**6. Analysis and discussion**

This study shows that cooperative research and development work between researchers and teachers is challenging and demanding but that also offer opportunities for both parties to learn and develop. The study's focus has been on how the researcher can act and react to challenges and opportunities that emerge during teaching practice development, while still allowing teachers to own and manage the project. Below, I discuss four factors that emerged as important across all categories presented in the findings section.

#### **6.1 Creating and maintaining trust**

Discussions and reflections concerning trust between the researcher and teachers arose in several contexts during the study. Although I was conscious of the need to establish relationships of trust in advance of and during the study, reflections, questions, and challenges related to trust recurred throughout the study, both for myself as a researcher and for the participants. The concept of trust and confidence was also identified by Stenhouse [48] as a possible barrier to teachers' professional development and learning. The findings from this study indicate that it is challenging for the researcher to determine a suitable approach to creating relationships of trust and that this requires the researcher to be able to reflect on his or her own role through reflexive processes [15, 27, 28]. In an effort to create and maintain trust and open relationships among the participants and between the participants and myself, the study's findings clearly attest to the tensions and contradictions associated with these processes [24]. With regard to both developing the teachers' practices and developing and understanding my role as a researcher, it was crucial to actively engage with these tensions and establish from where they derive, describe what they are about, and to take stock of my own values and how I sensitively treated them. These processes comprise what Steen-Olsen [15] describe as the researcher's epistemological reflexivity. The tensions that arose in the study, related to trust, thorough dialog and justifications for action, became valuable contributors to change and knowledge building during the process of negotiating these tensions [24].

Based on my reflections in the research log (see Research log, 1) and statements from the participants (see Group interview, 1) it appears that trust and honesty between researcher and participants are important for both parties, and both parties must work to establish and maintain them throughout the project. Participants clearly indicated that the researcher's ability to provide positive feedback and to

#### *The Researcher's Role: An Intervention Study Using Lesson Study in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101100*

identify and highlight the positive aspects of their practice helped to established trust (see Group interview, 1). They also pointed to the importance of the researcher expressing interest in their practice generally and not just in the areas requiring improvement Takahashi [22]. My curiosity regarding several areas of each teacher's practice was valuable, therefore, in that it offered a better opportunity to modify the teacher's existing approaches and to find ways of negotiating challenges that were in line with his or her level of development. We were thus able to collaboratively devise approaches to challenges that helped to expand the teacher's individual development zone, as described by Vygotsky [31], and also to create meaningful collective processes [32]. My reflections between Meeting 1 and Meeting 2 indicate that the researcher plays a significant role in creating meaningful collective processes that generate what Engeström [33] describes as expansive transformational processes or expansive learning, which are major functions of the researcher's role within the CHAT framework [24]. This finding also attests the importance of the researcher's methodological reflexivity [15].

If projects executed within the LS framework are to drive change and development in practice, teachers must be able to engage in deliberative processes and adopt a critical view of their own practices [20, 49]. During the first half of the study, dialogs between the teachers demonstrated that these qualities were lacking. I was confident that this was due to a lack of knowledge and experience as to how such processes should work.

#### **6.2 Presenting findings to the participants**

According to Schön [50], it is by discovering weaknesses and deficiencies in the ways in which we do things that we create opportunities for learning and development. When I identified weaknesses in a teacher's approach to a challenge, two particular factors emerged as important. First, the findings had to be presented in a way that created meaning and understanding among the teachers but that also demonstrated how they might have gained more insight into the challenge by adopting an improved approach Takahashi [22]. In my log (Research log, 4), I reflected on the weaknesses that I discovered with respect to justifications and argumentation for teachers' actions. The most demanding aspect of this was not identifying the shortcomings but finding a good approach to present them so that they might benefit the participants. This demonstrates how tensions can arise in the activity system, in the meeting between challenges and how to respond to them [24]. While attempting to predict how the teachers might react, I was also obliged to reflect thoroughly on what the next step in the development process might be. The extract from my research log describes some of this reflexive process, and demonstrates that the researcher must reflect on and address various challenges simultaneously. Second, it was important that I signal my interest in learning more about the challenge, in creating development, and in improving collaboration with the teachers. The participants appreciated the fact that I adopted this approach when communicating my findings (see Group interview, 2). Their stated responses verify that they trusted me and welcomed my support, which underlines the importance of the researcher having the courage to challenge the teachers by questioning their existing practices.

Another important point that emerged from the stated responses is how important it is to the participants that the researcher not only points out shortcomings but also plays an active part in the developmental process. Fernandez [36] also emphasizes the importance of the researcher's ability and willingness to contribute to learning and

development. Takahashi [22] is clear that an important part of the researcher's role is to support teachers by asking questions and challenging them with critical thinking and new perspectives. To ensure that my questions and critical input were meaningful for the teachers, I had to ascertain how the teachers were thinking and acting in relation to the challenges they faced. To develop their thinking and practice, I had to assess their current levels of knowledge and awareness; that is, I had to determine their *actual development level* [31]. If the researcher or the *knowledgeable other* is to be able to communicate effectively with the teachers, they must know the teachers and adjust the content and progression of development in accordance with their level of knowledge Takahashi [22]. The teachers' stated responses (see Group interview, 2) highlight the importance of the external perspective offered by the researcher who can perceive aspects of a teacher's practice that are difficult to detect from the inside. A study by Somekh [51] attests that teachers find it difficult to objectively perceive the culture they are immersed in, which also makes it challenging for them to identify where and how changes might be made.

#### **6.3 Enabling thorough discussions and exploratory dialogs between teachers**

While the teachers in this study acknowledge the importance of pedagogical discussion and professional meetings, they also found that the meetings lacked structure and failed to focus on the topic at hand. My experiences of meetings and dialogs between the teachers corroborated this. I also observed that dialogs between the teachers seemed to be cumulative in their effect [52], in that participants largely confirmed what others had said, building on it in positive but uncritical ways.

My initial thought was that a way to carry out planning meetings and reflection talks that moved beyond the cumulative level should be identified. Jung and Brady [37] emphasize the importance of the researcher's ability to instigate discussions and reflections, but do not offer suggestions as to how the researcher might support and develop the discussions. However, during informal one-to-one conversations, it was clear that several participants were in fact already capable of moving beyond the cumulative level, but between researcher and teacher, informal dialogs were more exploratory [52]. According to Lewis et al. [20], thorough discussions and reflections are important for continuing the LS process and they have a significant impact on teachers' learning and development. In research log 1, I reflected on the lack of thorough exploratory discussions between the teachers, and initially concluded that their competence in that area needed to be strengthened using a theoretically focused approach. However, through informal conversations between the teachers and myself it became apparent that the teachers already had the required knowledge and competence and that the lack of thorough exploratory discussions was due to other factors. The theoretical approach I had been considering was therefore inappropriate and would have been insufficient to meet the needs of the teachers at that time. This is supported by Postholm and Skrøvset [34] who point out that if theory and theoretical perspectives are not introduced at the appropriate time, they may in fact be counterproductive. In this case, the fostering of thorough discussion and reflection became a practical challenge.

Kemmis [53] use the term "praxis" (p. 465), which in this context is understood as a dialectical process in which teachers can change teaching and teaching can change teachers, emphasizing that praxis includes "sayings, doings and relatings", with a focus on how an educator might act wisely. These human activities are in turn formed by historical and cultural conditions. In this context, "sayings" are understood as

#### *The Researcher's Role: An Intervention Study Using Lesson Study in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101100*

the content of the dialogs and reflections, and an important task was to focus on penetrating further into the content as basis for a broader understanding of the challenges facing the teachers. This in turn may lead to improved teaching practices: that is, teachers' "doings". Rather than adopting a theoretical approach, we had to approach the challenge practically and consider how we might practically strengthen the dialogs and reflections so that they might become more deliberative and critical. By adopting a historical and cultural analytic perspective on the dialogs between the participants in the study, which is fundamental to CHAT, we could cooperatively devise a new way of structuring the dialogs, which in turn helped to generate new content in various aspects of the activity system [24].

These considerations bring us back to the question of trust, this time to the professional trust between teachers (Meeting, 3). It became clear that there was an issue of weak professional trust between them (Meeting, 3), as well as the difficulties presented by the unfamiliar approach and their lack of experience. This is supported by Postholm and Skrøvset [34], who emphasize the importance of the researcher's awareness of the relationships and trust levels between the teachers which have two dimensions: social and academic/professional. The participants in this study had a good social environment and high levels of social trust in one another, but that degree of trust was absent from their pedagogical and professional discussions. Rather than building theoretical competence, we therefore had to begin by building professional trust.

To this end, it was necessary to adopt an approach that allowed the teachers to test their perceptions and understanding of challenges within an environment of mutual trust. It proved helpful in this regard to refer to Schön's [50] conception of *reflective practice.* We began with a thorough analysis of the challenge, designing elucidatory questions such as the following: When is it a challenge, and to whom? What does it consist of? What experiences can we relate to it? What factors could sustain it? What is the current situation? What is the desired outcome? In this process, we devised the questions together, but it was up to the teachers to delve into them in greater detail and to bring forward different perspectives and interpretations. The teachers thus had significant involvement in designing the approach and adapting it to the subsequent process. This allowed them to address the challenges in a more reflective way and created what Eraut [54] describes as deliberative processes. In turn, meaningful deliberative processes between the teachers laid the foundation for expansive learning and enhancement of their individual development zones [24].

It was difficult to strike a balance between supporting the teachers and challenging them. To strike this balance, it was necessary for me to become well acquainted with the participants and to spend sufficient time with them in their field of practice. I visited the research school often, and participated in discussions, dialogs, observations, and informal meetings. Language thus became an important mediating artifact [31] for creating meaning and common understanding between us. This formed a good basis for striking the necessary balance and for facilitating subsequent processes in the project.

#### **6.4 The researcher's practical wisdom and pedagogical/professional discretion**

In pursuit of the balance between supporting and challenging teachers, another aspect, which was present in all the challenge categories mentioned above, affected me as a researcher. Several studies have focused on teachers' practical wisdom and pedagogical discretion [54, 55]. However, in respect of formative intervention

research [24] and the researcher's role, this theme has received little attention. Although I gleaned a lot of information about the balance from the data I collected, many of my actions and approaches were based on practical wisdom and pedagogical discretion rather than on the data alone. As a researcher and initiator, I was also conscious of my responsibility to lead the project in a direction that would encourage learning and development, although the project was largely teacher-led. With this responsibility come certain expectations, from both the researcher and from the teachers, and it was necessary for me to make some decisions based partly on past experience, partly on theoretical considerations, and partly on practical wisdom and pedagogical discretion. Within the CHAT paradigm, tensions and contradictions are acknowledged as playing an important role as a starting point for development [24] but, from a researcher's perspective, one can never predict what new tensions and contradictions will emerge after those already detected have resolved. I was therefore obliged to make decisions continually.

#### **7. Conclusion**

Although LS is a method that is largely teacher-led, the findings of this study attest the need for researchers / external interveners to support and strengthen LS development work in a direction that promotes learning. This study corroborates findings from previous research, concerning the importance of the researcher's abilities to communicate, to redefine his or her own role, to collaborate with the participants in ways that facilitate learning for all parties, and to encourage new ways of thinking about teaching and learning.

The present study indicates that it is unrealistic to simply, implement LS as a mediating artifact for teachers' learning and development and to expect expansive learning to occur as an automatic result. By examining the researcher's role in research within LS, this study both clarifies that role and highlights the challenges the researcher is likely to encounter within LS. LS entails processes that are demanding and comprehensive for teachers, and it requires them to have the necessary skills and knowledge to exercise thorough analysis and reflection. Unlike several of the research projects mentioned above, which indicate the importance of the researcher's role, this study not only highlights the challenges that emerged, but also describes how the researcher reacts and responds to these challenges. The researcher's thoughts and actions related to these challenges have received relatively little exploration. This study will provide the research field and researchers with useful information concerning how the researcher might act and react, and will therefore be an important contribution to researchers' development of useful and necessary competence, as advocated by Nilsson and Postholm [12]. The study clarifies that the researcher's role in practically oriented research is a challenging one that requires competence in several areas. Notably, this applies to the type of research that the expert group for teachers' roles (2016) called for, in which the goal is to contribute to teachers' learning and development and to encourage changes in teaching practices. This study also verifies that the researcher's role and approach are of crucial importance for change and development, and that the reflexive researcher intervenes in such a way that an approach that is at once challenging and supportive helps to reduce the complexity of teachers' professional development, as described by Opfer and Pedder [4]. Further research on the researcher's role in LS and in similar research projects is, therefore, recommended.

*The Researcher's Role: An Intervention Study Using Lesson Study in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101100*
