The conduct of interpretive research is commonly described as being subjective and interactive. Indeed, a great emphasis is placed upon the importance of meaning and interpretation within social constructivist interpretive studies. Social science research is driven as much by the „personal values‟ of the
60 researcher, as it is by the „rigour‟ and „hygiene‟ of its‟ methodology (Clough and Nutbrown, 2007). In contrast to the notion of an uncontaminated „realist‟ tale of the researched participants‟ experience (Sparkes, 2002), in assuming the role of researcher, my interactions with the participants (in their role as the researched) are integral to the success of the understandings that are made of their worlds. These interpretations of „voice‟ are seen throughout both the data collection and its subsequent analysis of this study.
Thus, despite a broad awareness of good practice regarding the methods, which have been developed as appropriate to the aims of this work, the uniformity of technical competencies, or a replicable method, is of little importance to this study. Interventions are not manipulated to engineer and observe change within participants. Instead, I see my ability to interpret the unedited lived experiences of participants as the sole determining factor of the success of this thesis. This importance is guided by the recognition that data, for example interview responses, are not simply seen as true or false reports on reality; instead they are treated as „displays of perspectives, which draw upon available cultural resources‟ (Silverman, 2006, p.144).
„Meanings do not have an independent existence, a reality of their own which is somehow separate from social actors. They are not imposed by an external society that constrains members to act in certain ways. Instead they are constructed and reconstructed by actors in the course of social interaction.‟
(Haralambos and Holborn, 1995, p.815).
As mentioned in the introduction to this thesis, I do not attempt to disaggregate myself, from the processes, which underpin this research. The reconstructed meanings applied to the data, through social interaction with it, naturally shape its form and existence as a unique interpretation. As Sparkes (1994) also reminds us, the social skills and creative capacities of the researcher are heavily relied upon within interpretive research. Consequently, the practices in which I have shared, alongside participants and staff of the schools, help to shape my interpretations of their experiences.
61 Embracing the interpretive paradigm clearly recognises the role of the researcher in the social world and the meanings that people attribute to every day life (Silk et al., 2005, p.11). As Blaikie (1993) observes, the cultural background of the researcher is part of this evidence, in so far that he/she places him/herself in the same critical plane as the subject matter. Within this design, „the human instrument builds upon his or her tacit knowledge, as much as if not more than upon propositional knowledge‟ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p.187). Layder (2006) alludes to the „unique childhood experiences (as well as later ones) which constitute a well of attitudes and behavioural dispositions built up over time‟ (p.145). There are relevant aspects of my own personal background worthy of mention, which help to explain any biases or ideologies from which this research emanates (Curtner-Smith, 2002).
3.3.1 Personal Meaning
I was 24 years old during the time I spent working with case study participants; a six foot tall male, with shaved hair, and stubble. I have had a chequered past both in school and in PE. Not blessed with natural physical ability, in the past I had to work for recognition, befitting of a culture which valued performance. This did not detract from my love of learning through the physical, or my advocacy for physical education in general. Such a desire for recognition had an effect upon my behaviours. I was not involved in an alternative educational provision, nor was I assessed or „diagnosed‟ with any clinical or behavioural difficulties. However, it is fair to say that my own education was not without its share of incidents. I have experienced first-hand some of the difficulties, and many of the tendencies, associated to SEBD, which participants in this study speak of. Ultimately and thankfully, my schooling was a tale of success. Notwithstanding this outcome, I do consider that I can empathise with those whose behaviour is, at times, a challenge to their schooling.
Hence, the issues, which run through this research, have been of interest since I left compulsory education. As such, the personal motivation to write and research this topic comes from a deep-rooted and long standing desire to make
62 sense of how, and why, children and young people experience schooling so very differently. I am guided by my previous experiences of working with populations of students similar to those involved in this research, whose turbulent relationships with school can define their experiences in PE, and visa versa. I am indebted to, and driven by, their honesty and attitude, which is often seemingly masked by their externalising behaviours.
The meanings, which I attach to the participants‟ experiences and, indeed, the stories to which I give weight, are a product of my personal values and ideals, which have developed through the experiences I describe above. Broadly speaking, I believe in comprehensive education underpinned by standards of inclusion and acceptance. I believe in education, which is tailored to the needs of the individual, and which recognises that, for many, accessing the curriculum, which they are given, is a great challenge. I am interested in the very changeable and dynamic nature of participants‟ experiences, and the multiple and complex factors, which contribute to these experiences. I am intrigued by the multiple realities and multiple interpretations, which result from shared educational experiences. I believe that the unique and rich ecology of the many contributory and co-morbid factors, which shape these accounts, should never be delimited. It is this encompassing approach that I see as the cornerstone of interpretivist work.
I have a belief in humanism; I believe that we are who we are through other people, and that human value should shape our relationships with one and other (Davies, 1996). This involves seeking the best in each other, without religion or spirituality, centred upon human interests and values. Subsequently, shared experiences, and the environments in which they take place, shape us as individuals. I deem learned behaviours to be a product of relationships with others in our environments.
How I interpret behaviours and experiences is therefore, by virtue, inextricably inductive and subjective in nature. In this instance, it is such interpretations that
63 guide the application of the methodological principles outlined thus far. Blaikie (1993) summarises how „objectivity and the search for truth is impossible in the social sciences; all social research will be contaminated by the values and interests of the researcher‟ (p.19). It is for this reason that my own personal experiences provide an added dimension to these interpretations, which it would be remiss to ignore.