The role of the researcher

The role of the researcher and the impact on those being studied has been a

recognised and important issue in research since the Hawthorne studies (Franke and Kaul, 1978). The researcher, as an active member within the context in which the research is taking place, can, inevitably, have an impact on the behaviour of those involved in the study. Issues of power and status may also be at play. As the researcher, it was important for me to appreciate how interaction with, and the

perception of participants, can affect the answers given in interview situations. It was also important to recognise how to manage feelings which may arise from the

participants, feelings such as curiosity, concern and anger.

There are further potential difficulties in conducting research within the organisation within which I work. Drake and Heath (2010) calls such a researcher an insider researcher practitioner. Whilst this has its advantages, such as ease of access to participants, the researcher then has to maintain relationships despite the potential consequences and findings of the given research. This I believe is a crucial concern particularly when researching a sensitive issue, where participants are required to be truthful about attitudes which link to moral, ethical and legal obligations. I perceived that further tensions could arise due to me ‘knowing’ what colleagues thought about

particular issues, especially when these are not in line with the ‘official’ stance taken by the setting in which we work or indeed legislation.

97

Drake and Heath (2010) continue to stress that due to the usual small scale nature of insider research maintaining anonymity can also present a challenge however this was mitigated through strict adherence to the ethical guidelines discussed previously. Platt (1981) highlights further potential challenges in terms of maintaining a neutral persona when researching in the workplace. Drake (2010) goes as far as to say that maintaining a neutrality is impossible but that despite this potential lack of neutrality there are gains to be had. Such gains include; established relationships, collegial connections (thus the possibility of enhanced rapport and communication) and knowledge of the institution (reducing disorientation).

3.5.1 Researcher position, voice and perspective

Centripetal to qualitative research is the notion of reflexivity (Patton, 2002). Reflexivity concerns the researcher self-questioning and understanding their own perspective and how this can impact upon the findings of the phenomena being studied. Indeed, a fundamental criticism levelled at qualitative research is the perceived bias of the researcher in their collection and interpretation of data (Mason, 2002; Polit and Beck 2006). For such critics, it is the interaction between the researcher and the researched which undermines both the validity and reliability of the data obtained.

To address this perceived limitation, exponents of the interpretivist paradigm assert that researchers should, “Make systematic efforts to set aside prejudgements regarding the phenomenon being studied” (Moustakas, 1994, p.22). This is advanced further by Patton, who argues that researchers need to:

Be attentive to and conscious of the cultural, political, social, linguistic and ideological origins of one’s own perspective and voice as well as the perspective and voices of those one interviews and those to whom one reports (Patton, 2002, p.64).

98

For Moustakas (1994), it is important that researchers should aim to maintain a neutral stance and be receptive of the responses given by the participants. However, the reality of a researcher being detached from their data is questioned by Hodkinson (2009). Hodkinson (2009) asserts that any attempt to remain objective about pre- existing knowledge, feelings or perceptions is an attempt to apply positivistic rigour to qualitative research. Avis (1995) suggests that instead, ‘auditability’ is more in keeping with the philosophy of qualitative modes of enquiry, here the researcher clearly

identifies the development, progress and conclusions of a their research. The

epistemological beliefs underpinning this study supported my view that a true separation of researcher and researched was not possible and as such was not sought.

Braun and Clarke (2013) suggest that there are two types of reflexivity, functional and personal. Functional reflexivity relates to the tools and processes employed throughout the research and the identification of ways in which these may have influenced the research outcomes. Personal reflexivity on the other hand concerns itself with the researcher themselves. Here, the researcher is advised to make themselves a visible part of the research process – arguably, unlike in the positivist tradition. In practice, this goes beyond acknowledging who we are as researchers but also how our own

assumptions, view of reality and the issue under investigation can impact and shape the knowledge produced (Rice, 2009).

Whilst previous discussions have highlighted that a level of subjectivity is accepted within the interpretive paradigm, under which this study falls, I believe that adopting a reflexive stance enabled me to highlight, explicitly, any potential influences on the methodology employed and the subsequent approaches to data analysis. From the outset, an inductive approach was employed with the aim of reducing the impact of prior knowledge and experiences. This ‘bracketing off’ as advocated by Denscombe (2007) proved difficult at times as I could not detach my previous experiences in this field from the data arising.

99

Acknowledging a personal stance in research is of importance, as such it necessary to state my own position in this research in relation to both dyslexia and those with

dyslexia training to be primary classroom practitioners. First and foremost, I do not have a personal diagnosis dyslexia or dyslexic tendencies, rather my interest in this area was aroused by my employment as an ITE lecturer. A number of complaints from school staff raised with me directly, as a senior member of the ITE teaching team, led me to question my own beliefs and attitudes towards inclusion of all as, throughout my professional and personal life, I have always sought to adopt a pro-inclusive approach to education, linking to my personal philosophy about equality and the notion of social justice.

There clearly exists confusion surrounding dyslexia but as stated in Chapter 2, my own belief is that this presents no just cause for abandoning it. For those with the label, this affords a level of understanding of potential weaknesses and possible ways these may be mitigated (NIACE, 2005). Unlike Elliott and Grigorenko (2014), I believe that the term ‘dyslexia’ does still have its use and that people with dyslexia are distinguishable from those who have reading difficulties, such as Specific Reading Comprehension Deficit (Cutting, 2013) or who are termed ‘poor readers’. This belief arises from examination of a vast array of studies. Badian (1994), for example, concluded that, when tested, both those with dyslexia and poor readers had phonological difficulties but that these deficits were more extensive in those with dyslexia, findings supported by Stanovich (1988).

Neuroscientific studies (Garalburda, 2005; Knight and Hind, 2002), through the use of PET scans and MRIs, have evidenced that misplaced cells are present in the outer layer of the cortex, in the left hemisphere (the area of the brain associated with language development), of those with dyslexia, and genetic research, as reported by Schulte-Körne, Warnke and Remschmidt (2006), has concluded that current genome linkage research has indicated that there are nine gene regions which are linked to dyslexia. However, there is no ‘dyslexic’ gene per se.

100

At the outset of this research, having worked largely with primary aged children, my view of dyslexia was couched in terms of difference, rather than deficit, and the need to employ different teaching strategies to support the development of young learners with dyslexia. In recent years, working as an ITE lecturer has served to heighten my

awareness of some of the complex issues experienced by those with dyslexia entering the teaching profession and those supporting them.

It remains my belief that individuals with dyslexia should have the same right to apply and access ITE programmes as those without, however, they should ensure that any strategies they need to employ, to mitigate their known areas of weakness, are

appropriate and successful. It is my view, that anyone training to be a teacher, with or without dyslexia, must meet the minimum, national standards and be able to fulfill the daily roles and responsibilities of being a primary classroom teacher. Failure to fulfil these should result in those individuals being withdrawn from the profession.

It is evident that as this research progressed, I experienced my own internal conflict, a myriad of moral, ethical and legislative issues; a conflict between past, professional experiences and my personal philosophy of social justice and disability. To account for this, a personal research diary was kept, as a means of scaffolding my reflexivity and to record and reflect on possible tensions and developing ideas (Simons, 2009).