Partnership as educational policy imperative: An unquestioned good?

How might partnership be conceptualized?

As noted above, partnership, as a particular form of knowledge exchange between university departments of education and other stakeholders, has been promoted as a desirable outcome at both European and national levels (Caul & McWilliams, 2002; Dahlstedt, 2009; MacAllister, 2015; Scottish Government, 2011; Smith, Brisard, & Menter 2006). Given the ambiguities that are associated with understandings of partnership to date, we identify three different approaches that are characterized as lexical, stipulative, and empirical orientations respectively. As will be seen below, each type has its own characteristic focus for analysis and questioning that distinguishes it from alternative approaches. Having briefly outlined each approach, we will then analyse how these intersect in practice within the context of an empirical study that follows.

Theoretical and methodological framework: how might an empirical approach to partnership be theorized?

Before describing the empirical study in greater detail, it is necessary to say something more about the kind of theoretical and methodological framing that informs our account. In terms of theory, we draw upon recent work in empirical philosophy that maps the movements, gatherings, and outcomes associated with mobilizing projects associated with partnership. Much of this draws upon Bruno Latour’s (1999; 2013) work on relations and translations that has, in recent years, become influential within educational circles (e.g., Fenwick & Edwards, 2010; Fenwick, Edwards, & Sawchuck, 2011; Sorensen, 2011). Gherardi and Landri (2014) is of particular relevance here, as a study that draws upon socio-material theory to make sense and to identify the new (and binding) relations that emerge as a consequence of an act of signing. We argue that Gherardi and Landri’s (2014) approach provides insight into some of the different grammars of partnership as these became enacted and differentiated. So, in what ways might such a theoretical and methodological orientation be resourceful?

As Gherardi and Landri (2014, p. 7) observe, “signature is a mechanism to reduce uncertainty and distribute accountability, to validate documents by proving professional competence, and to assign responsibilities.” This derives from the fact that professional signatures are not only social fabrications, but also ‘”stable traces resistant to disputation that ‘make’ the professional accountable” (Gherardi & Landri, 2014, p.1). In other words, an act of signing (whether by pen, seal or digit means) can lead both to a new inauguration—revealing “complex negotiations among professional knowledges, practices, and identities” and work to stabilize these arrangements (Gherardi & Landri, 2014, p. 4). As such, the focus upon an act of signing provides a form of analysis that begins “in the middle of things” (Gherardi & Landri, 2014, p. 4; Latour, 2005) rather than with some outside framing or definition, which can then investigate what is achieved in and through the practice of signing for all that become implicated. To this extent, the analysis focuses on socio-material effects of a partnership as these are played out within a particular association, network or assemblage.

A focus of our empirical inquiry into partnership is a signature event in which five local authorities signed an agreement with a university to work together. From this event, we worked backwards and forwards; backwards, in terms of the kinds of relations that obtained prior to this formal agreement; and forwards, in order to trace the emergence of a new partnership assemblage as marked by the signing event. This enabled us to investigate the socio-material effects of this act of signature (Gherardi & Landri, 2014) so as to identify the new relationships and practices to which this gave rise. As such, our methodology also draws extensively upon Bruno Latour’s (2005; 2010; 2013) ethnographic practice that is focused upon material, relational and human gatherings, together with tracing the various translations that take place and their effects. In taking an empirical approach to partnership, therefore, we explore some of the ways that human and nonhuman materialities combine to produce particular purposes and effects in education (Sorenson, 2009). Thus, rather than assuming a particular account of partnership apriori, the paper reports on the socio-material effects of a partnership as enacted through time. We then draw upon a lexical account in an effort to characterize some of the differences wrought in the aftermath of a signature event (Fenwick et al., 2011; Fenwick & Landri, 2014).

More specifically, the paper is concerned with the effects of ‘partnership’ as the focus of recent policy imperatives within a Scottish educational context (Scottish Government, 2011). The partnership in question consisted of educational officers representing each of the Local Authorities, and lecturers representing initial and professional education programmes at the university. The authors, as university lecturers in the Partnership Steering Group thereby occupied, simultaneously, multiple roles as participants, observers, and analysts of the processes that are recounted here. This positioning as researchers was not, however, covert, and focused upon the socio-material relations that were in play as evidenced by the kinds of artifacts selected for this study. The data that was analysed between 2011-2015 includes

These data were analysed as an exercise in “practical ontology,” to borrow Jensen’s (2010, p. 5) description, so as to trace and explicate relations (Nespor, 1994) and the different ways in which people, materialities, and their interactions changed through time (Fenwick, Edwards, & Sawchuck, 2011). The challenge in all of this was to try and surface the taken-for-granted and to notice the emergence of new configurations within the traces left by these educational events. As such, the examples given might best be considered “case studyish” (Wortham, 1999) rather than as constituting a formal case study as such. Our analysis is, we hope, illustrative of some of the distinctions and contrasts that we draw in relation to the enaction of partnership.

Longitudinal study: How might different partnership assemblages be characterized?

In this section, we initially provide some background to the policy context in Scotland in relation to partnership and teacher education as this bears upon the study in question. Within the Scottish context, Teaching Scotland’s Future (often referred to as The Donaldson Review) (Scottish Government, 2011) was a major review of teacher education in Scotland where a series of policy recommendations were made alongside a detailed discussion of the implications of this for future practice. Readers of the report become immediately aware of the key role that partnership plays in this imagined future; indeed, partnership is mentioned on no fewer than 70 occasions throughout the report, and a call is made for:

Given the report’s importance, a National Implementation Group was formed to implement its recommendations, especially in relation to identifying the principles that would, in turn, constitute “a new concept of partnership” (Scottish Government, 2011, p. 11). The National Implementation Board (NIB) (Scottish Government, 2013) was subsequently charged with identifying the ten overarching principles (see summary below, Figure 4) that would constitute partnership in relation to Early Career Partnerships between universities and local authorities, with the intention of ensuring closer working between initial teacher education and the induction year of teaching. Henceforth, partnership policy was to be “rolled out” in practice, with each universitylocal authority partnership expected to align with the aforementioned principles. This entailed each university-local authority partnership becoming formally constituted as such, and in the following section, we describe how this became instituted in one such partnership.

Partnership and a signature event

In September 2012 the National Partnership Group (NPG), which was set up to implement the recommendations of Teaching Scotland’s Future (Scottish Government, 2011), issued a recommendation to the Cabinet Secretary which stated that

From this point on, the minutes of the Steering Group at first note this recommendation (7/11/2012) and then begin to work out the implications of formally constituting such a partnership. Thus, a partnership meeting held on 22^nd April 2013 was given over to discussing the implications of the draft National Framework Agreement for Partnership, and two subsequent meetings (22/5/2013 and 17/6/2013) also devoted a considerable time to this. In these minutes, it is noticeable that earlier topics of discussion, and the somewhat ad hoc way in which new issues emerged, no longer feature. In their place, the NIB Principles of Partnership (Scottish Government, 2013; see below, Figure 4) gain currency as a key focus of concern, and the local authorities attending now become restricted to the five that will enter into the upcoming formal partnership.

In response to these requirements, a formal act of signing up to a partnership agreement took place on 21^st February 2014 between senior representatives of the university and the five local authorities (University of Stirling, 2014). This agreement formally constituted the Central Local Authorities Partnership (the acronym CLASP was subsequently used) as a distinct entity: through this signature event (Gherardi & Landri, 2014) the 5 local authorities and university committed to working together as a partnership. However, the understanding of partnership to which all signed was that enumerated in the ten NIB Principles (Figure 4)—a stipulative definition of partnership that had not, hitherto, played a significant role in this particular assemblage, as we have seen. Thus, the official signature event acted as a catalyst for recognizing the NIB principles, which would, henceforth, gain both currency and status, thereby becoming an undisputed way of both constituting and evaluating partnership. Through the act of signing, in other words, all became linked, professionally responsible, and accountable to these ten NIB principles. This act of signing, therefore, led to new alignments and translations that re-configured how partnership might—and should—be practiced in future.

New alignments, responsibilities, and performativities: What are the broader consequences and implications of the move from one partnership assemblage to another?

One of the key translations that the shift from a grammar of participation to that of representation effects is the move from the uncertainties of practice to a ‘readable space’ (Certeau, 1984, p. 36, quoted in Candler, 2006, p. 30). This makes possible, in Certeau’s (1984, p. 36) words:

In other words, a move towards a grammar of representation can be regarded as strategic since once a defined understanding of partnership is produced it becomes possible to judge the extent to which particular practices conform and correspond to a particular text. In this connection, an aspect of the Donaldson Review (Scottish Government, 2011, Recommendation 19) that had not been especially noticed previously, came increasingly into view (minutes and field notes, 22/1/2014, 2/4/2014, 16/6/2014). This concerned measures to ensure the accountability of partnerships arrangements:

In the following section, we illustrate how policy imperatives were mobilized in ways that ensured alignment with official partnership discourse, thereby joining up governance apparatus with government intentions.

The extension of the quality assurance role signaled by “inspections of teacher education,” marked a notable shift from the less formal Aspect Reviews that had hitherto been a feature of HMIE involvement in higher education. The increased role of the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) in relation to partnership arrangements led to revised Guidelines for Initial Teacher Education Programmes in Scotland (GTCS, 2013, p. 4) that reflect this change, with successful accreditation now requiring that programmes

A formally constituted partnership arrangement aligned with the ten NIB principles was henceforth a necessary condition for universities being accredited to offer teacher education per se.

Soon after the release of funding to develop the early career phase, the Scottish Government announced that each university and local authority partnership would be subject to an Aspect Review of partnerships which would use the ten NIB Principles as a frame/benchmark from which to judge areas of good practice and to identify issues faced by the university and local authority partnerships. Whilst the formalization of partnership working around the early career phase had at first given rise to new opportunities and possibilities in terms of funding; this now ushered in new forms of governance and accountabilities not foreseen by the stakeholders in the partnership. Signing up to the ten NIB Principles embodied in the formalized partnership agreement, now issued in a new form of inspection that, in turn, would lead to a public report on the effectiveness of the partnership’s working.

With the announcement of the Aspect Review, a new series of meetings took place that were focused on preparing for the review, and on two occasions an HMIE inspector attended partnership meetings in both an observational and advisory capacity for the upcoming review (2/4/2014, 16/6/2014). Preparation for the Aspect Review included work on setting up a series of focus groups that might reflect the work of the partnership for the inspection ³ . The focus of all these discussions at partnership meetings was now mediated via the NIB Principles, which became both a point of reference, focus, and means of evaluation (see Figure 4). In short, the perceived success (or otherwise) of the early career phase project was directly aligned to these principles. Thus, the socio-material translations that were made (in relation to the principles) led to new working practices within the partnership assemblage, which also became subject to scrutiny and reporting.

Although at first it appeared that there would be some freedom and flexibility in identifying how the Aspect Review focus groups were to be constituted, it soon became apparent that specific groups of professionals such as Head Teachers, students, and core staff were preferred, so that the review team (from Education Scotland) might make clear judgments in relation to the ten NIB principles in relation to each stakeholder. Indeed, the questions used for each of the focus groups drew directly upon these principles. Whereas the university had hoped to constitute the focus groups around distinct partnership projects—which might give evidence of collaboration across stakeholder groups—it was clear that the review team had a clearly differentiated governance structure in mind that could be matched to the ten stipulative principles rather than being matched to the specificities of each project (Field Notes, 12/9/2014).

Through such measures, the CLASP steering group was now held directly accountable to the ten NIB Principles embodied in the formalized partnership agreement. The Steering Group meetings from 2^nd April 2014 onwards, aligned their discussions to the NIB Principles and how best to prepare the focus groups for the upcoming Aspect Review, rather than open-ended dialogue around the newly created spaces and opportunities the early career phase had provided.

The new accountability agenda thus translated a partnership assemblage, which was, in lexical terms, structured around an on-going practice of collaboration, into something that was quite different: a stipulative understanding of partnership that drew upon a grammar of representation. The partnership assemblage changed significantly through the addition of the ten NIB Principles as an authoritative text, with the new assemblage, in turn, becoming explicitly linked to official organizations such as HMIE and GTCS, that ensured accountability. In becoming accountable, clear and pre-defined principles identified by external actors became foregrounded, to which alignment was sought. If the partnership assemblage prior to the formal act of signing appeared closer to a grammar of participation in Candler’s (2006) terms, the formal act of signing henceforth committed stakeholders to a grammar of representation in which a stipulative text became a key element in the practice of partnership.

As noted above, the formal act of signing also became a precondition for access to new funding from the Government, which in turn led to new alignments, expectations, and accountabilities. The effect of this, at a strategic level, was to relocate thinking about future priorities away from each University-Local Authority partnership to the Government. Setting the future agenda was achieved through an official announcement that made available particular funding streams, whose focus was dependent upon current government priorities. Under the new arrangements, the partnership appeared to be guided at each step, with doors in particular directions being mysteriously opened and closed, producing a kind of Alice in Wonderland effect. And so this, in turn, produced both new forms of governance as well as new forms of unknowing. As regards the latter, if, under a grammar of participation, there were uncertainties as to what might transpire within a meeting, dependent upon which contingent matter of concern might arise, under a grammar of representation, the map of significant concerns was only available piecemeal, and in retrospect, once a new priority had been set by the government. Henceforth, the new partnership assemblage was not only beholden to a stipulative text and the grammar of representation which came in its wake, but stakeholders found themselves more closely linked to the whims of future government priorities.

Notwithstanding the Scottish Government’s (2013, p.1) intention that the establishment of a principles-based approach “enhance consistency of standards, while at the same time allowing sufficient flexibility,” since “the NIB is not promoting a particular model of partnership working,” in practice, our analysis suggests that the new alignments and accountabilities associated with a grammar of representation that we trace here, qualitatively changed the practice of partnership in this setting. Thus, a research project (titled the Integrated Early Career Phase)—funding for which was awarded after the signature event—was formally evaluated according to its alignment with the NIB Principles rather than, for example, an increase in collaborative working—or the development of trust between partners. The shift from a grammar of participation to that of representation also brought significant change as regards the focus of ethical practice involved in becoming professionally responsible. In place of responsibility to fellow stakeholders to support professional learning and practice, as foregrounded within a grammar of participation (illustrated in Figure 3), the move towards clearer governance of partnership shifted professional responsibility to faithfulness to a particular policy lexicon instead (illustrated in Figure 5).

Conclusion

This paper offers a distinctive approach to understanding educational partnership that is focused upon a reading of empirical happenings and their bearing upon a critical analysis of two successive partnership assemblages. Having initially distinguished between three types of approach to understanding partnership, the lexical, stipulative and empirical, which variously inform and interplay in the construction of partnership and the kinds of assemblage to which these give rise, we then traced how a new partnership assemblage came into being through a signature event. This partnership assemblage, in foregrounding a stipulative text, enacted a more formal approach in which its success or otherwise was judged according to how well practice might be aligned with an authoritative text; this we characterized, following Candler (2006), as enacting a grammar of representation. In direct contrast, the partnership assemblage that pre-dated this formal act of signing, and the new alignments and responsibilities to which this gave rise, was much less formal; partnership within these terms was characterized as enacting a grammar of participation, which was performed through a negotiation of emergent matters of concern.

The formal signature event both marked, inaugurated and bound stakeholders to a new partnership assemblage that materially changed ways in which partnership might be performed and the responsibilities—and accountabilities—to which this gave rise. Rather than uncritically assuming partnership to be an unquestioned good, our analysis encourages a more cautious approach. Partnership might be viewed as an ambivalent achievement in so far as this issues in new forms of university and local authority governance that involve subjection to externally produced, audit cultures without clear justification or critical rationale (Strathern, 2000). Partnership, depending on which grammar is mobilized, might be seen as giving rise to both new insight and relational possibility or a further extension and intensification of governance that issues in a more coherent regime of regulation (Ranson, 2003). As such, partnership may be a mixed blessing indeed.