Application to this study

This study has directly drawn on Bronfenbrenner’s most mature form of bio-ecological perspective, depicted in the ‘person-process-context-time’ (PPCT) model, to examine outlooks on the early development and learning of young children with cerebral palsy. The attractiveness of the model as a framework for this study reflected the match between the wide-ranging nature of the investigation’s topic and the all- encompassing, phenomenological nature of the framework itself. Its use enabled the research to seek a more comprehensive and sophisticated understanding of the experience of disability, through the lenses of a range of stakeholders and of children themselves, than that derived from approaches framed solely around singularly medical or social perspectives.

A second benefit of the model was its heuristic nature (Sontag, 1996), which facilitated an increasingly complex, exploratory strategy designed to answer the research questions. The model could guide the study’s progression from literature review to its empirical sections through an orderly, rational system of ideas (Maxwell, 2005). It also guided the empirical investigation itself, aiding the identification, analysis and critical comparison of values, procedures, practices and outlooks, located in a range of social and professional environments, and helping the investigation to seek increasing detail in a logical fashion.

Challenges of using Bronfenbrenner’s model needed, however, to be addressed. The first of these was its changing nature, in particular from its ‘ecological’ to ‘bio- ecological’ characteristics. As already indicated, this study took on Bronfenbrenner’s later, fuller, bio-ecological stance, taking into account all four elements of the model: person, process, context and time. The reason for this related to the wish to provide a wide-ranging analysis of the chosen topic and to reflect the intricate nature of relevant factors and influences contributing to it. In this respect it seemed right to make use of Bronfenbrenner’s more complete perspective, rather than to limit the study by applying only parts of this conceptualization.

Another danger was the model’s ‘abstraction’. The stance taken in this study in this respect is that the choice of whether to produce ‘abstract’ outcomes or those of a more empirically useful nature depends to a large extent on the researcher and on his or her decisions about what to produce from the data collected. The aim of this investigation was not ultimately to provide a map, chart or conceptual theory of factors relevant to provision for children with cerebral palsy and their families. Rather it was to affirm a specific identity for these children and to examine perspectives from a range of sources which might illuminate manifestation of that identity for those involved in that field. While not ‘abstract’ therefore, the study was not wholly ‘practical’ – it sought a position between these two characteristics, one whereby understanding of a neglected group could be increased and whereby more developed understanding of their position might inform both thinking and, perhaps, practice in this field.

The most challenging aspect of Bronfennbrenner’s model for the researcher is, however, its complexity. While it is feasible and justifiable to agree with Thomas (1996), who considered the multiple elements and dimensions of the model to be more a dynamic feature than a drawback, the model’s sheer intricacy nevertheless

needs to be addressed in some way and the chosen approach articulated clearly, if Tudge et al.’s (2009) warning of potential ‘conceptual incoherence’ (p199) is to be avoided.

The first task for the researcher, therefore, is to gain a structured understanding of what is going on in the investigation. An important feature of this study in this respect is its focus on ‘outlooks’ – the perspectives not only of parents and professionals of various kinds, but also those of children, as evidenced in their responses to practical activity in relevant settings. It was from these outlooks, rather than from other more formalized or quantifiable sources, that the study’s outcomes were produced. A second task is to clarify the extent to which Bronfenbrenner’s model is used to determine the nature of the research. In this study, the four elements of the model provided a structure for investigation – however, this did not mean that all possible aspects of each element were addressed. Instead the study defined which aspects were to be scrutinized, thereby delineating the range of data to be collected and the analytical framework by which ‘outlook-based’ results were to be produced.

In most respects, therefore, Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model acted as a structure for the study’s research questions – four out of the five questions directly represented the model’s elements. The fifth overlapped all four of these categorized elements, and allowed the study to examine the whole, multi-faceted picture from the perspective of children’s observed, real-life experiences. Figure 2.1 shows this correspondence of research questions with the four PPCT elements (not quite, it will be noticed, in this order), further informed by this connective ‘perspective’ relating to children themselves.

Person Context Process Time RQ1: How is the identity of

young children with cerebral palsy in relation to their development and learning perceived by their parents, early-years practitioners and representatives of local- authority support services?

RQ2: How are the contexts in which support for their development and learning is provided viewed by these stakeholders? RQ3: What are these stakeholders’ perceptions of the processes by which development and learning of these children takes place? RQ4: In relation to time, how are future priorities and possibilities for development and learning of these children viewed by these stakeholders?

RQ5: How is this range of outlooks evident in observed practical interactions between children and practitioners?

Table 2.1: Mapping of research questions in relation to elements of the bio-ecological model

Taken as a whole, therefore, this framework prioritized the children themselves in the overall picture produced, a reflection perhaps of the study’s aim to produce and promote a developmental and educational ‘identity’ for this group. Indeed, it was here where most complexity was found. The focus of the study was young children within the local authority who had been identified as having cerebral palsy. However, it was important to remember that these were not simply individuals with a disability, but human beings with multiple identities (Gilroy, 1997; Coster, 2007). They were young, growing persons whose upbringing and early education were influenced by social, cultural and pedagogical values. They were participants in early-years provisions and recipients of additional services. They were sons or daughters and sometimes siblings within their immediate family; they had friends and were part of the local community of other families and children. Their lives were located within a particular historical and economic time, where local and central policy defined their development and learning needs and the means by which these were met.

2.6 Conclusion

The bio-ecological model is a complex and comprehensive projection of Bronfenbrenner’s understanding of child development. Despite its complexity and

abstraction it provided for this study a logical and systematic framework for the examination of multiple dimensions of the research issue and the connections between them. It informed the study as a whole and design of the research questions and analysis of data in particular. It also provided a basis for examination of literature which informs the focus of the study – this review now follows.