Inequality
in Education – Innovation in Methods: Reflections and Considerations
Siobhan Dytham and Carli Ria Rowell,
University of Warwick
Abstract
Against a backdrop of metamorphosis in
the UK educational landscape and the increased focus on ‘innovation’ in
research funding and postgraduate programmes, a conference entitled ‘Inequality
in Education – Innovation in Methods’ (IEIM) was held at the University of
Warwick in November 2014 to offer space to reflect on ‘inequality in education’
as a field of research and the impact, and future prospect for ‘innovation in
method’ in this field. This article offers reflections and considerations based
on the IEIM conference and the articles contained in the resulting special
section published in this journal. The article argues that innovation in
methods offers new and exciting directions in terms of increased understanding
of inequality in education. The article also discusses the possibilities that
innovative methods offer in terms of including a wider range of participants in
research and increasing opportunities for participants to be involved with the
research process and communicate effectively. The article ends with some
ethical considerations in relation to new and innovative research methods
before drawing to a conclusion.
Keywords: Inequality, Education, Innovation,
Research Methods, Ethics, Visual Methods
Introduction
Against a backdrop of increasing focus
on ‘innovation’ in research funding and postgraduate programmes, a conference entitled
‘Inequality in Education – Innovation in Methods’ (IEIM) was held at the
University of Warwick in November 2014 to offer space to reflect on ‘inequality
in education’ as a field of research and the impact, and future prospect for
‘innovation in method’ in this field. This article offers reflections and
considerations based on the IEIM conference and the articles contained in the
resulting featured section published in this journal.
This article highlights that central
to the theme of ‘innovation in methods’ is that of students and participants,
as opposed to career motivated reasons such as increased funding or publication
opportunities. The dissatisfaction in ‘traditional methods’ is also discussed
and considered as well as the opportunities that innovative methods may create
to tackle this dissatisfaction such as including more diverse participants in
research. This leads to a discussion of ethics both in terms of the ethics of
innovative research methods, but also the potential ethical problems of not
adapting and creating new research methods and therefore excluding those who,
for whatever reason, are not able to participate in research through the
‘traditional methods’. Finally a consideration of the interpretation and
analysis of the data produced through innovative methods is discussed.
Reflections and Considerations
Within this article we have sought to
reflect more broadly on the conference and discuss some of the core themes and
issues that were raised as well as considering how these can relate to the
concept(s) of ‘innovation’ in research and how these ‘innovations’ relate to
the field of ‘inequality in education’.
Firstly, a particularly strong theme
that ran throughout the conference and the articles in this collection was that
of students and participants. It is encouraging to think of innovation in this
way and of innovation being focused on participants, whether through reaching
new groups, working in better ways with new or existing groups or helping to
facilitate student voice, rather than innovation being driven by more
‘researcher motivated’ reasons such as increased funding possibilities or
simply ‘advancing the field of knowledge’ without considering participants or
what benefit this new knowledge might have for them. As previously mentioned,
the focus on ‘innovation’ in terms of publishing or research grant
opportunities means that the focus on students as discussed here can’t be taken
as a given. However, at this conference at least, it still seems to be one of
the main drivers for researchers and an important aspect of ‘innovation’,
particularly in the field of inequality in education.
Secondly, we note that in many of the
conference papers and the discussions that followed there seemed to be
dissatisfaction or a recognising of the limitations of ‘the interview’ as a
research method. The interview and related methods are often seen as the
dominant method through which to collect data in qualitative research. An
important aspect of some of the innovations discussed at this conference was
making alterations to this dominant method or simply using alternative methods
to overcome what was seen as some of the restrictions or limitations of
interviewing. In this special section, Ingram (2015) highlights how working
with plasticine and then discussing their creations helped the young men in her
research access and discuss emotions as it was easier to talk about the model
than ‘me’. This enabled her to engage with the students and consider emotions
that may not have been accessible or easy for them to
discuss in a traditional interview context. As a further and example, Shepherd
(2015) discusses using a variety of methods such as walking interviews and
participant created photographs to work with students with autism. Again, the
traditional interview was not entirely appropriate for this context. During the
conference a whole variety of reasons for wanting to use additional or
alternative methods to the interview were discussed, whether this was to enable
the inclusion of different types of participants in the research, or wanting to
access emotions or issues which may not be accessible through an interview, or
wanting to engage hard to reach groups, or wanting to enable students to
communicate and express their views without being restricted to an interview
format, or to research different modalities and gain a deeper more nuanced
understanding of a certain topic. As such, an array of additional and
alternative methods were discussed, for example video, art based research,
plasticine modelling, participant generated photographs and student drawings.
Related to this issue about adding,
adapting and replacing the interview method with ‘innovative’ methods, an
important comment was made about the relative reach and representation claims
of social research. Although interviews often tend to be the dominant
methodology, this conference really highlighted many of the groups and issues
that these methods may not be particularly effective to research and gain an
understanding of. As such, potentially many people are being missed out or
miss-represented by our methods and methodological choices. The title of the
conference, ‘Inequality in Education – Innovation in Methods’, is important
here. Should the research focus and type of participants we work with be
limited or decided by our choice of research methods? Or should the research
methods be chosen, altered and adapted to suite the research focus or type of
participants we are working with? It seems the latter is more desirable,
otherwise when researching inequality in education we run the risk of
recreating inequality by only working with participants, or asking research
questions, which can easily be addressed with our current methods and
methodologies, meaning that we exclude anyone who, for whatever reason, cannot
fully participate in these methods. In each of the articles included in this
section the authors give examples of how methods have been used to work with,
engage, give voice, include, and help different groups of students to communicate
and participate in research. ‘Innovation in Methods’ was therefore felt to
address ‘Inequality in Education’ not just as a research topic, but through the
creation of more adaptive, inclusive methods which allow wider groups of
participants to be involved and enables them to communicate with us
effectively, thus tackling inequality in education research as well as the
research topic of ‘inequality in education’.
A third theme emerging from the
conference was that of ethics. The issue of ethics is central to social
research and so too it comes as no surprise that the notion of ethics in
innovative research arose as a theme central to the conference. Throughout the
conference, speakers highlighted the ways in which video, model making, and
drawing enabled them to elicit deeply held information otherwise unattainable
through somewhat more traditional and static methods in their attempt to
embrace and understand the participant’s social world. Model making and drawing
were of significant interest given their propensity to enable participant’s to
create and then reflect, thus enabling them to gain an insight into the ways in
which individuals present themselves, understand their own biography and
connect to the wider social world. Much discussion was devoted to exploring the
ethical issues associated with methods that serve to reach a deeper emotional
level with the question: “Are there ethical issues when using methods which
reach these deeper, emotional levels?” stimulating much debate. If these new
methods can offer new depth and access otherwise inaccessible emotions,
information and feelings, does this pose an ethical problem? It is acknowledged
here, and was advised at the conference, that this is not something a
researcher should enter into lightly and is something they should consider when
planning ‘innovative’ methods. Does extra support need to be offered to
participants? If participants find this process upsetting or distressing what
will be done? And, in more extreme cases or particularly sensitive topics, is
it ethical to conduct this research in this way if participants may access deep
feelings or emotions which they may not have encountered if they had not
participated in the research? Whilst, as discussed earlier, innovative methods
can have many positive aspects in that they can be liberating and foster
greater participant inclusion and research-participant collaboration, the ‘new’
is always, at least partly, unknown and whilst this should not prevent
innovation, researchers should consider the implications.
At the conference delegates
acknowledged and raised the concern that as researchers the tool we give the
participant ultimately influences what they come up with. It is in this vein
that it was argued that the findings are a product of the methods as much as
the individual and that ethically we need to consider the implications of such
factors through every stage of social research. It is important to reflect
critically on the methods we have used and the implications this may have for
the findings of our study and the way in which the participants in our research
are represented.
A final point in relation to ethics is
that of anonymisation. At the conference it was noted that using video and
photographs can create many difficulties in terms of anonymisation and
participant confidentiality. Again, it was felt that this should not prevent
researchers from using visual methods, however, extra care should be taken when
explaining the use of these methods to participants and gaining consent to use the
data generated.
To conclude on the topic of ethics in
innovative research, what became apparent was the fact that at every stage of
innovative research, from conception to execution and dissemination, there is
the constant need to think through the ethical issues involved in a way that
places the participant at the heart of the research. As Nind et al (2013: 664)
write, ‘both ethics and innovation are about reflexivity as well as technique’,
therefore although there seems to be a tension between innovation and ethics,
the two are not incompatible and in fact the reflexive process central to both
good innovation and ethical practice can be mutually beneficial.
At the conference significant
discussion was accorded to the use of visual research such as drawings, videos
and, to a lesser extent, model making. Specifically questions were raised
regarding the interpretation and analysis of such data with much attention
accorded to the notion of second-order representation and interpretation. To
illustrate such, Syyeda (2015) drew upon participant illustrations in order to
access and understand learner’s attitudes towards Mathematics. During the
conference Farhat Syyeda talked the audience through the use of images drawn by
participants in order to access attitudes and in doing so the question: “How do
we know our interpretations are valid? Particularly when using visual methods”
was raised by conference attendees. Delegates communicated and shared with the
audience what they understood by the drawings that participants had created. In
doing so what was acknowledged was the idiosyncratic ways in which one
interprets and responds to an image. What one image may mean to one person may
mean something completely different to another, visual references and metaphors
were acknowledged as being to an extent subjective. As Classen argues, despite
the extent to which we might think it to be, seeing is not natural and just as
all other sensory experiences, the interpretation of what one sees is
historically and culturally specific (Classen 1993). The representations that
one derives from vision, paintings, film, drawing and photographs beyond that
forms on ones retina, the image that is interpreted by the brain is a product
of intentionality. This was a theme widely acknowledged by delegates and
central to the day.
Conclusion
Although over the past few decades
vast progress has been made in tackling inequality in education, inequalities
still persist. Research focusing on inequality in education is essential in
gaining a better understanding of inequality and to allow further progress to
be made. Although, It should also be remembered that inequality does not just
exist in institutions of education but also within educational inequality
research itself, through the frameworks and methodological choices made to
research that inequality and the potential exclusionary consequences of these
choices. Through a combination of existing methods as well as new methods and
innovations, this field of research can help researchers to question, challenge
and address these inequalities and allow greater and wider participant
involvement in research as well as more in-depth and considered understandings
of the inequality in educational institutions and policies. Innovation in
methods therefore offers positive and exciting prospects for future research.
It is, however, also important to note that care should be taken to ensure that
innovations are evaluated and critiqued and that any additional ethical
considerations arising from such innovations are considered.
Innovation in education research is an
exciting topic which is ongoing and whilst there are issues to be further
discussed and debated, this conference highlighted the huge possibilities for
innovation in education research in the future and the new and interesting
possibilities this opens up. Innovation isn’t done just because it’s new or
different or just for the sake of it. The best innovation is targeted and
chosen for a specific purpose, as demonstrated by the presentations and
following discussions at this conference.
References
Classen, C. (1993), Words of Sense:
Exploring the senses in history and across cultures, London: Routledge
Heal, J.F., (2015), Research with
School Students: Four Innovative Methods Used to Explore Effective Teaching
communities’, Exchanges, 2(2), 263-276
Ingram, N. (015), ‘Boundary Drawing:
art meets research’, Exchanges, 2(2), 228-230
Nind, M., Wiles, R.A., Bengry-Howell,
A. and Grow, G.P. (2013) ‘Methodological Innovation and Research Ethics: Forces
in tension or forces in harmony?’, Qualitative Research 13(6), 650–667
Nind, M., (2015), ‘Changing the social
relations of research – innovation and orthodoxy’, Exchanges, 2(2),
230-233
Shepherd, J., (2015), ‘Interrupted
Interviews’: listening to young people with autism in transition to college’, Exchanges, 2(2), 249-262
Syyeda, F.B., (2015), ‘A Picture is
Worth a Thousand Words: Examining learners’ illustrations to understand
Attitudes towards Mathematics’, Exchanges, 2(2), 234-248