Download - Human Kinetics Journals

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1993, 12,437-446
O 1993 HUMAN KINETlCS PUBLISHERS, INC.
Footprints and Signposts:
Perspectives on Socialization Research
Sandra A. Stroot
The Ohio State University
Hal A. Lawson
Miami University
Footprints
Teacher socialization research is relatively young both in general teacher education and
physical education. Although it has yielded insights into teaching and teacher education, this
research also has experienced the equivalent of "growing pains." Short of reviewing all of
the relevant literature, we will do some backtracking here, looking for insights or "lessons
learned" that may guide and unite a growing number of researchers. We are not in search
of conformity. Rather, our quest is for shared assumptions and perspectives that enhance the
likelihood of an additive and integrative research enterprise. We begin with shared assumptions
derived from our analysis of previous research, including the papers published in this
monograph.
Socialization and Socialization Research are Value Laden
Value-free inquiry in socialization research has become an idealized standard that is
impossible to achieve. At worst, it is a myth that conceals the ways that values intrude
into research. Schools of social thought, including postmodernism, poststructuralism, and
postpositivism, have been formed in part because of the necessity to reckon with the end of
the ideology concerning value-free science and scholarship. We face the same reckoning about
the ways that our values intrude into our research and views of socialization. This does not
mean that we should not do research. Rather, it means that we should be mindful of our
values and the context in which we work.
Here, the idea of "reflective practitioners" applies as much to researchers as to teachers.
Because socialization research relies upon participant-observation techniques, phenomenological interviewing, ethnographies, and questionnaires with open-ended questions-all yielding
qualitative data-reflective researchers will need to offer cautions and contingencies, which
proceed beyond the customary methodological rules. As an example, listen to Wexler (1992)
discuss his ethnographic research:
The participants speak and I record and selectively re-present their voices. But to pretend
that this is simply a dialogical construction of the facts of the case would be arrogant,
exploitative and deceptive. I hear the voices in my ears, and I speak my words,
conditioned by my place in historical social movement and by language and analytical
resources available to me.
Hopefully, I compose my account with an open mind and a revisionary attitude,
abetted by a good set of records and transcripts and a well-tuned memory. But I "take
LAWSON AND STROOT
license." I select, condense, juxtapose, underline, and worst of all, I recontextualize
lived worlds into analytical social language. Still, I am not the cold-blooded instrument
of an error-free objectiveknowledge machine that mirrors social reality; but, an historical,
social analytic composer, and what follows is neither truth nor fiction, but a composition.
(P- 2)
Wexler's approach may not be appropriate for ali of us. Nevertheless, coming to grips with
the multiplicity of voices and interpretations, or "polyvocality" (Sparkes, 1991b), poses new
challenges for all researchers. We must become reflective practitioners and share these reflections with our audiences.
Similarly, socialization is value laden. In preview of ideas that follow, we must ask
the following kinds of questions: What kind@) of socialization? What are its intent($ and
content(sf?What controls this socialization? What, or whose, interests does it serve? Questions
like these suggest greater precision by researchers in the ways they define, assess, and interpret
socialization in their work. Taken-for-granted views of socialization, prevalent in the previous
research, will be unacceptable in future work. Researchers' values need to be identified.
Socialization Is a Dialectical Process
With the current popularity of constructivism, it is fashionable to talk about the way
reality is "socially constructed" (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). The underlying intent is to
recapture legacies denied in positivist schools of thought regarding the ways that human beings
make their own histories or shape their own destinies. We are not merely pawns shaped by
environments or reacting to forces outside our control, nor can we be narrowly type-cast into
conformity. Insofar as the new wave of constmctivism gives a r e b i i to the agency (i.e.,
abilities, power to act) of individuals and to their differences in spite of similar socialization,
we have taken a major step forward in our conceptions and research.
Unfortunately, it is tempting to stop with the social construction of d t y , neglecting
that reality also is "socially constituted" (Giddens, 1979; Lawson, 198%; Sparkes, Templin, &
Schempp, 1993). People enjoy agency; they have the abilities and power to act. Only rarely,
however, are the conditions for this agency ones of the agent's own choosing. Today's teacher
roles, programs, schools, universities, and societal structures shape us even as we may try to
shape them. Acts of social construction by individuals, and processes of social constitution
by societal structures, occur simultaneously. There often is a tension between the two. To
assert that socialization is a dialectical process (Schempp & Graber, 1992) is to acknowledge
this continuous tension between the social construction of reality and the constitution of reality.
Thought of as a contest, it should come as no surprise which one normally wins. Although
people enjoy agency (the power to act), only a few possess power over resources, resulting
from paver in structures (Giddens, 1979). So, although we must encourage research that
helps us understand agency and the social construction of reality, in this same research we
must attend to the social constitution of reality especially the ways that agency is facilitated,
constrained, or preventeband why. This work helps us understand change, whether at the
individual, group, organizational, or societal level. It helps us understand which levels are
transformative and which are reproductive.
For example, politico-economic questions will need to be addressed, as indicated in
the work of critical theorists. We need to know more about the impact of state education
boards and departments, their curriculum guides, and their teacher credentialing policies.
Similarly, people interested in changing teacher education programs and faculty roles require
more understanding of state-wide governing and coordinating boards, as well as state and
national grant and contmct priorities. These and other organizational structures are influenced,
FOOTPRINTS AND SIGNPOSTS
439
in turn, by political and economic ideologies. Such a macroperspective, frequently missing
in past research, is invited for future work It helps frame the social constitution of d t y .
Socialization is Problematic
Nowhere is the social constitution of reality more apparent than in the orientations and
beliefs of recruits into teacher education programs (Hutchinson, 1993). The evidence is clear.
Today teacher roles and programs in schools exert powerful type-casting influences upon
teaching m i t s . Insofar as teacher education professors wish to change these characteristics,
orientations, and beliefs-adding in preservice programs appropriate knowledge, values, sensitivities, and s k i U d e s e professors are engaged in the social construction of reality. The
evidence is also clear on this interaction: Dislodging recruits' orientations and beliefs is an
immense undertaking (DoOlittle, Dodds, & Placek, 1993). Entry into the workplace is also
plagued with problems of social reproduction as we identify concerns of beginning teachers
in the schools (Stroot, Faucette, & Schwager, 1993) and teacher educators in university
settings (Goc Karp & Williamson, 1993b). Well-intention4 professional socialization aimed
at program, school, university, and societal betterment frequently does not yield desired results.
After spending almost 15 years finding ways that socialization does not have its planned
effects, it may be useful to locate those instances where it does. Either way, socialization
must continue to be viewed as problematic, not automatic. This assumption is now axiomatic.
Different, Competing Kinds of Socialization
Pioneering work proceeded with a singular view of socialization, for example, Lortie's
(1975) depiction of "formal socialization." Today, the limitations of this singular conception
are known. At the same time, there is a uniqueness in the case of physical education teachers.
They are caught between the social life worlds of two institutions: education and sport.
Therefore, researchers must attend to the different and often competing kinds of socialization
they encounter. For example, there is early childhood socialization; socialization into, as
well as via, sport; professional socialization; and socialization related to broader life course
development (Lawson, 1988b). Research must attend to these different kinds of socialization,
helping unravel knotty questions regarding what kinds of socialization exert what kinds of
impacts, when, and why.
Focus Is on Occupational and Teacher Socialization
The theoretical perspective most often used to encompass socialization research in
physical education has been occupational socialization. Based on models of socialization in
medicine and law (Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961; Merton, Reader, & Kendall, I957),
and later applied in the education setting, three general phases of occupational socialization
have been summarized: anticipatory socialization (Western & Anderson, 1968), professional
socialization (Lawson, 1983b), and organizational socialization (Becker et al., 1961; Lawson,
1983b, 1986; Merton et al., 1957; Pooley, 1972; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979b).
Two other examples illustrate the import of this assumption. The first is related to
recruitment. When choosing an occupation or profession, some people decide before university
entry, others after; some change their minds during their preservice programs; and others
change their minds and careers after they have completed a preservice program. Occupational
choice proceeds as each person completes self-assessments weighted against perceived occupational demands; the subjective warrant is the construct used to investigate the dynamics of
choice. The point is, choice does not occur in a contextual vacuum. Inevitably, choices are
made in relation to other occupations and professions. Thus, in addition to learning more
about the persons entering and staying in physical education, we need to know more about
440
LAWSON AND STROOT
people who entered and left as well as about people who were attracted, but chose other
professions. Insofar as change and improvement rest upon the orientations, beliefs, and characteristics of recruits, such relational work on occupational socialization will be valuable.
The second example pertains to the concept of role conflict. Relationships between
teaching and coaching or between research and teaching are related, but have different roles.
Allowing research on role conflict and prompting the idea that for many coaches teaching is
a necessary evil, a career contingency. Similarly, for some teachers, teaching may be a
contingency for careers as school administrator or university professor. At the university level,
the same may be true about research and teaching. A focus upon occupational socialization
encourages questions about these kinds of work orientations.
Socialization has Variable Impacts Upon Individuals
Even when socialization processes are planned, there will be variable impacts upon
individuals. Socialization, as we have come to know it in our society, may be planned, but
it is impossible to control completely. There are too many kinds of socialization, and many
are beyond the control of professors and teachers in physical education. Furthermore, previous
research has revealed inter- and some intra-individual differences in response to planned
socialization experiences. Age, gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or social class,
sexual orientation, and developmental readiness all influence reactions to, and the impacts of,
planned socialization experiences. Attention to the variability among individuals must be a
fixture in occupational socialization research.
Analyzing Negative Socialization and Desocialization
Socialization,in its conventional use, has positive connotations. Yet, not all socialization
is positive or beneficial. Sparkes, Templin, and Schempp (1993) illustrate this point. They
talk specifically about the negative socialization associated with the marginality experienced
by physical education teachers. Although they focus on only three sources for marginality,
Sparkes and Templin suggest others. Similarly, Stroot, Faucette, and Schwager (1993) indicated
how negative socialization of the workplace can override stated values and preferred pedagogical practices of beginning physical education teachers. Isolation resulting from conflicting
views of effective instruction between administrators and beginning teachers, and the overwhelming impact of noninshuctional responsibilities contributed to feelings of marginalization.
As a result, these beginning teachers began to realize they had little effect on the current
organizational structure and compromised their own instructional strategies for less desirable
practices supported within their school context. Future research on both teachers and teacher
education professors will need to attend to marginality and the negative socialization that
accompanies it.
Wexler (1992) introduces "desocialization" (p. 1lo), and it merits attention in future
research. His ethnographic analysis suggests an erosion of schools' historic function as centers
for the formation of students' identities and meanings. The decline of the public sphere in
society is, according to Wexler, grounded in the decomposition of social relations in the
schml. Atomized relationships among teachers and students alike reflect and fuel the absence
of a shared, central set of societal values, especially those inviting authentic engagements that
nurture, form, and maintain identity. Lacking authentic engagements for genuine identities
related to learning and life course development, students drift into subcultures, many predicated
in part upon the commodities of popular, consumer culture (e.g., clothing, hair styles, type
of music). The result is social withdrawal, manifested in one school as a cycle whereby
teachers and students believe that "nobody cares" (Wexler, 1992). Desocihtion and its
roots may provide powerful, perhaps alarming, insights into occupational socialization research.
FOOTPRINTS AND SIGNPOSTS
Competing Theoretical Perspectivesfor
Occupational Socialization Research
In their analysis of teacher socialization, Zeichner and Gore (1990) have identified
three theoretical traditions: functionalist,interpretive, and critical. In addition,there are emergent
hybrids such as career theory (e.g., Barley, 1989). Although an analysis of each cannot be
undertaken here, it is useful to remember that each has its own set of assumptions, concepts,
language, and preferred methodologies. Moreover, socialization is conceptualized differently
in each of these perspectives. For example, it is benign and necessary in the functionalist
perspective, because it is a process necessary to establish and maintain social order. In the
critical perspective, socialization is criticized and even dismissed because of its functionalist
connotations of establishing and maintaining order and its implicit denial of human agency.
In brief, even when "socialition" appears across these perspectives, it has different meanings
and contexts. Early in a research enterprise, when the conceptual territory needs to be mapped,
competing theoretical perspectives are an advantage. Each brings special attention to some
phenomena and ways of knowing, while neglecting others. As a research enterprise matures,
there may be diminishing returns associated with so many competing perspectives. Short of
suggesting that we must become theoretically doctrinaire, hding ways to promote theoretical
harmony constitutes an important next step. We shall return to this point later.
Principles for Practice Emerging From Occupational Socialization
Even though occupational socialization research in our field is less than 20 years old,
what might be called principles for practice are emerging from our research and scholarly
activity. Together, these principles, and others that will follow in the future, answer critical
questions about the import and practicality of this research. For example, in the case of
preservice programs there are assumptions and principles for the organization and applicability
of knowledge (Lawson, 1993; Mitchell, 1993) and for taking into account the autobiographical
histories and perspectives of recruits (Doolittle et al., 1993; Hutchinson, 1993). We are
beginning to leam more about appropriatementoring for faculty and faculty career development
(Goc Karp & Williamson, 1993).Indeed, we can begin to identi@programs with the probability
for "high impacts" upon recruits (Graber, 1993). Finally, our work on teacher induction
programs, teacher subcultures and occupational communities, and schools as organizations is
yielding insights on transitions into teaching and teaching as a career (Lawson, 1989a; Sparkes,
Templin, & Schempp, 1993; Stroot et al., 1993).
Although these principles of practice are preliminary-indeed, some ideas do not
qualify yet as principles-they indicate the vast potential and practical import for occupational
sociahation research. These signposts we offer next for further research are intended to
facilitate the realization of this potential.
Signposts
We think about signposts in two ways: The first is a counterpart to footprints; footprints
retrace past steps whereas signposts point toward a preferred future. The other meaning of
signposts is linguistic. In this sense, we are interested in semiotics, the study of symbols,
signs, and language. We are coming to understand, along with researchers in other fields, the
central role played by language or discourses in both scholarship and everyday life (Lawson,
1993a; Tinning, 1991). As reflective researchers, we need to pay special attention to our uses
of language and symbols and, of equal import, the language, symbols, and signs used by our
subjects and co-researchers. If we exercise care in analyzing our language, we can gain
insight into the frames and names used by ourselves, our colleagues, and subjects, thereby
442
LAWSON AND STROOT
understanding problem setting in addition to action strategies for problem solving. There is
an abundance of uncharted conceptual temto~yhere. We must proceed beyond the perspectives
of researchers to those of the people we study, taking account of their conceptions of social
life worlds, discursive practices (i.e., recurrent uses of symbols, signs, and languages), and
relative actions.
Here, it may be useful to remember that occupational socialization research is not
restricted to the study of individuals, groups, and their organizations. These are important
aspects, but they are constituent parts of a larger agenda. The larger agenda is studying, and,
if appropriate changing, social institution-in
this case, sport and education. As with all
institutions, we begin with specific practices and then proceed beyond them to interrogate an
institution's form, content, and the social relations it structures. We are also interested in
institutional gatekeepers-the professors, teachers, and coaches who keep the system "up and
running." The systemics (the taken-for-granted rules, policies, procedures, and programs that
have become "naturalized" as a set of givens) themselves are of interest. In brief, this analytical
frame is directed toward some basic questions. What are the governing variables for a physical
education-sport-exercise system? How and why does this institutional system reproduce itself?
Should it be changed? If so, what are the logical and appropriate intervention points and
strategies? How should this intervention occur, and who should intervene? The study of
language and problem setting affords unique approaches to these kinds of research questions.
Other signposts follow.
Creating Our Own Concepts
A new research enterprise requires sensitizing concepts and theoretical frameworks. In
the formative stages, these are borrowed from other fields, and are beneficial because they
facilitate pioneering research. Later, as this enterprise begins to mature, borrowed concepts
and theoretical frameworks become a cons!mint. They do not attend to whatever uniqueness
resides in the new enterprise's phenomena, and they fragment knowledge and understanding
at a stage when integration and coherence are sought.
We have arrived at a pivotal stage in occupational socialization research. There is
evidence of uniqueness in physical education, both in schools and in universities. For example,
the mere fact that our field resides at the intersection of two social institutions, education and
sport, indicates uniqueness. Organizational marginality in both schools and universities is
another. In the same vein, we now need conceptual integration and coherence, and these are
not likely to result from borrowed conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Asserting the need
for unique concepts does not imply ignoring developments in other fields of study, such as
teacher sociatition. Because physical education crosses both education and sport, these
litemfmes and selected others must be consulted, and appropriate concepts must be utilized.
Our argument hinges on assumptions of physical education's uniqueness; once this is accepted,
there is a companding need for unique concepts. Unique concepts, blended with appropriate
ones from other fields (modified where necessary), pave the way to needed integration
and coherence.
Beyond Socialization to Allocation
Most of the early work on socialization has been informed by "the Wisconsin model,"
so named because its early proponents worked at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Proponents of the Wisconsin model accept identifiable political and economic assumptions
that together form an identifiable ideological system. This system is called liberal democratic
ideology. In s h w this view holds that each individual controls her or his own destiny
and, compondingfy, that society's institutions are equally accessible to and nurturing for
each person.
FOOTPRINTS AND SIGNPOSTS
443
Social psychological "mechanisms" provide the foundation for the Wisconsin model.
Investigators working with this model consider the origins of individuals and their subsequent
occupational position and status. Their reasoning has been summarized by Kerckhoff (1976):
The theoretical stance taken is that of the social interactionist, with the link between
origin and attainment being sought in the socialization process. Sigillficant others are
seen as having an influence on the goals of the young person, and these goals are
viewed as instrumental in the attainment process. The theory anticipates that the encouragement by sigtllficant others will vary accordingto the social position and demonstrated
ability of the child, and that this encouragement will affect the level to which he [sic]
aspires. The family and the school are seen as the institutional settings of this socialization
process, and the significant others include parents, teachers, and peers. (pp. 368-369)
Kerckhoff (1976) also stated, "The two most important variables included in the Wisconsin
model are sigtllficant others' influence and ambition" (p. 370). Thus, if an individual has
both motivation and ability and enjoys interaction with sigtllficant others, institutional settings
such as the schools, sport, and family will provide the socialization needed to secure for this
person the occupational station in life that she or he desires or warrants.
The Wisconsin model amends the early, functionalist view of socialization. In the
functionalist tradition, individuals are seen as essentially passive and accepting. Once they
receive "appropriate socialization" they may take their "proper" place in the social order.
This functionalist view does not acknowledge the abiities of humans to derive their own
meanings and to play a part in negotiating their socialization. Proponents of the Wisconsin
model, armed with insights from the interactive perspective, recognized the abilitiesof individuals to make meanings from their experiences, establish goals, and engage in social negotiations.
In other words, individuals are made active subjects in the Wisconsin model. Liewise, the
Wisconsin model has included, in recent years, consideration of a person's socioeconomic
status. These and other amendments resulted in a broadened view of socialization. The new
emphasis upon the differences among individuals could be used to explain variability in the
socialization processes and outcomes experienced by each person.
This social psychological view of socialization, nevertheless, has its own shortcomings.
Chief among the difficulties is a neglect of the effects of social structure on life chances and
experiences of individuals. There is also a corresponding assumption that the institutional
order allows equal and unencumbered movement by all persons. l?quality of opportunity,
critics assert, can only be possible when there is equality of condition. Furthermore, social
institutions inevitably offer selective norms, values, and social practices, meaning that different
persons will receive unequal treatments in institutional contexts such as schools and community
agencies. Thus, the Wisconsin model is criticized because it overestimates the abilities of
individuals and underestimates or neglects the effects of social structure on each person's life
chances and actual attainments.
For this reason and others, the view of socialization contained in the Wisconsin model
requires further amending. Toward this end, an "allocation model" has been offered. Descriig
an allocation model, Kerckhoff (1976) stated the following:
This perspective is at variance with the socialization model in that it minimizes the
significance of variations in socialization outcomes as they influence in any direct way
the individual's attainments and emphasizes the importance of societal forces which
idenbfy, select, process, classify, and assign individuals according to externally imposed
criteria Rather than differential attainment being seen as due to variations in learned
motives and skills, as in a socialization model, an allocation model views attainment
as due to the application of astructural limitations and selection criteria. (p. 369)
444
LAWSON AND STROOT
In the Wisconsin model, a person's gender, race, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation,
and age are relatively unimportant because of the assumption that, with appropriate ambition,
talent, and interaction with signiiicantothers, everyone can move freely through the institutional
system. In the allocation model, however, such characteristics are of paramount importance;
for example, a person's race and gender serve as a basis for differential treatment in the
institutional order. Currently, there is an abundance of evidence indicating that differential
treatment of individuals-some of it blatantly discriminatory--does occur in schools and
sport. Hence, in the allocation model, diversity is prioritized, and research methodologies are
employed to attend to it.
Limitations of the Wisconsin model notwithstanding, the task is not to eliminate the
emphasis that it places upon individual actors and actions. Rather, the challenge is to amend
the limited view of socialization and social action that it provides, and the allocation model
offers this promise (Kerckhoff, 1976).By focusing upon the actions of individuals in institutional
contexts and the contexts themselves it is possible to amend again the concept of socialization
to include social structural forces. In other words, it is possible to offer researchers interested
in occupational socialization an enriched view of socialization one that includes implicitly the
concept of allocation.
Once allocation is blended with socialization, we can begin to work toward theoretical
harmony. The concept of allocation calls attention to important individual differences based
upon age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. It invites the
distributive question-namely, who gets what, how much, when, and why-in two related
but independent feeder systems (schools and sport) and their intersections in physical education.
The distributive question connects with, and helps us understand, marginality. Given inequalities
in allocations, both in the here-and-now and over time, a focus upon allocation makes two
other connections.
There is a connection to the social constitution of reality. One's station in life is
structured in part by the resources one possesses and is given. There is an historical connection
insofar as one's station in life is often transgenerational. These two connections, together with
the emphasis upon each individual, take us to MiUs's (1967) nowclassic reminder: "No
social study that does not come back to problems of biography, of history, and of their
intersections in society has completed its intellectual journey" (p. 6).
Taken seriously, Mills's reminder helps us understand shortcomings in the three theoretical frameworks used in past research. Functionalist research, for example, tends to be ahistorical
and tends to ignore human agency. Interpretiveresearch also tends to be ahistorical and ignores
societal structures and politico-economic ideologies. Critical theorists, especially those working
with the "new sociology education," have lacked a depth psychology, especially its implications for studying social interactions (Wexler, 1992). Mills's reminder helps us transcend the
past limitations of these theoretical frameworks. We need theoretical frameworks that build
from the needs to simultaneously study individuals, societal structures, and their histories.
These hybrids will bring with them methodological and conceptual imperatives as well.
Historical Analysis and Behavioral Observations
Most of the occupational socialization research in physical education completed to date
has relied upon fixed-response questionnaires and interviews. Much of this work has been
descriptive and pretheoretical. This work has been valuable, and there are reasons for it to
continue. But questionnaires and interviews as stand-alonemethodologies will have diminishing
values. Historical analysis must be added in at least three ways. We need more insights into
the l i e stories and histories of individuals we study, as Sparkes, Templin, and Schempp
(1993) have suggested. Second, we require more understanding of the histories of the organizational settings included in our research. In other words, we must proceed beyond individuals
FOOTPRINTS AND SIGNPOSTS
445
to the study of organizations, their subcultures, and occupational communities; these evolve
over time, requiring historical analysis. Third, we must become more knowledgeable about
relevant aspects of social history and social theory, allowing a macrosociological interpretive
frame to complement today's preferred rnicroanalyses.
Furthermore, research in our own field has provided evidence that there are
differences between what people say and what they do. With this in mind, it is timely
to add behavioral observations to the methodologies we employ. Indeed, behavioral
observations offer an important link to the research on teaching, especially the genus
that is directed toward identifiable teaching technologies. Behavioral observations also
are of equal importance for persons developing postmodem or critical pedagogies (Tinning, 1991). Adding behavioral observations allows us to tap more of the potential of
occupational socialization research: It allows us to proceed beyond descriptive studies
of, for example, teaching orientations and behaviors toward explanation. In this sense,
occupational socialization research has needed research on teaching, just as research on
teaching has needed occupational socialization research. Joining these research perspectives promises to be exciting and important work.
Beyond Single Investigators to Research Teams
The preceding discussion carries with it a now-obvious implication: Future work
will require teams of researchers. Realization about the need for research teams is not
unique to physical education. It is a part of a larger intellectual movement, one that
prioritizes at the same time longitudinal and developmental research designs (Lawson,
1991a). It also joins with work, in some circles, where subjects serve as co-researchers
(e.g., teachers-as-researchers) and where stories are accepted as research strategies.
Collaboration between school and university personnel has been a foundational factor
in education reform proposals (Goodlad, 1990c; Holmes Group, 1986,1990; U.S. Department of Education, 1991). Collaborative research strategies promote parity between
participants, recognizing equal voices and empowering all who choose to be involved.
Shared questions (such as "What techniques, strategies, and skills can help prospective
teachers and teacher educators?" and "What changes are necessary for the betterment
of the system?") can be examined from multiple perspectives. Through collaborative
research, multiple perspectives are valued and act as catalysts to create change.
There are profound implications associated with the necessity for research teams,
and they cannot be analyzed here. Examples will have to suffice, beginning with the
fact that universities will have to employ a critical mass of PETE faculty. Tenure and
promotion criteria--especially those that prize only independent research-will need to
be changed. We professors will have to relinquish some of our power. Professors,
teachers, and students will have to learn to trust one another and to value diverse
opinions. We will need to become skilled at managing multiple data bases and "talking
across paradigms" until we educate, and are educated by other research team members.
Team membership, roles, and participation must become hiring criteria. In this light,
research teams needed for our field will reflect and fuel work under way to change the
structures and work cultures of entire schools, colleges, and departments of education.
We should not lose sight of the reason for research teams. We require, in the
name of understanding, an end to excessive reductionism and the beginnings of a holism
in our research. Such a holism allows us to share understandings and commitments,
promising an end to today's stimulating, yet often damaging, "paradigm wars." More
importantly, holism promises knowledge and understanding that may pave the way for
human bettement-in our case, through physical education.
LAWSON AND STROOT
Simultaneously Creating and Studying
Preferred Programs and Settings
Several years ago, John Cheffers observed that we had spent enough time studying,
and learning about, the limitations of ineffective and uncommitted physical education teachers.
He suggested that it was time to study effective, committed, and "good" teachers, and this
was sage advice. Studying the latter paved the way for solutions or remedies for the former.
So it is with occupational socialization research. If we grant that recommended principles of
practie can be derived now, thanks to our research and others', then it is time to start creating
idealized programs and organizations, building into our planning designs the processes to
study them. All that we have suggested in the foregoing analysis can be incorporated into
this work (e.g., developmental and longitudinal designs, research teams, historical analysis,
questionnaires and interviews, and subjects as co-researche~).We are not alone in higher
education in realizing that our current programs and systems are not working as intended.
There is a window of opportunity open to use the knowledge and understanding we have gained,
to generate more, and to work toward human betterment-all in the same historical moment.
Conclusion
It is possible to dismiss this last signpost as rampant idealism, but there is another way
to examine the attendant issues. With the end of ideologies concerning value-free science and
scholarship, two related questions must be confronted. What values do we hold for our research
and scholarship? What values are embodied in them? We believe, with Goodlad, Soder, and
Sirotnik (1990), that the moral dimensions of teaching support its unique status as a profession.
By extension, the moral dimensions of our research, scholarship, and other related work
in teaching and service are its defining characteristics. Mindful that today's programs and
organizations are not serving humankind in ways we deem appropriate, and inspired by moral
imperatives to have them do so, the challenge is to create more appropriate programs and
settings. This, then, is not rampant idealism. It is both a moral and a practical necessity, and
it allows for occupational socialization of researchers. It also provides PETE colleagues the
occasion to unite their roles as citizens and faculty members. In unison, the once separate
personal and professional identities become blended into a single identity. Change usually
begins with individuals. By changing the identities and work orientations of researchers, we
may also initiate changes in both research and practice during a time when change is vital.