{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022572912504994005, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001997602876548142, 'mean_word_length': 4.755172413793104, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In and out, and roundabouts

I have worked in partnership with the School where the Embedded Researcher was based for over 10 years. In writing up a period of research undertaken with Pat Thomson (University of Nottingham), we coined the phrase ‘liquid researcher’ (Thomson and Gunter, 2011). We wanted to move from the ‘insider–outsider’ binary towards an understanding of the messiness and contingency of such work. While formally outside of the School and not on the payroll, we were simultaneously inside through the research design, delivery and data. The project that the Embedded Researcher has worked on has afforded me ongoing moments of additional reflection on this liquidity, and in this short account, I wanted to give a flavour of this regarding my own journey, not least the 30 minutes from home to school and back again for our meetings. I am writing this account towards the end of the Embedded Researcher’s three-year ESRC CASE studentship, but the planning of the project, the application to the ESRC and the appointment process began over five years ago. In many ways, my experience has been the same as other supervisions, particularly with part-time doctoral students who are researching professionals ‘embedded’ in their work contexts. Knowing about and understanding the web of relationships in which these students are located, together with the realpolitik of doing research in real-life settings, has been helpful in thinking through this full-time embedded studentship. Working within an organisational setting, whether full or part time, requires an understanding of the interplay between the bespoke demands of the organisation and the University: the latter requires an original contribution to knowledge, while the former requires relevant knowledge. Both are achievable and pertinent to each other, it is a case of how knowledge production for a thesis project is framed and communicated for different audiences. While the Embedded Researcher and I had regular meetings in my office at the University plus Skype and email conversations, we had meetings at School with the Headteacher. In this sense, the Headteacher acted as a cosupervisor, as well as the main link with the governors, parents, teachers and children. So, I travelled to and from the School, and spent time on the road in ways that generated opportunities to think through the meeting in advance, and reflect on how things were going on my return. Pauses at give-way signs and roundabouts enabled me to use the road as another metaphor for this partnership: there were times to stop, times to give way and times to drive on. Importantly, the relationship that had been built up over time enabled this to work very well. For example, it took at least three phases of advertising to be able to make a successful appointment, and while we had what we thought was a suitable candidate very early on, it was clear that the ‘stop’ sign prevented us from making a mistake. On other occasions, I have had to be in the driving seat, not least in recognising that the University’s research integrity processes required researcher identities and practices that overlapped with, but often challenged, that of the professional. And yet, I have ‘given way’ on occasions to the School’s requirements to drive the project in ways that fitted their agenda. The three years have gone quickly and smoothly, where the negotiation in the development of the project has been productive and very helpful. I would not hesitate again to do this type of project, not least in a school where there is an emerging sense of research capacity-building for staff and students. There are possibly two main areas where I recall moments that required me to think carefully, and required not only my journey time by car to School and back again, but also on my train to work on other days. The first issue I would like to raise is that of funding. The ESRC CASE studentship pays the student a stipend, but the organisation also makes a small contribution. In a budget for a large comprehensive school, this is ‘small change’ and with careful planning, the School could deliver. However, a political situation arose during the project when the School was reviewing income streams with potential non-replacement of staff who left, and even redundancies. It became clear that this was generating some internal politics in regard to the project, and I was pleased to have been told about it. For me, it was a sign of a healthy working relationship that such matters could be discussed, and it gave us the opportunity to look at the project in a range of ways. In the commercial marketplace, the cost of a ‘researcher in residence’ and my role as ‘expert’ would have been at least 10 times the annual contribution that the School was making. This enabled the sense of investment to be engaged with. The School, University and the ESRC valued the partnership in ways that are deeper and richer than as pounds and pence, but at a time when education