Control biológico de Lissorhoptrus brevirostris

My aim was to produce a verbatim transcript of the DWT session that was accessible. According to Duranti’s (2007) definition the DWT sessions did not constitute a transcription because a transcription entails a translation of sound/image from a recording to text. Nevertheless, transcription is the transference of spoken language to written language (Kvale, 1996). Importantly, I required a transcription approach that captured an accurate record of words spoken, but also recorded any non-vocalised language. Essentially a transcription approach that recorded both what was ‘said’ and how it was ‘said’ while preserving a sense of the encounters with the pupils.

Translation literature notes the need for researchers to be transparent and explicit as the interpretive process can be approached in several different ways (Bucholtz, 2007). Bucholtz (2000) considers that there are two extremes of transcription practice with naturalised at one end of the continuum and denaturalised at the other. Davidson (2009) argues that researchers usually apply one of these two methods of transcription. Oliver et al. (2005) outline the differences between these two methods. Denaturalism is described by the authors as the removal of “idiosyncratic elements of speech” (p. 1273-1274), such as unnecessary or unintentional words, to make transcriptions easier to

Page | 66 read. Denaturalised transcription also aims to produce verbatim transcripts, but the accuracy relates to the essence of the interview, the meaning and the perceptions that are created during discourse. The naturalised approach attempts to provide a “real world” (ibid p. 1274) account and capture as much detail as possible and include pauses in speech, gestures, body language and utterances such as laughter, mumbling, stutters, snorts or involuntary sounds. An advantage of the naturalised transcription is that it results in more detail because spoken and non-vocalised features of the voices are preserved affording a more complete, reliable and valid picture (Forbat and Henderson, 2005). There are several disadvantages of the naturalised approach. Firstly, the transcriber could wrongly interpret the voices and secondly, the transcription is more detailed which could make it difficult to read.

Due to the epistemological orientation of my study, it was important to take an explicitly naturalised stance to transcription to support the capture of authentic pupil voices and the complex nature of the interactions. According to Duranti (2007) researchers frequently use a hybrid of these two approaches resulting in a “muddle in the middle” (Lapadat, 2000, p. 207). Indeed, whether researchers use a naturalised or denaturalised approach, or a combination, it can be difficult to preserve the qualities and characteristics of spoken language such as intonation, emphasis, voice, volume and body language (Poland, 1995). Indeed, the data captured in the first AR cycle is a combination of both methods.

It was critical that the transcription was transparent because I held a great deal of power as the researcher and the transcriber. The advantage of being both the researcher and the transcriber meant that the number of people making decisions that might compromise transcript quality or authenticity was reduced. My deliberations over transcription practices during the first cycle of data capture meant that I attempted various approaches (Appendix 5) before finding one that was best suited to recording the various elements of the DWT process. For example, I had to make decisions about how to transcribe Makaton, which is both signed and spoken, and how to treat ostensibly incomprehensible segments of speech which were still part of the expression and impregnated with meanings. This culminated in a rather unusual layout (Appendix 5) that

Page | 67 employed a colour coded system to denote the different DWT activities as well as standard transcription notation. After careful deliberation a process evolved that included a commentary alongside the text in which I interpreted or explained the meanings the pupils were making.

One of the advantages of being explicit about my approaches, however idiosyncratic, meant that during the first AR cycle I developed a clearer transcription notation strategy and gained a better understanding of authentic pupil voice. This also has the potential to support practitioners working with pupils identified with SEND to transcribe contributions as part of the EHCp review process.

4.4 Interpretation and the Role of Reflection, Reflexivity, Insider Knowledge, Tacit Awareness and Intuition

Prior to the second data capture, I intended to turn my attention to the analysis of the emergent content. However, I began to question the credibility and trustworthiness of my interpretive approach from a traditional academic standpoint. I felt a sense of unease and these concerns caused me to retreat into a dark, perplexed space that kept me awake at night worrying about how to explain what appeared to be a lack of interpretive rigour. My research diary notes my concerns:

I stood gazing into a chasm that appeared impossible to leap. Once again, my dreaming self was facing an obstacle like the hero in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade… (10.1.17)

The above extract details my quest to seek a deeper, more trustworthy approach to questions relating to interpretive rigour. It references Kiley and Wisker (2009) who describe “learning leaps” that move the individual “beyond the fact finding and questioning to the conceptual level work which problematises, questions fixed 'truths', and starts to enhance deep learning, understanding, making a contribution to knowledge at a conceptual level” (p. 432). In the end, my eureka moment or learning leap came with the realisation that I had used a combination of reflexive practice, situated knowledge, tacit understanding and intuition to support interpretation of the DWT data. I only truly understood that AR is “a reflective and recursive process” (Ely et al., 1991, p. 179) and a vital component of each stage of the research journey when I had

Page | 68 completed several recursive cycles.

McTaggart (1994) reiterated that AR “is a form of self-reflective enquiry” (p. 317) which needs to be viewed as an ongoing, continuous and cyclical endeavour. At each stage of the think cycle I was engaged in reflective and reflexive practice. Reason (2006) asserts the AR process is “full of choices” (p. 187) and argues that quality is improved when the choices made at each stage of the inquiry are transparent and this includes choices made in relation to interpretation of data. Etherington (2004) considers that reflexivity can enable objectivity to flow through research and be used as a primary methodological tool to portray the meanings made by participants. Yet this call for objectivity is difficult to reconcile because it assumes that research relationships are straightforward and detached and suggests a positive positioning. Shaw recommends researchers:

…deny objectivity and instead focus on the intersubjective realm; that is, what happens in the interactions between us and our world, the context in which we come into contact with objects (reality) and the way in which our descriptions (representations) of them are bound by time and place. (Shaw, 2010, p. 234)

Although, initially I had difficulty reconciling this, I came to understand the credibility of my thesis would be enhanced if the interconnections between the participants and the researcher were made explicit and the intuitive and tacit nature of the interpretive phase fully acknowledged. Indeed, Hellawall (2006) contends that this “ability to objectively stand outside one’s own writing” and be reflexive regarding your research practices is a “hallmark of a good thesis” (p. 483).