Axiology (from Greek axios, “worthy”; logos, “science”) refers to what the researcher values in his/her research. According to Hammersley (2018) the role of values has long been a contested issue in research, but the conception of science as ever being ‘value-free’ has generally been rejected in modern times.
Researcher values influence all aspects of the research from choice of topic to how the research is conducted and reported. As all research is value-laden and biases are present, it is important to be transparent and discuss values that shape the narrative (Cresswell, 2013).
Speedy (2008) pointed out relationships not only exist between researchers and the researched but also between researchers and text and between researchers and the ‘stuff’ of their research and vice-versa. As a result, everything we do and write is part of a reflexive cycle of meaning-making.
Mertens (2016) added that diverse values will be at play in evaluation research; not only the researcher’s own values but also those of the various stakeholder groups. All interventions are value laden (Mertens, 2015). The utilitarian theory of ethics, for example, holds that the inherent value of something is the extent to which the results work with respect to the problem that is being studied (Mertens & Wilson, 2012). A critical social theory, however, is also concerned with issues of power and justice and how social institutions and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system (Kincheloe & Mc Laren, 2005). Such theoretical perspectives can contribute to a transformative paradigm to address issues of power inequities and the consequences of these for social justice.
Iphofen & Tolich (2018) added that social responsibility may also require that those being ‘worked with’ are also being ‘worked for’ suggesting that the researcher may need to actively pursue social justice on behalf of those who agreed to participate in research.
Whilst a transformative paradigm does not dictate any particular approach, methodological decisions are aimed at determining the approaches that best facilitate the
97
enhancement of social justice via the use of the process and research findings. In addition to making visible their own values it is, therefore, also important to make visible the values of the various stakeholder groups (Mertens, 2015). Methodologically, this necessitates the need to establish a dialogic relationship and a deep contextual understanding using
methods that reveal different aspects of the phenomenon under study and that engage the stakeholders throughout the process. A critical realist and transformative paradigm were chosen to reflect the researcher’s values in this study.
Case Study Research Design
Whilst Bhasker (1998) did not recommend any specific research methodology, many critical realism researchers (for example Miles & Huberman, 1994; Mingers, 2004; and Wynn & Williams, 2012) have identified the case study as the best approach to explore the interaction of structures, events, actions and context to identify and explicate causal mechanisms.
The decision to choose a case study approach for this study was made on the grounds that:
1) It is a highly appropriate method to study real-life phenomenon in depth, where such understanding necessarily encompasses contextual conditions as integral aspects of the phenomenon in question (Yin, 2009).
2) In the attempt to bridge the theory-practice by conducting the research in a school environment, it is acknowledged that there would be limited control over behavioural events and that such events as part of complex social phenomena would, in fact, be a major focus of the research.
3) A transformational value system and a commitment to a collaborative approach involving all participants also suggested the benefit of a case- study approach.
4) It is in keeping with both ontological and epistemological principles underlying a critical realist position (Wynn & Williams, 2012).
Wynn & Williams (2012) suggest five methodological principles, which have been incorporated in the design of this study. These are summarised in Table 17.
98 Table 17.
Five Methodological Principles, for Case Studies, underlying a Critical Realist Position.
Methodological principles taken from Wynn & Williams (2012):
• Explication of events. This is the necessity to identify the detailed aspects of the events
being studied to aid identification of what constitutes the outcomes. The sequence of these events provides evidence of the effects of the causal chain that constitutes a change or non-change in the research setting. The events are not part of the theory but tools to aid the development of theories. • Explication of structure and context. This involves teasing out the components of the
structure that are causally relevant and pertinent to the focus of the research, as describing causal tendencies that generate events is central to critical realism. (Structural entities and contextual factors in complex, open-system organisational settings, such as schools, include social, physical, artefactual and symbolic entities).
• Retroduction. Philosophically, Wynn & Williams (2012) indicated that retroduction is a
form of inference that seeks to explain by identifying and verifying the causal mechanisms. Sayer, (1992) added that events are then explained by postulating mechanisms which are identified in the study, as being capable of producing them. Wynn & Williams suggested that retroduction is likely to benefit from an iterative approach to data collection and analysis ‘involving corroborating interviews, high-order coding, within and cross-case analysis, process tracing and processing modelling’ (p 800).
• Empirical corroboration. Following the identification of potential causal mechanisms,
attempts are then made to corroborate them with empirical evidence (such as data from interviews and observation). Validation of any knowledge claims requires the empirical search for the mechanism and its effects. Evaluating the extent to which the proposed causal explanation holds across multiple perspectives, multiple cases and events is important.
• Triangulation/multi-methods. This leads on to the importance of including multiple
approaches and perspectives to support causal analysis. The purposes of triangulation/multi- methods are to control for the influences of various biases and to acknowledge that reality is composed of many types of structure (including physical, social, conceptual and motivational).
Whilst existing case studies vary widely in the degree to which the fifth principle is applied (Wynn & Williams, 2012), the current study aimed to utilize data from
interviewing key stakeholders (the pupils, parents and school staff), observation, informal conversation, formative process data from informants (recorded in field notes),
standardized and non-standardized sensory profiles and trend data provided from student progress records. The trend data, agreed with school staff prior to the commencement of the study, consisted of pupil behaviour logs and Autism Education Trust progression checklists comparing trends in the Autumn term with the subsequent term during which the intervention took place (Spring term). Due to a change in the ARB record-keeping policy midway through the study, trend data was not subsequently available, however.
99
Yin (2009) advised that theory development was a critical precursor to the choice of case study design. He suggested that both single-case and multiple-case designs could be either ‘holistic’, incorporating a single unit of analysis or ‘embedded’, having multiple units of analysis. A single case design (the ARB) was chosen as the appropriate option between single versus multiple case studies,with the objective to capture the
circumstances and conditions in depth related to a specific ARB attached to a mainstream secondary school.
The question of whether the single-case study should be ‘holistic’ or ‘embedded’ in design was informed by the research questions. A holistic design is only advantageous when the relevant theory underlying the case study is itself of a holistic nature and when no logical subunits are identified. An important aspect of this research involved looking at individual differences in response to the intervention based on sensory profiles. The over- arching realist perspective is also focussing on specifics (‘What works for whom in what in what circumstances and how?). It became apparent, therefore, that the children attending the ARB should be considered ‘embedded units’. The study is, therefore, presented as a single case study (the ARB) with five embedded units (the children). All information collated on specific children was collated from ‘noticings’ (Braun & Clarke, 2013) into case study ‘pen pictures’ of each child. These are included in Appendix 18.