Teacher educators operate in a distinctive professional space: they are teachers of teachers and therefore work in a “second-order” practice where what and how they teach is itself the message (Lunenberg, Dengerink, & Korthagen, 2013). This feature makes professional identity particularly salient, because teacher educators continuously “model” teaching while simultaneously explicating and legitimising their pedagogical choices (often framed as teach what you preach or modelling-based pedagogy). At the same time, teacher educators experience role tensions—e.g., educator and researcher, mentor and assessor/gatekeeper, curriculum developer and bridge-builder—which can fuel uncertainty and identity work (Lunenberg et al., 2013).

Identity development is not only cognitive but also moral and relational. Teacher educators, like teachers, build relationships of care and responsibility and enact value-laden professional judgments (Vanassche, 2016; Pols, 2018). Moreover, the profession is structurally vulnerable: many conditions that shape professional success remain only partly controllable, and judgments are often contested, sources of vulnerability that can be intensified in times of societal pressure and institutional change (Kelchtermans, 2023).

A promising way to access and support professional identity work is to focus on professional narratives. Storyline methods allow participants to visualise and narrate “highs and lows” across their trajectory, making identity tensions and meaning-making visible and discussable (Oolbekkink-Marchand, Meijer, & Lunenberg, 2021; Oolbekkink-Marchand & Meijer, 2022). This research workshop builds on that insight and offers a concrete, researchable protocol: a storyline-based focus conversation designed to generate rich qualitative data while safeguarding authenticity, collegiality, and participant ownership.

Aim and workshop format

The aim of the research workshop is twofold. Methodological learning: participants experience and critique a concrete method for conducting focus conversations on teacher educator professional identity that balances authenticity and data collection.

Experiential understanding: by applying the protocol, participants can feel what “works” (and what creates friction) in real time, providing immediate methodological feedback and refinement ideas.

During the workshop, participants will (a) create a short personal storyline, (b) participate in a facilitated focus conversation using the protocol, and (c) debrief analytically: What enabled authentic talk? Where did structure help or hinder? What kinds of identity data emerged (values, tensions, turning points, role negotiations), and how could these be coded or thematised?

This workshop is relevant for researchers studying teacher educators, identity development, and professional learning, and for those seeking robust, ethical ways to collect rich qualitative data in collegial settings.

Methodological approach: the Storyline Focus Conversation Protocol The protocol is designed for small groups (4–8 teacher educators) and uses a boundary object (in this case: the personal storyline) to anchor the dialogue (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). It combines three principles: - Narrative elicitation: participants create a brief storyline of their teacher educator journey (e.g., confidence, purpose, or experienced tensions over time). - Dialogic deepening: guided prompts invite peers to explore meaning, values, and identity tensions (e.g., modelling dilemmas, vulnerability, moral commitments, role conflicts). - Researchable structure with ethical safeguards: the conversation is facilitated using a light-touch structure (turn-taking, timeboxing, agreed confidentiality, participant right-to-pass), and data generation is supported through audio recording and/or structured notes, plus a short reflection form to capture immediate sense-making. This design addresses a common methodological challenge: how to facilitate a genuinely collegial, reflective conversation and produce analysable research data. By coupling an authentic identity practice (storylines) with a transparent, minimal structure, the protocol aims to reduce “interview-like” distortion while still ensuring comparability across groups (Nyumba, 2018).

A storyline-based focus conversation can yield unusually rich professional-identity data because participants work with a concrete “boundary object” (their storyline) that prompts episodic recall, meaning-making, and reflection on turning points. Narrative interviewing supports temporally structured accounts rather than abstract declarations, which can increase depth and nuance. In a small group, storylines also make sensemaking visible: participants compare trajectories, ask for examples, and negotiate shared and divergent interpretations—data that include both what is said and how it is co-constructed. These same features create risks. Group dynamics can skew what becomes “sayable”: dominant voices, conformity, and politeness norms may generate safe consensus accounts and suppress minority or uncomfortable experiences. Identity talk is also prone to impression management; social desirability can push participants toward coherent, morally acceptable selves rather than ambivalence or doubt (Bergen & Labonté, 2020). Ethical exposure could be higher in groups because confidentiality cannot be fully controlled once participants leave the room. Finally, facilitator positionality and power relations shape what is disclosed and how it is interpreted, so reflexive practice is essential. Overall, the approach offers depth and ecological credibility, but it requires explicit ground rules (including the right to pass), skilled moderation, transparent consent and debriefing, and analysis that treats accounts as co-produced interaction, not straightforward self-report.

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research, 81(2), 132-169. Bergen, N. & Labonté, R. (2020). Everything is perfect and we have no problems: Detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 30(5), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319889354. Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media. MacPhail, A., Ulvik, M., Guberman, A., Czerniawski, G., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., & Bain, Y. (2019). The professional development of higher education-based teacher educators: needs and realities. Professional development in education, 45(5), 848-861. Murray, J., Smith, K., Vanderlinde, R., & Lunenberg, M. (2021). Teacher educators and their professional development. In Teacher Educators and their Professional Development (pp. 1-14). Routledge. Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and teacher education, 21(2), 125-142. Nyumba, T.O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860. Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., Meijer, P. C., & Lunenberg, M. (2021). Teacher educators’ professional development during an international Summer Academy: Storylines as a powerful pedagogy. In Teacher Educators and their Professional Development (pp. 92-105). Routledge. Sim, J. & Waterfield, J. (2019). Focus group methodology: Some ethical challenges. Quality & Quantity, 53, 3003–3022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5. Van Velzen, Corinne, Marcel Van der Klink, Anja Swennen, and Elka Yaffe. "The induction and needs of beginning teacher educators." Professional development in education 36, no. 1-2 (2010): 61-75.