The position of the university-based teacher educator

In light of recent developments, it is easy to see the position of the university-based teacher educator (UBTE) as assailed from all sides: navigating centralisation and prescription at policy level, competition from school-led ITE routes on the ground and a precarious higher education landscape. One of the many outcomes of these challenges is a sense of disconnect between teachers and the creation of knowledge for teaching, now presented as generic and decontextualised (Hordern & Brooks, 2023). This disconnect stands in stark contrast to UCET’s (2020) vision of teachers as ‘epistemic agents’ making meaningful contributions to the professional knowledge base.

Viewed differently, however, there might be cause for optimism about the UBTE’s position. Furlong (2013) notes that we are specialists in practical theory and therefore ‘uniquely well placed’ to help teachers form a bridge between practical experience and wider professional knowledge, while Cochran-Smith (2005) argues that teacher education goals are best met ‘at the intersection of universities, schools and communities’ (p.13). These views resonate with recent interviews I have carried out with UK teachers and teacher educators, in which I have heard about many forms of collaborative knowledge-building work in these in-between spaces. They include inspiring examples of collaborative inquiry, lesson study, curriculum development, subject interest groups and other communities of practice.

Making sense of boundary work

The mention of bridges and intersections is a reminder that this sort of activity might be characterised as boundary work. Theories such as Communities of Practice describe boundaries between practices as ‘places where perspectives meet and new possibilities arise’ (Wenger, 1999, p.8). New forms of collaboration, or ‘boundary objects’, arise as practices are connected by ‘boundary brokers’.

These spaces of mediation, however, are increasingly crowded with ‘policy intermediary organisations’. The Education Endowment Foundation (and its Research School Network), Maths Hubs and even Ofsted, with its foray into research reports, are just some of the organisations purporting to mediate evidence and other forms of knowledge for the busy teacher. Most of this involves a uni-directional flow, but the literature on boundaries and brokering suggests much richer possibilities of joint projects, reciprocal working and more symmetrical relationships. Akkerman & Bakker (2011), for example, identify mechanisms involving:

• Identification of the relationship between different practices;
• Coordination of new forms of practice and collaboration at the boundaries;
• Reflection on knowledge from new perspectives;
• Transformation of practice through ongoing work.

These mechanisms go beyond knowledge translation to collaboration based on meaningful and often locally responsive relationships: the very types of relationship nurtured by universities and UBTEs through years of partnership work.

The UBTE and brokering

To return to Furlong’s contention, is there anything ‘unique’, or even distinctive, about the role of a UBTE if we view school-university collaborations as involving forms of boundary brokering? Teachers I interviewed about their collaborations (Knight, 2024) certainly seemed to think so. They suggested that UBTEs have particular attributes as brokers:

• Local social capital: knowing and convening the ‘right’ people;
• Multi-faceted expertise: relating everyday practice to wider debates;
• An outsider perspective: offering a critical, safe space for reflection;
• Experience and empathy: having credibility with different groups including teachers and academics.

So, why does this matter?

Identifying and bringing together under the brokering banner the sometimes-hidden work of UBTEs and school colleagues on knowledge co-construction may have a number of benefits. Firstly, the use of a theoretical lens such as boundary crossing or brokering may simply help us to understand this activity better. Drawing together superficially disparate examples allows us to recognise the common principles or mechanisms at work. This recognition, in turn, means that collaborations can be planned for with greater purpose and knowledge of previous or concurrent work. Finally, we might also hope that a more coherent, theorised and cumulative view of this aspect of UBTE practice raises its status and re-asserts the important position and contribution of the UBTE.