2022 Volume 89 Issue 3 Pages 435-446
This paper identifies the characteristics of Michael Fielding's concept of ‘radical collegiality’ by tracing the context and ideological background of its formation through a focus on the relationships between teachers and students.
The concept of ‘radical collegiality’ was introduced in 1999 in the journal The Australian Educational Researcher (AER). This inclusive concept of collegiality as raised by Fielding includes students and the community.
This paper focuses on the following four issues. First, sorting out the positioning of the Fielding debate in the UK context. Second, tracing the context in which the concept of 'radical collegiality' was formed. Third, after identifying the concept of 'collegiality' as raised by Little, examining the linkage between these two concepts by organising the arguments of the "radical collegiality" concept. Fourth, examining the ideological background of the concept of 'radical collegiality' and identifying its influence on this concept as discussed by Fielding.
The four main findings are: first, the positioning of Fielding's argument in the UK context is summarised, showing its basis in Stenhouse's discussion and orientation: that is, the discussion of teachers as researchers themselves, exploring in collaboration with teachers and external researchers, and the orientation toward respect for students' awareness in this context.
Second is the link between the practical research (Students as Researchers: SAR) in which Fielding was involved and the concept of 'radical collegiality'. By placing SAR in the context of the formation of the concept of 'radical collegiality', it becomes clear that it was formed in close relation to practice. Moreover, it is suggested that the positioning and inclusion of students as (co-)researchers in SAR could lead to a change in their attitudes and a shift in the meaning of learning, school, and education. Furthermore, SAR was an influential early practical study in terms of implementing the positioning of students as (co-)researchers in the British context at the time.
Third is the new relation with Little's discussion. This paper indicates a new relationship by rethinking the debate as a development of the debate from Little to Fielding, with democracy at its core.
Fourth, two features of Fielding's discussion, based on Macmurray's philosophy, are identified as follows. First, the relationship and stance between teacher and student are viewed non-traditionally, blurring the roles and recognising both as equal subjects who create learning together. Second, the discussion is founded on personalities and values the transformative power that they evoke. The action of the transformative power of personalities gave rise to one of the arguments of the concept of 'radical collegiality': the equality of teachers and students.
Important in Fielding's discussion is its approach to the issue of power between teachers and students. This is a significant consideration in terms of its development into a discussion of transformative education and what is meant by "radicality" in "radical collegiality."