i Were the Objectives of the Research Study met?

The first objective was to ‘evaluate the experiences and perceptions of parents and pupils with school engagement; the second, to ‘gain insight into the effectiveness of the initiative from parent and pupil perspectives’.

The accounts of the parents and pupils clearly suggest that the ‘Our Future' Project was worthwhile. References are made by the participants that suggest this school is seen as a place that was welcoming and aimed to meet their needs, not just because of the ‘Our Future' Project but more widely in addressing the needs of individuals. The school was identified as one that listened. It acted upon what it said it would do at several levels, it made an effort for positive outcomes for the pupils involved and thereby endeared themselves to the parents. The evidence that suggests a legacy from the enjoyment derived from the experience of the initiative is strong. Whilst one of the parent participants (P3) provides divergence from the strength of this narrative in the comment that ‘it doesn’t raise me for one event’ (T3 13 16:05), this participant, as well as the others, was able to provide examples and insight into how initiatives could be developed and extended. The ideas provided were all mindful of cost both in time and resources, suggesting that they need not be ambitious in order to satisfy need and meet the objective of engagement. This realistic opinion reflects a reference in the literature to how individuals are ‘experts of themselves’ (Rose 1996, p.59). This also illustrates how, by listening to individuals, solutions are there to be found. It would suggest that this study supports the premise that by asking parents (Day, 2013) barriers are reduced. Although schools could see this as problematic it also presents them with possibilities (Yeatman, 1994). In seeing through the lenses of reframing and solution-focused thinking (Ajmal and Rhodes, 1995; Murphy and Duncan, 1997) a paradigm shift can then take place. Instead of narratives such as ‘hard to reach’ the alternative rhetoric can come to the fore and ‘new meanings’ (Bowman and Goldberg, 1983) can be made. Narrative approaches promote ‘co-constructed intervention’; they recognise that each person is an expert in their own lives and someone who is capable of change (White and

Epston, 1990). Connotations surrounding the rhetoric and narrative of disengagement and vulnerability means that instead a possibility perspective is created (Freedman and Coombs, 1996; Hanko, 1999).

The decision to conduct this research in the framework and guidance of an IPA methodology was well considered. However, it is acknowledged that there are limitations. The small sample size of three families is arguably a limitation. However, because IPA is concerned with the detailed lived experience of the individual, the sample of three parents and three pupils was sufficient to generate a considerable amount of data, from which meaningful points could be made. The issue of generalisability from the findings of a small sample is a limiting factor of the research. Smith et al. (2009) refer to this and discuss ‘theoretical-transferability’. In recognising this limitation, I have discussed the interpretations by illustrating them with the voices of the participants shown in the transcript extracts of the findings and discussion. Readers are able to judge for themselves the applicability of the context and also to identify where they would generalise or transfer the findings given their own existing personal knowledge and that of the wider literature. The study was guided by the framework suggested by Smith et al. 2009). I also used the checks and balances of Yardley’s principles, and the validity guidelines as suggested by Yin (1989). As such, there is transparency in the stages for the reader to follow ‘the chain of evidence’ (Yin). Therefore, although I am able to justify my own interpretations and analysis, readers, too, can clearly consider for themselves alternative interpretations and applicability to the context of the findings. It is recognised that limiting factors could be the possibilities that the interviews could be perceived as being on the shorter side of forty to ninety minutes, alternative interpretations, the appropriateness of the examples and choices of extracts to illustrate points. As such, the extracts could be used across several points and this has the potential for some to be over-used, others to be missed and the depth of yet others not to be fully explored. Also, had I biased a tendency to ‘convergence’ and limited ‘divergence’ through the manner in which I had conducted the analysis? I have, by approaching this study in a reflective and reflexive way, tried to reduce the limitations of bias in analysis, and also in personal bias when meeting with parents and pupils, and in communicating with the school staff. I tried to remain neutral when interviewing the participants, although I recognise that there are some times during

the interviews where it could be argued that I had the potential to influence interviewee responses. It was by responding reflexively that I was able to recognise this. I was a novice to the IPA research framework and, although certainly enthusiastic, may not have been as persistent and curious as I might have been and therefore less effective than the more experienced researcher. The multiple possibilities of the different perspectives and levels of meaning, and interpretation brought to the research is an exhilarating prospect. However, there is the potential that something has been missed and the interpretation and analysis of the participants’ stories are ‘thin’ and are not as ‘thick’ as might be intended.

The ‘Our Future' Project is an example of a vehicle designed to change the concepts and views about a group of pupils. Although the stories of the three families who spoke in the study would suggest that the project changed parental views and the reality for those pupils to more positive narratives, there are of course the stories of the other twenty-three families that were approached that have not been heard. The next step to be considered is how the ‘(ask me) how to reach’ perspective can be embedded so that the narrative of possibility becomes a reality for staff and pupils alike. This will give meaning to enable goals of possibility to be achieved that are valued by this school community.

The Literature Review in drawing upon historical and political perspectives, locates the role of the Educational Psychologist, and, as such, it enables an examination of the EP role in the support of schools working with families. In having some insight into what works best when working with families, the EP can work from an informed basis and introduce innovation within their practice into the school context. Dunsmuir, Cole and Wolfe (2014) provide a timely update of the review of literature of the collaboration and intervention of EP practice in working with families. Pertinent to the objective of this research is the way in which the role of the EP to work with families has evolved. It is with increasing diversity and with the expectation that professionals are expected to respond to the opportunities and challenges that this brings. It is a prospect filled with possibilities. Within my own local authority context, for example, there has been, over recent years, a commitment towards supporting training in skills to work systemically to include a range of professionals such as social care colleagues, which promotes multi-agency working. In examining the role of the EP to support schools in their work with families, I would advocate that

the literature and personal experience support the view that working with parents is central to good practice and planning. Delivery and evaluation of family interventions (direct and indirect) has become accepted as appropriate to psychologists’ scope of practice (Dunsmuir et al. 2014, p.7).

A timely addition to the literature is ‘Universal Psychology and Systemic Approaches to Practice’ (Educational and Child Psychology: 32:1, 2015). This publication reflects and strengthens the scope and the unique position that we have as educational psychologists in promoting change within systems. This scope includes supporting schools in their work with developing the well-being of individuals (Roffey, 2008; 2015) and thereby improving outcomes for young people and their families. The role of the psychologist has the scope to

apply psychology in promoting health and quality of life, fostering learning and raising achievement, enhancing work satisfaction and motivation and fostering harmonious communities

(MacKay, 2001, p.467) through a systemic perspective where “without context, words and actions have no meaning at all” (Bateson, 1972, p.15).

It is important to reflect that no understanding of the EP role would be complete without understanding the role of the educational psychologist in the context and Zeitgeist of these times and the political and economic changes of recent years. How such changes are considered to be affecting the infrastructure of our civic society and their influence on the way in which the psychologist’s work is then shaped within services (Rouf, 2015). Working in a local authority framework to provide services to the most vulnerable and challenging in a non-stigmatised way, while staying true to the underlying values and principles of social justice at the heart of the EP profession, could be described as ‘an ethical balancing act’. Maintaining balance, I would argue, is the ‘bed rock’ of the EP having a flexible understanding of their role and from where innovation in practice begins.

The contribution of the pupil voice is also beneficial to staff, organisations and communities (Kendal, Straw, Jones, Springate and Grayson, 2008). The positive effect of the pupil voice in feedback to staff was an unanticipated outcome of the research. However, as such, this study adds to the evidence base of the wider literature and documentation, and it provides further validation to studies that report

on the impact of the pupil voice. Studies such as those by Cullingford (2006), Reid, Challoner, Lancett, Jones, Rhysiart, and Challoner (2010), and Sellman (2009) highlight the invaluable messages conveyed to researchers and policy makers as well as in the empowerment of children and young people.

Reflection

I was excited by the two new publications that illuminate ways in which working with families and systemic practice has evolved within EP practice. The participants of the ‘Our Future’ Project intervention should be proud; they too have made their contribution.