Guion 7

This chapter presents a discussion of the approach to psychological research adopted in this study as well as an account of the research methods used in the course of all three phases of this study.

4.1 Approaches to psychological research

The purpose of research is to ‘understand’ and to gain ‘knowledge’. Within the discipline of psychology the purpose of research is to understand the role of individuals’ cognitive functions and social behaviours; sometimes exploring any underlying physiological and neurobiological processes.

There are many methods adopted in research yet the ‘gold standard’ is held to be the ‘experimental design’ (Robson, 2002). The experimental design reduces the phenomena being explored to numerical values in order to complete a statistical analysis of the data (Smith, 2008). This approach is theory-driven (Robson, 2002) in that the aim of the research is to verify or falsify a theory and is often employed in the search to identify cause-effect relationships (Willig, 2001). The design of these studies is ‘fixed’ in that the variables to be included and the exact procedure to be followed are specified in advance (Robson, 2002).

The two main ideological principles that underpin experimental design are Realism and Positivism. The intellectual tradition of Realism espoused in the

thinking of Locke, Hume and the logical empiricists of the 20th century (Gergen,

1985) contends that, ‘knowledge copies (or should ideally copy) the contours of

the world’ (Gergen, 1985, p.269) and thus it is possible for knowledge to map

50

knowledge of the world is external (or to use the term adopted by Gergen –

exogenic) to the individual.

Positivism is based on the assumption that there is a linear relationship between, ‘the world (objects, events, phenomena) and our perception, and understanding, of it’ (Willig 2001 p.3). As Creswell (2009) explains it is a deterministic philosophy in which research aims to, ‘identify and assess the causes that influence outcomes…(and)...it is also reductionistic in that the intent is to reduce the ideas into a small, discrete set of ideas to test, such as the

variables that comprise hypotheses and research questions’ (p.7).

However in opposition to the view that researchers can establish direct contact with the world-as-it-is are the Constructionists who view knowledge and understanding, ‘not as a reflection or map of the world but as an artefact of communal interchange’ (Gergen, 1985, p.266). Constructionists contend that knowledge is not external to the individual but instead depends on processes innate to the individual. In this way knowledge is viewed as being internal or ‘endogenic’ (Gergen, 1985) rather than external or ‘exogenic’. They argue that the world cannot be simply reduced to numbers and that relationships between the world and our perception of it is not linear. For example, Gergen (1985) discusses the concept of Emotions as not being ‘objects’ to be studied but rather terms that acquire their meaning from their context of usage. In addition categories and concepts, such as that of childhood, are culturally and historically specific (Burr, 2007). Thus,

the objective criteria for identifying such ‘behaviours’, ‘events’ or ‘entities’ are shown to be either highly circumscribed by culture, history or social context or altogether nonexistent (Gergen, 1985, p.267)

There are several Constructionist theories. For example, Personal Construct Psychology and Radical Constructivism posit understanding and constructions as being of an individual’s own making (Raskin, 2012); that is the individual’s

51 internal cognitive structure and organisation of knowledge as a means of interpreting and organising the world (Ackermann, 2001). In contrast, Social Constructionism emphasises meaning as a human construction and view knowledge, ‘not as something that a person has or doesn’t have, but as

something that people do together’ (Burr, 2007 p.9). That is, constructs are not

created individually but through interpersonal interactions. Once these social constructions are created they take on a life and influence of their own in that they both shape how individuals construe themselves but are simultaneously shaped as they are used in new and ever-changing ways (Raskin, 2012).

A fundamental precept of Social Constructionism is the critical role that language plays in determining the way we think and perceive the world. Because it is through talking together that the world gets constructed, language is perceived as a form of social action (Gergen, 1985; Burr, 2007). The use of language is not simply a means of expression but is performative as well as

action-orientated. In other words, talking has ‘specific functions and achieves

purposes for us in our interactions with each other’ (Burr, 2007 p.58). Thus social constructionist research methods commonly, but not exclusively, focus on the analysis of language. One such method is Q-methodology which as a research tool is, ‘capable of identifying the currently predominant social

viewpoints and knowledge structures relative to a chosen subject matter (thus

allowing) the constructionist to understand and explicate the main discourses at work (Watts & Stenner, 2012 p.42 (italics in original text)).

Social Constructionism is often associated with flexible exploratory designs and purposes that may validly use quantitative as well as qualitative methods in their research (Burr, 2007). Burr (2007) acknowledges that research that can be called Social Constructionist can:

vary in the kinds of materials they typically analyse and the conceptual tools they use to perform their analysis (p.176) (because) it is not empirical methods that are incompatible with social constructionism

52

but the universalistic truth claims that usually accompany them (p. 150)

Thus it is valid for a mixed methods approach to be used in Social Constructionist research; in particular when the aim of the research is to explore different levels of the same phenomenon (Todd et al, 2004).

4.2 The design of the study

This study explores the phenomenon of a school’s system for engaging parents in decision making. The first phase of the study aims to illuminate the practice of

the school by exploring the school staff’s perceptions about the concept of

engaging with parents in decision making. This exploration will be at a macro- level of understanding (that is, how does the school view the idea of engaging with parents in decision making processes). The second phase uses the viewpoints to illuminate understanding at a more micro-level by identifying the activities the school employs to engage parents in decision making. Finally the third phase ascertains which of these activities parents view as being important, positive and worthwhile.

This three phase study exploring how a school’s system for engaging parents in

decision making is viewed by school staff and parents will use a mixed methods design. The different methods used for the different purposes is summarised in Table 4.1 below.

53

Phase Research

Question

Focus Purpose Method

1 How does the

school view the idea of engaging with parents in decision making processes?

School staff Generate viewpoints of how the school views the idea of engaging with parents in decision making

Q-methodology

2 What are the

activities that the school employs in engaging with parents in the process of

decision making?

School staff Explore meaning of viewpoints and identify a list of activities that the school employs to engage with parents in decision making Focus Group 3 What do the parents see as the important features in relation to the school’s system engaging with them in decision making processes?

Parents Understand the value

attached to the features of the school’s system for engaging parents in decision making

Survey

Table 4-1: The different research methods used to address the different levels of exploration in this study

54

5 Phase 1 – Generating the school staff’s viewpoints