Theorising Qualitative Methods: Paradigms and Methods

Sheila Riddell, Centre for Research in Education Inclusion and Diversity, University of Edinburgh

Issues arising from presentations

How do we access knowledge about the social world?

Tensions: Individual or more generalisable accounts?

Has been framed as tension between qualitative and qualitative research: challenge of post-modernism. Possible out-moded debate – all research makes some claims to generalisability (particularly applied research)

Research in Practice-Orientated Disciplines

Work in some areas (education, social work) criticised for being too applied/not applied enough.

Pressure for liberatory/transformative/emancipatory research

Can lead to reification of users’ perspectives – refusal to critique. Assumptions of homogeneity. Possible over-simplification in ‘giving people voice’.

View that all generalisation/theory should come fromusers - problematic

Particular challenge – work with people with learning difficulties. How much to interpret/theorise – even use of exact words debated.

Applied versus ‘pure’ research

Suggestion that new focus on applied research may be damaging.

But could be very good thing for many ‘Cinderella’ areas

As long as data gathering rigorous, may be used for different purposes –possible to produce theoretically-informed writing from applied research.

Research approaches in applied research centre

Almost all work uses mixed methods – literature reviews, policy analysis, analysis of official statistics, questionnaire/telephone surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation.

Try to critique methods - what do official statistics reveal/occlude e.g. in field of special educational needs

Recent work on Equalities in FE involves contrasting managers’ account with perspectives of grass-roots staff.

Work on direct payments – contrasts views of disability activists, service users, managers, social workers, trades union officials. Also involves cross-country comparisons.

Challenges of critiquing informants’ accounts

Privileges account of researcher over that of individual social actor – feminist critique.

Indefensible arrogance or responsibility of all social researchers?

Inevitably happens in selecting & interpreting data & drawing conclusions.

But should be done reflexively.

Conclusions

In applied research, mixed methods essential to capture (at least partial view) of complex reality.

Always need to be honest about limitations and nature of truth claims.

Frequently people over-generalise from partial accounts (e.g. special school teachers’ accounts of school inclusion)

But absolute view of reality cannot ever be achieved – this would be recognised by natural as well as social scientists

Policy approaches: summary Features of all three policy approaches are currently present in

Scotland

New legislation Education Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004– attempts shift to systems approach

But arguably weak monitoring/enforcement mechanisms

Little focus on rights of disabled child – professional discretion remains dominant

Impact of policies in practice

Rhetoric of inclusion

But large (increasing?) numbers of children excluded

Impact of policies in practice (1)

2% of pupil population ‘recorded’ as having SEN

New ASL category – potentially much larger

Socially structured:

70% of pupils with SEN are boys

67% of pupils attending special schools are boys

Strong association with entitlement to free school meals

Largest categories: non-normative – mld & sebd

Impact of policies in practice (2) 2002/03 – 36,946 children excluded from school

Exceeded social justice target

Decision to abandon targets in this area

Exclusions socially structured:

Strong association with entitlement to free school meals & being ‘looked after’

80% of excluded pupils are boys

Conclusions

Individualised approach championed by parents – but associated with identification & exclusion of large numbers of boys from socially disadvantaged backgrounds

Moves to systemic change approach – but will new ASL category produce different outcomes?

Professional discretion continues to dominate field Civil rights approach has yet to gain significant

foothold