The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to explore the methodology being used in the research project, Socially just pedagogy: exploring the spaces, and to report on the findings of its pilot study. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the discourses that promote or inhibit socially just pedagogy. The theoretical framework on which the research is based acknowledges the importance of modernist-influenced critical pedagogy, while highlighting problematic aspects that are addressed, to some extent, by post-structural and feminist theorising. The fieldwork consists of two main phases: a series of two focus groups and a number of semi-structured interviews. At the time of writing this paper, the focus groups were completed. The second phase of the fieldwork is scheduled for completion during the latter half of 2002. The data collected will be re-presented in narrative form and then analysed in terms of the discourses that promote socially just pedagogy, as well as those that stymie such practice. The direction of the major study has been informed by the findings of the pilot study which suggest that some teachers view pedagogy in technical ways while others attach emancipatory meanings to the term.

"We can teach for the society we live in, or we can teach for the one we want to see" (quoted by Bigelow et al., 2001, p. 4). This comment by a "classroom veteran" (Bigelow, p. 4) provides a useful introduction to this paper. This suggestion offers two key notions: in this teacher's view, current society does not equal a vision of a just society, and that pedagogy can have a role in creating a better society. Such aspirations are not based on the technical capacities of teachers, though technical considerations are a component of pedagogy, but on teachers' knowledge and skills in relation to supporting their students to identify and redress injustice where possible. The focus of the research project, Socially-just pedagogy: exploring the spaces, is to investigate the discourses that support socially-just pedagogy, those that inhibit such pedagogy and to examine what socially-just pedagogy might look like in practice. The purposes of this paper are two-fold: to explore the methodology used in the research and to report on some of the early findings of its pilot study.

Importantly, every attempt has been made throughout all stages of this research to practise what might be considered socially-just research. In the first section of this paper that explores the methodology of the study, I draw on a framework for critical reflection developed by Smyth (1994) in order to share a description and analysis of the research project. Developed primarily as a tool for teachers to examine their own pedagogies, Smyth's (1994, p. 6) framework consists of four questions:

1. Describe...what do I do?
2. Inform...what does this mean?
3. Confront...how did I come to be like this?
4. Reconstruct...how might I do things differently?

Each of these questions is used here to interrogate the research process. The questions are addressed in the sequence above. As a result, a very common sequence for exploring and analysing research methodology is disrupted. A dominant approach used by researchers to share their methodologies is to begin with an exploration of the philosophical ideas which inform the research, followed by an outline of what was done, how it was done and by and with whom. There is one pivotal reason for deploying Smyth's (1994) questions: the focus of this research involves not only an exploration of the nature of socially-just pedagogy in classrooms, but demands that the research is designed and carried out in socially-just ways. Given this commitment to socially-just research processes, Smyth's framework is used to interrogate those processes-to challenge what was done, why it was done and with whom it was done. To borrow a phrase from Shor (1992), I use Smyth's framework to gain and share "critical knowledge of my [potentially] unexamined experience" (p. 122).

According to Smyth (1994), a key purpose for describing a practitioner's work, which in this case is a research process, is as a precursor to uncovering the broad and underpinning principles. Such a process supports practitioners to "extra-ordinarily re-experience the ordinary" (Shor quoted in Smyth, 1994, p. 6). Just as Smyth invites practitioners in the classroom to describe what it is they do with a view to greater understanding, such a process is essential for researchers.

There are, of course, implications associated with doing research in particular ways. Smyth's (1994) second stage of informing or asking what this means, supports an investigation of the specific implications of doing research in particular ways. Kohl's (1983) comments about teachers are just as relevant to researchers: "Unless we assume the responsibility for theory making and testing, the theories will be made for us" (p. 30). The particular actions I have taken in this research have resulted in particular roles for me as researcher and for those with whom I have worked. All of us involved in this research have been situated in particular ways.

Smyth (1994) highlights the importance of confronting the notions that underpin our actions when he claims: "Theorising one's practice and the circumstances of its enactment is one thing, but being able to subject those theories to interrogation and questioning that establishes their legitimacy, is another matter" (p. 7). This process of confronting will support an exploration of the feminist poststructural theories, as well as the critical theory, that underpins this work.

Finally, Smyth (1994) proposes that practitioners consider reconstructing their practice in more socially-just ways. Such reconstruction of practice is underpinned by the notion that teaching, and in this case, research into pedagogy, is not made up of "immutable givens" (Smyth, p. 8) but that reflection and action are pivotal. Research, like teaching, is a social activity and as such can be remade to serve more worthwhile and socially-just purposes as we confront problematic futures. I use this form of questioning to invite the reader to consider what research they might like to undertake and importantly to deconstruct or uncover what this might mean in terms of the type of knowledge that is valued, preferred ways of looking at education and so on.

The research journey has consisted of five key processes:

1. Developing my understandings as a researcher
2. Building a foundation for research with others
3. Co-creating field texts
4. Learning from the teaching narratives and developing commentaries
5. Sharing the learnings to "inspire action" (J. Austin, personal communication, 6 September, 2002).

Developing my understandings as a researcher who was intent on exploring the discourses associated with socially-just pedagogy involved reading and learning in a range of areas. My acknowledgement that there was a need for greater justice with regard to pedagogy led me to an exploration of critical theory and feminist poststructural theories. The myriad ways in which such ideas impacted on my research journey is investigated in the "confront" phase in which I explore some of the many influences that led me to do what I did as a researcher. In this section, I explain the way the research came to be the way it is. I also developed my understandings as a researcher in terms of the use of the narrative as a field text from which I could learn about the discourses associated with socially-just pedagogy. Aligned with developing these understandings, were my efforts to build a foundation for research.

There were two main goals associated with establishing a foundation for research: building relationships with participants and co-investigators and developing shared meanings about the nature of pedagogy and socially-just pedagogy, in particular.

Two events were conducted to work towards these goals: an open forum was held as well as a series of two focus groups at each of six school sites. The goal of establishing a foundation for research in terms of building relationships and developing shared meanings was paramount during the forum and the series of two focus groups. However, the field texts created as a result of the forum were used to make some proposals regarding the capacity of teachers generally to engage with the Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2001, see Nayler & Rossi, 2002). These findings will be discussed briefly towards the end of the paper. The field texts created at this forum were not used in the later collaborative development of the extended narratives. The research processes used in the forum are explored elsewhere (see Nayler & Rossi, 2002). The focus groups further contributed to interest among the educational community, as well as building relationships between me, as the researcher, and focus group participants some of whom later engaged in substantive conversations.

Approximately 100 teachers attended the series of two 120-minute focus groups conducted at school sites within the Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast areas. Five of the six groups comprised teachers and administrators from individual school sites. An invitation to participate in the focus groups was extended through a range of media, including email and fax messages, information-sharing during conferences and so on. At two school sites the administrative teams decided that staff members would participate in lieu of other professional development, while at the other sites individual teachers determined whether or not they would participate. The school sites were made up of participants from three Education Queensland primary schools, three Brisbane Catholic primary schools and one Catholic secondary school.

The main purpose of the first focus group was to support participants to share their own examples of what they considered to be socially-just pedagogy, as well as to explore their own and others' definitions of what constitutes pedagogy and socially-just pedagogy in particular. In addition, participants were invited to consider the Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2001) as a lens with which to analyse their own examples of pedagogy. Participants were also invited to consider the ways in which their examples could be enhanced to achieve more just outcomes. Finally, participants were invited to consider what needed changing in their schools or their classrooms in order to enhance their practice. Activities in the second focus group built on what had been achieved during the first focus group.

Participation in the second focus group involved completion of three main tasks. Firstly, participants were invited to complete a task, "Exploring messages about pedagogy." In this task participants were asked to reflect on and record "the messages about the sort of pedagogy you should practise." Suggested sources of these messages included employers, principals, other management personnel, the media, students, parents/carers, tertiary studies and so on. A second task, "Mapping personal professional histories," was optional. In this task participants were invited to map what they considered to be significant milestones in their teaching careers. They were further supported to consider the ways in which gender, ethnicity, religion, physical ability/disability and other subjectivities impacted on these milestones. A third and final task during the second focus group was to provide suggestions regarding questions that could be used to generate discussion during the substantive conversations involving some participants during the following two months.

Eleven focus group participants opted to engage in substantive conversations during June and July 2002. Each substantive conversation lasted two hours and participants in the substantive conversations became known as "co-investigators." It was the literature related to "semi-structured interviews" that informed the nature of these scheduled interactions between the researcher and each co-investigator. Open-ended questions, as well as an invitation to co-investigators to direct the discussion characterised the substantive conversations which could be further described as informal and friendly. Further, the questions used to stimulate the substantive conversations were shared with co-investigators prior to the discussion.

Each substantive conversation was taped, and in the case of four substantive conversations, transcribed in full and used as a basis for the collaborative development of what is referred to here as "extended narratives." A draft of each narrative was shared with the relevant co-investigator. Subsequent collaborative development of the narrative involved verbal and written communication with each co-investigator deleting, adding and modifying text to achieve a narrative with which she was satisfied.

Following the collaborative development of each narrative, I prepared a commentary on each. These commentaries sit alongside the narratives. This format draws on Lather and Smithies's (1997) text, Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS in which they present a series of women's stories running across the top of each page with a series of research stories running along the bottom of each page. According to Lather and Smithies, their text "moves toward a weaving of method, the politics of interpretation, data, analysis-all embedded in the tale" (p. xvi). I hope that such an approach "positions the reader as thinker, willing to trouble the easily understood and the taken-for-granted" (p. xvi). The adoption of the split-page format is underpinned by a commitment to socially-just research. Lather and Smithies put it eloquently when they express their wish "not to drown the poem of the other with the sound of [their] own voices, as the ones who know, the 'experts' about how people make sense of their lives and what searching for meaning means" (p. xvi). Such an approach, according to Morgan (2000), "questions the usual order of authority of research" (p. 138).

The commentaries themselves are informed by feminist poststructural theorising strengthened, not weakened, by a cautious stance. Each commentary proposes the discourses and subjectivities that might be operating in each narrative. These commentaries acknowledge and celebrate the co-investigators as educators whose actions are the result of discourses that they shape and which shape them. The narratives are not so much analysed as accompanied by commentaries that might support greater understanding. Such narratives are clearly "cultural products, texts...crafted from the competing beliefs, values and ways of speaking of a particular society at a particular time" (Moon, 2001, p. 30).

Sharing the learnings to "inspire action" (J. Austin, personal communication, 6 September, 2002)

A key purpose of this research is to share my own and others' learnings in a range of forums. This paper represents one vehicle for the sharing of the research learnings. Papers (see Nayler, 2002, Nayler & Rossi, 2002) written for academic audiences are also a product of the commitment to share these learnings. A major publication for sharing these research learnings will be a professional development text, Pedagogy: more than TEACHing which is currently under development. Given the research's underlying premise that current dominant forms of pedagogy advantage some groups and deny the interests and needs of other groups, an important goal of this research is to "inspire [others to] action" (J. Austin, personal communication, 6 September, 2002). The focus throughout these materials is the invitation to educators to reflect on their practice and to take action on the basis of such reflection.

In this section I attempt to uncover the broad and underlying principles that characterise this research. Four main features emerge from the description above:

• the importance of the educative function of the research for both the researcher, the co-investigators and others whose voices are heard here
• the joint ownership, to varying degrees, of the research project by the co-investigators
• the value of particular stories about particular people
• acknowledgement of the researcher as part of the process.

At multiple points and in a myriad of ways this research project was designed to be educative for those involved: the researcher, the co-investigators, as well as others associated with the work. Lather (quoted in Reinharz, 1992) foregrounds the important role of the educative function of research when she calls for research that involves "educative encounter[s] between researcher and researched" (p. 175) with a focus on helping "participants understand and change their situations." The main dimensions of this educative function relate to who learned, what they learned and how they learned.

The forum and the focus group participants and co-investigators, for example, were supported to reflect upon their practice in a range of ways. This was not a research project in which data was extracted from subjects. During the forum, focus groups and the substantive conversations, teachers were invited to share their stories of teaching. Clandinin and Connelly (1995, p. 13) highlight the need for such educative opportunities when they say:

That an educative function is associated with such sharing of stories is proposed by Clandinin and Connelly (1995) when they add:

A key aspect of the educative function of this research occurred as a result of the desire among the teachers in the research project to learn more about the Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2001). Throughout the forum, focus groups and substantive conversations, this framework was used very explicitly as a lens with which to explore and analyse participants' own examples of socially-just pedagogy.

In short, the rationale for an educative function in this research was three-fold. It responded to participants' desire for professional learning associated with very practical matters, it offered participants enhanced understandings of some relevant theoretical frameworks with which to explore their own pedagogies and finally it sought to "inspire [participants to] action" (J. Austin, personal communication, 6 September, 2002) with regard to greater justice in education.

As far as possible, decisions were shared so that participants and co-investigators could direct the research process. The use of substantive conversations to co-create "field texts" (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), the choice of narrative as a genre in which to re-present the field texts, as well as the collaborative development of such narratives were three elements integral to building joint ownership of the research project.

The substantive conversations were designed to promote ownership of the research project, while reflecting the social justice focus of the overall research project. To explore what constituted the substantive conversations it is helpful to consider what they were not-they were not designed or carried out along the lines of what might be considered a traditional interview. Interviews per se do not necessarily afford scope for participants or respondents to exert influence over the course of events.

Mishler (1986) cites a definition of interviews used by Macoby and Macoby in 1957, which he claims has influenced interviewing design significantly, even in the area of social research. According to Macoby and Macoby, "an interview will refer to a face-to-face verbal interchange in which one person, the interviewer attempts to elicit information or expressions of opinion or belief from another person or persons" (quoted in Mishler, 1986, p. 9). Mishler claims that such definitions, which make reference to "verbal exchange," "a pattern of verbal interaction," or a "verbal report" (p. 11) construct interviews as "behavioral rather than linguistic event[s]" (p. 10). Further, Mishler proposes that, "In this way the definitions erase and remove from consideration the primary and distinctive characteristic of an interview as discourse, that is, meaningful speech between interviewer and interviewee as speakers of a shared language (pp. 10-11). The substantive conversations in this study were not based on interviewing as "routine technical practice and a pervasive, taken-for-granted activity in our culture" (Mishler, p. 23). Instead the substantive conversations in this study were informed, in so far as I could as researcher shape these events, by feminist perspectives (Reinharz, 1992) in which the participants in the interview jointly construct meaning (Mishler). Graham suggests the nature of semi-structured interviews when she claims that they have become "the principal means [italics in original] by which feminists have sought to achieve the active involvement of their respondents in the construction of data about their lives" (quoted in Reinharz, p. 18). Riessman (1993) proposes that "interviews are conversations in which both participants-teller and listener/questioner-develop meaning together, a stance requiring interview practices that give considerable freedom to both" (p. 55). Mishler (1995) articulates the joint project that constitutes the collaborative development of field texts when he claims:

Riessman (1993) also states her preference for "less structure in interview instruments, in the interest of giving greater control to respondents" (p. 55). To this end, Riessman's (1993) suggestion that an interview guide with about five to seven questions, supplemented with probe questions, was used as a stimulus to sharing ideas in the substantive conversations.

I supported the co-investigators' active involvement in the substantive conversations through a range of further strategies, which have been outlined earlier in the description of the research process, and which include the use of open-ended questions, the sharing of questions prior to having the conversation and so on. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule propose the value of open-ended questions when they claim that such questions allow them to hear what their participants have "to say in their own terms rather than test [their] own preconceived hypotheses" (quoted in Reinharz, 1992, p. 19). Reinharz (1992) supports this view when she claims that interviews generally "offer researchers access to people's ideas, thoughts and memories in their own words rather than in the words of the researcher" (p. 19). For reasons that will be explored below, the nature of the substantive conversation sits comfortably with the narrative as a genre for re-presenting the field texts co-created by such conversations.

There is much support in the literature for the use of narratives as an integral component of teachers' professional learning and an appropriate research medium (Jalongo & Isenberg with Gerbracht, 1995, Clandinin and Connelly, 1995). It is worth quoting Jalongo and Isenberg with Gerbracht at length when they advocate the usefulness of teaching narratives, arguing that:

Kanpol (1997, p. 14) suggests the appropriateness of the narrative for such research with a social justice focus when he claims that it "allows the subject to be his or her own authority." Co-investigators assume such subject status in their own narratives as a result of the inherent nature of the explication of subjectivities. Drawing on Fiske's work, Gore (1990) alludes to how this is possible by presenting Fiske's argument in the following way: "the social subject has a history, lives in a particular social formation (a mix of class, gender, age, ethnicity, etc) and is constituted by a complex cultural history" (p. 108). Alldred (1998) expounds important implications for the nature of research that is underpinned by poststructural notions of subjectivities and subject positions when she claims that:

The appropriateness of narratives as a legitimate research genre is called into question by some (Phillips, 1993). These concerns are addressed below to argue that narratives are not only appropriate but worthwhile re-presentations of field texts which illustrate the value of particular stories about particular people.

While it is argued here that the narrative is an appropriate genre for analysis in this research project, conceptualised as it is, the challenges to narrative as a data source must be addressed. Writing in an article entitled, "Pursuing Truth in Narrative Research," O'Dea's (1994) primary goal is to explore and refute the claims made by Phillips in a conference paper, "Gone with the wind? Evidence, rigor and warrants in educational research" (quoted in O'Dea). Phillips claims that narratives need to be made "epistemically respectable" (quoted in O'Dea, p. 161). In many ways the debate about the appropriateness of narratives as a data source in educational research is reflective of the broader argument related to the efficacy of positivist or non-positivist research (see Sparkes, 1992) to inform educational practice. The reasons for incorporating the narrative into this research project are two-fold: the close alignment of this genre to the nature of teachers' lived experiences and the suitability of the narrative as an instrument for "critical discourse analysis" (Janks, 1997, Luke, 1997).

Carter (1993) and Connelly and Clandinin (1990) make cogent arguments regarding the appropriateness of the narrative as a text which resonates with teachers' lived experiences. Carter claims that story has become "more than simply a rhetorical device for expressing sentiments about teachers or candidates for the teaching profession" but "a central focus for conducting research in the field" (p. 5). The rationale for the use of the narrative is made stronger by Connelly and Clandinin when they assert that:

Further, Carter (1993) adds that:

It is the inadequacy of the narrative to incorporate "discrete variables and indicators of effectiveness" (Carter, 1993, p. 6) and other elements which some researchers consider essential for the search for "truth" that has prompted criticisms, such as that mentioned above by Phillips (quoted in O'Dea, 1994). The literature on the use of narrative in educational research abounds with challenges to the assumption that the pursuit of truth is pivotal with a range of other criteria being put forward (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, Van Manen, 1990, Bruner, 1991). Connelly and Clandinin for example, call for narratives that fulfil the criteria of "adequacy" and "plausibility" (p. 8). Van Manen argues that the aim in narrative research is to build an "animating, evocative description (text) of human actions, intentions, behaviours and experiences as we meet them in the life world" (p. 19). Bruner provides a particularly cogent argument when he claims that:

Further, O'Dea (1994) weighs into the argument with the claim that "while empirical objections may all too easily be dismissed with charges of 'positivism', the issue of artistic truth is much less easily deflected" (p. 162). The essence of this claim is the notion of subjectivities which links to the second main reason cited here for the use of the narrative as a genre for analysis. O'Dea concludes that "far from eschewing subjectivity" narrative method "openly endorses it, endeavouring to give [time and space] to the practitioner who has long been silenced in the research relationship" (p. 162). Hence, this research project involves a commitment to the exploration and interrogation of teachers' subjectivities, which rise to the surface more apparently within the genre of narrative, as opposed to other more traditional forms of data sources in educational research. In short, the use of the narrative as a text for analysis supports Kanpol's (1997) notion of the "subject as his or her own authority" (p. 14). Further, a key criterion for inclusion of narratives in this research project is that of resonance. That is to say, teachers' narratives are powerful and useful texts for analysis on the basis of their resonance, that is, their capacity to evoke key aspects and themes in teachers' lived experiences related to socially-justice pedagogical practice.

There is growing acceptance of the notion that the researcher's presence in educational and other forms of research is legitimately made explicit. Fine's (1994) notion of "ventriloquy" is relevant here. Drawing on Clark's work, Fine claims that "ventriloquy means never having to say 'I' in the text" (p. 19). Fine also proposes that the researcher's recognition of her/his subjectivities denounces the use of what Haraway refers to as the "God trick" (quoted in Fine, p. 17). The "God trick" occurs when "the author tells Truth, has no gender, race, class, or stance" (Fine, p. 17). Sparkes (1995) employs a term developed by Geertz, that of "author-evacuated texts" (p. 161) to address a crisis of representation in qualitative inquiry through the explicit exploration of their own situation and role in relation to the research process. Sparkes claims that in such texts the "author is everywhere but nowhere," adding that "many qualitative researchers seem happy to write narratives that situate their subjects of inquiry in culturally and historically specific locations, but appear less assured about recognizing that they as authors also write from specific locations" (p. 165).

The importance of acknowledging the situatedness of the writer of this or any other research material is further reinforced by Jones (1992) when she proposes that:

So just in the way that our stories of teaching are influenced by our subjectivities, research stories, including this one, are the product of our subjectivities. There is always an "I" in a research text or any other text and this research paper is no exception. However, the writer of a text doesn't always make her/himself explicit. There is no "God trick" (Harraway quoted in Fine, 1994, p. 17) attempted in this research project: I attempt to make my subjectivities/me visible. This visibility of me as the author who says some things and does not say others, who selects some material and omits other material, occurs throughout my reporting of this research. Importantly, mine is only one voice spoken in these materials. I'm not the-or even-a grand narrator in these materials, but I acknowledge that I have made particular selections with regard to the words I've written and those written by others. The fundamental criterion for making such selections is to outline those discourses that support what might be considered socially-just pedagogy, as well as those discourses that inhibit such practices.

This research project contains multiple voices-mine as researcher, educator, mother and woman, the voices of my co-investigators whose narratives appear later, as well as those of other interested educators whose commentaries appear throughout. Further, our voices are interwoven. For example, I am located in each narrative included, as I've asked particular questions, introduced and analysed the teachers' own words, written accompanying commentaries, privileged some material and omitted other material and so on.

Our voices are varied but they all speak about what constitutes socially-just pedagogy. A key purpose of these materials is to support you, the participant, to explore the subjectivities that have produced the voices spoken here. Exploration of the subjectivities that have produced these voices is integral to an understanding of the discourses at work. It's a closer understanding of these discourses that is the central focus of this research. The rationale here is that if we can get a richer understanding of the discourses that promote socially-just pedagogy, as well as those that get in the way of such practice, we can direct our energies, skills and knowledge in ways that will best support our students and the societies in which they live. The necessity to examine our own subjectivities with the view to considering what this does and can mean for the ways in which we act on the world and are acted upon is put persuasively by Davies (2000) when she says:

Using Smyth's (1994) framework, an attempt has been made to uncover some of the broad features that have characterised this research. From the vantage point of the researcher, it appears that these features might include:

• the importance of the educative function of the research for both the researcher, the co-investigators and others whose voices are heard here
• the joint ownership, to varying degrees, of the research project by the co-investigators with the use of substantive conversations, as well as the narrative as a genre for re-presenting the field texts
• the value of particular stories about particular people
• acknowledgement of the researcher as part of the process.

These features are, of course, the result of the philosophical base which underpins the research project. Smyth's (1994) third question, "How did I come to be like this?" supports the exploration of the philosophical base below.

This section has been organised by drawing on a further sub-set of questions proposed by Smyth (quoted in Smyth, 1994, pp. 7-8) which seek to explicate the attitudes and values that underpin this research, as well as the ways in which such research serves some interests and marginalises other interests.

What do my practices say about my assumptions, values and beliefs about teaching? (Smyth quoted in Smyth, 1994, p. 7)

I believe that my initial selection of an investigation into what constitutes socially-just pedagogy is the result of two important beliefs: that pedagogy, as a social construction, can be reconstructed as a vehicle for societal and individual betterment, and that that schooling in Australia and in other Western cultures serves the needs of some groups while marginalising the needs of others. Further, I believe that the pedagogies that we all practise are the result of our particular subjectivities.

Where did these ideas come from? (Smyth quoted in Smyth, 1994, p. 7)

These ideas come from my belief in critical theory and feminist poststructural theories as ways of viewing and acting upon the world that have the potential to ameliorate oppression. Despite my current thinking that critical theory is inadequate to shape a pedagogy appropriate for contemporary postmodern conditions, my initial work in exploring socially-just pedagogy has been fuelled by such theory. Given this importance of critical theory to my work, an outline of some key aspects of critical theory follows.

Fuelled by post-Marxist perspectives, and according to (Kanpol, 1997), "at least indirectly, as a result of the Industrial Revolution and especially in response to the World Wars" (p. 28), the critical theory movement became established. Significantly, the Frankfurt School of critical theory, to which Jurgen Habermas later belonged, emerged. Kanpol claims that "the Frankfurt School sought a new moral social order, a social emancipation from the various economic, social, and cultural oppressive qualities, such as social prejudices and economic inequalities" (p. 29).

Lather (1998) points out that "critical pedagogy" was "originally grounded in a combination of Frankfurt School, Gramsci, and Paulo Freire" and emerged in the 1980s as a "big tent" for "those in education who were invested in doing academic work toward social justice" (p. 487). Despite the diverse representations of what collectively can be labelled "critical pedagogy," McLaren (1989) claims that the various forms are united in one objective, that is, "to empower the powerless and transform existing social inequalities and injustices" (p. 160). Further, he asserts that critical pedagogy resonates with the Hebrew concept of "tikkun" which means to heal, repair and transform, with everything else being commentary (McLaren, 1989, p. 160). Additionally, McLaren argues that "schooling for self and social empowerment is ethically prior [italics in original] to a mastery of technical skills, which are primarily tied to the logic of the marketplace" (p. 162). The broadly based political, economic and social agendas of pedagogies that locate themselves under the umbrella of "critical pedagogy" are alluded to by McLaren (1998) when he claims that:

It is the contention here that critical pedagogy referred to above, conceived as it was within modernist traditions, provides an inadequate response given today's postmodern conditions. It appears that it is precisely that broad social, economic and political agenda proposed above that stymies the capacity of modernist-influenced critical pedagogy to act in meaningful ways in today's contexts. That is to say, it is the "commitment to social transformation in solidarity with subordinated and marginalized groups" [italics added] (McLaren, 1989, p. 162) that is challenged by the feminist and poststructural notions that inform this research more directly.

What social practices are expressed in these ideas? (Smyth quoted in Smyth, 1994, p. 7)

Feminist poststructural challenges to critical theory, especially those expounded by Sarup (1996) and Lather (1998) provide for a research methodology that rejects the applicability of universal truths for all times and all places. Associated with this notion, is the rejection of teachers as one-dimensional human beings who establish identities that can be uncovered in order to understand the complexity of teaching. Rather, the methodology used here is based on understandings that reject a one-dimensional view of teachers but which accept that discourses and subjectivities operate reciprocally to produce patterns which are not linear but contradictory and complex. Further, this methodology carries with it no warrant that its findings might be universally applicable to all teachers in all places. Rather, the methodology used here supports the participant to consider the ways in which the co-investigators' subjectivities might have impacted on the teaching storylines contained in the narratives. Further and very importantly, this methodology supports the participant to consider her or his own subjectivities and propose how these might impact on the pedagogies practised.

The theoretical frameworks of feminist poststructuralism underpinning this research are, in turn, informed by an epistemological base that could be labelled subjectivist. According to Crotty (1998), the nature of knowledge or epistemology known as subjectivism is based on the understandings that "meaning does not come out of an interplay between subject and object but is imposed on the object by the subject...[with this epistemological stance coming] to the fore in structuralist, post-structuralist and postmodernist forms of thought" (p. 9). In this research, knowledge is conceptualised as constituted by discourses as we "word the world" (Adams St Pierre, 2000, p. 483). Adams St Pierre adds, "the 'way it is' is not 'natural,' claiming that "we have constructed the world as it is through language and cultural practice, and we can also deconstruct and reconstruct it' (p. 483). Such a subjectivist epistemological stance is in strict contrast to an objectivist epistemology, for example, which "holds that meaning, and therefore meaningful reality, exists as such apart from the operation of any consciousness" (Crotty, p. 8).

This paper is designed to promote a very active response from the reader. Consider the research methodology as it has been presented using the "describe," "inform" and "confront" phases. The reader is invited to consider the overall question: How might such research have been done differently? Specific questions to support your analysis might include:

• Is the epistemological base, that of subjectivism, appropriate for this research? Indeed, does a subjectivist epistemology underpin this research? What changes would you propose?
• Are the theoretical perspectives of feminist poststructural theory:

• Is the methodology of discourse analysis:

• Are the methods of narratives as co-created field texts, together with commentaries:

The argument in this paper is that although pedagogy contains a technical focus with its concerns for the micro-skills of teaching, socially just practice of pedagogy must exist within a critical or emanacipatory framework. The pilot study (see Nayler & Rossi, 2002) confirmed concerns that hegemonic teacher views of pedagogy might be constituted by technical discourses as opposed to emancipatory discourses. In short, if teachers are to successfully take up new pedagogies, or for example, the Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2001), their practice needs to be informed by critical knowledge in relation to what constitutes intellectual quality, connectedness, supportive classroom environment and recognition of difference. To draw on just one example from the Productive Pedagogies, teachers need to support their students to view knowledge as socially constructed and therefore problematic. The need for professional support for teachers in this regard is explored in detail elsewhere (see Nayler & Rossi, 2002).

The substantive nature of this research is socially-just pedagogy. It is contended that the research process itself reflects socially-just practice. Such socially-just research practice is informed by a subjectivist view of knowledge which supports the feminist poststructural frameworks that shape the methodologies used. The discourse analysis used to interrogate the collaboratively developed narratives recognises the power of language to speak us into existence in particular ways and the complex ways in which power is implicated within discursive structures. Importantly, this research has been accompanied by an educative function for co-investigators and research alike, attempts to extend as much ownership as possible to the co-investigators through the use of substantive conversations, the re-presentation of field texts in collaboratively developed narratives and so on. The recognition of the researcher as a person whose subjectivities inevitably influence the nature of the research is a further characteristic of this socially-just research. The early findings of this research, not surprisingly, suggest that teachers' understandings of pedagogy relate to the technical aspects of teaching rather than as a social construction which serves the interests of some and marginalises the interests of others. Teachers' understandings of what constitutes socially-just pedagogy were similarly informed by technical considerations as opposed to emancipatory agendas. If such views are pervasive across the teaching profession, there is urgent need to support teacher professional learning which has a critical focus. Without such professional learning, teachers, even with the possibilities offered by the Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2001), may find themselves "all dressed up with no place to go" (Nayler & Rossi, 2002).

Riessman C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experiences. London: Althouse Press.