A positivistic critique of my research might be that it lacks ‘scientific rigour’, objectivity and replicability. Whereas an interpretivistic/relativistic critique might be that it lacks reflexivity of subjectivities in not digging deep enough into analysis of participants’ consciousness. My defence is that my research has been systematic, ‘scientifically’ sound, yet meaningful. Reliability has been gained through closed-question quantitative data; validity through open- question qualitative data and systematic coding and theory development. I have attempted to be as ‘objective’ about the ‘subjective’ as possible and declared my positionality. Nomothetic and idiographic analyses have been enabled through the mix of samples, sampling techniques and research methods. However, validity, reliability and generalizability are problematic concepts in the
152
context of this research that assumes ‘multiple-realities’ with no single universal ‘truth’ to be captured. Narrative research ‘like reality itself - can be read, understood and analysed in extremely diverse ways’ (Lieblich et al, 1998:171). I tried to bear in mind Wittgenstein’s (1992:6) argument when conducting my research, that:
Understanding a person is like understanding a piece of music; it is not a matter of accepting the truth of some statement or theory but of seeing the connections - and of course the differences - between the various things people do and say.
Thus, narratives are not exact records, but representations of ‘reality’ (Riessman, 1993). Efficacy and appropriateness of narrative is challenged by its: credibility, trustworthiness, transferability, dependability, confirmability and relationship to events under study (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000).
‘Generalisation’ is problematic, prompting the suggestion it be replaced by valuing knowledge as contextual (Kvale, 1996). If this were so, validity, reliability and generalizability could be reconceptualised to apply to specific local, personal and community forms of ‘truth’ with a focus on daily-life and local narrative (Bryman, 2008). Acknowledging there can be no one correct interpretation of the data underlying this thesis does not preclude evaluation of quality and rigour. Herschell (1999:2) proposes ‘process believability’ premised on sets of principles from a declaration of ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions to critical discussion as providing means for evaluation. All of which I have sought to provide. Alternatively, Lieblich et al (1998) propose four criteria against which to evaluate qualitative research: comprehensiveness, coherence, insightfulness, and parsimony or ability to provide analysis based on a small number of concepts. My research has endeavoured to be thorough, rigorous, professional, careful, honest and accurate (Blaxter et al, 2003) in providing ‘crystallizations’ capturing the multifaceted-ness of ‘G&T’-identity constructions. Limitations of my research are further explored in chapter 9.
153
5.11 Conclusions
This chapter has related the story of a research journey constructed not only in terms of providing descriptions of how the research was carried out, with whom and my relationship with my participants, but additionally I have provided a reflexive account aimed at making transparent assumptions influencing the research. The concern of researchers ‘is to convey the complexity and interrelatedness of social-life in ways which offer new or differently interpreted explanations’ (Duncan, 2000:461). Critical-realist influenced epistemology was used as its assumptions of internal and external ‘realities’ interlink with those of the analytical framework. In accordance with traditions of grounded theory, multiple methods were employed to collect data: semi-structured interviewing, follow-up informal couple-interviews and e-mailed questionnaires. The grounded theory was characterised by its intertwined processes of data- collection and analysis; this was supported by principles of ‘theoretical- sampling’.
The research went through five stages: secondary-data collection; piloting the study with ten participants; and three stages of the three methods of data collection. The data analysis went through three stages of coding processes: ‘open-coding’, ‘axial-coding’, and ‘selective-coding’. I have aimed to follow Bourdieu’s (1998) lead in ‘plunging’ into the ‘reality’ I wish to understand:
My entire scientific enterprise is indeed based upon the belief that the deepest logic of the social world can be grasped only if one plunges into the particularity of an empirical reality, historically located and dated, but with the objective of constructing it as a ‘special case of what is possible’ (Bourdieu, 1998:2).
My research aims to provide a different and new way of conceptualising post-16 students’ ‘G&T’-identity constructions as reactions to school labelling. This chapter has outlined methodological approaches and discussed some methodological/ethical challenges arising from using a methodology influenced by critical-realism. Ultimately, acknowledgement is made that issues of mediation, interpretation and writing will make the researcher’s ‘voice’ the loudest. Despite this, I hope those of participants can still be heard. The next
154
three chapters explore the findings, emergent-themes and theories in relation to the three research questions.
155
Chapter 6: Processes Involved in the Identification of ‘G&T’-Students in Post-16 Education
6.1 Introduction
I don’t want to be seen as a G&T-snob and so I don’t tell them [other students] that I am ‘G&T’. They would think I was a knob-‘ead if they knew. I have heard others say ‘it’s not fair that they are chosen to be ‘G&T’. I suppose there will be a ‘G&T’-award on presentation evening next’. So if they knew, I don’t think I would be very popular. It is not fair; we should all be ‘G&T’. I have been labelled ‘G&T’ and I don’t tell anyone. Cos I’d be a knob, a brain-box, and that’s not me. I am just me ain’t I? I’m not a knob-head, I’m a dickhead and that’s how they like me (Matt).
Being different and not fitting-in was often reported by students in my research. This thesis analyses ‘G&T’-identities exploring the variety of ways students ‘present’ ‘G&T’-identities within school institutional cultures that implement ‘G&T’ policy. I also explore student strategies as responses to being categorised ‘G&T’. This chapter, with chapters 7 and 8, discuss findings from the empirical study based on three schools in 2010. This provides the primary sources of data for this thesis, and provides key participant information, in relation to the thesis’ research questions. This chapter explores findings that address the research question:
From the perspectives of post-16 students, parents and teachers, what processes are involved in the identification of ‘G&T’-students in post-16- education?
This chapter explores findings addressing school ‘G&T’-identification processes; chapter 7 explores social constructions of ‘G&T’-identities addressing research question 2 on ‘G&T’-identification affecting students’ identities; and chapter 8 explores findings addressing research question 3 on ‘G&T’-students’ response strategies to being identified as ‘G&T’. One significant contribution of the research was discovering non-consistent ways, across schools in which ‘G&T’ post-16 students are identified and provided for. Data shows ‘G&T’-identities and school cultures are reciprocally influential. School institutions differ in processes employed to identify ‘G&T’ post-16 students, thus the type of link
156
between ‘G&T’-identities and school-culture, and hence strategies used by post- 16 students coping with ‘G&T’-status are varied within and across school institutions.
Section 6.2 sets out the relevance of Bourdieu’s scholarship and the related concept of institutional-habitus. 6.3 considers the three school’s institutional- habituses and ‘G&T’-identification practices. In 6.4, I show the differing levels of engagement across schools with ‘G&T’-agendas; in particular lack of consistency, making post-16 school transfer problematic. I explore school implementation of ‘G&T’-policies, provision and the GATCO role. In 6.5, I consider perspectives on ‘G&T’-identification inequity; and in 6.6, I provide conclusions to the chapter.
Table 4 aids tracking participants across the research process. It shows gender, school and research pseudonym for students interviewed.
Table 4: Participant Identification and Tracking
Student-Semi- Structured- Interview Number/Parent- E-mailed- Questionnaire Number (10 Mothers; 6 Fathers): Gender of ‘G&T’- Student, (7 male, 9 female): School A= 80%+, School B = 60%+, School C = 40%+ A*-C-GCSE-score; (GATCO-E-mailed- Questionnaires with School A, B and C GATCOs): Follow- up- Informal- Couple- Interview Number: Research Pseudonym:
1 (Mother) Female Appleton 6 Anne
2 (Mother) Female Appleton 4 Becky
3 (Mother) Female Appleton 1 Chrissy
4 (Father) Male Appleton 3 David
5 (Mother) Female Appleton Elizabeth
6 (Father) Male Barratt Farrokh
7(Mother) Male Barratt Gary
8 (Mother) Female Barratt Hazel
9 (Mother) Male Castle Ian
10 (Father) Male Castle 2 James
11 (Mother) Female Castle 8 Kathy
12 (Mother) Female Castle Lyn
13 (Father) Male Castle Matt
14 (Father) Female Barratt Nancy
15 (Father) Female Barratt 7 Olivia
157
The table provides condensed information correlating the relationships between participants and their schools, thus aiding the reader in following the ‘story’ being told through the data analysis chapters.