British Journal of Religious Education

ISSN: 0141-6200 (Print) 1740-7931 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbre20

Representation and safe space: conflicting

discourses in RE teacher education supervision

David Carlsson

To cite this article: David Carlsson (2018): Representation and safe space: conflicting
discourses in RE teacher education supervision, British Journal of Religious Education, DOI:
10.1080/01416200.2018.1556600

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2018.1556600

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 12 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 66

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbre20
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2018.1556600

Representation and safe space: conflicting discourses in RE

teacher education supervision
David Carlsson
Department of Humanities, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle 801 76, Sweden

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article explores supervision conferences in RE teacher education in Religious education;
Sweden. Two discourses that are often articulated in supervision confer- supervision; representation;
ences are ‘representation’ and ‘safe space’. These are investigated and safe space
presented as necessary components for becoming a competent teacher
of upper secondary school RE in Sweden. The empirical material consists of
observations of six RE supervision trialogues and interviews with the parti-
cipants – student teachers, upper secondary school supervisors and uni-
versity-based teacher educators. Based on the analysis of the empirical
material, representation and safe space emerge as essential ‘RE teacher
knowledge’. Furthermore, the antagonism between representation and
safe space that emerges in the supervision trialogues is explored and high-
lighted. By way of conclusion, the presented discursive struggle is reflected
on as a battle over power within the supervision triad.

Introduction
A point of departure in the article is that teacher education in general, and teacher education
supervision conferences (trialogues) in particular, construct the competent religious education (RE)
teacher in different ways. In a Swedish educational environment, the notion of competence, i.e.
becoming a competent RE teacher, implies being able to teach a non-confessional school subject
that focuses on e.g. different religious traditions, ethics, alternative worldviews and existential
questions. The RE tradition in Swedish schools is that of a neutral and plural school subject
(Osbeck, Sporre, and Skeie 2017). However, in Sweden the definition of non-confessional (Alberts
2010) can be problematised and elaborated on (Berglund 2013), largely because research has
shown that here a secular discourse is hegemonic in RE which makes the teaching confessional in
a secular way (Kittelmann Flensner 2015).
In Sweden, a student teacher (ST) is educated in both a university context and a school
environment by means of academic courses and teaching practice in school. At university students
are educated in a theoretical environment by teacher educators (UTE)1 with research experience
and competence. Some UTE may also be experienced teachers of RE. When ST are on teaching
practice and working with pupils in school, their supervisors (STE)2 are professionals with teaching
experience. A supervision conference consists of the ST, STE and UTE which means that the
supervision trialogue can be understood as a micro cosmos of teacher education where academia
and the teaching profession meet. Thus, a supervision trialogue can be considered as a vital arena
for the production of knowledge about the competent RE teacher.
Most of the research on supervision conferences has been conducted in the United States (e.g.
Rodgers and Keil 2007; McIntyre and Byrd 1997; Slick 1997) although there are examples of

CONTACT David Carlsson david.carlsson@hig.se University of Gävle, Gävle 801 76, Sweden
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 D. CARLSSON

European research from Scotland (Mtika, Robson, and Fitzpatrick 2014) and France (Cartaut and
Bertone 2009). However, such research has not been highlighted from the perspective of RE. This
article aims to contribute such a perspective by drawing on the results of a Swedish research
project (Carlsson 2016). The study in question utilises critical discourse analysis (CDA) to investigate
the construction of RE teachers’ knowledge in relation to teacher education and the school subject
of RE in Sweden. The result of this analysis reveals an order of discourse as a ‘stabilised configura-
tion’ (Fairclough 1995) that shows which qualities and competencies are regarded as having ‘RE
teacher knowledge’ status.
In this article, the focus is on the two discourses representation and safe space, i.e. two aspects of
what can be considered and conceptualised as ‘RE teacher knowledge’. Representation and safe
space are well known features in the field of RE. For example, the concept of representation is a key
concept in ‘the interpretive approach’ (e.g. Jackson 1997, 2004) and the conceptualisation of the RE
classroom as a safe space has been discussed repeatedly in RE research (e.g. Lied 2011; Skeie 2009;
Gross and Rutland 2016). This article intends to contribute additional perspectives from supervision
in teacher education and thereby add to and enrich the above-mentioned discussion.
The aims of the article are to: a) present these two discourses from a content perspective and
demonstrate how they can be understood as ‘RE teacher knowledge’ and b) provide an empirical
example of how they can be constructed as conflicting in teacher education supervision practice.

Previous research
In the field of RE there is considerable interest in investigating and discussing the competencies of
RE teachers (e.g. Everington 2016; Jackson 2014; Ubani 2012; Carlsson 2016). Although the two
discourses in focus in this article have already been explored, the empirical context of supervision
in teacher education is new.
Based on previous research, representation can be understood in different ways. One under-
standing is that the teacher is responsible for providing pupils with alternative interpretations of
religious content (Grimmitt 2000). Another suggestion is that representatives from religious com-
munities could co-operate in the teaching and learning of RE (Jackson 1997, 2004) for example by
means of a study/field visit to meet a religious representative (Halvarson Britton 2014). However, it
could be argued that the teacher is the expert and should therefore be responsible for the teaching
of religious content (Rymarz 2007). A prerequisite for representation appears to be the recognition
of diversity and plurality. Representation is needed in RE teaching due to people’s different ways of
living and believing. This perspective is highlighted in previous research, not only as something
external but also as something that exists within each religious tradition (Nesbitt 2004; Skeie 2002).
In the interpretive approach, Jackson (2004) suggests that there are diverse aspects at the societal/
institutional level, within a group and within each individual. Furthermore, in this approach
representation is thoroughly examined and emphasised as a significant concept (Jackson 1997,
2004). One reason for this is that pupils should engage in studying religious traditions in tandem
with other religions and their own beliefs in order to promote learning in RE.
Some of the risks with representation have been identified in previous research. Erricker (2001)
notes that there is a difference between an individual’s own voice and an individual speaking with
a representational voice. Here, there is a risk of constructing generalised images and stereotypes. In
a Swedish context, Holmqvist Lidh’s (2016) research shows that pupils with religious beliefs feel
alienated from the teaching of their own religion in RE. Another risk with representation is
oppressive speech, which can also stretch outside the classroom and into family homes. Parents
may feel worried if their children’s beliefs are examined in school (Lied 2011).
Due to these risks, a multi-religious RE classroom, such as that in Sweden, needs to be a safe
place if representation is to take place. According to Jackson (2014), the internal diversity of
a classroom must be sensitively and respectfully dealt with if pupils are to feel confident about
expressing their views without being judged or violated. Here, the teacher has a prominent role as
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 3

a moderator or facilitator of pupils’ dialogues (Jackson 2014). The position of the RE teacher has
also been recognised in previous research, for example by Everington et al. (2011) who, when
interviewing 36 teachers from various European countries found that conducting a classroom
discussion about pupils’ personal religious traditions/worldviews was regarded as a valid strategy
when working with diversity. However, the importance of pupils’ privacy was also emphasised.
Overall, the teachers who were involved in the study underlined that an RE classroom should be
a place in which pupils feel safe and are able to share their individual opinions. A similar conclusion
was drawn by Jackson (2014) when advocating dialogue in the RE classroom.
Previous research on safe space in an RE context has also suggested a re-conceptualisation of
the idea of a safe public space (Osbeck, Sporre, and Skeie 2017). It is argued that the addition of the
word public qualifies the discussion, partly due to the fact that a diverse RE classroom can be
understood as a society in miniature, where education for a public good is at stake. The main
argument when analysing the safe public space is to investigate what happens when a classroom
becomes an unsafe public space. The results of the study show an empirical example from
a Swedish RE classroom, where two Muslim girls are ridiculed and violated when talking about
their religion. As a result, an unsafe RE classroom is constructed. One reason for this, which is
underlined in the analysis, is that the two girls are positioned by the teacher and the class as
Muslims who, in a universal sense, are responsible for Islam in general. This naturally reduces their
chances of initiating an alternative classroom discourse and deprives them of their democratic
rights. The importance of the RE teacher’s competence is also emphasised. The teacher in question
finds it difficult to challenge the hegemonic speech in the classroom and therefore becomes a co-
creator of an unsafe RE classroom.
In conclusion, previous RE research has dealt with representation and safe space and has also
recognised the risk that ‘representation’ could be incompatible with ‘safe space’. Although some
empirical examples demonstrate this, the provision of additional empirical illustrations from the
under-explored empirical context of supervision is relevant in the context of this study.

Methodology
Fairclough’s (1985, 1989, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2003) critical discourse analysis is the main theore-
tical influence in formulating the research questions, mainly because Fairclough (1989, 1995)
highlights the importance of examining both the content and the process of discursive con-
structions in discursive practices. Fairclough defines discourse (1995, 14) as a significant way of
talking in relation to a specific domain in a field in which the language use constructs significant
meaning. Additionally, Fairclough (1995) calls this a ‘stabilised configuration’. Two examples of
what gains status as RE teacher knowledge in teacher education supervision practice are
provided in this study. When analysing the discursive process, that is how representation and
safe space are constructed in relation to each other, Laclau & Mouffe’s (1985) concept of
antagonism is utilised. A discursive practice, in this case a supervision trialogue, includes
linguistic conflicts. These conflicts occur when the limits of a discursive practice are challenged,
i.e. when a constructed discourse is confronted. According to Fairclough (2001) a discursive
conflict is a struggle. Understanding a conflict as a struggle makes it is possible to reflect on
power relations both in the discourses and within the supervision triad beyond the discourses,
that is between the ST, STE and UTE.
The concept of ‘RE teacher knowledge’ is used to conceptualise the discursive constructions that
occur in joint talk, that is speech concerning what a teacher must know and do in order to teach.
The construction of discourses is simultaneously regarded as the construction of knowledge and, in
this more specific context, the discursive construction of ‘RE teacher knowledge’. This tentative
concept refers to what is constructed as essential for a (student) teacher of Swedish RE to know
and do in their (future) occupation, that is the knowledge that an RE teacher needs to develop and
master to be considered as competent.
4 D. CARLSSON

The empirical material used in this article consists of observations of RE teacher education super-
vision conferences and interviews with the participant student teachers, the upper secondary school
teacher educators and the university-based teacher educators. Six cases from different Swedish
universities have been explored. Each case consists of an observation of a lesson in which an ST
taught an upper secondary school class in religious education and was observed by an STE and UTE,
an observation of the follow-up supervision conference/trialogue and interviews with each participant
both before and after the trialogue. Three different UTE from three different Swedish universities
participated in these six cases, which means that two cases were conducted with each UTE. Different
ST and STE participate in the six cases. Unstructured (Patel and Davidson 2011) and non-participant
observations were carried out. Each observation of a trialogue was recorded and transcribed, as were
the interviews. The interviews were a mixture of structured and semi-structured (Kvale and Brinkmann
2009), in that a questionnaire was used, but the follow-up questions differed depending on what each
participant said. The transcribed empirical material was organised using codes and categories to
identify the discourses and systematise them in relation to each other.
Although primarily an inductive analytical process, searching for representative patterns, the
critical discourse analytical tradition suggests an analytical movement between the empirical
material and theory (Meyer 2001). Hence, theoretical concepts are explored and used to further
analyse and discuss the empirically grounded analysis.

Representation as RE teacher knowledge

When ST, STE and UTE talk about the competences that are needed to operate as a teacher of RE,
representation is a central discourse. The construction of this discourse implies that the teaching
should present different versions of religious life, beliefs and opinions. The teaching of RE in
Sweden should include representations of different religious traditions and diverse content
between and within religions and other worldviews. One goal in the pupils’ learning is to under-
stand that there are multiple ways of believing, living and talking about religion both between and
within different religious traditions and religious groups. In one of the supervision trialogues the
UTE asked the ST a couple of critical questions. In this case, the lesson prior to the supervision
conference concerned the relationship between religion and science.

Why didn’t you problematise what some call scientific fundamentalism? ... And the other question is. . . why did
you only use examples from Christianity?

Here, a representation of diversity is called for in two different ways. The first is that a teacher of RE
should problematise the content by using alternative images from diverse fields. Fundamentalism
cannot be taught as something that is unique to a religious tradition. It can, as the UTE’s
articulation shows, also be discussed in relation to science, in terms of scientific fundamentalism.
The second is that the ST only uses Christianity as an example of fundamentalism. The UTE
questions this and indicates that there are valid reasons for teaching about fundamentalism in
several religions, or at least not using Christianity as the only illustration. In this example, repre-
sentation is constructed as essential RE teacher knowledge in terms of the UTE’s critical aspects and
drawing attention to the lack of different perspectives, i.e. lacking the skill as a teacher of RE to
represent the content in different ways and contexts.
When a UTE elaborated on what was important knowledge for a teacher of RE, he talked about
what he considered pupils should be taught. As indicated below, he talked about the need to
understand that religion was not a homogenous fact, but a pluralistic construction:

. . . so that the pupils learn that there really is no Christianity, Judaism, Islam, but several Islam-s, Judaism-s,
Christianiti-es, because there is no unified idea. . .
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 5

The point that is made here is that a religious tradition is not singular, but should be understood in
the plural. As different representations are at hand, the RE teacher should know and teach these to
the pupils in order to promote learning.
Another aspect of the discourse of representation, or rather a version of that presented above, is
to make different insider perspectives visible in the teaching of RE. Regardless of which instruc-
tional method is used, such as visiting a mosque or inviting religious insiders to talk to the class,
different representations can reveal different claims to truth. One UTE compared the ‘facts’ stated
in an RE textbook to the diverse perspectives of truth from an insider viewpoint, and said that
when teachers presented a specific RE content they needed to be ‘carefully aware’ that this could
be perceived in a number of ways.

Safe space as RE teacher knowledge

A prominent discourse in RE supervision trialogues is the teacher’s capacity to create an RE
classroom in which pupils feel safe, can share their personal opinions and outlooks on life and
are protected from any negative exposure as a religious believer. The teacher of RE must therefore
be able to create a safe space in which pupils can communicate their personal beliefs. One STE
articulates that:

You have to create an atmosphere in the classroom that makes the pupils dare. . . to share personal
experiences. You can’t do that in all groups, but when you can, it’s amazing.

Two things in this statement are worthy of comment and further analysis. The first is the use of the
words ‘you’ and ‘create’. In this empirical context, the STE talks about what it takes to be
a competent RE teacher. The statement also demonstrates that it is the teacher’s responsibility
to create a safe classroom. Secondly, it is not as simple as saying what is on your mind with regard
to religion and personal views. In order to declare this in front of your classmates you have to
‘dare’. This means having courage, which indicates that significant issues are at stake. Furthermore,
it is not always possible to create a safe space in all classes, which implies that a teacher should
know or be familiar with the particular class in question. Finally, the STE uses the term ‘amazing’ to
explain what happens when the classroom is a safe space. Although ‘amazing’ can refer to different
things, one indication is that if a teacher of RE can create a safe and tolerant teaching atmosphere,
the potential for learning is expanded.

Conflicting discourses
In RE supervision conferences, the discourses on ‘RE teacher knowledge’ are primarily constructed
as complementary to each other (Carlsson 2016). There seems to be a common agreement
amongst ST, STE and UTE about what can be considered as essential knowledge for a teacher of
RE. However, discursive conflicts can arise when discourses are initiated in an incompatible way.
Although representation and safe space are articulated as key RE teacher knowledge in the
empirical material, conflicts can nevertheless arise. The following empirical example demonstrates
the importance of representing the content by using the pupils’ own experiences, how this is
articulated in opposition or contrast to the need for pupils to feel safe and non-exposed and that
the classroom is a safe space. The supervision trialogue in focus below emanated from a lesson in
which the ST lectured on the history of Catholicism, the sacraments, saints and family life.

(1) ST: I was a little bit disturbed. . . because I know that one [pupil] is Catholic [–]
(2) UTE: I asked this guy [the pupil] if he did that. I mean, he’s Catholic. He said no. . . so you
might have asked him. . . and he would have said no. So, what image of Catholicism are you
[the student teacher] providing? [–] You could try to use the class [–]
6 D. CARLSSON

(3) ST: Well, I am a bit frightened by. . . parts of my university education. It has been so very
rigorous when it comes to religion. The Swedish school cannot reflect any element of
confessional teaching. . . I mean, the approach is that the teacher should not even know
what the pupils [–] nobody in a class should be identified as religious [–]
(4) UTE: You don’t need to attack him as an individual, but you could ask: how does this work in
your family? [–] Most often, I think they will say that it is totally ‘fine by me’.
(5) ST: It might be easier when. . . you have your own class [–]
(6) STE: You have to know the class because it doesn’t work everywhere [–]
(7) ST: I agree. . . but. . . if someone is religious, you shouldn’t touch it.

During this supervision trialogue the UTE criticises the ST for not problematising the content.
Instead, the UTE tells the ST that he offers the pupils a one-sided story. The above excerpt
introduces the first response from the ST (1), which expresses difficulties with teaching
a religious tradition when a religious insider is part of the class. The UTE suggests (2) using the
experiences of the pupils in the class, and especially those of a pupil who is a Catholic. According
to the UTE, if the ST had done this, the teaching would have been broadened, in that an alternative
practice would have been made visible. Through the UTE’s statement (2), representation is initiated
as an important tool with which to promote learning, in this case regarding diversity within
Catholicism, which means that representation is discursively constructed as significant ‘RE teacher
knowledge’. However, the ST is uncomfortable (3) about using the pupil and his personal views in
this way. Instead, the ST initiates ‘safe space’ as essential ‘RE teacher knowledge’ by saying that
nobody should be identified as religious in a Swedish classroom. This appears to not only be the
ST’s own opinion, but something that has been learned from teacher education courses. As
a follow up, the UTE begins some kind of negotiation (4). The ST does not need to ‘attack’ the
pupil, but rather offer an invitation – ‘how does this work in your family?’ By doing this, repre-
sentation is constructed as more of a key component in RE teaching and, in the teacher education
context as a key component of the teacher’s competence, rather than the need for a safe space.
With the following articulation (5), namely that the problem is easier to manage when you have
your own class, that is when the teacher knows the pupils, the ST tries to steer the negotiation in
a different direction. It is possible that the ST must accept the discourse of the UTE, but yet another
interpretation is that the only way to make representation conceivable is if you know your pupils.
In this way, the ST’s articulation implies that representation of different religious content is too
delicate a matter and is not worth the risk to an individual pupil’s safety. This, in turn, is
a conflicting discourse in that it indicates a different position from that previously expressed by
the UTE. In this part of the trialogue, the STE supports the ST (6). The statement made by the STE
indicates a fundamental prerequisite for making representation possible by using the pupils own
narratives, namely that the teacher of RE should be familiar with all the individuals in the class. In
the last articulation in the excerpt (7), the ST maintains the previously initiated discourse. In doing
so, safe space is re-constructed as more important than representation. The conclusion is that the
two discourses are constructed as conflicting.

Discussion
The empirical examples in this article show that representation can be understood as a teacher’s
‘problematising tool’ as a way of making difference and diversity visible in religious traditions,
content and ways of living. Although initiating representation may be difficult (Osbeck, Sporre, and
Skeie 2017), it is a strategy that problematises religious traditions and shows that they should be
understood in the plural. Furthermore, representation is an approach that enables the teacher to
show the pupils different versions of RE content outside of ‘religion’, for example a variety of
understandings of what science can be.
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 7

Although the safety of the pupils is emphasised, Everington et al. (2011) highlight that
a classroom discussion in which pupils can talk about their own religious traditions is a valid RE
teacher strategy. The articulations from the UTE in the excerpts support this viewpoint. The views
of the ST indicate that safe space is also a necessity and that a teacher of RE is required to provide
a safe classroom. On the other hand, if the classroom becomes unsafe, the teacher cannot be held
fully responsible, because ‘no person can guarantee a certain pattern of communication’ (Osbeck,
Sporre, and Skeie 2017, 62). However, it is a professional teacher’s responsibility to design and
manage the learning process.
Based on the analyses reported in the article, one aspect of safe space is that the RE teacher has to
know the pupils and be familiar with their individual beliefs in order to create a safe classroom
environment. However, the position maintained by the ST in the supervision trialogue implies the
opposite, in that the ST states that the teacher should not be familiar with the pupils’ individual
worldviews at all. By doing this, the ST constructs a certain characteristic of the safe space discussion
that could be regarded as ‘creating a private room’. In the RE classroom as a ‘private room’, pupils can
either communicate their personal beliefs or choose not to make their positions public. Thus, an RE
teacher’s competence is not only about knowing the pupils in order to generate a safe space, but also
about keeping a distance and in that way create a ’private room’ in which each pupil is untouchable
and where there is no risk of it becoming an unsafe space. Conversely, RE must to some extent be
a challenging and risky business (Jackson 2014; Wright 2004), because difficult matters cannot be
avoided if learning is to take place, especially when a main goal of RE is to understand ‘the other’
(Osbeck, Sporre, and Skeie 2017). From these diverse standpoints, it is hardly surprising that the RE
classroom as a safe space is challenged by different representations. It could even be argued that this
conflict is anticipated.
When representation and safe space are articulated in the above supervision trialogue, they are
initiated in an incompatible way in that the discourses collide and a conflict is established. The
theoretical concept used to identify and understand the limits of a discursive practice and the
clashes of discourses is antagonism (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). Consequently, representation and
safe space can be understood as antagonistic discourses. When antagonistic discourses are
initiated and maintained, a struggle (Fairclough 2001) is introduced. From a discourse analytical
perspective, antagonism and struggle indicate a battle over power in terms of which discourse is
essential. In this empirical context, the antagonistic discourses concern a struggle over which RE
teacher knowledge can be considered as central or most important. Furthermore, aspects of power
within the supervision triad emerge. In the empirical example provided, the UTE advocates the
importance of representation as a way of problematising the RE content. By being in the dominant
position in relation to institutional power, it could be assumed that the ST would submit to the
UTE’s discourse. Carlsson’s (2016) study also points out that a UTE assumes a dominant position in
supervision conferences. This dominance can be identified in relation to significance and to speech
space, due to the fact that a UTE initiate and maintain discourses in a way that has a powerful
impact on how RE teacher knowledge is constructed. However, in the trialogue presented above,
the ST initiates safe space in contrast to representation. Even though the power relations change
(as they always do in discursive practices), by maintaining the discourse, i.e. the ‘RE teacher
knowledge’ in question, the ST challenges representation as central ‘RE teacher knowledge’ and
the UTE as having the dominant position in the triadic relationship. In this way, antagonism is
maintained, consensus is not achieved and the struggle is not concluded.

Conclusion
In this article, representation and safe space are presented as important RE discourses in teacher education
supervision – as discursively constructed ‘RE teacher knowledge’. This mean that in order to become
a competent teacher in RE, the ability to create a safe classroom environment and make different
representations of RE subject content is vital. Even if the discourses are important, stated and agreed
8 D. CARLSSON

on by all the participants in the supervision triad they can still collide. According to the analysis presented
in this article, representation and safe space can be discourses in conflict. The antagonistic aspects of this
relation thus indicate an ongoing struggle in RE teacher education and, accordingly, in the way in which
the RE classroom is managed by a competent RE teacher. Based on the empirical material provided, the
struggle in question can be understood as an example of an especially intense domain in RE practice.
Important areas in RE, such as representation and safe space, can be in conflict and an RE teacher should
either balance, or make a definite choice, how to manage this RE field of tension.

Notes
1. Teacher educator from university.
2. Teacher educator from upper secondary school.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
David Carlsson, PhD, is a senior lecturer in religious studies at the Department of Humanities at the University of
Gävle, Sweden. His research interests are religious education and supervision in teacher education.

References
Alberts, W. 2010. “The Academic Study of Religions and Integrative Religious Education in Europe.” British Journal of
Religious Education 32 (3): 275–290. doi:10.1080/01416200.2010.498621.
Berglund, J. 2013. “Swedish Religion Education: Objective but Marinated in Lutheran Protestantism?” Temenos.
Finland, Europe: Temenos; Temenos. http://webproxy.student.hig.se:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.fttsvojs.oai.ojs.pkp.sfu.ca.article.9545&site=eds-live.
Carlsson, D. 2016. Vad Är Religionslärarkunskap? : En Diskursanalys Av Trepartssamtal i Lärarutbildningen. Göteborg:
Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Cartaut, S., and S. Bertone. 2009. “Co-Analysis of Work in the Triadic Supervision of Preservice Teachers Based on
Neo-Vygotskian Activity Theory: Case Study from a French University Institute of Teacher Training.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 25 (8): 1086–1094. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.006.
Erricker, C. 2001. “Shall We Dance? Authority, Representation, and Voice: The Place of Spirituality in Religious
Education.” Religious Education 96: 20–35. http://webproxy.student.hig.se:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswah&AN=000168162900002&site=eds-live
Everington, J. 2016. “’Being Professional’: RE Teachers’ Understandings of Professionalism 1997–2014.” British Journal
of Religious Education 38 (2): 177–188. doi:10.1080/01416200.2016.1139892.
Everington, J., I. Ter Avest, C. Bakker, and A. van der Want. 2011. “European Religious Education Teachers’ Perceptions
of and Responses to Classroom Diversity and Their Relationship to Personal and Professional Biographies.” British
Journal of Religious Education 33 (2): 241–256. doi:10.1080/01416200.2011.546669.
Fairclough, N. L. 1985. “Critical and Descriptive Goals in Discourse Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 9 (6): 739–763.
doi:10.1016/0378-2166(85)90002-5.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. 2 ed. Harlow: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis : The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research.” In Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis [Elektronisk Resurs], edited by R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 121–138. London: SAGE.
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse : Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., and R. Wodak. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse as Social Interaction, edited by T. A. van
Dijk, 258–284. SAGE Publications.
Grimmitt, M. 2000. “Constructivist Pedagogies of Religious Education Project: Re-Thinking Knowledge, Teaching and
Learning in Religious Education.” In Pedagogies of Religious Education : Case Studies in the Research and
Development of Good Pedagogic Practice in RE, edited by M. Grimmitt, 207–227. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 9

Gross, Z., and S. D. Rutland. 2016. “Creating a Safe Place: SRE Teaching as an Act of Security and Identity Formation in
Government Schools in Australia.” British Journal of Religious Education 38 (1): 30–46. doi:10.1080/01416200.2015.1025699.
Halvarson Britton, T. 2014. Studiebesök i Religionskunskapsundervisningen [Elektronisk Resurs] : Elevers Tal Om Islam Före,
under Och Efter Ett Moskébesök. Karlstad: Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Pedagogiskt arbete,
Karlstads universitet. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-34495.
Holmqvist Lidh, C. 2016. Representera Och Bli Representerad [Elektronisk Resurs] Elever Med Religiös Positionering Talar
Om Skolans Religionskunskapsundervisning. Karlstad: Karlstads universitet. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:
kau:diva-46886.
Jackson, R. 1997. Religious Education : An Interpretive Approach. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Jackson, R. 2004. Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality : Issues in Diversity and Pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Jackson, R. 2014. Signposts - Policy and Practice for Teaching about Religions and Non-Religious World Views in
Intercultural Education [Elektronisk Resurs]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Kittelmann Flensner, K. 2015. Religious Education in Contemporary Pluralistic Sweden. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hv:diva-8740.
Kvale, S., and S. Brinkmann. 2009. Den Kvalitativa Forskningsintervjun. 2. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur. http://www.
studentlitteratur.se/omslagsbild/artnr/3314-02/height/320/width/320/bild.jpg.
Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony & Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
Lied, S. 2011. “The Dialogical RE Classroom - A Safe Forum and A Risky Business. A Response to Robert Jackson´S
Presentation of the Interpretive Approach.” In Patterns of Research in Civics, History, Geography and Religious
Education : Key Presentations and Responses from an International Conference at Karlstad University, Sweden, edited
by B. Schüllerqvist, 165–174. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press, Karlstad University Library.
McIntyre, D. J., and M. D. Byrd. 1997. “Supervision in Teacher Education.” In Handbook of Research on School
Supervision, edited by G. R. Firth and E. F. Pajak, 409–427. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
Meyer, M. 2001. “Between Theory, Method, and Politics: Positioning of the Approaches to CDA.” In Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis [Elektronisk Resurs], edited by R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 14–31. London: SAGE.
Mtika, P., D. Robson, and R. Fitzpatrick. 2014. “Joint Observation of Student Teaching and Related Tripartite Dialogue during
Field Experience: Partner Perspectives.” Teaching and Teacher Education 39: 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.006.
Nesbitt, E. 2004. Intercultural Education : Ethnographic and Religious Approaches. Brighton; Portland: Sussex Academic
Press.
Osbeck, C., K. Sporre, and G. Skeie. 2017. “The RE Classroom as a Safe Public Space - Critical Perspectives on Dialogue,
Demands for Respect, and Nuanced Religious Education.” In Location, Space and Place in Religious Education, edited
by M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, and G. Skeie, 49–66. Münster: Waxmann.
Patel, R., and B. Davidson. 2011. Forskningsmetodikens Grunder : Att Planera, Genomföra Och Rapportera En
Undersökning. 4., Uppda. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Rodgers, A., and V. L. Keil. 2007. “Restructuring a Traditional Student Teacher Supervision Model: Fostering Enhanced
Professional Development and Mentoring within a Professional Development School Context.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 23 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.012.
Rymarz, R. M. 2007. “Who Is This Person Grace? A Reflection on Content Knowledge in Religious Education.” Religious
Education 102 (1): 62–74. doi:10.1080/00344080601117697.
Skeie, G. 2002. “The Concept of Plurality and Its Meaning for Religious Education.” British Journal of Religious Education
25 (1): 47–59. doi:10.1080/0141620020250105.
Skeie, G. 2009. “A Community of Dialogue and Conflict.” In Religious Education Research through a Community of
Practice : Action Research and the Interpretive Approach, edited by J. Ipgrave, R. Jackson, and K. O’Grady, 216–234.
Münster: Waxmann.
Slick, S. K. 1997. “Assessing versus Assisting: The Supervisor’s Roles in the Complex Dynamics of the Student Teaching
Triad.” Teaching and Teacher Education 13 (7): 713–726. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00016-4.
Ubani, M. 2012. “What Characterises the Competent RE Teacher? Finnish Student Teachers’ Perceptions at the Beginning
of Their Pedagogical Training.” British Journal of Religious Education 34 (1): 35–50. doi:10.1080/01416200.2011.601906.
Wright, A. 2004. Religion, Education, and Post-Modernity. London: Routledge Falmer.