39The findings of the review confirmed the central role of Zeichner ( 2010 ) in the
popularisation of the concept in teacher education discourse since that time. In that
work, Zeichner cited all three third space theorists (Soja, Bhabha and Gutiérrez) to
frame his own application of the term ‘third space’ to describe a ‘paradigm shift in
the epistemology of teacher education programs’ involving the development of
‘hybrid spaces in teacher education where academic and practitioner knowledge
and knowledge that exists in communities come together in new less hierarchical
ways in the service of teacher learning’ (p. 89). One of the problems we identified
in our review was the tendency in subsequent papers to primarily attribute third
space theory to Zeichner’s seminal work while also making sometimes glib and ad
hoc references to any or all of Bhabha, Soja and Gutiérrez, without apparent appre-
ciation of the differences in the various purposes, underpinnings and assumptions of
their respective theorisations of third space.
It is important to note that even before the popularisation of third space theory by
Zeichner ( 2010 ), the concept had been taken up across a range of education research
contexts. Across these studies, too, there is evidence of the three main conceptuali-
sations of third space being frequently conflated and confused and with good rea-
son. Both Bhabha and Soja write of the emergence of hybrid identities and hybrid
knowledges that counter hegemonic discourse. The key difference between them
lies in whether this hybridity emerges out of the tension of belonging neither to the
first nor the second space (Bhabha) or whether it is intentionally created as an-Other
alternative (Soja). And then there is Gutiérrez who, like Bhabha, speaks of ‘hybrid-
ity’ as a disruptive and empowering stance. She is interested in troubling hegemony
by foregrounding and revaluing marginalised knowledges, identities and cultures.
But, like Soja, she sees the third space as one in which multiple knowledges can be
deliberately drawn in and recombined in order to create an-Other hybrid
alternative.
Richardson Bruna ( 2009 ) is scathing in her assessment of the ‘fetishizing of third
space’ (p. 227) in education research, arguing that ‘Bhabha’s understanding of lib-
eratory Third Space has been distorted, in education, through teacher-centred and
power-neutral multicultural discourse’ (p. 221). Explicitly citing the work of
Gutiérrez, Richardson Bruna argues that the post-colonial repositioning of power at
the heart of Bhabha’s third space is lost when, for example, ‘the locus of attention
becomes how teachers ‘create’ hybridity in the classroom rather than how students
bring hybrid practices along and productively use them not only for enhancing their
learning but also for influencing teaching as well’ (p. 227). However, in this cri-
tique, Richardson Bruna falls into the very same trap of misrepresentation, failing
to recognise that Gutiérrez’s hybridity is decidedly political and that it is rooted not
in Bhabha’s post-colonialism but in Bakhtinian dialogism. Indeed, in 2008,
Gutiérrez lamented the ways in which the politics of her own socioculturally situ-
ated conceptualisation of the third space had been taken up in politically neutral
ways that failed to take account of the promise of the third space as a ‘transforma-
tive space where the potential for an expanded form of learning and the develop-
ment of new knowledge are heightened’ (p. 152).
3 Theorising the Third Space of Professional Experience Partnerships