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).

This paper draws on data collected from a larger two-year collaborative project, named “The Competence Development Project for Physical Education Teachers” (COM-PET). COM-PET was established when two school super intendants from one municipality in Norway reached out to us researcher to collaboratively design a project that could enhance primary- and secondary school PE teachers’ pedagogical practices. The project is designed in the following way; we as researchers together with two PE teacher representatives plan the content of the 3-hour gatherings where teachers from the ten schools attend (approximately 20 teachers in total). After each gathering the teachers go back to their schools working with their colleagues based on what has been the theme of the previous gathering. Based on feedback from the teachers participating on the gatherings, we, together with the two PE teacher representatives, plan the content for the next gathering. When the project comes to an end summer 2023, we have carried out a total of ten gatherings with the teachers. Participants and data generation To investigate the research question for this paper, we draw on reflective research diaries (Russell & Kelly, 2002) written by us researchers throughout the project period. Further, we also use data from semi-structured interviews from the initial, middle, and final stage of the project with the two school super intendants and the two teacher representatives, a total of six interviews. When writing this abstract, four of the six interviews have been carried out. Both authors have participated as interviewers, and each interview lasted approximately one hour. Analysis We have taken a thematic narrative approach (Smith, 2019), and apply Goffman as our theoretical lens in analyzing the data. Such a thematic narrative analysis «focus on the themes in stories, rather than all or any talk » (Smith, 2019, s. 263). Thus, to explore how researchers negotiate their professional roles over a collaborative research project with teachers, we began by individually read and re-read both the reflective diaries, as well as all the interviews. Then, we met to discuss what themes we both found relevant. In the first phase we developed three and five narratives respectively. We then employed Goffman as a theoretical lens to refine our narratives. After several rounds of discussions and continuous refinement, we ended up with three thematic narratives.

As analysis is currently in a preliminary phase, we present three narratives with short summaries. Negotiating the janus-face of being front- and backstage The first narrative illuminates how researchers negotiate their professional appearance front- and backstage. For example, although researchers might disagree strongly with the participants’ we still have to a professional appearance front-stage, and think about how we can approach this disagreement in a constructive way. In total, the different faces researchers take on can be understood through the metaphor of a janus-face. Negotiating the role as an actor in an uncertain and unpredictable environment The second narrative emphasise how being a researcher/facilitator can be compared with being an actor in a play. However, the researcher as actor has not only one role, but several roles in several scenes or settings that he or she jump in and out of. Further, the audience is different, and give different response to the ‘actor’ based on their individual preferences. These uncertain and unpredictable environments is something that the researchers must find a way to manage. Negotiating emotions in a collaborative rollercoaster One consequence of the uncertain and unpredictable nature of collaborations is negotiating different emotions we experience as researchers. Throughout a project, a researcher as actor experience both successful and less successful ‘shows’ that cause different emotions. The narrative shed light on how these emotions are a natural part of collaborations. Instead of neglecting these emotions or avoiding uncomfortable situations, one has to embrace these as an important part of pedagogical development. Preliminary conclusion Our three narratives show how Goffman theories can be used to contribute with knowledge on the researchers’ professional role(s) when working in close collaboration with teachers. The role as researcher can be compared with being an actor that continuously need to negotiate his og her professional roles.

Bjørke, L. & Casey, A. (2022). Practising collaboration in model implementation in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2022.2125945 Fernandez-Rio, J. & Iglesias, D. (2022). What do we know about pedagogical models in physical education so far? An umbrella review. Physical education and sport pedagogy. doi:10.1080/17408989.2022.2039615 Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Sustained Professional Development on Cooperative Learning: Impact on six Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 88(1), 83–94. doi:10.1080/02701367.2016.1263381. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Book Moen, K. M. & Bjørke, L. (in review). "Going the extra mile": a model for developing physical education. Leirhaug, P. E., Grøteide, H., Høyem, H. & Abelsen, K. (2020). Naturopplevingar, miljøbevisstheit og livsmeistring i vidaregåande skule. Kan 12 timar i friluftsliv gjere ein skilnad? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 104(3), 226-240. Parker, M., Patton, K., Gonçalves, L., Luguetti, C. and Lee, O. (2021). Learning communities and physical education professional development: A scoping reivew. European Physical Education Review. DOI: 10.1177/1356336X211055584 Roberts, K. (2009). Key concepts in sociology. Palgrave. Russell, G. L., & Kelly, N. H. (2002). Research as interacting dialogic processes: Implications for reflexivity. Forum: Qualitative social research, 3(3), 1-18. Smith, B. (2019). Narrative analysis in sport and exercise. How can it be done? I B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Red). Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. (s. 260-273). London: Routledge Utdanningsdirektoratet [Udir]. (2019). Læreplan i kroppsøving. Hentet fra https://www.udir.no/lk20/kro01-05?lang=nob