During my initial meeting with the school’s Head Teacher, I explicitly outlined:-
The focus of the research.
The rationale for conducting the research.
The methods I wanted to use in order to gather the research data.
The time commitments and contribution from participants.
This information is outlined within the BPS’ (2010) Code of Human Research Ethics, in which it is stated that in order to gain valid consent, sufficient information must be provided to all prospective participants.
The Head Teacher demonstrated an understanding of these key points before providing her consent to participate within the research. However after completing the semi-structured interview with the SLT, the Head Teacher’s availability notably decreased. As a result I was unable to communicate with the Head Teacher for over three months. After securing contact with the Head Teacher in January 2014, it was evident that the school were happy to continue to participate within the research. However following my telephone discussion with the Head Teacher, it became apparent that the staff and students were not easily available. Although the Head Teacher indicated that the school’s reduced availability was unanticipated, this appeared to be due to staffing issues and the school’s commitments to additional projects, such as AfA. The reduced availability of the participating school, prevented me from conducting the following tasks:-
142
Feeding back to participating students regarding my interpretations of the data gathered during the focus group discussions.
Eliciting the views of the school’s 5 Middle Leaders.
Feeding back to the school staff and students directly regarding the research findings.
I will now discuss these challenges in greater detail.
6.4.1 Limitations Relating to the Availability of Participants
In order to enhance the reliability of my research, I had intended to meet with the pupils who attended the focus groups, in their original groupings. This meeting was designed to provide the students with an opportunity to discuss the interpretations I had made within my thematic analysis. This discussion was also designed to provide students with an opportunity to challenge any of the interpretations made, resulting in a more accurate reflection of their views. However the school’s SLT were reluctant for students to miss further time from their lessons, therefore it was not possible to conduct the meetings.
I had anticipated that the views of the school’s Middle Leaders would be gathered through the Q-sort activity, which was conducted with the school’s teaching staff. However I was informed by the Head Teacher that the school’s 5 Middle Leaders were not available to complete the Q-sort activity, as they were required to attend an after-school meeting on the day on which data collection had been planned. The Head Teacher also stated that the Middle Leaders shared a similar understanding to the SLT regarding the strategies deemed most effective in raising student
attainment, attendance and behaviour. Although this assumption may be accurate, one could argue that the Head Teacher had failed to account for the fact that:- a)
143
Middle leaders may have held an alternative perspective to the SLT and b) The duties fulfilled by the middle leaders, are different to those fulfilled by the SLT, for example the middle leaders’ have larger teaching requirements. As a result the Middle Leaders may have held greater or different insights regarding the strategies employed within the classroom.
The third limitation which arose from the reduced availability of both staff and students within the school, was the process of feeding back the research findings and recommendations to participants. Cohen et al. (2011) suggests that in order to conduct ethical research the researcher must identify how their research will impact the lives of participants in a meaningful way and participants are not simply viewed as individuals who provide the researcher with data. Prior to initiating the research it was my objective to feed back to all participants regarding the outcomes of my research. I believed that this feedback would provide school staff with an objective exploration of the factors and strategies which has led to the school achieving ‘outstanding’ practice. I believed that information would support the school to reflect on their practice. In addition the research findings would enable school staff to develop further insight regarding the views of their pupils.
I am mindful that by failing to feedback directly to both school staff and pupils regarding the research findings, one could argue that the positive impact of my research on the lives of the participants is reduced. However I was also conscious of the Head Teacher’s right to withdraw either partly or entirely from the research and therefore I felt obligated to continue with the research project, whilst making the required adjustments.
144 6.4.2 Additional Limitations
At the request of the Head Teacher, I interviewed the Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher together. The Head Teacher believed this approach would enable the SLT to provide more comprehensive responses, as the Head Teacher held greater responsibilities regarding behaviour and attendance, whilst the Deputy Head
Teacher held greater responsibility regarding pupil attainment. However interviewing the SLT together is also a limitation of the current research. Newby (2010) identified that pair interviews hold the following limitations:-
One participant may rely upon the responses of the other interviewee and therefore withhold their own perspective.
One interviewee is dominant within the interview, impacting upon the second interviewee’s opportunities to share their perspective.
Participants may be unwilling to share their full perspectives in relation to more sensitive topics, in the presence of their colleague.
Within the current research neither the Head Teacher’s or the Deputy Head
Teacher’s views appeared to dominate the interview. However I acknowledge that there is a hierarchical difference between the positions of Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher, which may have impacted upon the Deputy Head Teacher’s
willingness to provide a contrasting perspective to the Head Teacher.
The responses from the SLT suggest that a key strength of their practice and contributing factor towards their success, relates to their willingness to embrace change and evolve. This may be viewed in turn as a shortcoming of the current research. Walker (1983) states that a shortcoming of case study design, is the
145
tendency for researchers to provide a frozen picture of what takes place within a case, when in fact practice constantly evolves.
Sellman (2009) previously highlighted that by asking pupils to volunteer, this may skew the research data. Pupils who volunteer in the research may be more engaged within the school. However within the current research, one could argue that my objective was to identify the strategies which are deemed successful in enhancing pupil engagement. Therefore working with engaged pupils, may have further enhanced my ability to identify the effective strategies.
The employment of focus groups to elicit the pupils’ views presented notable strengths and shortcomings. As previous researchers have suggested, the pupils were forthcoming with their views and extended upon the points their peers had made (Krueger and Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1997). This provided me with a richer understanding of the strategies and factors discussed. However a number of pupils’ views were more prominent within the discussion. This shortcoming was previously highlighted by Robson (2011). To overcome this barrier I asked individual pupils if they wanted to respond to the question I had asked. However my direct questioning was not designed to force the pupils to respond, but to simply provide them with an opportunity to have their say. However one could also argue that the pupils that were more forthcoming within the group discussions may not have had adequate time to express their views. As a result an alternative approach, such as one to one
interviews, may have enabled certain pupils to answer the questions in greater detail.
A further limitation of the current research was the exclusion of parents’ views. One could argue that parents may not have held insight regarding the school’s classroom
146
practice. However the parental contribution may have enhanced my understanding regarding a number of strategies and factors raised, for example the establishment of positive home-school collaboration. I elected not to elicit the views of parents within the current research due to a) time-constraints for completing data collection and b) the geographical location of parents. The majority of parents do not live in close-proximity to the school, therefore SLT anticipated that this would impact upon parental participation.