Talet om en skola för alla : pedagogers meningskonstruktion i ett politiskt uppdrag
Sammanfattning: This study is focused on language and texts inspired by the post-structuralist linguistic turn. It is based on postulations about incompatible discourses characterizing guiding principles for education and in particular the normative concept of inclusive education. The aim of the empirical study is to create a picture of the sense-making processes whereby teachers construct meaning in “a school for all”. A theoretical ambition has been to construct a tool in which these processes can be analyzed by providing scope for the voices of teachers while constructing the complex, fragmentized and multifaceted context in which they are supposed to implement political visions. By catching linguistic dynamics and variation, I want to discover how different discursive expressions emerge, are formed, and transformed during conversation. Governing by using rhetoric like “a school for all” generates a vacancy that partially destabilizes the predominant structure of meanings. In this study, when teachers act on prevailing rhetoric they must orientate themselves between divergent discourses which make their meaning-making strategic, whereas the vacancy is filled with what is already known and self-evident, so called myths in the vocabulary of Laclau. These myths function as hegemonic joint properties, an objective world, in which teachers are able to describe their own wishes for how things are and can turn out to be. In my study teachers legitimate their actions and make them meaningful by filling the empty rhetoric with myths, emerging from current school traditions or thought styles, dominant in this specific school. Keeping rhetoric alive is consequently to open up for the discursive field, for the hegemonic struggle and to create a space to facilitate dislocations. If “a school for all” is distinctly delimited from that which it is not, there are no possibilities for the “others” to make themselves heard and the rhetoric on openness and variety become endangered. “A school for all” is in itself an impossible project; at the same time as it, rhetorically, appears possible precisely due to its impossibility.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA AVHANDLINGEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)