Case study methodologies

To support data collection, a range of case study research methodologies were adopted. These included semi-structured interviews, documentary review and field notes. Each of these methodologies will be presented in turn, including preparation of the related research tools.

3.7.3.1 Semi-structured interview.

Central to each case study was the semi-structured interview, conducted with the class teacher, SNA and target pupil. Semi-structured interviews are defined by Kvale and Brinkmann (2008, p. 3) as, “An interview with the purpose of obtaining descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena”. Bryman (2008) notes the strengths of semi-structured interviews in facilitating in-depth exploration of pre-defined themes or concepts, while simultaneously, providing flexibility and scope for discussion of themes beyond the research guide. This research approach was deemed highly suitable for engaging with the research participants, ensuring a number of key topic areas could be covered in a relaxed, flexible manner. Moreover, Yin (2014) notes how semi- structured interviews are particularly suitable for multiple case study research, facilitating comparative analysis both within and across cases.

143 Although semi-structured interviews can yield valuable in-depth information from participants, limitations of this approach must also be acknowledged. Wengraf (2001) refers to the issue of ‘double attention’ when engaging in semi-structured interviews, whereby the interviewer must both listen to the informant’s responses whilst concurrently, formulating questions to support the interactive nature of the communication. This is thought to require high levels of skill and concentration on the part of the interviewer to ensure that all questions are answered within the fixed time and with the level of depth required (Wengraf, 2001). Denzin (1989) also notes that when comparing participant responses to interview questions, the researcher must ensure that any differences in responses arise from actual differences amongst the participants rather than as a result of the questions posed. In this regard, ‘equivalence of meaning’ must be transmitted in the questioning process rather than strict adherence to the interview guide (Denzin, 1989; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008). Such approaches are noted to support the reliability and validity of the data gleaned in the interview process.

3.7.3.2 Semi-structured interview schedules.

To support the semi-structured interview process, schedules were prepared for the teacher, SNA and target pupil interviews (see Appendix L, M and N respectively). These schedules were designed in light of the research questions, with particular focus on the areas of preparedness, deployment, behavioural care needs and

independence. Interview schedules were also informed by an in-depth review of

national and international literature. From a national viewpoint, this spanned policy and research publications including the Value for Money review (DES, 2011a), Cooper and Jacobs (2011), Circular 0030/2014 (DES, 2014) and Rose et al. (2015). International research also provided strong guidance during this preparatory phrase, with particular learning gleaned from the DISS study (Blatchford et al., 2009a), the MaSt project (Webster & Blatchford, 2013a) and the SENSE study (Webster & Blatchford, 2017). All interview schedules commenced with opening, introductory questions, aimed at establishing rapport with the participant. Thereafter, an initial, broad question was posed to set the tone for a guided conversation (Yin, 2014). Notably, Braun and Clarke (2013) highlight the importance of well-planned questions for building rapport with participants and generating rich and detailed information relevant to the research questions. Accordingly, a range of open-ended questions were prepared to enable deep exploration of the quintain, with due regard for the sequencing, construction and wording of the questions. Prompts and probes

144 were also included on the schedules to encourage participants to expand their answers and provide more detail, where necessary. With regard to the topic of ‘preparedness’, teacher and SNA interview schedules spanned a range of questions related to training, CPD, individual pupil planning, collaboration, target-

setting/review, SNAs’ training needs and pupil involvement in his/her planning.

Thereafter, questions related to ‘deployment’, ‘behavioural care needs’ and ‘independence’ were included. Examples included the role of the SNA in supporting

pupils with behavioural care needs, strategies used to support challenging behaviour, comparison of the target pupil’s level of independence to that of his/her peers, level of dependence of the target pupil on the SNA, the SNA’s role in promoting the pupil’s independence and alternate supports within the school for the pupil, other than the SNA. Finally, the interview schedules concluded with a closing

or ‘clean-up’ question, allowing the participant to raise outstanding issues that had not already been covered (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

The pupil interview, on the other hand, was prepared with the aim of providing a voice to pupil participants in the study. In particular, the study sought to obtain the target pupils’ views with regard to the role of the SNA and the impact of the SNA on his/her behaviour and development of independence. Based on a review of the literature, the challenges in establishing children’s views in research were acknowledged, whereby a range of researchers have outlined the key issues when interviewing children. In addition to ethical concerns (see section 3.7.6), this spans a range of topics including the unequal power relationship between the child and the adult researcher, difficulties in establishing rapport with the child, reluctance on the part of the child to respond to an adult stranger, potential language difficulties of children and environmental influences on the child (Einarsdóttir, 2007; Parker, 1984; Scott, 2008). To address some of these issues, the need for a familiar, yet distraction-free environment for engaging in pupil interviews was acknowledged. In preparing the interview schedule, guidance was sought from the Checklist for

Interviewing Children (Parker, 1984, pp. 27-28). This checklist spans a range of

topics related to interviewing children including rapport-building, phrasing of questions, use of child-friendly language, as well as matters related to reliability. In particular, the researcher sought to reduce bias in interview questions, mainly due to young children’s tendency towards high suggestibility. Moreover, Gollop (2000) emphasises the distinct child-friendly approach that must be adopted by the interviewer, whereby the interview should resemble more of a conversation with the child rather than an interview, per se. Focusing on the content of the interview

145 schedule, guidance was sought from the research questions as well as published, pupil-friendly interview schedules in the field, including that by Broer et al. (2005), Skär and Tam (2001) and Mortier, Desimpel, De Schauwer, and Van Hove (2011). In addition to rapport-building questions, questions spanned a range of areas including school-based supports, likes/dislikes of the SNA support, pupil positioning

in the classroom, triggers for challenging behaviour, strategies that support/hinder positive behaviour, strategies that support/hinder independence, times when help is required/not required, views on the level of SNA support received and alternate support strategies. Akin to the teacher and SNA interview schedules, the pupil

interview concluded with a closing question, aimed at allowing the child to add any additional information that had not been covered (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

3.7.3.3 Documentary review.

Beyond the semi-structured interviews, documentary review also formed a central component of the case study methodology. This process involves reviewing school- based planning documents related to the pupil, including that of an IEP, Behaviour Support Plan and/or Personal Pupil Plan. Notably, professional reports related to pupils were not reviewed during case studies in light of the sensitivity of the information inherent in such documents. Mohd Noor (2008) highlights the strength of documentary review, whereby it acts as a method to cross-validate information gathered from interviews and observations and enhance the validity and reliability of findings. To support this process, a guiding template was created, as outlined in

Appendix O. This was informed by the research questions as well as Circular 0030/2014 (DES, 2014) and the IEP Guidelines (NCSE, 2006). This aided to ensure

that salient information related to individual pupil planning was recorded whilst reviewing documentation, particularly in relation to collaboration, the role of the

SNA, assessment, target-setting, use of ‘SMART’ targets i.e. ‘Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timed (NCSE, 2006), in addition to progress monitoring, review and the voice of the child.

3.7.3.4 Field notes.

The final component of the case study was field note-taking. This process involves writing notes either during or soon after data collection which record commentary about, and reflections on, the data collection session (Braun & Clarke, 2013). To support this process, a template was created comprising a number of keywords

146 related to the research questions (see Appendix P). These words were intended to serve as prompts to encourage the documentation of any additional information either during or after the site visit. For the most part, however, the template was left blank to support unrestricted documentation of additional observations and reflections.