Dependencia alimentaria y hambre

This is a qualitative study in that its purpose is to gain insight into, and understanding of, the ways in which people perceive, interpret and explain their world (Stenner et al 2017), in this case practice educators with a focus on disability and their experiences of supporting disabled students. It takes an interpretive, largely phenomenological approach both in the overall aim and the research questions. It is also responsive to the themes emerging from the participants’ accounts which enabled the determination of the theoretical perspective taken. The questions and the research aim made use of distinct rhetorical markers and identifiers relating to the experiences of the participants so reflecting the interpretive theoretical perspective. The three questions were interconnected in a temporal fashion so linking past and present practice and experience, with possible suggestions for future development (Koro-Ljungberg et al 2009).

The research was framed by phenomenology in that it aims to provide some description of participants’ ‘life worlds’ and as such, interviews were used as an appropriate way to access these (Koro-Ljungberg et al 2009). Phenomenological approaches offer insights into the nature of how participants’ experiences are understood from the perspective of a particular person in a particular context (Langdridge 2007) especially as participants’ concerns heavily influenced the conversations. This approach had at its core the description of things “in their appearing” (Finlay 2009,6), focussing on lived experience (Gee 2011). This position was concerned with participants’ relationships with the field in which they worked and their attempts to make meanings of their experiences (Langdridge 2007; Smith, Flowers and Larkin 2009) with a focus on disability and their interactions with disabled individuals in this setting.

During the analysis, a hermeneutic approach was taken in that, while trying to understand the phenomena that emerged, interpretation of practice also took place (Koro-Ljungberg et al 2009), as noted by Stenner et al (2017,331) “phenomenology...becomes hermeneutical when its method is taken to be interpretive”. A double hermeneutic exists in which the researcher interprets a participant’s perception or interpretation of their experience and this iterative approach can offer different perspectives on the meanings within the data (Smith et al 2009). It is important to note that in taking a hermeneutic interpretive approach, that all interpretation is situated; it is a ‘view from somewhere’, so

74 acknowledging the active role of the interpreter. This was summed up by Gardiner

(1999,63):

"The hermeneutic approach stresses the creative interpretation of words…the active role played by the knower. The goal is not objective explanation or neutral description, but rather a sympathetic engagement with the…action and the wider socio-cultural context within which these phenomena occur"

While this is not a philosophical discussion of hermeneutics, interesting ideas are suggested by Kearney (2003) and Kinsella (2006,7) who introduce the notion of taking a critical stance “a middle space...somewhere between the "congenial communion of fused horizons" (romantic hermeneutics) and the "apocalyptic rupture of non-communion" (radical hermeneutics)”. Insights offered by critical perspectives in relation to phenomena such as power, the potential misuse of language and an acknowledgment of ‘the fix we are in’ can inform hermeneutic inquiry (Kinsella 2006) and are helpful in a study of this kind. This approach “aims for respect and openness toward the perspective of the "Other"…a willingness to suspend one's own position in order to achieve understanding” (Kinsella 2006,7). It is acknowledged, however, that both the researcher and participants are

knowledge producers in this dynamic (Koro-Ljungberg et al 2009), the researcher reflexively interacts with the data during the conduct of the research and the researcher’s ‘self’ is central to understanding and interpretation (Stenner et al 2017). A notion of “vigilant subjectivity” as outlined by DeLuca (2000,19) is useful here combining vigilance towards the other with a development of “an understanding of subjectivity as an ability of one to temporarily let go of preoccupation with self” so ensuring that interpretation is grounded in human experience (DeLuca 2000).

I am interested to consider ‘the fix we are in’ in relation to the relatively unchanging picture over time (as discussed) of the position of disabled individuals in health education. Also, given the active role I have taken in this arena over the years, I admit to feelings of frustration and disappointment regarding the apparent lack of progress. In speaking to participants, I wanted to explore and try to understand the factors that might be contributing to, and perpetuating this state of affairs in relation to disability and their relationships with disabled students. As well as understanding, however, I also wish to challenge the apparent status quo because practice needs to move on and I believe that the only way to do this is to take a critical stance in relation to the stories that my

75 participants tell. As Grumet (1992,50) pointed out “the scrutiny of what is ordinary

"requires a critical approach to the social and political environment, for the 'ordinary' is a social concept "and an unquestioned assumption””.

A critic of this study may claim that phenomenology and critical theory cannot co-exist in a singular methodology and possibly that this situation mixes methodologies and

incorporates too many philosophical perspectives. I would argue however, that there is a difference between multiplism and conceptual confusion. I acknowledge the influence of critical disability theory and hermeneutic phenomenology in the interpretive methodology embraced by this research. I would suggest that it is perhaps the acknowledgment of such approaches that effect the rigour of this study which aims to encourage and invigorate debate about emergent issues, to attempt to disrupt the taken for granted assumptions of participants and inform the development of professional practice.