Page 64 - Getting of the fence

Chapter 3
and are able to initiate their own volitional actions “to change the terms and the outcomes of the conversation about educational policy and practice” (Cook-Sather, 2002, p. 12). Fielding (2001) for example considers his Students as co-researchers level as an opportunity for students and teachers to co-operate, acknowledging “the legitimacy of both perspectives and (...) the necessity of their reciprocally conditioning joint pursuit” (p. 131). For Lodge (2005), just like Holdsworth (2000), dialogue is the highest form of involving students’ perspectives because, she argues, “through dialogue all members of the school will learn more about learning than they could have learned on their own” (p. 135). However, other researchers, such as Hart (1992) and Fielding (2001) argue that the highest form of including student voice in research is placing the students in the position of initiating researchers, the Learners as initiators perspective. A counterargument however is given by Lee and Zimmerman (1999) who argue that their Student Voice Continuum “is not intended to suggest that all schools need to have students involved at the directive end” because “factors of readiness, context, and resources” (p. 35) will have an effect on the extent to which students can be involved.
In the Learners in dialogue perspective, we will follow Lodge’s (2005) definition of dialogue as a shared narrative, where through engagement, openness and honesty, participants arrive at a point they would otherwise not get to alone. Defining dialogue this way links in with what Burbules and Bruce (2002) call a contemporary vision of dialogue in that it is “egalitarian, open-ended, politically empowering, and based on the co-construction of knowledge” (p. 1102). According to Burbules (1993), two kinds of distinctions need to be considered when discussing dialogical situations: dialogue in its relation to knowledge and the attitude toward one’s partner in dialogue. With regard to the first distinction, one can hold a convergent or a divergent view of dialogue. Within a convergent view, the dialogical process strives toward a particular epistemic endpoint whereas in a divergent view we observe the coexistence of plural meanings as well as ambiguous connotations. In the second distinction, Burbules (1993) defines a critical and an inclusive attitude toward one’s partner in communication. A critical attitude emphasizes a sceptical and judgmental position whereas an inclusive attitude focuses on understanding the outlook and experiences of one’s partner. For example, an inquiry, (where the aim is generally to solve a specific problem or answer a specific question), is regarded more critical and convergent, whereas a conversation is more inclusive and divergent, aiming for intersubjective comprehension (Burbules, 1993). Considering the fact that “dialogue is not just
62