COMPETIDORES ACTUALES

When developing the research design, I thought that I may have problems negotiating access to the home but had not envisaged difficulties in accessing school classrooms. In order to access schools I needed to inform the headteachers about my research, as in the world of the school, the headteacher acts as the ‘formal gatekeeper’ (Reeves, 2010) who has the authority to grant access. As soon as I had received consent from the participants, I contacted the headteachers of their schools. All of the named schools had worked with the university where I work, and all had positive relationships. In fact I had visited all of the schools in question at some point in my role as a supervising tutor for trainee teachers. Therefore, as Reeves (2010: 192) recommends, I had ‘learnt the social structures of the research site’ and had built positive relationships with staff and headteachers during my visits. Therefore, gaining access should have been straightforward. However, this was far from the case.

Access to David’s school was not a problem, mainly due to the fact that David’s mother was also the acting deputy headteacher and as such acted as the gatekeeper to the school. We worked together to review the school’s policies relating to ethical issues around observing and videoing in the classroom. This cooperative relationship went on to inform my own practice relating to ethical access. I hoped that the positive and collaborative attitude would carry into the classroom where the teacher acted as another gatekeeper. Ensuring the

cooperation of the class teacher was going to be essential as she was in a position to restrict my access, activities and experiences (Reeves, 2010). Therefore, I met the teacher in advance of undertaking my fieldwork, and following discussions she signed a teacher consent form (Appendix B). There was no evidence that she felt resentful about participation, in fact as the literacy coordinator she was interested in the subject matter. But I was aware that I would be entering her classroom to observe a senior manager’s son and to discuss writing practice. I would need to remain aware and sensitive to this, as the power relationship between the official and intermediate gatekeepers could affect cooperation (Wanat, 2008). I needed to

64

be sensitive to her position in both the research relationship and school. This was a complicated power relationship that is highlighted in Chapter 4.

Access to Steven’s school was not a problem, mainly due to the fact that his mother had built up an exceptional working and personal relationship with the headteacher at her son’s school. This personal contact made access to the school much easier to negotiate (Duke, 2002: Reeves; 2010), as mum set the research context prior to my making contact. As with David’s school, I negotiated terms of entry in-line with the school’s ethical requirements and safeguarding policy.

Things were less straightforward at Tim’s school. The headteacher, who had previously agreed access, had been removed from post to take over a larger, struggling school. A new headteacher had been put in post but the structure within the school had changed and I was no longer dealing with familiar staff. The new headteacher was now the formal gatekeeper and I tried on numerous occasions to talk to her by telephone. Eventually I spoke to a senior teacher. I informed her of my research and of discussions with the previous headteacher and asked if I could visit the school for an informal face to face chat about my research proposal. The individual was hesitant but not dismissive at that stage. However, she did ask for the name of the child who had consented, along with his parents, to take part. I was taken aback at the response when I gave Tim’s name:

Not that child and not that family! We will have to say no and I strongly recommend you find somebody else.

(Conversation Notes, September 2012)

This response placed me in a difficult situation as the parents and child were very enthusiastic about taking part in the research. The response from the school also suggested that the relationship between the school and family was strained and I did not want to make that situation worse. I was faced with two options. I could continue with the child in the home setting and notify the parent that I would not be going into school, but this may cause a backlash in school, or I could end the relationship with Tim and his family. After much deliberation I decided to withdraw

65

but was very aware that the way of exiting the situation was as important as that of entry. I had spent some time with Tim and his family in his home setting and as result had been privy to information relating to him and his experiences. Therefore, I knew that I had to exit the situation with care and consideration as I wanted Tim to understand that our previous discussions would be treated confidentially and with respect (Allen, 2005).

I experienced similar issues attempting to gain access to Mark’s school. However, at this stage in my research I had begun data collection with the other two boys and had come to the conclusion that it was the boys’ experiences of writing, both in school and at home, that I was most interested in and that classroom observations were not a vital part of the research. As the relationship between Mark’s family and school was also very different to that of Tim, there was not a problem when the school refused access. Interestingly it was the teacher in this instance who did not want research to be conducted in her classroom. The headteacher had been amenable to my accessing school but respected the wishes of her staff. No specific reason for refusing classroom access was given.

Negotiating the formal gatekeeper of the school settings had presented challenges and had caused me to reassess how I was going to undertake my fieldwork with my three remaining participants; David, Steven and Mark.

Accessing the home

The gatekeepers to the home were of course the parents. Therefore, in agreeing to be a part of my research study they had given permission to enter the home. However, the terms of the access had to be agreed in advance. I was very aware that I was in a privileged position and that access needed to be on the parents’ terms, after all I was entering their homes as a guest and as such had to satisfy the social conventions of being a guest in their homes, a situation which according to Coad et al (2014), could present a number of ethical dilemmas. Mayall (2008: 116) refers to research in the home as a ‘triangle of conventions and negotiations’ involving the parent, child and researcher, where the researcher has to take

66

account of the views of the parent and child but where the child and parent may have already negotiated between themselves how the research event will be played out. I would have to remain mindful of this potential prior-negotiation but I hoped that I would minimise this risk as I built a friendly and trusting relationship with the participants. Therefore, my priority was to create a non-threatening climate

(Christensen, 2004).

I had undertaken some informal research in the home with a 10 year old girl in 2010 (Wilson and Scanlon, 2011) and was aware of the difficulties I would face in being allowed time alone with the child. I had been able to use this experience as a pilot test in anticipation of my doctoral research in order to refine approaches to

interview and observational data collection, as recommended by Yin (2009). During this pilot research I found that the girl’s parents wanted to be present constantly in order to either direct the child’s activity or to comment on the child’s conversations. For example, the girl demonstrated sending a message to her friend via the Moshi Monsters’ website. Moshi Monsters is a popular on-line gaming site aimed at children aged 6 to 12 that also offers access to social networking features. On the website’s virtual pinboard she wrote ‘Hi wuu2’, (Wilson and Scanlon, 2011: 153) demonstrating an understanding of text messaging language conventions.

Nevertheless her parents showed concern that she was not ‘writing properly’ and immediately interrupted the demonstration and discussion to chastise her for not using conventional syntax and to assure me that she could write properly. I wanted to minimise this sort of interruption during my time with my study participants as I wanted open discussions relating to the child’s lived literacy and particularly writing experiences rather than accounts based on perceptions of my needs and/or their parents’ perceptions of what constitutes literacy. Whilst I recognised that this was going to be challenging, the previous experience had taught me that it was crucial that I built trusting relationships with the boys and their families so that I was accepted in the home setting. I did this by undertaking regular visits to their homes, gradually increasing the time I spent with them and not always with the intention of gathering data.

67

Logistically it proved quite difficult to visit the boys. Their evenings were taken up with sports and social activities, and family events. Also, my own work schedule involved a lot of travelling both in and out of country. This meant that I was not always available when the families felt it was convenient for me to visit them, and vice-versa. I was also keen to avoid weekends as this time together was valued as ‘together time’ by all of the participating families. Therefore, research in the home had to take place in the evening and as such had to be carefully planned well in advance. Day time visits took place during school holidays.