'Pedagogies' for professional development - are they distinctive?

Last week’s blog post sent me down something of a worm-hole, as I tried to unpick who or what a researcher is. I’ve gone in the other direction this week in trying to work out what my role is, or what my position is in relation to the researchers that I support and develop. A reverse worm-hole, if you will!

I spent some time this week trying to nail down where I thought my approach to development was grounded. What philosophical assumptions about learning and those I was working with, were guiding my approach?

I am located in a department, and alongside colleagues, who use the word ‘training’. There is something about this word and approach that feels inappropriate given the distinct constituencies I am now working with.

I associate training with something that aims to address deficiencies and skills gaps. I do not argue that there is no place for training in researcher development, but I would make the case that it should be more marginal than it currently is. I have always been uncomfortable in situations where I am being asked to adopt the position of the ‘guru’ in the room. I am just about able to justify it in the context of level 4 or 5 undergraduate teaching, but it is less relevant beyond these levels. My previous higher educational experiences have been working alongside work-based learners, whether at UG, PG or PGR levels. These experiences mean that my approach has been grounded in 'heutagogy'– a philosophy of learning and teaching that places the learner at the centre of their own learning, with learning being wholly self-directed. I stumbled upon this term and definition only recently but it is a term that I think best reflects what I am now doing, working alongside researchers.

So, to emerge from the wormhole of labels…what does this mean for what I now describe myself as? I could adopt ‘facilitator’ but perhaps that has been over-used in the training context. I am no longer a lecturer or senior lecturer but was never comfortable with those labels when I was. Curiously, at Warwick, those terms do not exist. Opting instead for labels that describe what you are (i.e. Associate professor) rather than what it is you do.

So, what is it that I am now doing? I have decided on ‘teacher’, not because I claim the guru position, and neither because I intend on being directive in my approach. I choose the word teacher, because the etymological root of the term is ‘to show’, note – it is not ‘to tell’. Showing is different from telling. Showing means, for me, 'to draw attention to something, so that the looker can observe something in order to come to their own conclusions about the thing being shown'. In showing something to someone, they may or may not come to the same conclusions than I do in drawing it their attention.

This reflection arose from my attempts to begin to sketch out the boundaries of (what I previously described as) ‘pedagogies’ for professional development for researchers, that moves beyond the training agenda. So, there will be more to come in this blog about the approach and technique of ‘showing’ in a heutagogy of professional development for researchers.

I have been thinking about the question of ‘what more is there to professional development beyond training?’ question for some time now. My initial thoughts were met with blinking incomprehension in several different contexts, which made me wonder if I was barking up the wrong tree. At one stage, I felt a little overwhelmed by what it is I was trying to articulate. As is usual for me, a painting emerged from my reflections. It represents a kind of marinating, a dwelling on and bathing in an idea without the immediate expectation of an answer. Now, some answers are starting to emerge and I look forward to sharing them as the ideas (and this blog) develops.