Audit trail

To further ensure the validity of the current research, an independent audit trail was utilised, offering transparency about the processes, decisions and conclusions made by the researcher (Yin, 1989). To achieve this, thought processes at key points during the supervision process were shared, such as: question formulation, participant recruitment, generation of the interview schedule, analysis and theme generation. Additionally, a colleague was provided with sections of the transcript and analysis to investigate whether

the interpretations were robust and credible. Transparent in approach, Appendix O to W (displayed in Table 6) displays full details of each stage during the analysis process.

3.8.3 Reflexivity

As part of qualitative methodologies, it is acknowledged that the researcher ‘influences and shapes’ the research process, both as an individual and through their theoretical stance (Willig, 2013, p.25). Whilst it is not feasible for the researcher to be unbiased, neutral and detached, adopting a reflexive position allows consideration of the impact of preconceptions, views and values, alongside personal and professional relationships with the data (Shaw, 2010). As noted by Larkin, Eatough and Osborn (2011), IPA requires the researcher to bracket off one’s preconceptions, suspending these to allow examination rather than eradication.

To facilitate reflexivity, a research diary (see extracts in Appendix M) was utilised to record important decisions and events throughout the research process. As IPA requires a search for deeper meaning through the interpretative method, the researcher must draw significantly on personal resources when deciding how the analysis is conducted. To minimise the likelihood of data misconstruction, key reflections, reactions and observations were recorded in an attempt to surface thoughts and feelings that could influence the development of the research process. The following statements are extracts from the process notes of the researcher:

• Over-identifying with the experience of the TAs due to the researcher’s own experience working in APs

• Holding beliefs about what the TAs accounts of their experiences would encompass (e.g. supporting the CYP in APs is difficult, TAs receive little support carrying out their role, TAs are subject to high amounts of violence and expected to engage in the act of restraint, TAs may be impacted by systemic pressures)

• Feelings of anger or sadness towards the experiences expressed by the TAs and how they are treated by the CYP

• A desire to empathise, advise or reassure the participants

• Feelings of anxiety about how the researcher’s role and interview approach may have influenced the participants’ accounts

Noting these observations ensured that interpretations were led by the participant’s experience, minimising the likelihood of the researcher’s own reactions influencing the analysis of their accounts. Whilst it is recognised that an individual cannot truly be impartial due to the complex interplay of unconscious processes (Smith et al., 2004), additional measures to ensure an unbiased and rigorous analysis included the peer-review (completed by a colleague) of an annotated transcript to ensure the interpretations were reasonable. The researcher also conducted the literature review after the data analysis, ensuring that preconceived knowledge and ideas did not impact on the process.

3.9 Ethical considerations

This research complied with the British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Human Research Ethics (2014), Code of Ethics and Conduct (BPS, 2018) and the Data Protection Act (1998, 2018). Ethical approval to undertake the study was granted by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Research Ethics Committee (TREC) (see Appendix Y

for the TREC form and ethical approval letter obtained by the researcher). Willig (2013) identified five principal ethical considerations to ensure the research is conducted in a manner which is respectful, sensitive and fair. These are discussed in relation to the current research study:

1) Informed consent

The BPS (2014, 2018) states that informed consent should be gained from all participants invited to take part in the research process. The importance of providing time for participants to understand the aims and nature of the study, in addition to the use of data following collection is emphasised (Smith et al., 2009). To meet this ethical requirement, the headteachers of APs were contacted with information about the study with permission requested to invite TAs to participate. TAs who expressed interest were provided with an information sheet detailing the study’s purpose and procedure, in addition to information about confidentiality, anonymity and data usage. This information was also reviewed in person, providing an opportunity for questions to be asked and concerns to be raised. In addition, the consent form reiterated key points from the research and asked participants to sign that they understood each statement.

2) Anonymity and confidentiality

All of the data collected was stored in accordance with ethical and legal guidelines (Data Protection Act, 1998, 2018). In line with this, participant information was anonymised, with markers of identification removed and pseudonyms applied. Both the headteachers of each AP and all TAs

participating were informed both verbally and in written format that their identity would remain confidential. Whilst it is recognised that the use of direct quotations in qualitative research can provide a challenge to the process of anonymisation, participants were made aware that their identities would not be revealed.

Adding a further degree of confidentiality, each interview was transcribed solely by the researcher and audio recordings were deleted immediately following transcription. Digital files were anonymised and stored on a password protected device with all personal information and hard copies of the data locked securely within a filling cabinet. All information collected was utilised in accordance with the Data Protection Act (1998, 2018).

3) No deception

As detailed, the researcher made every attempt to ensure that the research aims, purpose and procedures were open and transparent. Through the information provided (both in written and verbal format) and the opportunity to ask questions, it was ensured that all participants were able to make an informed decision about consenting to take part within the research process.

4) Right to withdraw

Research guidelines (BPS, 2014) highlight the importance of acknowledging the participant’s autonomy in both choosing to take part

and withdraw from the research process. All TAs were made aware of their right to leave the research study up until the coding and data analysis stage, without having to provide a reason for their decision. This information was included within the information sheet and consent form and was verbally reviewed prior to the interview commencing.

5) Debriefing

In line with guidelines stated by the BPS (2014), participants were provided with the opportunity to reflect on their experience of the interview process and ask further questions. This information was not recorded but instead allowed a space to discuss both areas of enjoyment and any potential difficulties that had arisen. All participants were also given the contact details of the researcher and offered the option of a further debriefing session if additional issues were raised. It is noted that none of the participants felt this was necessary.

Additional factors considered by the researcher and highlighted within BPS guidance (2014) are included below:

• Minimising harm

In accordance with ethical principles, it is the responsibility of the researcher to consider the research process from the perspective of the participant, reflecting on any potential risks to their psychological well- being, values and dignity (BPS, 2014). It is also noted that the benefits for the participant should be maximised, from inception to dissemination of

the results (BPS, 2014). As part of this research, it was hoped that the interview process would be a positive experience, providing a reflective space to consider thoughts and feelings about supporting CYP excluded from school. Through discussion, it was elicited that the majority of participants believed collecting the voice of TAs was beneficial for themselves and the CYP they supported.

Despite the outlined benefits, the researcher also acknowledged that the experience of in-depth discussion and reflection could be difficult, causing upset for some participants. To ensure psychological well-being, the researcher endeavoured to conduct the interviews in a manner that was sensitive and thoughtful. Prior to the interview commencing, the participants were reminded of the topic that would be covered and reassured that the process could be paused or terminated if desired. As discussed above, debriefing was also offered after each interview.

• Power

As part of the research process, it is important to address issues of power in relation to the role of the researcher and participant. Acknowledging this, TAs were selected who did not have a previous personal or professional relationship with the researcher. In addition to this, the APs participating did not have contact with the researcher during their role as a TEP, minimising the potential power perception that may be associated with acting as a representative of the LA.

3.10 Chapter summary

The purpose of this chapter was to describe the methodological approach undertaken when exploring the experiences of TAs supporting excluded CYP in APs. The ontological and epistemological position of the researcher is described, alongside the rationale and suitability of IPA, with reference to the theoretical foundations, analysis process, strengths and critiques. Full details of participant recruitment and the process of data collection is provided, alongside the measures used to ensure the study was both ethical and conducted in a manner which considered issues of validity.

4 Findings 4.1 Chapter overview

This chapter outlines the findings of the study’s analytic process, as described within the methodology chapter (section 3.7). Aiming to answer the research question, ‘What are the experiences of TAs supporting excluded children in APs?’, five overarching themes were identified: ‘Relationships: a complex landscape’, ‘A juggling act: behaviour, need and strength from the team’, ‘A rocky road: highs, lows and a journey of development’, ‘Battles, clashes and superiority’ and ‘The journey towards a future’. A full audit trail for this analysis is provided (as described in Table 6). Figure 6 portrays a visual representation of the five overarching themes, with the participants each assigned a different colour to highlight the spread of the superordinate themes.

Figure 6. Diagram illustrating the overarching themes generated. Participants allocated colours include: Lily – green; Ali – blue; Devlin – orange; Sharon – red.

After exploring how these themes present within the accounts of Lily, Devlin, Ali and Sharon, the chapter provides a comparison with Tracy and Julie. As described in section 3.5.4 and 3.7.1, these participants did not meet the full inclusion criteria and as such were not incorporated when identifying overarching themes across participants (stage 6).

Evidencing the interpretations developed by the researcher and maintaining the phenomenological core of the research, quotations from each of the TAs’ transcripts are shared. Table 7 displays the following typographic features utilised throughout this chapter.

Table 7. Typographic features utilised throughout chapter.

The interviews produced a rich data set and it is acknowledged that the subtleties of each account may be lost through the process of inclusion/exclusion for the purpose of the findings section. To account for this and to uphold the individuality of the participants’ experience, the researcher has chosen to describe each account in turn when presenting the overarching themes. It is important to note that these themes are not distinct entities and instead are closely interlinked with one another. Nuances exist in the experiences of the participants and the researcher will highlight the commonalities and differences across their accounts.

Typographic features “…” A pause in speech “[…]” Quotation has been cut

( ) Researcher provides contextual information (e.g. laughter)