relationships, and indicated how the candidates were meeting expectations of the
program in ways unanticipated by the program, as indicated in the frame clashes
related to lesson-planning identified in Telling Case 1.
This email, therefore, served as the roots of the collection of additional records in
this second telling case. This analysis of what was inscribed in her email framed the
need for the insider–outsider ethnography team to return to the archive in order to
locate, through a process of backward mapping processes (Green et al 2012 ) from
this email, previous discussions of the planning and teaming process at other points
of contact between the teacher-candidates and university-supervisor. This backward
mapping process led to one additional source of information that could then be
triangulated with the teacher’s inscription of the team’s working process. This
record was an interview on February 28, by the embedded ethnographer with Brad
about how the team was engaging in a process of lesson-planning.
16.8 Triangulation as a Nonlinear Process—Analysis 2
in Telling Case 2
Once the interview was identified as an anchor for further exploration about how,
and in what ways, the teacher-candidates inscribed a process of planning within a
team context, we constructed a transcript of the interview. Given the repeated
contacts Brad had about missing elements in his lesson plans as well as missing
lesson plans, the insider–outsider ethnography team decided to focus on Brad’s
interview. This decision extended Brad’s role as a tracer unit to this phase of the
research, building on Mitchell’s argument presented previously that an individual
could be the focus of a telling case. In selecting Brad’s early interview, as a point of
triangulation, we were able to identify the actors with whom he worked in the class
and other spaces, to construct a point for reflexivity for the insider–outsider
ethnography team.
In this transcript, Brad discussed an ongoing nature of planning; i.e., Thursdays
the team reflected on activities they conducted that week and then, would plan for
activities they would implement the following Wednesday and Thursday in the
actual third grade class. He then indicated their ideas would be brought to a team
discussion with Megan, the mentor-teacher. Following the teaching of the plan,
Brad stated that he and Amy would discuss with Megan what was accomplished in
the teaching and propose ideas for the following week’s activities with students in
the class. Following this, they went home and individually wrote down some of
their ideas of what they each wanted to do and discussed those ideas with each other
on Tuesdays between university courses. They would then further discuss them,
with the mentor-teacher on Wednesday, in theirfield placement. For example, in
Table16.2, he indicated possible content areas that each would develop plans for
the team to explore. Additionally, he indicated that they would identify students
who had special needs that would require specific support from one or all of the
248 L. Katz and J. Green