25/07/2011 by lizit.

I am an insider in my research domain.

Reading an article recommended by a colleague on insider research (Hellawell, 2006) raises the possibility of there being different dimensions to insider research, and that my position might vary in different aspects of my research and in relation to different participants.

My research focuses on the Special Educational Needs (SEN) system and uses the lens of the experiences of parents and practitioners involved with children and young people with diagnoses of Aspergers or high functioning autism (HFA).

I am an insider in that I have a son with Aspergers and I have had involvement  with the SEN system in negotiating to get his needs met. I am also an insider as I have an ongoing relationship with other parents who have children on the autism spectrum, or who are going through the diagnostic process. I share a lot in common with other parents both in terms of understanding and navigating the SEN system and in terms of coping with the effect of having a child with Aspergers on daily living and dealing with the many and varied effects on family life and on me personally as a mother.

However, I am also interested in the perspectives of practitioners in the domain. In a sense, I am a practitioner as I facilitate a support group, but my experience in that role is very different from those practitioners who are responsible for diagnosing the condition, recommending interventions or providing support. At the same time, I have nearly 20 years experience of working in social care organisations, so I have experience of making decisions and recommendations that affect the lives of other. Although I may be seen as an ‘outsider’ by the practitioners I interview in professional terms, I do have some understanding of the pressures and influences they work under, and that does influence my approach.

There is also the question of the extent to which both practitioners and parents form a community of practice within the domain. Although this is not the focus of my research, it is clear that there is much shared knowledge and language between people coming from different places in the domain.

A useful article in enabling me to see that doing insider researcher is more complex than simply questions of making assumptions about common understanding or giving access that might not otherwise be so readily available.

Hellawell, D. 2006. Inside–Out: Analysis of the Insider–Outsider Concept as a Heuristic Device to Develop Reflexivity in Students Doing Qualitative Research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 483-494.

Posted in community of practice, Aspergers/HFA, methodology, reflections | Print | No Comments »

25/06/2011 by lizit.

When I set up this blog, it was to support my DPhil studies. I knew that the process I was engaging with would be a journey. What I didn’t know was what the nature of the journey would turn out to be, but I knew the destination I had in mind was what my husband refers to as a “Big D”. I still have some way to go - all being well, I will submit my thesis towards the middle of next academic year - but a tweet has led me to reflect a little on the journey so far, with its various twists and turns. Rather than being a reflective essay, this had turned into more a narrative description of the this happened, then this, but so be it.

Jeffrey Keefer simply asked: “No CoP space in your research? Wonder why that may be the case….” Given that at one point, I had expected CoP, or communities of practice to be fairly centre stage, I also wondered why.

The seeds of my DPhil journey were almost certainly planted over a period of time and without my conscious awareness. If I think back about 6 years, my focus was probably on retirement preparation. Apart from a small tutoring contract with the Open University, I had given up my paid employment to sort out appropriate support for my son’s special educational needs. I was not really thinking of returning to work in any real sense, when the OU advertised consultancy posts with the Information, Advice and Guidance team of the Sussex Learning Network. Although I hadn’t worked directly in that area, I had relevant experience and the pay was attractive, so I put in an application and somewhat to my surprise was appointed. A few months later, consultancies also became available on the Sussex Learning Network e-learning team, and it was suggested I apply. This was a difficult decision, as it would mean moving to a situation of being in virtually full-time employment, but I grasped the nettle and again was appointed.

Becoming an elearning consultant was a turning point. Whereas, I was content to stay with the technology I had learned over the previous ten years, I was now introduced to the world of blogs and wikis and 3-D virtual worlds and social media more generally and found myself relating to people who were engaged in research in this area and had colleagues who were talking of doctoral study. I gently encouraged them, got involved in various projects, but was very clear that a research degree was not for me - it was for younger people. I got further OU contracts involving me in various research projects and found I was enjoying myself. In particular, I was enjoying being able to use skills from years ago, which I had considered I would never have the opportunity to use other than in voluntary capacities, but which I was using and which were being recognised by colleagues - perhaps retirement, endless cups of tea and making lace was not my only potential destination.

I still don’t really know how it happened! One of the areas I began to work in through the elearning consultancy was 3-D virtual worlds. I initiated a project with a colleague at the University of Sussex and one day found myself asking her whether there might be a doctorate in the work we were doing. At that point, my doctoral journey started as she responded positively to my query and a few months later, I found myself a registered student with the intention of doing some comparative work around learning in 3-D virtual environments and learning in the physical world. I can honestly say that doing a PhD was never part of my life plan, and was very surprised to find myself in that place, and although I am now very comfortable with what I am doing, I am still more than a little surprised to find how good the fit is.

Despite best intentions, the planned research didn’t quite work out, but my focus at the end of my first year as a research student was still firmly on learning in 3-D worlds. I was beginning to explore aspects of informal learning and the development of a sense of community. This fitted very much with my experience as a community development worker nearly forty years ago and an ongoing interest in how communities form and develop and how people learn in community. As the research design developed, it was clearly moving well beyond the bounds of Informatics, and my supervisor invited a colleague in the Sociology faculty to a consultation to assist in enabling me to determine the way forward. That meeting proved another turning point. Essentially, the message I took away was that the ideas I was exploring were interesting, but I was looking at a broad area and such work was best undertaken through the narrow lens of a domain I knew well.

Following that meeting, I rapidly re-scoped my research objectives. 3-D virtual worlds were no longer an appropriate domain, for what I wanted to explore as there was an area I knew far better, was much closer to my heart and where the ideas I was interested in were far more relevant. The focus of my research shifted to learning amongst professionals and other carers in the autistic spectrum domain. The central issue focused on learning and why it was that the learning of some professionals was privileged over that of parents and other carers. Policy in this area emphasised partnership, but the system was acknowledged to be adversarial. Was there any evidence of a community of practice embracing professionals from different disciplines? Why were parents included or excluded from this CoP?

So, to return to Jeffrey’s question, my research at that point did have CoP as a central theme.

However, as I began to interview people and to think about the theoretical context, and to refine further my research question, I was forced to accept that no matter how interesting CoPs were, there was a more fundamental question, which was why was the SEN system so adversarial anyway. Rather than looking for examples of co-operative practice, and there are many, it seemed that much of what I read and much of what participants told me used militaristic language to describe relationships within the system. Somewhat surprisingly, I could find little in the literature by way of explanation for why this might be the case. There appeared to be tacit acceptance that the system was adversarial. Even the Green Paper on SEN published 3 months ago, presents the adversarial nature of the system as a reason for change, but does not offer any suggestions as to how the proposed changes will alter this.

So thus far, my journey as taken me from positioning myself outside academic research, to tentative first steps in exploring learning in 3-D virtual worlds, to debates about the nature of learning and informal learning, to communities of practice, to why the SEN system is broke. On the way, I have learned about theories I had never heard of before, I have begun to understand things I would previously dismissed, I have questioned myself and my presuppositions, and I have begun to understand the relevance of theory to practical situations and the interplay of research and policy development. I have met and engaged with lots of interesting people and have begun to realise that what I have to say is probably no less worthy that what anybody else has to contribute to various debates.

Communities of practice are central to my thinking, and being part of a community of practice supports my research, but I have somewhat reluctantly had to accept that communities of practice, at this point in time, are not central to my research interests.

The journey continues.

Posted in community of practice, voice, lace, research ideas, reflections, learning | Print | 3 Comments »

19/02/2011 by lizit.

One of the questions I have been considering is the extent to which the practitioners within the autism domain can be considered a single community of practice, or whether there are a number of different communities of practice. My thinking has led me to consider inter-agency working and inter-disciplinary teams and has led me to various studies considering what happens at the boundary between organisations, professions, etc. It would seem that the boundary area can be seen as a place of opportunity, but also a place if disjunction and threat as it requires practitioners to see things from different perspectives to gain a common understanding. It has been suggested that one of the reasons why parents can feel side-lined from professional discussions is that the professionals are so busy sorting out their boundary issues, there is no room for the parental voice. In fact, the informed parent might even be seen as a threat to professional practitioners who are feeling vulnerable as they sort out their identities in an inter-disciplinary context.

The current issue of Sociology  includes an article discussing boundary objects (Fox, 2011). Although the focus of the article is on the adoption of new technologies and innovations, the concept of boundary objects could be of relevance in looking at the relationships that exist at the boundaries between communities of practice. Indeed, the context of the article is one of interdisciplinary working between different communities of practice. Fox suggests that boundary objects enable communication across boundaries and “empower members of different communities to transfer their own knowledge” (p 72).

In the AS domain, and SEN more generally, there are a range of artefacts which are shared between members of different communities of practice. These might include diagnostic reports, IEPs, Statements, etc. Boundary objects are said to allow different communities of practice to learn about each others perspectives and share meaning, but Fox also recognises that if they are inappropriately introduced, the may exacerbate difficulties rather than ameliorating them. He uses the example of Lister’s work in introducing asepsis, showing that originally Lister’s ideas were rejected by the medical establishment as by linking doctors with the introduction of germs to the patient, the doctor was perceived as part of the problem. Once the doctor was seen as part of the solution, with a shift of focus to the benefit of the patient, asepsis became acceptable, and it fitted the spirit of the time which was geared towards greater cleanliness and personal hygiene.

Putting this into an AS context, very often parents are anxious to receive a diagnosis for their child. The diagnostic report provided by the medical team is prized and is perceived by parents as a key to having their child’s needs addressed. However that same report may be seen in a different light by those responsible for educating the child. It may be that the education professionals do not share the medical perception of the child’s needs, or it may be that in order to meet the needs of one child might involve reducing support to another child (all too common a scenario in a world of scarce resources). Further, the formal diagnosis and recognition of a child’s needs might be the first step to the time and resource consuming process of a formal assessment of the child’s SEN and negotiations with the local authority to ensure appropriate provision is put in place. The parent might experience the school as obstructive rather than enabling in responding to the diagnostic report and addressing their child’s needs.

No doubt other artefacts could be similarly considered.

The question is, how can these artefacts, or border objects, be used to facilitate addressing the needs of children with SEN rather than as problematic.

Fox, N. J. (2011). Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology, 45(1), 70-85.

Posted in struggle, boundaries, community of practice, empowerment, adoption of technology | Print | 1 Comment »

16/12/2010 by lizit.

It’s somewhat of a truism that the doctoral journey is a lonely one, especially for those of us who, for whatever reason, tend to spend more time off campus than on. Even on campus, opportunities for sharing with others can be something of a rarity.

Over the last few weeks, I have begun to join in a weekly chat session on Twitter. On Wednesday evenings between 7.30 and 8.30 a disparate group of research students communicate with each other in 140 character messages on topics like literature review, managing data, writing, etc. The weekly topic is decided in advance via a poll. We share resources, realise we are not alone and hold each other to account. The fact that we are working in different areas - and sometimes different countries - is irrelevant as we are able to offer each other that sense of not being alone.

When the idea of a Twitter chat was mooted to me, my immediate thought was it couldn’t work; 140 characters would be too restrictive to say anything meaningful. How wrong I was!

If there are any research students out there reading this and feeling isolated, do take a look at #phdchat on Twitter and consider joining us next Wednesday - or any Wednesday that you happen to be free!

Posted in community of practice, social learning | Print | 5 Comments »

02/08/2010 by lizit.

One of my ongoing interests, which I referred to at the end of my last blog, is the sense of struggle which seems to be present in so many accounts of parents in relation to getting the needs of their children with autism met.

At the moment, one of the things I am working on is mapping what I refer to as the autistic spectrum domain. By this I am thinking of the different systems which together provide support and care to children on the spectrum or which otherwise impinge on their lives. This includes the diagnostic system (mainly health focused), the education system (which actually seems to be made up of a series of sub-systems with a divide between the school, where children learn, and the administrative systems, which determine resources and which decide on the appropriate school and whether or not to assess the child’s SEN), the social care system (which many families will have no contact with but which others may receive respite care or other services from and which may become involved if a child is placed in a residential school). These systems exist within a number of other systems or constraints which are less involved directly with the child and their family - the political/policy making system which determines the law and how it is interpreted, the legal system which both ensures the law is adhered to but also adjusts the law through case decisions, the financial systems which determine how much money is made available to local authorities to provide for the needs of people with disabilities - and the other side of the financial system which involves the benefits available to children and families and the affect of having a child with a disability on the earning capacity of parents and the costs incurred in raising the child.

I have been struck by references to the number of professionals involved in the life of a child with SEN. Chrissie Rogers and Katie Truss both list the professionals involved with their own children at given points in time and their accounts resonate with my experience. Reading a chapter written by Anne Edwards and Ioanna Kinti is causing me to reflect on whether one of the reasons for the struggle metaphor being used so often relates to the numbers of professionals involved.

Edwards and Kinti focus on boundary issues between professionals. They discuss the opportunities and struggles inherent in boundary places: “when boundaries are pushed out to include more people within them, threats to exclusive expertise, meaning-making and identity ensue.” There is a clear indication that parents are very much at the periphery when professionals are readjusting their own boundaries and coming to understand the professional practices of other disciplines. It was only as “practitioners from different backgrounds were able to recognise how much they shared professional values, they were able to work together on the common task ….”

A key question for me continues to be that of how is the expertise of the parent acknowledged and how does the parent become recognised as a practitioner in a community of practice - and indeed the issue of whether there is actually a community of practice or a collection of tribes warring for supremacy!

Edwards, A., & Kinti, I. (2010). Working relationally at organisational boundaries. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity Theory in Practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 126-139). London and New York: Routledge.
Rogers, C. (2007). Parenting and Inclusive Education: Discovering Difference, Experiencing Difficulty. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Truss, C. (2008). Peter’s story: reconceptualising the UK SEN system. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 365 - 377.

Posted in struggle, boundaries, community of practice, ASD | Print | No Comments »

18/07/2010 by lizit.

Like many research students, one of my concerns is the need for some kind of originality in the work I am undertaking. I am still unsure exactly what that means - and how much originality is necessary - but it seems to relate to various different things.

It could be originality of method - not so much inventing a new methodology as using existing methodologies in different ways.

It could be exploring an area which hasn’t been explored before.

It could be exploring an area which has been explored before but from a different perspective.

It could be bringing a range of ideas from different areas together and looking at how they interconnect and may provide a different way of looking at an area.

The more I read about my area of interest - the learning journeys of those involved in caring for and supporting children and young people on the autistic spectrum - the more work I realise has already been done. I also realise that much of this work has been done from very specific perspectives: the support needs of parents following diagnosis; the parent as advocate; the continued professional development of teachers or doctors or social workers; the role of electronic media in informing patients. Although partnership is a theme - partnership between parents and professionals in various settings - it is unclear how much this is a reality most of the time, although there is a fair bit about the advocacy role of parents.

One of the possible areas of interest is the contrast between the formal processes and the informal processes, for example what the code of practice says should happen and what happens in practice - and why don’t the two match up. Another area is the whole question of whether there is an autistic spectrum community of practice. If it exists, where does it exist and in what form? Or is it a number of discrete areas of expertise in which some participants are able to act as gatekeepers giving access to their area of expertise, or infiltrators gaining knowledge of another area.

Looking at learning journeys is about the various ways in which people learn about the spectrum. Knowing that there is a mix of formal, informal and serendipitous probably doesn’t tell us much of itself, but when this is applied to the outputs of the domain, i.e. the services, resources, support, etc, and the decision making processes, life gets very interesting.

Posted in decision making, resources, systems, community of practice, learning, reflections, planning | Print | 1 Comment »

03/06/2010 by lizit.

I’m reading Merrill and West’s book on using biographical methods and working through the first set of transcriptions. Perhaps inevitably, there is a lot of stuff going on in my head.

Perhaps one of the key learning points is seeing just how much my own perspective colours how I understand others. I was working on one of the transcriptions yesterday and can see very much the psychodynamics of the interaction and why I found it so difficult. At the same time, I can see how in other interactions, transference was working differently with me feeling far more positive about the exchange.

I am interested by the section on analysis - and the different ways in which Merrill and West approach the task. West’s use of the gestalt - a holistic approach - resonates with me, but I can also see how looking at the parts can be useful, as long as this does not become mechanistic when key ideas and insights can be lost within a category rather than the significance being recognised.

Perhaps because I am reading other people’s stories, I am also returning to my own. Although this stems as well from my attempts at diagramming the autistic spectrum domain, I found myself remembering the nightmare scenario of the only respite that could be offered to a troubled young man was a police cell - and having mental health workers in my house telling me I had no option but to ring the police as they had no appropriate provision (and they were from the tier 4 regional mental health services!). There is something totally wrong about a child acquiring a criminal record - a formal warning - for behaviour within the home stemming directly from a neurological condition.

But that points to the complexity of the domain. It may well be that it is possible to envision the people working as a community of practice, but the people come from different organisations and each organisation has its own procedures, systems and structures and each is involved in making available or rationing scare resources. A person might well see the relevance of making a particular provision, but that person also has a role within a system and…. Maybe it is easier and safer for those employed to care for and support people on the spectrum not to know too much about systems and organisations other than their own. Maybe too, this is when I have to look again at the work of Harry Daniels and Anne Edwards…

Merrill, B., & West, L. (2009). Using Biographical Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving Inter-professional Collaborations: Multi-agency working for children’s wellbeing. London: Routledge.
Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2010). Activity Theory in Practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.

Posted in biography, systems, community of practice, Aspergers/HFA, narratives, reflections | Print | 1 Comment »

11/05/2010 by lizit.

Silence doesn’t mean there is no thinking or doing - just that I haven’t got round to pulling my ideas together in any coherent way!

One of the ideas I have been playing with is the autistic spectrum domain as a community of practice. In some ways it fits the model, but in other ways it is more an amalgam of several communities of practice, not all of which share identical goals, values, etc. That has taken me into thinking about tribes and whether the autistic domain is made up of a number of tribal groupings rather than CoPs.  Either way, it makes mapping the domain tricky. I’ve got some diagrams, but somehow they don’t tell the whole story.

I’m increasingly aware that I am looking at, and talking about, a domain, a system (or interlocking of subsystems which may not form a system) and there is a very real danger of forgetting that there is a child at the centre.

What are the processes of the different subsystems and what are they acting on - the person or something/someone else?

A whole series of metaphors come to mind - battlefield, maze, jungle, snakes and ladders …

Also thinking about autistic domain in context - it doesn’t exist in isolation. Apart from current debates about diagnosis and inclusion, there is a whole back history of attitudes to learning disabilities and impairment and another history of attitudes to how children should behave and behaviour disturbances. Just what did we do with children who didn’t behave as it was thought they should in the past?

Against this reading again some of Griff Foley’s and Rachel Gouin’s ideas about learning in the context of social struggle and their emphasis on lived experience. Is there a link between social struggle in a socio-political context and struggle getting the needs met of a child on the autistic spectrum?

Posted in community of practice, ASD, learning | Print | No Comments »