Factores de seguridad

This was an interpretative study by a relatively inexperienced practitioner researcher exploring an area that is loosely structured and poorly understood from an experiential perspective. The process of analysis has allowed me to feel confident in the validity of the findings presented (see p.190), but they are limited potentially by the context and my own skills and experience. The method design adopted is recognised as bringing further limitations in terms of:

 The case study approach- with its inherent weaknesses with regard to generalizability; focus on soft data; lack of clear boundaries; and researcher influence;

 Semi-structured interviewing- which makes cross case analysis and judging the reliability of the findings more challenging.

I have attempted to provide information throughout with regard to my own perspectives, how I managed the research process, and with respect to the hermeneutic cycle which allowed for iterative and increasingly interpretative reflection in regard to each research question. As noted by Larkin et al. (2006), the job we have as researchers is to do the most sensitive and responsive job we can, given our inherent epistemological and methodological weaknesses.

A number of factors were also identified in Chapter 3 with regard to the potential effects of carrying out interviews over time (p.67). It is clear to me that in

addition to my own developing understandings with regard to the methodology and research focus, there were changes in terms of the relationship I had with each of the participants, and what they shared with me over time. Although I

tracked how ideas emerged across interviews it is not in my view possible to distinguish between what was down to developing or changing perspectives and what was down to the participants feeling more comfortable and able to communicate openly with me. I do feel, however, that the process of meeting over time led to increasing levels of reflection for both the participants and me, and that this was supportive of the research in general.

I also need to acknowledge that the initial mixed models approach, whereby I had hoped to have both an illuminative and an evaluative element to the research design, was flawed. I am uncertain as to the full impact of this as it was resolved early in the process of meeting with the participants. This may have resulted in some mixed messages at the outset, however, with regard to my research hopes which in turn may have influenced how each participant approached the project.

It is clear to me that as a participant within the research design I also influenced what emerged in a variety of other ways, and this was illustrated at intervals through the comments of all the participants. Take for example Julie’s comment that the planning process I introduced had benefited her in developing ideas:

When we did the Leadership Pathways course we looked at different strategies for planning, and this [Theory of Change] actually does work. Very well, and I think if we took it to a group.. that you could see how it could be used.

J.1.45-50

Lynn also made explicit references to things I had done as part of setting up the research, the following example relating to my use of focus groups:

So I envisage getting a cohort of interested people, and doing some kind of training and discussion with them. A bit like what you did with Year 9.

L.1.0- I was aware that my presence was creating pressure for Lynn to get things done, and that she in a sense felt the need to deliver:

It's just hard, because … I'm a bit of a perfectionist, and when I feel I haven't done something properly I find it difficult. …I had all these big ideas and good intentions. And then life just kind of took over, and you do worry and think, 'Oh God. Peter's coming in. I've not done this great thing that I've always wanted to do.'

L.3.46-53 I had the impression that Simon was the most independently minded in this respect, although he too showed a degree of wariness at times:

Yeah, I'm going to put it into a plan.. It’s just I didn't want to do it and then for you to come in and go 'Nah, nah...', so yeah I'm going to do it as a step by step plan.

S.1.20-2 David appeared to see me as bringing an additional perspective to bear, and saw this as helpful to his own thinking:

… you get to actually think and consider the impact, and working alongside somebody else, because when you're sat and you're having a conversation with yourself in your head you don't always think of the things that other people can bring to the conversation and help you with. …you can run your ideas past people. But it's also quite useful have someone who’s not involved in the day to day to give you a kind of perspective, a totally different perspective with a different outlook.

D.2.40-46 I found this quite surprising at times, and it was often comments like the

following one that supported me to remain mindful of my own influence within the process:

That stuff that we did last time about a working definition was really helpful for me to get it ingrained in my head so that I can sit with confidence with other people and say this is what we're going to do…

D.3.0-6

I believe that these sorts of illustrations prevent me from being able to make absolute statements about the developments that took place being entirely led by the participants and therefore naturally occurring, as it is clear that I was having an influence despite trying to remain as neutral as possible within the process. I do, however, believe that the focus that developed for each

participant was as far as possible free from my own preconceived ideas of effective practice and that the way in which this progressed, while influenced by me, was more substantially informed by the participants’ own beliefs, interests and contexts of which I was a relatively small part.