Paremmin tietäjän paikka ja toisin tietämisen tila : Opettajuus (ja tutkijuus) pedagogisena suhteena

The position of knowing better and the space for knowing otherwise. Pedagogical mode of address in teaching (and in research) This book is a study of teaching, research, and expertise – the position of “knowing better” – as a pedagogical relationship. The focus of the study is empirical research of the classroom practices of four primary school teachers in a Finnish comprehensive school, and the interpretative discussions on those practices between the researcher and the teachers. To know, or knowing, is considered an interactive action: it is different ways of knowing and encounters between the better and the other knowledge. In these encounters, the different pedagogical modes of address construct space for interaction and relationships between the speakers in the space. In teaching and researching one is involved in practices connected to power/knowledge systems and conceptions of the hierarchies of different knowledges. Teaching is considered as a special interactive relationship interrelating knowledge and power through the discourses of the culturally and historically constructed school institution, discourses which operate in the practices and narratives of the teaching, teacher, and the pedagogical dialogue. This study uses the feminist poststructural perspective in which the discursive construction of the subject position is considered as an ambivalent process of subjectification and in which such concepts as marginality and otherness are salient. The pedagogical dialogue of these discursive practices address the learner and learning, and space is constructed for different positions, and for thinking and knowing otherwise. The ethnographic data on everyday pedagogical practices of teachers in the school institution was constructed jointly by the researchr, teachers and pupils durint the empirical study. The analysis and interpretations concentrate on the pedagogical practices in teaching and how teachers talk about them. In other words, how do the teachers enter the culturally and historically constructed, institutional space of the teacher in the classrooms of the comprehensive school, how do they take the position of the teacher and what kind of pedagogical address do they use? And, by taking those positions and using different modes of address, how do they position their pupils in the pedagogical interaction? These pedagogical practices are considered as surrounded and modified by the discourses that can be found in the cultural images of a school teacher, the historical and theoretical narratives about teaching and teachers of the school institution, and in the educational policy texts. The same discourses are also repeated, transformed and intertwined in the practices and narratives of the academic institution. These are considered in the study through the positionings of the researcher in the process of empirical research. The researcher and research are constructed in terms of the production of the power/knowledge dynamics. These dynamics are examined in the construction of the theoretical perspective and in the considerations of the methodology, epistemology and ethics of the study.

Kuka kasvattaa, kuka opettaa? : Genealoginen tutkimus perheen ja koulun välisen kasvatusvastuun politiikasta

FAMILIES AND SCHOOLS AND THE POLITICS OF RESPONSIBILITIES - a genealogical study on family and school as carers and educators of the child population in modern society This study aims to uncover the politics behind such discourses in the media which have claimed the family to be totally responsible for children and which ignore the various responsibilities accorded to the state in matters concerning the child population. Using Max Weber s and Michael Mann s theorizing on the history of power relationships, feminist social history on patriarchy and Foucauldian power analytic concept of dispositif the study traces two competing child policies which have influenced the historical formation of modern generational order in Western societies. One of them is based on the interests of the hegemonic bourgeois elite and the other on the interests of the non-elite population, which were expressed during the phase of building the welfare state in Finland in the 1960 1980 s. The central strategies of the bourgeois child policy are 1) to construct the childhood years as a time for preparation and formation of the individual according to the interests of the elite, 2) to construct the family as the sole site of holistic care and responsibility of children in society, and 3) compulsory schooling of children of the non-elite population in state organized schools. To implement these strategies the elite uses strategically patriarchal cultural formations/dispositifs in modernized versions. The result has been the formation of a sexually divided and hierarchical order of care and education, where, on the one hand, there is the less important feminine care of children done by mothers at home and, on the other, the real education of the school, where children are made the object of authoritarian shaping and where the needs and the personal experiences of the child are ignored. The welfare order of care and education is based on the ethos of welfare society, where the state and the families are seen to share the responsibility for the child population. In this vein, families and schools are seen as partners who both have a caring attitude to children s welfare and learning. The study shows that discourses and terminology in the mainstream educational policy texts in Finland create a chaotic linguistic game which makes it difficult to have a rational discussion about the roles of family and school in the holistic care and education of children. This has opened the door to political discourses where familist interpretations of the question of responsibility are claimed to be based on law.

"Pitää kuitenkin lähentyä sitä vangin roolia, vaikka ite ois toista mieltä" : Diskurssianalyyttinen tutkimus toiseuden rakentumisesta vankilaopetuksessa

The focus of this discourse analytical study was to review the meanings which prison education and its participants are given in the formal educational policy and to find out whether these meanings are agreed by the prison students. The intrestes of this thesis were to examine what kind of social and individual promises are related to the prison education and what kind of subject positions are possible to the prison students. The thesis was also interested in the meanings of education in different contexts. The aim of this study was to examine prison education especially for women. This thesis was based on Michel Foucault s ideas of power and the view of this study was directly critical. The prison education was seen as normalizing governance which tends to prepare its subjects to the normal. In this process of differentiating the normal and the abnormal the subjects of prison education are reconstructed as the others . The three research questions of this thesis were: how and what kind of prison education is reconstructed firstly in the strategy of prison education and secondly in the interviews. Thirdly it was questioned how and what kind of meanings gender receive in the discourse of prison education. The main data was consisted by the Finnish Criminal Sanctions Agency s document The Strategy of the Prison education for years 2008 2012 and the three interviews of women who participated to prison education. The interviews were made for this thesis in Autumn 2010. Two other Finnish Criminal Sanctions Agency s documents Prisoners in education (2007) and Visible women (2008) - the report of the working group on female prisoners were also used as subtext materials. The methods of critical and realistic discourse analysis and rhetorical analysis were applied in the analysis. The results of the thesis support the outlook of prison education as a form of normalizing governance which reconstruct the others position for the prison students. Prison education was seen supportive for personal life control and for integrating to the society. The participants of prison education repeated the official discourses in their accounts which is a signal of internalized governance. The interviewees also used different types of anti-discourses when forming implications of prison education.