The deployment of discourses
7.2 An expert discourse
7.2.1 Being a psychologist and knowing psychology
At the most overt level, the expert discourse was apparent in talk of being (or not being) a psychologist, or a community psychologist/novice community psychologist. The excerpts in the previous chapter provided examples of this, with phrases such as: “[So how] how should you be (.) as a community [psychologist]”; “But can we call ourselves novice community psychologists”; and “our skills as psychologists”. The students were frequently positioned
relative to having the title of psychologist. When they were afforded the title, the
implication was that they should have the knowledge and skills of someone who has already been professionally trained, whereas the talk of ‘not yet a psychologist’ or ‘novice’ serves to delimit what they were allowed to do or claim to have done. For example, “Carol: I would say um tsa you need to be careful how you frame things you can’t be claiming to do therapy or counselling” (session 1, lines 196-197).
Further evidence of the expert discourse was in the way students interacted with
psychological theory. The way the course was designed – with prescribed readings, critical class discussions, written submissions and reflections – foregrounded the importance of using theoretical frameworks. It is therefore not surprising that there was a lot of talk around how theory was used and applied, or critiqued as limited and in need of development or contextualisation; for example, Elle spoke of “promoting a local
psychology”. This kind of conceptual work and application and adaptation of theory are in the realms of the expert.
One of the possible outcomes of the course was a publication about the students’
experiences. Positioning the students as potential authors served to emphasise the
importance of the theoretical aspects of the course and again placed them in an expert role.
The excerpt below is from a point in the talk where the students were reporting on their experience of reading a prescribed article:
Anna: Ja it was very nice
649 Lisa: I read it on the grass it was so exciting
650 Anna: And how easy was it to read compared to some of the articles he he we
651 have
652 Carol: Now why can’t you guys write one like that (..) as a group 653 Anna: Ohhh (.)
654 Unclear: As a group (.)
655 Anna: And you publish it [he he he he he]
656 Carol: [And we publish it]
657 Anna: .hhh °yay°
658 Lisa: That’s exciting
659 Carol: That’s what I thought 660 (Session 1)
In this talk, the students were asked to consider the possibility of publication in the phrase
“Now why can’t you” (line 653). Phrasing this in this way (an invitation), as opposed to ‘Can you write one like that’ means the students would have to work harder, from a
conversational perspective, to refute this: the answer to the “can you” question could simply be yes or no. The response to a “why can’t you” question required them to present legitimate reasons why they cannot. As a result, the students did not resist and stated surprise (“Ohhhh” (line 654)) and excitement (“.hhh °yay°” (line 658) an audible intake of breath and a quiet expression of yay, and “That’s exciting” (line 659)). Anna suggested publishing in the singular (“you” (line 656)), and I countered with a collective (“we” (line 657)), indicating that this is a combined endeavour and, in addition, emphasising the students as agentic in this enterprise. This served to position them as more than students, and rather as legitimately participating in a broader academic enterprise, that of expert psychology.
The service-learners were thus precariously positioned in the talk as “novice-experts”. They were expected to have a good knowledge of, and be guided, by psychological theory and to be aware of the limitations of their role as novice community psychologists. Despite having this knowledge, they were also expected to recognise that they were ‘not psychologists’ and that there was a limited range of things that they were permitted to do.
As was evident in the previous chapter, psychological terminology was frequently used in discussing the students’ work. An expert discourse was drawn upon with the use of words like ‘client’, ‘boundaries’, and ‘ethics’ which imply a professional psychology framework. The use of the term ‘client’ draws on an expert discourse, where someone in need – the client - consults someone who can assist them – the expert.
Carol: [And]
1000
I was wondering if you were talking about (.) um (.) trying to (.) get urm (.) 1001
people in communities to understand (.) the assumptions they have about 1002
their own situation and how those limit 1003
Group: Mmmm 1004
Carol: What what (.) like in in your (.) in your work with an individual client (.) 1005
you would be trying to get them to see how their belief systems or (.) their 1006
ways of behaving (.) are not (.) beneficial to them in their lives and so that 1007
they=
1008
(Session 6)
In this talk, the expert would assist the “client” (line 1005) (individuals/communities) to become aware of their self-limiting assumptions, beliefs and behaviours. Such work requires specialised skills, and someone who is ‘wiser’ than the client concerned. The expert is able to see the error of the client’s ways and present this evidence to them in a manner which will facilitate change. Even though I presented it in a tentative manner (“I was wondering”
(line 1001), and in the stuttering “what what (.) like in in your (.) in your work” (line 1005)), the talk constructed the students as having these expert skills (“your work” (line 1005)).
The expert also operates within set boundaries. In the excerpt below, Anna was trying to negotiate an appropriate departure from her community site. She tentatively offered the (“nice” (line 571)) gesture of providing a cake, and I turned this issue over to the group (non- verbally) for response:
Anna: I was thinking (.) is like overstepping (.) I don’t know would it be a nice 571 gesture or out of our role to like (.) maybe take like a cake and do like a (.) you 572 know like do the talk and then have a bit of mingling to be like °thank you
573 goodbye°
574 (..) ((Video – Carol open’s hands to group to respond, with smile)) 575 Mary: Is it our responsibility [or theirs]
576 Anna: [Cos I just see it like] S*[[educator network]]
577 everyone mingles afterwards and eats the foods and (.) like we don’t have to 578 go overboard like (.) cupcakes (.) I don’t know cupcakes for every teacher (.) 579 and we can make them ourselves like our lil token of love he he (.) even 580 though there is SOME CONTEMPT to some of them he he he he
581 Kate: I don’t think it’s overstepping the boundaries really (.) urm but (.) do you 582 have that relationship with them (.) like
583 (Session 8)
Anna’s use of the term “overstepping” (line 571) implied the existence of boundaries, and limits to their “role” (line 572). The response from Kate indicated that taking “a cake” (line 572) was a questionable course of action, to which Anna responded with a justification and some humour and laughter, possibly to ease the discomfort she felt at the scrutiny of her peers. She used the term “lil token of love” (line 580) to diminish the act of taking cake into something small and nonsensical. Kate used the word “boundaries” (line 582) and, even though she gave Anna permission, the use of the word “but” (line 582) indicated that
caution needed to be exercised. This excerpt not only demonstrates the use of expert terminology, but also that the expert norms were being utilised by the participants to discipline themselves and others.
My non-verbal behaviour, captured by the video camera is also of interest. The transcription records that I opened my hands up to the group and smiled. These gestures can be
understood as an invitation for the group to respond, and an indication that others knew the answer to this kind of question. Both gestures indicated the existence of expertise within the participants, that is, it was unnecessary for me to respond when the group could take care of it.
As with ‘boundaries’, the term ‘ethics’ was used in the talk to indicate an awareness of the role and responsibilities of the expert. Anna asked “[Is that] ethical if you not trained”
(session 2, lines 1294; 1295). This implied that there is an existing set of practices that are considered appropriate and ethical in the field of psychology. Some professional
individuals/body had decided what is right and wrong, or even permissible, and the students had internalised these rules. The presence of the other, who is able to judge what the
students do as ethical or unethical, indicates that there is an expert body of knowledge that exists beyond the student. An expert will operate within the ethically defined boundaries of her profession.