Justification of Method Used

I chose to employ the use of focus groups (FG) within this phase of the research for the following reasons:

• As my methodological stance from the outset of the research has been one of social constructionism, I felt it important to allow participants to express their views via a means that would allow them to socially construct meaning with others, regarding a topic I also considered them to be familiar with;

• I was keen for the participants to feel comfortable to be able to express their viewpoints in response to the questions I asked, by being amongst familiar peers and colleagues. Speaking with me on a one-to-one basis may have rendered a different level of participation as participants would not have been aware of the view points expressed by their peers and colleagues which may have had an impact on the extent to which they felt able to express their views honestly;

• I expressed to all participants prior to the start of each FG that there were no right or wrong answers to my questions, simply a personal view about which I was interested. The FG allowed participants not only to agree with others, but also to question what they meant, to clarify, to come to a consensus, to better understand, as well as to be able to express differing viewpoints. This process would not have happened if I had worked individually with each participant or if they had self-reported (e.g. via a questionnaire);

• With specific regard to the pupils I worked with, FGs ensured that I included a range of pupils (in terms of age, gender and ability) and that pupils were able to learn from each other. Examples included some pupils clarifying the role of particular members of staff and whether or not staff were ‘training to become teachers’ as opposed to being TAs. Again, if I had interviewed individual pupils I would not have been sure of their level of understanding of the questions asked and they may not have necessarily felt able to express that to me as an unknown, outside professional;

• For me, FGs were useful in creating a sense of ‘togetherness’ for the participants, particularly when working with the TAs where contentious

interview or a self-report questionnaire I am not sure of the extent to which TAs would have been open and honest regarding issues of contention within their workplaces; and

• I consider FGs one of most efficient way of collecting data as I was able to meet with a number of participants and gain a number of views at once.

In addition to the above justification for my use of FGs, I also recognise that there are a number of potential limitations when using this method, as I will now detail;

• FGs could feel somewhat intimidating for participants with a more timid disposition due to the requirement of speaking out in front of others; • As an outside researcher, I may not necessarily be aware of any prior

positive or negative relationships between the participants, meaning that for some, sharing their opinion with others could prove difficult and in worse cases, even detrimental;

• Because I am asking for multiple opinions at once, there could be a tendency for less opinionated participants to shy away from providing their true beliefs and instead opting to agree with the consensus;

• There is a risk with FGs that participants would offer a multitude of viewpoints without reaching a general consensus rendering the general view of the group difficult to ascertain;

• Within a FG there is the risk of a more dominant participant taking over and speaking on behalf of others;

• Equally, there is potential for less dominant participants becoming bored and disengaged with the FG due to the presence of one outspoken participant; and

• There is potential within a FG for the group to became over-enthused with a particular topic or idea and hence steer the FG accordingly. It is therefore important for the researcher / FG facilitators to keep the group focussed and achieve the objectives.

Despite the above limitations, I feel that from a social constructionism perspective, it is important to get a sense of participants’ understanding and sense of the RQs via the FG itself (e.g. through discussion). As noted in Appendix 31, a number of observations about the use of FGs with pupils were also made by the research assistant, specifically in regards to turn-taking, dominance and the actions of myself as the FG facilitator, as these were all areas I felt could have a significant influence on the dynamic of the FGs. Hence I feel that I was able to overcome the majority of the limitations listed above with my own skills of consultation with others (through my role as TEP) and with the help of the research assistant.

These methods (encompassing the use of drawing as a facilitative tool), together with the combination of both TA and pupil participants, makes this phase of the research original in its scope and delivery of findings both for the participants and those in the wider population.

15. TA FG Transcript - (sample)