Constructing difference

6.3.1 Participants‟ constructions of difference

What is considered „different‟ can only be conceptualized in terms of what is „not- different‟. Notions of difference position individuals or groups in relation to others and confer meaning on these positions (Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002). Difference is

therefore relational rather than an essential property. Furthermore, to compare differences implies some form of commonality; Burbules and Rice (1991) note that when differences that divide people are seen from another point of view, these differences may seem arbitrary or less noticeable than the similarities. Instead of being viewed as logical opposites, difference and commonality are better understood as mutually dependent and interactive (Bowser et al., 2007). Difference is thus contextualized; it becomes significant depending on which individuals or groups are being compared and why, and who is making the comparisons and from what point of view (Young, 1990). A relational epistemology understands diversity as produced by teachers in relations through the experiences they narrate, and in this section I look at how „difference‟ is produced in participants‟ talk about diversity. Teachers in this research mostly speak about difference in terms of pre-existing characteristics arising from comparisons with other students, academic norms, teachers‟ expectations, or teachers‟ own characteristics. These differences are constructed in a number of ways.

One common construction of difference is that of difference as „divergence from a norm‟ (Young, 1990). Characteristics are categorized and one is seen as „normal‟ or „good‟ while other characteristics are seen as abnormal or undesirable. The underlying assumption is that sameness is a good thing and difference is problematic. This construction of difference includes „diversity as deficit‟ approaches, as well as instances when teachers see the

divergence more positively, for example, when Grace talks about how the contributions from “students who don‟t sit inside our mainstream sort of education system” enrich class discussions and student learning. Often however, differences that diverged from a norm

115 were experienced as challenging. Students with disabilities, health problems and learning difficulties were implicitly contrasted with a „normal‟ healthy and able-bodied student. Several teachers spoke of ethnic and cultural diversity in relation to a Pakeha norm. Other aspects of diversity constructed as divergence from a norm included religion, which was mentioned when it challenged the secular academic curriculum or culture, and the socioeconomic status of students with financial problems. While participating teachers‟ discussions of difference as divergence from a norm often position „different‟ students as deficient, this did not imply a negative relationship with those students. One teacher who spoke in deficit terms of the difficulties she experienced with Chinese students also talked about how well she related to these students and how much she enjoyed them. This study does not evaluate participants‟ relationships with their students but focuses on the ways student diversity is constructed and negotiated within narratives of teaching.

Difference can also be constructed as „variation‟ (Burbules, 1997). For the teachers in this study, variation involves a category having several members which may or may not be valued equally but are not judged against a norm. Some participants spoke of students‟ nationality, culture and ethnicity in terms of variation. They described how they liked to mix up students of different ethnicities in small group work, and how this led to many educational benefits as students learned about each others‟ cultures and experiences. Other student characteristics described in terms of variation included learning styles, level of study, full or part-time students, disciplinary backgrounds, life experience, work experience and living situations. Michael constructed difference as variation when he spoke of how he tries to foster all voices in classroom discussions. Difference as variation may be more equitable in its valuing of differences, but the matter of who defines what constitutes difference remains problematic. It also ignores issues of boundaries and

exclusion that are involved when one group defines, or is defined by, another (Komesaroff, 2005).

Burbules (1997) suggests another construction of difference, that of „difference as degree‟. Here difference is seen as a point along a continuum of qualities, for example, academic ability was discussed by many teachers in terms of degree. Gwen says that there is a “vast spectrum of levels of ability in the subject area” she teaches, and Chris notes how her teaching needs to support the students who are struggling as well as “giving a good deal to the middle students through to extending and keeping interested the bright students.”

116 Cassandra and Gwen talk about the range of academic backgrounds students bring to their classes. Several teachers noted a range of ages in their classes, and some teachers talked of participation in class in terms of degree. Susan mentioned the range of socio-economic backgrounds of her students. Difference as degree can be inequitable when there are preferred points on the scale, such as higher ability and greater participation in class, thus how scales of difference are constructed and for what purpose is pertinent.

Difference can also be viewed as „opposition‟ (Johnson & Pihama, 1995). A category, for example sexuality, is divided into two opposing characteristics, with one usually being an invisible norm (heterosexuality) and the other the marked difference (homosexuality). In such binary constructions of difference, one part of the binary is often considered superior and the other inferior, affecting those categorized by such characteristics in various ways. While teachers in this research did not devalue homosexuality, they did position it as the marked difference. Gender is another example of difference as opposition and was mostly mentioned when there was an imbalance in numbers or in participation in class. Greater gender equality in student participation and success at university has meant that the traditional marking of femaleness did not occur in the narratives of participants, and for faculties of Education with high numbers of female students, it is more likely that

maleness is the marked gender. However, for teachers in my research, the gender binary of male/female dominates how gender is conceptualized. While some teachers spoke of a range of student ages, others constructed age differences in terms of young and older students who had very different perspectives and experiences. The difference in ITC skills between younger students and older teachers was particularly noted. Sandy positioned positivist and interpretivist thinkers as oppositional, and both Susan and Sandy spoke of high and low achievers in oppositional terms.

Constructions of difference can be seen as powerful means of positioning individuals and groups within social contexts in ways that can value and support or devalue and

marginalize them. It is important to remember that although categories of difference tend to become reified and static, Burbules (1997) points out that multiple dimensions of difference interact and their margins are contested. He notes that looking at the ways difference is talked about enables reflection on, and reconsideration of, the categorization of difference. Analysis of teachers‟ talk about diversity reveals that difference is

117 constructed in various ways within classroom relations, pedagogical practices, institutional contexts, and socio-economic discourses.

6.3.2 Metaphors of difference

Teachers in this research employed a variety of metaphors when talking about student diversity, but the most common were spatial metaphors. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) consider that most fundamental concepts are organized in terms of spatial metaphors. In participants‟ transcripts, a common metaphor saw forms of difference, especially language difficulties, acting as a barrier that needed to be eliminated. Examples include phrases such as “try to eliminate the barriers” and “sometimes I‟ve hit brick walls with student learning” (Bob), “I don‟t want to lose a student‟s ideas in behind the language barrier” and the teacher “may not be able to reach and close a barrier for every student” (Grace). Sandy says international students‟ attitudes to lecturers can be a “significant barrier to

communication” and he refers to “trying to overcome the language hurdles.” Liz also comments on the “language barrier” for international students.

Another commonly used metaphor was that of difference as a distance. Vanessa says that “there‟s a big age gap between myself and most of my students and…I try to sort of at least meet them halfway.” Michael also talks about the generation „gap‟ and says “I

assume then they sometimes don‟t know what I‟m talking about too, across that generation divide. But like all diversities we can bridge those divides.” Gwen talks about the

“professional distance which I‟m required to maintain”, and Sandy speaks of a “huge gulf between me as the learned teacher and themselves as the humble student” when referring to Asian students. Liz refers to different teaching approaches as “poles apart.” Susan says “instead of being someone from a different religious belief being someone over there or out there, to realise that someone actually a part of my educational group is from a different group to me.” Susan also talks about „building a bridge‟ between students to facilitate students connecting with each other.

The use of these barrier and gap metaphors suggests that difference can make it difficult for teachers to „connect‟ with students and for students to „connect‟ with each other. Many of the teachers talked about how to remove the barriers and close or bridge the gaps,

118 implying that this is important for effective teaching and indicating that they care about students. The language they used indicates that effort is required; the connections with and between students that teachers desire must be worked for. „Barriers‟ and „gaps‟ position students as „apart from‟ instead of „a part of‟ the class due to their „difference‟. Spatial metaphors underpin the language of inclusion as teachers seek to include, incorporate, and accommodate difference. Yet the term inclusion contains within its very definition the existence of exclusion and shows the binary logic informing and limiting educational practices. In a discussion with fellow PhD students, I was reminded how inclusion is a Western response to Western constructions of difference when a Pasifika student pointed out that inclusion is not talked about in her country and there is no concept of inclusion in schools because it is taken for granted that all students are included. Fijian writer Maciu Raivoka (2009) talks about a „village approach‟ to learning, in which students need to be members of a community before they begin learning, which then follows naturally within this supportive environment. These alternatives to inclusion enable dominant educational perspectives in New Zealand to be seen more clearly, and indicate how my research participants‟ discussions of difference and diversity are situated.