So the story goes.... originally I had planned to conduct a postmodern ethnography of a cohort of the social studies education Professional Development School network (PDS). I was interested in the ways in which power circulated and the culture of the PDS was legitimated and the usefulness of Popkewitz’s (1998) conceptualization of the culture of redemption as a framework for understanding:

The social and educational sciences have embodied a redemptive culture; that is, science is to save and rescue the child and society. The rhetorical constructions of the pedagogical sciences and policy studies suggest that there is a necessary relation between the interpretation of educational realities, social and personal practice, and the predicted futures. The roles of science and the scientist are sanctioned in a way that was previously reserved for religious cosmologies of social and personal change (Popkewitz, 1998a, p. 2).

However, my attempts to gain entree (seemingly unproblematic in initial discussions with the University Professor in ‘charge’ of the SST PDS) encountered insurmountable problems. On mentioning my desire to conduct a foucauldian analysis of the PDS using the work of Thomas Popkewitz I met an icy stare and defensive posture. I was asked to elucidate ‘clearly and simply’ the theoretical underpinnings of my work and why I was interested in using the work of theorists that ultimately suggested that education ‘failed’ in its goals. This experience of oppositionality raised questions about possibilities of doing critical research in the field of PDS and the call for control of the research by the gatekeepers. Who gets researched? Who has the power and cultural capital to control or hinder critical research efforts?

At this stage when I am asked if I am aim to 'improve' teacher education or professional development with my project I start to worry about successor regimes and radical oppositionality. I want to see my project as aiming to 'improve' (or contextualize) teacher education by historicizing the PDS model through a discourse analysis of the PDS texts and discussions with individuals involved in the multiple manifestations of the model in the College of Education to highlight their ways of being and experiences with/in the model. In this way I can approach a poststructuralist/psychoanalytic analysis of the PDS and suggest ways/spaces/places from which to work within and against the normalizing tendencies of any attempt at teacher education. I am investigating particular manifestations of PDS as educational reform in terms of legitimate knowledge and the travels of PDS culture. This study will utilize some aspects of postmodern ethnography (using a hybrid methodology and analytic framework) to blur the boundaries of data analysis and re/representation, and methodology. It aims to historicize and rethink PDS

to enable a move beyond critical realist epistemological assumptions to a more

complicated knowing that works within and against the assumptions that make it

possible.

It is the humanist foundations of the modernist project shaping/framing teacher education reform that is the focus of what follows. This research project investigates the discourses surrounding the PDS model in the College of Education at the Ohio State University to highlight the legitimizing foundational assumptions that ‘construct’ the culture of the PDS and the way it travels. I also investigated the usefulness of what Popkewitz (1998a) has called the redemptive culture of social and educational science as a frame for understanding this culture. According to Popkewitz (1998a), the redemptive culture emerged from the populist goals for public education and the tensions between education for individual freedom and social administration.

The Professional Development School (PDS) model arose from the reform agenda of the Holme’s Group (1986-1995). It has triggered a plethora of unique cultures that highlight the limits of universalist assumptions and representations within colleges of education across the country. Successes and failures of the model have been well documented but critical research approaching the manifestation of the effects of power,

the epistemological assumptions that frame the model and the textual discourses surrounding it have been lacking. Fullan et al (1998) highlight the stalling of the reform effort as mired in the institutionalization of education and the resistance to change at this level. Yet, there is little analysis of the foundations of the reform effort and the assumptions that mire it in these very institutions. This study wonders about the ‘stalling’ of the PDS model as a call for an investigation of the foundational assumptions that frame the model.

This project has also grown from the critical realist perspective that I have worked from for the majority of my career. My suspicions and questions about PDS were often seen as intrusive and dangerous by those on the ‘inside’ of PDS. For example, I outlined in the preface a brief scenario discussing the evolution of the study from a critical realist ethnography of a particular PDS cohort to a more textual study that attempts the move into the (post)critical of poststructural and psychoanalytic wonderings. This was the result of ‘gatekeeping’ and stakeholder protection of the ‘fragile’ sites of PDS. Therefore, I had to rethink my desires and my research questions. This project is the embodiment of my attempts to struggle within and against my critical realist tendencies as presented in my first two research questions. The final questions frame my move to trouble my own desire for ‘knowing’ against a backdrop of wonderings and wanderings around/within/across PDS as an institutional development. This study encouraged me to create a space to rethink PDS outside of realist or critical realist discussions about ‘being’ in PDS. I also felt the need to always already remain aware of the humanist and populist foundations of the field (and my own metaphysical analyses) even as I aim to disrupt it from within. I cannot disrupt the foundational assumptions without awareness of the ways in which the foundations make possible such a project. The struggle to work within and against my critical realist tendencies has led me to entertain difficult to understand concepts and ideas in an effort to inform the field.

The question from my dissertation that I will be discussing here is: What other ways of looking at the PDS may be useful in rethinking the epistemological assumptions that regulate PDS toward a more fluid knowing and being in teacher education reform models? Is it an object of desire (Britzman, 1998; Pitt, 1998)? A floating signifier (Anderson, 1998)? A dereferentialized concept (Readings, 1996)?

Re/thinking/framing the PDS

This section is a moment of wild thought that has enabled me to move into fields of play (Richardson, 1997) to challenge my critical realist tendencies through moving into a whole different planet of discourse (Britzman, 1998) as I address the question of re/thinkingframing PDS . I will present some ‘other’ ways of thinking about education and educational reform. The work of Alice Pitt (1998) was very useful in providing a space from which to trouble my own interpretations. In her article "Qualifying Resistance: Some Comments on Methodological Dilemmas," she outlines some methodological issues that arise when analysis from a psychoanalytic perspective provides a space from which to think about the gap between the narration of experience and the interpretation of experience. Like Pitt (1998), I was drawn to the complications of the ‘stories’ surrounding PDS:

The problem is that psychoanalytic theories complicate all our stories of engagement with knowledge by insisting upon the role of unconscious processes in the making of such stories. These complications reside within knowledge itself, and they circulate in the stories told to us, in our retellings of them as research stories, and in our readings of such retellings (Pitt, 1998, p.536).

By centering the researchers desire and agency within the interpretations of the data, psychoanalytic views allow one to move beyond the limits of a critical perspective and confronts claims of representational voice in postpositivist research. Therefore, this perspective in the data analysis of this project maps onto the methodological implications

of the ‘new’ postmodern ethnography and the call for a fluid epistemology and the limits of representation:

Freud, as we well know, spent his life going there, and he learned, among other things, that the unconscious is a destination that one never quite reaches. One’s arrival is always deferred and delayed, but not only because the unconscious is complicated and difficult to grasp with our meager tools. One never arrives because the unconscious is dynamic, forever creating itself anew from the bits and pieces of everyday life that remind us of wishes that are taboo and experiences that are too painful to confront head on (Pitt, 1998, p. 541).

This project asks some undesirable and difficult questions. As a result, I have encountered roadblocks and concerns from a multitude of sources. At all times I have attempted to address these concerns as issues of both ethics and power and present the following data as a moment in time, a photograph, a mere glimpse of the sum of the parts

of this story. "Thus, the analyst assumes that the stories people tell always say more than

they mean and never mean exactly what they say," thus data exceeds representation (Pitt, 1998, p. 542).

PDS as an Object of Desire. Britzman (1998) takes the discussion of the foundations/possibilities of education one step further when she uses a psychoanalytic framework to deconstruct education, pedagogy and learning. In doing so she offers a space from which to suggest and dream education as the object of desire of ‘school men.’ She presents the foundational concepts of education as: change, progress, betterment and advancement. And, according to Britzman (1998), these concepts are tied to arguments over social engineering, nation building and economics and the institutionalization of education/schooling. Education wishes to be deliberate (conscious) by building the ‘big’ stage of education on the ‘little’ stage of individual development. The unconscious of education must be buried -

But the repressed returns in the form of symptoms. Unsatisfied, yet still in dialogue with the official stories of the schoolmen from Horace Mann to John Dewey, and with the popular news accounts of various moral panics between 1830-1914 that imagined the working class, the foreigners, and the rural populations as in need of containment, order, and Christian morality(Britzman, 1998, p. 54).

In a particularly artful presentation, Britzman (1998) suggests that pedagogy (curriculum/learning) has emerged as the new object of incitement in the field of education and the fields of the humanities and social sciences - all of which are preoccupied with the promises and dangers of pedagogy. How does this apply to the PDS? The PDS is the new incitement in the institutionalization of teacher education as it promises and threatens the possibilities of the educational project. As an object of desire the PDS as presented in the literature of the Holmes Group and the analysts of that move is constructed as the ‘proper’ way of doing teacher education:

When all of these fields are considered most generally, when education writ large questions its relation to social justice with the suggestion that education can be made from the proper teacher, the proper curriculum, or the proper pedagogy so that learning will be no problem to the actors involved, we might note that for there to be a learning there must be conflict within learning (Britzman, 1998, p. 5).

This project aims to complicate the model of PDS by historicizing it and challenging the appearance of the neutral and natural progression of ideas. Britzman (1998) allows that space to be concerned with the incognito, the unapparent, and the contested. "In positing education as a question of interference (as opposed to an engineered development), we have a very different epistemology and ontology of actions and actors: one that insists that the inside of actors is as complicated as the outside, and that this combination is the grounds of education" (p.6). Where is the capacity to tolerate learning (or professional development) in the Holmes Group rhetoric of the PDS model? The call for mastery is a push to control that sets in motion forms of anxiety that "render unthinkable the chance to understand without recourse to mastery" (Britzman, 1998, p.26).

Excellence, expertise and competence are the story of higher education "Even though the manifest story of higher education is a story of reason and rationality, the latent content is more contentious: justified wills continue to clash as new editions of old learning conflicts are played out" (Britzman, 1998, p. 26). The author offers a ‘different planet of discourse’ to move beyond the paralysis of the analysis of subject/object. Any call for a cure of mastery is a failure. There is no redemptive or rescue fantasy out there. One loses the elusive subject in the question of redemption. "The paradox is that learning is provoked in the failure to learn" (Britzman, 1998, p. 31). The question instead is: "Can education be a place where thoughts not only are troubled but are troubled to explore how our thoughts get us in and out of trouble?" (Britzman, 1998, p. 32).

Just as reflective practice and critical thinking valorize mastery and the quest for

rationality, so does the PDS promote the mastery of technical competence that ignores the im/possibilities of learning by reducing teaching to simplistic representations. Anything else is seen as irrelevancy, off-the-point, off-the-subject, and a waste of time (Britzman, 1998, p. 33).

Antinomy (the conflict or tensions) of education/learning mean that it is systematically incapable of closure. To dream an open world of transgression and pleasure would require that education question its own desire for, and implication in, knowledge (Britzman, 1998, p. 51). The dream of public education - or the dream of the Holmes Group - the object of desire - seems to be one of progress and mastery through PDS. It implies a ‘forgetting’ of the conflict it requires. According to Britzman (1998)

transformation through educational reform is an effect of educational design (or a foucauldian technology of power):

We read of these efforts in our own time, when education is thought to place a nation at risk, when new identity categories deposit deviancy into the bodies of adolescents, when the histories of inequalities are viewed as interruptions to the

real business of curriculum, when the complications of lives lived are dismissed as irrelevant complaints. But from another vantage point, we also read how education makes the discontents (Britzman, 1998, p. 51).

The anxiety becomes ‘the curriculum’ as the trauma of education is its inability to come to terms with its own conflicted history. "There is then, in all of this life, a fundamental contradiction that makes the project of education inconsolable" (Britzman, 1998, p. 55)

How may we refigure the PDS as desire gone awry - by refusing the simple and moralistic romance of teacher education (Britzman, 1998; Lather, 1998; McCoy, 1995)? By being interested in the mistakes, the accidents, the detours and unintelligibilities of identities? Without guarantees, the "responsibility for fashioning new meanings, for making new projects, lies elsewhere: in the doing of dialogue, in the arguments over what can constitute authenticity, appropriation, and the limits of culture, in the bildungsroman [community/commonalities] of schooling" (Britzman, 1998, p. 60)

This project aims to listen to the stories of others and analyze the texts of the PDS model at Mid West State University in order to do more with the stories we already hold, to go beyond the literal. "If this can be the start, maybe it will begin with an ethical concern for studying what education cannot tolerate knowing, how education can surprise and surpass itself. Maybe then education can engage in that difficult study of its own unconscious, of what it cannot bear to know" (Britzman, 1998, p. 61). In the ruins of education and within the failed promise of the modernist project it may be helpful to look at PDS as a ruin that unsettles the myth of unitary subject of pedagogy (PDS).

"Education is a structure of authority even as it structures the very grounds of authority required for its own recognition" (Britzman,1998, p. 80).

PDS as a Floating Signifier. In "Toward an Authentic Participation: Deconstructing the Discourses of Participatory Reforms in Education", Gary Anderson (1998) highlights the messiness of calls for increased participation as educational reform in American schools. Using a poststructural analysis, he deconstructs the discursive practices that legitimate and regulate ‘participation’ as part of the technology of control by the dominant culture. "In the last decades of the 20^th Century, a pervasive discourse of participation entered professional and lay discussions of education in the United States. A language of collaboration, empowerment, and voice is promoted by trade books, workshops, motivational speakers, academic scholarship, and university courses" (Anderson, 1998, p. 572).

This call for participation mirrors the call for ‘professional development’ manifested in the rhetoric of reform outlined above stemming from the Holme’s Group and the PDS model that was a result of this rhetoric. According to Anderson (1999), the discourse of participation runs deep in the American psyche (or populist culture). It is a floating signifier, in poststructuralist terms, which means that it is representative of a battle over competing discourses and regimes of truth. Is professional development a floating signifier? Looking at the PDS this way might help interrupt the professional/unprofessional binary that frames it. At this stage I wish to present the possibility and leave it open to further analysis in Chapter Four.

A Derridean Moment. Using Derrida’s concept of doubling historicizes the writer and reader of text. By bringing together Derrida’s (1976) concept of doubling and Britzman’s (1998) psychoanalytic analysis of the im/possibilities of education I hope to highlight that I cannot separate my specific project from the historical project. "Reading should be aware of this project, even if, in the last analysis, it intends to expose the project’s failure" (p. 160). I am writing within the history of the field ( Teacher Education, Curriculum Studies, Professional Development) even as I deconstruct it:

We know that these exchanges only take place by way of the language and the text, in the infrastructural sense that we now give to that word. And what we call production is necessarily a text, the system of a writing and of a reading which we know is ordered around its own blind spot. We know this is a priori, but only now with a knowledge that is not a knowledge at all (Derrida, 1976, p. 164).

How do such wild thoughts inform my project? By situating these moments as a field of play what might this mean for PDS?

The Ruins of PDS - Professional Development as dereferentialized. My final wild thought is using the work of Bill Readings (1996) to rethink PDS as a dereferentialized term housed within the ruins of the post-enlightenment university. The buildings that house the PDS model at Mid West State University may be seen as Greco-Roman ruins espousing the empty unity of excellence in this Post-Enlightenment institution, according to Readings (1996). "The simulation of ruins has to do with the Romantic aesthetic appreciation of the past, and their positioning beside concrete buildings of the new University is indebted to a hermeneutic claim for knowledge as an interactive encounter with tradition. In either case, ruins are objects of subjective appropriation and mastery, whether epistemological or aesthetic" (p. 170).

This brings together many the notion of a ‘ruined’ modernist project and other ideas discussed in this literature review. I have presented and wondered about: the populist foundations of educational reform effort; suggestions of governmentality, regimes of truth and regulation; and, the redemptive culture of the social sciences. The centrality of terms like progress, mastery, technical competence, scientific rationalism, and empowerment have all been discussed within the rhetoric of reform. However, by ending this chapter with ways to rethink educational reform (such as an object of desire, or floating signifier), I lead into the re/representation of the data with this hope: "To dwell in the ruins of the University is to try to do what we can, while leaving space for what we cannot envisage to emerge" (Readings, 1996, p. 176).

Deferentialization opens up new spaces by suggesting that terms like culture, excellence and professional development have no specific referents. By losing the specificity of referents the term, professional development, may become the floating signifier as mentioned above. We may then mourn the loss of professional development as the opening of a space to rethink and re-engage in thoughts about teacher education

models such as the PDS. In extension of this idea, the PDS becomes a simulacrum of the idea of teacher education. With this in mind, the following chapter is a collection and analysis of texts about methodology.

Wild Thoughts and ‘As Ifs’

Using Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 1995) as my method of analysis has led me to three discourse levels in my attempts to think wildly about PDS. Any stratification is problematic and reifies epistemological boundaries, however, for the purposes of this study, I am following Fairclough (1995) by dividing the societal, institutional and local discourses into separate pockets of analysis to provide a more accessible presentation of the data. For example, the societal level will be used to re-present the redemptive possibilities and goals of the PDS as a reform movement. The institutional level considers the possibilities of the desire of the university and schools to ‘jump on the wagon’ (Maxine) of PDS - thus making it an object of desire leading to status, power, and institutional reform. The local discourse analysis suggests that PDS is both consciously and unconsciously an object of desire for voice, professional development and collaboration.

Free verse will be used to reflect the wild thoughts in a more artistic and imaginative manner. Richardson (1997; 1994) supports the act of writing as a method of inquiry. "Understanding language as competing discourses, competing ways of giving meaning and of organizing the world, makes language a site of exploration, struggle" (Richardson, 1994, p. 528). Richardson (1994) goes on to outline how the use of poetic free verse is an experimental representation. Poetic representation aims to display tropes derived from the texts to engender understanding and knowledge as "settling words together in new configurations lets us hear, see, and feel the world in new dimensions. Poetry is thus a practical and powerful method for analyzing social worlds" (Richardson, 1994, p. 522). Thus I complicate the assumptions framing PDS in both analysis and representation of the data.

If this project is to allow me to play with wild thoughts about PDS, I need to reconsider the more realist tales I have used in the earlier parts of this chapter and interrupt the redemptive project that I am questioning and immersed within to find a new space for being in the Enlightenment institution of social and educational scientific research.

Even when we think we are not telling a story, we are, at the very least, embedding our research in a metanarrative about, for example, how science progresses or art is accomplished (Lyotard, 1979). Quite wondrously, the convention paper’s format reveals its own narratively driven subtext. Just listen to us: theory (literature review) is the past or the (researcher’s) cause for the present study (hypothesis being tested), which will lead to the future–findings and implications (for the researcher, researched, and science.) (Richardson, 1997, p.77).

The facticity and credibility of the ‘story’ must make sense through the artistry of the teller. In the following poems I will draw upon the data to highlight tropes and themes that emerged through the critical discourse analysis. There are three levels of discourse re-presented, as mentioned above. The first discourse is societal and attempts to bring together the themes of redemption and desire at this level. As I worked through the institutional and local discourses, however, I found many subtexts within the tropes. Therefore, each level has a number of parts to highlight each subtextual theme as important to understand PDS as an object of desire.

Societal Desire: Redemption through Reform

Crisis, Crisis, Crisis

a renewal through reform

with the promise of progress

through the mission of PDS

which is both urgent and critical

Reform, Reform, Reform

this is

Revitalizing reform

to ensure

‘Better’ teachers and

‘Better’ learning for ‘everybody’s’ children

Institutional Desire Part I: Jumping on the PDS Wagon

We jumped on the PDS wagon

And traveled the road toward reform

and the revitalization of Teacher Education

Along the way, we made Teacher Education:

more rigorous

reputable

intellectually more defensible

masculine

with higher standards

more standards

better teachers

more certified and institutionalized

Institutional Desire Part II: Status

A Cutting edge program

A better Teacher Education program

A more rigorous and academic program

A mandated reform movement

A top-down initiative

from Dean to Faculty

from University to schools

from Field Professors to Preservice Teachers

and Schools

Desire reform and to reform teacher education

To be the focus of attention for professional development

cutting edge reform

fee waivers, release time,

The Superintendents–‘wanting to jump on the band-wagon’

And the Teachers laughingly say

"I hope your daughter grows up to marry a Teacher"

Institutional Desire Part III: Research and Inquiry

We desire to become hotbeds of reform

Failure to do so means you are not a PDS–silences and success stories only

recruiting for Ph.D. program

Untenured faculty seeking a research agenda

Advantageous for faculty to tie their research into PDS

Success through publications and inquiry

Localized Desire Part I: Professional Development

We desired to develop professionally and have more voice in teacher education

So, we worked collaboratively

We worked in partnerships

Developing relationships, new roles and opportunities

spending a LOT of time and energy - To Change the Status Quo

and gain long-term professional growth

to produce better teachers

We were committed to PDS

It can be so

empowering and enabling

Localized Desire Part II: Authenticity

Real reform

real stories

real practice

in real settings

Grounded language

grounded theorizing

grounded preservice teachers

in real settings

Like seeing the wildlife in its natural habitat

Localized Desire Part III: Not Quite Resistance

There are admittedly many challenges

problems with time, space, energy

people

placements

fee waivers

and shared decision-making

However, You have as much control as you do about the IRS

You can do what you want

until they tell you what you are doing!

A Reflective Moment. The re-presentation of poetry as data analysis provided a moment of creativity that allowed thoughts, tropes, ideas and wondering to come together in a non-traditional format that complicates the data of this project. I have attempted to bring together strands of redemption, reform, renewal and revitalization. I have also wondered about the dangers and promises of PDS when the model is taken as ‘common-sense’ and the neutrality of progress is assumed. The multiple levels of discourse as presented in the poetry highlights the multiple realities of those touched by PDS. From professional development to the development of a more rigorous profession, I have highlighted the desires of institutions, individuals and society in this PDS project.

The dangers of PDS include constructing teachers as unprofessional unless they are ‘invited’ into a PDS, which also suggests that PDS is a mastery project reflecting curative thoughts and desires (Britzman, 1998). The elevating of practice over theory through the ‘bridging’ mechanisms of PDS highlights the danger of assuming theory and practice are statically framed within the university and schools respectively. Death also came up as a trope in the interviews and the other texts. How does PDS die or fail to fulfill its promise? I think it is very important to study the ‘small deaths’ of PDS - ‘deaths’ when PDS is ‘killed’ by parents (Richard) - what does that mean? Is it ‘death’ when PDSs fail because they fail to meet the criteria of the institution? Is it a ‘deaths’ when Preservice teachers fail to succeed in PDS? I also wonder about the ‘deaths’ of Clinical Educators when they are ‘burned’ out from involvement in PDS or their faculty mentor leaves PDS. This is one area that I believe would provide a useful starting point for theorizing the role of the unconscious in educational reform (Britzman, 1998).

Overall, the poetic re-presentations have been an attempt to disrupt my tendencies towards the critical realist analysis of data and provide an interesting reflective moment suggesting/unleashing/releasing my wild thoughts and ‘as ifs’.

Floating Significations and Dereferentialized terms

Another wild thought about PDS is that the concept of professional development is both a floating signifier and a dereferentialized term. From professional development in ruins to the im/possibility of definition of PDS, we may begin to think beyond the critical analysis of foundational assumptions towards a more troubled and troubling discourse. PDS is in many ways the site of a struggle over competing discourses as various groups vie to define (and control) professional development schools. This project refuses the "simple and moralistic romance" of education. Thus, the wild thoughts about PDS are as desire gone awry:

They [artists] refuse the simple and moralistic romance that we in education call ‘self-esteem,’ ‘role models,’ and ‘childhood innocence.’ The artists are not the invisible hand that centers the child. Theirs are decentered concerns with desire gone awry, with the clash between the desire to represent and the representation of desire, and with the offer of making difference and hence provoking new and imagined communities from the limits of experience and history. In doing so, the responsibility for fashioning new meanings, for making new projects, lies elsewhere: in the doing of dialogue, in the arguments over what can constitute authenticity, appropriation, and the limits of culture, in the bildungsroman of schooling (Britzman, 1998, p. 60)

The dream for public education is of community, participation, collaboration, progress, empowerment, and professional development (Britzman, 1998; Anderson, 1998; Popkewitz, 1998a; Labaree, 1992). To think beyond this antidotal approach Anderson (1998) has utilized the concept of the floating signifier in discourse practices. As I created the poem above on the ‘problems’ of PDS I was struck by the defensive position often taken by PDS members or advocates as a response to my attempt to complicate the model. Power issues and tensions antithetical to the philosophy of PDS were present and the death of some PDSs had occurred in passing when they failed to meet the ‘requirements’ of the model. It was also clear that not all teachers were cut out to be clinical educators (Chase and Merryfield, 1998). What did this mean for rethinking PDS? Who gets invited, for example, and under what conditions? Professional development to what end? (Adaptation of Anderson’s, 1998, questions on participation). All of the texts studied did outline problems, challenges, issues and discuss ways of working around and beyond such problems. However, I want to think wildly for a moment and consider the discourse practices that maintain PDS.

I found the work of Gary Anderson (1998) very insightful in this area as he talks of participation and how this discourse practice taps into populist rhetoric. I want to frame professional development (or PDS) in much the same way by using Anderson’s (1998) presentation of a floating signifier which illustrates diverse agendas resulting in linguistic slippage. In the poem above "Local Discourses: Not Quite Resistance," I finished with Vincent’s passionate statement that suggests that even though the traditional model has been transformed into this more professionally collaborative discourse, there are still issues and problems that strike at the very heart of PDS.

Anderson (1998) states that although the current discourse surrounding school reform talks of empowering teachers, the opposite often occurs. "Many participants are reporting a sense of disempowerment rather than empowerment from so-called participatory reforms and, in the case of education, are increasingly calling for more

authentic ways to participate in the governance of their schools" (p.573). This is both about PDS as a reform and the call for more authenticity in teacher education through PDS.

According to Anderson (1998) if we consider PDS as a floating signifier it refers to a discourse practice that stands for and against its representative practices whilst acting as a legitimation process. This is useful here as it enables the critical whilst interrupting tendencies towards the metanarrative:

While attempting to hold on to critical theory’s modernist project of public spaces that promote multiple discourses, at the same time, I find postmodern approaches to the deconstruction of the complex ways that social reality is constituted useful in demystifying inauthentic approaches to participation (Anderson, 1998, p. 574).

The phrase ‘a discursive umbrella’ frames Anderson’s (1998) discussion, much the same way Bob used ‘umbrella’ to define PDS in his interview:

I sort of define PDS as the larger umbrella and under the PDS you've got different compartments (not that these are compartmentalized) that sort of mix together. Although not too much as they still retain their identity because there are different conventions and norms that apply to different degrees in different places. But PDS is the larger umbrella and under the umbrella you've got the professional development of teachers in conjunction with the preservice teacher development and the synergy of the two.

Maxine hesitated to define PDS in any definitive manner, and when asked what PDS was, said:

According to who? You know, I don't know. Our PDS is as much about professional development and inquiry and reform in the schools as it is about preservice teachers and I think when we started we saw those as three very distinct goals and things we were supposed to pay attention to but we could only do one at a time and we had to take care of the students first because here they were on our doorstep.

Janine talked of the changing nature of PDS from year to year, according to the change in membership:

Every year we have a topic that defines PDS. But for me the definition is that - if you really want to pursue a particular idea that has to do with your practice or theories that could inform your practice, you usually can find somebody within that collaborative group to work with. So you are not out there in the hinterlands alone. You do have some people have different kinds of expertise, have different perspectives, and to me that’s what the collaboration is about.

Well, there was a nucleus here on our faculty. I mean that "we" and then the "we" changed as different people went in and out (for Master’s work for instance). We had some younger faculty that did their Masters work through the PDS. The "we’ became broader. Sometimes it would be people from different schools. So the groups were fluid and that’s the "we’ that I mean.

So, what does all of this mean--change, movement, fluidity? The legitimization of PDS enables the governing of those involved to go relatively unnoticed/invisible/unimagined. Hence there is no hesitation to talk of the ‘problems’ of PDS, and the ways it fails to be a total success. However the underlying trope is one of a desire for redemption, voice and participation despite the slippage and the tensions of this regime of truth (i.e., professional development schools). The micropolitics of

participation, or in this case, of professional development, are carefully orchestrated but often result in the power and influence staying in the same hands (Anderson, 1998, p. 583).

By rethinking PDS as a floating signifier I imagine a space from which to address the practices that work for and against professional development in this particular reform agenda. In this way I wonder if it is more acceptable to talk of the normalizing tendencies of PDS as a regulatory institutional device and also offer a more complicated picture that is not arrogantly critical but instead questions the ways discourse practices and linguistic slippage shape PDS.

A Bridge or a Ruin?

Vincent: I guess I would say the goal of PDS is to provide a bridge between theory and practice in preservice education simultaneously providing improved preservice education for aspiring teachers and providing professional development for existing teachers.

PDS was often referred to in the interviews and in the other texts as a bridge between the university and the school. According to Vincent, for example, this bridge allowed for the traveling of theory and practice between two institutions. However, how may I rethink this representation of a binary given the ‘top-down’ nature of the reform? What does this mean for PDS? I suggest that another wild possibility for rethinking PDS is to consider the concept of professional development as dereferentialized. Readings (1996) uses this term to allow for a creative and innovative shift in thinking about the University. The invitation, introduction and institutionalization of PDS has been highlighted throughout the texts as university initiated. Phrases such as top-down, mandated, requirements for membership have been used to contextualize the ‘origin’ of the PDS model in teacher education programs.

The context of the PDS reform has been situated in the teacher education programs of the university. Therefore, teacher educators and teachers are working with the ruins of the university (an institution in transition from a cultural mission to a corporate mission as discussed in the glossary in chapter one). Is PDS a ruin? This talk of ruins provides a useful space that makes discussions of foundations, legitimizing discourse and redemption possible.

Readings (1996) outlines how the jeremiads suggesting the bankruptcy and betrayal of the project of liberal education highlight a shift in the role of the university. Whereas Popkewitz (1998a) presents the jeremiad as a response to the populist aims of public education, Readings turns to the role of the university as the focus of this ‘crisis’. It is not just a ‘crisis’ of education, it is a legitimation crisis, according to Readings, that has resulted in an internal struggle concerning the nature of knowledge, and an external struggle surrounding the function of the university. As such, he suggests that the increasing corporatization of the university is one sign of this shift away from a cultural mission towards a more economic mission. Using the concept of ‘excellence’ that has emerged as the key focus of the more corporate logos and publicity statements of the ‘posthistorical’ university, Readings (1996) highlights that excellence is a simulacra, and a dereferentialized term. ‘Excellence’ is non-ideological, and has no content:

I also trace this process and insist that it would be anachronistic to think of it as an ‘ideology of excellence,’ since excellence is precisely non-ideological. What gets taught or researched matters less that the fact that it be excellently taught or researched. In saying that some things, such as the discourse of excellence, are ono-ideological, I do not mean that they have no political relatedness, only that the nature of that relation is not ideologically determined. ‘Excellence’ is like the cash-nexus in that it has no content: it is hence neither true nor false, neither ignorant nor self-conscious (Readings, 1996, p. 13).

As I analyzed the data and the tropes of economic return and market influences arose through the rhetoric of professionalization, I began to wonder about this corporate/masculine turn. Also central to this consideration is the centrality of the concept ‘professional development’ to the discourse practices around PDS. I believe that it may be useful to consider professional development as a non-ideological (not apolitical) term that has no content.

Richard: I see it really as a culture of professional development, it’s a culture that embraces professional development, it’s a culture that in a sense promotes research, promotes professional development, it promotes teachers looking at themselves, being reflective, it promotes people being able to talk openly about their practice.

Why is this useful? As my work has focused on PDS, I have received many questions that frame PDS as either/or, success or failure, good or bad. Readings (1996) provides a space from which I may address such questions. By claiming institutional pragmatism, he states that we can recognize the move away from transcendental claims. Therefore, I can shift or trouble the desire for redemption, unity and consensus from within. This brings together the work of Britzman (1998) and Anderson (1998) to suggest that there is no consensus in rethinking PDS. Indeed, there is no consensus in PDS as a discourse practice. Rather, to present PDS as dereferentialized, allows one to recognize the university as a ruined institution no longer on a cultural mission and PDS as a ruin of reform. In this way the ‘ruins’ may be a ‘site’ for study and discussion.

Change comes neither from within nor from without, but from the difficult space–neither inside nor outside–where one is. To say that we cannot redeem or

rebuild the University is not to argue for powerlessness: it is to insist that academics must work without alibis, which is what the best of them have tended to do (Readings, 1996, p. 171).

 

The aim of this rethinking of PDS is to create a space from which to do what we can as teacher educators and teachers and also to provide a space for "what we cannot envisage to emerge" (Readings, 1996, p. 176). In the final chapter of this dissertation I present the tentative conclusions, wild thoughts and ‘as ifs’ of this project.

Desire and all that Jazz

Redemption and Desire. The poems were the high point of this project for me as both researcher and writer. Finally, I began to loosen up and enjoy the possibilities of

rethinking PDS. The use of the levels of discourse was an attempt to highlight the threads of desire and redemption through the discourse practices of PDS.

One of the main ‘findings’ has been that PDS is all about competing discourses and contested sites. Therefore, the poems allow for multiple interpretations and a more fluid presentation to encourage an exploration of the ‘real’ in research. The reconsideration of PDS as an object of desire highlights learning as a conflict with ego, the unconscious in education, and educational reform as a desire for consensus (Britzman, 1998). Thus, I have found this concept very useful as it allows for the tensions and issues that emerged as themes in the critical discourse analysis to be considered as part of PDS as a complicated reform effort. The poems were exciting in the way they brought forth the different levels of discourse and also the way they blurred the boundaries between these levels of discourse. Using sub-themes and repetition, I have attempted to highlight the many ways of being in PDS as an object of desire and the way the ‘culture’ of PDS is legitimized through the traveling manifestations of power and knowledge. The poetry was a way of rethinking PDS beyond a call for mastery and professional development as you can see the foundational assumptions, rhetoric and notion of travel in the poems also.

Floating Wild Thoughts in the Ruins. I have concluded, however, that my wild thoughts and ‘as ifs’ in this project require more research and consideration to be more fully explicated. This project is my first attempt to look at research, educational reform and teacher education differently. For example, looking at PDS as a floating signifier and/or dereferentialized term were also marginally analyzed. The main consideration here is that I need to continue to work to understand how to use these wild thoughts move my thinking beyond critical realist perspective narratives. Thus, when thinking about the tensions and issues that arose from the texts of PDS as part of the messiness of PDS. In this way I want to continue to study PDS as constructing and constructed by surrounding discourse practices.

The final wild thought to discuss here is the idea that within the ruins of the university lie the ruins of PDS as a reform effort. I use the phrase ‘ruins’ to highlight the suggested failure of the modernist project (Lincoln, 1998; Readings, 1996) as part of the PDS model. Not only is the university in ruins as the bastion of ‘culture’, the PDS exists within the ruins of the redemptive culture and mastery project of education. This rethinking of PDS creates a space from which to consider what we cannot envisage to occur as the PDS is seen as a simulacra for professional development - a failed project, mired in populist rhetoric, desiring consensus across competing discourses and within and against contested sites. I have wondered about PDS as if it is a simulacra, as discussed briefly in chapter one. In this way I have attempted to reveal previously concealed foundational frameworks that exist in the absence of referential finalities (Lather, 1991).

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional Development Schools: Weighing the Evidence. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Anderson, G. (1998). Toward Authentic Participation: Deconstructing the Discourses of Participatory Reforms in Education. American Educational Research Journal. Volume 35, Number 4, 571-603.

Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural Politics & Education. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (1995). Democratic Schools. Alexandria,

Virginia: ASCD.

Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and Power. New York, NY: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. (1993). Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a

Conservative Age. New York, NY: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. & St. Maurice. H. (1991). Social Studies Education and Theory: Science, Knowledge, and History. In James P. Shaver (ed.), Handbook of

Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. New York, NY: Macmillan, 27-40.

Behar, R. (1995). Introduction: Out of Exile. In Behar, R. & Gordon, D.A., (eds.) Women Writing Culture. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1-29.

Bernasconi, R. (1993). Politics beyond Humanism: Mandela and the Struggle

against Apartheid. In Gary B. Madison, Working Through Derrida. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 94-119.

Bhabha, H. K., (1994). The Location of Culture. New York, NY: Routledge.

Britzman, D. P. (1998). Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward A

Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Brosnan, P., Cramer, D., Dove, T., & Johnston, M. (1998). Conclusion. In Johnston et al (1998 Draft) Collaborative Reform and other Improbable Dreams: Professional Development Schools at the Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 304-318.

Bryant, B.J. (1998). Follow-Up Study, Class of 1995-96: Baccalaureate and Master’s Degree Graduates in Teacher Education. Unpublished Report for the College of Education, The Ohio State University.

Chase, S., & Merryfield, M. (1998). After the Honeymoon is Over: What

Seven Years of Collaboration Have Taught us About School/University Collaboration in Social Studies and Global Education. In Johnston et al (1998 Draft) Collaborative Reform and other Improbable Dreams: Professional Development Schools at the Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 124-146.

Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Clifford, J. (1992). Traveling Cultures. In Lawrence Grossberg et al., Cultural

Studies. New York, NY: Routledge, 96-112.

Clifford, J. (1988). The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial Truths. In Clifford, James and George E. Marcus,(eds.), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1-26.

Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (eds.), (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and

Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Cramer, D., Shinew, D., & Zimpher, N., (Unpublished Paper). An Historical Overview of Professional Development Schools at The Ohio State University.

Derrida, J. (1976). The Exorbitant. Question of Method. Of Grammatology.

G. Spivak, trans. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 157-164.

Denzin, N. K. (1994). The Art and Politics of Interpretation. In

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S., (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 500-515.

Erickson, F. (1992). Post Everything: The Word of the Moment and How we

Got Here. Paper delivered at AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1992.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of

Language. New York, NY: Longman.

Fine, M. (1995). Working the Hyphens: Reinventing Self and Other in Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S., (eds.), The Handbook of

Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 70-82.

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C., &

Miller, P., (eds.,) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 87-104.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,

1972-1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. Translated from French by Alan

Sheridan. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1965/1988). Madness and Civilization. Translated from French by Richard Howard. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Fullan, M., Galluzzo, G., Morris, P., & Watson, N. (1998). The Rise and Stall of Teacher Education Reform. Washington, DC; The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive

Anthropology. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gilroy, P. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. New York, NY; Longman.

Goodman, J. (1995). Working with Teachers to Reform Schools: Issues of Power, Expertise and Commitment. In John Smyth, (ed.), Critical Discourses on Teacher Development. New York, NY: Cassell, 65-79.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Harding, S. (Ed.) (1987). Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington, Indiana; Indiana University Press.

Holloway, W., & Jefferson, T. (1997). Eliciting Narrative Through the In-

Depth Interview. Qualitative Inquiry, Volume 3, Number 1, 53-70.

Holmes Group, The. (1995). Tomorrow’s Schools of Education. East Lansing,

Michigan: The Holmes Group, Inc.

Holmes Group, The. (1990). Tomorrow’s Schools: Principles for the Design of

Professional Development Schools. East Lansing, Michigan: The Holmes Group, Inc.

Holmes Group, The. (1986). Tomorrow’s Teachers. East Lansing, Michigan: The Holmes Group, Inc.

Johnston, M., Brosnan, P., Cramer, D., & Dove, T. (eds.). (1998).

Collaborative Reform and other Improbable Dreams: Professional Development Schools at the Ohio State University. Draft. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.

Johnston, M. (1998). Introduction: Contexts, Challenges, and

Consequences: PDSs in the Making. In Johnston et at (1998),

Collaborative Reform and other Improbable Dreams: Professional Development Schools at the Ohio State University. Draft. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, x-xxx.

Johnston, M. With the Educators for Collaborative Change. (1997).

Contradictions in Collaboration: New Thinking on School/University Partnerships. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kaplan, C. (1996). Questions of Travel: Postmodern Discourses of Displacement. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research

Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Larabee, D. (1996). The Trouble with Ed Schools. Educational Foundations, 27-45.

Larabee, D. (1995). A Disabling Vision: Rhetoric and Reality in Tomorrow’s

Schools of Education. Teachers College Record. Volume 97, Number 2, 166-205.

Larabee, D. (1992). Power, Knowledge, and the Rationalization of Teaching: A

Genealogy of the Movement to Professionalize Teaching. Harvard Educational Review. Volume 62, Number 2, 123-134.

Lather, P. (in press). Postmodernism, Poststructuralism and Post (Critical)

Ethnography: Of Ruins, Aporias and Angels. In Atkinson, Paul & Delamont, Sara (eds.), The Handbook of Ethnography. London, UK: Sage.

Lather, P. (1998). Against Empathy, Voice and Authenticity. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA). San Diego, CA.

Lather, P. (1996). Troubling Clarity: The Politics of Accessible Language. Harvard Educational Review, Volume 66, Number 3, 525-545.

Lather, P. (1994). Critical Inquiry in Qualitative Research: Feminist and

Poststructural Perspectives: Science after ‘Truth’. In Crabtree, B., et al (eds), Exploring Collaborative Research in Primary Care. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 103-114.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the

Postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lather, P. (1986). Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research: Between a

Rock and a Hard Place. Interchange, Volume 17, Number 4, 63-84.

Lenzo, K. (1995). Validity and Self-Reflexivity Meet Poststructuralism: Scientific Ethos and the Transgressive Self. Educational Researcher, 17-23, 45.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). From Understanding to Action: New Imperatives, New

Criteria, New Methods for Interpretive Researchers. Theory and Research in Social Education, Volume 26, Number 1, 12-29.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging Criteria for Quality in Qualitative and

Interpretive Research. Qualitative Inquiry, Volume 1, Number 3, 275-289.

Loadman, W., and Klecker, B. (1996). Draft Evaluation of Professional

Development Schools: A New School-University Partnership. Unpublished Report, The College of Education, The Ohio State University and School Districts of Franklin County 1992-1995.

McCoy, K. (1995). Looking Awry: A Genealogical Study of Pre-Service

Teacher Encounters with Popular Media and Multicultural Education. Unpublished Dissertation, Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Marcus, G. E., (1994). What Come (Just) After ‘Post’?: The Case of Ethnography. In Denzin, Norma K., & Lincoln, Yvonna S., (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications, 563-574.

Marcus, G. E., and Fischer, M. J. (1986). Anthropology as Cultural

Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Miller, S., Ray, S., Dove, T., & Kenreich, T. (1998). Perspectives

on Personal Professional Development. In Johnston et at (1998), Collaborative Reform and other Improbable Dreams: Professional Development Schools at the Ohio State University. Draft. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 147-162.

Nelson, M. R., (ed.), (1994). The Social Studies in Secondary Education: A Reprint of the Seminal 1916 Report with Annotations and Commentaries. Bloomington, Indiana: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.

Parker, W. C. (1991). Achieving Thinking and Decision-Making Objectives in

Social Studies. In James P. Shaver (ed.), Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan, 345-356.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pinar, W. F. (1998). Introduction. In William F. Pinar (ed), Curriculum: Toward

New Identities. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Pitt, A. (1998). Qualifying Resistance: Some Comments on Methodological

Dilemmas. Qualitative Studies in Education, Volume 11, Number 4, 535-553.

Popkewitz, T. S., (1998a). The Culture of Redemption and the Administration of

Freedom as Research. Review of Educational Research, Volume 68, Number 1, 1-34.

 

Popkewitz, T. S., (1998b). Knowledge, Power, and Curriculum: Revisiting a TRSE Argument. Theory and Research in Social Education, Volume 26,

Number 1, 83-101.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1998c). Dewey, Vygotsky, and the Social Administration of the Individual: Constructivist Pedagogy as Systems of Ideas in Historical Spaces. American Educational Research Journal. Volume 35, Number 4, 535-570.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1998d). Struggling for the Soul: The Politics of Schooling and the Construction of the Teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1993). U.S. Teacher Education Reforms: Regulatory Practices of the State, University, and Research. In Thomas S. Popewitz (ed), Changing Patterns of Power: Social Regulation and Teacher Education Reform. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 263-301.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1991). A Political Sociology of Educational Reform:

Power/Knowledge in Teaching, Teacher Education, and Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Popkewitz, T. S., & Brennan, M. (1998). Restructuring of Social and Political

Theory in Education: Foucault and a Social Epistemology of School Practices. In Popkewitz, T. S. & Brennan, M., (eds.,) Foucault’s Challenge: Discourse, Knowledge, and Power in Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press,

3-35.

Popkewitz, T. S., and Simola, H. (1996). Professionalization, Academic Discourses and Changing Patterns of Power. In Popkewitz T. S., and Simola, H., (eds), Professionalization and Education: A Research Report. Hakapaino Oy, Helsinki: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, 7-146.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1991). A Political Sociology of Educational Reform:

Power/Knowledge in Teaching, Teacher Education, and Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Pratt, M. L. (1992). Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Pratt, M. L. (1986). Fieldwork in Common Places. In Clifford, James and

Marcus, George E. (eds.), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 27-50.

 

Readings, B. (1996). The University in Ruins. Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press.

Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of Play: Constructing an Academic Life. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 516-529.

St. Pierre, E., & Pillow, W., (in press). Introducing the Ruins.

In St. Pierre, E., & Pillow, W., (eds.), Feminist Poststructural Theory and Practice in Education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Serres, M., with Latour, B. (1995). Conversations on Science, Culture and Time. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Serres, M. (1993). Angels: A Modern Myth. New York; Flammarion.

Simola, H., Heikkinen, S., & Silvonen, J. (1998). A Catalog of Possibilities:

Foucaultian History of Truth and Education Research. In Popkewitz, Thomas S. & Brennan, Marie, (eds.), Foucault’s Challenge: Discourse, Knowledge, and Power in Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 64-90.

Smith, J. K., (1993). After the Demise of Empiricism: The Problem of Judging Social and Educational Inquiry. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.

Spanos, W. V., (1993). The End of Education: Toward Posthumanism.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Spivak, G. C. (1993). Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York,

NY; Routledge.

Stanley, W. B., (1985). Recent Research in the Foundations of Social Education:

1976- 1983. In Stanley, William B., (ed.), Review of Research in Social Studies Education. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 309-399.

Stanley, W. B., (1992). Curriculum for Utopia: Social Reconstructionism and

Critical Pedagogy in the Postmodern Era. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

 

 

Tyler, S. (1986). Post-Modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to

Occult Document. In Clifford, James and Marcus, George E., (eds.), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 122-140.

Van Maanen, J. (1995). An End to Innocence: The Ethnography of Ethnography. In Van Maanen, John, (ed.), Representation in Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. 1-35.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field. Chicago, IL: The University of

Chicago Press.

Visweswaran, K. (1994). Fictions of Feminist Ethnography. Minneapolis,

Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Warnke, G. (1993). Justice and Interpretation. Cambridge, Massachussetts: The

MIT Press.

---

Lisa J. Cary Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Curriculum and Educational Leadership
College of Education
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078-4042
PH: (Tulsa Office) 918 594 8468
(Stillwater) 405 744 8893