This research experienced a number of limitations which are important to highlight in regard to the quality of data it has produced. This section will also advise future researchers and others carrying out similar investigations.
The group of students participating in the research was thirty-nine PGCE citizenship students all studying in universities based in London or the surrounding suburbs. This was due to accessibility and proximity issues. It may well be that these students have a different perception and life experience of LGBT issues in that they chose to study in London, the most diverse city in the United Kingdom. It would have been interesting to compare more universities across the country in order not only to gain more data but also to be able to compare responses gained from the London students with those studying elsewhere. Researching more institutions would also have enabled more students to have taken part, therefore the potential for more reliable data.
I decided only to research citizenship PGCE students for the reasons I have mentioned above, including LGBT‟s potential place within citizenship education within human rights, equality and diversity as well as a personal, professional and academic interest in the subject. Through the responses, it became clear that some
120
of the PGCE students thought it important that all PGCE students should have LGBT training. It may have been useful to compare the PGCE students on the citizenship courses with other PGCE subject students. This would have enabled me to see whether the citizenship students were more informed, aware of or welcoming to LGBT issues compared to other subjects. There would have also been value in this approach due to some of the scenarios and questions within the questionnaire being based around whole school life, rather than just citizenship specific situations.
I was aware when completing the data collection that I had kindly been given a specific time within the students‟ training day to carry out this research. As a result, I had limited time with the students, but also, as with two of the universities, I had the slot at the end of the day, so if the day was over-running, as in the case of University Two, I started my research late yet still had to finish on time. At University Three, which I visited in the morning, I was able to continue beyond the allotted time, which did not affect the timings of the data collection, but allowed the training session to be more substantial. More time with each university may have helped with detail included in the data and allowed for a longer questionnaire, more scenarios and a more in-depth training session.
The questionnaire covered the main areas necessary for the research questions. However, time restraints may have led to students rushing responses, therefore reflecting less detailed responses in some cases. Some of the questions could have been adapted or removed, for example the questions on bullying, as I would argue that all trainee teachers would disagree with bullying in whichever guise – they all responded as expected. However, the use of homophobic language questions could have benefitted from more focus to try to uncover more about the reasons behind the responses. I also note that there was not an option to tick „transgender‟ on the gender question at the start of the questionnaire, which should be pertinent to this study.
The vignettes were read out in order to gain an immediate response, as would be required if this was a real-life situation. To make the responses even more realistic, it could have been valuable to have shown video recordings of the scenarios so the PGCE students could gain a more accurate impression of what was occurring. Some responses, especially to the pupil „coming out‟ to the teacher, possibly required
121
further clarification or scene setting. Some of the scenario activities bore richer data than others. Scenarios one, two and three provided the most useful data for analysis on LGBT issues in school. Scenario four could have generated responses about general discipline for inappropriate comments within the classroom context rather than being specifically related to homophobia. Similarly, scenario five produced more general staffing responses rather than the perceived reaction to a potentially homophobic teacher. Both scenarios four and five, however, were extremely useful during the training session that followed. A scenario based around heteronormative recuperation and self-recuperation could have produced some excellent data for this thesis. Despite scenario one tentatively allowing for a recuperation response, many of the students answered this more generally, relating it to a behaviour issue. It may have been useful to include such a scenario involving heteronormative behaviour within the staff room in order to gain data on the possibility of recuperation.
Despite areas which could have been expanded or consolidated with the data collection methods, the methods produced useful insights and information in order to answer the research questions. They also highlighted further questions which could be investigated further.
6.8 Chapter summary
The data collected from the universities indicates many positive aspects, none less than the PGCE students‟ desire and commitment to address LGBT issues in schools, which differs from research by Robinson and Ferfolja (2002) carried out in Australia. However, although the PGCE students were enthusiastic about LGBT education they were also aware of gaps in their knowledge within this area and indicated a need for more training during their PGCE courses. This reinforces the argument from other writers for the need for more teachers to be trained in LGBT issues (Douglas et al., 1997; Meyer, 2009; Ofsted, 2002; Rivers et al., 2007; Ryan & Rivers, 2003; Warwick et al., 2004; Watkins, 2008;).
Teacher training courses could provide specific training sessions in LGBT education within the PGCE course and not as part of a controversial issues programme. The training could include knowledge acquirement around the history of LGBT within the western world, showing an appreciation of the struggles of the
122
LGBT community in the past and the rise and fall of homophobia. Knowledge acquisition should also include specific terminology and concepts such as heterosexism and heteronormativity, in order for the trainee teachers to develop an appreciation of some of the difficulties LGBT youth may experience in schools generally. Transgender and transsexual education could also be addressed within a knowledge acquirement programme with the purpose of improving awareness and understanding of this community. Specific sessions on homophobic bullying and the unique nature of this type of bullying could also be delivered, using scenarios, role plays and real-life stories. Discussions around the use of the word gay as an insult could be initiated to allow trainee teachers to decide their own strategy towards the use of this term amongst young people, so they are not relying upon other teachers within schools to lead the way. Further training on supporting young LGBT individuals, especially if they „come out‟ to a teacher, along with a closer examination into the matter of religion and LGBT, could also improve teacher training in LGBT.
Teacher training could be incorporated as part of an LGBT adapted Dimensions of Multicultural Education model (Banks, 2004) where a teacher training dimension could precede the other five dimensions to ensure teachers are prepared in and knowledgeable about LGBT issues before they enter the profession, enabling them to contribute to the model within schools. Without such training, teachers new to the profession are relying on their own personal knowledge and experience of LGBT, which, as this research indicates, may be adequate or extremely limited.
123