SALDOS Y TRANSACCIONES CON ENTIDADES RELACIONADAS

The methodological objective of the study was to gain an understanding of the meanings the teachers placed on Aistear as an early childhood curriculum framework and how their understandings inform their practice, this is consistent with how I view the world through a social constructivist paradigm. In line with my ontological and epistemological position, I adopted a case study approach as the method of data collection.

3.5.1 Adopting a Two-Case Study

The question of whether to use a single case study or a two-case study was carefully considered; it was decided to look at two separate primary schools to gain a broader understanding of the contextual issues than if a single school was used. Adopting a two- case study approach enabled the exploration of policy enactment in two different schools thus extending and illuminating how policy is enacted within different contexts (Ball et al., 2012). Using two schools rather than one was based on the belief that having data from two different schools would enable the enrichment of theorising within my theoretical framework. The decision to choose two rather than more was based on an understanding of the reality of what could be achieved in the period set out within the EdD. Using two separate schools facilitated a broader understanding of contexts, relationships, processes and practices from the perspectives of four different classroom settings. This approach facilitated the exploration of how the teachers implement Aistear within the new primary language curriculum in relation to other contextual dimensions.

The objective of the study was not to look for comparisons or generalise across one school to another. The study is about the particular and the belief that examining the practice of four teachers through interviewing and classroom observations and interviewing their principals within two different contexts would provide a richness of data and add to the telling of the story.

Drawing on two case studies supports what Sturman (1994) describes as a holistic approach that investigates the relationships between the component parts. This approach added to an understanding of how context impacts on practice and informed the development of a new model of practice that can support teachers to implement the new primary curriculum in relation to Aistear. Selecting a case does not usually depend on the notion of representativeness, but on the concept of how much the reader can learn from the case, what Abma and Stake (2001) describe as the “learning potential” even though

59

the case cannot be claimed to be representative of other cases. Case study, Adelman et al., (1980, p. 59) suggest, recognises the complexity and “embeddedness” of social truths. Further, they argue that by “carefully attending to social situations”, case studies can represent something of “the discrepancies or conflicts between the viewpoints held by participants and are capable of offering some support to alternative interpretations” (Adelman et al., 1980 pp. 59-60).

Abma and Stake (2001) argue that a better understanding of the activities and relationships will emerge and can provide local knowledge that is time- and context- bound. Building on this, Pring (2000) suggests that it is the reader’s responsibility to look critically at the case studied and to ask what is in it that can relate to their situation. Methodologically, case study calls into consideration the construction, bounding and representation of the case (Meriam, 1998). Each of these research elements, Stake (2006) argues, occur through the decisions and practices of the researcher and the researched in the generation, analysis and re-presenting of the data. Stake (2006) suggests that case study allows for multiple perspectives and derives from the ontological position that reality is socially constructed, and that experiences gain different meanings in the context of different biographies, disciplinary frameworks, and positions. Building on this, he argues that adopting a case study approach facilitates the researcher in providing a descriptive, interrelated and contextually bound case. Furthermore, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011) argue that case study material “can provide powerful human scale data on macro-political decision making, fusing theory and practice” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011, p. 291)

There are several approaches to case study research. Stake (1995) describes a case study as “the study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances” (Stake 1995, p. xi). He suggests that it is the intrinsic value of the case that matters rather than using the case “instrumentally” to understand an issue or theory, and emphasises that it is the case in particular that is the focus of interest and not primarily in relation to, or in comparison with, other cases (Stake, 1995, p. xi). Building on this, Geertz (1973) argues that case study allows for a rich description of values, perceptions and actions of persons, which are seen in context, and are open to flexibility. Yin (1984) defines the case study as:

60

An empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used

(Yin, 1984, p. 23)

Yin (1984) suggests four critical tests confront the case study researcher. These are the need to:

Construct validity: establish correct operational measures for the concepts being studied.

Internal validity: establish a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions, as distinguished from spurious relationships. External validity: establish the domain or population to which a study’s findings can be generalised.

Reliability: demonstrate that the study can be replicated with similar results. (Cited in Nunan, 1992, p. 80) Yin tends towards the positivist paradigm, describing the case study as an evaluation method that: “assumes a single objective reality that can be investigated by following the traditional rules of scientific enquiry and where the findings can be generalised” (Yin, 2003, p. 64). In contrast to Yin and more aligned with Stake (2006), Merriam (1998) puts forward that “reality is not an objective entity; rather, there are multiple interpretations of reality” (Merriam, 1998, p. 22). She maintains that “the key philosophical assumption upon which all types of qualitative research are based is the view that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds” (Merriam, 1998, p. 6); from her perspective, the epistemology that should orient qualitative case study is constructivism.

Aligning myself within the constructivist paradigm, I view knowledge as emerging from the interactions of people’s social practices. Therefore, I conceptualise social reality as being generated and constructed by people and believe that there is not one reality but rather multiple realities. Due to this philosophical stance, I find myself epistemologically discordant with Yin’s (2003) argument that there is a “single objective reality” and that findings from a case study can identify data that points to universal patterns and generalisations, and much more consonant with arguments that there is no one reality, but rather multiple realities (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2006; Simons, 2009). Stake (1995) argues that the case study is an integrated system focusing on specifics rather than generalities. Building on this, Vasconcelos (2010, p. 330) argues that the case study has many layers

61

of meaning and that the case never stands apart from its context. Kemmis (2010) highlights that case study provides an opportunity to become aware of the actions and practices of particular people or groups within the situation or context of their happening.