Fotosíntesis

I shall use qualitative research as my research paradigm and outline the reasons for its suitability. In relation to the difference between qualitative and quantitative paradigms Bryman suggests ‘there would seem little [to distinguish] other than the

researchers do not’ (2008:21). Similarly Punch (2005) uses a simplified distinction as quantitative data being numbers and qualitative data not being numbers before moving on to dissect the two designs. The simplicity of these notions does not adequately describe other differences discussed among theorists including the deductive versus inductive generation of data, and ontological and epistemological orientations. Indeed, Ratnesar and Mackenzie (2007) berate the trend to simplify the qualitative-quantitative divide and citing Burns (2000) as an example, suggest the dichotomy of the two research paradigms is not as clear cut as many would have us believe. Newman and Benz (1998, cited in Creswell, 2009) suggest that they represent different ends on a continuum. Many methodologies encompass both paradigms by using the same strategies but in different ways. For example, emancipatory methodology can be both quantitative and qualitative: by using a questionnaire of some sort, different data can be obtained - either statistics or people’s views and experiences. This seems to show that there can be flexibility in research design and it does not have to be a choice of one or the other necessarily, although Smith and Heshusios (1986, cited in Robson, 2002:43) argue ‘it is now clear that there is a basic incompatibility between the two approaches’ and therefore the debate should end so that researchers can get on with their work in their own way. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998:3-11) note that the qualitative-quantitative debate has become increasingly unproductive and Layder (1992) agrees that it is no longer useful. Perhaps so, but surely researchers should have the right to make the decision of whether both paradigms can work together for their own research rather than being dictated to in a somewhat political manner? I believe Becker (1986, cited in Denzin and Lincoln, 2008:14) has a valid point when he writes about qualitative and quantitative researchers, that they ‘think they know something about society worth telling to others, and they use a variety of forms, media and means to communicate their ideas and findings’. Similarly according to Creswell (2009:3), researchers ‘increasingly use a theoretical lens or perspective’ for their research. These observations bring the debate back to earth and bring about awareness that the research process and the data are the most important factors here and not whether a qualitative or quantitative design is employed. Perhaps it should be about which design best

suits the researcher’s epistemological position? Mason (2002:1) writes about exploring a:

wide array of dimensions of the social world including further understanding of those we study, of their experiences and stories of everyday life, the way society see and react to them, relationships and how these affect us, and the significance of the meanings they generate.

Her position resonates with me in relation to my research with young autistic students. The students are individuals with their own ways, their own views of the context in which they live and learn, and their own experiences which they can bring to the research. The resulting reactions, interactions and relationships are what make the research exciting and interesting for me.

In undertaking this study I shall need to consider that the understanding and experience young people have of the world is different to that of adults and the ways in which they communicate their views and experiences may be challenging (Prout and James, 2007; O’Kane, 2008). In addition there is the further challenge of them being autistic and since an understanding of the world and communication are two of the main differences between those with and those without autism (Wing, 1996; Jordan, 1999; Frith, 2003) this challenge consequently becomes much greater. It is interesting how views of research around autism and indeed disability have changed over the years; it seems to me that as the years have gone by we, as a society, have realised that these individuals have more rights than perhaps previously where a child with low functioning autism might be locked away into an institution for most of his or her life. Goffman (1974) may be considered an instigator for using ethnography to research these unfortunately ostracised individuals.

Thirty years ago, Boucher and Scarth (1977), emphasised that for research concerning children with autism to be reliable, it needed to concentrate on groups of autistic children as a whole rather than individual cases. Moreover they suggest research was more about what could be observed, rather than on what the

children’s own experiences and thoughts were (e.g. Cowan et al., 1965, cited in Boucher and Scarth, 1977:147). In addition, to guarantee reliability, it was expected that the same research be carried out by many different researchers on many different groups of children. It was very much quantitative rather than qualitative research. Similarly in the environment of sport, since the 1940’s, much research on disabled athletes has been positioned ‘within a positivist paradigm

and adopts quantitative methods of data collection’ (Fitzgerald, 2009:147). In

contrast she poses the question ‘how can we ensure the experiences and views of young disabled people are captured within youth sport research in ways that reflect and recognise their social agency?’ (Fitzgerald, 2009:149). Her experience shows that many researchers assume that young people with disabilities, possibly including those on the autism spectrum, are not capable of being included in research. Fortunately there are many instances where this is not the case and in particular participatory approaches are being used increasingly (Mertens and McLaughlin, 2004; Christensen and James, 2008; Goodley, 2011).