Claudia Ciccardi, PhD in Education in Contemporary Society.
Could you tell us something about yourself and the path that led you to the doctorate? Which educational and professional experiences helped shape your choices?
I came to the doctoral path at a “late age”, having been out of university programmes for many years. The cooperative where I work as a pedagogical coordinator has always set up doctorates and collaboration contracts with universities, and so a doctoral programme was also set up with the Department of Human Sciences for Education “R. Massa”. Let’s say that, while this is a practice known and recognised by the cooperative, on the other hand there was a strong push from me: a proposal to present this possibility to the cooperative once again, in order to give value to a path that was just beginning, a process of building pedagogical coordination at national level.
How did you come to know the ESC Doctorate, and what convinced you to apply?
At the time when we were looking for a way to start a research path in the area where I was working, Turin, DISUF was running a training course on precisely the topic of pedagogical coordination. That was therefore the opportunity to meet some of the faculty and to understand which values and skills a doctoral path at this department can offer. For example, in my previous studies I had never had the chance to study research methodology with care or to put on the research habitus, which are essential elements for a second-level professional. So, discovering that this path could support me in developing methodological skills in empirical research was certainly the most valuable point for me.
What was the central theme of your doctoral research? How would you describe it to someone who is not familiar with your field of study?
The main theme of the doctoral research was the role of the pedagogical coordinator. It is hard to describe the research to people who don’t know the field, because the coordinator is already a little-known figure. Perhaps I would describe it by saying that the study aimed to better define the professional functions of a leadership role that is decisive for the educational system.
Speaking of which, what do you mean by “a leadership role that is decisive for the educational system”? Why is it important to research and talk about this topic?
The two things are closely connected. The great changes that today affect the educational system (both internally – Decree 65, for example – and externally – the complexity of today’s world, such as falling birth rates, social crises, etc.) require services to transform continuously. That is why second-level figures, such as coordinators, need to acquire and nurture a stance of transformative leadership. Because they are precisely “the link” between new demands for development and transformation and the valuable reflective work of the working groups. My research investigated exactly this aspect. It tried to understand how this function can be developed and implemented. Today, research on this topic, on this figure, has not yet managed to go into the detail of professional practice. And so, I think it is very interesting to be able to explore some new avenues.
Returning to your experience of study and research: was there a moment when you had to call into question your hypotheses, your method, or even the way you looked at your object of research?
A specific moment of questioning or crisis, no. I must say that, in general, crisis accompanied me throughout the whole research path. In the sense that every step was strongly called into question, first of all by myself: since I didn’t have much knowledge, it was all a search for the most correct way, so nothing was ever taken for granted the first time. And so I continually asked myself questions about my stance and about the way I observed the context, the field, etc. In general, questioning was the backbone of the doctorate, because there were many moments of dialogue with my tutor and with my “critical friends”. Moreover, since it was participatory research, every step, including the methodological choices, was also called into question with the group of co-researchers, who were my colleagues in pedagogical coordination. So this tension toward continuous redefinition, toward continually putting issues into crisis, was permanent.
You mention participatory research; how would you explain it to someone completely unfamiliar with the topic?
It is research that is not initiated and carried forward “only” by the researcher. Indeed, it is research that could not exist without the full involvement of the voices of those involved in it. In my case it was participatory because the cooperative’s coordinators were co-researchers. Their words, in the interviews, guided my research process, in addition to being the data analysed. That is, they defined the very orientation the research took. And all the steps were discussed with them. As if they were co-researchers; indeed, they were so in every respect. The subjects of the research, not objects of the research, are fully involved and called upon to define their own definition: in this case, of their professionalism.
Beyond scientific skills, what have you learned about yourself during these years? What personal resources have you discovered or developed?
Actually, what I discovered is that I like doing research, and this was certainly an important change, also for my professional development. And not only did I discover that I like doing research, but I discovered that with greater attention to the methodological structure, to the scientific rigour, let’s say, of the process, research can be brought into educational services regardless of academic affiliation. Then of course, the validity and validation of Academia certainly open other paths, but that research gaze and some methods can nonetheless be adopted by practitioners.
Could you expand on this? How can research methods and perspectives be adopted by practitioners outside traditional Academia?
I would say that the real legacy is not so much a single operational “tool”, but a mental stance. What you carry out of Academia, and what I find deeply enriching, is the habit of taking nothing for granted and of questioning the context. Doing research means learning to “stay in the problem”, to gather complexity before looking for hasty solutions, and to question evidence that is taken as given.
Outside the university world, this gaze translates into the ability to take a step to the side: an educational professional can use research methods not to write a scientific article (of course, if they want they can do that too), but as an everyday magnifying glass. For example, we often tend to act out of automatisms, whereas the research gaze teaches you to really observe, to document, and to use reflexivity to notice submerged dynamics in educational routines that would otherwise escape you. Moreover, those who have done research shift the focus onto real impact and onto process: they question the data, try to understand why an intervention worked or failed, and turn error into a learning opportunity for the whole team. After all, research allows you not to be crushed by the urgency of the immediate answer and to turn educational action into a conscious and scientifically grounded professional practice.
What do you do today and how does your doctoral path fit into your work?
I continue to work as a pedagogist within organisations, and what I take with me after the doctorate is a way of giving more scientific structure to the processes I put in place (in development projects, in interactions with local communities, in training processes). Today this has more of an action-research and research-training approach, and what I observe becomes for me an element that enriches my thinking and so also produces new perspectives on education.
We are in the final stretch and I would like to ask you two slightly more personal questions, the kind that help to draw conclusions. Let’s take a leap in time: if you could go back to the first day of the doctorate, what advice would you give to your then self?
To my first-day self I would advise not to worry if everything is not clear from the beginning, because step by step it unfolds. That is somewhat what actually happened in my path, but on the first day I was obviously a bit anxious and needed to see things clearly. Instead, looking back, I must say it was fascinating to see how everything revealed itself and took on coherence and meaning along the way.
And to close, let’s look forward instead. What would you say, looking them in the eye, to someone who is currently considering applying to the ESC Doctorate but is standing on the edge, unsure whether it is truly the right path for them?
I would say that, regardless of the possibility of seeing the doctorate as a step toward a university career, the doctorate can be an investment in growth and enrichment: certainly cultural, but also professional.