Theory is a way of asking that is guided by a reasonable answer.
(Wolcott, 2009, p.75)
Chapter Overview
In this chapter, I outline how I worked theoretically in doing the research, clarifying the theoretical orientations used to inform the study and the analysis and interpretation of data. These orientations speak to how I viewed what I thought was going on with the phenomenon studied (Maxwell, 1996) in light of my own beliefs and perspectives brought to the study as a result of my experience as an educator in Ontario. I acknowledge that this experience was influential in determining the critical theoretical orientations adopted. That is to say, my critical vantage point developed out of wanting to add critical dialogue to the conversation about the IEP process given my own experience and the literature in this area.
The chapter begins by noting the bricolage (Guba & Lincoln, 2005) of inquiry paradigms influencing my theoretical position taken for this inquiry. I briefly discuss disability theory as a critical realist lens which was integrated into my theoretical framework to provide a more adequate basis for doing the study. I follow this with an explanation of how critical social theory shaped the research as “the guiding set of beliefs and principles that [became] the basis for actions” and for “the direction of exploration and analysis” (hooks, 2004, p. 56). The chapter then moves to discussing the
that constitute the primary theoretical lens informing the research and the analysis and interpretation of data from interview transcripts and institutional documents. The chapter concludes with a summary of the components of my theoretical framework.
Inquiry Paradigms
Creswell (2007) states, “ Qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (p. 37). To situate my critical engagement with the research issue, I conceptualized the study epistemologically and ontologically to generate the theoretical framework that fit with my inquiry interest. This framework emerged as a result of my journey through theoretical works and relevant literatures while reflecting on my own experience as an educator in special education. It became evident to me that an interpretive, constructivist research paradigm was the most legitimate and meaningful context for approaching the research issue in that this paradigm not only views the existence of multiple realities that are constructed socially, culturally, and historically, concerns the meaning- making activities of people (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Schwandt, 2000), but attends to the real-world contexts of study participants (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). Creswell (2007, 2009) points out that the goal of research within a social constructivist orientation is to rely on the views of participants as much as possible in order to make sense of the meanings they make and ascribe to the situation before them. Locating the study within an interpretivist paradigm meant that as the researcher, I recognized that inquiry is value-bound, influenced by the context under study as well as by the values
and viewpoints of the researcher (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Hammersley, 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
This positioning was complemented with pragmatism and the critical theory paradigm that includes disability theoretical perspectives in that these views supported a contextually based view of inquiry and the use of a combination of data collection and analysis methods when necessary; furthermore, the focus of concern is on the research problem and workable solutions to this problem (Patton, 2002). Together these
understandings laid the groundwork for the theoretical framework guiding the research.
Theoretical Orientations
Disability Theory and Critical Social Theory
The theoretical framework for conducting the study pulled together disability theorizing and critical social theory to consider the individual and collective beliefs, perspectives, practices, and meanings expressed in the narratives of teachers and
institutional documents for developing IEPs for children with developmental disability. I took up the tenets of Disability Studies in Education (DSE) as a field grounded in
Disability Studies (DS) to complement my theoretical approach to the research from a critical, social and educational perspective. I was drawn to a DSE lens because of its critical position to challenge the traditional positivistic approaches to special education research in favour of open inquiry. Thomas and Loxley (2007) agree that in special education, “foci for analysis do not usually lend themselves to the analytical instruments borrowed from the major disciplines” and therefore, the need for different forms of enquiry and analysis (p. 7). As Connor et al. (2008) conclude, “the aim of DSE is to
deepen understandings of the daily experiences of people with disabilities in schools and universities, throughout contemporary society…More specifically, and within the realm
of praxis, DSE works to create and sustain inclusive and accessible schools” (p. 441-2). For my study, the tenets of a DSE stance resonated for me in that they include
contextualizing disability within social and political spheres that fit with the critical social theoretical position I took and the research issue under study. The unifying perspective within DSE is that disability is a social construct. Connor et al. (2008) state:
[D]isability is not a ‘thing’ or condition people have, but instead a social
negation serving powerful ideological commitments and political aims. As such, DSE brings diversity in thought and plurality of perspectives about disability into the educational arena long dominated by traditional conceptualizations of disability that continue to justify and thus provide consent to the current field of special education. (p. 447)
I note the current tensions and contradictions in disability theory documented by Gable (2014) who adopts a critical realist lens to discuss disability theorizing and its
connection to current practices in education. She suggests that tensions in theorizing disability have generated an uncertain professional knowledge base and have “produced
concern regarding the enculturation of teachers into reductionist understandings of disability that limit the development of inclusive educational environments” (p. 86). Gable adds that these disagreements and tensions are problematic for decision making by educators with respect to making decisions about how they will respond to students with disabilities. For my research purpose, three theoretical models of disability, as
presented in Chapter 2, are used in the analysis and interpretation of teachers’
conceptual understandings of developmental disability and special educational needs. Connecting these disability models to IEP development was as much for framing teachers’ and institutional understandings of disability as it was for delving into the
embedded set of core beliefs that frame assumptions about disability, IDD, and the special needs of children. I was guided by my premise that the IEP is a significant
mechanism for theorizing disability and special needs in contemporary schooling. Based on this premise, the IEP process can be argued as providing the means for looking at the application of certain theories of disability with school systems, the persistence of traditional medical model of understandings, and reasons for the failure of social models of disability to gain traction in a resistant education system (Allan & Slee, 2008; Oliver & Barnes, 2010).
The use of critical theory was adopted in the study in that this theoretical approach is not only interested in studying and understanding the world, but studies it for the purpose of critiquing and changing it by focusing on how power and oppression shape everyday life and human experience (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005; Patton, 2002). Similarly, Fine (2009) argues that critical social theory allows researchers to see the particulars of what they study as part of larger patterns of oppression and the human struggle for social justice. A critical social lens also takes into consideration the personal experiential factors that were instrumental in my adopting a qualitative research
approach. For example, my own narrative in Chapter 1 reflects on my professional experience in education that led me to question the educational discourse surrounding
the IEP process. As a researcher coming from an insider position, a critical social theoretical lens was seen as providing a more accurate picture of IEP development, shedding light on the deeper social meanings embedded in the IEP development process and the particular narratives that play out and legitimize the meanings that inform this process. Importantly is Anyon’s (2009) recognition that critical social theory is a
powerful tool to connect what goes on in schools to their larger political and social meanings.
Therefore, since my research concerned a world I already knew as an educator, critical social theory and disability theoretical perspectives combined to allow me “to make the familiar ‘strange’ so as to make it visible” in order to learn something that I
did not know before (Anderson-Levitt, 2006, p. 286). These theories were important for shaping the kind of qualitative data needed for understanding teachers’ stories of
students and for understanding which stories of students with developmental disabilities play out (Sears & Cairns, 2010) in the context of IEP development. Taken together, these theories constituted the conceptual organization of my research approach to make sense of the data and for guiding the various iterations of my analytical coding scheme applied to this data.
As I explored the theoretical literature, I continued to return to a Bourdieuian framework for looking at my research issue. Bourdieu (1998) suggests that critical social theory epistemology is not a solution to a problem but a methodological tool for analysing and critiquing educational systems. In light of this orientation, the theoretical wisdom of Bourdieu offered me the particular thinking tools for interrogating the
beliefs, meanings, knowledge, and actions underlying the IEP process so that they could be analyzed and made visible. At the same time, his theoretical constructs challenged me to think about my own beliefs, experiences and actions which were once vital to my identity as a special educator. Bourdieu contends that education systems are plagued with power, the status-quo, and approaches that limit the enactment of equity, social justice and innovative practices. With disability theory and the critical social theory of Bourdieu ‘in my backpack’ (Fine, 2009) to provide the conceptual coherence (Lesham
& Trafford, 2007) for the study, my own thinking and actions were conceptually grounded to analyze and explain the thinking and actions of teachers.
In Wolcott’s (2009) view, I am ‘a theory borrower’. He states that qualitative researchers are “theory borrowers” drawing on the thinking of others to approach the study, guide the inquiry process, ask questions and ‘ferret out’ assumptions in the
analysis of findings to produce reasonable answers (p. 71). At the same time, Kincheloe and McLaren (2005) contend that a theory is not a lens through which we see the world but rather a tool that helps us “devise questions and strategies for exploring it” (p. 306).
I now turn to further explicating Bourdieu’s theoretical method and the conceptual thinking tools he developed to examine and explain the social processes, situations, and particular sets of practices experienced by individuals. In other words, to understand why and how things get done (Jenkins, 1992).
Theoretical Method of Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002)
I came to the theoretical constructs of Pierre Bourdieu because his focus is on research-based engagement with social life and doing research in a relational way to
understand the social world. Further, not only are his theoretical concepts and methodological approaches, such as the need for reflexivity, valuable to researching educational processes and practices, they “can contribute to researching and
understanding educational policy” (Rawolle & Lingard, 2008, p. 729). In that my study involved both researching and understanding teachers’ practice and institutional
documents, Bourdieu’s work emerged as the primary component of my theoretical
framework.
Importantly for my study is Bourdieu’s view that the object of research is socially produced and understandable in terms of social spaces and relationships that pertain to a particular time and place (Bourdieu, 1977; 1985, 1989, 1992, 1998, 1999; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Fantasia, 2008; Grenfell, 2008, 2010; Grenfell & James, 2004; James, 2011; Jenkins, 1992; Jones, 1976; Nash, 1990; Robbins, 2006, 2008; Silva & Warde, 2010; Wacquant, 1989; Warde, 2004). A pragmatic relationship with
Bourdieu’s work supported my view that critical study of the IEP process required a
consideration of the inter-relatedness of this process and the social spaces and relationships in which it operates. Further to this is that his theoretical approach is particularly concerned with the visible social world of practice, locating practice within the social constructs of space and time (Bourdieu, 1977, 1989; Jenkins, 1992).
Thus, Bourdieu’s “thinking tools” (Bourdieu in Wacquant, 1989, p. 5) offered a
pragmatic way to view and analyze the social world of schools in terms of what happens in the process of IEP development as well as the structuring influences that shape and produce the social meanings and narratives underlying teachers’ work in this process.
His methodological concern is for the researcher to practically engage with the research process in order to understand and make sense of a social world and the distinctive processes and practices of a social phenomenon. For this reason, Bourdieu demands a systematic critical examination of the social world “out there”, and a critical analysis of the social world “in here” [of the researcher] to answer questions on how the thoughts
and actions of social actors are influenced within a particular field that is the social context in which the person [such as the student], is socially produced (Fantasia, 2008, p. 212).
In addition, a fuller deployment of Bourdieu’s approach requires looking at the
relationship between different fields such as education and medicine, and the relationships between his theoretical concepts in the analysis of field practices. By drawing on Bourdieu’s approach, important questions are asked about “how exactly
have representations made by actors in one field come to have such influence on the actions and thoughts of others in another field?” (Fantasia, 2008, p. 215). For example, in the process of IEP development, I ask “How are the representations of developmental
disability and special needs made by actors [teachers] in the field of education informed by those in another field such as medicine or psychology?” To take this point further, “How are representations of developmental disability and special need in regular education influenced by those in special education?”
My analysis gets at questions of how cultural and institutional social structure (social reality) “and the internalised ‘subjective mental worlds of individuals as cultural
and, indeed, an aspect of – the other” (Jenkins, 1992, p. 17-18). Accordingly, to uncover the workings of education systems in this respect, Bourdieu’s theoretical method
provides critical ways to explain and illuminate social phenomena and practices such as IEP processes in school systems. In that the study is situated within an interpretive paradigm that moves away from a positivistic understanding of human action to inductively make sense of the meaning of human action, a Bourdieuian lens attends to the meaning-making and actions of people. For me, by engaging with Bourdieu’s critical social theory, I had the means to approach the data from a different interpretive stance that I felt was needed.
In linking what teachers do and don’t do in the context of the IEP process to Bourdieu’s theoretical explanations, his logics of practice and conceptual constructs are useful for looking at the particularity of teachers’ experience, knowledge and
understandings, and for looking at how these understandings “are formed, deployed, gather authority and take hold” (Slee, 2011, p. 99-100). Bourdieu’s perspectives allow
for looking at social and institutional structures that influence and shape these
particularities as the field for analysis (Bourdieu, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1993). As Jenkins (1992) asserts, Bourdieu “raises tricky questions and helps to provide some of the means by which they may be answered”, describing his concepts as “enormously good to think with” (p.11). Hence, thinking within a Bourdieuian framework provides a useful means
for thinking about the social forces, power structures, and relations within educational organizations that determine how schools respond to children with disabilities. Four general principles are described by Swartz (2008) as helpful for orienting Bourdieu’s
theoretical approach: (1) integrating objective and subjective forms of knowledge, (2) constructing objects in sociological research, (3) thinking relationally, and, (4) using reflexivity as a central methodological concern. Drawing on these principles, I viewed IEP development as a dynamic and complex social process at work in schools in a particular time and space, with its own structuring forms of knowledge, hierarchy, power forces, and sets of relations. For me, Bourdieu helps to interrogate the IEP process in a way that it can be understood in relationship to particular social contexts, discursive practices and institutional discourses, to people and to things such as curricula and resources, to individual positioning in schools, and to social forces that shape and are shaped by this practice.
Bourdieu’s Theoretical Constructs
Rather than presenting a grand social theory through which the social world can be studied, Bourdieu’s conceptual thinking tools constitute his theoretical approach for
studying social reality and the structuring social processes that produce that reality (Grenfell, 2010). DiGiorgio (2009) describes Bourdieu’s conceptual tools as having a
useful place in special education research especially for addressing the segregation of students with disabilities in schools. In a similar vein, Klibthong (2012) states that “Bourdieuian conceptual tools offer refreshing epistemological and reflective radars for
re-imagining and enacting pedagogical practices that contribute to all children’s holistic development” (p. 71). Furthermore, Grenfell (2008) adds that Bourdieu’s conceptual tools provide a critical way to explain the mechanisms and “hidden generating structures” of school systems (p. 85) that underlie pedagogical practices.
Given these viewpoints, my interest was to apply his primary thinking tools that include his concepts of habitus, capitals, and field to the issue of IEP development for children with IDD. Moreover, applying Bourdieu’s notions of logic of practice, thinking
relationally, reflexivity, social reproduction, and symbolic power and violence fit well into my analytic framework for understanding teachers’ work in this process and the institutional discourses directing their professional work. The application of Bourdieu’s
concepts called for applying his concepts as a relational set of thinking tools that are interconnected and therefore to be viewed relationally to study and analyze social processes (Grenfell, 2008). In that each thinking tool offers an important perspective for looking at the practice of IEP development, I clarify the individual meanings that
Bourdieu ascribes to each of these concepts.
Habitus
Bourdieu conceptualizes habitus as “internalized embodied social structures”
(Bourdieu, 1989, p. 18) and “cultural unconscious or mental habits or internalised master dispositions” (Bourdieu, 1989 in Houston, 2002, p. 157). Habitus includes beliefs, norms, values, and attitudes of individuals. The concept of habitus is “a way of
talking about the embodiment of previous social fields, whereby individuals acquire and carry ways of thinking, being and doing from one place to another. It is about how past social structures get into the present action and how current actions confirm or reshape current structures” (James, 2011, p. 3). For Bourdieu, the school is a habitus reproducing
site: a site of selection, social and cultural reproduction, and a site for accumulating cultural and symbolic capital. Bourdieu (1989) sees teachers as social agents whose