Derek Dalton
School of Law, Flinders University,
GPO Box 2100
SA 5001, Australia

Tel Australia (61) 8 8201 5285
Fax Australia (61) 8 8201 3630
Email derek.dalton@flinders.edu.au

Biography

Dr Derek Dalton is a senior lecturer in the Law School at Flinders. He is part of the criminology team and his primary teaching duties involve first-year criminology students. In addition to teaching his elective ‘Crime, law and trauma’, he supervises honours and doctoral students. Derek’s research interests cluster around the historic criminalisation of gay male sexuality and its enduring legacy in contemporary times. He is also interested in cinematic representations of criminality and dark tourism.

Abstract

Reflecting on my experience of teaching a variety of sensitive topics in the course ‘Crime, law and trauma’, this article documents how an ethics of care guides how students are prepared to encounter sensitive material. It examines how I manage class dynamics when teaching sensitive material and explores, by way of a case study, my experience of how film texts enhance the manner in which sensitive topics can be conveyed to students. The paper concludes by highlighting the benefits of exposing students to challenging material and topics.

Key words: teaching, sensitive topics, criminology, film, trauma, pedagogy

Introduction

This article engages with the ethics and practice of teaching highly sensitive material to students, drawing on ‘Crime, law and trauma’, the course I run at Flinders University. The successes I have had have convinced me that lecturers should not shy away from teaching sensitive material. If classes are carefully set up and managed, students relish the opportunity to engage with sensitive topics – even if such material troubles and upsets them. Indeed, it is precisely the sensitive nature of such material that stimulates their desire to learn. In referencing my four years of experience teaching this course, I wish to discuss the challenges I faced teaching sensitive topics and how I negotiated the problems and pitfalls encountered when dealing with material invested with the potential to shock, unsettle, upset, disturb or provoke students.

This article has four objectives. First, having provided a brief overview of the course to establish a context for discussing sensitive topics, I will explore how an ethics of care guided my approach to preparing students for engagement with sensitive material. Second, I shall discuss how I managed the risks of teaching sensitive topics in ‘real time’ (in class) with all the attendant challenges this entailed. Third, I draw on a case study derived from my teaching to provide an illustration of how teaching sensitive topics is enhanced by using film (cinema) texts. Finally, I conclude with reflections on the benefits of teaching sensitive topics in the hope that I might encourage other teachers to consider tackling sensitive or contentious material in their courses.

Overview of ‘Crime, law and trauma’

The law sometimes produces social wrongs, imparts harm and fails to assuage human suffering. That is the reality I present to students in the upper level (second- and third-year) course,‘Crime, law and trauma’. I prompt students to question the complex interrelationship between law, violence and trauma and to critically explore the variety and extent of trauma associated with the imposition of law in various historical, contemporary, political, social and cultural contexts.

The concept of law is approached in an innovative manner in the course. Students are accustomed to thinking about law as a regulatory tool that rights wrongs, protects from harm and responds to human suffering. Through a series of unique case studies, students are empowered to gain a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of socio-legal concepts. And by employing a ‘deep approach’ to learning (Biggs, 1989: 12), students are able to satisfy their curiosity about the course’s themes by conducting their own self-directed research project.

The course covers an almost overwhelming breadth of material, but I have reined it in through the use of ‘trauma’ as an enduring theme. Each of the topics I selected identifies a unique approach to trauma or a distinctive example of it. And each of the topics is designed to engage student interest and generate dialogue.

As the table below indicates, the course explicitly engages with a diverse array of sensitive topics and material (texts and visual images).

Preparing students to engage with sensitive material: an ethics of care

Exposing students to sensitive topics is not an audacious thing to do. I suspect that, too often, fear of offending or anxiety about dealing with student reactions prompt many teachers to place sensitive topics in the ‘too hard’ basket. This is a shame as, in my experience, teaching sensitive topics has a pedagogical value in raising consciousness about important phenomena such colonisation, the Holocaust, genocide, censorship and capital punishment. Teaching sensitive topics is informed by an ethical imperative that sensitive subject matter should not be ignored or neglected merely because such matters are sensitive per se. To evade tackling sensitive topics is to do one’s students a disservice because it shields them from particular histories and realities that can enrich their knowledge of the world.

In preparing students to encounter sensitive material, I face an ethical dilemma. I want my students to genuinely care about the sensitive topics I expose them to and to fully engage with the material. But I don’t want to emotionally or psychically damage them or coerce them to participate in this process. I therefore embark on a process of fully disclosing the sort of traumatic material the course will contain and negotiating the terms of exposure to this material. An ethics of care (for the serious nature of the sensitive topics and the welfare of my students) guides my approach to preparing students to engage with sensitive material (see Rogers and Webb, 1991; Held, 2006).

Some lecturers may question whether we owe an ethics of care to our students. While I don’t advocate that we legally owe our students such care, I believe we have a moral duty to do our utmost to minimise the potentially deleterious impact of exposing students to sensitive material. And I don’t assert that an ethics of care means that we offer students an implicit guarantee that they won’t be upset or disturbed by the material presented in class. That would be unrealistic and unsustainable. Rather, it is about forewarning students about the nature of the material they will encounter in class and providing them with opportunities to prepare for exposure to this material. Such preparation may simply involve an individual student resolving to attend a particular class, knowing in advance that they will encounter challenging topics. In some ways, an ethics of care is about the lecturer reaching out to students to ask: ‘What can I do to help you look after yourself in relation to these classes?’ And, as the following section will outline, this is a dynamic process of informing, disclosing, warning and negotiating with the class.

I will now outline some things I do to prepare students to encounter sensitive topics and material in ‘Crime, law and trauma’. First, in the course guide and introductory lecture, I clearly and unambiguously provide an indication of the types of content and themes that will be covered in the course. The course content is thus revealed from the outset, and I take pains to emphasise that students will be exposed to material that they might find unsettling, upsetting and confronting. Students are invited to peruse the course guide (and course reader) to make an informed decision about whether this is a course in which they wish to participate. So, from the outset, no student is compelled to stay enrolled in a topic that they may not have envisaged would contain so much traumatic and challenging material. In a typical cycle of 80 students, one or two students tend to take up this offer.

Second, having clearly established that the course will entail exposure to sensitive topics and material, I spend part of the first lecture negotiating the terms of exposure to such material with the class. This is always a dynamic process of negotiation. Typically, the students and I have a brief discussion about the content of the course and the fact that, through necessity, confronting topics will be canvassed every week in lectures and follow-up seminars. These conversations vary each year, but in the four cycles that I have taught (2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009) several things always seem to be agreed upon. The tenor of these decisions is summarised below:

• No student will be compelled to attend a particular lecture that she/he believes will be too distressing or confronting.
• Students will endeavour to show deference to the serious nature of the sensitive topics by couching their discussions in a respectful manner befitting the topic under consideration (no inappropriate joking, etc).
• Should a student suddenly find himself/herself becoming distressed or unable/unwilling to remain in a particular class, he/she can quietly leave without providing any reason or notice.
• Because race, class, ethnicity, religion and sexuality are concepts that underpin some of the sensitive topics explored, students will be mindful of saying things that might offend other students.

The fourth decision has proved to be the most problematic to manage. For while protecting students from obviously offensive comments seems a common sense strategy, precisely where to draw the linecan be difficult for both students and the lecturer to determine. In practice, students seem to appreciate that ‘offending’ means expressing blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic or hate-inspired sentiment calculated to upset others in class. But, as a referee of this paper pointed out, ‘offence’ might be a good thing in some circumstances. My experience has taught me that offence about the topic matter (eg a strong feeling of repulsion or disgust in response to a work of art or a film image) is fine because it animates debate and critique. This sort of offence can be safely managed in class. Offence not tethered to the subject matter but directed at others (in the form of hurtful sentiment) is the sort of thing that I seek actively to discourage and foreclose.

The informal understandings documented in the four bulleted points above have tended to work well in practice. Some teachers prefer to give a specific warning before they exhibit a potentially disturbing or confronting picture or film excerpt in class. Such warnings often entail an invitation for students to leave the class if they wish. In my course, this would lead to warnings (and invitations to leave) being issued regularly. This is why it is so important to allow students to opt out of attending particular lectures or seminars. Three student remarks from anonymous course evaluations justify this approach:

Making lectures non-compulsory was a good idea. I would have felt conspicuous if I left mid-class.

I was relieved that we could choose to skip lectures that we thought might be too much for us.

Allowing us to miss classes that might be upsetting was a great idea. I was able to miss the Holocaust class because I knew it would make me get emotional and possibly cry.

So, in summary, clearly articulating precisely what sorts of themes and issues will be encountered is helpful when teaching sensitive topics. No student has ever complained to me about being ambushed with material that they didn’t see coming. Similarly, negotiating some of the conditions of exposure to such material is helpful.

Managing the risks of teaching sensitive material in class dynamics

Negotiating terms of exposure to sensitive topics does not offer a guarantee that things can’t or won’t go wrong. I am always mindful that dealing with sensitive topics is invested with the potential for conflict in class. I wish to provide an illustration from my teaching experience to highlight how conflict arose and how I responded to it. In 2008, two students became embroiled in a heated argument during the ‘Offensive art’ seminar. One student claimed that the controversial Australian artist, Bill Henson, was a paedophile while the other student defended Henson as merely exercising his individual artistic freedom. While I – like any other teacher – find student conflict challenging to manage, I don’t try to totally foreclose on disagreements like this. Such differences of opinion provide an impetus to engage with the substance of disputation. So I said to the class something along the lines of: ‘OK, one student thinks Henson is a paedophile because he photographed a naked girl and the other thinks he is an artist. What evidence do we have for each of these positions?’ I then asked students to join two impromptu debating groups of their own choosing. One group had to defend Henson as an artist; the other had to mount a case that he was paedophile (or a man deliberately pandering to paedophile tastes in his art) (Marr, 2008). This tactic immediately defused and depersonalised the argument, harnessing the divisive energy in the room in a constructive way. The two groups got to work amassing and organising ideas and facts (gleaned from the course reader) and ten minutes later they were able to appoint a spokesperson to present their group’s ideas to the entire class. In this example, I was careful not to declare a ‘winner’ as it were.

With sensitive topics, my experience is that it is sometimes best to avoid making definitive declarations about who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’. Students exposed to both sides of this debate about Henson’s artistic freedom of expression would make up their own mind about where they stood in relation to the issue. However, other sensitive topics often have clear and unambiguous ‘right’and ‘wrong’ positions. For example, no one would tolerate a debate about the defensibility of the Holocaust. For me, the challenge with sensitive topics is to identify topics that are conducive to debate (for example, the merits of the death penalty) and to foreclose on those that are not (for example, the right to commit genocide).

It is worth emphasising here that disagreement and disharmony are to be anticipated when teaching sensitive topics. For me, the challenge is to remain poised to respond to disagreement in as flexible a manner as possible. Trying to circumvent disagreements is futile in a course where such disagreements are a natural effect of exposing students to confronting and divisive topics and material.

Being flexible when teaching sensitive topics entails different things. For example, I have found the following tactics helpful:

• Don’t be afraid of silence in seminars
  Students often need time to absorb and assimilate sensitive topics and materials. Don’t expect (or demand) instantaneous comments.

• Allow student to express their emotions
  Students often react to sensitive topics with emotive responses like anger, sadness, frustration, disbelief and shock. This is only natural, but it is important to think of ways that students can face and express such emotions in a constructive way (see Heath, 2005). Personal reflection assessment tasks (individual journals) can help harness these feelings and allow students an outlet to vent their emotions rather than suppress them. For example, after showing students a photograph of victims of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, I ask them to write a private contemplative piece on their response to this confronting image.

• Be vigilant to students suffering ‘content’ fatigue when teaching sensitive topics
  Sensitive topics, by their very nature, are very taxing of students’ attention and more emotionally exhausting than non-sensitive topics. To counter this problem, I ensure that lectures and seminars are only scheduled for an hour. In my experience, longer classes lead to fatigue setting in and limits of tolerance being reached. Indeed, if during the course of a lecture I detect that the group seems to be collectively ‘tuning out’ (look for the tell-tale signs: eyes glazing over; fidgeting; distracted expressions; clock watching), I change tack for five or ten minutes and discuss assessment issues to give the students a reprieve from the challenging material.

Case study: suggestions on how to tackle sensitive topics using film

Teaching ‘Crime, law and trauma’has taught me that screening short excerpts from feature films (three- to five-minute scenes) is a very powerful way of conveying the nuances of sensitive topics. In a typical lecture or seminar I usually screen two film scenes, carefully chosen to highlight a particular issue or theme. I wish to elucidate how useful such screenings can be by providing four illustrations derived from my teaching:

Example One: Cold Case (season 2, episode 8); episode title ‘Red glare’; director Tim Matheson

In my lecture on McCarthyism, I want to convey to students the palpable sense of fear and paranoia that prevailed during the McCarthy era of political repression in 1940s and 1950s America. Fortunately, I discovered a McCarthy-themed episode from the popular HBO-televised crime genre Cold Case. This was advantageous: students can readily relate to crime-themed images from popular culture because they find such images so alluring (see Denvir, 1996; Sherwin, 2001). So, when I play the scene, many students are already familiar with the character of Detective Lilly Rush and her investigations into ‘cold’ (unsolved) homicide cases. The episode concerns the 1953 murder of a white high school teacher with communist sympathies, Elliot Garvey. The scene I play depicts the murdered man’s wife recalling her husband losing his job after being subpoenaed to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee the night before he was murdered. In flashback we see the married couple arguing in their kitchen about the whisper campaign that led to his dismissal from his teaching post for supporting civil rights issues. With its nostalgic music, period costumes and mise-en-scène (a period kitchen with brown paper grocery bags), the scene transports viewers back to the 1950s. Watching the scene, students are able to grasp the pervasiveness of anti-communist sentiment and its effect on daily life. With no livelihood, Elliot’s wife despairs about how they will pay their bills. The scene powerfully evokes the sense of despair faced by an ordinary couple caught up in the machinery of smear and innuendo, well documented by Schrecker (1998), that saw countless lives destroyed during the McCarthy era. It provides a conduit to the times that written descriptions of this sensitive period of American history fail to vividly convey.

Example Two: Repatriation of Aboriginal bones; news story (Australian Broadcasting Commission News, 14 July 2008)

In my lecture on colonisation and indigenous Australians, I explore the sensitive issue of how colonisation saw Aboriginal bones and artefacts removed to be housed in British museums during the 1800s. In the modern era, tribal descendants are locked in fiercely contested battles with museums to have these items returned to Australia for reburial. Aboriginal people believe that the public display of these items is spiritually dangerous and offensive to their cultural beliefs (Hubert and Fforde, 2002: 2). Many museums argue that retention of these items is important for future researchers and that their collections have an intrinsic worth that would be diminished if they were broken up. Students tend to sympathise with the custodians of the museums and cannot appreciate why repatriation is so important to indigenous Australians. To remedy this barrier to understanding, I play in class a three-minute televised news item that outlines the dispute between museums and tribal descendants. The excerpt ends with a scene depicting Ngarrindjeri people performing a reburial ceremony, having successfully repatriated bones from a museum in Scotland. This is a unique and rare ceremony that very few Australians have ever witnessed (Wilson, 2009). The footage depicts Ngarrindjeri people singing and dancing and performing a smoking funerary ritual to welcome back to community the skeletal remains of their ancestors. It is hard to convey the power of this ritual in writing. Watching students watch the footage, it’s as though they finally see (appreciate) why the return of the bones is so important to Aboriginal people. The simplicity and restraint of the ceremony – in contrast to the pomp and ceremony of many western funerary rituals – exerts a persuasive power over those who view it. The power of film to covey meaning so succinctly is an ineffable and mysterious process that is hard to encapsulate in simple description. As one student remarked in an anonymous evaluation of the class:

I had no idea that Aboriginal people still suffer so much because museums won’t return their ancestors’ bones. At first I thought, ‘Who cares about old bones?’ – but having seen the news report I now realise why they mean so much to them.

Example Three: Conspiracy (2001); director Frank Pierson

In a lecture devoted to the Holocaust, I screen a dramatic re-enactment of the infamous Wannsee conference, where the details of the ‘Final Solution’ were negotiated by Nazi bureaucrats in a Berlin villa in 1942 (Roseman, 2002). In the scene, General Reinhard Heydrich (played by Kenneth Branagh) and Colonel Adolph Eichmann (played by Stanley Tucci) calmly outline a blueprint for genocide as a way of dealing with the so-called ‘Jewish question’. The scene lacks the graphic violence of more well-known Holocaust films like Schindler’s List (1993). Rather, the heated practical, legal and administrative debates that the Nazis engage in exemplify Hannah’s Arendt’s concept of ‘the banality of evil’ (1963). Screening this scene helps students understand the euphemisms employed by the Nazis to implement genocide (for example, ‘storage problem’ of Jews requiring ‘special treatment’). The archival policy documents we analyse in seminars make more sense to the students after they have seen this scene. The scene I show is disquieting. Students express shock that the Nazis could discuss the deliberate murder of European Jewry by couching their language in bureaucratic jargon.

I considered screening a scene in Roman Polanski’s The Pianist (2002), where the Nazis murder an old man in a wheelchair by tossing him over a balcony (a scene I still shudder to watch), but sensitive topics are often best conveyed with less graphic film images.

Example Four: Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005); director Marc Rothemund

In this example I highlight the importance of being open to negotiating with students when dealing with sensitive film images. In 2009, I screened an interrogation scene from the film Sophie Scholl: The Final Days, which depicts the heroism of Sophie Scholl, a member of ‘The White Rose’ resistance movement that operated in Munich during world war two (Rutschmann, 2007). I advised the class that I wouldn’t show them the film’s harrowing execution scene because I thought it was too graphic and confronting. This announcement was met with a chorus of objections. Several students articulated that, having learnt so much about Sophie’s life, they wanted to get closure of sorts and see what happened to her. After inviting any students who did not want to see this scene to leave before the last five minutes of class, I was surprised to discover that not one student left the class. That said, I cannot, of course, discount the fact that social pressure may have kept reluctant people in the classroom. I subsequently screened the dramatic climatic scene where Sophie is guillotined by the Nazis. There was complete silence as the screen faded to black accompanied by the terrifying swish of the blade falling (the director’s way of symbolising her instantaneous death). In a subsequent seminar we discussed the effect of seeing her fate represented in the film and how the cinematic recreation of her last moments powerfully augmented the knowledge we had gleaned about her life from historical and sociological literature.

I learned a lesson myself from this class: the importance of negotiating with students, listening to their collective appeals and taking such views into account in deciding how to proceed. I had predetermined a limit to what I would show them, given the sensitive nature of the film’s content, but that limit turned out to be overly protective.

Concluding reflections on the benefits of teaching sensitive topics

Exposing university students to sensitive topics can promote and enhance respect for human difference, tolerance, and empathy for the plight of others. This, in and of itself, is a compelling justification for teaching sensitive topics. I offer three anonymous student testimonials derived from student evaluations that support this assertion:

I used to be a fan of the death penalty before I studied this topic. I thought ‘They get what they deserve’. Now I am aware of how shameful state-sanctioned murder is … and how barbaric the process is.

I enjoyed the lecture about offensive art. Whilst I found some of the art pretty tasteless and ‘out there’, I can now appreciate where the artist was coming from and what he was trying to say.

I thought Oscar Wilde was just some English dandy who lived the high life … now I appreciate how he was persecuted by the law … that he suffered for his sexuality.

Teaching sensitive topics exposes students who may live relatively privileged and sheltered lives to historical and social practices that raise their consciousness. It also enables students to form opinions about real-life issues (however politically, socially and culturally sensitive these issues might be). And while there is no doubt that students find sensitive topics challenging and confronting, many will thank you for taking the risk of teaching such material. They may emerge sad, frustrated and angry having been exposed to knowledge of a world that harbours phenomena like capital punishment, apartheid, Nazism, genocide, sexual discrimination, colonisation, McCarthyism and the censorship of artistic freedom. But, if they are like my past students, they will express their gratitude that you allowed them to be divested of their ignorance of these important topics.

Teaching sensitive topics comes at a cost for all involved. It is tiring and emotionally draining to teach these topics. It is taxing and draining to learn these painful truths about human suffering and trauma. But the opportunity cost not to do so is greater for both parties. To leave sensitive topics unexplored (by the teacher) and unknown (to students) leaves us all the poorer for the neglect or the avoidance. As this article has argued, an ethics of care (for the sensitive topics and the students) can help foster an approach that works to minimise harm to students while simultaneously ensuring that they are provided with knowledge that helps them develop as morally aware individuals.
References

Arendt H (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil. New York: Penguin Books.

Biggs JB (1989). ‘Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching’. Higher Education Research and Development, vol 8 (1), pp 7–25.

Bordwell D and Thompson K (eds) (2003). Film art: an introduction (seventh edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Denvir J (ed) (1996). Legal reelism: movies as legal texts. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Heath M (2005). ‘Encounters with the volcano: strategies for emotional management in teaching the law of rape’. The Law Teacher, vol 39 (2), pp 129–149.

Held, V (2006). The ethics of care: personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press: New York.

Hubert J and Fforde C (2002). ‘Introduction: the reburial issue in the twenty-first century’ in C Fforde, J Hubert and P Turnbull (eds) The dead and their possessions. London and New York: Routledge, pp 1–17.

Marr D (2008). The Henson case. Melbourne: Text Publishing.

Rogers D and Webb J (1991). ‘The ethic of caring in teacher education’.
Journal of Teacher Education, vol 42 (3), pp 173–181.

Roseman M (2002). The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution: a reconsideration. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Rutschmann P (2007). ‘The white rose in film and history’. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, vol 27 (3), pp 371–390.

Schrecker E (1998). Many are the crimes: McCarthyism in America. New York: Little Brown.

Sherwin R (2001). When law goes pop: the vanishing line between law and popular culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson C (2009). ‘Implications and challenges of repatriating and reburying Ngarrindjeri old people from the Edinburgh Collection’. Museum International, vol 61 (1–2), pp 37–40.

Films

Cold Case (season 2, episode 8), ‘Red Glare’. Director: Tim Matheson.

Conspiracy (2001). Director: Frank Pierson.

Repatriation of Aboriginal bones; news story (Australian Broadcasting Commission News, 14 July 2008).

Schindler’s List (1993). Director: Steven Spielberg.

Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005). Director: Marc Rothemund.

The Pianist (2002). Director: Roman Polanski.

Dr Glenys Caswell
Independent Sociologist
19 Rosshill Drive
Maryburgh
Ross-shire IV7 8EH

Tel 01349 866146
Email g.j.caswell@btinternet.com

Biography

Glenys Caswell completed her PhD in sociology at the University of Aberdeen in 2009, where her thesis was a sociological exploration of Scottish funeral practices. She is currently writing articles to disseminate her research findings and conducting a research project to examine the use of eulogies to the deceased, which are often delivered to mourners during funerals. Although working independently at present, she has taught on a ‘Rituals of death’ postgraduate module as well as undergraduate sociology courses at the University of Aberdeen.

Abstract

Researching individuals’ experiences of death and funerals is a sensitive issue, and it is also the case that teaching death studies can be sensitive. This paper draws on experience gained during teaching on a module concerned with rituals of death to explore the issue of sensitivity in the classroom. Emotional expression is not encouraged in the classroom situation; techniques are suggested to reduce the likelihood of students being emotionally overcome. Given that it is not always possible to prevent this happening, ways of handling this situation are also addressed.

Key words: death studies, emotional expression, funeral ritual, postgraduate students, sensitivity in teaching

Introduction

Death is something that touches us all, and when it does it can provoke strong emotions. British individuals, however, are expected to control the expression of their emotions so that, while they may feel deeply, they should manage those feelings and only reveal as much as is permitted in the particular social setting (Hochschild, 1983). While it may be true to claim that the rules regarding the management of emotion are changing in favour of a greater expressiveness (Wouters, 1992), this freedom of expression does not extend as far as the university classroom. Students and lecturers do not, and are not expected to, share their feelings with each other; a university classroom is for the promotion of learning, not the expression of feeling. On occasion, however, emotional control can fail and an individual becomes upset, and, no matter how hard he or she tries to suppress the emotion, it is released.

In the classroom situation, this is perhaps more likely to happen when the teaching topic is a potentially sensitive one. It is worth asking where the lecturer’s responsibility lies in this situation? What steps can he or she take to reduce the likelihood of a student becoming visibly upset? Does it matter if a student is overcome with emotion during a class? This paper draws on experience gained in teaching on a module entitled ‘Rituals of death’ to begin to address these questions.

Death as a sensitive topic

The module is an optional master’s course, first presented in the academic year 2008/2009 and again in 2009­/2010. It is an interdisciplinary module taught by lecturers from across the arts and social sciences. As a sociologist, I taught two sessions on funeral rituals in contemporary western societies using teaching materials based on my own PhD research, which had been an exploration of Scottish funeral practices. In terms of conducting research, a topic should be considered sensitive when it ‘involves potential costs to those participating in the research … go[ing] beyond the incidental or merely onerous’ (Lee and Renzetti, 1993: 9). Talking about death and its aftermath is potentially sensitive, and human beings are unusual among living creatures in that they are not only mortal but that they also have consciousness of their mortality.

For some individuals, thinking about their own future death can threaten their sense of ontological security and they cope with their own inevitable death by not thinking about it (Mellor, 1993). A researcher asking individuals to discuss death-related issues may cause those individuals to contemplate their own deaths. This is a sensitive matter: if one’s sense of safety in the world is shaken by talking about death, this goes beyond what might be expected from participation in social research (Lee and Renzetti, 1993). Focusing on the topic of funerals is also potentially a sensitive matter, for describing the funeral of someone an individual cares about to a researcher may have emotional costs in that it may cause grief to resurface (Brannen, 1988).

As researchers working in an ethical manner, it is inevitable that we should first think about research participants when considering the issue of sensitivity and the potential emotional costs that the research may lay upon individuals. But it is not only informants who are at risk of negative consequences from sensitive research. Researchers themselves, those who transcribe interviews, supervisors and readers of research have all been identified as potentially at risk of some form of harm (McCosker, Barnard and Gerber, 2001). I would add to that list students who undertake courses of study that include sensitive topics. There are costs associated with being a university student, such as the need to work hard or the stress involved in undergoing assessment, but when the pedagogical topic is a sensitive one, there is the potential for those costs to exceed the expected ones.
Literature on the provision of death education tends to focus on that which is offered in medical and nursing schools, where it is considered an important aspect of training because medical professionals will need to know how to deal with the deaths of their patients and cope with the bereaved relatives (Field and Wee, 2002). While research is beginning to explore courses offered in death education outside medical schools (Eckerd, 2009), there is little on offer about how to approach teaching topics concerned with death and dying. When I began to prepare to teach my first sessions on funeral rituals I did not think of it as a potentially sensitive topic. I was at that time a PhD student, and although I had taught undergraduate tutorials, this was my first opportunity to lecture and I was excited at the prospect of teaching postgraduate students using material based on my own work. I spent a great deal of time preparing my two lectures and writing questions for the seminar sessions designed to promote discussion of the issues. Initially, I gave no thought at all to the sensitive nature of the topic.

Teaching death as a sensitive topic

Each session was two hours long with small groups of students. Session one was concerned with contemporary funeral rituals in western societies and session two was a discussion about the concept of personalisation in relation to funerals. The first part of each session was given over to a lecture, and this was followed by a seminar during which students were expected to participate: a percentage of their overall assessment grade was based on their attendance and participation. I opened the first seminar with a general question, asking what students thought might be the purpose of funeral ritual. When the first student to speak began by saying, ‘Well, in my family, we…’, I realised that I had made a mistake in not considering the possibility that students could be emotionally affected by the content of the lecture and the ensuing discussion. Following this first session I looked again at the material I had prepared from the perspective of how it might potentially affect students and how I could attempt to lessen any such effects. I also considered how best to handle the situation should a student be emotionally overcome. This reflection, coupled with experience gained in the ensuing teaching sessions, resulted in the elucidation of a number of issues to consider when planning teaching death studies.

The first such issue was concerned with the students as a group. I had never met the students I was teaching before; the only information I had about them was a list of their names and email addresses. I knew that they were taking a level 5 course in either arts or social sciences and that they had chosen to take a module on death rituals, but that was all I did know about them. This meant that I could assume nothing about them other than that they presumably had an interest in the academic study of death and that I could assume that discussion of general death-related issues would not threaten their sense of ontological security too deeply. I was careful to use appropriate language, so I spoke about the deceased or the person who died rather than of the corpse or cadaver. This allowed us to keep discussion at the level of a funeral for an individual person rather than dehumanising the deceased into a decomposing corpse. This was important, I believed, because an interest in death studies may be driven by personal experience and the desire to make sense of it. This could make a student vulnerable to an access of emotion if the learning material touched closely on the personal experience.

This did happen during one seminar session, when a student became visibly upset. He had been aware that the material we were dealing with would touch on his own experience of organising the funeral of a close family member, but had thought that sufficient time had passed for him to be able to cope. However, he was mistaken and found himself unable to prevent himself from crying. Had this been in a large lecture theatre with dozens of students attending I might have been unaware of his reaction. In that situation, if I had observed him, I might have left the decision about what to do to him, rather than drawing attention to him. But this happened in a small group session where his upset was clear to everyone, so I made the decision to stop speaking and I moved to sit beside him and spoke quietly to him. It would be disingenuous to claim that no one else could hear what he and I said to each other, but we spoke quietly and he decided to leave the session. As he did so he apologised, unnecessarily, and said that he would return the following week.

On reflection I did not think that I could have handled the situation differently. I believe that it matters if a student becomes upset during a class, just as it matters if a research participant becomes upset during an interview, and a sociologist’s obligation to behave in an ethical manner does not stop on leaving the research field (British Sociological Association, 2002). I also believe that it was no one’s business but his own what had caused his obvious upset and I did not ask about it. I simply enquired whether he was all right and if he would prefer to leave. Although he had a right to be treated in a manner that respected his confidentiality, it was impossible to prevent others knowing of his distress. But it was possible to ensure that no one else knew the cause unless he chose to speak to fellow students about it at a later time. After the session, I contacted the student by email to reiterate that he had no reason to apologise, that it was understood by the teaching team that such a topic can cause difficulties for some individuals and that if he felt it would be best not to attend the following session there would be no negative repercussions.

This student’s reaction highlighted to me the need to be aware of how students are receiving material, particularly in a small group setting. Although when teaching we might more usually monitor students to ensure they are attentive and finding something of interest in the material being presented to them, in the case of a sensitive topic it is also important to monitor their emotional reactions. Of course, sometimes students will have a strong reaction but manage their expression so that it does not show (Hochschild, 1983). But, if at all possible, I would not want a student to leave a session I had taught feeling devastated by resurfaced grief which had not been noticed or acknowledged.

During discussions students frequently made reference to their own experiences, both as a means of illustrating points they were making, for example giving instances of what counts as funeral ritual by referring to funerals they had attended, and as a way of contributing to the formulation of a concept. During one seminar, students discussed the issue of who benefits from a funeral, with their own experiences used to suggest that it is not necessarily the bereaved who benefit most but the wider circle of mourners. One student in particular during our first session together contributed ideas and suggestions frequently but in the second session barely spoke. Towards the end of that second session, she revealed that she had suffered a near bereavement and the material we were discussing covered some of the issues that she had had to contend with in the wake of this bereavement.

This example illustrates that it is important when teaching a sensitive topic not to push quiet students to respond to questions. There may be good reasons for silence and being quiet does not mean the student is not participating. This also leads to the thought that, with a sensitive topic, it is better not to ask direct questions about experience but rather that one should ask general questions. A question such as ‘Do you think that individually created ritual can be effective?’ allows students to answer generally or with reference to experience. A question such as ‘Did the ritual your family created for your mother’s funeral work for you?’ directly asks them to address their own experiences and their own feelings about it. The challenge here for the teacher is to ask questions that are not so vague as to be unanswerable but not so specific as to be intrusive.

Conclusion

Teaching on the death rituals module was both an exciting opportunity and a learning experience for me. As a teacher, I was not responsible for the grief students may have experienced but I did have a responsibility not to exacerbate that grief. Over the course of teaching on the module I clarified for myself a number of steps I could take to try to promote a positive learning experience for students.

These steps included deciding beforehand how I would deal with the situation if someone became visibly upset during the class. I would react calmly and appropriately to the group situation, try to preserve the student’s right to confidentiality and provide reassurance as necessary. I would try to be aware of how students were receiving teaching materials and would ask questions that did not require students to speak specifically about their own experiences if they did not wish to. I learned not to pressure students who appeared reluctant to speak and was respectful of student contributions: thanking the group as a whole for their contributions at the end of the session was, I thought, appropriate. It is important to be available for students if they wish to talk, but it is vital to be aware of one’s own limitations and what the university has to offer in the way of student services so that, if necessary, a student can be referred to a counsellor.

Teaching on a potentially sensitive topic should never become so routine that one forgets the nature of the subject, but it does not have to be a miserable experience either. As with carrying out the original research, there were solemn and sad moments during the classes, but there were also times of enjoyment and even amusement. Death comes to us all, and while the pain and anxiety might not be removed, openly sharing experiences may help to lessen their impact.

References

Brannen J (1988). ‘Research note: the study of sensitive subjects’. The Sociological Review, vol 36 (3), pp 552–563.

British Sociological Association (2002). Statement of ethical practice for the British Sociological Association. Available at: www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/Statement+Ethical+Practice.htm (accessed 18 January 2010).

Eckerd LM (2009). ‘Death and dying course offerings in psychology: a survey of nine midwestern states’. Death Studies, vol 33, pp 762–770.

Field D and Wee B (2002). ‘Preparation for palliative care: teaching about death, dying and bereavement in UK medical schools 2000–2001’. Medical Education, vol 36 (6), pp 561–567.

Hochschild AR (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lee RM and Renzetti CM (1993). Researching sensitive topics. London: Sage.

McCosker H, Barnard A and Gerber R (2001). ‘Undertaking sensitive research: issues and strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants’. Forum Qualitative Social Research, vol 2 (1), Available at:
www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/983 (accessed 18 January 2010).

Mellor P (1993). ‘Death in high modernity: the contemporary presence and absence of death’ in D Clark (ed) The sociology of death. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, pp 11–30.

Wouters C (1992). ‘On status competition and emotion management: the study of emotions as a new field’. Theory, Culture & Society, vol 9 (1), pp 229–252.

James Fitzgerald
IRCHSS Postgraduate Scholar
School of Law and Government
Dublin City University
Glasnevin, Dublin 9
Ireland

Email james.fitzgerald@dcu.ie

Anthony F Lemieux
School of Natural and Social Sciences
Purchase College, SUNY
735 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, New York 10577
USA

Tel (914) 251-6672
Fax (914) 251-6635
Email anthony.lemieux@purchase.edu 

Biographies

James Fitzgerald has an MA International Security and Conflict Studies from Dublin City University, Ireland, where he is now a PhD student based in the School of Law and Government. His PhD study relates to the application of discourse analysis techniques to the primary statements of al Qaeda towards a nuanced analysis of the group. He also lectures on the ‘Political terrorism’ module at Dublin City University.

Dr Anthony F Lemieux gained an MA Social Psychology and a PhD at the University of Connecticut, and a BA Psychology and Sociology at Boston College. He is at present assistant professor of psychology at Purchase College, State University of New York. He has conducted research and published across a wide range of topics in psychology and lectures on the ‘Psychology of terrorism’ module at Purchase College.

Abstract

This paper provides some initial reflections on a collaborative online cross-cultural class on the study of terrorism as a means of contributing towards a general pedagogy of the subject. While the experiences highlighted in this paper correspond to this specific class, some general lessons may be applicable to other areas of pedagogy. In particular, this paper reflects on the added academic value of teaching terrorism as a sensitive topic in the context of cross-cultural interaction as experienced through a blended learning environment.

Key words: terrorism, sensitive topics, multiculturalism, pedagogy

Introduction

At its core, this paper represents an immediate reflective exercise on the authors’ experiences as creators of and lecturers on a unique course on terrorism which brought together students from Dublin City University (DCU) and Purchase College (PC) in a collaborative learning environment which involved in-class and online interaction. The class totalled 46 students, with 20 based at Purchase College and 26 at DCU. Seven of the 26 DCU students were on exchange programmes from the USA, while one was an exchange student from Australia. Most students were in their third or fourth year of study and thus were well prepared to take on actively participating in the course. The pilot course took place from 2 September to 17 December 2009 and was supported both conceptually and financially by the Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) initiative based at PC, without which it would not have been possible. The associated developments are especially instructive in that they are relevant to qualifications on the teaching of terrorism as a sensitive topic in the context of cross-cultural engagement within a blended learning environment that included both online and in-person elements.

In the following discussion, we will focus on the processes of developing and teaching the course, highlighting several specific areas, including: 1) creating and fostering an online environment in which students have in-depth discussions and interactions with peers from other countries; 2) developing a collaborative project in which students from different countries work closely to create an in-depth profile of an international terrorist group; 3) the assessment of student learning vis-à-vis their engagement with both the subject matter and with each other; and 4) the overall development of cross-cultural collaboration, as well as associated awareness of topical and cultural sensitivities, which proved to be an important component of the overall course experience. 

Terrorism, culture and sensitivity

Since the early 1970s, the study of terrorism has grown exponentially, with the events of 9/11 sparking a contemporary ‘explosion’ of academic interest in the topic (see Silke, 2001, 2004, 2007). Yet, despite this cacophony of emergent voices, universal agreement on the very concept of ‘terrorism’ remains elusive. This definitional problem pervades the study of terrorism to its core (see Carr, 2007; Dedeoglu, 2003). The management of associated subjectivities as to what exactly constitutes terrorism is therefore pivotal to any sustained engagement with terrorism as the academic subject of inquiry. Furthermore, discussions on terrorism often take place in the context of potentially sensitive themes such as: the purposeful killing of innocent victims; questions of (ir)rationality with regard to terrorists and acts of terrorism; state culpability in acts of ‘state’ or ‘state-sponsored’ terrorism; female terrorists’ involvement in the killing of innocent children; practices of torture; the restriction of civil liberties, and so on. The effective management of discussion in the context of the inherently ‘subjective’ nature of terrorism – as well as the potentially sensitive themes contained within – necessitates a careful and considered approach to both the subject matter itself and to potential cross-cultural sensitivities.
 
As Raymond Williams pointed out in the early 1980s, teachers in cross-cultural environments must be acutely aware of the dangers of ‘transmitting ‘knowledge’ or ‘culture’ in an absolute, universally-derived sense’ (1981: 186; quoted in Moore, 2000: 91). Such considerations of cultural awareness in education are arguably more important than ever, given the increasingly multicultural nature of the modern classroom in an increasingly globalised educational field (see, for example, Banks, 2009; Rosie, 2009). In the context of our class, this submission is especially appropriate given the oft cited characterisation that attitudes to terrorism are intrinsically divided between those from the USA and those from Europe (see, for example, Behr and Berger, 2009; Soage, 2006; Loveless, 2003). One can thus argue that the inherently subjective and potentially sensitive capacities of terrorism are necessarily magnified by considerations of cross-cultural dynamics, specifically within the collaborative class and dialectically in the perpetually shifting cross-cultural dynamics within which the class necessarily operates. As such, the effective management of such dynamics provides a unique pedagogical challenge.

Creating a collaborative online environment

Discussion forums

Although the individual in-class set-up differed between the respective institutions (three-hour class at PC; two-hour class at DCU), there were important common threads. First, our syllabuses were synchronised (ie both classes discussed the same general topic in a given week). Second, discussions were grounded in shared core readings, which not only provided a common analytical foundation for both sets of students, but also promoted direct engagement and familiarity with some of the key literature on a given area. Third, both our teaching styles were strongly inclined to promote discussion, with our classes often evolving into an open-forum format. In this context, our collaborative class took place within a blended learning environment (see, for example, Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003), combining in-class and online discussion towards the shared goal of enhanced student learning. The cross-cultural interaction between students primarily took place in online discussion forums, provided through the institutions’ shared access to the Moodle virtual learning environment (VLE). Given the number of exchange students in the DCU class, there was also the added dynamic of cross-cultural interaction in this in-class environment. Each week, all students were required to contribute to the online discussion forums on the week’s in-class topic. In the first week, prior to any engagement with course material, students were asked to introduce themselves and comment on their initial subjectivities with regard to terrorism. In combining requirements for a general introduction with the submission of personal subjectivities on terrorism, we aimed to gauge students’ initial attitudes to terrorism in the context of cross-cultural awareness. This also provided an opportunity for students to become familiar with each other at the outset, to become ‘exposed’ to a different culture through the discussion of personal perspectives on terrorism, and to grapple immediately with potentially sensitive issues of inquiry. Interestingly, students seemed particularly enthusiastic to provide their initial subjective views on terrorism in the absence of academic engagement with the course material, which would follow:

The events [of 9/11] and the days to follow are burnt into my memory and, unfortunately, shaped my intolerant outlook on acts of terror … If it is going to be possible to successfully end this ‘War on Terror’ then there needs to be a global understanding and agreement of what or who it is we are trying to apprehend.
(Student, PC)

There are members of my family who are members of Sinn Fein and I have relatives still serving time in Portlaoise jail for activities with the Real IRA. All this has led me to develop a firm opposition to violence as a form of political activity under most circumstances as well as a desire to understand better the motivation and the psychological background of people who become involved in terrorism.
(Student, DCU) 

This early exercise was significant in two ways. First, it helped to reinforce the norm of reciprocity, a critically powerful social norm in which mutual disclosures are reinforced as conversations become increasingly deeper, richer and more meaningful. Second, it displayed a palpable desire among students to understand terrorism and the motivations of those who carry out terrorist acts. Both aspects interacted to serve as pivotal importance for our class. Many popular ‘myths’ are propagated on various ‘causes’ and characteristics of terrorism (as is often the case with sensitive topics more generally; see Lee 1993; Renzetti and Lee, 1993). For example: terrorists are inherently irrational; the Middle East is the primary enclave of terrorism; terrorists are poor; terrorism can be defeated (see, for example, Miller, 2009; Hatem, 2009). In the case of our class, the provision of discussion forums was absolutely crucial in facilitating increased learning by individual students in order to go beyond such simplistic formulations towards a more holistic engagement with the concept of terrorism. The forums were crucial in that they combined a critical challenge to the individual student to analyse the readings in detail, while exposing them to other students’ views on shared readings with which they could interact:

The weekly post was a great idea … it was invaluable because this literally forced you to keep up to date with the weekly readings. In no other course have I been so up to date with the required readings and informed about all aspects of the course.
(Student, DCU)

I think that the forum posts are an invaluable way to gain an insight into another country’s perspective. It also promotes cross-cultural learning, and since reading a number of posts on the forum by American students, I have been encouraged to gain further knowledge on a great deal of subjects I would never have even considered before.
(Student, DCU)

Management and assessment
Although the use of online postings formed a very effective medium in teaching our class, it needed to be adequately managed by both instructors. In the context of both in-class and online environments, then, each instructor provided guidance about participation in the weekly discussion forums in terms of substantive topical advice and pragmatic advice on how to interact with the discussion medium. Students were encouraged to make consistent and direct references to the literature with regard to the topic, while avoiding sensationalist or overtly ‘subjective’ submissions in the absence of legitimate, citeable evidence. Maintaining a careful balance between open, critical thinking and adequate academic standards formed a persistent pedagogical theme throughout the course, and in the main we feel the discussion forums significantly helped with this. Through our initial advice and student reciprocation, certain norms regarding the general content and form of posts became standard bearers, and, overall, the quality of online submissions was very high throughout the semester. In order to glean maximum marks for their online posts (20 per cent of the overall grade), students had to display an awareness of the literature, adequately reference the relevant article and sufficiently ground their submissions in the context of other posts within the discussion. These criteria were made clear at the beginning of the semester and were broadly adhered to.

With regard to pragmatic advice regarding student interaction within the discussion medium, little intervention was needed. In their respective introductory classes, both instructors strongly emphasised the need for mutual respect amongst peers, highlighting the need for openness about cross-cultural differences and, indeed, similarities. This early emphasis on openness and reciprocity seemed to suffice with both sets of students, as there were no examples of inappropriate comments between students. Throughout the year, both instructors provided gentle reminders of the need for reciprocal openness and respect, but, overall, we feel that setting an early tone sufficed.

Group project

In keeping with the cross-cultural dynamic of our course, students were assigned to collaborate on group projects. Nine groups of four to five students, comprising a mix of those from DCU and Purchase College, were given the task of creating a wiki page (7,000 to 8,000 words) on a terrorist group. By assigning these projects to the editable wiki format, the focus was once again on encouraging diversity in relation to a shared resource, exposing students to differing views on terrorism while engaging them in cross-cultural interaction towards a shared goal. The due date for the projects was strategically set to the approximate midpoint of the semester in order to facilitate the emerging familiarity between both sets of students and open communication. As all groups were composed of a mixture of students from both institutions, effective communication was crucial: initial group discussion forum spaces were set up by the instructors, within which students set up their own threads on various issues pertaining to their projects. Overall, the students – having become familiar with the use of discussion forums every week – communicated effectively with one another and successfully navigated the time differences and associated difficulties of online communication. The degree of successful communication directly and quite clearly correlated with the overall quality of the projects: those who communicated effectively tended to receive higher grades, while the converse also held true. This led those who communicated well in the projects to provide very positive feedback on the experience; those who did not communicate so well provided less positive feedback. It is therefore somewhat difficult to judge the facilitating/debilitating capacity of the group forums towards effective group communication.

Management and assessment
With regard to lecturers’ involvement in the group projects, little intervention was needed. The topical and pragmatic advice given to the students in relation to the weekly discussion forums also applied to the group projects: openness and critical thinking was emphasised in the context of adequate academic standards and intercultural respect. Applying the use of discussion forums to group project communication allowed for a much greater level of detail in marking the group projects and individual contributions to the projects. At the outset, students were notified that all communication should take place within the spaces of the group project discussion forums so that the lecturers could adequately evaluate each group member’s contribution. Thus, individual members were graded according to four tiers. First (and most important), group projects were graded in terms of accuracy, clarity, thoroughness and level of critical analysis. Second, individual group members’ direct contributions to the wiki were examined (these entries are automatically recorded by the wiki). Third, the content of discussion forums was examined in order to assess each individual’s relative communication to the group. Fourth, on completion, students were asked to fill out an assessment form evaluating their own performance and that of their individual team mates, providing further depth to their experiences. The depth afforded by this marking process helped to ensure a fair representation of each student’s contribution to the project. Significantly, all students responded very positively to this mode of evaluation.

Reflections and lessons learned

Perhaps the key theme in terms of practical lessons learned concerns the issue of effective communication. For example, while the use of discussion forums for both weekly discussion and group project communication formed the key component of cross-cultural interaction between students ­– and was therefore key to the success of our course ­– its effectiveness was hampered by its relative rigidity in the face of more fluid and dynamic communication that many students are familiar with:
                                                                                               
I think the course suffered from not enough informal discussion. This may have been due to the choice of Moodle as the means in which to facilitate this course. I would suggest using a much more usable social forum like Facebook.
(Student, DCU)

The provision of social networking may have been ideal for more instantaneous and dynamic interaction. However, from an ethical point of view, we could not place students in a position of being associated with the discussion of terrorism on a social networking site given concerns about privacy and possible prejudice from other members (see Gross and Acquisti, 2005). Indeed, such ethical concerns indicate further the potential pedagogical difficulties arising from the sensitive nature of ‘terrorism’. Furthermore, such a move would place students who were not already on Facebook in the uncomfortable (and unethical) position of having to share personal information and enter into third-party relationships based on a university module. Thus, while we encouraged students to share relationships on Facebook if they so wished, we emphasised that this was an entirely personal decision and would not have any bearing on the class itself.

In the absence of social networking, our submissions on the effectiveness of communication must reflect on the use of discussion forums as they pertained to the course. One of the key issues in this respect concerns the role of the lecturer as an e-moderator:

If I could change something to better this course, I would have required online chat sessions where one or both lecturers were present rather than posts because I feel it would be a better learning experience and more beneficial to both student and lecturer to have that input available.
(Student, PC)

As we designed the course, we made the conscious decision to allow discussions among the student participants to unfold more organically. However, perhaps the lesson to be taken here is that the more actively faculty participate in the discussion forums, the more potentially rich the interactions can be: faculty are in a position to effectively model the way that discussions should happen. On reflection, then, we submit that a more direct and relatively active presence would have been beneficial to the class.  

Conclusion

The model for conceptualising, developing and delivering a course such as we describe here can certainly become increasingly effective in future iterations. We should also note that, at a more practical level, it is a model which is amenable to institutional support and can be pursued at relatively low cost that, one could argue, is significantly offset by the heightened level of student engagement and the unique qualities that the collaborative online international environment engenders. Indeed, the palpable level of enthusiasm displayed by students for the course – not only in terms of the subject matter, but also the cross-cultural interaction – was overwhelmingly positive. In many ways, the subjectivities that emerged through the unfolding dialogue between students served as an enriching learning environment, which not only cut across cultures but also across the traditional student/teacher divide. From the questions that students asked, we were able to see the assumptions and ideas that informed them. This provided a deeper layer of analysis than either lecturer would have been able to bring to the course with a group of students from a more similar range of backgrounds. As teachers, we undoubtedly gained much valuable knowledge and experience from our class, but its genesis lies in the individual experiences of each student. It is perhaps therefore apt that the students themselves have the final say:

Working with American students definitely added to my experience. It was an invaluable resource and allowed the class to engage in a productive discussion about terrorism and its implications. It was fundamental to the success of the course. The opportunity to converse with a different culture and the sheer diversity of opinions that we were able to access was a fantastic resource.
(Student, DCU)

In terms of being in class I believe that I heard a lot of important viewpoints that really, I feel, made me more aware of things, giving me outside perspectives on matters, something which in America you often don't hear to the fullest extent. Especially when it came to discussing EU policies and US policies in class, the Irish students' opinions I found very interesting.
(Student, PC)

The different cultures made it more of a sensitive topic generally, but I think it was all dealt with well by both … lecturers & the students. Personally engaging with the moral issues is something that I found really difficult to do as it is the kind of topic where it is difficult to establish where the line is, but challenging us to think about things … was beneficial. I think the different cultures/religions issues (& the week of women in terrorism) were dealt with well.
(Student, DCU)

References

Banks JA (ed) (2009). The Routledge international companion to multicultural education. New York: Routledge.

Behr H and Berger L (2009). ‘The challenge of talking about terrorism: the EU and the Arab debate on the causes of Islamist terrorism’. Terrorism and Political Violence, vol 21 (4).

Carr C (2007). ‘Terrorism: why the definition must be broad’. World Policy Journal, vol 24 (1).

Dedeoglu B (2003). 'Bermuda Triangle: comparing official definitions of terrorist activity’. Terrorism & Political Violence, vol 15 (3).

Gross R and Acquist A (2005). ‘Information revelation and privacy in online social networks’. ACM workshop on ‘Privacy in the electronic society’. Alexandria United States of America. Available at: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1110000/1102214/p71-gross.pdf?key1=1102214&key2=2493694621&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=75763969&CFTOKEN=32577101 (accessed 21 January 2010).

Hatem M (2009). ‘Power and knowledge revisited in Middle East studies’. Review of Middle East Studies, vol 43 (1).

Lee RM (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage.

Lee RM and Renzetti CM (eds) (1993). Researching sensitive topics. California: Sage.

Loveless P (2003). ‘Teaching terrorism: an interview with Professor Phillip Jenkins’. The Justice Professional, vol 16 (1).

Miller GD (2009). ‘Teaching about terrorism: lessons learned at SWOT’. Political Science and Politics, vol 42 (4).

Moore A (2000). Teaching and learning: pedagogy, curriculum, and culture. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Osguthorpe RT and Graham CR (2003). ‘Blended learning environments: definitions and directions’. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol 4 (3).

Rosie A (2009). Editorial. Enhanced Learning in Social Sciences, vol 2 (1). Available at: www.eliss.org.uk/PreviousEditions/Volume2Issue1/Editorial/tabid/258/Default.aspx (accessed 13 January 2010).

Silke A (2001). ‘The devil you know’: continued problems with research on terrorism’. Terrorism and Political Violence, vol 13 (4).

Silke A (ed) (2004). Research on terrorism: trends, achievements and failures. London: Routledge.

Silke A (2007). ‘The impact on 9/11 on research on terrorism’ in M Ranstorp (ed) Mapping terrorism research: state of the art, gaps and future direction. London: Routledge.

Soage AB (2006). ‘The Danish caricatures seen from the Arab world’. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, vol 7 (3).

Appendix: LG343 Introduction: capturing personal subjectivities on terrorism

This forum has been set up towards the fulfillment of two tasks:
1) To provide an opportunity for LG343 students to introduce themselves to the cohort of students who are participating in this collaborative venture
2) To record some initial subjectivities with regard to personal engagements with the concept of 'terrorism'
As such, LG343 students are required to do the following:
a) Provide a brief introduction of yourself: This is relatively straightforward (name, location, academic interests, etc). Please bear in mind that you will be speaking across cultures, so avoid confusing colloquialisms where possible!
b) Provide a brief description as to why you chose to study terrorism. Why does the study of terrorism interest you? Please keep this as relevant as possible: ie declarations that you wish to attain a high grade for your degree programme should be avoided.
c) Attempt to identify and record any subjectivities that you feel you may have with regard to 'terrorism'. What does ‘terrorism’ mean to you, and can you identify any experiences that have shaped your personal engagement with the concept? (Exposure to media/certain media events; growing up in an environment where issues of 'terrorism' have been prevalent; cultural dispositions towards ‘terrorism’, etc).
4) List some of the main factors (3–4) that you feel should be incorporated into any working definition of terrorism and justify this accordingly. This does not have to be justified with reference to any scholarly literature – rather, it is an attempt to discern some of your own subjectivities prior to any engagement with the associated literature. If, however, you have engaged heavily with some of the relevant literature on defining terrorism, then feel free to incorporate it here.
Please note that this forum has been set up in an attempt to capture an initial framing of students’ subjectivities with regard to terrorism, prior to more in-depth engagement with various issues that will arise over the course of the semester. As such, this forum has been provisionally set up to allow ONE POST ONLY per student – so think carefully about what you are going to write and how you are going to represent yourself. This forum thread will be revisited over the course of the year towards an end of term submission on individual subjectivities that should represent some changes/consistencies in your attitude towards terrorism. It is hoped that this can be extended to comment on cultural frameworks and the shifting of attitudes through an engagement with a cross-cultural approach to the collaborative study of terrorism.
 Regards
 [Lecturer]

Jo Winwood
University of Wolverhampton
School of Education
Gorway Road, Walsall
WS1 3BD

Tel 01902 323003
Email j.winwood@wlv.ac.uk

Catherine Lamond
University of Wolverhampton
School of Education
Gorway Road, Walsall
WS1 3BD

Tel 01902 322891
Email c.lamond@wlv.ac.uk

Biographies

Jo Winwood is a senior lecturer in special needs and inclusion studies. Her research interests include the experiences of looked after children in HE. She is currently completing an EdD at the University of Birmingham, looking at the changing role of the special educational needs co-ordinator.

Catherine Lamond is a senior lecturer in special needs and inclusion studies. Her background is in primary teaching, specialising in special educational needs. She has worked in schools in France and the Republic of Ireland, as well as in England. Her research interests include the educational experiences of looked after children and developing communities of practice using technology. She is currently working on her EdD, looking at disadvantaged groups.

Abstract

Students on the foundation degree, Supporting Inclusive Practice (FDSIP), study part-time while they work in schools in support roles such as teaching assistant (TA) positions. Many are from non-traditional backgrounds and have not studied for several years. This article will explore the sensitive topic of raising aspirations when those aspirations may not be fulfilled, linked to the examination of individual beliefs and values. In the international context of the drive for widening participation, the strategies discussed to promote self-efficacy could be applied to a range of different courses.

Key words: self-efficacy, sensitive topics, inclusion, action research, non-traditional students

Introduction

The key issue faced by the research team relates to the challenge of students making the transition to higher education (HE), not simply in terms of reaching certain academic standards, but also in achieving a higher level of thinking that involves questioning current responses to special educational needs (SEN) and inclusion. Students’ expectations of the foundation degree, Supporting Inclusive Practice (FDSIP), have typically been to learn strategies that ‘solve’ children’s difficulties, whereas the aim of the course from the tutors’ point of view is to promote much more inclusive attitudes and approaches. This dichotomy of expectations often leads to the challenging of students’ views, values and beliefs, which raises sensitive issues for all involved in the course. Furthermore, once students have been empowered to consider the values underpinning educational practice, they may face the dilemma that their setting does not embody these values but they are not in a position to change current practice. Their increased knowledge of good practice but lack of power to implement change raises sensitive issues. This article will consider some of the strategies used to address values and beliefs, within a framework of course design built around measurable learning outcomes.

Background

Students on the FDSIP work in support roles such as teaching assistants (TAs) in schools and study part-time. Many are experienced practitioners who may have had several years’ experience of working predominantly with children with SEN, often in roles where the purpose is to try to push children to achieve the target levels in standard assessment tests (SATs), as schools are judged on their pupils’ success in SATs. Their practice therefore encourages a focus on the curriculum and on reaching targets.

A foundation degree is a work-based course where students are given credit for their prior learning and their work-based learning, and which is equivalent to the first two years of a BA or BSc honours programme (FDF, 2008). These courses must also provide a progression route onto the final year of a BA or BSc programme: for FDSIP, this progression is to the BA Special Needs and Inclusion Studies (SNIS). This BA course is based on a commitment to social justice and a positive approach to diversity. There was a perceived clash between the medical model approach which existed at students’ workplaces and the social model approach of the SNIS programme. A review of the previous course raised concerns that the FD had too strong a reliance on assessing competency rather than developing higher order thinking skills.

Tackling this mismatch raises sensitive questions. How can course tutors encourage students to analyse their own values and beliefs while avoiding imposing their own values? What happens to students who do not have a commitment to social justice, or who are personally opposed to inclusion because they have a negative view of diversity? So long as students behave professionally, can they be disadvantaged for not personally agreeing with the ethos of the course? These topics are also sensitive because they can challenge long-established practice in the students’ work settings. One student told her group that she could no longer bear to go in the staff room because she now found discussion about the children unacceptable. This had not been an issue in the years before she started the course. This is problematic: HE must aim to develop critical thinking in students, but what if that makes them dissatisfied in their workplace?

Context

‘Present in the deficit–diagnosis–cure sequence is a surrender from the challenge that reflective teaching poses. To yield to such deficit thinking is to relinquish reflective thought in favour of a simplistic ‘solution’’ (Thomas and Glenny, 2002, cited inSheehy et al,2005: 15). Many schools adopt this medical model approach to pupils identified as having SEN. Indeed, the system set up by the SEN Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) requires that schools label and categorise pupils. Students can therefore experience a clash between the approach advocated by their school and the ethos of the course, which can be summarised as a positive attitude to diversity and a commitment to social justice. The context for this research, therefore, was the opportunity to redesign the course curriculum in a way that addressed the key problem of challenging students’ work practices and beliefs. The course team believed that it was necessary to address this conflict from the start, with the aim of encouraging students to do more than just say the ‘right things’, but to evaluate their values and beliefs in relation to their professional practice.

Methodology

The course team decided to undertake an action research project (McNiff, 2002) to work with students to develop a course that tackled these problems. The project has run alongside two separate phases of curriculum redesign, which were imposed by institutional requirements. The course team is committed to keeping the FD up-to-date, as education is such a rapidly changing field, so the action research cycle will continue into the future. McNiff (2002) defines action research as a cycle of the following steps:

McNiff highlights the practical nature of action research, while also stressing that it is based on values. This resonates with our initial discussions about the course and the need to combine academic content with broader issues of social justice and inclusion. McNiff’s approach also advocates action researchers developing as reflective practitioners, which mirrors the aim of the course to develop the students’ reflective skills.

Constructive alignment

In our institution, the model of curriculum design is based on Biggs’ model of constructive alignment (2003), which is widely used in research in learning and teaching in HE (see, for example: Ramsden, 2003; Walsh, 2007; Allan, 1998). Constructive alignment aims to encourage students to achieve certain learning outcomes through careful planning and matching of content, teacher/learner activities and assessment (Biggs, 2003), but some theorists stress that results are not ultimately controllable (Ramsden, 2003). Tackling the sensitive topic of underlying values does not fit well with Biggs’ focus on learning outcomes as verbs: how do you ‘do’ values?

Although Cowan (1998) advocates the use of strategies such as the ‘heffalump trap’ which put students in uncomfortable situations where they re-evaluate their thinking, this must be approached carefully to avoid students feeling undermined and losing confidence. Teaching staff need to be aware of the difference between developing a critical approach in students and criticising their work in school. Much of the work TAs carry out may not reflect the ideals of the course, but the purpose is to encourage the development of inclusive practice by highlighting alternative approaches rather than making students feel vulnerable to criticism. For example, a review of individual education plans (IEPs) provided an opportunity to discuss the purpose of the document from different perspectives such as that of the pupil, inclusive practice and the role of the TA. This was an unsettling and sensitive issue for some students as they spent a great deal of time working on targets set by IEPs and this element of their work was questioned in the session. If students construct their own knowledge and develop beliefs through dialogue, how can we force certain values upon them? The clear structure of constructive alignment can seem contrary to the ideal of promoting students’ self-efficacy as learners (Zimmerman, 1992).

Self-efficacy in learning

Social learning theory, which suggests that self-efficacy is essential for successful learning, provided us with a theoretical underpinning for our approach to course development. Bandura (1995: 203) suggests that self-efficacy is ‘personal judgments of one’s capabilities to organise and execute courses of action to attain designated types of academic performances’. The course team felt strongly that we had to aim to do more than change students’ behaviour in order to gain tutor approval and higher grades: we needed to find strategies to challenge values and beliefs in a safe and supportive environment. This approach enabled staff and students to engage in a dialogue about diversity and inclusion which challenged all involved to consider their beliefs. The course adopts a social constructivist approach to learning (Kim, 2001), where the aim is not for tutors to tell students what they have to say or do, but is about students regulating their own learning. This can be uncomfortable for staff unused to such an approach, but for students it encourages active engagement with learning.

Bandura’s reciprocal determinism

In the course redesign, we used the model of Bandura’s (1995) reciprocal determinism (see figure above), which suggests that learning is an interactive process between personal factors, environmental factors and behaviour. The team were mindful of achieving a balance between these three areas and that students were subject to pressure in these areas in two different settings – University and school. We were aware that students could experience a clash between the ethos of their workplace and the ethos of the course. This can be particularly sensitive as it involves a challenge to students’ own personal values.

Data collection

The project began with an initial scoping exercise, asking all students to write a short piece on their views of inclusion. This exercise revealed that students had listened to what tutors said and could repeat it but did not reveal the values underpinning what was said. Questionnaires were then distributed to all of the FD students, asking about their work, what they did, and their aims. It was revealing that students concentrated on practical matters and on the curriculum: no one mentioned inclusion. This seemed to reveal a sharp divide between the course and the workplace.

In order to respond to these initial findings, tutors strived to create a supportive environment where students felt secure enough to discuss their values and beliefs. Students were encouraged to form a supportive network, and to use ongoing online discussion through blogs to promote a reflective approach to learning. Sessions were designed to be very interactive, with a concentration on a dialogic approach to learning. These strategies focused on encouraging students to move beyond being grade-fixated towards being reflective learners and practitioners. Coleman (1999) suggests that it is important to look at issues from different perspectives to promote positive attitudes to diversity, but this can be hard to achieve without tutors feeling that they are ‘putting on’ different voices. One way to solve this problem is to encourage student-led activities, thereby including a range of perspectives.

Students’ first year

The first assessments provided an opportunity to review the changes made to the course and to see if students had moved away from a competency-based approach to learning, as assignments in the previous iterations had been directly related to the students’ role. It was apparent that most students had tackled key issues of social inclusion and the wider historical context of education.

Tutors extended the supportive yet thought-provoking environment to ensure that students knew they were not being personally criticised but encouraged to examine the context in which they worked and their part within it. This was achieved by creating a community of practice where students moved beyond feeling competitive against each other towards sharing a learning experience. Strategies to promote this included small group tasks, collaborative writing, and reflection on critical incidents, focused on positive, supportive yet engaging dialogue. These aspects of the course reflect the inclusive ethos underpinning its design and are exemplified by a developmental view of students rather than an approach based on perceived student deficits. Online discussions and personal reflective logs are used iteratively, so that students themselves can see the steps they are making in their learning journey and consider how their thinking is developing.

The second year

The second year acted as a transition for both staff and students. Having already taught modules once, staff were able to reflect on the successes and build on them, so that students could develop as action researchers. This is reflected in a shift from the initial starting point of wanting to be told what to do with a child with a particular SEN to being able to explore a particular issue using action research (McNiff, 2002). Dadds (cited inSheehy et al, 2005: 39) highlights the importance of ‘insider’ research, stating that it can ‘enable practitioners to become involved themselves in thoughtful pursuit of research that contributes sound critical knowledge to practice improvement’.

The course continues to develop an inclusive ethos through each module. A strong research element is a key feature, with modules introducing research methods and approaches. ‘Inclusive research: ethics and practice’ focuses on ethical issues that are raised by research. Students have to develop a proposal which identifies a topic related to inclusive practice and reflects the principles of emancipatory disability research (Barnes, 2003). Initial ideas for the proposal tend to reflect the challenges students face as practitioners rather than developing a positive school experience for all pupils. For example, a popular topic is exploring the use of national strategies to raise standards, such as Springboard. However, this type of topic is embedded in notions of school improvement and staff performance, not in inclusion for any particular group. Students are encouraged to approach the topic from the perspective of the service user rather than the service provider. In the example above, this could provide pupils with an opportunity to express their views and experiences of being part of a Springboard group and enable staff to evaluate the use of any particular approach from the perspective of the pupils.

The most successful students demonstrate a sound understanding of their chosen topic and the research process as a mechanism to enable change within the learning environment. They demonstrate a change of attitude and a deeper understanding of inclusion. This is often reflected in the topics they choose to research which address sensitive subjects such as providing facilities for visually impaired girls when they menstruate, experiences of ADHD and medication for the condition, and sexual relationships for young people with Down’s syndrome. However, this raises another sensitive issue: there may be tensions between inclusive ideals and practice in students’ workplaces that they may not be in a position to influence.

Discussion

Interactions with students, including interviews with volunteers, suggest that the more successful students build self-efficacy, which enables them to tackle the sensitive issue of their values being challenged by the course, and then develop and justify their own position as students and as practitioners. Some of the less successful students continue to have an emotional response to their performance and feedback. This presents a barrier to them seeing feedback as an opportunity to learn and they take on a defensive stance to both their written work and their own beliefs being challenged by course tutors. These issues cannot be resolved if students perceive interactions as criticism. For example, one grade-fixated student expressed great disappointment at receiving a C grade, stating that she had ‘worked really hard’ and felt that her efforts were ‘just not good enough’. This student seemed too reliant on tutor approval, and her emotional reaction blocked any useful discussion of the views expressed in her assignment and of other aspects such as structure. Another student reacted very strongly to being challenged regarding her views on corporal punishment and expressed resentment at the perceived personal criticism. Relating this to Bandura’s reciprocal determinism, it seems that the student had not engaged with the interactive process of learning and did not respond positively to alternative perspectives. One way of addressing barriers to our approach could be the use of peer- and self-assessment as tools for learning (Kirby and Downs, 2007). These would not impact on student grades, as the tools would be part of the formative assessment process and offer an additional layer of support to students, while enabling the development of reflective skills. Using peer- and self-assessment against assessment criteria and learning outcomes is in line with the institution’s use of constructive alignment. It also provides opportunities for reflection on values and the potential development of self-efficacy. The goal of the course is to develop self-regulated learners (Nota, Soresi and Zimmerman, 2004) who have the capacity to be lifelong learners and action researchers as students and as practitioners within their workplace.

Conclusion

The success of the FD in developing students who are reflective and have self-efficacy depends on two things: providing a supportive environment and students being willing to take the risk of challenging their own beliefs. This does not work for all. We are aware of varying levels of engagement with our approach and are continually developing alternative strategies to promote reflection. In future, we plan to develop the emphasis on students becoming action researchers and having an impact on practice. This will require successful employer engagement and recognition in the workplace that students can effect positive change. For some students, this will remain a barrier because they may work in a setting where they are not expected to take responsibility so struggle to develop self-efficacy.

The role of TAs has changed dramatically over recent years, but teachers have had little or no guidance in how to utilise them effectively or how the teaching role can best work with the TA role. By completing the FDSIP, students have an opportunity to develop personal and professional skills and knowledge. While the TA might have to remain focused on achieving targets, the role could develop into being a ‘second teacher’ rather than a teaching assistant, with TAs and teachers working in partnership rather than in the traditional leader–follower approach. Initially, this might raise the sensitive issue of professional boundaries and responsibilities, but it could provide schools with the opportunity to redefine roles. In this way, promoting self-efficacy in students who are also practitioners can have a positive impact on their work role as well as on their student experience.

References

Allan J (1998). Learning-outcome led design: a model to promote narrow horizons or to emancipate the learner? Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Bandura A (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barnes C (2003). ‘What a difference a decade makes: reflections on doing ‘emancipatory’ disability research’. Disability and Society, vol 18 (1), pp 3–17.

Benjamin S (2002). ‘Valuing diversity’: a cliché for the 21st century?’ International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol 6 (4), pp 309–323.

BERA (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research [online]. Available at: www.bera.ac.uk/files/2008/09/ethica1.pdf (accessed 11 November 2009).

Biggs J (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Brown S (1999). ‘Assessing practice’ in S Brown and A Glasner (eds) Assessment matters in higher education. Buckingham: SRHE, pp 95–105.

Coleman L (1999). The influence of attitudes, feelings and behavior toward diversity on teaching and learning [online]. Available at:www.colorado.edu/ftep/downloads/ondiversity.pdf#page=19 (accessed 21 December 2009).

Cowan J (1998). On becoming an innovative university teacher. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Dadds M (2005). ‘Taking curiosity seriously: the role of awe and Wanda in research-based professionalism’ in KSheehy, M Nind, J Rix and K Simmons (eds) Ethics and research in inclusive education. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer, pp 28–42.

DfES (2001). Special educational needs code of practice. London: TSO.

FDF (2008). Foundation degree forward strategic plan 2008–2011. Lichfield: Foundation Degree Forward.

Kirby NF and Downs CT (2007). 'Self-assessment and the disadvantaged student: potential for encouraging self-regulated learning?' Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol 32 (4), pp 475–494.

Kim B (2001). ‘Social constructivism’. In M Orey (ed) Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology [online]. Available at: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ (accessed 10 November 2009).

McNiff J (2002). Action research for professional development [online]. Available at: www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html (accessed 3 November 2009).

Nota L, Soresi S and Zimmerman B (2004). ‘Self-regulation and academic achievement and resilience: a longitudinal study’. International Journal of Educational Research, vol41, pp 198–215.

Ramsden P (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer

Sheehy K, Nind M, Rix J and Simmons K (eds) (1995). Ethics and research in inclusive education. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
Thomas G and Glenny G (2002). ‘Thinking about inclusion. Whose reason? What evidence?’ in KSheehy, M Nind, J Rix and K Simmons (eds) Ethics and research in inclusive education. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer, pp 9–27.

Walsh A (2007). ‘An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in the context of work-based learning’. Assessment and evaluation in higher education,vol 32 (1), pp 79–87.

Zimmerman B (1992). ‘Self-efficacy and educational development’ in A Bandura (ed) (1995) Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: CUP, pp 202–231.

Jane Nolan
Division of Criminology
Department of Social Sciences
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Glamorgan
Pontypridd
RCT CF37 1DL

Tel 01443 482750
email jnolan@glam.ac.uk

Sarah Oerton
Division of Social Policy
Department of Social Sciences
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Glamorgan
Pontypridd
RCT CF37 1DL

Tel: 01443 482852
email: soerton@glam.ac.uk

Biographies

Jane Nolan is a senior lecturer in criminology and criminal justice, and director of studies (criminology) at the University of Glamorgan. Her areas of teaching expertise and her research interests focus on the intersection(s) between gender, sex, sexualities and social control. 

Sarah Oerton is a reader in sociology and head of division (social policy) at the University of Glamorgan. Her areas of teaching expertise are the sociology of sex and sexuality and the sociology of the body. She consistently attempts to bring the body, sex and sexuality to life in her taught modules.

Abstract

This paper aims to consider the difficulties inherent in leading diverse groups of adults who are training as social workers to think critically about ‘race’ and ethnicity. It draws on our experience as tutors at an adult residential college with a focus on second-chance education. The students on the BA Social Work include adults from a range of ethnicities and nationalities who hold multiple identities. This paper explores how we approached teaching ‘race’ to this group, relates and reflects on the students’ individual experiences of race and ethnicity, and discusses how these were integrated into classroom teaching.Key words: race, ethnicity, social work education, anti-racist social work, social construction

Introduction

There is a considerable literature on race and education, much of it focusing on teacher education in the North American context (Solomon et al, 2005; Hall, 2005; Solorzano and Yosso, 2001). This literature establishes that students critically examining the concept of race often struggle with the notion of white privilege and the ‘racial other’ (for example Cochran-Smith, 1995; Solomon et al, 2005). This article aims to add to this literature by reflecting on the process of teaching a critical perspectives on race and ethnicity to a group of social work students at Ruskin College, where the college’s mission is to provide educational opportunities to students from excluded and disadvantaged backgrounds.

Ruskin College has a long tradition of widening participation in further and higher education, recruiting non-traditional students with few or no formal academic qualifications. Social work has been taught at Ruskin since the 1960s and the current degree programme was designed by the social work team and implemented in 2004. Students are required to spend the first year of the course in college before completing social work practice learning opportunities in the second and third year. Although Ruskin students may not have formal academic qualifications before starting the programme, they do have very rich life and work experiences, which they are encouraged to draw on throughout their studies. On completion of the BA Social Work, students are entitled to register with the General Social Care Council as professional social workers. 
  
The social work degree programme ensures that students are prepared to meet the standards for social work set out in the Quality Assurance Agency Benchmark Statement (QAA, 2008), which include ‘combating processes that lead to discrimination, marginalisation and social exclusion’. One crucial aspect of this preparation lies in providing students with both an academic understanding of race and ethnicity as well as a means of making their own experiences of race and ethnicity relevant to their study of sociology, social policy and social work. This paper aims to reflect on how we approach this benchmark standard in our classroom teaching.

The construction of race in HE settings as well as in the wider social context is an ongoing process (Cochran-Smith, 1995) and one that our students have already engaged in as social actors. Similarly, teaching race is not a one-off event but rather a process of involving students in a sustained discussion (Solorzano and Yosso, 2001). Our teaching is aimed at challenging students to continue this discussion and to develop it, with a view to challenging discrimination and exclusion in its many forms. 

Teaching race in a social work classroom

Introducing students to a critical theory of race can involve challenging them on both personal and academic levels. Our teaching, then, revolves around two key components: students are encouraged to develop their own narratives of their racialised experience of British society and they are introduced to an alternative discourse of race as a social construct. These two components help students explore the possibilities for social change and to consider the debates around multiculturalism and anti-racist perspectives. 

We aim to enable our students to reflect on the impact of racism in every area of social life and to be prepared to counter both direct and indirect forms of discrimination by adopting a social work approach that is actively anti-racist and anti-discriminatory. We believe that a key component of this approach is an awareness of the social research and social science literature on racism in British society. We also want our students to be mindful that professional social work interventions are neither neutral nor value-free, and that the professional organisations and agencies with which they are involved may be part of the problem as well as potentially part of the solution. This approach encourages social workers in training to reflect on their own worldviews, as well as being conscious of the wider social and structural influences that underpin racist ideology.

These strategies are put to use while students are on placement, where they are sometimes confronted with discriminatory or racist views held by people with whom they come into contact during their practice learning. For example, students helping service users access housing benefits will sometimes be confronted with service users who are angry at what they perceive as immigrants’ ability to jump to the front of the housing queue. Students who are familiar with the trends in British immigration, aware of the politicised nature of such claims and cognisant of recent research that both refutes and explains this perception are much better prepared to challenge discriminatory statements in a constructive fashion.

In familiarising students with the ways in which race and ethnicity are operationalised in contemporary British society, we are preparing students to work within a complex set of social and cultural dynamics related to race, discrimination and social exclusion. We also encourage students to reflect on and develop an anti-discriminatory social work practice, which is informed by their learning in the classroom and through their lived experience.

Our teaching on race occurs within a broader pedagogical framework that aims to make power relations explicit at every level. We aim to maintain our own awareness of the many power differentials that exist, including those between students and tutors as well as those between social workers and users of social work services. Modelling this awareness in the classroom and in tutorial sessions is a key aspect of immersing students in an environment where power relations are excavated and examined. We are aware of our own power to select and employ certain discourses of race and to ground these in sites of academic and professional legitimacy. Because social workers (including student social workers) also inhabit these positions of power (Milner, 2007), the potential influence of power and authority is a key component of sociology and social policy modules in the first year. We aim to prepare students with a grounding in critical race theory and an understanding of power relations before they go onto social work placements in the second and third years of their studies. The teaching we describe and reflect on here is designed to help first-year social work students begin to think critically about these issues so that their thinking can influence not only their academic development but their professional and personal development as well.

Personal narratives: drawing on experiences of race

Our teaching strategies require all students to construct and make use of a personal narrative of race, although they are not required to disclose their own accounts of racial identity and experiences. As Milner (2007) suggests, narratives of race can be a useful starting point for teaching critical race theory. The construction of these narratives helps us to demonstrate a crucial point: that everyone in the classroom, including tutors, has significant experience of race. 

Students begin constructing these informal narratives in classroom discussions, sharing their experiences of living in a racialised society. They continue narrative construction in small group tutorials with fellow students and tutors, giving their experiences meaning and reflecting on them with an increased knowledge of the concepts of race, ethnicity and discrimination. Using this as a starting point allows us to make race visible, a key component of helping students think critically about race and their own racial and ethnic identities. Students continue the development of their own narratives through essays in their first year and reflective writing while on placement. As tutors, we also have to be willing to explore our own racial and ethnic identities, privately and with students, in order to model this process. 

As we are both white (American and second generation Irish), we effectively model the ways in which race is central to all identities, not only those of people from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds. One positive outcome of this process is that our teaching does not focus solely on ‘the racial other’ or what it means to be from a BME background. Like Cochran-Smith (1995), we feel it would be counter-productive if we create an atmosphere where black students are expected to excavate their experiences for the enlightenment of white students. One of the first truths we uncover as a group about race is that whiteness is not a lack of race. Similarly, as white tutors, we are able to volunteer that when white people speak of ethnicity they are often referring to other social groups rather than acknowledging their own ethnicity.

Referring to this process of decentring whiteness, Cochran-Smith says that white students can use the development of their own narratives to shift ‘the story from one that was morally neutral to one structured by unearned privilege’ (1995: 549). We find that this process is more complex with our student group. Although we draw on the ONC classification of ethnic groups as a starting point for discussing racial categories, the diversity within the student group is a constant reminder to us and to students that there is a multiplicity of identities and experiences within these categories. For example, our student groups nearly always include a significant proportion of African women, many of whom will share experiences of working as carers in the UK. While some similarities emerge as they discuss their experiences of migration and work, the differences in their experiences are often a more productive place to centre the discussion. We find that students across racial and ethnic groups can sometimes find commonalities in their experiences, which can be linked to other categories of oppression, such as social class or gender.  

Language is, of course, very important in this context and we remind students that, as in any other area of academic life, the language and terminology of race are contested. We encourage students to analyse the origins of these debates in other teaching on the BA programme. For example, we provide students with an historical understanding of social exclusion, recognising that this concept is contested within the sociological discourse. In this way, we take up issues that are related to race regularly and in various modules on the programme. Our teaching on race is not limited to a single session or a single module.

We also require students to identify research and social trends in relation to social inequalities and discrimination in modern society. Students are introduced to a wide range of social research and related literature that highlight how racism and discrimination continue to impact on the lives of individuals and social groups in virtually every area of social life (Equalities Review, 2007). Students are introduced to current debates on the nature and purpose of multiculturalism by using recent and accessible articles to interrogate the utility of multiculturalism as a means to a more equal society, contrasting a multicultural approach with a more targeted anti-racist approach in social work (Penketh, 2006). Students are also introduced to alternative narratives and discourses, rarely covered in the social science literature, that celebrate the hidden history of multiculturalism and anti-racism in Britain from the nineteenth century to the present day. The aim of all of this is to better prepare social work students to work with service users who have multiple identities, as well as with those who may share their experiences of race and ethnicity, and to develop good professional practice informed by anti-discriminatory and anti-racist social work perspectives.

An alternative discourse: race as a social construction

Conventional understandings and discourses of race are based on ‘common sense’ assumptions that race is founded on biological differences between groups of people. These widely held notions are frequently deployed in biological discourses of race but are rarely critically interrogated. The vocabulary students use in initial discussions of race reflects this biological discourse. They often refer to the supposed ‘genetic’ qualities of race, such as the easily identifiable phenotypical expressions of race (including skin colour, hair texture and facial features such as nose and eye shape), and they point out the inheritability of these characteristics, sometimes employing other markers of a biological discourse including ‘blood’ and ‘DNA’. Students are largely comfortable with this discourse, which they believe is scientifically proven and irrefutable, even if they are hesitant to name different groups according to race. 

The understandings of race that our students bring to the classroom are varied, and while many will have experiences of racism and discrimination, it is not uncommon for them to struggle with the vocabulary of race. They are often reluctant to name racial groups, even as they share their experiences of race as a defining category in British society. One strategy for dealing with this reluctance is to ask students, working in small groups, to determine how many races exist and to list them. This activity very quickly demonstrates that there is no easily agreed definition of a concept that we take for granted and operationalise on a daily basis. As students struggle to agree on a number of races and to assign names to them, they are engaging in the vocabulary of race and ethnicity, making distinctions between the two categories and identifying some of the difficulties with the concept of race as a biological construct.

Students are much less familiar with the notion of race as a social construct. There are two key parts to teaching this concept: dispelling the notion of race as a biological reality and exploring the processes by which race is socially constructed. Students typically find the first task, rejecting the biological understanding of race, more challenging than the second, largely because it requires gaining a basic understanding of population genetics. We use large-scale examples to illustrate this concept and draw from students’ knowledge of migration patterns and their own personal histories to illustrate how very few populations or groups of people have remained genetically isolated. The second task, illustrating the mechanisms by which race is socially constructed, makes use of student’s personal experiences of race and ethnicity in British society. The introductory sociology textbooks provide some very good illustrations of how race is socially constructed and we incorporate these critical perspectives into the teaching. Through tutor-led teaching, structured classroom discussion and tutorials, students are able to recognise that their own racial identities are socially constructed. 

Students are then able to discuss strategies for confronting and challenging social constructions of race that are discriminatory or oppressive, a crucial element of using a critical race perspective to engage in social change (Dlamini, 2002). Furthermore, most are able to provide examples of the ways in which the social construction of race privileges some groups over others. Although some authors (Solomon et al, 2005; Tatum, 1994) report that students frequently claim not to ‘see’ race in an attempt to stake out a safe position, this rarely happens with our students. This may be because our students, most of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds or marginalised social groups, have personal experiences of discrimination.

Discussion and conclusion

In reflecting on her experience of teaching race, Cochran-Smith says: ‘I realize how little I know how to do this work’ (1995: 546). This is a starting point for our own reflective process. Our aim is to create an environment in which all students, not only those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, can construct a narrative of their own racial experience, reflect on this narrative and, if they choose, use it in classroom and tutorial discussions. We must also consider our own socially constructed identities in our role as course leaders and how this impacts on the way in which we lead members of the class to critically explore concepts of race and ethnicity, discrimination and institutional racism and situate themselves within this subject. One major challenge is in valuing the diversity of our students’ experiences, even when this creates tensions within the group because one student’s experience or truth may directly contradict that of another or our own. The reality, however, for all of our students is that they are educated, work and live in a society which is diverse and continues to be subject to major social and cultural changes. As noted at the beginning of this paper, undergraduates on the BA Social Work at Ruskin College are mature, non-traditional students with rich life and work experiences, which they are encouraged to draw on throughout their studies.

Many of them have direct experience of social exclusion and discrimination, and in our experience they are often more able to make connections and recognise how oppression impacts on individuals and social groups in wider society. Indeed, these insights are extremely valuable when developing a collective understanding in the classroom of how oppression operates in conditions of late modernity and how it excludes and stunts people’s potential. Our aim in teaching race on a social work degree programme is to provide students with this understanding, along with a commitment to social work practice that is informed by anti-racist and anti-discriminatory perspectives.
 

References

Cochran-Smith M (1995). ‘Uncertain allies: understanding the boundaries of race and teaching’. Harvard Educational Review, vol 65, pp 541–570.

Dlamini N (2002). ‘From the other side of the desk: notes on teaching about race when racialized’. Race Ethnicity and Education, vol 5 (1), pp 51–66.

Equalities Review (2007). Fairness and freedom: the final report of the Equalities Review. London: Crown Copyright.

Hall R (2005). ‘Eurocentrism in social work education: From race to identity across the lifespan as a biracial alternative’. Journal of Social Work, vol 5 (1), pp 101–114.

Milner R (2007). ‘Race, culture and researcher positionality: working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen’. Educational Researcher, vol 36 (7), pp 388–400.

Penketh L (2006). ‘Racism and social policy’ in M Lavalette and A Pratt (eds) Social policy: theories, concepts and issues (third edn). London: Sage Publications.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2008). Subject benchmark statement for social work. Gloucester: QAA.

Solomon P, Portelli J, Danie B and Campbell A (2005). ‘The discourse of denial: how white teacher candidates construct race, racism and ‘white privilege’’. Race Ethnicity and Education, vol 8 (2), pp 147–169.

Solorzano D and Yosso T (2001). ‘From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education’. Multicultural Education, vol 9 (1), pp 2–9.

Tatum B (1994). ‘Teaching white students about racism: the search for white allies and the restoration of hope’. Teachers College Record, vol 95 (4), pp 462–476.

Bibliography of useful teaching resources

Abbott P and Wallace C (1997). Introduction to sociology. London: Routledge.

Back L and Solomos J (2007). Theories of race and racism: a reader (second edn). London: Routledge.

Callincos A (1995). Race and class. London: Bookmarks.

Cunningham J and Cunningham S (2008). Sociology and social work. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Fenton S (2003). Ethnicity: key concepts. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens A (2009). Sociology (sixth edn). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haralambos M and Holborn M (2008). Sociology – themes and perspectives (seventh edn). London: Harper Collins.

Llewellyn A, Agu L and Mercer D (2008). Sociology for social workers. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Rattansi A (2007). Racism: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smaje J (2000). Natural hierarchies: the historical sociology of race and caste. Oxford: Blackwell.

Solomos J (2003). Race and racism in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Thompson N (2006). Anti-discriminatory practice (fourth edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.