Fundamentally, this research starts from the perspective of valuing the views of those on the ground, currently working as SENCOs in a range of educational settings. This, according to May (2001: 39) reflects an interest in ‘value judgements’ rather than absolute statements as truth. Thus, the research agenda moves away from a positivist search for facts of truth, searching instead for the underlying beliefs and experiences from everyday life that have shaped the value judgements. May (2001) goes on to suggest that rather than claiming or even trying to remove the values people have, researchers should recognise values being
80 revealed by research participants and their origins in terms of the wider social context and relationships that are influencing the situation being researched. This would also include the values of the researcher; I was a SENCO and continue to have an interest in the role due to my work on the SENCO national qualification, as well as within the wider drive for inclusion within education. However, as Pinker (quoted in May, 2001) states, this recognition of values is not problematic within itself, as long as these do not in some way distort the final piece of research.
Having identified the role of values within this piece of research, some underpinning principles of ethics will be applied to the research. Dahlberg and Moss (2005: 66) state that ‘ethics is the ‘should’ question: how should we think and act?’ Researchers have an obligation to consider the possible impact participation with the research could have on participants. Exploring the role of the SENCO might highlight various challenges and inequalities faced by a SENCO, due to the way that the role in implemented in their setting. However, this might also be seen as beneficial, as this can then be a catalyst for recognition of the challenges and faced and the creation of solutions or alternative ways of working and responding to SEN (Cohen et al, 2000). As Ensign (2003:43) points out, researchers have to remember that ‘research is neither a basic right nor necessity’ and they have to balance their quest for useful and informative data with the rights of the research participants. These tensions are closely linked to issues of informed consent, confidentiality and access to the research domain.
3.7.1 Informed consent
The principle of informed consent revolves around the notion that people have the right to know what they are participating in when they agree to be a part of the research process.
81 Cohen et al (2000: 51) outline four key elements of informed consent: ‘competence, voluntarism, full information and comprehension.’ Whilst certain populations, such as children, can be considered to lack the ability to give informed consent (although this is questionable) the target audience of SENCOs are professional teaching staff, who are capable of judging whether or not they are able to, and want to, participate in a research process and all have volunteered to participate with the research, with varying levels of involvement ranging from the completion of a questionnaire to a longer in-depth interview. All participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage and their right to not answer any question asked.
The remaining two categories present a somewhat broader challenge. Whilst every participant has been informed of the aims and objectives of the research, as well as the expectations and outcomes, both in terms of dissemination of information and any possible benefits to participation, this has to be an on-going process, that is revisited throughout the life of the project. Ensign (2003) highlights the importance of this being a process rather than a paper exercise at the start of a project, in order to ensure that informed consent is maintained. Furthermore, comprehension of the requirements of the research process can be an aim but it is reliant on the research subjects highlighting any confusion, which can be harder once the researcher and researchee have entered into a relationship. However, as all participants have studied to undergraduate level at least, it can be presumed that they have at least some understanding of the nature of research and would ask for clarification if needed.
Some of the participants are former students that I have worked with as a lecturer. This raises issues of power within the research, as the researcher’s position as lecturer may have meant that they were in a more powerful position than the student (SENCO). However, none of the
82 participants are currently working with the researcher and the aim is to develop the type of relationship outlined by Christians (2005) as being reciprocal rather than controlling and competitive. The researcher has some knowledge of the role, having been a SENCO previously, but the research participants are working in the field now and can therefore provide relevant and up to date insights. Whilst the research is not claiming to take an emancipatory approach, it aimed for a partnership approach that values the contribution made by the SENCOs, with a goal to highlight the positive contribution they make to education as well as challenging some of the negative associations with the role.
3.7.2 Confidentiality
Confidentiality is about protecting the privacy and identity of those involved in research. Researchers have to remember that they are often given access to very privileged information and thus have an obligation not only to the participants but also the wider research community to ensure that their research will not reveal the identities of any key participants, including their linked organisations, such as a school or LA. However, Ensign (2003) and Bell (2005) suggests that certain studies make this much harder to achieve, particularly those focusing on specific groups, such as a SENCO. Whilst research into a particular school might involve speaking to a relatively large number of staff, schools usually only have one member of staff titled as SENCO so any identification of a school would automatically reveal the member of staff as well. Thus confidentiality needs to go beyond the use of pseudonyms for participants and consider whether any details included in a report, could lead to identification of participants, including for example, type and setting of school.
Furthermore, whilst a number of authors (including Cohen et al, 2000, Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995) suggest promising confidentiality, Ensign (2003) recognises that this total
83 assurance is impossible, but should be seen as a guiding principle that researchers strenuously aim for. Information relating to the identity of the SENCO is not needed for this study and only details that enrich the data, such as the type of school they work at and a broad geographical location have been included in order to try to maintain confidentiality for participants.
3.7.3 Access to the research field
Schools are not public spaces, meaning that any access to them needs to be negotiated through a variety of gatekeepers. Furthermore, Bailey (2007) highlights that initial access can be granted with certain restrictions in place, preventing the researcher from completing the proposed data collection. As part of my role within a school of education at a university, I have access to a range of schools. However, this would not only be a significant change in relationship between myself and the setting, there is also the possibility that staff could see my role as some sort of inspection of their work. Cohen et al (2000) stress the importance of providing enough information regarding the purpose and focus of the research to prevent participants from feeling threatened or marginalised. I aimed to achieve this by providing information regarding the scope and focus of the study, design and methods to be used, confidentiality arrangements, time requirements, opportunities to reflect and alter comments and any possible outcomes for the research.
Having gained access to the research field, it is important to consider how I would respond to any revelations made to me about practice within school or tensions that arise due to the role. In line with British Education Research Association (BERA) guidelines (2004) the interests of the pupils must be the primary concern. This, along with the need to share any challenging information that I might gather would be made clear to all participants. The challenge
84 presented by tensions is not easily addressed. As the research is focusing on the changing role of the SENCO, compared with national policy documents, there is a strong possibility that a wide range of tensions will arise through the research process. Whilst these are likely to add depth and richness to my findings, neither my position as a researcher nor the participation in the research project are likely to change or remove these tensions from an individual.