Öğretmen Eğitimcilerinin Düşünsel Kurulumlarının Yapıbozumu İçin Cinsiyet Yüklü Düşünümsellik Nasıl Kullanılabilir?

Öz

Bu araştırma, cinsiyet yüklü düşünümselliğin, öğretmen eğitimcilerinin toplumsal cinsiyete ilişkin düşünsel kurulumlarını yapısöküme uğratmaları için kavramsal bir araç olarak nasıl işlev gördüğünü araştırmaktadır. Öğretmen eğitimcilerinin alandaki toplumsal cinsiyete ilişkin deneyimlerini analiz etmek için fenomenolojik yaklaşımdan, Bourdieu'nün düşünümsel sosyolojisinden ve alan kuramından yararlandık. Bunun için öğretmen eğitimcileriyle, onları alandaki egemen toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkileri bağlamında pratikleri ve deneyimleri üzerine özdüşünümsel bir sürece katılmaya davet eden odak grup görüşmeleri gerçekleştirdik. Odak grup görüşmeleri aracılığıyla, öğretmen eğitimcilerinin toplumsal cinsiyete ilişkin deneyimlerini tartışmaya açarak bu deneyimleri nasıl anlamlandırdıklarını ve bu deneyimleri oluşturan pratiklerin alandaki ilişkiler tarafından nasıl sürdürüldüğünü anlamaya çalıştık. Bu görüşmelerde, pratiklere ve deneyimlere ilişkin farklılaşan anlayışların ortaya çıktığı anlar, failleri kendi pratikleri üzerine tekrar düşünmeye yönlendirecek bir potansiyeli görmemizi sağladı. Faillerin toplumsal cinsiyete ilişkin kendi pratik ve söylemlerinin farkında olmaları ve bu pratik ve söylemlere neyin aracılık ettiğine dair sürekli ve bilinçli bir sorgulama olarak görülebilecek cinsiyet yüklü düşünümsellik, öğretmen eğitimcilerinin düşünsel kurulumlarını yapısöküme uğratmak ve dönüştürmek için kavramsal bir araç olarak hizmet edebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Alan kuramı
• cinsiyet yüklü düşünümsellik
• fenomenoloji
• öğretmen eğitimi
• öğretmen eğitimcileri

How Can Gendered Reflexivity Be Used to Deconstruct Teacher Educators’ Intellectual Configurations?

Öz

This research investigates how gendered reflexivity functions as a conceptual tool for teacher educators to deconstruct their intellectual configurations regarding gender. We draw on the phenomenological approach, and Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology, and field theory to analyse teacher educators’ gendered experiences in the field. To conduct this analysis, we had focus group discussions with teacher educators inviting them to engage in a self-reflexive process on their practices and experiences within the context of dominant gender relations in the field. Through focus group discussions, we tried to understand how teacher educators make sense of their experiences of gender issues and how the practices that constitute these experiences are sustained by the relations in the field. The moments when differentiated understandings of practices and experiences emerged in these discussions let us see a potential that could lead the agents to rethink their practices. Gendered reflexivity, which can be regarded as agents’ awareness of their practices and discourses concerning gender and as a continuous and conscious questioning of what mediates these practices and discourses, can serve as a conceptual tool to deconstruct and transform teacher educators’ existing gendered intellectual configurations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Field theory
• gendered reflexivity
• phenomenology
• teacher education
• teacher educators.

Kaynakça

1. Acker, S. (2010). Gendered games in academic leadership. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20(2), 129–152.
2. Acker, S. (2012). Chairing and caring: Gendered dimensions of leadership in academe. Gender and Education, 24(4), 411–428.
3. Acker, S., & Dillabough, J. A. (2007). Women ‘learning to labour’ in the ‘male emporium’: Exploring gendered work in teacher education. Gender and Education, 19(3), 297–316.
4. Adkins, L. (2004). Reflexivity: Freedom or habit of gender? The Sociological Review, 52(2): 191–210.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. (P. Collier, Trans.). California: Stanford University Press.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
8. Bourdieu, P. (1995). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. (S. Emanuel, Trans.). California: Stanford University Press.

9. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. (Trans.). California: Stanford University Press.
10. Bourdieu, P. (2001) Masculine domination. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
11. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. (R. Nice, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press and Polity Press.
12. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Coffey, A. J., & Acker, S. (1991). 'Girlies on the warpath': Addressing gender in initial teacher education. Gender and Education3(3), 249–261.
14. Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2000). Feminism and the classroom teacher. London: Routledge Falmer.
15. Cushman, P. (2012). ‘you're not a teacher, you're a man’: The need for a greater focus on gender studies in teacher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 775–790.
16. Deer, C. (2008). Doxa. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts, (pp. 119–130). UK: Acumen Publishing Limited.
17. Esen, Y. (2013). Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitiminde Toplumsal Cinsiyet Duyarlılığını Geliştirme Amaçlı Bir Çalışma [A study for developing gender sensitivity in pre-service teacher education]. Education and Science, 38(169), 280–95.
18. Hollingsworth, S. (1995). The ‘problem’ of gender in teacher education. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 8, 3–11.
19. Husserl, E. (1983). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: First book. (F. Kersten, Trans.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2004). Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology and spaces of point of view: Whose reflexivity, which perspective? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 525–44.
21. Lahelma, E. (2011). Gender awareness in Finnish teacher education: An impossible mission? Education Inquiry, 2(2), 263–276.
22. Leonard, D. (2001). A woman’s guide to doctoral studies. Buckingham: Open University Press.
23. Malmgren, G., & Weiner, G. (2001). Disturbing boundaries in teacher education: Gender and the 'f' word – feminism. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2-3), 237–255.
24. Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts, (pp. 49–65. UK: Acumen Publishing Limited.
25. McNay, L. (1999). Gender, habitus and the field: Pierre Bourdieu and the limits of reflexivity. Theory, Culture and Society, 16(1), 95–117.
26. Menzies, F. G., & Santoro, N. (2018). ‘Doing’ gender in a rural Scottish secondary school: An ethnographic study of classroom interactions. Ethnography and Education, 13(4), 428–441.
27. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception. (D. A. Landes, Trans.). London and New York: Routledge.
28. Ministry of National Education. (2017a). Öğretmen Strateji Belgesi (2017-2023) [Teacher strategy paper (2017-2023)]. Retrieved from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_06/09140719_Strateji_Belgesi_Resmi_Gazete_sonrasY_ilan.pdf.
29. Ministry of National Education. (2017b). The general competencies for teaching profession. Retrieved from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_06/29111119_TeachersGeneralCompetencies.pdf.
30. Ministry of National Education. (2019). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Stratejik Planı (2019-2023) [Ministry of National Education strategic plan (2019-2023)]. Retrieved from https://www.meb.gov.tr/stratejik_plan/.
31. Morley, L. (2013). The rules of the game: women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25(1), 116–131.
32. O’ Hagan, C., O’Connor, P., Myers, E. S., Baisner, L., Apostolov, G., Topuzova, I., Sağlamer, G., Göğüş Tan, M., & Çağlayan, H. (2019). Perpetuating academic capitalism and maintaining gender orders through career practices in STEM in universities. Critical Studies in Education, 60(2), 205–225.
33. Povey, H. (2000). Critical epistemologies and gender issues in initial teacher education. Pedagogy. Culture and Society, 8(2), 219–231.
34. Poyraz, B. (2013). Akademi kadınların cenneti mi?: Ankara Üniversitesi örneği. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2), 1-18.
35. Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2003). Bourdieu’s concept of reflexivity as metaliteracy. Cultural Studies, 17(3–4), 539–553.
36. Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the social world. (G. Walch and F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
37. Şentürk, B. (2015). Çokuz ama yokuz: Türkiye’deki akademisyen kadınlar üzerine bir analiz. ViraVerita E-Dergi, 2, 1-22.
38. Skelton, C. (2007). Gender, policy and initial teacher education. Gender and Education, 19(6), 677–690.
39. Skelton, C. (2009). Failing to get men into primary teaching: A feminist critique. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 39–54.
40. Smedley, S. (2006). Listening to men student primary school teachers: Some thoughts on pedagogy. Changing English, 13(1), 125–135.
41. Thomson, P. (2008). Field. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp. 67-81). UK: Acumen Publishing Limited.
42. Thorburn, M., & Stolz, S. A. (2020). Understanding experience better in educational contexts: The phenomenology of embodied subjectivity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 95–105.
43. Tuncer, S. (2019). Cinsiyetlendirilmiş bir kurum olarak akademi: Türkiye’de akademinin cinsiyet kültürüne bakmak. Kültür ve İletişim, 22(2), 173-208.
44. Weiner, G. (2000). A critical review of gender and teacher education. Europe, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 8(2), 233–247.
45. Wyn, J. (1997). Senior women academics in education: Working through restructuring in Australian universities. Critical Studies in Education, 38(1), 103–128.
46. Younger, M. (2007). The Gender agenda in secondary ITET in England: Forgotten, misconceived or what? Gender and Education, 19(3), 387–414.
47. Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (2008). The gender agenda in primary teacher education in England: Fifteen lost years? Journal of Education Policy, 23(4), 429–445.