devices (diaries, stories, internship reports) and in tutorials; and (ii) in a group and organised way, in seminars that are given throughout the internship process.

Given that the shaping of knowledge about the educational profession is always a singular relational experience, here we present the case of Zoe, a student who did her internship in various socio-educational contexts with minors and women. We try to show her experience of the educational relationship lived during these practical periods and, also, the type of mediation offered by her academic tutor.

We start from the idea that educating, says Milagros Rivera (2012), is "something that is done in relation and is also the fruit of the relationship" (p.36). Therefore it is in the experience of the relationship practice where what happens in that very moment of the relationship phenomenon and what happens in the individual perception, takes on a new meaning and becomes symbolic. The human being learns to socialise in continuous interaction with others. At this time, they learn the behaviours that are considered appropriate in the context, as well as the set of norms and values that govern them. In other words, in educational processes there is always a socialisation process, as it always has an impact on the student as a subject, either enhancing or restricting his or her capacities (Biesta, 2021). Educating is, in this sense, "to bring out what each student has hidden inside" (Montoya, 2011, p. 211), the singular, "the new that each human creature that is born brings to the common world" (Rivera, 2012, p. 64).

In the social sciences, universities increasingly evaluate the output of their researchers by counting the researchers' journal articles in indexed journals. Publications other than journal articles in English are devalued by these practices. However, anthologies and monographs, also in local languages, remain important to many scholars (Edwards 2012). Especially researchers working with non-mainstream methods, such as post-qualitative or art-based research, might seek different venues beyond indexed journals for their research. Consequently, the diversity of scholarly dissemination pathways is rising in some fields, despite the focus on journal publications.

Our four year project on publication processes in the social sciences (FWF- P 35575) shows that researchers are anticipating specific publication venues when they design their research project. Social scientists are required to build a diverse publication portfolio, which may include publications in English-language journals, monographs, anthologies in a non-English language, or visual presentations. Do researchers plan their projects with these requirements in mind? Do they analyze their data in different directions in order to create multiple outcomes that fit multiple pathways of publication?

Simultaneously, some researchers, or scientific institutions as well as policy makers suggest to reduce the diversity of publishing pathways in favor of English-language journals to make scientists and their outputs comparable by bibliometrics. However, the targeted journals do not include the full diversity of (locally specific) methods and research interests. However, there are scientific methods that are less often published in the targeted journals. Do researchers use other methods in this case?

Further, different forms of dissemination seem to produce (slightly) different findings and a broader variety in dissemination strategies increases scientific knowledge. Epistemological models of research consist of three major components: the research subject, the research object and the method. These three components shall produce a result, which is then disseminated (and is not compromised by this process). Our preliminary findings suggest a different model of research, where the dissemination process is already a part of the production of results. We employ a new materialist perspective (Barad, 2007; Braidotti, 2002; Haraway, 2010) to support our model. A theory, which assumes that parts of the research process do not exist separately from each other and that research processes do not follow a linear path (from A data collection to B analysis to C publication), but that all these processes run simultaneously and are broken down and rationalized into successive steps after the process happened. If we follow this theory, step C, publishing, would be no longer just the last consequence or appendage of the research, but part of the research process entangled with A and B. Following this theoretical concept we do not consider publication processes as the result of a decision of the researcher, but as a product of the research assemblage, which also includes publication processes. We, therefore, look for specific assemblages, which include individual circumstances, personal preferences, institutional requirements, specific physical environments, specific university policies and environments, economic structures and norms and values of a specific research field. Our findings show how publication practices are embedded into these assemblages.

This paper addresses the methodological socialization of qualitative and quantitative empirical social sciences and humanities (SSH) scholars. By the concept of methodological socialization, we refer to the processes by which SSH scholars learn and adopt research methods and methodologies, norms and values that are appropriate and acceptable within their preferred research paradigms and broader disciplines. Despite a number of empirical studies on work in the SSH and research careers, there are few studies on empirical social researchers’ methodological socialization and professional knowledge generation. Overall, we know little about the body of professional knowledge and competencies that empirical researchers acquire, their role in methodological socialization and how methodological socialization shapes the careers of empirical social researchers.

Some studies addressed methodological socialization’s role in doctoral education (Cilesiz & Greckhamer, 2022; Rhoads et al., 2017). While the doctoral stage is vital for the initiation into research paradigms, we suggest that – like in other professions, where continuous development processes and stages during a professional career can be found (see e.g., Benner, 1982) – methodological socialization extends over the whole research career and deserves closer examination. We are therefore interested in the examination of methodological socialization within different kinds of empirical social research.

We understand methodological socialization in multidimensional terms as (1) professional knowledge, that accumulates with expertise and is bound to specific biographies as well as (2) formal and informal socialization and individual and collective socialization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1977). We draw on differential association theory to conceptualize methodological socialization into specific research paradigms (Johnson, 2020). Differential association theory stresses the importance of small group interaction for being drawn into a particular research paradigm by learning and adopting favorable rationalizations and attitudes. For those reasons, we investigate how researchers became the empirical social scientists they are and how methodological socialization differs between different quantitative and qualitative methods and methodologies.

Specifically, the following three questions arise: what professional knowledge and competencies do they acquire (1), what role does their scientific environment as well as different settings of socialization play in this process (2), and what influence do the respective research paradigm, methodology, and method(s) have (3)?

We assume that question (3) influences questions (1) and (2), and that methodological socialization is shaped by the respective method. However, it is also conceivable that commonalities exist between both quantitative and qualitative methods and methodologies, as well as between different qualitative methods and methodologies. Therefore, this paper explores the extent to which methodological diversity is reflected in different forms of knowledge and contexts of socialization, or whether commonalities across methodologies can be found in methodological biographies, thus to what extent methodological socialization differs between methods and methodologies.