Educational Discourse and the Autistic Student: a Study Using Q-Sort Methodology
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Educational discourse and the autistic student: a study using Q-sort methodology by Damian Elgin Maclean Milton A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Reference Number: ERN 13-0875 Autism Centre for Education and Research School of Education College of Social Sciences University of Birmingham September 2015 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract With some notable exceptions (e.g. Jones et al., 2012), current guidance regarding best practice for the education of children on the autism spectrum often reflects a medical / behavioural model approach that seeks to remediate perceived deficits (Cumine et al., 1998; Hanbury, 2005; Hewitt, 2005; Worth, 2005; Hagland and Webb, 2009). Such advice can be contrasted with that given by autistic writers (Sainsbury, 2000; Lawson, 2010) often situating itself within a social model of disability. This study utilised Q-sort methodology (n = 60), followed by qualitative interviews (n = 6) to investigate the ideology and priorities of differing stakeholders, including autistic adults, parents of autistic children, practitioners and academics working in the field, and those occupying multiple positions, regarding the education of autistic pupils of secondary-school age. Eight factors were extracted through the PoetQ application for analysis. Two of these factors were dominant within the data-set. One represented a critical radical pedagogy frequently favoured by autistic adults, the other an approach akin to a Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) model often preferred by non-autistic parents. Practitioners and academics were found to hold a less-defined eclectic approach between these two main factors. The thesis concludes with a reflection regarding this ‘three-way dispositional problem’ and offers a number of recommendations for future research and practice. For Nye Acknowledgements The journey to completing this thesis could be said to have started long ago, and so I would like to thank those who have helped to support my academic progress through various courses undertaken in the past, in particular Tony Walter, Mark Neal, Christie Davies, Mavis Cracknell and Robert Fletcher. I would also like to thank all of the academic and autism-related organisations and colleagues that I have worked with, including: The University of Reading, Goldsmiths’ College, The University of Kent, London South Bank University, the Autscape community, Ambitious about Autism, The Autism Education Trust and related partners, Research Autism, and the National Autistic Society. Thanks also to my colleagues from the Theorising Autism Project: Susy Ridout, Lyte Moon, Dinah Murray and Larry Arnold, and from the Justice for LB campaign, especially Sara Ryan and George Julian for their continuing support and inspiration. Special mention needs to go to my supervisors for this thesis, initially Mitzi Waltz for introducing me to the field without letting me become lost in it, and to Kerstin Wittemeyer and Glenys Jones for seeing me through to the end of this part of my academic journey. Final thanks need to be given to my family for helping to keep me on my path. List of Acronyms ABA – Applied Behavioural Analysis AET – Autism Education Trust APA – American Psychological Association ARGH – Autistic Rights Group Highlands ASAN – Autistic Self-Advocacy Network ASD / ASC – Autism Spectrum Disorder / Autism Spectrum condition DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ICD – International Classifications of Disease IEP – Individual Education Plan II – Intensive Interaction LB – ‘Laughing Boy’ (Connor Sparrowhawk) LSA – Learning Support Assistant NAS – National Autistic Society NCSE – National Council for Special Education (Ireland) N/K – Not known NT – Neurotypical PBS – Positive Behavioural Support PCT – Personal Construct Theory PECS – Picture Exchange Communication System PNT – Predominant Neurotype RDI – Relationship Development Intervention SCERTS – Social Communication, Emotional Regulation and Transactional Support SSt – Social Stories TEACCH – Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children WHO – World Health Organisation Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Use of terminology 1 1.2 Competing narratives regarding the education of autistic children 1 1.3 Outline of thesis 8 1.4 Thesis structure 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Literature regarding the construction of ‘autism’ as a concept 12 2.3 Literature regarding the autistic ‘voice’ (including autobiographical accounts) 25 2.4 Literature concerning educational theory and practice regarding autistic people 35 2.5 Literature regarding emancipatory and participatory research 54 2.6 Summary of Literature review 57 Chapter 3: Methodology 60 3.1 Introduction 60 3.2 Pilot survey 64 3.3 Pilot interviews 64 3.4 Pilot action research project 65 3.5 Discussion of initial pilot studies 66 3.6 Introduction to Q-sort methodology 68 3.7 Piloting the Q-sort method 72 3.8 Findings from initial pilot study 76 3.9 Epistemological concerns 81 3.10 Design 82 3.11 Samples and Sampling 85 3.12 Participants 86 3.13 Procedure 89 3.14 Data analysis techniques employed 90 3.15 Ethical issues 93 3.16 Researcher positionality and ‘potential bias’ 96 Chapter 4: Findings 98 4.1 Introduction 98 4.2 General findings 100 4.3 Overall findings from Q-sort factor analysis 112 4.4 Findings regarding factor 1 114 4.5 Findings regarding factor 2 123 4.6 Findings regarding factor 3 130 4.7 Findings regarding factor 4 133 4.8 Findings regarding factor 5 136 4.9 Findings regarding factor 6 138 4.10 Findings regarding factor 7 141 4.11 Findings regarding factor 8 144 4.12 Comparisons between factors one and two 146 4.13 Level of consensus between factors 149 4.14 Q-sort findings by stakeholder grouping 169 4.15 Z-scores by factor and a priori category 177 4.16 Analysis of follow-up question responses 189 Chapter 5: Meta-analysis 199 5.1 Introduction 199 5.2 A summary comparison of factors extracted 200 5.3 The three-way dispositional problem 221 5.4 A common ground? 226 Chapter 6: Discussion 230 6.1 Introduction 230 6.2 A reflection regarding positionality and bias 233 6.3 ‘Becoming indistinguishable from their peers’ and the ABA debate 238 6.4 Environmental effects on the ability an autistic child has to learn 246 6.5 Presenting the views of differing dispositions in a respectful way 249 6.6 Listening to autistic voices and implementing recommendations and 255 lessons learnt from such views in practice 6.7 Practitioner views and practitioner guidance materials 262 6.8 Parental engagement 265 6.9 Providing practical means by which differing stakeholders can explore 268 their educational priorities in a respectful way 6.10 Methodological discussion 270 Chapter 7: Conclusions and implications 274 7.1 Introduction 274 7.2 Theoretical and practical conclusions and implications 275 7.3 Methodological conclusions and implications 284 7.4 Recommendations for future research 286 7.5 Breaking through the ‘glass sub-heading’ 288 References 291 Appendices 307 Appendix A1: Ethical clearance for thesis 308 Appendix A2: Q-sort score chart 326 Appendix A3: Instructions given to participants for Q-sort pilot studies 327 Appendix A4: PoetQ introductory text 329 Appendix A5: Statement list (or ‘Q-set’) 331 Appendix A6: Written notes of participants from Q-sort pilot study 1 334 Appendix A7: Follow-up interview questions 335 Appendix A8: Recruitment letter 336 Appendix A9: PoetQ Qualitative questions 337 Appendix A10: Sample Q-sort distribution 338 Appendix A11: Z-score correlations for factor 1 340 Appendix A12: Z-score correlations for factor 2 341 Appendix A13: Z-score correlations for factor 3 342 Appendix A14: Z-score correlations for factor 4 343 Appendix A15: Z-score correlations for factor 5 344 Appendix A16: Z-score correlations for factor 6 345 Appendix A17: Z-score correlations for factor 7 346 Appendix A18: Z-score correlations for factor 8 347 Appendix A19: Statement scores – all participants 350 Appendix A20: Q-sort for participant P1 353 Appendix A21: Factor correlation scores by individual Q-sort 356 Appendix A22: Factor array by Q-sort distribution 358 Appendix A23: Transcripts of interview responses 367 Appendix A24: Practice tool for exploring educational priorities 369 Appendix B1: Overview of related publications 371 Appendix B2: Printed copies of related articles 373 List of tables Table 3.8.1: Pilot study Q-sort responses 77 Table 4.2.1: Average ranking of a priori categories 101 Table 4.2.2: Classical Humanist statements 102 Table 4.2.3: Liberal Humanist statements 103 Table 4.2.4: Progressive statements 104 Table 4.2.5: Radical statements 105 Table 4.2.6: Behaviourist statements 106 Table 4.2.7: Functionalist statements 107 Table 4.2.8: RDI-based statements 108 Table 4.2.9: Interactionist statements 108 Table 4.2.10: Enabling environment related statements 109 Table 4.2.11: Building relationships related statements