Metodología

Qualitative research is used across social science disciplines to investigate a wide range of phenomena (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Jodelet, 2003a). This transdisciplinary history resulted in diverse definitions and practices of qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2007). Nonetheless, a number of generic characteristics can be identified which are associated with the nature and objectives of qualitative inquiry as well as with its methods and processes.

Qualitative research aims to provide rich or in-depth descriptions of complex social phenomena expressed in their natural context (Berg, 2009; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Jodelet, 2003a; McMillan, 2012; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009) where people interact and communicate (Flick, 2007; Savoie-Zajc, 2011). Accordingly, qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning individuals and groups attribute to their experiences to make sense of, or construct their world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2007; McMillan, 2012). In that way, it is associated with non-positivist paradigmatic approaches (Lincoln et al., 2011). Individuals’ perspectives are sought as qualitative researchers recognise the multiplicity of realities (McMillan, 2012; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). Qualitative research thus focuses on understanding and meaning (Jodelet, 2003a; Savoie-Zajc, 2011; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009) as well as on the processes by which meaning is produced (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; McMillan, 2012).

The complexity of social phenomena is best understood through holistic and global inquiries (Jodelet, 2003a; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). Qualitative researchers resort to multiple methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2007; Jodelet, 2003a; McMillan, 2012) selected for their appropriateness in approaching the phenomenon they study. The qualitative research process is iterative and flexible, with the problem and questions taking shape as the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon forms (McMillan, 2012; Savoie-Zajc, 2011; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). The process is often described as inductive because meaning and understanding emerge from the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Flick, 2007; McMillan, 2012; Savoie-Zajc, 2011; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). However, data analysis often combines inductive and deductive processes when researchers mobilise theoretical constructs to make sense of the data (Paillé & Muchielli, 2003).

Qualitative research is appropriate as regards the descriptive orientation of this investigation. Its main goal is to provide a thorough description of a complex social phenomenon to understand what it means for the people experiencing it. McMillan (2012), believes that “this goal is best achieved if the researcher focuses on what occurs and how it occurs, rather than why” (p. 55).

Through an holistic approach within natural school environments, this study can provide an insightful understanding “of the complex and interrelated processes of personal experiences, attitudes and practices” (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002, p. 144), hence shedding new light on quantitative measures of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (see 2.4.2.1). This qualitative study can also enrich the existing body of knowledge on behavioural difficulties with findings grounded in practice and drawing on individual and collective perspectives, beliefs and actions (Sabornie, 2004; S. Stainback & W. Stainback, 1984).

Inclusion is the central concept of this two-phase qualitative study specifically designed to understand what this concept means from the perspectives of the participants, thus adopting a socioconstructivist standpoint following an interpretive research process. Given that multiple barriers remain to creating inclusive environments, particularly when behavioral difficulties arise in secondary schools and classrooms (see 2.4), representations and practices were investigated in relation to preventing and dealing with behavioural difficulties. Referring to behavioural difficulties could be viewed as bearing a deficit view pertaining to the medical model. However, this study looked at behavioural difficulties from the perspectives of participants, focusing on what they perceived as behavioural difficulties thus embracing a social constructivist epistemology. The use of the expression students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties throughout this thesis is an illustration of this precaution. Moreover, strategies were put forward in this study to lower the risk of facing such a potential disconnect. In Phase One, participants were invited to idenfity the causes they attributed to behavioural difficulties (see 5.5.3), leading to formulate hypotheses with regard to their standpoint (deficit based or influence of the environment). These were also investigated in the case studies (see 7.2.3). In Phase Two, behavioural difficulties were reported for each case study as a way of getting a better understanding of what teachers perceived as difficult behaviour in the particular context of their school (see 6.1.3, 6.2.3 and 6.3.3) and led to specific behaviour prevention and management practices (see 6.1.4, 6.2.4 and 6.3.4).

4.2.1 The interpretive process.

The researcher’s interpretive role is central throughout the qualitative research process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Jodelet, 2003a; Savoie-Zajc, 2011). This role consists in interpreting qualitative data anchored in specific contexts to understand the meaning people give to their experience. Accordingly, Savoie-Zajc (2011) uses the expression “qualitative/interpretive

research”68 _{(p. 123) to designate qualitative research to assert the predominantly qualitative} nature of the data and to acknowledge the interpretive essence of the research act. This is done as the researcher engages with, and makes sense of the object, as explained by Crotty (1998):

Research in constructivist vein ... requires that we not remain straitjacketed by the conventional meanings we have been taught to associate with the object. Instead, such research invites us to approach the object in a radical spirit of openness to its potential for new or richer meaning. It is an invitation to reinterpretation. (p. 51)

From the perspective of social representations research, knowledge is constructed through people’s interactions and experiences, and it is through interpreting their contextualised discourse and practices about an object that qualitative researchers can access their language- mediated social representations enacted in their everyday lives (Gervais, 1997). Notwithstanding, it is important to be reminded that descriptions of social representations reported in research accounts do not bear an ontological status; these second hand descriptions are not the phenomenon or the object itself, but the researcher’s interpretation or reconstruction (Lahlou & Abric, 2011). Therefore, the researcher’s posture must be made explicit, especially since qualitative research “has no theory or paradigm that is distinctly its own” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 8).

Given the connections between social constructivism and the theory of social representations (see 3.1.3), this study adheres to the social constructivist relativist ontology and subjectivist epistemology. Ontological relativism resides in the belief that multiple context-dependent, dynamic and potentially conflicting realities are constructed by individuals and groups, while epistemological subjectivity refers to the construction of knowledge through interactions between the researcher and the phenomenon under study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

The recent diversification of qualitative research contributes to shifting the frontiers between inquiry paradigms towards paradigmatic confluence, as pointed out by Lincoln et al. (2011). These authors mention that this phenomenon is particularly true for constructivism. While constructivists traditionally adopted a neutral stance limiting their action to reconstructing objects from participants’ voices, they now tend to use their findings to support transformative actions. This has implications for social representations research adopting the social constructivist epistemology. For instance, Castro and Batel (2008) suggest that social representations investigations should examine and address ideas such as the role of experts,

resistance to change, and representations-practices relationships, as they did in their empirical study on urban planning, in order to facilitate the integration of new norms into existing representational systems and their transfer into practice. Likewise, it is advised that representational research in education undertakes inquiries leading to understand the knowledge base of educators and its transmission to ultimately facilitate its transformation (Jodelet, 2011a). For example, recent studies of Swiss teachers’ representations of integration (Ramel & Longchampt, 2009) or reintegration in regular classrooms (Doudin, Borboën, & Moreau, 2006) were conducted in order to inform teachers’ training and reflection based on their representations and practices. Understanding how teachers construct inclusion and deal with what they perceive as behavioural difficulties in a specific school context through the interpretive act of the researcher, as proposed in this study, can be a starting point to work with these professionals to modify their constructions towards positive changes for them and their students (Lincoln, 1998).

4.2.2 Quality criteria.

Qualitative research operates under different assumptions to the positivist orientation (Lincoln et al., 2011). Thus, it is evaluated under specific quality criteria (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2007; Jodelet, 2003a; McMillan, 2012; Savoie-Zajc, 2011). The criteria that guided this study are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. They are found under the umbrella of trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Often referred to, they offer operational guidelines for qualitative researchers (Savoie-Zajc, 2011).

Credibility is defined as the confidence one has in the “truth value”69 (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 296)or plausibility of the interpretation and ensuing findings (McMillan, 2012; Savoie-Zajc, 2011). It involves for Lincoln and Guba (1985):

…first, to carry out the inquiry in such a way that the probability that the findings will be found to be credible is enhanced and, second, to demonstrate the credibility of the findings by having them approved by the constructors of the multiple realities being studied. (p. 296)

A number of strategies can increase research credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; McMillan, 2012; Savoie-Zajc, 2011). First, prolonged engagement allows enough time for the researcher to

69 _{Lincoln & Guba (1985) use quotation marks with the expression “truth value”. The authors explain that truth is} not independent from human experience when considered under the constructivist paradigm. They further highlight the constructivist character of the researcher’s interpretive act and his or her credibility in reconstructing the realities initially constructed by the subjects.

get to know the object and context studied. In this study, the researcher gathered information early in the research process about inclusion, special education, and difficult behaviour in New.Zealand through reading policy documents and professional publications. Then, she conducted an exploratory questionnaire before proceeding to case studies. She also learnt about each school prior to data collection (i.e., ERO report, website, discussion with the liaison person). Second is triangulation. Widely used to increase credibility in qualitative research (Flick, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Savoie-Zajc, 2011), this strategy consists in superimposing and combining different perspectives leading to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon (Savoie-Zajc, 2011). This study involved multiple modes of data collection (triangulation of methods) employed with various actors and documents (triangulation of sources or data) (Flick, 2007). Triangulation of sources was also applied through the case study design being replicated in three locations. Third is negative case analysis. This involves ensuring that the emerging interpretive structure fits “some reasonable number of cases” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 312) and, conversely, that no case contradicts this structure. In a multiple case study investigation, Hartnett (2010) proceeded to “the re-examination of findings from each case once the initial analysis phase was complete, to see whether emergent themes could be confirmed during cross- case analysis” (p. 45). The same strategy was employed in the present study.

Other strategies can increase credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985): persistent observation to identify salient elements to the phenomenon under study, debriefing with a researcher external to the study, referential adequacy involving the reexamination of the raw data by an independent tier, and member check where participants confirm the researcher’s analysis. These strategies were not practical for this study and were not used due to resourcing, timeframe, and confidentiality issues. Nonetheless, the following compensatory measures were applied: audio recording of the interviews, clarification of participants’ ideas through reformulation, conduct of interviews after classroom observation, summary of the main ideas when closing each interview, and provision of the interview transcripts to participants for review.

Transferability refers to applying the findings to other settings and contexts (McMillan, 2012). It is the counterpoint to generalisation and involves for readers or users of the research playing an active role in evaluating “contextual similarity” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 298) between the research context and their own. Transferability is made possible when the researcher supplies sufficient information about the research context for the users to establish contextual similarity. In this study, a “thick description” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 316) of the research contexts

allows the reader to learn about the specificities of each school, particularly with regard to the case studies (see Chapter Six).70

Dependability deals with the stability of the findings in relation to the evolution of the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Trochim, 2000). It refers to the coherence between the research process and the results (Savoie-Zajc, 2011). As for confirmability, it pertains to objectivity and implies that the findings and conclusions are linked to the data rather than attributed to characteristics of the researcher. Both criteria can be met by resorting to an audit trail which consists in having an external auditor authenticating the research procedure and product (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This study adopted a similar strategy, that of maintaining a chain of evidence as used in case study research (Yin, 2009). It was done by documenting the researcher’s actions, decisions, reflections and interrogations throughout the research process using memos (Savoie-Zajc, 2011) and by listing the sources where the information forming the interpretive structure came from.