Abstract
This research note offers a critical reflection of the process of conducting qualitative research in the Irish primary school setting. The research discussed took place during the school year 2016–2017. It explored primary school children’s understandings of citizenship and, the kinds of collective social actions they participated in as citizens and peers at school. I reflect upon this in terms of my experiences of gaining and maintaining access in Irish primary schools. I also draw attention to social and cultural contexts within the research setting and the influence this has over data collection. I aim to offer some useful insights into the process of conducting qualitative research within formal education settings and, to encourage conversation between researchers and educators to find solutions to issues associated with conducting research in schools.
Introduction
Children aged 9 to 12-years-old were the primary participants for this research. Although they are vulnerable, children are also agentic social actors whereby their understandings and social actions constituted the central aspect of analysis. The reflective approach I adhered to enabled me to ‘think’ my way through the research process, which helped me to remain cognisant of my adult-centric biases. I acknowledge that my subjectivity about children’s social realities did not always align with their ‘truths’ and ‘reality’ about their social worlds. Participating schools played a central role in facilitating this research. Within the role of researcher, I also acknowledge that my internal bias towards schooling culture and practice may not have always aligned with educators’ social realities and personal experiences of working within the school environment.
This research note offers critical reflections of my experiences of conducting qualitative research that explored primary school children’s subjective understandings of citizenship and, the collective social actions they participated in as citizens and peers
1
of their social groups at school. I draw upon my research experiences to highlight some methodological challenges attendant upon the relationship between social context and schooling culture and the influence this has over the kind of qualitative information collected. My discussion is framed in relation to
Methodological and ethical considerations
This research fits within an interpretist and constructivist paradigm and used qualitative methods. Children’s understandings and social actions constituted the central aspect of analysis, therefore, a qualitative methodological design was chosen for its appropriateness for exploring people’s subjective experiences.
It is advised that researchers reflect critically upon methodological issues and the approaches they take (throughout the research process) as these factors will have implications for the data produced (Fargas et al., 2010). Furthermore, when conducting research with vulnerable participants - such as children - methodological and ethical issues are particularly salient and require considerable deliberation to ensure that no undue harm is caused (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Green and Hogan, 2005; Horgan, 2017; Melton et al., 2014; Soffer and Ben-Arieh, 2014).
I obtained ethical approval from Maynooth University's Research Ethics Committee. All participating children’s parents/guardians provided written consent. Participating children gave their written and verbal assent. Parents/guardians, school 2 and child participants were informed that data collection would involve participant observations, focus groups, group interviews and the use of audio recordings. Full details were provided to all participants (including schools) about data collection and storage in accordance with Maynooth University’s protocol. To maintain confidentiality and anonymity, participating schools are referred to as School A, B, and C. Pseudonyms are used throughout when quoting children’s words. This research did not collect information about individual participants’ demographic background and/or familial circumstances. I informed children that disclosure would be made if a safeguarding concern arose during my interactions with them at school.
Research context
The focus of this research was two-fold (in no particular order) I aimed to explore children’s subjective understandings of citizenship and, their social interactions at school. Different modes of data collection were used to gather information relating to children’s understandings and their actions. Focus groups and group interview methods were used to learn more about what children understood about ‘citizenship’. Participant and direct observations were utilised to collect information about children’s social interactions as citizen-peers at school. The rationale for this was to ascertain if children’s social actions could be recognised as forms of citizenship participation at school.
Each of the six participating schools had a schooling culture and practice unique to its particular circumstances. Some schools had small pupil populations and smaller class sizes. Others had large class sizes and trainee teachers who supported the class teacher. To take account of the social context of each school, I tailored data collection methods to ensure that they tied in (as much as was practicable) with class activities and schedules. Every effort was made to facilitate information sessions with parents and/or class teachers prior to entering the field yet this was not possible due to time constraints and school scheduling. In every case school principals met to discuss my research proposal and how their school would benefit from participating. I assured principals that (if granted) I would return to each class to disseminate (in a child-friendly manner) key insights and findings. This also allowed children to comment on what I had found and to offer further opinion/comments. 3 Participating schools were also sent an Executive Summary of research findings and invited to comment upon what I had found. 4 After this initial meeting school principals selected which teachers and classes would participate in this research.
I was aware that I had not met with teachers prior to entering their class. From a teachers’ perspective it could have appeared that I made no effort to communicate with them directly. However, once the research was underway, I tried to remedy this and had mini debriefing sessions with teachers at the end of each school day. Part of this involved reiterating the aim of the research and to answer any questions they may have had. This time also provided the opportunity for me to negotiate with teachers how best to facilitate focus groups/group interviews and participant observations within the class timetable.
Gaining and maintaining research access Schooling culture
Researcher skills and time are two key elements needed to gather rich in-depth data about social culture, practice and actions. Yet, broader structural and cultural forces can significantly impede the use of qualitative research methods such as participant observations which by their very nature require sufficient time to interrogate and explore social processes in the field. This issue can be compounded by the social context of primary schools as they can be crowded, 5 busy places where classroom activities are time sensitive and operate within a short school year. 6 For example in Ireland as part of the 1999 Primary School Curriculum, primary school teachers must complete six curriculum areas (further broken down into 11 subjects). Furthermore, ‘observation’ as a form of continued professional development (CPD) for teachers does not seem to be actively encouraged within Irish schooling culture which could result in some teachers being uncomfortable with observation in the classroom. My reflections lead me to query if these factors could hinder schools from being able to facilitate research that employs participant observations.
I found that structural and cultural constraints such as these can create challenges in terms of research design and trying to gain and maintain access to conduct research with children at school. For example, I initially intended to conduct an in-depth case study of one primary school over the course of a school year. I soon learned that this would not be possible as I was unable to source a school who could facilitate research access for a sustained period. To counter this, I choose a purposive snowball sampling technique and I identified (through informal social networks) six different primary schools who could grant me access for shorter periods. The alternative sampling strategy I reverted to influenced the types of data collection methods available to use in the research setting. For instance, in schools where participant observations were not possible, it was necessary to use other types of data collection methods such as group interviews. Although these methods can also generate rich qualitative data, this is more likely to be the case if researchers have already built rapport with participants beforehand through participant observations (if possible).
My experiences of gaining access to schools suggest that the research design for qualitative school-based research requires considerable thought. If possible, researchers need to identify schools for participation as early as possible. Prior to entering the field, researchers can start to build a relationship with key adult stakeholders (teachers) to develop trust and rapport. This would allow more time to tease out any concerns about the research process and also to confirm exactly what you intend to do. Based on my experiences, this could have put teachers more at ease and they may have been more forthcoming and less unsure about their role in the research process. Furthermore, I assert that inviting parents/guardians to an information session about the proposed research could also appease any concerns they may have about their child’s participation. However, from my experience, I found this was not possible as I was dependent upon schools to facilitate the flow of information between parents/guardians and myself.
Researcher and gatekeeper(s) power dynamics
The power dynamics between researchers and adult gatekeepers is a particularly salient factor for consideration by qualitative researchers who generally require more time within the research setting. Previous research draws attention to how power relations between researcher(s) and adult gatekeeper(s) can cause access issues for researchers (Árnadóttir and Kristinsdóttir, 2016; Leonard, 2007). Árnadóttir and Kristinsdóttir (2016) highlight that adult gatekeepers would like to be more involved in the research process; yet, they expressed doubt about the researcher’s ability to work with children. They contend that gatekeepers’ concerns are partly due to a lack of communication between researchers and gatekeepers and an overemphasis on protection over participation on the part of gatekeepers.
Teachers were my primary gatekeepers during this research. Some gatekeepers reacted negatively to my presence which manifested in their restriction of my access to classroom activities and/or having undue influence in the research process. Upon reflection, I recognise that my presence in the classroom possibly represented a form of scrutiny. It is also possible that some teachers did not want to participate but were obliged to do so by the school principal. It would have been beneficial to find out directly from teachers about how they felt about my presence in the classroom, however, the opportunity to do this did not arise during or after my research.
Nevertheless, my restricted access, for example, at School C, meant that I had insufficient time or opportunity to work with children and to build rapport. I foresaw this would have seriously compromised the validity of data gathered at this school and I made the decision to cut-short my time compared to what was originally scheduled. In addition, teachers’ undue influence meant that children’s responses during group interviews were not their own. Prior to group interviews I spoke with children (with their teacher present). I explained that it was their ideas and understandings about citizenship I wanted to know more about – not anybody else’s. However, I was frustrated by the inadvertent effect that some teachers prepping beforehand had on children’s answers. For instance, a cohort of children used identical words, terminology and phrases to answer my questions about citizenship. 7 I sensed that this group had been ‘prepared’ by their teacher. When I asked them if they had learned new things about citizenship, my intuition was confirmed when Mary (10, School B) divulged that they had been told ‘stuff about citizenship’ which they had not talked about before in class.
Children are also gatekeepers. Throughout my research I built alliances with groups of children who became my gatekeepers and provided me with information about what had occurred when I was absent from their school. Children were also informants and scouts who policed their social spaces and confronted anyone (i.e. me) who they were curious/suspicious of. For example, during participant observations, children from different schools frequently asked me, ‘Are you a “Cigire”’ 8 ? ‘What are you doing?’ ‘Why are you here?’, ‘Is this an exam?’ After I had assured them that I was not a ‘Cigire’, they visibly became more forthcoming and at ease during our chats. Children’s direct queries about school inspections revealed their familiarity with examinations and as such it was important for them to confirm if my presence represented a form of critical scrutiny of their achievements and/or their conduct at school. Indeed, if I was acting in the capacity as School Inspector (Cigire) this would mean that I would have been assessing these children’s schools. In this case, children’s conduct and achievements would be used as indicators to evaluate their schools’ overall performance. These children understood that in this kind of situation, they would have to adhere to a different set of social protocols and modify their behaviours accordingly. As such, children’s line of questioning demonstrates their nuanced understanding of the changing nature of social context and associated protocols.
My experiences of conducting participant observations suggest adults and (by default) children have ‘learned’ to regard (any) observation as a form of negative assessment or scrutiny. Although I reiterated to teachers and pupils alike that I was not conducting a formal assessment of their achievements, some teachers – for reasons unknown to me – continued to curtail my time to observe classroom activities and to curate children’s responses even then they were not present. These kinds of actions also illuminate broader issues relating to adult control and power during research and, how this can inadvertently undermine research data and impact on children’s right to voice their own unfettered opinions.
Researcher persona - a balancing act between two social worlds
Many authors highlight the importance of the researcher’s persona when conducting research with children (Clark and Moss, 2011; Corsaro, 2006; Mayall, 2008; Thorne, 1993; Warming, 2011). Warming (2011) and others propose that adopting the ‘least adult role’ may help to counter the asymmetrical power imbalance between adult researchers and child participants (Christensen and James, 2008; Mayall, 2008; Thorne, 1993). From this perspective, ‘the researcher makes an effort to participate in the children’s everyday lives in as childlike a way as possible’ (Warming, 2011: 42). Warming, for instance, refers to a means of achieving ‘critical sociological empathy’ with children’s experiences. She asserts this is significant in assessing and representing children’s perspectives in a sound and ethical way, which considers the diverse positions occupied by children within society (2011: 42). According to Warming (2011), this reflective insight provided her with a ‘tacit knowledge’ about taken-for-granted norms of appropriate behaviour … acquired unconsciously through participation in and observation of everyday practices’ (p. 46). However, some authors also highlight implications associated with adopting a least adult role as it may ‘involve ethical and moral complications … if the researcher is the only adult around’ (Soffer and Ben-Arieh, 2014: 567; Christensen and James, 2008 and Greene and Hill, 2005).
It was necessary to negotiate a social space within schools to allow me to operate as a professional adult researcher and as a friendly visitor/helper to the school. Adopting a ‘least adult role’ (Christensen and James, 2008; Mayall, 2008; Thorne, 1993; Warming, 2011) helped me to counter the power imbalance between participating children and myself. Yet this did not always align with some adult gatekeepers’ expectations.
To exemplify my ‘least adult’ position (whenever appropriate) I verbally reiterated my non-authoritarian role to participating children. I explained that I was neither the-go-to-person to grant permission nor was I ‘in charge’ of what they did at school. I emphasised my non-authoritarian persona by behaving and acting in the following ways, sitting at a child’s table and chair in class, using a copybook and pencil when taking notes, wearing casual clothes (such as jeans, t-shirts and trainers) and, lining up with children as they waited to go back into class after break times. I also joined in children’s games (when invited) during break times. Nonetheless, when I was the only adult in the immediate vicinity this sometimes posed ‘moral complications’ (Soffer and Ben-Arieh, 2014) which I had to negotiate so as not to alienate adults and children alike. The following excerpt from my field notes demonstrates this: ‘Little Break’ was over but Ms A had not yet returned to the classroom. I was alone for a few moments with the class (29 children) who became very noisy and rowdy. Emer (10) made a beeline for me and instructed me to tell the rest of the class to ‘be quiet!’ I replied ‘No, I won’t, I’m not the teacher’. Emer responded exasperatedly; ‘But you’re an adult!’ (Raised eyes upwards). (School A, 2016)
Overall, I maintain that the ‘least adult’ persona I adopted resulted in some children (mainly girls) reciprocating my attempts to build rapport with them. This reciprocity was demonstrated when children invited me to join in their schoolyard games, when they confided in me about issues that mattered to them at school and, when they told me about what had happened when I was not there. In some of our conversations, some children openly expressed frustration about their lack of autonomy and control over the injustices they experienced at school. For example, Kelly (9, School A) said during a group conversation with other girls from her class, ‘Caitríona is easy to talk to about stuff cause she knows how we feel’. Kelly’s comment suggests that my ‘least adult’ persona meant that I had built up a good level of trust with her and her peer group, which also helped me to collect rich in-depth qualitative data from children at this school.
Discussion
In order to negotiate …‘moral complications’ (Soffer and Ben-Arieh, 2014) that could arise when adopting a least adult persona researchers need to have strong interpersonal skills and an ability to adopt and maintain multiple roles within the research setting. Indeed, striking a balance between maintaining rapport with children and adults is a particularly challenging aspect of qualitative school-based research that requires consideration during the research design phase.
From my research experiences, I found that adopting a least adult role increased my opportunity to build rapport and to collect rich in-depth qualitative data within the school setting. I also found that when I had access to conduct participant observations for longer periods in schools I built more trust and rapport with children and teachers. More importantly ‘time’ allowed me gain deeper insights into children’s social worlds. Longer access periods also facilitated naturalised behaviour from all parties due to their gradual normalisation of my presence.
However, my critical reflections of my experiences of gaining and maintaining longer periods of access in schools also raises some queries about why schools can seem overly cautious towards facilitating qualitative school-based research.
This cautious approach could partly arise from an aspect of Irish schooling and teacher training that does not appear to actively encourage ‘observation’ as a form of continued professional development (CPD) for teachers. 9 Teachers are provided opportunities to experience observation in the classroom in two main ways; as part of their probationary assessment process 10 and during Whole School Evaluations (WSE). Although it is theoretically possible that some teachers may not experience a WSE (O’ Donovan, 2013). This implies that teachers are largely dependent upon their individual schools’ management to encourage and/or to facilitate opportunities for them to experience (informal) collegial peer-to-peer and/or (formal) assessment-based observations in the classroom. I suggest that this could unintentionally foster a schooling culture that shies away from using observations to further teacher’s CPD. Furthermore, if teachers and pupils alike are not given due opportunities to view observations in a more positive light, they could construe any kind of observation as a negative form of assessment/surveillance. A situation like this could inadvertently result in schools also shying away from facilitating qualitative research that uses participant observations. This being said, schools are very busy places and the practicalities of fulfilling a myriad of tasks within a short school year can hinder schools from being able to facilitate time-hungry research activities (such as participant observations).
Conclusion and recommendations
Participating in children’s social activities (if possible) and observing their behaviours are paramount aspects of qualitative research. Nevertheless, researchers who aim to conduct research within the school setting need to be cognisant of social and cultural contexts that can pose significant challenges when seeking research access for longer periods. In addition, researchers (as much as practicable) need to ensure that participants have a good understanding about what their participation in qualitative research involves. To ameliorate the issues I have highlighted, I recommend that communication and open conversation is necessary between researchers, schools and teachers prior, during and after data collection to better understand what the research process involves. I also recommend when considering school-based research that researchers give themselves extra time (if possible) to build relationships with adult stakeholders (prior to entering the field) as this could iron out any issues relating to access during data collection. Finally, researchers need to be honest about their level of communication skills. They need to be able to utilise their strengths as communicators because verbal and non-verbal communication is paramount when working with child and adult participants within the primary school setting.
Footnotes
Author's Note
Caitríona Fitzgerald is also affiliated with Maynooth University, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland.
Acknowledgments
The author is sincerely appreciative of the children and schools who participated in this research. She also thanks Drs Lorraine Gilleece and Sharon Nelis (Educational Research Centre) for their support.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author was awarded The John and Pat Hume Scholarship to conduct this research as part of her PhD.
