Critical realism, pioneered by British philosopher Roy Bhasker in 1975(Archer et al. 1998) is a relatively new slant to ontological and epistemological issues (Easton, 2009) that uses ‘causal’ language to make sense of the world. Realists see the world as existing whether we are aware of it or not. There is the assumption that there is a real world, but there is no way that this can ever be proved or disproved. Relativists on the other hand, refute this claim and see no reality existing outside of the language used to describe it. This language is constantly changing and making the ‘truth’ to be non-existent and fallible. This then implies that scientific research is completely useless (Danermark et al., 2002, p.17) as there is no ‘truth’ that exists.
Critical realism bears these considerations in mind and maintains that reality does exist and that while some knowledge of it may be fallible, not all is. Critical realists assume a ‘transcendental realist ontology, an eclectic realist interpretivist epistemology’ (Easton, 2009, p.119) and are positioned somewhere in the middle of a spectrum which ranges from realist at one end, to social constructionist at the other. Critical realists accept that there are multiple realities ‘shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, gender disability and other values’ (Mertens, 2010, p.11), but also acknowledging the role and importance of the subjective human individual in constructing their own version of reality. The researcher also positioned herself within the ‘transformative paradigm’ (Mertens 2010) which emphasises a focus on human rights, social justice and respect for cultural norms while conducting research. It resonated with the researcher’s ontology and epistemology in
that it assumes one reality but multiple ‘opinions’ of it, and tries to challenge thinking about whose version should be considered privileged/wrong within a particular context and the factors that lead us to accept one version over another, factors such as race, religion, gender and in this case, disability.
Situated as a critical realist and operating within the ‘transformative’ paradigm which supports the ‘pursuit of social justice and the furtherance of human rights’ (Mertens, 2012, p.2), the researcher hoped to pay attention to voice: voice of parents, staff, professionals and most importantly, the voice of the young people at the heart of this discussion. Critical realism is seen as a perfect companion for case study research (Easton, 2009) as it involves thoughtful consideration being given to understanding particular phenomena.
3.4 Research Design
3.4.1 Use of a Case study Yin (2018) describes three purposes of research: explanatory, exploratory and descriptive. The purpose of the research will determine the way in which the research is conducted - the method. Usually the research question gives a good clue as to what purpose the research serves. For example, a ‘What?’ question usually means the research will be exploratory in nature, while ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ questions suggest explanatory research. The chosen method must then be relevant to the question being asked and at times more than one method may be appropriate and can be used within one study. For example, an experimentmutually exclusive of each other, there are situations where a particular method may have a distinct advantage over another and naturally lend itself to a particular research question. Yin (2018; 1994) identifies the case study as an ideal design for answering questions like ‘how’ or ‘why’ as these questions focus on operational processes over time. Yin goes on to explain that the case study is also ideal for observing phenomena in a real life context and studying a ‘contemporary event’. A ‘contemporary event’ is seen as a ‘fluid rendition of the recent past and the present, not just the present’ (Yin, 2018, p.12). In other words, the focus is on what has been happening over a period of time including the present. The case study design has the unique ability of dealing with evidence from more than one source, in this study, from different interest groups. The current research has a research question of ‘How do the thoughts and views of various interest groups within one local authority of the Midlands UK impact delivery of RSE to young people with a diagnosis of ASD, attending mainstream settings?’ and so a case study design was selected in response to the question ‘how?’ and because the researcher wants to focus on what has been happening over time. A further justification for the case study approach used in this particular study is that it will help to control the study given the researcher’s time constraints. The case study approach limits the study to a particular geographical location within the Midlands UK, and in doing so it creates natural limits in terms of who would be involved in the study itself and makes it more manageable for the researcher especially given the ‘multi-informant approach to data collection’ employed.
Yin (2018) advocates that an initial requirement of case study research is to identify/define the ‘case’. In this study, the case was defined as a phenomenon to be studied – Relationship and sex education (RSE). Once the case was defined, the boundaries of the case needed to be established. The case was first bounded by the group to which it applied, that is, those young people with a diagnosis of ASD attending mainstream schools, within the further boundary of the geographical area covered by the local authority. Added to this, the case was further bounded by the organizations/people whom the researcher felt had a responsibility for delivering RSE within this local authority – parents, school staff, Autism outreach service, educational psychologists.
An initial theory was developed, as recommended by Yin (2018) as a way of providing a “blueprint” for the study, telling us where we should look. The theoretical statement for this study was as follows: The case study will show that the thoughts and views of the different adult interest groups within the local authority are either preventing or facilitating the successful implementation of RSE to young persons with ASD in mainstream schools. It will also show how to address these barriers to bring about change.
The first theoretical position is taken based on the researcher’s own personal experience working in a secondary school where some members of staff wanted to veer away from curriculum modifications for this group as they found the material too ‘uncomfortable’ due to its explicit nature. The second position (facilitating successful implementation) is taken
The main source of evidence gathered was via qualitative data obtained from focus groups (and individual interviews) made up of different interest groups related to the case. It was thought that using qualitative data would give a better understanding of the complexity of the issues that may be relevant to this case. It also allowed for various participants to give meaning to their constructs and facilitated unearthing of unique and particular meanings.
3.4.2 Use of Focus groups
Focus groups were considered as an alternative to individual interviews as it was felt that it was a more efficient method for gaining multiple views (Krueger and Casey, 2015) within each particular interest group. The nature of the topic also gave some bearing to the use of focus groups as the researcher felt that participants may be less willing to discuss relationships and sex education, particularly the young people, if interviews were 1:1. It was felt that focus groups would give a sense of security in numbers (Bloor et al.,2001) and as we know from Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) they can create modelling and lead to members of the group divulging more information than they would if interviewed alone. Other benefits of using focus groups for this study included the possibility of snowballing (Bloor et al., 2001) as topics arise and reactions to these lead to reactions from others in the group, as well as spontaneity (Bloor et al., 2001) which could give rise to valuable information being gained. Additionally, if someone withdrew from the study, the researcher had other participants within the group so that the effect of a withdrawal would not have too great an impact on the overall study. The use of focus groups also meant that the interviewer was not in a position of power and so the power dynamics usually involved in researcher/participant interactions was reduced.
Individual interviews were considered but the researcher was keen to gain the views of more than just one parent, or one pupil for example, and the time constraints meant that using focus groups allowed for multiple views to be obtained within a shorter time frame, which it was felt would give a much more comprehensive account of what was happening within the local authority. It is appreciated that using individual interviews may have meant that participants may have felt more at ease and be willing to share more and have more time to do so. However, the researcher felt that given the sensitivity of the topic, participants might have felt more comfortable within a group.
There are limitations to the use of focus groups (Krueger and Casey, 2015) such as having dominant voices ‘take over’ the group at the expense of other quieter members of the group. To compensate for this the researcher at times directed questions to particular members to ensure that everyone was heard. There is also the possibility of creating a homogeneous group where everyone thinks alike. To compensate for this, the researcher tried, as far as possible, to gain participants from different demographics within the staff group and the parent group for example.
There were also concerns regarding the analysis of such rich data which could have proven to be problematic especially when transcribing so many voices. Despite all this, the researcher felt that the advantages of using focus groups, coupled with the nature of the topic, made it an ideal choice for this research.
Kruger and Casey (2015) suggest that focus groups should be 5 – 8 participants in size. The current research aimed for groups of 6 participants as 6 was considered a good number to make the group large enough to allow for some diversity of thoughts/views yet small enough for everyone to have a voice. Notwithstanding the decision to use focus groups as opposed to individual interviews, the researcher encountered much difficulty in trying to gather a group of teaching staff due to their time constraints, staff absenteeism and work demands. In the end, the decision had to be made to collect data from this group individually or else risk not getting staff views at all.
3.5 Participant Sample
The current study, like prevalent studies in this field, had a relatively small sample size. This was due in part to it being a case study within one local authority and thus it was restricted to the thoughts and views of those within this authority alone. The sample size was additionally restricted by the qualitative nature in which data was gathered, that is, through focus groups and the fact that purposeful sampling was used. Purposeful sampling, also known as ‘judgement sampling’ is the most common sampling technique in qualitative research (Marshall 1996). It uses selection based on the researcher’s judgement of typicality or interest (Robson, 2002) and identifies participants with specific knowledge or experience of the phenomenon under observation. It differs from representative sampling which has the ultimate aim of reflecting the wider population.Purposeful sampling is particularly important when engaging in case study research (Willig, 2001) as participants need to be carefully selected to match the focus of the research, in this case, a detailed exploration of relationship and sex education for young people with ASD in mainstream settings in one local authority. With this in mind, specific participant groups were targeted whom the researcher felt had responsibility in some way for delivering, or ensuring delivery, of this curriculum to young people with a diagnosis of ASD. As such, participant groups included: Parents, Staff, Autism Outreach staff and Educational Psychologists. The researcher was also keen to capture the voice of the young people themselves diagnosed with ASD and so they were included to obtain their views on the subject.
Pre-conceived questions used to generate discussion during the focus groups, were influenced by previous research and also based on additional information the researcher wished to discover. Consideration was also given to Yin’s (2018, p.29) statement: “The more a case study contains specific questions and propositions, the more it will stay within feasible limits”. Some questions, such as “What do you understand by the term ‘Relationship and Sex Education’?”, was the same for all groups to allow for comparison across group participants.