SEGUNDO.- CONTENIDO Y ALCANCE DE LA DELEGACIÓN

A notable issue arising during time spent in both of these schools was the dichotomy between an ability to discuss matters of importance with teachers, whilst also empathising with the participants who were, at times, struggling to verbalise their thoughts. Through the crossing of a doorway from changing room to PE office, I often found myself having to oscillate between language, which „granted‟ me some access to the professional domain, and a colloquial language deemed appropriate when in conversation with participants. These issues have resonance with the discussion of the importance language and symbolism that has been previously given in chapter three. In this instance, the language with which I was able to communicate was the dominant factor in the success of inter-actions, both with staff and participating students. By virtue of this, in making use of language, which each of these distinct cultures seemingly deemed to be appropriate, it afforded me at least a basic level of access to their experiences in what was a very short space of time.

Developing a full and accurate narrative through interpretive research is dependent on the researcher establishing an open and trusting relationship with the research participants (Macdonald et al., 2002). In such a short period of time, it was noticeably difficult to build up complete trust with each of the focus group participants. In this instance, having seen the students for only one lesson of PE before any discussion on the idea of a focus group, they were not to know the true intentions of my being there. As a result, the staff in these schools acted as gatekeepers; they were my source of access to the participants. This created a scenario whereby being introduced to the participants by the staff members, with whom the participants would have had

75 their own relationship, may have in some way affected their trust in me and the honesty of their responses. The issue of „gatekeepers‟ is discussed further in section 4.4 of this thesis.

In such a short space of time, I became conscious of how best to communicate with staff and pupils, in terms of both spoken and un-spoken language. I was mindful of my appearance and dress code, and the associated implications in the eyes of both participants and staff. I became increasingly aware of the participants‟ perceptions of my behaviours, and the connotations for my time with them. I was able to refine my interaction with pupils when discussing their experiences. I found that I was beginning to understand and interpret the meanings behind what they were describing to me, in their attempts to appreciate their own experiences of PE.

Aside to the initial threefold justification for such a time of familiarisation being spent in school, as previously cited, there were a number of other unexpected benefits of this period. Each school provided an opportunity for familiarisation with the intricacies of field work and the responses, which my behaviours were likely to receive. As such, I gained invaluable first hand objective and empirical evidence of the suitability of these methods within a physical education environment.

At this preliminary stage of the study, the use of focus groups served a positive purpose in their facilitation of the developing understanding of shared discourses. Nonetheless, there were a number of difficulties in the use of focus groups when trying to ascertain „voice‟.

„…….The more self assured and articulate students may dominate consultative conversations and be more readily „heard‟ by teachers but it is the silent – or silenced – students who find learning in school uncongenial whom we also want to hear from so that we can understand why some disengage and what would help them get back on track.‟

76 A difficulty such as this manifested within each of the focus groups during the familiarisation phase of research. On reflection and throughout transcription, it became evident that there were dominant „voices‟ within these sessions, and conversely there were relatively silent partners in the relationship. Perhaps this was a reflection on my ability as a researcher to encourage equality of participation; however, it may also have been an inherent problem when making use of focus groups.

For the notion of focus groups to work in this regard, the benefits of group discussion should not be allowed to restrict the equality of the outcomes. Their use is in contrast to the desire for an understanding of individual behaviours, norms and understandings (Bloor et al., 2001). It could be that such an approach would silence individuals‟ atypical or deviant beliefs, with which they were not comfortable in divulging to the wider group. The proliferation of socially desirable responses in this process was of further concern. When striving for methods, which best convey the interpretivist framework of the research aims, and within the desire to facilitate the appreciation of the participant‟s voice, such practice is less than ideal. Equally, the focus groups, which took place, were relatively time consuming. The practical timing and length of these sessions was a concern, as there was the need to schedule them within PE curriculum lesson time. If repeated over a number of weeks, this would be disruptive to the ethos of education, and would remove the opportunity to experience the content for discussion on future occasions. The obligations placed upon this research not to disrupt the educational experiences of participants would not be met if this were to continue.

An additional method was used within focus groups during my time in the second of these familiarisation schools. The decision to supplement the process with the use of a pictorial interpretation through lesson-based photographs was met with ranging attraction. For some, the process was somewhat contrived. It appeared that some of the participants were not keen to miss out on a PE lesson to take photos for someone they had never met and for a study of which

77 they had little understanding. Despite this, their universal application of these methods during the focus groups themselves was often exemplary. The positive outcomes of this brief process were worthy of greater efforts and development. Further discussion and justification of photo-elicitation protocols is given below.

Planning for the time spent in case study schools was refined through the experiences in these familiarisation schools and the focus groups, which took place within them. Many lessons were learned, both in terms of processes and outcomes, which have resonance for the time being spent in forthcoming case study schools. Some of the method-based difficulties experienced by participants seemed to be symptomatic of both a lack of understanding in the task itself, and a lack of trust towards me as an outsider. As discussed by Holdaway (2000), „qualitative work cannot dash in and raid peoples‟ minds in the belief that the rich symbolism of the social world has been captured adequately‟ (p.165). It is my belief that to avoid situations some of the difficulties faced during these pilots, and to further embed the notion of trust in the study, a much greater time spent in school was critical to the success of the full case studies. Appraisal of the appropriateness of each of the methods used within these familiarisation schools, and the quality of the data herewith, has informed those to be used in these case studies.