Subprograma de CECoP (Comunicación, Educación y Concienciación del Público)

4.5.1 Locating research sites and gaining access

Recruitment of schools and participants presented barriers. Initial criteria for inviting schools to become part of the research study drew on bullying statistics (WG 2010) indicating that bullying in secondary schools gradually declines as pupils progress from year 7 to year 11. Using the Estyn inspection reporting framework as a selection tool to include a variety of schools achieving either excellent or adequate standards, this would allow for a comparison of the similarities and differences between schools. The south Wales area allows access to a large number of schools that would provide a range of social, economic, geographical and demographical factors.

Initial contact was made with 20 schools and discussion held with senior managers, including deputy and assistant heads, child protection leads, anti-bullying

coordinators or wellbeing leads as to the possibility of participation in the research. Special schools were not included as the focus of the research was on mainstream education. Schools, or more specifically, senior managers in schools were often welcoming to the idea of research in their schools, but when told the topic and the involvement of children in the research, expressed a reluctance to become involved.

After the initial approach six secondary schools known to me through professional networks asked for further meetings to discuss in depth what the research would involve. Two schools agreed to participate, with the remaining schools citing pressure of curriculum content, time of staff to participate, or inspection requirements to meet, as barriers to involvement.

Initial planning involved case study as my chosen form of research design, including observation, document analysis and interviews. However, schools were reluctant to allow access on this basis observation in and around the school or accessing of records that recorded the incidents of bullying and their outcomes. The reasons given were that this would be too time consuming for staff, and there appeared to be a sensitivity around the issue of bullying and this research would perhaps highlight unforeseen issues and was therefore seen as problematic. My research strategy was amended to a cross sectional approach.

The schools where access was agreed, assistant heads were provided with an information sheet (see appendix) for the senior management teams, staff, students and parents; also consent forms that needed to be signed and returned to the school and myself. The senior managers acted as gate keepers, and were reluctant to allow me access to staff and students, so the opportunity to explain the research and recruit participants was very much in the control of senior managers. With regard to staff participation, one of the research criteria was to involve staff in both a teaching and non-teaching capacity. Ideally this was to include a senior manager, designated senior person for child protection, class room teachers with varying degrees of experience in terms of length of time teaching and pastoral responsibility and support staff such as librarians, administrative assistants, counselling or

support staff, lunch time supervisors and school governors. In covering a cross section of adult roles within the school this would enable an insight into multiple views and experiences thereby addressing one of the gaps in previous research. In both schools the senior managers approached the staff, initially through staff

meetings and then on a one to one basis asking staff to participate.

Both schools who agreed to participate in the study were situated in Wales and had over 1,000 pupils on role. School one was a city faith based secondary school, with a diverse intake of students from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. There were a just below average number of students eligible for free school meals. School 2 was an urban comprehensive, there were very few pupils from ethnic-minority backgrounds and a small percentage of pupils received free school meals. There was a similar

small percentage of children with additional learning needs. Both schools were situated in areas of social and economic deprivation. In total there were 39

participants, 12 of whom were staff. (See tables 1 & 2) There was a disproportionate number of females to males in both the student and staff participants.

4.5.2 Table 1: Participant List: School 1

Participants Role Year School Gender

1 S1 Lloyd Student Yr7 1 Male

2 S4 Cecile Student Yr7 1 Female

3 S5 Phoebe Student Yr7 1 Female

4 S9 Theo Student Yr9 1 Male

5 S10 Tommy Student Yr9 1 Male

6 S14 Lily Student Yr9 1 Female

7 S15 Ffion Student Yr9 1 Female

8 S18 Ellie Student Yr9 1 Female

9 S19 Benny Student Yr9 1 Male

10 S20 Darcy Student Yr11 1 Female

11 S22 Adam Student Yr11 1 Male

12 S25 Maisy Student Yr11 1 Female

13 S26 Lisa Student Yr11 1 Female

14 A28 Gwen Assistant Head Staff 1 Female

15 A29 Maggie Administrator Staff 1 Female

16 A32 Tara Designated Senior Person Staff 1 Female

17 A35 Mari Head of Faculty Staff 1 Female

18 A36 Mark Head of Year Staff 1 Male

4.5.3 Table 2: Participant List: School 2

Participants Role Year School Gender

1 S2 Billy Student Yr7 2 Male

2 S3 Bruce Student Yr7 2 Male

3 S6 Eira Student Yr7 2 Female

4 S7 Poppy Student Yr7 2 Female

5 S8 Belle Student Yr7 2 Female

6 S11 Harry Student Yr9 2 Male

7 S12 Evie Student Yr9 2 Female

8 S13 Henry Student Yr9 2 Male

9 S11 Harry Student Yr9 2 Male

10 S16 Moe Student Yr9 2 Male

11 S17 Fran Student Yr9 2 Female

12 S21 Luke Student Yr11 2 Male

13 S23 Kate Student Yr11 2 Female

14 S24 Bella Student Yr11 2 Female

15 A27 Jeff Teacher Staff 2 Male

16 A30 Megan Governor Staff 2 Female

17 A31 Val Head of year Staff 2 Female

18 A33 Philippa Lunch time supervisor Staff 2 Female 19 A34 Carla Learning Support Assistant Staff 2 Female 20 A37 Petra Newly Qualified Teacher Staff 2 Female

To strengthen the study it would have been beneficial to carry out observations in the school. This might have provided details of how bullying was reported and responded to, but also highlighted what was ignored or marginalised, and by whom. The language and discourse used in both the setting and the topic may provide a point of comparison, but also could provide a barrier to understanding or highlighting differences. An awareness of this issue when interviewing the participants meant that I, as the researcher, needed to achieve “an intellectual process of de-

familiarisation” (Atkinson et al. 2003, p26). It would be necessary throughout the research period to reflect on researcher impact on the process, and move away from the personal bias that might be invested in my knowledge. For the research to be meaningful and robust it would need to involve critical reflection on the data that presented itself during the research, and how my role as researcher impacted on the participants during the data collection process. Similarly the interpretation of the data needed to have robust and organised systems to code, highlight and prioritise themes that emerged.