teacher-pupil interactions: a negotiation perspective

Teacher- p u p i I interactions: a negotiation perspective*

WILFRED B . W . MARTIN I University of New Bvunswick

L’analyse de I’interaction entre enseignant et eleve dans une perspective de negociation augmen- terait notre comprehension des processus par lesquels on arrive a des ententes collectives, si on y arrive dans ces situations. Afin de dimontrer I’utilite de cette proposition, trois processus de negociation sont selectionnes pour I’analyse de I’interaction entre enseignant et eleve. Les processus sont les suivants : ( I ) les ambiguites et les desaccords autour desquels les negociations se deroulent, (2) les strategies adoptees par les enseignants e t par les Cleves, (3) les aspects temporels de la negociation. Le texte conclut en indiquant des domaines de recherche que suggere cette perspective.

It is proposed that analyses of teacher-pupil interactions from a negotiation perspective would increase our understanding of the processes whereby collective agreements are achieved, if at all, in these situations. To demonstrate the utility of this proposal this paper selects three processes of negotiation and analyses teacher-pupil interactions along these lines. The processes analysed are ( I )

the ambiguities and disagreements around which negotiations evolve, ( 2 ) the strategies employed by teachers and pupils, and (3) the temporal aspects of negotiation. Further areas of research suggested by this perspective are indicated.

Despite the fact that the study of interactions in the classroom is an increasingly well-travelled field,’ understanding the processes involved in teacher-pupil interactions is still an imposing problem. Amidon and Simon (1965) have pointed to the need for theoretically oriented research into these interactions. Jackson (1968) has expressed the need to move close to the social realities of the classroom life in order to understand what is going on there. The present paper deals with the realities of teacher-pupil interactions by using a negotiation perspective. Its purpose is to focus on some of the unex- plored aspects of these interactions.

N E G O T I A T I O N

Negotiation between individuals attempting t o meet a mutual understanding over specific issues has been demonstrated to exist in social situations of everyday life. For example, there is the plea bargaining so characteristic of our judicial process (Newman. 1966). There is also the negotiation between the psychoanalyst and his patients ( B a h t , 1957). A comparison of the negotiating in both these settings has been given by Scheff (1968). Roth’s (1963: 1-62) analysis of the timetables of patients and physicians vividly demonstrates the existence of negotiation in

* I wish lo thank Robert A. Stebbins, Barbara Pepperdene, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. I A description of some of the systems used to collect and categorize observational data involving teacher-pupil interactions, as well as summaries of research related to specific areas of these interactions. has been presented by Amidon and Simon (1965). More recent and also more sociologically oriented discussions of teacher-pupil interactions are presented by Jackson (1968), Smith and Geoffrey (1968). Smith and Kleine (1969). and Dreeben (1970).

Rev. canad. SOC. & Anth./Canad. Rev. SOC. & Anth. 12(4: Part 2) 1975

530 / Wilfred B.W. Martin

hospitals for the treatment of tuberculosis. A model of negotiation was used by Strauss et al. (1963; 1964) to study the social structure of a mental hospital. Schatzman and Bucher (1964) examined the ways in which psychiatric professionals negotiate the tasks that they perform; that is, how they develop an institutional order. Bucher and Stelling ( 1969) elaborated further on the model of negotiation by continuing t o argue that bureaucratic theory is of limited value in the analysis of professional organizations. In addition to these studies, which have explicitly used a negotiation perspective to analyse social interactions, there are others which have dealt with various aspects of negotiation without referring to the interactions as such. For example, Sykes’ (1958) analysis of the social structure of a maximum security prison and the study of ingroup and intergroup relations reported by Sherif and Sherif (1969:221-66) provide addi- tional evidence of the fact that negotiation takes place in a variety of settings.

The verbs ‘bargain’ and ‘negotiate’ are occasionally used interchangeably to refer to the exchange of social objects and to the processes of compromise and counterproposal that are frequently enacted in social interactions. I n the present paper separate meanings are given to these terms: they refer to different, though often intricately interrelated, processes. Brrr- ,grriizi~i,g is a process of exchange of different social objects -tangible or intangible - at a cost which is considered favourable for at least one of the parties involved. Each party in the interaction wants an object that the other can provide. They have complementary, though sometimes antagonistic, interests. In contrast, the term riegotitrtinK denotes a set of processes wherein actors attempt to reach a settlement or arrangement with each other or with a third party on how to achieve certain of their common interests. Thus, the essential difference between bargaining and negotiating is that the former centres on unshared interests whereas the latter centres on ones that are shared. Both, of course, concern a ‘corning to terms.’

I t should also be noted that negotiation is a more complex process than bargaining. Bar- gaining is mere exchange. Negotiation, on the other hand, includes many processes and interaction strategies, sometimes even bargaining. Also, negotiation may take place at various phases of interaction, from the initial negotiation of social identities through the negotiation of interactive roles and agendas to the negotia-

tion of life courses (McCall and Simmons, 1966: passim).

The model of negotiation used in this study was developed on the assumption that interaction in organizational settings in general and in teacher-pupil interaction in particular can not be understood by adopting a perspective which sees interaction as resulting from a mechanistic conformity to a role script. Nor can interaction be fully understood by using a model that as- sumes that everything is negotiable. Instead, a combination of specific aspects of these two divergent perspectives is necessary. Within such a framework there must be a realization that social exchange is different from economic exchange (Blau, 1964:93-7). It should also be noted that the negotiation perspective presented by Strausset al. (1963; 1964), Schatzman and Bucher (1964), and Bucher and Stelling (1969). and further elaborated on in this paper is, in many ways, different from the exchange theory tradition a s presented by Thibaut and Kelley (1959), Homans (1958; 1961), and Blau (1964). While it is beyond the scope ofthis paper to analyse social exchange theory or to compare it with the negotiation framework, it is appro- priate at this point to look at one of the basic differences between these two approaches.

Homans developed his theory of social exchange from economic concepts of exchange and Skinnerian learning psychology. This combination led him to the assumption that actions associated with past and anticipated rewards are more likely to occur than those actions not associated with rewards. Social interaction is seen as the exchanging of mutually rewarding activities. If both actors in an exchange have equal need for each other’s services, the exchange relation is a balanced one. When one of the actors needs the other’s services less than the other needs his services, an unbalanced exchange relation exists (Emerson, 1962). There are continuous processes of balancing and rebalancing the exchange relation (Blau, 1964:118-25). But, these processes, as well as interaction in disagreements, ambiguities, and problematic situations, include more than the exchange of rewards. They involve a diversity of strategies including impression management (Goffman, 1959), ingratiation (Jones, 1964), and other forms of strategic interactions (Goffman, 1970). In addition, there are genuine spontaneous expressions which are not explicitly ex- changed in any social transaction, but which play a very important part in the over-all negoti-

Teacher-pupil interactions / 531

ation processes. Hence, the preference here for the negotiation perspective.

The aspects of teacher-pupil negotiation treated in this paper include: ( I ) the ambiguities and disagreements around which the negotiations evolve, (2) the strategies used by both teachers and pupils, and ( 3 ) the temporality of the negotiation processes.

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S A N D S A M P L E

The data on which this article is based were collected during the ‘observational phase’ of a larger study which employed formal interviews, informal interviews, and observational techniques (Martin, In Press).* During the observational phase the teacher-pupil interactions in one closed plan school, one open plan school, and one school with a mixed plan setup were observed on a regular weekly basis over a seven month p e r i ~ d . ~ Thirteen teachers and 420 pupils from kindergarten to grade seven were involved in this phase of the study. I became a participant observer in so far as I had, on specific occasions, duties to perform relating to the teaching situations. At these times and at other times when I did not have specific duties to perform, the teacher-pupil interactions were observed. Informal interviews were conducted to seek information regarding the events which had been observed. All informal interviews regarding the intentions and perceived results of the observed interactions were conducted as soon as possible after the incidents had been enacted. They included brief informal interviews with both teachers and pupils whenever the opportunity arose: during recesses, on other occasions when the classes were not in formal

sessions, during brief breaks between explicit teaching episodes, etc. While many of the questions used in these informal interviews de- pended on such things as the interactions observed and the amount of information revealed without further probing, a set of guideline questions was used for each of the 30 episodes of teacher-pupil negotiation analysed. These guideline questions attempted to get the teachers’ reasons for engaging in the specific activities observed in their interactions with pupils and to isolate other lines of action which were not observed but were parts of negotiations. The questions were so designed that they complemented the observations.

The choice of schools and areas within the schools for observations were nonrandom. Considering the subjective nature of the research, the willingness of teachers and pupils to allow me to become an observer of their interactions and their willingness to participate in the interviewing were of great importance to the study. Other variables considered in selecting the teachers and pupils were ( I ) the length of time the teachers had worked together as a ‘team,’4 (2) the type of socioeconomic area served by the school,s and ( 3 ) the type of school in which each team was located -open, closed, or mixed.

The analysis is carried out through a process of sensitizing the concepts developed while in the field. These concepts are sensitized in that the processes representing them and the meanings given to them by the persons observed are analysed.6 They are illustrated with descrip- tions of the negotiation situations as observed by the researcher and the negotiators’ perspectives of these situations.

z The larger study was conducted in 10 public schools in Canada’s second largest metropolitan area. 3 The terms ‘closed,’ ‘open,’ and ‘mixed’ refer only to the architectural structures of the schools and not to the ‘openness’ or ‘closedness’ of the education involved. I n an open area a team of three, four, or five teachers may work with 90 to 15opupils. Regardless of the number, the point is that all teachers and pupils may be simuitaneously visible to each other. In contrast to this. the members of a teaching team in a closed area are not simultaneously visible to each other and their pupils. The classroom has only one teacher during most teaching situations. The mixed area has either flexible walls which can be used to create open or closed spaces (depending on the desires of the teachers at any one time), or permanent walls so arranged that the team of teachers is usingat least one classroom and one open area simultaneously. In other words, in the mixed plan setup only some ofthe team members are simultaneously visible to each other during the teaching situation. 4 The term ‘team’ is used to refer to two or more teachers who share the responsibilities and functions of instructingagivengroup ofpupils in oneormoredefinedcontent areas. One team fromeach ofthe three varieties of schools was observed. One of the teams was in its first year of operation as a team. The other teams were in their second and third years of operation. The length of time the teachers operated as a team was considered to be important in so far as the teacher-teacher interactions were concerned. These interactions were analysed in the larger study from which the data in this article are drawn. 5 All schools served relatively the same socioeconomic class. 6 The process of sensitizing concepts has been discussed by Blumer( 1969: 147-52) and by Denzin ( 1970: 12-19).


A M B I G U I T I E S A N D D I S A G R E E M E N T S

The observations show that in order to understand the nature of the ambiguities and disagreements in teacher-pupil negotiations it is necessary to take the teachers’ definitions of the situation with regard to specific pupils. From this perspective there are three basic categories of pupils; the noti-iieRotitrhles, the intemiit- tc.nt1.v n e ~ o t i t i h l e . ~ , and the continiroirsly ne- ,qotirrhles. Each of the teachers observed had placed pupils in each of these categories.

The noti-tir,~otitihlr pirpils There are two basically different groups of pupils within this category. One is the passive, quiet pupil who is seldom motivated to take part in any of the ordinary learning experiences of the school. The other is the pupil with the undisciplined style. In general, the courses of action taken by a member of the latter group include the following: gives negativistic, ‘ I won’t’ expressions; acts defiant, will not d o what is asked o r suggested; lacks tolerance for tasks he does not enjoy: asserts independence in a negative way: is prone to blame the teacher orexter- nal circumstances when things do not go well: and makes derogatory remarks about the things being taught and the situation in general. Both the passive and the undisciplined groups of pupils consist of only a relatively small number of the total class. The former is usually the larger group with approximately 3 or 4 pupils in a class of 30, while the latter group may contain only I or z in a similar size class.

Teachers reported using both ‘structured’ and ‘unstructured’ approaches in their attempts to get the passive pupils to change their at- titudes and courses of action. The structured approach refers to situations where the pupils are given specific work to be done during a particular time span. The pupils are supervised during this time with specific periodic checks being made to see if they are progressing favourably. In contrast, the unstructured situation is one where the pupils can choose what they are to do from a variety of alternatives. Under these conditions the pupils are not supervised as closely a s they are in the structured setup.

Teachers have been observed taking the role of the authority in their interactions with the

undisciplined pupils. One teacher’s reason for this was: ‘You give them an inch and they’ll take a foot.’ Another teacher remarked: ‘Somehow, I cannot understand Joe. I’ve tried to be nice to him, but it does not work.’ T h e pupils in this category often tried to negotiate with the teachers, but because of their ‘un- reasonable’ demands and ‘unwillingness to cooperate,’ teachers frequently refused to negotiate with them until there was, from the teachers’ perspectives, a clear indication that they wanted to change. The teachers developed this stance because of their prior experiences in attempting to have open interactions with these pupils. These pupils, however, have been observed forcing teachers to negotiate with them. T h e subsequent negotiations have been of the closed variety. That is, they are characterized by explicitly given directives and explicitly stated consequences of not following these directives.’

The intermittenfly negoticihle pirpils T h e intermittently negotiable pupils are those with whom the teacher feels he can negotiate only on some occasions and concerning specific issues. Usually about two-thirds of the total number of pupils in a class are defined as intermittently negotiable. There are various reasons why the teacher combines other types of interactions with both open and closed negotiations when interacting with this category of pupils. One teacher explained it in the following way: ‘You can’t let them [the pupils] decide everything for themselves. There are some of them who, a t different times, will run away with you. Occasionally you got to put the clamps down ... Most of the time they are quite good. We discuss things together and I let them have a lot of scope; that is, if they can show me sufficient reason for wanting to d o whatever it is they propose.’

Another teacher, who had asked the researcher to spend a few mathematics periods giving Lawrence (‘an extremely bright student in maths’) individualized attention, offered the following advice: ‘Lawrence will try to show you that he is better than you, but you’ll have to step on him. He tries that all the time when we are doing maths with him.’ During later interactions between Lawrence and this teacher it was observed that she was continually attempting to

7 In open negotiations, on the other hand, there are no explicitly stated consequences of not following a particular course of action.


demonstrate her superiority to him in mathematics. Lawrence did not agree with the teacher’s assessment of the situation. Hence, when interacting over mathematical issues their interactive roles and agendas were continually being negotiated.* In these situations the teacher attempted to enact closed negotiations and even to terminate the negotiations altogether. The teacher thought it was desirable to negotiate with Lawrence over some issues but not those involving mathematics. Law- rence, like many pupils, is seen by his teacher as being intermittently negotiable.

The ccrnrinrioirs1,v riegotinhle pupils There are some pupils, usually 4 or 5 in a class of 30, with whom teachers think they can have open negotiations at all times and over a wide range of issues. These pupils are not given explicit directions or explicitly stated consequences of not following certain courses of action. Instead, they are given the freedom to choose from among various alternatives and, in choosing, they may participate in open negotiations with the teacher for changes in those activities and choices. For example, one teacher reported that some of his pupils work well on their own. He added: ‘They have many good ideas. I give them guidance, but they frequently make suggestions to me and we discuss things on a friendly one-to-one basis. ... I find that when you listen to them they usually have something to say ... They are reasonable.’

Other teachers had similar expressions of praise for some of their pupils. They saw these pupils as being the ‘best’ in the class. In other words, they are defined as being motivated and doing well academically, in addition to being socially adjusted to the over-all expectations of the class situations. It is these pupils who are defined as the continuously negotiables.

One of the common elements which is basic to the philosophy of many teachers, although not always practised by them, is the belief that in many situations the pupils who have mis- behaved or are not performing academically in the way they are ‘capable’ of performing should be given ‘a way out.’ In other words, the idea is not to ‘knock him down for it,’ but to ‘talk to

him’ and ‘give him guidance.’ One teacher, for example, said that he usually tries to create a positive self-concept in the pupil rather than ‘reinforcing a negative one’ which he thinks the pupil is mostly likely to have if he is ‘always getting in trouble’ or not doing well with his academic work. This basic philosophy is con- ducive to the existence of open negotiation. However, the fact that teachers place pupils into the categories discussed here is evidence that this philosophy is not implemented at all times and for all pupils. The existence of different categories leads to an interesting question which the present research did not pursue: specifically, the extent to which the expectation of finding different categories of pupils in any one classroom or open area is met, if for no other reason than the fact that the expectation is there - self-fulfilling prophecy. There is another issue related to this question. Teachers, on different occasions, have indicated that the pupils whom they considered to be discipline problems were typically not performing well academically. Hence, it would be interesting to investigate both the degree to which the non- negotiables are ‘failures’ in their academic activities and the question ofwhich came first, the definition of being an academic failure or the definition of being a non-negotiable pupil.

S T R A T E G I E S

Dreeben (1970:78) has noted that the pupils ‘are conscripted clients whose allegiance must be won by a subtle combination ofgood will, coer- cion, persuasion, control, and command over curricular materials and techniques of instruction.’ These processes undoubtedly form intricately interrelated parts of teacher-pupil negotiation. The data of the present research indi- cate that there are six general categories of strategies which are important in teacher-pupil negotiations: ( I ) striking a bargain, ( 2 ) demonstrating, (3) applying group pressure, (4) comparing, ( 5 ) playing-off, and (6) social-emotional strategies. To reiterate an earlier point, the present analysis is not concerned with the fre- quencies and causes of these strategies per se.

8 Interactive roles are the plausible lines of actions characteristic and expressive of the personalities that occupy the positions in the situation and represent their ways of coming to grips with the general expectations held toward the occupants of these positions. They are the performances in the situation (McCall and Simmons, 1966:67). Agendas, on the other hand, refer to the schedules of performances which become necessary when a single performance cannot satisfy the needs and desires of the individuals in a situation.

534 1 Wilfred B.W. Martin

The intent of the research was to isolate and sensitize these strategies.

Striking ( r btirptrin Geer (1968) has observed that pupils are continually ‘bargaining’ with teachers about matters which teachers do not conventionally define as teaching. She also adds that some of the ‘rules’ which pupils make for teachers are in areas that are not well defined, hence continually subject to ‘negotiation’ (Geer, 1968:562). As noted above, the terms ‘bargain’ and ‘negotiation’ are used in the present study to refer to different, but often intricately interrelated, processes. Also, as an extension of Geer’s statement, the present research indicates that both teachers and pupils initiate bargains in teacher-pupil interactions. A brief analysis of each variety will be presented here.

Teachers initiate both pr-ii’nte and public htrrgtrins with their. pupils. A private bargain is one which takes place with only the actors di- rectly concerned with it knowing its contents. A bargain is public if others watch or listen as the transaction takes place. In order to have private bargains pupils are sometimes removed from the ‘frontstage’ of the classroom situation. They are either physically removed from the classroom during regular school hours, or they are given detentions. When taken ‘backstage’ the pupils are, in the words of one teacher, ‘given a talking to.’ The rewards and punish- ments of different activities are usually given in a detailed and repetitive manner. On different occasions, teachers decide to bring pupils backstage without physically removing them from the class situation. This is done by speaking to them in a low voice.9 Other pupils are present in the situation, but are forbidden to listen to or watch the interaction between the teacher and the pupil with whom he is interacting. Private bargains which are parts of specific episodes of negotiations are frequent in both open plan areas and classroom situations. The frequency of private bargains on academic issues is di- rectly related to the degree of individualized instruction which exists in the situation.

Teachers have been observed attempting to strike bargains with several members of their classes at one time. On many occasions, even

the entire class is involved. Bargains with the entire class are usually connected with situations involving misbehaviours; for example, when the teacher defines the noise level as being too high. Both the private and public bargains initiated by teachers are often parts of closed negotiations. That is, the desired courses of action and consequences of not performing them are explicitly stated. The following offers are typical examples of such explicitness:

If you finish your work on time, you may go to the library. If you do not keep it [the noise level] down, there’ll be no field trip.

Pupils are also the initiators of public and private bargains. The success in getting the teacher to accept an offer is related to both the category of pupil from which it came and the issue on which it is made. The non-negotiable pupils are often held suspect when they are initiating bargains with the teacher. Conse- quently, the offers from this category of pupils are likely to be rejected. On the other hand, the offers from the continuously negotiable pupils are typically accepted with only minor qualifications or even without changes.

The research also indicates that private bargains may be instrumental in starting public negotiations. Conversely, public bargains may result in private negotiations. The following synopsis of interactions between a teacher and several pupils is illustrative of the phenomenon of a public bargain giving rise to both public and private negotiations.

The teacher had requested that all the work, which had been assigned four days prior to this situation, ‘be done by this morning.’ The teacher said that when they were finished they could move to a different type of activity. The teacher explained the activity to his pupils. He realized that ‘almost everyone’ in the class would want to do this activity immediately, so he reiterated the stipulation that each one was to finish his assigned work before proceeding to this new activity. I n other words, the public bargain was: When you have your work finished y o u may become involved in a different type of

9 The terms ‘backstage’ and ‘frontstage’ as used here are not defined by physical boundaries, as is seemingly the case in Goffman’s (1959: 106-140) discussion. The nature ofthe teaching situation is such that a teacherrnay force specific members of the group to remain outside of a particular interaction even though they may have physical proximity and/or be visible to it.


activity. Some of the pupils did not want to accept this bargain. They wanted to proceed to this activity without completing the assigned work. Three of these pupils negotiated pri- vately with the teacher concerning this issue, while a fourth conducted his negotiation with the teacher as the other pupils looked on.

Detnonstruting On different occasions teachers used specific pupils t o demonstrate the positive and the negative aspects of academic performances and disciplinary activities. An example of this type of strategy was employed by one teacher in his attempt at negotiating with the group of pupils who did not perform academically in the way that he felt they should perform. He placed some of ‘the best’ written work on a display board and circulated stencilled copies of it to other pupils in the school. The intention was to use the pupils whose performances were considered ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ as positive de- monstrators to the others in the class. This strategy was part of a continual endeavour to negotiate with the pupils to get them involved in different activities and to have each d o his best in these activities. One might be inclined to argue that this teacher’s strategy is a demonstration of the negative variety since it became common knowledge who ‘the worst’ perfor- mers were: their written assignments were not placed on the display board or stencilled. How- ever, this was not the intent of the teacher. His view was to show the positive aspects of performing at one’s best. In doing this the negative aspects of performing ‘poorly’ were also ex- posed.

To further illuminate the distinction between positive and negative demonstrations, as these concepts are used here, the following episode of negotiation is given to illustrate demonstrations of the negative variety.

The teacher told Ralph that his writing was not what it should be. She said to him: ‘Your writing, and that ofothers, is taxing my eyes. When going over your work on the weekend I could not read it. I threw it away.’ She added that Ralph would have to d o the assignment again. The teacher then said that there were three or four others whose writing was almost as bad as Ralph’s, and the next time theirs would be thrown away to be done over. Ralph attempted to get the teacher to change her opinion concerning the way he had written the assignment,

but it was to no avail. The teacher said that she would not accept his ‘excuses’ and kept to her original decision of having him d o it over. She told him to make sure that he did better the next time.

This demonstration was used to negotiate with a pupil who had not done his best. It also served as a warning to other pupils to improve and as a reminder to the pupils who were performing well to continue to d o so or they would meet the same fate as Ralph.

Both examples of demonstrating strategies referred to thus far concern academic performances, but this type of strategy is also used to negotiate with pupils over disciplinary matters, such as the amount of ‘noise’ and ‘moving around’ to be considered legitimate. Teachers frequently use a strategy similar t o the following in their attempts at negotiating with pupils concerning their misbehaviours:

A teacher had given three pupils detentions to be served after 3: 30. The detentions were given because the pupils, according to the teacher’s definition ofthe situation, had not listened when other pupils were discussing their ideas concerning a specific project. At a later point the teacher interrupted the discussion again and warned the pupils that the list on the board would grow longer if they did not become more attentive to what was going on.

The practice of writing on the board the names of the pupils who had been given detentions was followed at least once by 55 per cent of the teachers who were observed giving detentions during the study. The appearance of names on the board may even be considered as a negative demonstration in itself. In fact, one of the teachers suggested that such a procedure serves three purposes: ( I ) a reminder to teacher and pupils that specific pupils have been given detentions: (2) some embarrassment to the pupils whose names are there; and (3) a visual reminder to others that if they misbehave their names will appear on the list. One of the teachers, who does not put the names of pupils who are given detentions on the board, said that both she and the pupils concerned remember when she has given someone a detention. One reason for their remembering is that she does not use this method of punishment as frequently as fome other teachers and when she does use it she displays great displeasure with the pupils


concerned. When referring to one of these situations this teacher said: ‘This morning I read the riot act. They knew 1 was mad.’

Applyin,? groiip presslire Group pressure involves having other members ofthe class, maybe the entire class, pressure the pupil(s) into conforming to certain rules and regulations or to the teacher’s desires concerning these rules and regulations. It is a strategy that is often used by teachers in negotiating with pupils in all three types of schools studied in this research. They used it in their attempts to have ‘quietness’ before the pupils left the school at lunch break and when the school day was over. On different occasions when an entire class or part of i t was told that they could not leave until everyone was quiet, pupils were observed ex- pressing their displeasure with the deviating pupils. Some of the expressions used by the pupils in attempting t o influence the deviants were ‘Shut up you idiot,’ ‘Don’t be a dumb bell,’ and ‘You knuckle head.’ Several teachers pointed out that pupils often, unintentionally and intentionally. prevent others from ‘acting out.’ The success of the process of group pressure for negotiating with pupils in both academic and disciplinary activities is one of the reasons why teachers use group activities for many projects undertaken in their classes.

Not only d o teachers group pressure in their attempts to get pupils to conform to specific lines of action and to motivate them to different levels of academic performance, but pupils also use this strategy in their attempts at negotiating with teachers. Pupils have been observed unit- ing their efforts in defence of a peer(s) whom they saw as the recipient of a teacher’s unjustified activities. They referred to such activities as not being ‘fair.’

C ~ 1 / ? 7 / 7 ~ l ~ i ~ l ~ ~

Thibaut and Kelley (1959:22) have noted that ‘comparison level’ in the evaluation of outcomes ‘is a standard by which the person evaluates the rewards and costs of a given rela- tionship in terms of what he feels he “deserves.” ’ While accepting this definition the present analysis isolates the actual strategies of comparison which pupils employ in interacting with their teachers. Pupils compare the specific social and academic activities which a teacher desires of them with the activities which other teachers desire of their pupils. They also compare the actions which

the same teacher enacts towards different pupils. The strategy of comparing the activities which one teacher allows his or her class to d o with another teacher’s negative response to similar activities is frequently used by pupils in their attempts t o change the latter’s negative response. T h e situations where this strategy is most successful are those which arise when pupils are involved in art, field trips, o r social activities. One teacher noted that comparisons are most often found in the ‘fringe areas of education.’ He implied that they did not take place in the core academic subjects of, for example, mathematics, language, and science. Another teacher said that this strategy only occurs in special activities or projects where the pupils are given a fairly wide choice of activities.

In team teaching situations pupils quickly discover which teachers are the ‘strictest’ and from which ones they can get permission to perform specific activities. Teaching teams who d o not reach some consensus on ways of coping with specific activities of pupils have difficulty in working as a team and interacting with the pupils simultaneously. The comparison strategy of pupils has been instrumental in having the members of some teaching teams develop a common system of penalties for routinized misbehaviours and an openness to consider each other’s methods of dealing with the non- routinized misbehaviours. It has also been instrumental in perpetuating conflicts between and among teachers whose courses ofaction are compared.

The strategy of comparing teachers’ interactions with other pupils to their interactions with ego is often used by the non-negotiable pupils. They judge teachers’ interactions with their pupils on the basis of their ‘fairness.’ However, their attempts to negotiate with teachers are often nullified by the teachers enactment of closed negotiation or the termination ofnegotia- tion altogether. While this analysis did not concern itself with the effects of teachers enactment of closed negotiations and their terminat- ing negotiations on individual pupils, there is some indication that the discussion given by Thibaut and Kelley (1959: 169-87) of the effects on the individual of being in nonvoluntary relationships is applicable in teacher-pupil relationships.

Playil?,~- 0.B Playing-off is defined here as the process in-


volved in attempting to get one or more actors to behave in a specific way, either by intentionally and explicitly giving false information concerning the actions of one or more actors who may o r may not be present in the situation, o r by intentionally concealing the extent of one’s information concerning previous courses of action or desires of one or more actors which, if revealed, would undoubtedly deter the actors with whom one is attempting to negotiate from acting in the desired ways. The first method of employing this strategy is illustrated by the pupils who intentionally gave teachers false information concerning the interactions which they had with other teachers. This was what happened in one school where the pupils were not allowed to stay in the open area during recesses unless they had permission from one of the teachers. Some of the pupils would stay in the open area during those times without permission from any teacher. Whenever a teacher asked them to leave they would say that one of the other teachers had given them permission to stay. This apparently went on for a three or four week period until there were ‘a number of stu- dents hanging around each recess time.’ One of the teachers suggested to his teammates that they should not let so many of the pupils stay in the area during the breaks. His teammates were surprised to hear this suggestion. Each claimed that he thought the others were giving the pupils permission to stay in the area. After a few mo- ments of discussion it was learned that ‘very few’ of the pupils were actually given permission by teachers to stay in the area during the recesses. The pupils were playing off one teacher against another by intentionally and explicitly giving specific teachers false information concerning their interactions with other teachers. If the correct information was revealed to the teacher with whom one was attempting to negotiate, the probability ofgetting the desired results would have decreased con- siderably.

The idea of ego intentionally withholding information concerning previous activities or desires of another party which, if revealed, would undoubtedly deter alter from acting in the desired way in the negotiation process is exemplified by the situation where pupils attempt to use another pupil(s) to negotiate with a teacher. One example of this variety of the playing-off strategy took place when a pupil, who was ordered out of a gymnasium by physical education teacher A , immediately went to

physical education teacher B seeking and ob- taining permission to go to the gymnasium. This pupil did not inform teacher B that teacher A had ordered her to leave the gymnasium immediately prior t o this request. Teacher E claimed that he would not have given the pupil permission to go to the gymnasium if he had known that teacher A had ordered the pupil to leave it.

Socid-emotional strategies While social-emotional expressions are often genuinely spontaneous and therefore not inten- tional strategies in any episode of negotiation, they are sometimes used as strategies in themselves as well as combined with other strategies. The prime element in this category of strategies is their design to appeal to the emotions of one’s counter negotiators. The desire to have alter empathize with ego sometimes motivates ego to express specific emotions, such as expressions of happiness, sadness, and seriousness. One teacher’s awareness of the social-emotional strategies which pupils use is evident in her remarks that: ‘Carl, t o cope with his slowness in grasping new concepts, used humour and clowningaround todistract me and the class from getting on with it. Some children used humour in a different way - make joking remarks about their dumbness, about not understanding something.’

Adulating tactics also fall into the category of social-emotional strategies. Teachers and pupils have been observed reciprocating each other’s flattering comments on such things as manner of dress and hairstyle. O n some occasions social-emotional strategies by the teacher bring tangible goods from the pupils. The giving of tangible goods to the teacher is typically done, according to many pupils, by the ‘teacher’s pets.’

T E M P O R A L A S P E C T S

There are two parts in relation to the temporal aspects of negotiations which are significant in maintaining a social order; the amount of time it takes to reach a collective agreement concerning the interactive roles and agendas, and the length of time for which the agreement is sol- emnized, if a t all. These two are often intricately interrelated, but for purposes of analytic and presentational clarity each will be discussed separately with an occasional cross refer- ence.


Negoti t i t ing rime The length of time it takes to negotiate agendas is intricately interrelated with the time involved in negotiating interactive roles. Once a working agreement has been reached on the latter the negotiating of agendas has been observed to proceed without any great difficulty. Where there is some doubt about the interactive roles in the situation there is likely to be difficulty in negotiating the agendas. This difficulty in negotiating interactive roles between teachers and pupils may become very intense. O n different occasions, it became so intense that teachers explicitly reminded pupils oftheir legal authority as well as their more extensive knowledge. At other times, because of their inability to cope with situations where they are free to initiate activities without facing the constraints of a more structured situation. pupils have been observed seeking structure. This was indicated by their wanting the teacher to set work for them, that is, to tell them what to do and when to do it.

Where the teacher realizes and agrees with the desire(s) of the pupils, and vice versa, the interactive roles and agendas may be negotiated in a short. one meeting negotiation. Such was the case when one pupil explicitly told the teacher that he did not know what to do. He said: ‘ I cannot think of anything to put in my work plan.’ Laterthe teacher remarked that this pupil often needs, even wants, to be told what to do. This teacher realized what the pupil wanted and agreed togive it to him. Without responding to any specific probing of the researcher, teachers have pointed out pupils who are con- stantly seeking positive feedback for their work. While the data include only one example of negotiation carried out as a direct result of such circumstances, i t seems logical to assume that if a teacher continuously accepts the role of ego-supporter, the agendas with the pupils who require this type of interaction will be easier to negotiate than if he does not accept the interactive roles as defined by the pupils.

Titne negotirrted,for- Three of the most striking features revealed by the data on teacher-pupil negotiations concerning the time for which agreements are to stand are ( I ) the time for which an agreement is to stand is frequently not stated or communicated in any way, (2) the length of time for which a

collective agreement between the teacher and the pupil is assumed to stand, a t least by the teacher, is frequently interrupted, and (3) teachers often experience difficulty in getting the pupils t o accept negotiations involving specific time spans. The pupils have been observed taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude rather than explicitly committing themselves.

Despite the legalized power of the teachers, the pupils are often able to demonstrate their ability to influence their teachers. Such demonstrations put constraints on the course of action open to the teacher. The problems of reaching agreements and getting explicitly stated time limits on the agreements which have been reached as well as the frequent interruptions in agreements substantiate this generaliza- tion. According to the teachers’ perspective, these problems and interruptions are typically caused by the pupils who are sometimes ‘dis- obedient,’ ‘lacking in motivation.’ or have not learned to cope with the freedom and oppor- tunities they have been given. These pupils are in the intermittently negotiable category. T h e pupils in the continuously negotiable category may also, but less frequently, interrupt their agreements with the teacher. Their interruptions are seen by the teacher to be a result of different circumstances than the interruptions from the intermittently negotiable pupils. The continuously negotiable pupils interrupt their agreements for ‘legitimate reasons’ and are often successful in renegotiating with their teachers.

It should be noted that, while we have spoken of the temporal aspects of negotiation in terms of negotiating time and time negotiated for, many episodes of negotiation are part of the ongoing attempt to maintain a social order within teacher-pupil interactions.

C O N C L U S I O N S

In conclusion, specific questions which arose during the present study and need to be pursued in future research will be presented.

What are the factors which lead to teachers defining pupils as non-negotiable, intermittently negotiable, or continuously negotiable? The present research indicates that the pupils defined as non-negotiable are often simultaneously defined as academically weak or discipline problems.’O This leads to the question of

10 Ifa pupil is defined as adiscipline problem. he is usually seen as failing academically as well. However, there are many who are seen as academic failures but are not defined as discipline problems.


which definition came first, that of being a discipline problem or a non-negotiable. The definition given to pupils in a situation will be a factor in determining how their behaviours are to be defined: orderly o r disorderly.” The issue of how teachers define pupils is further compli- cated by the fact that teachers usually expect to find different categories of pupils in each ‘ordinary’ classroom or open area. To what extent are their definitions of pupils as non- negotiables, intermittently negotiables, o r continuously negotiables a result of their expectations of finding some in each category?

Under what conditions do negotiations remain open? Conversely, what conditions lead to negotiations being closed or terminated? Open negotiations are more typically enacted when the pupils involved are defined as continuously negotiable than if they are defined as intermittently negotiable. Negotiations with the latter category of pupils are frequently of the closed variety and are often terminated by the teacher. Termination by the teacher occurs when he defines the pupils as not following his explicitly stated directives. Pupils also terminate negotiations. For example, this may be the case when they abandon the over-all expectations held for them in one or more situations.

Having sensitized the strategies employed in teacher-pupil negotiations, the issues of fre- quencies of enactment, the conditions under which they are enacted, and the outcomes of enacting the different strategies need to be pursued in future research.

Intricately interrelated with the issues of the variety of negotiations and the strategies employed in these negotiations are questions relating to the temporal aspects of negotiations. Such questions include the following: How long does it take to reach a working consensus? Under what conditions is a working consensus never reached, despite frequent negotiations? If a working agreement is reached over interactive roles or agendas, how long is it negotiated for? For example, is it for one situation, a trial period, an indefinite period, or the rest of the school year? Are there interruptions in these working agreements? If there are interruptions, what causes them to occur and what are their consequences?

Since the teacher usually engages in a large number of interaction encounters with pupils during each hour of his working day,I2 disagreements and ambiguities regal-ding these interactions are bound to occur. T h e dynamic interplay between teacher and pupil can be vividly described, analysed, and understood through systematic analyses of the various processes of negotiation.

R E F E R E N C E S

Amidon, E., and A. Simon 1965 ‘Teacher-pupil interaction.’ Review of

Educational Research 35(2): 130-9 B a h t , M. 1957 The Doctor, His Patient, and The Illness.

New York: International Universities Press

Becker, H. 1952 ‘Social-class variations in the teacher-

pupil relationships.’ Journal of Educa- tional Sociology 25(4):45 I -65

Blau, P.M. 1964 Exchange and Power in Social Life. New

Blumer, H . 1969 Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective

York: John Wiley

and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N . J . :

Prentice-Hall Bucher, R., and J . Stelling 1969 ‘Characteristics of professional organiza-

tions.’ Journal of Health and Behavior 10

(March): 3-15 Denzin, N.K. 1970 The Research Act: A Theoretical Intro-

duction to Sociological Methods. Chicago: Aldine

Dreeben, R. 1970 The Nature ofTeaching: Schools and the

Work of Teachers. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman

Emerson, R.M. 1962 ‘Power-dependence relations.’ American

Fuchs, E. 1969 Teachers Talk. Garden City, New York:

Gabriel, J . 1957 Emotional Problems ofthe Teacher in the

Sociological Review 27:31-41

Doubleday Anchor Books

11 Other factors may also have an effect on the occurrence of disorderly behaviour or the defining of behaviour as such. These factors include temporal aspects (Waller, 193x301; Stebbins, 1974), physical aspects (Stebbins, 1974), climatic conditions (Fuchs, 1969: 192), and length of teaching experience (Gabriel, 1957: 212; Becker, 1952: 46 I ) . IZ Jackson (1968: 149) has noted ‘that the elementary school teacher typically engages in zoo to 3oointerpersonal interchanges every hour of her working day.’


Classroom. Melbourne, Australia: F.W. Ceshire

Geer, B. 1968 ‘Teaching.’ Pp. 560-5 in D.L. Shils (ed.),

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press

Goffman, E. 1959 Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

Garden City, New York: Doubleday An- chor Books

Blackwell 1970 Strategic Interaction. Oxford: Basil

Homans, G.C. 1958 ‘Human behavior as exchange.’ Ameri-

can Journal of Sociology 63(6):597-606 1961 Social Behavior: its Elementary Forms.

New York: Harcourt, Brace &World Jackson, P.W. 1968 Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt,

Jones, E.J. 1964 Ingratiation: A Social Psychological

Analysis. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts

The Negotiated Order of The School.

Rinehart & Winston

Martin, W.B.W. I n press Toronto: Macmillan of Canada McCall, G.J., and J.L. Simmons 1966 Identities and Interactions: An Examina-

tion of Human Associations in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press

Newman. D.J. 1966 ‘The negotiated plea.’ 4. 76-130 in D.J.

Newman, Convictions: The Determina- tion of Guilt or Innocence Trail. Boston: Little, Brown

Roth, J . 1963 Timetables: Structuring the Passage of

Time in Hospital Treatment and Other Careers. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill

Schatzman, L.. and R. Bucher 1964 ‘Negotiating a division of labor among

professionals in the State Mental Hospi- tal.’ Psychiatry 27 (August): 266-77

Scheff, T.J . 1968 ‘Negotiating reality: notes on power in the

assessment of responsibility.’ Social Problems 16 (Summer): 3-17

Sherif, M., and C.W. Sherif 1969 Social Psychology. New York: Harper &

Smith, L.M., and W. Geoffrey 1968 Complexities of an Urban Classroom.

Smith. L.M., and P.F. Kleine 1969 Minor Studies in Teacher-Pupil Relation-

Row

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

ships. St Ann, Missouri: Central Mid- western Regional Educational Labora- tory

Stebbins, R.A. 1974 The Disorderly Classroom: Its Physical

and Temporal Conditions. St John’s, Newfoundland: Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Strauss, A.L., et al. 1963 ‘The hospital and its negotiated order.’

Pp. 147-69in E. Friedson(ed.).The Hos- pital in Modern Society. New York: Free Press

New York: Free Press 1964 Psychiatric ldeologies and Institutions.

Sykes, G.M. 1958 The Society of Captives. Princeton, N . J . :

Princeton University Press Thibaut, J.W., and H.H. Kelley 1959 The Social Psychology of Groups. New

Waller, W. 1932 The Sociology ofTeaching. New York:

York: John Wiley

John Wiley

teacher-pupil interactions: a negotiation perspective

Documents