Pedagogical Practices and Subjectivation in a Multicultural School
Author(s):
Ragnhild Liland (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2013
Format:
Paper

Session Information

20 SES 05 JS, Intercultural Practices

Paper Session
Joint Session with NW 07

Time:
2013-09-11
11:00-12:30
Room:
D-303
Chair:
Ghazala Bhatti

Contribution

Nationally and internationally great attention is paid to the challenges of multiculturality (UFD, 2007-2009). In Europe we are experiencing increased immigration, both between European countries but also from other continents. National and international policymakers  (UN) express a desire to develop communities that embrace the new diversity in the population. UNESCO´s declaration from Salmanca of 1994 emphasises the principle of inclusion. It is stated that it is the schools and teaching that have to adapt to the diversity of the pupils to ensure that all students are included (UFD, 2003).

 

Schools are considered especially important socializing institutions since students spend a lot of time in them, and it is a central arena where students from different of ethnic backgrounds meet. From the standpoint of education in the Norwegian context when ethnic “others” (students) attend the education school system it often implies an encounter with completely unknown pedagogical practices. Secondary school is not only a meeting place for young people based on diversity. It is also a space where differences and subjectivity are formed.

 

In pedagogical practices in multicultural student groups two stories often come up: “The Great History of Concern” and “the Great History of Negation” (Staunæs 2004). The first story treats the “ethnic others” as culturally inappropriate. In the second story the cultural differences are pointed to, but nevertheless treated as irrelevant. In such manner, the differences are disallowed. What both stories have in common is that “otherness” is treated as natural, predetermined and static. Staunæs (2004) breaks with this understanding, as she emphasizes the process. In this context she refers to three metatheoretical principles.

Intersectionality emphasizes the question of power and equity. Intersectionality implies to illuminate the reciprocal construction of social categories and the hierarchy between them. Analyses of intersectionality demand inclusion of the majority. This means that you have to do research on both minority and majority, and the relation between them. The third principle, destabilization, refers to a rejection regarding the existing power relations as given, for example the dominating culture and the existing economic structure. These principles for working with identity processes are also central for illuminating how the demarcation of similarities and differences contribute to the students´ subjectivation. Staunæs (2004) refers to subjectivation as a two-sided process where the subject is active, but also determined by its contextual conditions. In this context Foucault´s (1999) understanding of power is relevant.

 

The problem statement of the study is: How do different pedagogical practices open and close for student’s opportunities to shape their identity in multicultural settings?

Method

The method is that of discourse analysis based on interviews. The data material consists of five semistructured interviews (Dalen, 2004) collected in a secondary school receiving immigrant students in a large city in Norway. Discourse analysis (Jørgensen & Phillips, 1999) points out that one discourse often excludes other discourses. For example: within a school there exists several discourses, each representing “otherness” in a way giving meaning and understanding from certain perspective. In this case discourse analysis (Jørgensen & Philips, 1999) is based on the presumption that the majority of ethnic Norwegians have a hegemonic position in relation to minority concerning power of definition. The essential here is to attempt to reveal discursive and sociocultural practices´ influence on the stabilization and the maintenance of the established and dominant discourses. The discourse is based on theories on ”Otherness”. Who belongs to “us” and who is “them.” (Jørgensen & Phillips 1999). In the analysis the methatheoretical principles described above (Staunæs, 2004) are used.

Expected Outcomes

Regarding the European and the international question on inclusion some practices create clear boundaries between “etnhic Norwegians” and “ethnic others”. Either you are Norwegian or not, you are “different”. There is no space allowing diversity, since the boundaries are rigid. Another finding is that the school uses ethnicity as a marker for power. It looks like both teachers and students accept this division of power. However, at the same time findings show that students of both the minority and the majority group are dissatisfied with the schools´ practices and try to offer resistance towards them (cf. Foucault, 1999: where there is power there is always resistance). In the pedagogical practices studied, the students but also the teachers get very limited space for identity options. The study shows that to reach the goal for the school to become an inclusive institution, it is necessary to increase the knowledge about the relation between professional practices and subjectivation processes. The study also indicates that we need more knowledge on students´ and teachers´ resistance towards existing practices. Directing attention towards and analyzing resistance may provide other alternatives to improve inclusion.

References

Dalen, M. (2004). Intervju som forskningsmetode – en kvalitativ tilnærming. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Foucault, M. (1999). Overvåking og straff: Det moderne fengsels historie, Oslo: Gyldendal. Gullestad, M. (2002). “Det norske sett med nye øyne”. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Hall, S. (2001). ”The Spectacle of the Other”, I Wetherell, M m.fl.: Discourse Theory and Practice. A Reader. London: Sage. Jørgensen, M. W. og Philips, L.(1999). Diskursanalyse som teori og metode, Fredriksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Kvale, S.(2001). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju, Oslo Gyldendal. Strategiplan 2007-2009 (2007). Likeverdig opplæring i praksis. Kunnskapsdepartementet. Said, E. W. (2001). Orientalismen. Oslo: Den norske Bokklubben. Schaanning, E. (1997). Vitenskap som skapt viten, Spatacus Forlag as, Oslo. Skjelbred, D. og Aamotsbakken,B (2003). Det flerkulturelle perspektivet i læremidler. Rapport. HiV/LS. Oslo/ Tønsberg. Staunæs, D. (2004). ”Køn, etnicitet og skoleliv”. Fredriksberg : Forlaget samfunnslitteratur Staunæs, D. (2003). ”Where have all the Subjects gone? Bringing together the concepts of intersectionality and subjectification” I NORA – Nordic Journal of Women Studies(2). UFD (2003). Regjeringens tiltaksplan: Likeverdig utdanning i praksis! Strategi for bedre læring og større deltagelse av språklige minoriteter i barnehage, skole og utdanning 2004–2009. Oslo: Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet. UFD (2007-2009). Regjeringens tiltaksplan: Likeverdig opplæring i praksis! Strategi for bedre læring og større deltagelse av språklige minoriteter i barnehage, skole og utdanning 2007–2009. Oslo: Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet.

Author Information

Ragnhild Liland (presenting / submitting)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.