‘I think we should just accept … our horrible lowly status’: Analysing Teacher–Teacher Talk Within the Context of Community of Practice

Abstract

While interaction inside the classroom -frontstage discourse -has been a subject of study and has been considered the most significant type of discourse that teachers engage in, I propose that interaction outside the classroom -backstage discourse -is equally significant and has not thus far received as much attention as it merits. This paper is concerned with the institutional interaction of English language teachers using a corpus of (currently) over 40,000 words, consisting of a variety of meetings. It will consider the characteristics of the community of practice (CofP) and how membership is realised in language. It looks at the inexplicit nature of the language that teachers use in relation to their practices as indicative of this membership, and how humour is related to the establishment of a shared communicative space, as well as evidence of it. Highlighted also is the creation of this space within the meeting with the construction of in-and out-groups. The paper concludes that reflection not only on our practices within the classroom, but our practices as a professional community opens a new window on our profession as a whole.

“No harm done”: Teachers’ humorous talk about children’s safety

“…Humour serves to disrupt one's version of reality but in a non-serious way (Bonaiuto et al 2003). Humour can ridicule oppressive regimes, or challenge and subvert normal practices (Vaughan 2007).…”

Interaction without walls: Analysing leadership discourse through dramaturgy and participation

“…Private (backstage) events may take place in a particular place, such as an enclosed room away from any potential eavesdroppers (Richards ; Vaughan ). However, as demonstrated by my research, this need not necessarily be the case.…”

“…In the study of interaction in organisations, notably in medical or educational settings (e.g. Richards ; Vaughan ; Wittenberg‐Lyles et al ), the frontstage is considered to be where the actual business of the organisation takes place: in the medical world doctor‐patient encounters are the most commonly analysed frontstage interaction (Roberts ). Backstage interactions on the other hand are interactions in which the communicative work between professionals takes place in preparation for such encounters (Wittenberg‐Lyles et al ).…”

“…Staying with research on clinical encounters, a meeting of nursing staff discussing the status of the patients on a ward could be considered as a backstage activity (Lazzaro‐Salazar forthcoming). Similarly, an example from education would be teachers talking to each other about their students (Vaughan ). However, frontstage and backstage, with the emphasis on the latter, have also been applied to more personal domains of interaction, such as family dinner conversations (Blum‐Kulka ), or talk amongst adolescents (Abbott‐Chapman and Robertson ).…”

“…The distinction between public and private space is often clearly marked by discrete physical locations that seem purpose built to house them. An example is the staff‐room in educational institutions (Richards ; Vaughan ). However, in other organisations such locations do not exist and it is up to the participants involved to style interactions as public or private using the interactional resources available to them.…”