Articles
DOI DOI: 10.52380/ijcer.2024.11.4.731

Negotiating Pedagogic Researcher Identity by Two College English Teachers in China: A Social Network Perspective

Wei Zeng1, Letitia Fickel2
  1. 1 Southwest University, School of International Studies, Chongqing, China
  2. 2 University of Canterbury, College of Education, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) or pedagogic research (PedR) has become an international movement that encourages academics to use research-informed approaches to understand and enhance their teaching. However, the definition and understanding of SoTL/ PedR have been ambiguous, impacting career progression, orientation of scholarship activities and academics’ perception of undertaking such activities. This article adopts social network perspective to understand the SoTL/PedR experiences of two academics with a focus on teaching ---College English (CE) teachers working at a Chinese tertiary institution as they navigate their identities in a higher education (HE) context that attempts to promote SoTL/PedR. An integrated framework for understanding identity in individual social network of practice (INoP) is used to examine the complex nature of identity negotiation. Multiple networks and communities are identified. The juxtaposition of ties and communities reflects the complexity of PedR discourse, in which the stratification of knowledge and power relations sustain the boundaries of networks or communities. Two participants experienced complexity of subjectivities and negotiated a range of positions, e.g., CE teacher versus ‘more professional’ English Major (EM) teacher, pedagogic researcher versus ‘real’ researcher, educational researcher versus ‘superb’ disciplinary researcher. The article also discerns a collective subordination of CE teachers’ joint endeavors of researching their teaching practice to dominant research discourse. The study contributes to our insights into cultivating practice-oriented, problem solving-focused, research-informed PedR communities and networks characterized by recognition, trust, and respect.

How to Cite

Zeng, W., & Fickel, L. (2024). Negotiating Pedagogic Researcher Identity by Two College English Teachers in China: A Social Network Perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 11(4), 556–570. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijcer.2024.11.4.731
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Arribas-Ayllon, M., & Walkerdine, V. (2007). Foucauldian discourse analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 91-108). London: Sage.
  2. Ashwin, P., & Trigwell, K. (2004). Investigating staff and educational development. In D. Baume & P. Kahn (Eds.), Enhancing staff and educational development (pp. 137-151). London: Routledge.
  3. Bai, L., & Hudson, P. (2011). Understanding chinese tefl academics’ capacity for research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 35(3), 391-407.
  4. Benbow, R. J., & Lee, C. (2019). Teaching-focused social networks among college faculty: exploring conditions for the development of social capital. Higher Education, 78(1), 67-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0331-5
  5. Bennett, R., Hobson, J., Jones, A., Martin-Lynch, P., Scutt, C., Strehlow, K., & Veitch, S. (2016). Being chimaera: A monstrous identity for sotl academics. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(2), 217-228.
  6. Bernstein, K. (2018). The perks of being peripheral: English learning and participation in a preschool classroom network of practice. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 798-844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.428
  7. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, New Jersey: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  8. Canning, J., & Masika, R. (2022). The scholarship of teaching and learning (sotl): The thorn in the flesh of educational research. Studies in Higher Education, 47(6), 1084-1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1836485
  9. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  10. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher Educators as researchers: multiple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 219-225.
  11. Cotton, D. R. E., Miller, W., & Kneale, P. (2018). The Cinderella of academia: is Higher Education pedagogic research undervalued in UK research assessment? Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1625-1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1276549
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29(4), 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.06.002
  14. Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves. Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.
  15. Ellis, R. (2021). A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and where are we going? Language Teaching Research, 54(2), 190-205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000038
  16. Evans, C., Howson, C. K., Forsythe, A., & Edwards, C. (2020). What constitutes high quality higher education pedagogical research? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1790500
  17. Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 121-125. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.121
  18. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self. London: Tavistock.
  19. Foucault, M. (2003). The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow & N. Rose (Eds.), The essential Foucault: Selections from the essential works of Foucault 1954-1984. New York, NY: The New Press.
  20. Foucault, M. (2010). The government of self and others: lectures at the Collège de France 1982–1983 (G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  21. Freeman, D. (2018). Arguing for a knowledge-base in language teacher education, then (1998) and now (2018). Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777534
  22. Fuhse, J. A. (2009). The meaning structure of social networks. Sociological Theory, 27(1), 51-73. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.00338.x
  23. Gao, Z., & Yuan, R. (2021). Understanding professional vulnerability in an era of performativity: experiences of EFL academics in mainland China. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1989577
  24. Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research–teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709-726. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000287212
  25. Godbold, N., Matthews, K. E. E., & Gannaway, D. (2024). Theorising new possibilities for scholarship of teaching and learning and teaching-focused academics. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(1), 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2218809
  26. Hamann, J. (2016). The visible hand of research performance assessment. Higher Education, 72(6), 761-779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9974-7
  27. Han, C., & Wu, Z. (2015). Teacher learning across boundaries: A challenge to the legitimacy of language teachers’ disciplinary knowledge. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 225-242.
  28. Heinrich, E. (2017). Teaching groups as midlevel sociocultural contexts for developing teaching and learning: a case study and comparison to microcultures. Higher Education Research & Development, 364(4), 702-715. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1208641
  29. Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2004). A constructive critique of communities of practice: Moving beyond Lave and Wenger. Paper presented at the Australian Centre for Organisational, Vocational, and Adult Learning, Sydney, Australia.
  30. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge Layder university press.
  31. Layder, D. (2006). Understanding social theory. London: Sage
  32. Lee, F. S., Pham, X., & Gu, G. (2013). The UK Research Assessment Exercise and the narrowing of UK economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(4), 693-717. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet031
  33. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Lu, H., & Zhang, X. R. (2021). Emotional responses toward a new research policy among academics in a Chinese University. Front Psychol, 12, 777472. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.777472
  35. McIntosh, S., McKinley, J., Milligan, L. O., & Mikolajewska, A. (2019). Issues of (in)visibility and compromise in academic work in UK universities. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1637846
  36. McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(3), 357-382.
  37. Moed, H. F. (2008). UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1
  38. Nagy, J. (2011). Scholarship in higher education: Building research capabilities through core business. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(3), 303-321.
  39. Peng, J.E., & Gao, X. (2019). Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. Sage Open, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/215824401986629
  40. Riessman, C. K. (2003). Performing identities in illness narrative: Masculinity and multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Research, 3(1), 5-33.
  41. SCC. (2020). Deepening the reform of educational evaluation in the new era: The general plan. Beijing Retrieved from https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-10/13/content_5551032.htm.
  42. Simmons, N., Eady, M., Scharff, L., & Gregory, D. (2021). SoTL in the margins: Teaching-focused role case studies. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 9(1), 61–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.20343/
  43. Smith, S., & Walker, D. (2021). Scholarship and academic capitals: the boundaried nature of education-focused career tracks. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1965570
  44. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3 ed., pp. 443-446). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  45. Stengers, I. (2018). Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow Science. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  46. Su, Q., & Cai , X. (2023). Efficiency or value: logic dilemmas and tension adjustments of university faculty evaluation system. Journal of East China Normal University Educational Sciences, 6, 133-141. https://doi.org/10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2023.06.011
  47. Tierney, A. (2020). The scholarship of teaching and learning and pedagogic research within the disciplines: Should it be included in the Research Excellence Framework? Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1574732
  48. Trent, J., & Shroff, R. H. (2012). Technology, identity, and community: the role of electronic teaching portfolios in becoming a teacher. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.720416
  49. Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (2012). Tribes and territories in the 21st century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge.
  50. Van Canh, L. (2018). Remapping the teacher knowledge-base of language teacher education: A Vietnamese perspective. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777525
  51. Varghese, M. (2017). Language teacher educator identity and language teacher identity: Towards a social justice perspective. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Reflections on language teacher identity research (pp. 43-48). New York: Routledge.
  52. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2 ed.). London, England: Blackwell.
  53. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  54. White, H. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  55. Wint, N., & Nyamapfene, A. (2022). The development of engineering education research: a UK based case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2121686
  56. Yang, S., Shu, D., & Yin, H. (2021). “Teaching, my passion; publishing, my pain”: Unpacking academics’ professional identity tensions through the lens of emotional resilience. Higher Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00765-w
  57. Zappa‐Hollman, S., & Duff, P. (2015). Academic English socialization through individual networks of practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 333-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.188
  58. Zeng, W., & Fickel, L. (2021). Exploring collective identity of a group of teaching-oriented academics amid research discourse: a Chinese case. Higher Education, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00728-1
  59. Zhao, F. (2023). Teaching evaluation of university teachers in the new era: reflection and reconstruction. Journal of Higher Education Management, 17(4), 114-124. https://doi.org/10.13316/j.cnkij.hem.20230705.010