Summary

This chapter provides context for the empirical research carried out as part of this thesis. A number of areas of enquiry have been addressed. First, the current climate of music education in England has been acknowledged, noting three recent developments in education policy: 1) the introduction of the NPME; 2) the most recent revisions to the National Curriculum and 3) the introduction of the EBacc. Whilst some researchers have acknowledged the positive aspects of these changes (Zeserson et al., 2014), others have cautioned that music education faces significant threats from a revised education system which increasingly limits pupils’ engagement with multiple ways of knowing (Bate, 2018; Spruce, 2013; Stephens, 2013; Welch, 2012). It is not yet known to what degree these changes have impacted music in special education.

Second, research exploring the ways in which music is used and taught in special education has been presented. This exploration has focused on the use of music in English special schools. The section outlines important advances in SEN/D music education research including the PROMISE research (Welch et al., 2001; Welch et al., 2016) and the SoI framework of musical development (Ockelford & Welch, 2012; Ockelford et al., 2011; Ockelford et al., 2005; Welch et al., 2009). It concludes that, whilst recent research in the field of music and special education has enhanced our understanding of what is happening with regards to music education in these settings, very little is known about why and how these things are happening. Research which addresses these questions would be a welcome contribution to the field.

51

Finally, the place and purpose of music therapy in special education has been considered. The various similarities, crossovers and distinctions between music education and music therapy when both are used in schools for children labelled as having SEN/D have been explored. This section acknowledges that, whilst educational models such as those developed by Ockelford (2000) and Robertson (2000) give a good indication of the way in which practitioners theorise the purpose of music education and music therapy in special education, recent empirical research has shown that they do not accurately account for the degree to which school culture influences practice. Furthermore, the empirical research carried out to date provides a mere snapshot of practitioners’ views and neglects to include those of non-specialist music and/or general classroom teachers, TAs, parents and disabled children and young people.

In addition, this section outlines an emerging dialogue between music therapy and disability studies. The fundamental differences between the medical/individual model and the social model of disability have been presented. It was argued that disability studies perspectives challenge practitioners and researchers in music and special education to interrogate the epistemological assumptions that underpin their practice. In this way, questions surrounding the similarities and differences between music education and music therapy in special education are placed in a critical light. The question of where the boundaries lie between these two practices becomes problematic when seen through this new lens. Instead, as Honisch (2014, para. 7) contends, we (i.e. researchers and practitioners) should be focusing our attention upon “digging at the methodological foundations” of each practice to determine where they fit in special education.

2.6

Research Rationale

The review of the literature provided above identifies several areas that require additional research. These can be broadly summarised as follows:

 It is unclear how recent changes in English education policy have affected music education in special schools (if at all).

 Whilst it is known that music provision in special education remains ‘patchy’ (Welch et al., 2016; Zeserson et al., 2014), it is unclear why this is.

52

 It not yet known why so many schools are still not choosing to use the SoI framework of musical development.

 The degree to which school culture affects practice in SEN/D music education is unclear.

 When seen from a critical disability studies perspective, are current approaches to music in special education appropriate and where (if at all) does music therapy fit?

 What do the students think?

This thesis makes an original contribution to the field of music in special education by addressing these questions. As mentioned above, currently very little is known about how and why English special schools are choosing to incorporate music in their curricula in the ways outlined in the PROMISE research (Welch et al., 2001; Welch et al., 2016). This makes it difficult to ascertain exactly what is causing the continued ‘patchy’ provision of music in special education. In the Inspiring Music for All report, Zeserson et al. (2014) frequently make reference to fact that developing and sharing ‘best practice’ is an important element of improving this varied provision. Yet, when it comes to music in special education, it is not yet clear what constitutes ‘best practice’. The research field is still very much in its infancy (Gall et al., 2018a, 2018b; Ockelford, 2000, 2008) and we have very little empirical evidence from which to make recommendations for sector-wide improvement. Furthermore, there are currently voices that are missing from the research literature. Previous studies have explored the

thoughts, experiences and opinions of music teachers, music therapists and members of senior leadership teams (Markou, 2010; Mawby, 2011, 2014, 2015). However, to date, the views of parents and teaching assistants have been largely ignored and those of disabled children and young people entirely excluded. This thesis therefore aims to expand upon the findings of previous research by exploring what constitutes ‘best practice’ in music in special education from a whole school perspective.

The project has four primary aims:

 To explore the ways in which music education is currently approached in schools for children and young people who have been labelled as having SEN/D

53

 To explore what constitutes ‘best practice’ in music education in these settings

 To explore the various opportunities and barriers schools for children labelled with SEN/D face with regards to the implementation of ‘best practice’

 To explore the interplay between music therapy and music education in these settings, with a view to establishing where music therapy might ‘fit’ within the school curriculum

In exploring ‘best practice’ in SEN/D music education, the aims of this thesis are not to form a prescriptive overview of how special schools should approach music education. Doing so would fail to recognise the heterogeneity of students’ and practitioners’ needs in different educational contexts across the country (and, indeed, worldwide). Instead, the term ‘best practice’ is used as a heuristic device through which to examine how various school stakeholders conceptualise what is ‘best’ for disabled children and young people when it comes to their music education and to explore the ways in which these ideas are implemented and experienced in practice. The underlying theoretical contribution this thesis makes to knowledge is therefore a rich and detailed examination of school culture and its effect on current educational praxis in music in special education.

The methodological approaches that were used to meet the above research aims are discussed in the following chapter.

54

54

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the methodological approach to this research project. The ontological and epistemological assumptions that underpin the research are acknowledged and the researcher’s position in relation to the researched is clarified. Methods of data collection and analysis are then outlined and the ethical implications of the research methods are considered.

3.2

Research Aims

The primary aims of the research project were as follows:

 To explore the ways in which music education is currently approached in schools for children and young people who have been labelled as having SEN/D

 To explore what constitutes ‘best practice’ in music education in these settings

 To explore the various opportunities and barriers schools for children labelled with SEN/D face with regards to the implementation of ‘best practice’

 To explore the interplay between music therapy and music education in these settings, with a view to establishing where music therapy might ‘fit’ within the school curriculum

In order to meet these research aims an exploration of the musical culture of SEN/D schools and the various attitudes, beliefs and experiences of the many stakeholders who form a part of this culture was necessary. For reasons which will be explored in more detail in section 3.3, ethnography was therefore chosen as a primary method of data collection for this study. As discussed in Chapter 2, there is also a need for SEN/D music education research to move beyond purely descriptive accounts of musical activities in various settings. Questions of why and how are just as important as what

55

55

and when and, to date, little attention has been paid to these questions in the context of SEN/D music education research. A more theoretical understanding of the ways in which music education is approached in SEN/D schools, coupled with an exploration of what might affect the perceived quality of such provision, is imperative to ensure that research in this field does not dilute what is in fact a complex cultural and socio- politically situated phenomenon. Grounded Theory Method (GTM) was therefore used as a systematic approach to data analysis for this study. GTM and ethnography are methodologically intertwined (Charmaz, 2014) and both approaches to data collection and analysis are not without their critics (Bryant, 2002; Conrad, 1990; Ellis, 1995; Kuper, 1999). In order to be transparent about the reasons for choosing these methods, a brief overview and rationale for each is provided below.

3.3

Ethnography

Ethnography has been used as a research method in many different fields of education research (See for example: Denny, 2011; Kingsbury, 2001; Simmons, 2014; Willis, 1997) and is also a primary research method in the field of ethnomusicology (Barton, 2014). Stauffer and Robbins (2009) contend that the first ethnographic studies in music education surfaced in the late 1970s and early 1980s and were developed in connection to ethnomusicological studies of community music in a variety of cultures (citing Zimmerman’s (1983) ethnography of children’s music-making and Krueger’s (1985) research into the training experiences of pre-service music teachers as early examples). Barton (2014) summarises ethnography as a method that “explores cultures and

communities in context” (p.97). Krueger (1987) echoes this, explaining that, in education research, ethnography enables a researcher to take into account “the complexities of interactions in schools and of the internal dynamics of institutions” (p.69). Ethnography therefore typically involves a researcher spending an extended period of time with a particular culture or community observing activities as both an active and passive participant in order to build what Geertz described as a ‘thick description’ of the lived experiences of that community (Barton, 2014; Geertz, 1973/1993, 1983/1993).

Jorgensen (2009) explains how the ethnographic principles of ‘thick description’ apply to music education research. She tracks the term from its

56

56

Geertz (1973/1993, 1983/1993) and subsequent critique by Adam Kuper (1999). She explains that, for Ryle (1971), thick description constituted a means of interpreting thoughts and the way in which these thoughts impacted upon human actions. Geertz (1973/1993, 1983/1993) took this idea further. Jorgensen explains that, for Geertz, “the ethnographer’s job is to sort out the ‘structures of signification’ or the symbolic

meanings that actions have for their participants” (Jorgensen, 2009, p. 70). Thoughts and actions are therefore entwined and through thick description the researcher aims to make sense of the way that participants make sense of their own thoughts and actions in a given situation or context. Jorgensen (2009) explains that Kuper (1999) was

somewhat critical of Geertz’s interpretative, hermeneutic stance on the way in which culture could be explicated via thick description. Kuper contended that, whilst

interpretation may be of importance, it remains true that human action can be directly observed in a more objective sense. It is therefore essential that a researcher’s own beliefs, values, experiences and opinions do not contaminate their examination of a given research context. Kuper also criticised Geertz for ignoring matters of verification, arguing that it is difficult to know if a researcher’s rendering of a culture or community through thick description is ‘correct’.

Jorgensen (2009) – one of the few music education researchers to have written on the topic of ethnographic research methods in music education – considers these perspectives in relation to music education research. When discussing the issue of interpretation vs objectivity in ethnographic research, Jorgensen sides with Geertz, asserting that “there is no all-knowing ethnographer, as Kuper suggests, just a person trying to make sense of things and very much aware of the limitations of her or his particular stance” (Jorgensen, 2009, p. 73). When considering Kuper’s warnings about the difficulty of validation in ethnographic research, Jorgensen is in agreement. She notes that researchers have an ethical responsibility not to conflate interpretation with reality. Therefore, acknowledgement of the researcher’s position in relation to the researched – as well as any biases that this position may foster – is, in Jorgensen’s view, one of the ways in which the value and rigour of a thick description can be judged. She explains:

[T]he clearer researchers are in describing their position and the context of their observations, the more readily others can test and advance knowledge about their findings (p.78)

57

57

Jorgensen further contends that ‘thick description’ involves objectivity with a lowercase ‘o’, meaning that, once written about, observed events continue to be tested, verified and intertwined with multiple perspectives in order to establish “shared understandings that continue to be subject to revision but are useful for the present and taken as more-or-less trustworthy” (Jorgensen, 2009, p. 76). Triangulation, member checking, saturation (i.e. the point at which no new information about a core category is uncovered during data collection and analysis) and reflexivity are also key to ensuring that thick descriptions can be adequately reviewed and revised.

Finally, Jorgensen reviews the ethical implications of the use of thick description in the field of music education research. She contends that, as such research often impacts upon public policy and education practice, authors of thick descriptions of music education need to be cautious of the complexities involved in authentically representing and communicating research findings to “the various constituencies and stakeholders of music education” (p.78). She cautions that:

Rather than just thinking of thick description hierarchically, in which one

excavates ‘down’ through the substrata of ideas and practices, one may also see it as a multifaceted enterprise. A particular situation has a history, a theology, a particular organisational structure, ethical and legal codes, and ways of

interpreting interpersonal interactions. This situation makes particular demands on people within specific times and spaces that can be examined physiologically, psychologically, institutionally, societally, anthropologically, philosophically, musically and in other ways. A thick description needs to take into account these various facets. (p.79)

Thick descriptions therefore benefit from a multidisciplinary approach and should take into account the context of the phenomena under investigation. This view marries with that of broader educational theorists. For example, Cheong (2000) – a researcher in education effectiveness – contends that the individual culture of a classroom and the teaching strategies used within it cannot be considered without also taking into account the individual culture of the school in which that classroom exists, the community in which the school exists and the society in which the local community exists.

Ethnography should therefore acknowledge the ways in which macro elements of national and societal culture impact micro elements of classroom culture. Failing to do so results in what Jorgensen (2009) describes as “too narrow a view” (p.74) of a given

58

58

educational phenomenon which can have serious ethical implications for research that may result in changes to education policy or practice.

Despite its prominence as a research method in other fields of academic inquiry, an ethnographic approach to music education research in English special schools has not been carried out to date. I argue that such an approach is needed in order to provide a broader evidence base through which ‘best practice’ in SEN/D music education might be explored. The longitudinal, immersive nature of ethnographic fieldwork will help to build an evidence-base which examines how various stakeholders make sense of and enact their own theories of ‘best practice’ in music education. Examining the primary research questions listed above from an ethnographic perspective will ensure that any resulting theory of ‘best practice’ is not reduced to a list of arbitrary, isolated variables divorced from the context in which they were established. Rather, an ethnographic approach to data collection and analysis will ensure that the context in which

participants’ thoughts, beliefs and actions are formed and enacted is fully considered. Furthermore, as ethnographic research methods promote that the researcher engages with a whole culture, ethnography provides an opportunity to examine ‘best practice’ from many different stakeholder perspectives. The inclusion of multiple stakeholder views (i.e. those of internal and external practitioners, members of school senior management teams, primary care-givers and pupils) will ensure that the research adequately reflects the experiences of all parties involved in the cultural and

organisational structure of English special schools. This includes the views of disabled children and young people who are often excluded from participating in research on topics that concern them (J. M. Davis & Watson, 2001; Feldman et al., 2013; Lewis, 2003; Slater, 2013). An inclusive approach to SEN/D music education research will ensure that suggestions for potential changes to curriculum development, teacher training, and educational policy (as well as future research) are rooted in the needs and experiences of the people these changes affect the most.

3.4

Grounded Theory

In addition to the use of ethnography as a primary research method, grounded theory was also chosen as an approach to data collection and analysis.

Approaches to grounded theory have shifted somewhat since the research method was first established. Glaser and Strauss (1967/1999) originally saw the method

59

59

as a means of moving away from theory deduced from a priori assumptions to theory which was ‘discovered’ during constant comparative analysis of data obtained from inductive social research. Glaser and Strauss believed that ‘Grand Theories’ derived from a priori assumptions run the risk of promoting ideas which were not rooted in evidence, thus skewing what could realistically be deemed as ‘fact’. Furthermore, they believed that deriving new theories from those already in existence – however logical in association these derivatives may be – failed to facilitate the creation of new theories which challenged and contextualised existing ideas. Glaser and Strauss further

contended that qualitative research methods had been reduced to “preliminary, exploratory, groundbreaking work for getting surveys started” (p.15) and that

quantitative studies of the kind described above were adversely saturating their research field. GTM aimed to address these issues. Through its systematic use of iterative

research methods including constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling, the method allowed theories to ‘emerge’ from data which had been obtained and analysed