| Summary: | This study has been conducted and constructed within the context of practitioner research and focuses on my interpretations and experiences in attending two, multi-agency, decision making meetings. I was initially interested in the effect of "facticity" (the content or quality of a description that makes a description seem factual) and "institutionality" (the impact of the institutional role and the language of that role) on the decision making processes. However, during the course of the research the factual accuracy of a participant's description or account did not always seem to be the most significant or relevant factor in that decision making process. Through a linguistic and ethnographical analysis of the recorded data, descriptions which initially presented as objective and contained features that built up "facticity" were accounted for in the decision making process but only insofar as such descriptions were deemed to be compatible with and legitimate within, the institutional procedures and constraints of the meetings. My interpretations of the evidence (obtained via observation, analysis of recorded data and reflection) suggest that for some participants, it was the ways in which descriptions were constructed which were of particular relevance. Participants' institutional roles and responsibilities seemed to affect their contributions, though such responsibilities were not necessarily made clear and explicit for other participants. I also began to see that the institutional context of the meetings and the signing off of previously agreed agendas were important features affecting the decisions taken, over and above the factual accuracy of participants' descriptions. Not withstanding these interpretations of the data, by reflecting on my own contributions during the meetings, it became apparent that the most important aspect of the research related to my own practice. I found that I did not take all my principles into my practice. I did not correct factual misunderstandings of other participants and I became frustrated when I felt that the participants were not being open and honest or when they introduced ancillary and (in my opinion) irrelevant topics into the conversations. In relation to understanding my own practice, what I chose not to say rather than what I did say, proved to be revealing and informative. Perhaps the principal outcome of the research and the particular methodology which I eventually adopted is its analysis of and reflection on professional practice and the implications for the future participation of educational psychologists within multi-professional meetings.
|
|---|
