Con respecto a los maestros memorables (emergente)

Various qualitative methods are utilised to produce and represent evidence on group

behaviours (Erickson, 2011). Information for qualitative research can be sought by various means, such as case studies, interviews, observational and historical texts, all aimed at unravelling and examining routine and/or problematic moments in time. A feature of

qualitative methods, according to Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005), is the focus on hermeneutic methods where information is sought by the interpretation of texts; this type of enquiry is often critiqued as being observer-dependent and possibly unreliable.

While this research study is based on interpretation of the spoken word in conjunction with the theoretical framework, the expectation is that these qualitative interviews can

provide a rich source of information on the emotional bases of social behaviours. Other challenges for qualitative study are in discerning the real power imbalances and ensuring authentic representation by not concentrating solely on the pursuit of democracy and social justice (Erickson, 2011).

4.3.1 Power Imbalances and Broad Assumptions

In education, research-practitioner collaborative methods are often employed as a way to reduce the risk of unequal power relations, inherent in qualitative research (Somekh, 2006). Although collaborative, democratic research seeks to solve real-life problems, using

questions are usually formulated by people within the education system (Delamont & Jones, 2012). Collaborative methods aim to overcome the issue of unequal power relationships and encourage more reflective teachers but with an expectation that practitioners will become “more willing data collectors” (Noffke, 2002, p. 18).

While cognisant of the challenge in being able to truly represent the studied group in an objective manner, an accurate representation might not be assured just because the researcher is an “insider” from the same race/class/gender as those being observed (Mason, 2002). The reason difficulties arise is because of the tendency of the “insider” to overlook familiar phenomena. Issues of practice, in critical education research, can also be overlooked if the focus is to emancipate perceived disadvantaged groups (Hattam & Smyth, 2014). Consequently, the overuse of terms, such as “disadvantaged”, can suppose that all people in certain environments are somehow powerless upon being trapped in undesirable locations.

For this reason, Bourdieu‟s habitus theory is sometimes mistakenly critiqued as patronisingly assigning deficit descriptions to the poor. Hattam and Smyth (2014) contend, for example, that the “disadvantaged postcode” perspective in education research, simply serves to reinforce stereotypes rather than address inequality. They critique Bourdieu‟s (1984) theory as being somewhat interactionist and suggest it assumes and defines acceptable and/or rule-breaking social behaviour. As Becker (1974) suggests, rule-breaking behaviour is behaviour which is labelled by moral entrepreneurs as deviant and in need of remediation.

This research accepts that emancipatory-type research can be patronising if it

presumes that all members of certain groups are disadvantaged and in need of rescuing. It is argued, however, that Hattam and Smyth‟s (2014) critique cannot be applied to the idea of

habitus (Bourdieu, 1984). Habitus theory merely promotes the notion that the dominant culture, often propagated within education and academic institutions, can reproduce inequalities for those perceived as not possessing the requisite social skills/responses.

Rather than a specific defined group issue, social exclusion is, therefore, a much broader concept and cannot be directly attributable to economic, educational or locational disadvantage (Vinson, 2009). The choice of participants from low SES locations, for this research, seeks to dispel the idea that all people, in certain areas, are automatically

disadvantaged socially.

The challenge is try to avoid broad assumptions about certain groups without having to immerse into the research subject‟s everyday life. As Bourdieu notes, the “distinction between sociology and ethnology prevents the ethnologist from submitting his own

experience to the analysis that he applies to his object” (1990a, p. 66). The sociologist, the outsider, endeavours to be objective, while the ethnologist, the insider, seeks the subjective lived experience. The latter, however, may still not avoid interpreting meanings of behaviour based on their own lived experience (Bourdieu, 1990a).

In education, critical theory claims a commitment to social justice, equality and non- discrimination in the assumption that social science is embedded in ideologies of value, power, sexism, racism and domination (Erickson, 2011). For example, supporting the social justice aim, implicit in critical theory, O‟Leary (2014) stresses the need for research to be sensitive to gender, race and power relations. She warns that omitting these factors can produce a self-centric analysis.

The notion that all members of certain groups automatically suffer injustices, however, assumes that specific groups are real entities (Bourdieu, 1990a). These types of assumptions omit that, in reality, people exist in their own social sphere and, for this reason their behaviour and self- perception are the main issues needing to be more fully understood. For this research, the focus is to understand social behaviours rather than assume that all members of certain groups are disadvantaged.

This research neither subscribes to a deficit theory, in blaming people for their supposed failures, nor does it suppose that all members of certain groups are in need

emancipation. In contrast to critical theory, critical realism is relied upon as a more helpful way for this research to explain the complex aspects of inequalities. One of the complexities, for example, is exemplified in the way that anyone from any group can suffer discrimination if their social dispositions are perceived as inappropriate and deficient by the dominant group (Bourdieu, 1984).

In understanding this idea more fully, it is hoped that policy, informing ECEC approaches, may be in a better position to avert further subjugation of those who suffer real disadvantage, not because of their class, race, gender or postcode per se, but because of their social skill inelegance. As this research focuses on analysing people‟s emotionally-based social tendencies, it is mainly concerned with seeking information on the way a person‟s social dispositions affect their social inclusion and inclination to participate in early childhood education and family support programs.

This research thesis adheres to the idea that reality cannot be changed simply by changing language or theory (Bourdieu, 2000). Consequently, even though gender,

problems can be solved simply by deconstructing these social artefacts (Bourdieu, 2000). It is, therefore, accepted that families, for whom ECEC programs are implemented, may be composed of differing groups. Ultimately, this research does not assume that any particular group status automatically denotes disadvantage or domination. The aim is simply to

examine how feelings of social exclusion may relate to emotionally-based social dispositions.