Colley labelled mentoring as “the ‘in’ thing” (p. 257) in 2002. Her observation has not aged a day given the growth the past 20 years in mentoring in teacher education. This growth mirrors the international ‘turn to the practical’ (Lawn & Furlong, 2009) in teacher education and the associated (re-)emphasizing of the importance of learning in schools (Vanassche et al., 2019). As a result, mentoring is a common experience for most student teachers on placement (Orland-Barak, 2014). However, key questions about the way mentoring fosters learning remain largely unaddressed: how do the three triad actors actually work with one another? How do particular mechanisms in the triad matter for the processes and outcomes of mentoring? What are the potential negative or unintended consequences of mentoring? Our review of the literature suggests that existing theory and research is flawed in three main aspects:

First, most of the research on mentoring to date is “celebratory” (Bullough, 2012), anchored in uncritical acceptance of its beneficial effects. The modest amount of existing research on the potential negative effects of mentoring (e.g. Ben-Harush & Orland- Barak, 2019) reveals that mentoring is less of an “innocent and collegial pedagogy” (Manathunga, 2007: 207) than is often assumed and that there is an urgent need to look beyond the “rose-tinted aura of celebration that usually surrounds it” (Colley, 2002: 270). Second, Hart’s (2018) meta-synthesis concludes that “very few studies have focused on the full triad, often focusing on a chosen dyad within the triad instead” (p. 25). Research which focuses on a chosen dyad within the triad fails to account for the complex relation dynamics inherent to triadic mentoring practice. As dyadic mentoring relationships already reveal a huge complexity, adding a third actor, together with her/his own views on (good) teaching, only adds to this complexity (e.g. Klemp & Nilssen, 2017)

Third, existing research is working from exploratory frameworks which are biased towards individual cognition and competence (Vanassche et al., 2019). This is evident in, for example, the recent establishment of mentor standards in many European countries benchmarking the minimum level of achievement for mentors. In conceptualizing mentoring as a function of the individually competent mentor, existing research cannot explain paradoxical truths (Lingard, 2016) about mentoring; such as, triads being competent one day, but not the next, or highly competent individuals regularly combining to form an incompetent triad. Therefore, there is a need to develop complementary frameworks which allow to conceptualise mentoring not as a function of the individual mind, but as a relational accomplishment, emerging from the resources and constraints in broader socio-cultural contexts.

This paper addresses this knowledge gap and aims to develop a robust theoretical approach which is able to account for the experiential level of mentoring (gap 1) by integrating the voices of all involved (gap 2) in a systematic framework which moves beyond the individual (gap 3). More in particular, it will bring together conceptual tools of frame analysis and positioning theory to theorize mentoring as a discursive practice. The notion ‘discursive’ is used here to signal a fundamental shift in focus: not individual cognition, but actual practice. The focus will be on theorizing and explaining what is happening in actual mentoring practice and why, incorporating aspects of triad members’ past experiences, but also broader contextual resources that are to be found outside the individual mind, such as the expectations held by the school and the university/university college leading to the following research question: ‘which conceptual and methodological resources do positioning theory and frame analysis deliver to investigate the complexity of mentoring practice?’.

The proposed discursive approach to mentoring will be built from a critical synthesis of the theory, methodology and recent applications of positioning theory (see a.o. Harré & van Langenhove, 1999) and frame analysis (see a.o. Goffman, 1974) in the educational field. Positioning theory and frame analysis are fairly new, yet highly promising approaches to this field of educational research as both share an interest in the discursive construction of (multiple) selves and (multiple) meanings. As Gordon (2015) observes, positioning theory and frame analysis “facilitate a layered understanding of social life—that is, of selves and situations as multifaceted, complex, and ambiguous” (p. 324). Moreover, both do not consider these processes in a vacuum, but as situated in actors’ embedded contexts, thus acknowledging the ways in which existing social structures, ideas and norms shape interpretation. As such, these kindred approaches share enough theoretical ground to allow for a productive integration, but clearly emerged from different disciplinary backgrounds, and with different purposes. That is, sociological theories of framing mainly refer to how interacting individuals establish “definitions of situation” (Goffman, 1974: 10), whereas social constructionist researchers in psychology have used positioning theory to address the discursive negotiation of identities (sense of self) for oneself and for others in particular situations (Davies & Harré, 1990). Put differently: whereas positioning theory focuses on the question ‘Who am I in relation to others?’, frame analysis emphasizes the question ‘What is it that’s going on here?’ (Goffman, 1974: 8). The previous phrases serve to introduce the key analytic concepts of both approaches: frame and position, or framing and positioning; the gerund serving to highlight the observation that self- and meaning-making is a constantly evolving process which occurs between people, situated in particular contexts, rather than a product of the individual mind.

It will first be argued that the proposed theoretical approach has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of whether, when, and how mentoring is a viable way to support teacher learning and school improvement and build a broader evidence base in both the dynamics and outcomes of mentoring. This potential for theory-building will be illustrated by explicitly speaking back to each of the three knowledge gaps identified above. Second, an empirical illustration of the theoretical approach and the powerful methodological strategies it delivers, will be given with exemplary findings of a recent study involving observations of 22 mentoring triads at a University-based teacher education programme in England. More in particular, we will zoom in on one triad in which the different triad members did not share a definition of the situation. That is, the teacher educator framed the situation of ‘a student teacher failing placement’ as a victim of a mentor holding too high expectations too early in the process, and subsequently positioned himself as an advocate on behalf of this student who he believed was in need of support given the student’s vulnerable position in the relationship with the mentor (grading). The mentor conversely framed the situation as a consequence of the university’s shortcoming in preparing student teachers for the ‘real’ world of practice. These findings immediately reveal the productivity of using positioning theory and frame analysis in tandem to unravel the complexity of mentoring: the frames created and maintained by actors make certain positions available and close off others; and, conversely, participants create frames by positioning themselves and others in particular ways (Kendall, 2008). Finally, limitations and future directions in the conceptualization and empirical analysis of mentoring in teacher education on the basis of the proposed theoretical approach will be indicated.

Ben Harush, A., & Orland-Barak, L. (2019). Triadic mentoring in early childhood teacher education: The role of relational agency. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8, 182-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-10-2018-0055 Bullough, R.V. (2012). Mentoring and new teacher induction in the United States: A review and analysis of current practices. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20, 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.645600 Colley, H. (2002). A ‘rough guide’ to the history of mentoring from a Marxist feminist perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 28, 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747022000021403 Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43-63. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. Harper & Row. Gordon, C. (2015). Framing and positioning. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Shiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 324-345). John Wiley & Sons. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Blackwell. Hart, A.E. (2018). Exploring the interpersonal dynamics of the supervisory triad of pre-service teacher education: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Kennesaw State University, Doctor of Education in Teacher Leadership. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/teachleaddoc_etd/23/ Kendall, S. (2008). The balancing act: Framing gendered parental identities at dinnertime. Language in Society, 37, 539-568. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404508080767 Klemp, T., & Nilssen, V. (2017). Positionings in an immature triad in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1282456 Lawn, M., & Furlong, J. (2009). The disciplines of education in the UK: Between the ghost and the shadow. Oxford Review of Education, 35(5), 541-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980903216283 Lingard, L. (2016). Paradoxical truths and persistent myths: Reframing the team competence conversation. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 36, 19-21. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000078 Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29, 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650 Orland-Barak, L. (2014). Mediation in mentoring: A synthesis of studies in Teaching and Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.011 Vanassche, E., Kidd, W.E., & Murray, J. (2019). Articulating, reclaiming and celebrating the professionalism of teacher educators in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 478-491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1628211