pitt and phelan, paradoxes of autonomy

This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]On: 02 August 2012, At: 11:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Changing English: Studies in Cultureand EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccen20

Paradoxes of Autonomy in ProfessionalLife: a Research ProblemAlice Pitt a & Anne Phelan ba York University, Torontob University of British Columbia

Version of record first published: 16 May 2008

To cite this article: Alice Pitt & Anne Phelan (2008): Paradoxes of Autonomy in Professional Life: aResearch Problem, Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 15:2, 189-197

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13586840802052393

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccen20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13586840802052393

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Paradoxes of Autonomy in Professional Life: a Research Problem

Alice Pitta* and Anne Phelanb

aYork University, Toronto; bUniversity of British Columbia

Stories of origin are notoriously incomplete, inaccurate or beside the point, often all

three. One event stands out for us, however, as a point of reference for our thoughts

on what it means to enter into and live out a career in the teaching profession today.

At a meeting of school board directors and the administrative team of one of our

faculties of education, those present were asked to identify their priorities for the

upcoming year. One of the directors, instead of outlining his board’s literacy/

numeracy initiatives and professional development plans, surprised us by saying that

his priority was to create conditions for classroom teachers to contribute publicly to

debates about education.

There was an unusual giddiness in the room that morning, because a provincial

government had just been soundly defeated after eight years of majority leadership.

This was a government that had found nothing about teachers, schools or curricula

worthy of support or celebration. The Premier’s first Minister of Education had not

graduated from high school. His role as Minister was defined by his ill-concealed

project to ‘manufacture a crisis’ in education. The school board director’s comment

that fall morning expressed both his frustration at how easy it had been for this

government to denigrate teachers publicly and his dismay at the woefully inadequate

responses. Attempts on the part of teacher federations were all too easily recuperated

as part of the problem, and individual teachers’ views, rare as these were, seemed to

come from those who had either recently fled the profession or whose years of

retirement called up a mythical golden age. Conditions in Ontario have improved

somewhat, but in this Canadian province as well as other North American and

European jurisdictions, the educational landscape continues to be dominated by

practices and policies that value uniformity and conformity, privilege centralized

over local control and conflate good teaching with student achievement on high

stakes testing instruments. There is still little evidence that teachers have been invited

or have forced their way into public discussions about these important issues and the

questions they raise, not only for teachers, but also for the quality of our collective,

civic lives.

In this research project,1 we are curious about the professional lives of teachers in

the context of heightened – and often shrill – demands for public accountability in an

atmosphere of damaged trust between teachers and the public. We turn to the

concept of autonomy in order to illuminate some of the dilemmas within the

profession with full awareness that the complex nature of the teaching profession

challenges some of the taken-for-granted ways we think about individual and

professional autonomy. We begin our exploration with the following definition:

autonomy refers to thinking for oneself in uncertain and complex situations in which

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Changing English

Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2008, 189–197

ISSN 1358-684X print/ISSN 1469-3585 online

# 2008 The editors of Changing English

DOI: 10.1080/13586840802052393

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

judgment is more important than routine. For teachers, the nature of their work

and its social context complicate this definition. Teaching involves placing

one’s autonomy at the service of the best interests of children. As noted above, a

range of policies during the 1980s and 1990s in North America and Europe has

contributed progressively to curtailing teachers’ autonomy (Furlong et al. 2000).

Many would argue that the definition of teacher competences, the establishment of

teaching standards by ‘Colleges of Teachers’, the introduction of licensed and

certified teacher schemes, the creation of prescriptive, outcome-based curricula

and systems of accountability through standardized testing constrain the autonomy

of teachers (Phelan 1996; Smyth and Shacklock 1998). Others would argue

that concerns over educational provision, access and social equity are being replaced

by an emphasis on the generation of outputs in terms of economic requirements

rather than on teachers’ judgments of individual student need (Neave 1988;

Winter 2000).

In the tension between constraint and judgment, autonomy emerges as a

relational, conflicted and constructed part of becoming and being a professional

(Phelan 2005). Autonomy is also foundational to the making and development of a

profession. Formal aspects of professional autonomy refer to specialized knowledge

and skills that distinguish its members and self-regulatory power in matters of

admission to the profession, certification requirements and discipline. In addition to

these formal attributes, members of a profession also engage in research, educational

activities and discussion that explore, elaborate and transform the profession’s

collective identity. Relation, conflict and construction are also qualities of the

profession’s autonomy. The relation between professional autonomy and the

autonomy of a profession raises a fundamental paradox: the autonomy of a

profession depends upon the autonomy of each of its members. Yet these autonomous

participants must create and account for the singularity of the profession as a

collective vision of autonomy. In other words, professionals have to become

autonomous before there can be autonomy. Our research examines the qualities,

conditions and difficulties of autonomy in professional life that result from this

paradox. Our purpose is twofold: (1) To learn about autonomy in professional life

by examining the expressions of various struggles within the profession to manage,

ignore or resolve this paradox; and (2) To learn about the activities of teaching and

learning and the institutions created to house these activities by investigating the

qualities of autonomy experienced, desired and rejected by teachers.

Guided by discussions of autonomy in the humanities, the social sciences and the

human services, our inquiry includes teacher interviews and policy analysis in two

national contexts. British Columbia and Ontario provide one context for study. In

these provinces, Colleges of Teachers have been recently established as self-

regulating professional bodies, and several of the policies described above have been

introduced. The second context is Berlin, where German unification has had

enormous consequences for public education and teachers’ professional identities

and work (Pritchard 1999; Rodden 2002). The teaching profession in Germany

became embroiled in debates about teacher quality, the purpose of education

(including the meaning of democracy), curriculum and pedagogy. Teacher autonomy

emerged in this context as a site of conflict in paradoxical ways. In general,

Germany’s relatively poor showing in international tests of student achievement put

teachers under new scrutiny. At the same time, the promise of increased autonomy

190 A. Pitt and A. Phelan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

for former GDR teachers seemed to come at a cost to their professional identities

(Pritchard 1999). The Canadian context opens the question of the relations between

judgment and constraint, while the German context returns us to the relations

among democratic civil society, autonomy and education. We believe that the two

contexts provide the opportunity to explore a more robust understanding of

autonomy in professional life.

In viewing autonomy as a paradox within professional life, we are better able to

grasp the subtleties of its emergence, the networks of influence that underpin it, and

the professional inhibitions, anxieties and defences that render its expression

vulnerable. Our focus on autonomy contrasts with the tendency in educational

studies to cover it over with theories of professional induction, where becoming a

teacher is seen as developmental, as grounded in experience and as informed by best

practices (Stronach et al. 2002). A review of the uses of autonomy in debates on

teacher education and development can be roughly grouped into three categories.

One sees autonomy as something teachers help children acquire. The second equates

teachers’ autonomy with their freedom, and a third views autonomy as an effect of

knowledge and skill (see Labaree 1992).

Once assured by the social status and the expert knowledge inherent in

professional roles (Sarason 2004), professional autonomy has become, across a range

of professions, less secure, more ambiguous, and perhaps, amidst calls for

accountability, even suspicious. Teacher autonomy vacillates between being

portrayed as a mark of a robust professionalism and as a sign of the difficulty

other educational stakeholders have in influencing or believing they have influenced

what teachers do behind classroom doors (Labaree 1992). Whether cast as earned or

stolen, bestowed by professional membership or diminished by external forces,

autonomy is perceived as a quantifiable characteristic of an individual (Fournier

1999). Then autonomy is equated with freedom to act in accordance with one’s

personal beliefs and, most dangerously, in one’s own interest. Indeed, one

justification for establishing self-regulating colleges of teachers is that the mandate

includes public accountability, thereby serving to constrain individual teachers

acting in their own self-interest and teacher federations acting in the self-interest of

their members (Glassford 2007).

The notion of individual autonomy has played a significant role in the

philosophical design and aims of compulsory schooling in North American and

European liberal democratic societies across disparate models (Winch and

Gingell 1999), but autonomy for teachers, or any profession with more female

than male members, is not as readily perceived as a social good (Miller 1996). The

teacher who closes the door to her classroom is described as resisting authority, as

forging an ethical but lonely response to authoritarian forces, or as symbolizing a

refusal to abandon familiar practices (Britzman 2003a). Teacher autonomy has

surfaced once again more as a problem than as the source of potential, motivation

or professional responsibility and responsiveness. Here, autonomy is reduced to

outcome.

Other debates focus less on measurable outcomes and more on the goals of

autonomy in education (Englund 1996). Very different approaches to education

profess a desire for students to become autonomous even if the autonomy of the

teacher is not always seen as congruent with this goal (Dillabough 1999). Critical

educational theorists worry about the lack or loss of teacher autonomy and its effects

Changing English 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

on morale, creativity and ethical judgment (Hargreaves and Goodson 1996). While

there is a growing body of work on democracy in education in North America and

Europe, much of its emphasis passes by questions of teacher autonomy to highlight

the problem of education and human rights, debates on controversial subjects in

classrooms and the education of an informed citizenship. Teachers, in this debate,

must often fight against institutional constraints that whittle away their authority to

design curriculum (Carlgren 1999; Kincheloe 2004). This literature has contributed

to an understanding of conflicts with national, provincial and local policy, but these

debates often highlight the forces of repression and so push to one side how

problems of autonomy are experienced.

The dilemmas of autonomy as these are lived in relation to one’s students,

colleagues and the profession remain unexplored in research models that view

autonomy as something that can be granted or withdrawn. Research to date has

taught us little about the philosophical, political or psychological qualities of

autonomy and how they intersect and vie for attention in the context of professional

life. Placing these intersections at the foreground of our research allows us to study

the pushes and pulls among philosophical, psychological and political orientations to

understanding the profession of teaching.

Philosophically, autonomy is related to problems of human nature, collective

life, and to debates that relate to freedom and thinking. (Arendt 1993; Adorno 1998;

Cavell 1993; Friedman 2000; Lear 1998, Peters, Lankshear, and Olssen 2003). We

inevitably return to Kant’s (1991) exploration of the question, ‘What is the

Enlightenment?’ and his distinction between ‘immaturity’, or the state of our will

that accepts someone else’s authority, and the exercise of our own reason. Two

conditions permit the escape from immaturity. One insists that the realms of

obedience and the use of reason be clearly distinguished (Foucault 1984). For Kant,

we have the right to think as we please so long as we obey when we must. The

second condition marks the distinction between the private and the public uses of

reason. Although reason must be free in its public use (e.g., intellectual, scholar),

it must be submissive in its private use (e.g., civil servant, soldier, teacher). So while

teachers are not asked to practise in a blindly obedient manner, they must adapt

the use of their reason to their circumscribed situation as servants of the state,

and to their task of carrying out a mandated curriculum. Teachers are bound in

Kantian terms to compare their judgments to those of others (colleagues, parents,

students or administrator) in order ‘to escape the illusion that arises from the

ease of mistaking subjective and private conditions for objective ones’ (Hinchman

1996, 496).

Foucault (1984) reworks in the Kantian ethic of maturity as a limit attitude. He

argues that the critique of what we are is the historical analysis of the limits that are

imposed on us. Such critique also constitutes an experiment with the possibility of

going beyond these limits. Approaching all givens as questions is the specific work of

thought, what Foucault termed problematization (Healy 2001). Foucault’s limit

attitude differs from Kant’s pure, atemporal reason: it is situated, interpreted and

prejudiced. It would be too simplistic to say that we accept or reject laws. For

Foucault there is little or no distinction between autonomous beings and the law.

Teachers learn to see themselves and their practice in terms of the systems of ideas

and knowledge that are available to them (Phelan and McLaughlin, 1995; Popkewitz

and Brennan, 1998; Phelan et al. 2003). For Foucault, a truly independent person is


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

impossible, because it is very difficult to reflect upon a particular law when that law

also grounds the possibility of thought and action.

Foucault’s ‘limit attitude’ resonates with psychoanalytic views: there is more to

autonomy than reason and more to reason than autonomy. Intimate problems of

becoming a human subject must also be considered in relation to autonomy in

professional life. Psychologically, our study relates autonomy to the emotional

experience of learning, times of breakdown of meaning and its repair, and the

emotional side of philosophical and political questions (Britzman 2003b; Pitt 2003).

In a brief history of slavery, Zeldin (1994) ponders human susceptibility to forms and

degrees of slavery. Pointing to a poll that finds that one-third of British subjects

prefer being told what to do to thinking for themselves, Zeldin notes that ‘It is

important to remember that it is tiring, and trying, being free; and in times of

exhaustion affection for freedom has always waned, whatever lip-service might be

paid to it’ (Zeldin 1994, 11). He concludes that freedom is not won with rights cast as

laws: ‘The right to express yourself still leaves you with the need to decide what to

say, to find someone to listen and to make your words sound beautiful; these are

skills to be acquired’ (Zeldin 1994, 11). In this dilemma, philosophical, political and

psychological dimensions merge to suggest that clearing the obstacles to freedom

imposed by outside authorities is only part of the story. The other part resides in the

obstacles made from inhibition rather than external regulation and control.

Autonomy, for Zeldin, is provoked by the risk of judgment and requires a

community. How psychoanalytic theory makes sense of what it means to be human

and to create, sustain and transform a collectivity, offers new ways of thinking about

autonomy in professional life.

Politically, we relate autonomy to problems of liberal democracy, citizenship and

social welfare. (Richards 1989; Brown 2001; Todorov 2002). Freud (1937) brought

psychoanalysis, education and government together in a surprising observation that

proclaimed all three to be impossible professions. The idea that education is

impossible allows a more complex and less certain understanding of pedagogy and

classroom dynamics (Pitt 2003, Britzman in press), and we return to Freud’s

observation in relation to all three impossible professions. Castoriadis (1994), in an

elaboration of the impossible professions, which he renames as psychoanalysis,

pedagogy and politics, identifies a paradox that concerns psychoanalysis and

education but has implications for political participation. Psychoanalysis and

education ‘both attempt to help in creating autonomy for their subjects by using an

autonomy that does not yet exist’ (1994, 6). This dilemma is acute in teaching

because teachers grow up in an institution and then return there to teach others

(Britzman, in press). Originality, creativity and influence exist in an uneasy mix

within groups as well as within each participant. The tension between judgment and

constraint follows us into aspects of professional life that concern the ongoing

political work of crafting democracy and social justice within the profession and its

institutions.

Thinking about a profession as having the same structure as a society and as

being capable of contemplating its own implication in the creation of its laws allowsus to analyze the conditions for a profession’s responsibility in the delicate work of

creating autonomy for its members while using an autonomy that does not yet exist.

The following questions emerge for us as holding potential for our inquiry into the

qualities, conditions and difficulties of autonomy in professional life:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

(1) How do teachers experience, construct and negotiate autonomy as a

problem of judgment and constraint? How are teachers constituted as

subjects of their own knowledge and judgment?

(2) What are the dilemmas of autonomy for becoming and being a member of

the teaching profession? What are the dilemmas of autonomy during periodsof significant social change? How do teachers notice and fail to notice

dilemmas concerning autonomy?

(3) Have any discourses of autonomy emerged as normative, while others have

been eclipsed or silenced, and how do processes of privileging and silencing

affect professional identity?

We opened our discussion with a story that helped us believe that it might be possible

to intervene in the dominant views of the teacher’s role in neo-liberal times. We end

on a less hopeful note but a deepened sense of urgency. The recent release of a

significant report, entitled The Road to Health: A Final Report on School Safety

(2007), commissioned by the largest school board in Canada, and the discussion of it

in local media, are sharp reminders that public education and the profession that

serves it have neither the confidence of the public nor a strongly articulated orconvincing sense of shared professional purpose. While the report examined school

safety throughout the board, the focus was on two secondary schools in one urban

area populated with new and less recent immigrants, refugees, many families in

difficult economic situations, and a history of violence.

The inquiry was commissioned after the murder of a fifteen-year old boy inside

one of these schools, but many years of concern preceded this particular tragic event.

What an astonishingly large group of children and youth share with their teachers is

the sense that violent events, sexual assaults and harassment occur but cannot bereported. The young people explain their reticence in the familiar terms of fear of the

police, their parents and each other. The teachers explain theirs in terms of fear of

reprisal on the part of school and board administration and damaging effects on

their careers. If the report is to be believed, a significant proportion of teachers and

their students work in a culture of fear and silence. Even if the report’s methodology

leaves something to be desired, we are left with the difficulty of reconciling teachers’

claims that they are aware of violent and aggressive acts with the fact that no record

remains that they have been reported or attended to. As we argue above, thisdifficult situation is not likely to be resolved by the kind of remedies proposed in the

report that include policy development, additional resources, links to community

agencies and services, training for teachers, programmes for students and more

rigorous accountability measures.

Our investigation into autonomy as a paradox for both professionals and their

profession complicates the view that teachers, as individuals with professional

credentials, can make use of their status, knowledge and experience in ways that

interrogate educational dilemmas and participate in public debate about the natureof these dilemmas and the crafting of solutions to them. The report’s surveys reduce

teachers to passive onlookers, helpless and hapless in the face of what everyone

agrees are issues that test the ability of educational institutions to conquer all kinds

of social inequality. We seem far from realizing our rather modest definition of

autonomy as thinking for oneself in uncertain and complex situations in which

judgment is more important than routine, but we remain committed to inquiry that

brings this definition as well to the debate. Freud’s view that education and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

government (along with psychoanalysis) are impossible professions is evident

everywhere in the events leading up to the Falconer Report, the report itself and

immediate responses to it. This does not absolve any of us involved in education

from doing more to discover what can come from identifying the limits of the

professions, articulating their points of intersection and generating new ways for

teachers to think about and be in their chosen profession.

Notes

1. ‘Paradoxes of Autonomy in Professional Life’ is a three-year project funded by a Canadian

research funding agency, Social Science and Humanities Research Council. The research

methodologies include a literary historiography of the concept of autonomy, in-depth

phenomenological interviews with teachers, and discourse analysis of relevant policy

documents. Alice Pitt and Anne Phelan, along with several graduate students, make up the

research team. The project is in its second year and interviews are now being conducted

with teachers in Ontario and British Columbia. From next year German teachers are to be

interviewed as well.

References

Adorno, T. 1998. Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords. Trans. H. Pickford.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Arendt, H. 1993. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York:

Penguin Books.

Britzman, D. 2003a. Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach, second

edition. Albany: SUNY Press.

———. 2003b. After-Education: Anna Freud, Melanie Klein and Psychoanalytic Histories of

Learning. Albany: SUNY Press.

———. in press. The Very Thought of Education: Psychoanalysis and the Impossible

Profession. Albany: SUNY Press.

Brown, W. 2001. Politics Out of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Carlgren, I. 1999. Professionalism and teachers as designers, Journal of Curriculum Studies 31,

no. 1: 43–56.

Castoridias, C. 1994. Psychoanalysis and politics. In Speculations after Freud: Psychoanalysis,

Philosophy and Culture, ed. S. Sonu and M. Munchow, 1–12. New York: Routledge.

Cavell, M. 1993. The Psychoanalytic Mind: From Freud to Philosophy. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Dillabough, J. 1999. Gender politics and conceptions of the modern teacher: women, identity

and professionalism. British Journal of the Sociology of Education 20, no. 3: 373–394.

Englund, T. 1996. Are professional teachers a good thing? In Teachers’ professional lives, ed. I.

Goodson and A. Hargreaves, 75–87. London: Falmer Press.

Foucault, M. 1984. What is enlightenment? In The Foucault Reader, ed. P. Rabinow, 32–50.

New York: Pantheon Books.

Fournier, V. 1999. The appeal to ‘professionalism’ as a disciplinary mechanism. The

Sociological Review 4, no. 2: 280–307.

Friedman, M. 2000. Feminism in ethics: concepts of autonomy. In Feminism in Philosophy,

ed. M. Fricker and J. Hornsby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freud, S. 1937. Analysis Terminable and Interminable The Standard Edition of the Complete

Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Trans. and ed. J. Strachey, in collaboration with

A. Freud, assisted by A.Strachey and A. Tyson. Vol. 22: 209–254. London: Hogarth

Press and Institute for Psychoanalysis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

Furlong, J., L. Barton, S. Miles, C. Whiting, and G. Whitty. 2000. Teacher Education in

Transition: Re-forming Professionalism? Buckingham: Open University Press.

Glassford, L. 2007. Professional autonomy vs public accountability: the political evolution of

the Ontario College of Teachers, 1996–2006. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the Canadian Association of Foundations of Education, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,

May.

Hargreaves, A., and I. Goodson. 1996. Teachers’ professional lives: aspirations and

actualities. In Teachers’ Professional Lives, ed. I. Goodson and A. Hargreaves, 1–27.

London: Falmer Press.

Healy, P. 2001. A ‘Limit Attitude’: Foucault, autonomy, critique. History of the Human

Sciences 14, no. 1: 49–68.

Hinchman, L. 1996. Autonomy, individuality, and self-determination. In What is

Enlightenment? Ed. J. Schmidt. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kant, I. 1991 [1784]. An answer to the question, what is enlightenment? In Kant: Political

Writings, ed. H. Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kincheloe, J. 2004. The bizarre, complex, misunderstood world of teacher education. In

Teaching Teachers: Building a Quality School of Urban Education, ed. I. Goodson and A.

Hargreaves, 1–49. New York: Peter Lang.

Labaree, D.F. 1992. Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: a genealogy of the

movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review 62, no. 2: 123–154.

Lear, J. 1998. Open Minded: Working out the Logic of the Soul. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Miller, J. 1996. School for Women. London: Virago.

Neave, G. 1988. On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: an overview of recent

trends in higher education in Western Europe 1986–1988. European Journal of Education

23: 7–23.

Peters, M., C. Lankshear, and M. Olssen, eds. 2003. Critical Theory and the Human Condition:

Founders and Praxis. New York: Peter Lang.

Phelan, A. 1996. Strange pilgrims: nostalgia and disillusionment in teacher education reform.

Interchange 27: nos. 3, 4: 331–348.

———. 2005. Changing the (female) subject in teacher education. In Contemporary Teaching

and Teacher Issues, ed. F. Columbus. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Phelan, A., and J. McLaughlin. 1995. Educational discourses, the nature of the child and the

practice of new teachers. Journal of Teacher Education 46, no. 3: 165–174.

Phelan, A., C. Barlow, D. Hurlock, F. Myrick, G. Rogers, and R. Sawa. 2003. Discourses of

conflict: a multidisciplinary study of professional education. The Alberta Journal of

Educational Research 49, no. 2: 201–203.

Pitt, A. 2003. The Play of the Personal: Psychoanalytic Narratives of Feminist Education.

New York: Peter Lang.

Popkewitz, T.S., and M. Brennan. 1998. Foucault’s Challenge: Discourse, Knowledge, and

Power in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pritchard, R.M.O. 1999. Reconstructing Education: East German Schools and Universities after

Unification. New York and Oxford: Berghan Books.

Richards, B. ed. 1989. Crises of the Self: Further Essays on Psychoanalysis and Politics.

London: Free Association.

Rodden, J. 2002. Repainting the Little Red Schoolhouse: A History of Eastern German

Education, 1945–1995. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Sarason, S.B. 2004. And What Do You Mean By Learning? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

School Safety Community Advisory Panel. 2007. The Road to Health: A Final Report on

School Safety. http://www.schoolsafetypanel.com/finalReport.html.

Smyth, J., and G. Shacklock. 1998. Re-making Teaching: Ideology, Policy and Practice.

London: Routledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

Stronach, I., C. Corbin, O. McNamara, S. Stark, S. Warne, and T. Warne. 2002. Towards an

uncertain politics of professionalism: teacher and nurse identities in flux. Journal of

Education Policy 17, no. 1: 109–138.

Todorov, T. 2002. Imperfect Garden: The Legacy of Humanism. Trans. C. Cosman. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Winch, C., and J. Gingell. 1999. Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education. London and

NewYork: Routledge.

Winter, C. 2000. The state steers by remote control: Standardizing teacher education.

International Studies in Sociology of Education 10, no. 2: 153–174.

Zelden, T. 1994. An Intimate History of Humanity. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:55

02

Aug

ust 2

012

pitt and phelan, paradoxes of autonomy

Documents