Stages four and six Documentation

Dexter (1970) advocated the use of documentation within research for its strengths in providing researchers with the opportunity to collect more data, and better data, than other methods. In the same way that a sampling strategy is required for interviews, so too is a rationale for sampling documentation. For stage four I started with the research question and located items through the search function on the school website using the key vocabulary of inclusion, progress and outcomes in the same way that I had when undertaking the literature research in Chapter Two. I also searched for items identifying the school’s shared values and goals. Following the interviews and observations, I sought out documentation which was either referred to by participants, or triggered as part of my reflection and noticings, for example the school training day Power Point. I actively sought the inclusion policy document, which was available through the school’s website, this would seem obvious from one sense in that it supported the search criteria in relation to the research question. However, the other reason for seeking it was that it had been written by the member of the senior management team who had been unable to participate in the interviews. In order to support analysis, as I collected the data I formed a data base of when, where and how each piece of documentation was collected. In the same way as the interviews I also recorded any ‘noticings’ or conceptual ideas I had in

52

relation to the research question (Braun and Clarke, 2013, p.204) within this database. An example of this is available in Appendix Six.

Following a period of intermission from the research, between November 2015 and July 2016, I repeated the exercise of data collection as indicated in stage six of Figure 3.4. This time I searched for updates to the documentation produced during that time. This facilitated not only an opportunity to become familiarised again with the school and the data, but also to ascertain any changes to policy and procedures over time. This proved useful, for example the Holistic Intelligence framework, as can be seen in Chapter Four Figure 4.10, had been developed from the key skills approach during that period. Institutional documents relating to the research question included a range of policy documents, the results of the parental survey and school blogs. All were accessed through Shakespeare school’s web site and whilst they remained in the public domain (Webb et al. 1981) permission was also provided for their access and use by the school Principal. Documents not available on the school website included lesson plans, a PowerPoint and a whole staff training day document. These were accessed through the school’s electronic storage system, provided by the school Principal with permission provided for their use within the research (Appendix Fourteen).

During the research period at Shakespeare School, one of the staff participants conducted a Children’s Research Project investigating why children felt proud of the school. This involved Year Six children taking photographic images of the school and providing an accompanying explanation of why they had chosen it. The Children’s Research Project was regarded in school as an inclusive project, in that it enabled participating children to communicate through the taking of the photographs (Kaplan and Howes, 2010). The written insights of the children connected the images they had selected to their personal perspectives and some of the project has been included within this thesis as part of the data presented prior to publication. The decision to include this data was made so that the perspectives of the children were recognised within the research, rather than ignored (Elliot, 1991). To ensure that the children were aware that they had the choice of either allowing their examples from the project to be included within the thesis or not, the staff participant leading the project talked with the children involved. The member of staff asked all the children to choose if they wanted their work to either remain private to themselves, or to be used only within school, or to be shared outside the school within my research but without the inclusion of their names. This approach to consent was undertaken for a number of reasons. Firstly, it acknowledged children as a vulnerable group who remain entitled to robust ethical consideration regarding their consent, anonymity and privacy (Eyensbach and Till, 2001). Secondly, and in line with statutory safeguarding guidance in schools (DfE, 2016c), discussion with children about consent

53

complied with the school’s system of safeguarding by ensuring that the best interests of children remained central to that discussion and children’s ‘wishes’ were respected (p.19). As a practitioner this approach formed part of the participant’s professional duty as stipulated within The Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2011), as did the consent for the terms of the use of the data provided by the school’s principal. As a researcher I respected the school’s safeguarding of their children, and through following the ethical guidelines shared in section 3.9 of this chapter acted both responsibly and with integrity. As a result I only saw the data from children who agreed to share their work with me (Appendix Fourteen), and prior to presentation of this research through Anglia Ruskin Research online all images of the children’s project will be removed from the thesis.

Documentation, including government generated statistics and data such as the school Ofsted report and achievement and progress results, were provided through the school website. However, this data was also authenticated by accessing the Ofsted and government web sites separately (Guba and Lincoln, 1981). Other school provided data, for example attendance figures, was triangulated through observation and scrutiny of alternative documents. For example, attendance information was presented within school documentation, provided on classroom doors, and as a government held statistic reported by Ofsted. All documentation remained as secondary sources of data that I did not have a role in producing.

The advantage of using secondary sources is that it remains a relatively easy method of data collection, inexpensive, quick to access and grounds the research in the school context thereby supporting naturalistic inquiry. Documents are seen as providing a ‘contextual richness’ (Merriam, 1998 p.126), verifying information and advancing thematic categorisation, enabling a researcher to explore the research question in relation to the culture of a case (Silverman, 2006). Such data, whilst relating to participants experiences and understanding, is also collected without shaping the responses through the data collection method and supports the credibility of the research as seen in section 3.7 of this chapter.

Within the research I also addressed the challenges of utilising secondary source data. I recognised that the documentation was written not for research purposes, but written to present the school’s position to a number of stakeholders, including Ofsted and prospective parents. The values and explanations within the documentation were therefore considered not to be as a result of writer bias, but as presenting a version of reality in the same way the data from observation and interview would. Validation and authentication of data was provided through the research design as indicated earlier within this section, and presented in section 3.7. The use of documents provided an insight into the research question as part of the

54

Thematic Analysis process. This analysis was undertaken in full, prior to the collection of data within Phase Two of the research.