PARTES DE LA PUESTA A TIERRA

As with all research, the methodology and research processes have potential weaknesses as well as a contribution to make. These are now discussed in turn, in every case beginning with the possible objections:

There were distinct differences in deployment of the TAs in the study and ‘like’ was not compared with ‘like’. As discussed above, TA roles and work orientations

varied. However, as discussed in chapter 2, comparison and rigid control of variables was never the aim and, without any attempts to a representative sample, the group appears to broadly reflect the variation in role found in large studies such as Brown and Harris (2010) and the DISS research (2012). Many general points made by TAs 1 – 8 are reflected in the wider literature and often reflect findings in much larger studies. For example, Tucker’s (2009) work, drawing on three systematic literature reviews reflects on TAs seeing themselves as ‘go-betweens’ (p.294) and ‘spare parts’ (p.299) as do TAs 1 and 4 respectively. Some further indicative examples of similar points made by the TAs in this study which reflect those DISS research are indicated in figure 5.1. This is additional evidence, therefore, that the TAs’ comments align well with those in other research.

151 Figure 5.1 DISS (2012) page references (below) TA1 refers TA2 refers TA3 refers TA4 Refers TA5 refers TA6 refers TA7 refers TA8 refers Planning and feedback time lacking (p.122) 151 – 163 160 - 169 154-5, 171 - 2, 182 – 4 Entering lesson ‘blind’ (p.61) 105 – 112 56- 58 75 - 76 153 – 4 325, 344 Subject knowledge issues (p. 66) 160 - 4 132 – 4 244-5 231- 7 Stigma – discretion / avoid dependence (pp. 89 - 90) 110 56 214-5 91-95 167 33-34 51 - 52, 95 - 97

Some of the topics raised in the DISS research and also by TAs 1 – 8.

Above all, however, this study aspires to explore and contribute to possible

explanation and there is no claim to generalisation ‘from few to many’ (Thomas 2012, p. 40), only to trustworthiness.

The interviews were single, ‘one-off’ events. Mears’ (2012) assessment that deep

reflection ‘requires multiple interviews with each participant’ (p.171) is both

persuasive and challenging. Clearly there are limitations in single interviews but while this project cannot uncover ‘truth’ it can explore the personal construction of reality of some individuals. Barriers to repeat interviewing include time constraints but there is

152 also real danger of ‘treading heavily’ rather than ‘lightly’ in ethical terms. However, future research will explore the possibilities for follow-up interview and analysis, while maintaining practical and ethical balance. One possibility is to explore optimising the single interview. The interviews with TAs 5 and 6 offer rich insights and perhaps the serendipitous use of an empty classroom within the SEN base contributed. The TAs gestured within and beyond the room, often referred to place and were perhaps also prompted by interruptions and the ambient sounds of the base. Roulston (2010), for example, suggests asking participants to be give a tour of the location and discuss daily routines as the interview focus (p. 31).

More use could have been made of the range of CDA approaches available.

This is undeniable and it is also interesting to note that some current work within CDA goes into much greater depth with single approaches, for example the use of metonymy, collocation or rhetoric alone. My use of some categories could also be further developed. For example, I found the concept of ‘footing’ useful in exploring the participants’ sense of their ‘footing’ , such as TA 1’s sense of security in

understanding of emotional development and reporting more distantly on subject knowledge, TA 3’s foregrounding of experience and TA 6’s sense of being a critical observer reporting on events. However, this is probably not the purest sense of footing as participants’ presentation of themselves as responsible or merely reporting on the experience of others. These are certainly areas I would want to develop in future.

The discourse analysis approach is subjective. The discourse analysis work is

subjective on a number of levels. In short, it is my own application of a framework which I chose with participants known to me. There are three defences against this charge. The first is that there were some reasonable safeguards. The second

defence is that there is transparency in methods and appropriately measured claims and, most importantly, that subjectivity is congruent with paradigm and approach.

153 Safeguards include:

Components of the discourse analysis framework are all drawn from published work, much of it seminal in the field. Metaphor analysis and pronoun analysis, for example, are well-established approaches.

The framework was discussed in supervision and with critical friends in the employing University.

Analysis was repeatedly checked and incongruities and discrepancies noted in chapter 4.

No material was discarded, everyone who volunteered to participate was interviewed and all interviews were analysed.

Turning to transparency and trustworthiness, full transcripts are presented as appendices and all resulting claims are tentative. Subjectivity is congruent with the genre of research and defended on these grounds. It is easy to see the apparent ‘rhetorical effectiveness of tables of numbers’ in more ‘scientific’ research over the appearance of discourse analysis (Potter and Wetherell, p.173). However, as Usher (2001) argues, while we have come to accept research as ‘a special kind of

methodologically validated knowledge’, with dominant images of finding ‘truth’, it is easy to forget that all research is, in the end, a story (Usher 2001. p.47). The purpose of this research is to tell a story of aspects of the experience of some TAs. From this perspective, professional familiarity with this particular group of 8 may be a strength. There are parallels with the work of Mackenzie (2011), also working with a small group of TAs some of whom were students at her employing university. Finding ambiguities and even antagonism in relationships with teachers (p.70), Mackenzie indicates that there could be various reasons, including geographical ones but a degree of trust and openness could also have contributed to these admissions. This current study aspires to contribute in a similar way to that of Mansaray’s (2006) small-scale study, again partly based in a school where he was employed, and Maliphant’s autoethnographic work, where familiarity with particular situations can be of value. I have relayed the TAs’ voices as well as I can. Further experience in CDA will help and perhaps further understanding of the role of CDA in educational

154