Etapa #4: Procedimiento de defensa del trabajo de doctorado

Educational research that contains rich descriptions and attempts at theory building clearly fits into the non-numerical, or qualitative, research tradition, although the usefulness of these terms is challenged by critical theorists such as Scott (2005; 2007) and Pring (2000b). Educational researchers have increasingly used the term ‘trustworthiness’ as an account of academic rigour (Lincoln and Guba: 1985: 289-331; Gay et al: 2009), and further argued for the use of concepts such as credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability in place of the traditional research terms, often associated with quantifiable and measurable data, of internal and external validity, reliability and objectivity respectively (Lincoln and Guba: 1985: 301-327). It is claimed with reasonable confidence that the findings are credible, or internally valid, in the sense that they are a fair and representative description of the strengths and limitations of cross-curricular approaches to teaching history in the primary schools under review, and that the theories produced represent an accurate model of the underling structures. Another aspect of rigour in qualitative research (Cohen et al: 2007: 148-9) is to allow data to be scrutinised by fellow researchers to increase confidence that interpretations are reasonable, and to look again and more deeply where divergence of opinion occurs. This is especially important for a lone researcher, and two colleagues did moderate some of early stages of coding and analysis to allow for greater security.

The term ‘trustworthiness’ is also used here because of its relevance to detailed case- study work (Bassey: 1999: 74-7); essentially trustworthiness is gained through transparency in motives, care in selecting the appropriate research instruments, and appropriate forms of analysis, and that all aspects of the research process are shared with the respondents. Furthermore, trustworthiness can be supported by carrying out long periods of time in the field (Lincoln and Guba: 1985: 301-2; Gay et al: 2009), itself a form of ‘ecological validity’ associated with naturalistic research (Cohen et al: 2007: 138-9), and the establishment of researcher credibility in the aspect of research to be

94 | P a g e investigated (for example the researcher’s extensive previous work as a primary teacher and history coordinator). Additionally two main techniques have been developed: the first is the idea of a ‘case record’ (Stenhouse: 1980) or Yin’s (200: 101- 2) concept of a ‘case-study database’. Underpinning this idea is the concept of researcher honesty and transparency in the collection and processing of empirical data from field work, and the ability to track all research claims back to their source, thus creating a ‘chain of evidence’ (Yin: 2003: 105-6) or ‘audit trail’ (Lincoln and Guba: 1985: 319-320) that can be verified by other researchers and interested parties. Additionally there is an acknowledgement of Hammersley’s (2005) argument that transparency often rests on unwarranted assumptions. Openness and honesty have been consistently applied throughout the project, and great care has been taken to ensure that all observations, interview transcripts, field notes and other documents, along with the records of analysis have been shared with schools, and have subsequently been filed in an open and transparent way and available for scrutiny. Indeed, the first case- study school declined to host any more observations until they had seen the first draft of the analysis and writing up process; and as an act of courtesy all observational records were posted to each teacher involved (sometimes more than one in a single observation). Similarly interview transcripts were posted to the respondents for agreement and signature.

The second technique is the concept of triangulation (Lincoln and Guba: 1985: 305-7; Robson: 2007; Cohen et al: 2007) adopted from surveying. Arguably this concept is becoming an uncritically considered trope due to its frequent citation in case-study research. Nevertheless, as Thomas (2009: 111) argued, the potential for corroboration from multiple sources of data cannot be ignored, and in the case of this project three sources of data, four if field notes are separated from more formal classroom observations, was useful. Each instrument provided some data that would not have been accessible from other sources, for example the background context Ofsted reports gave when analysing interview transcripts from head-teachers, which in turn did

95 | P a g e not always accurately depict the situation in individual classrooms. This form of comparative analysis contrasted with moments when there was clear convergence between two or more sources of information; and as the section on instrumentation indicated, certain sources of data produced unexpectedly useful information to counterbalance some of the disappointments, notably fewer lesson observations than anticipated.

Educational research has been criticised for its non-cumulative nature (Hargreaves: 1996), and for its inability to produce generalisations that allow future practitioners valuable evidence for improving practice. An increasingly concern of this research project was to produce models of cross-curricular practice linked to history, but arguably applicable with other subject disciplines. Because these models were not replicated or tested there can be no claim for unqualified generalisability, reflecting the realistic aims of many researchers working within the social sciences (Lincoln and Guba: 1985: 110-128; Flick: 2011: 210-11), and particularly those associated with case-study research because of the singular nature of this strategy (Thomas: 2011: 210-12). However the potential for replication, founded on aspects of transferability, is both admitted and claimed: the three models analysed and described in this study do demonstrate a balance between cross-curricularity and subject integrity. If this balance can be achieved in three schools, then logically they can be replicated successfully in other settings. Punch (2009: 121-2) termed this ‘conceptualising’ and ‘developing propositions’, namely elements that can be transferred to similar settings or tested by further research. Gay et al (2009) also argued that a good case-study research should lead to some elements of applicability and transferability, while Shipman (1985a; 1985b) and Platt (1988) similarly considered the possibility of adopting findings to other cases. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that replication is not a simple matter; any attempt to apply the models in another setting may result in significant differences given the number of crucial variables such as school leadership, subject coordination and individual teachers’ confidence levels and skills.

96 | P a g e Bassey (1999: 51-4; Bassey and Pratt: 2003) responded to many of the criticisms of educational case-study research by developing the concept of ‘fuzzy generalisations’ which postulates that under ‘some’ circumstances and ‘some’ conditions the conclusions of a particular case ‘may’ be transferable to similar settings, while Thomas (2011: 212) made a case for limited claims based on abductive reasoning. These positions seem admirably sensible and reasoned, and match the conclusions of this study. Finally, this research project acknowledges the importance of sharing findings through open publications, consultancy and conferences to ensure that qualified conclusions of this kind are shared and transferred, for another frequent criticism of educational research is that very often the producers of research write for each other and their own narrow world of specialist publications.

97 | P a g e