Theoretical perspective

This section considers the theoretical perspective that is used as a basis for this research. This section begins with the rationale for the research paradigm. This is followed by discussions about grounded theory as the approach selected; the case study methodology; validity, reliability and triangulation; and concludes with a critique of the researcher as the research ‘tool’.

6.3.1 Research Paradigm

In thinking about the way to approach the methodology for this study, I considered the research paradigm that would best suit, using the definition of the paradigm provided by Somekh and Lewin (2005: 347): “an approach to research which provides a unifying framework of understandings of knowledge, truth, values and the nature of being”: epistemological, axiological and ontological understanding. Seeking knowledge, values, beliefs and perceptions of lived experiences of pupils and views of teachers and parents to add to the views of the pupils, suggested that an interpretivist approach would be most appropriate in seeking answers to the questions in this research (Seidman, 2006).

For interpretivists, reality is not ‘out there’ as an amalgam of external phenomena waiting to be uncovered as ‘facts’, but a construct in which people understand reality in different ways (Morrison, 2012: 20).

Meaning comes from understanding how others perceive their world. There is also the question of what is social ‘reality’? Can this be viewed as an entity almost thrust upon the individual from the external world, or do the individuals themselves construct ‘reality’? (Cohen et al., 2011). This study takes the stance of the latter and adopts a subjectivist or non-positivist approach exploring in depth the “humanly created” world (Cohen et al., 2011: 6). “The participants themselves define the social reality” (Beck, 1979, cited in Cohen et al., 2011: 15). This study does not set out to test a hypothesis or a theory using the data gathered (a positivist27 stance), but aims to develop concepts from the qualitative data to propose an explanation of the phenomenon. In addition, the positivist method attempts to isolate factors for fair testing, and also eschews values and looks only at facts (Bryman, 1988: 15). In contrast, an interpretative approach does not attempt to select factors that could be influencing the phenomenon, rather exploring widely to seek understanding from the perspective of the subjects.

27

A philosophical system recognising only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof (Oxford Dictionaries, online).

This interpretivist approach is closest to phenomenology where the focus is on how human subjects give meaning to their experiences (Cohen et al., 2011; Morrison, 2012), and explores these views of phenomena within a given social setting (Titchen and Hobson, 2011). In phenomenology the lived experiences can be explored directly or indirectly. The ‘direct’ method of “exploring human knowing” is through the researcher exploring the participants’ experiences by seeking their views, asking questions of the participants (Titchen and Hobson, 2011: 122). The ‘indirect’ method is the researcher being in the participants’ world in a particular setting and exploring this world through observation and interpretation.

The decision to use the direct method through interviews to gain insights in this study rather than through the use of questionnaires, or the indirect method, was principally because the interview allows for an exploratory approach and affords an opportunity to go deeper into a theme as it is raised (Borg, 1963). Having face-to-face interviews also allows the development of rapport, which improves the social encounter with the aim of eliciting detailed qualitative data. Explanations can be given to ensure the interviewees understand what is being asked of them at the time of the interview. The semi-structured interview selected allows time for the interviewees to respond. The disadvantages are that interviews are time consuming, are subject to bias (Borg, 1963), and the data collection can be

limited.

Other methods of collecting data, notably by questionnaire, were rejected because they would not be able to capture the experiences or attitudes in the depth and nuance

demanded of this research. Questionnaires do have advantages. They can capture far more data, are quick and easy to administer, and are based on aset series of questions that can be constructed in advance. The disadvantages are the data collected, if using closed questions, can be less meaningful: if open-ended more difficult for the respondents to complete, and the respondents may also be unwilling to do so (Cohen et al., 2011).

Phenomenology is an approach where the experiences from the perspective of the subjects are taken at “face value” where “subjective consciousness” gives meaning (Cohen et al., 2011: 18). Using interviews, and to a lesser extent questionnaires (dependent on the types of questions used), the researcher is finding out how the world appears to the participant and it is the researcher who is making sense of what is being relayed by the subject. To do this the researcher draws from his/her own experiences and contexts (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

There is an argument that mixed methods, rather than the polarisation between qualitative and quantitative approaches; objectivity and subjectivity; positivism and interpretivism, is the new paradigm and there can be an “integrated approach” (Ercikan and Roth, 2006: 14). In this study qualitative data was gathered from the participants and interpreted to seek meaning and consider explanations of the phenomenon, and quantitative data has also been used to examine performance of boys and girls generally to draw conclusions to look at the historical patterns of attainment by gender and to support the sampling. Drawing from a range of data sources is expected when using a case study approach, as in this study: drawing from interviews with pupils, teachers and, in School A, parents – an interpretivist approach, as well as the quantitative performance data – a positivist approach. Objectivity is demanded of the researcher, both when interviewing and analysing the data. However, to interpret the findings involves “subjective judgement” (Ercikan and Roth, 2006: 17), the downside of which is the potential to skew the interpretation. For example, researchers interpret by drawing from their own knowledge, expertise and experience. Using a case study approach and a grounded theory approach to explore the phenomenon, through the lived experiences of the subjects, and develop explanations, illustrate the opportunities that using a range of methods gives. Mixed methods research as described by Cohen et al. (2011) is also applied to sampling, data collection etc., which is adopted in this study, interviewing different groupings within three different schools. Therefore, one paradigm is not advocated but a mixed methodology, with a move towards interpretation rather than solely the interpretative paradigm (Scott and Morrison, 2006: 132), for example in interpreting qualitative data as well as seeking to test the grounded theory in another setting to explore transferability.

6.3.2 Grounded theory

This study’s aim was to explore, using a grounded theory approach, the attitudes and experiences of a sample of boys in relation to their learning through interview, seeking meaning through interpretation, in an attempt to explain the phenomenon of the gendered patterns of attainment. To triangulate the evidence, views of others were sought and also interpreted using the grounded theory approach. Grounded theory was the chosen

methodology because of its fit with the broad principles of phenomenology discussed above. Grounded theory goes further than phenomenology with ‘theory’ generation being the aspirational outcome. Grounded theory

is a set of grounded concepts integrated around a central category/theme to form a theoretical framework that explains how and why persons, organisations,

communities or nations experience and respond to events, challenges and problematic situations (Corbin and Holt, 2011: 113).

The grounded theory approach is grounded in the data gathered. The method of analysis is to ‘code’ the data for meaning, as in other qualitative methods, with the emphasis in grounded theory being on conceptualisation: developing concepts from the data gathered, which is then scrutinised for further synthesis to identify key categories (Charmaz, 2014). The theory emerges from this analysis of data collected from participants relating their lived experiences. This approach is in accord with the poststructuralist stance of multiplicity of views and diversity. The aim with grounded theory is to develop links between the data collected, developing categories that ultimately give rise to an explanation of the question being researched (Moghaddam, 2006).

Grounded theory was first developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1965. Since then, with time, different research questions, and researchers developing their own grounded theory

approach to fit their research questions, many different forms of grounded theory have emerged (Morse et al., 2009). There are three main variants of grounded theory as highlighted by Creswell (2005): the systematic design attributed to Strauss and Corbin (1990) advocating an approach that has structure, with the literature review being completed in advance of the data collection and more specific questions for subjects considered before collecting the data; the emerging design attributed to Glaser (1992) where the questions are emergent as the study develops with the literature review

completed after the data is collected; and the constructivist approach attributed to Charmaz (2014) who suggests that the two previous approaches rely too heavily on the influence of the researcher, and advocates that the participants are integral to the theory construction rather than the theory emerging from the data as subscribed to by Strauss and Corbin, and Glaser. Charmaz does highlight the potential tension between “theoretical construction and a quest for accurate data” (Charmaz, 2014: 85). However, being able to develop concepts from the data, rather than making data fit concepts developed from the research of others, is one of the strengths of a grounded theory approach (Glaser, 2002).

The literature review carried out was not to formulate the questions for interview as advocated by Strauss and Corbin’s systematic design, but to explore the background to underachievement of academically able boys in both research and policy terms, and how others had approached the key questions under investigation. The grounded theory approach used in this research study uses mainly the approach advocated by Glaser, the

emerging design, with elements of the constructivist design (Charmaz, 2014). Both

Glaser’s and Charmaz’s approach allow the participants to voice their views without being restricted to set questions on particular themes, and for themes to be explored in

subsequent interviews as the themes arise. Glaser uses the term ‘theoretical sampling’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and Charmaz ‘intensive interviewing’ (Charmaz, 2014). The analysis techniques used by Glaser and Charmaz differ, with Charmaz’s approach to analysing the data being used in this study. The main difference between the approaches adopted by Glaser and Charmaz is the construction of the theory, with Charmaz (2014) advocating an approach that sees the participants involved in theory generation, whereas Glaser (2002: 29) does not believe that participants should be involved. No attempt was made in this study to use a constructivist approach in seeking participants to be part of the theory generation. As well as the philosophical arguments rehearsed in Chapter 7 (p.159) there was also the issue of restriction of access to participants, and the difficulty in being able to go back to the participants to check or test the theory generation.

Before embarking on the research, consideration was given to what questions should be developed to allow me to gain the information I wanted, but, being true to the grounded theory approach adopted, having open-ended, non-structured questions that were not based on any particular theme, with additional questions emerging, and being explored through intensive interviewing in subsequent interviews. In constructivist grounded theory,

theorists are very conscious of language and discourse to encourage participants to be free with their ideas (Charmaz, 2014: 95) and I aimed for this approach. I also had to consider how I could avoid my own experience and preconceptions impacting on the interviews, the questions being asked, and the analysis phase of the study as an insider in School A

(Anderson and Jones, 2000; Mercer, 2007), and the implications of the study taking place in my “backyard” (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992: 22).

6.3.3 Case study methodology

This study uses a case study approach, which is where a specific issue/policy/phenomenon is explored in a specific location. In a case study the process is one of identification, description, analysis and theorising, which is in accord with the grounded theory method. The case study approach does not demand one particular methodology but what is

emphasised is the feature of looking “in-depth” at a ‘case’ (Chadderton and Torrance, 2011: 53). There is more emphasis on depth than coverage and so different methods can be

used. Researchers in the area of qualitative methodology have classified case studies in many ways. The classification, which fits with this research, is “instrumental” (Stake, 1994), which is investigating a particular theme and context to gain understanding. Investigating a theme in a case study demands collecting evidence. In case studies more than one source of evidence is advocated (Yin, 2009: 106; Chadderton and Torrance, 2011). For example, in the case study in School A, qualitative data was drawn from the semi-structured interviews from a range of participants, not just boys; and quantitative data (examination statistics) supplemented the qualitative data gathered. Other qualitative data was used to support the sampling of participants for interview. Observations, which are also advocated by Yin (2009), have not been used for any data collection due to the complexity of designing observations that would have addressed the question of validity. Access and time demands for such data gathering would also have been problematic. Consideration was given to the advantages of the case study approach with data gathering through in-depth interviews rather through other means, for example, surveys,

questionnaires etc. The perceived advantages were the authenticity of the real life context, the potential for generalisation, and the overriding advantage of the possibility of the outcomes of the research having a direct positive impact on educational outcomes for pupils through policy or interventions (Adelman et al., 1980). Nisbet and Watt (1984) also point to the advantage of the specificity of the case study, which may not otherwise be captured in wider scale surveys. There are potential disadvantages such as not being able to verify the data gathered, and the potential for the researcher to display subjectivity that could impact on the data gathering and interpretation of the data.

The prescriptive definition of a research case study is shown in Table 6.1 and shows the key elements that would be expected.

Table 6.1: Definition of a case study

(Bassey, 2012: 156)

This definition has been used as a framework to justify that the approach adopted was a case study. The definition gives the properties required of a case study to make it a worthwhile enquiry and all the properties were considered when carrying out this study. These points are explored below.

Locality and time frame

A case study approach was adopted in this research because of the uniqueness of the phenomenon: the interesting question that was apparent in School A. The case study is set in time and place and is bounded by specific characteristics, which in all of the case studies in this research were academically able pupils. The qualitative data was gathered in School A during one school session. However, this phenomenon of potentially able boys

underperforming compared to able girls is not restricted to this one school. The issue is prevalent across Scotland and indeed in other developed countries. Therefore, two further schools were used as sites. The locations of the case studies were the school themselves. The method of selection of these schools is described in section 6.4.2.2. The collection of the qualitative data in these schools was carried out at the beginning of the following school session. The aim was to set the case studies in all three schools in a short and specific time frame for comparative purposes. The quantitative data examined was over a longer time frame to give a historical perspective and to consider any changes. Three case studies were ultimately carried out as explained earlier with the phenomenological

paradigm as the basis of the case study approach.

An educational case study is an empirical enquiry which is:

• conducted within a localised boundary of space and time (i.e. a singularity) • into interesting aspects of an educational activity, programme, institution,

system or work of an individual

• mainly in its natural context and within an ethic of respect for persons • in order to inform the judgements and decisions of practitioners or policy

makers

• or of theoreticians who are working to these ends, and

• such than sufficient data are collected or the researcher to be able to: (a) explore significant features of the case

(b) create plausible interpretations of what is found (c) test for the trustworthiness of these interpretations (d) construct a worthwhile argument of story

(e) relate the argument or story to any relevant research in the literature (f) convey convincingly to an audience this argument or story

(g) provide an audit trail by which other researchers may validate or challenge the findings, or construct alternative arguments.

Natural context

The case study is not abstract but based on real life situations, with people in real contexts (Cohen et al., 2011), in this case a secondary school setting within a particular locality, society and a culture of advantage. Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) and Bassey (1999) highlight that case studies are about actors and their perceptions of events. The social interactions are highlighted as being integral to a case study (Chadderton and Torrance, 2011). The case study enables participants to be able to voice views about their own lived experiences (Geertz, 1973), which is central to this study.

Informing other practitioners

The case study approach allows depth to produce ‘thick descriptions’. Thick descriptions are more than facts, they give patterns and concepts that have been inferred from

relationships in cultural and social settings within a specific context (Holloway, 1997). Thick descriptions are interpretative and provide sufficient meaning in a particular context to allow those external to that context to make sense of the context or phenomenon

(Geertz, 1973). Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that thick descriptions allow external validity to be achieved. The information arising from the case study gives enough detail of the issue or phenomenon being explored to consider transferability to other contexts. Transferability of findings from a case study is a contested area.

Some researchers, for example Creswell (1994), would argue that the case study is the study of one phenomenon and cannot go beyond that one context, in this case exploring the pupil experiences and attitudes in School A, because of the importance of context and culture in shaping experiences and attitudes. Others, for example Yin (2009), do not hold to this rigid definition of a case study and believe that the findings from a case study can go beyond the particular context. Yin (2009) is an advocate of generalisation but only as a step to broaden any explanation of the phenomenon or question under investigation, rather than to go immediately to universality. Other researchers, for example Verschuren (2003), argue that both stances are possible and it depends on the question under investigation. The