We acknowledge ourselves as an assemblage (Deleuze and Guattari 1987): an entangled network of relationships, both singular and plural. In alignment with Braidotti’s ( 2018) notion of nomadic becoming, our community is premised on social connection rather than geographic belonging. We embody differences along lines of culture, race, age and disciplinary backgrounds. As three academics with a close connection to the EdD, we felt it was a discussion we would be well positioned to contribute something valuable towards.
#Entwined with you book download professional#
Without deliberative agreement we focused on ‘professional’ practice, the ‘embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared practical understandings’ that defined how we experience our places of employment, and the professional doctorate. We have had to sift and sort to trammel our attempts to develop understanding into prose, citations and data (Hepler et al. Our initial reading/writing sessions were always and already entwined. The time blocked out in our diaries created space to recall what had happened to us, how we felt and what we did, our reading of the literature and our mapping of the terrain. We met regularly in an online space to read, write and talk about the role of practice in the EdD. We worked through and with this and with several other contradictions. Writing collaboratively is a contradiction. We position ourselves (analytically and critically) as data, making use of dramatic recall, metaphors, vivid (absurd) characters, and unusual phrasing. In writing collaborative autoethnography (Chang, Ngunjir, and Hernandez 2016) we are part of the world we seek to theorise. Writing together is our mode of inquiry (Richardson 2003). In this paper we deploy collaborative autoethnography to explore the distinct ways in which concepts associated with posthumanism, such as diffraction, reconfigure our reading of the relationship between theory, practice and the Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD). Doctoral education can only be understood as an animated field of diverse and complicated, intersecting, overlapping, and constantly changing practice. Our social world is shared and constituted via manifestations of practice. Practice and practices are everywhere, exceeding the binary. We understand practice and practices as the primary building blocks of the social (Boud and Lee 2009), involving actions and actors, settings mediated by tools, artefacts, rules, roles and relationships. Encoded in these notions of practice is an always and already existing binary, in which practice is relegated as the subordinate. The notion of practice is heavily weighted in these discourses, standing in contrast to several possible counterbalances: research and practice theory and practice the academy, a site of knowledge generation and the workplace, a site of practice. 2016) at other times as intricately detailed specifications defining minimal standards of practice, acquaintanceship with which confers a licence to practice. Sometimes expressed as ‘best-practice’ or ‘evidence-based-practice’ (Lynch et al. The contemporary professional can hardly avoid discourses of practice. Ultimately, we argue that changes to professional practice are an inevitable consequence. We conclude with a rejection of research in contrast to practice and instead map the effect of difference. In placing the researcher-practitioner as the mediating mechanism between the academy and practice, it becomes apparent that research itself and knowledge generation is both embedded in and embodied by practice. This impossibility is premised not on the knowledge that research generates as such but rather on the impact new knowledge landscapes have on the researcher- practitioner, the mechanism that ultimately mediates research and practice.
In our third move, research unframes practice, making it impossible. The parallels of research and practice compel us to consider the extent to which their relationship is best understood as a disruptive one. Research is structured, rational and orderly, practice is unable or unwilling to conform to the predictions of research, its excess creating unmanageable confusion. In our second move, we suggest that research runs in parallel to practice, at times casting a shadow. We ultimately reject this idea as one that diminishes both research and practice.
In this space practice is a neutral recipient site that accepts the determinations of research unable to self-generate meaningful worthwhile knowledge.
In our first move ‘research informs practice’. Drawing loosely upon strategies associated with collaborative autoethnography we conceptualise the place of practice in the professional doctorate through four distinct moves each of which compel us towards the conclusion that research, and practice are mutually entangled.
0 kommentar(er)
