McCluskey’s Qualitative Study “Exclusion From School?” Essay

In the article, author had applied Heinz Klein and Michael Myers’ methodology of qualitative research, while analyzing Gillean McCluskey’s qualitative study “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?”. In its turn, this had brought him to the following set of conclusions, in regards to the extent of McCluskey study’s academic validity:

1. “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” corresponds rather well to the first principle of qualitative research (The Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle), as defined by Klein and Myers, because it in McCluskey had proven her ability to utilize empirically obtained data to support study’s overall theoretical soundness: “In her article McCluskey had proven herself fully capable of understanding the epistemological technicalities of how “part” relates to a “whole” and vice versa”. Throughout study’s entirety, McClusckey has gone a great length exposing how her initial assumption as to counter-productive essence of disciplinary exclusion is being manifested in learning field-environment. In its turn, this allowed the author of an analytical article to conclude that McCluskey did a good job on establishing semiotic links between study’s theoretical premises and its practical implications.
2. While pursuing with her research, McCluskey had failed to observe the second principle for conducting qualitative study (The Principle of Contextualization), because there are no indications in “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” as to author’s understanding of the fact that is solely along the lines of currently existing neo-Liberal political discourse that her conclusions appear being logically substantiated. However, given the fact that historical discourses last only for so long, it would be only logical to conclude that McCluskey’s ideas will become outdated as soon as political circumstances change: “The ideas contained in “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” will only remain valid for as long as the practice of designing educational policies in this country continues to be affected by political considerations, on the part of promoters of “multiculturalism” in governmental offices”. Therefore, McCluskey’s study cannot be considered as such that is being conducted along the lines of second principle of qualitative research. Apparently, it never occurred to McCluskey that the process of British academic standards’ liberalization has spatial subtleties – that is, this process cannot be discussed as such that is being objectively predetermined, but rather as such that is meant to serve purely political purposes. And yet – politicians come and go but British long-established system of education remains.
3. For as long as McCluskey’s ability to observe the third principle of qualitative research (The Principle of Interaction between the Researchers and the Subjects) is being concerned, author concludes she has only been partially successful. Whereas, McCluskey did succeed in applying proper methodological approach to the process of collecting sociological data, she nevertheless had failed at distancing herself from this data’s moral implications: “Author had failed to realize that it is conceptually inappropriate to treat the subjects of sociological research as such that are being capable of exerting influence onto the system of coordinates, within the context of which these people’s existential anxieties are being discussed”. This can be explained by the fact that McCluskey was unable to remain thoroughly objective, while conducting a study, due to her involvement with politics, which is being continuously implied, throughout study’s entirety. While being an intelligent individual, McCluskey was well aware that she could only gain academic credits by adjusting her study’s conclusions to correspond to the irrational dogmas of political correctness. However, this simultaneously deprived “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” of much of its actual academic validity.
4. There is a plenty of evidence as to the fact that McCluskey’s findings cannot be referred to as being universally applicable to educational problematics in other countries, which significantly undermines their overall legitimacy. This is the foremost reason why author had concluded that McCluskey’s study does not correspond to the fourth principle of qualitative research (The Principle of Abstraction and Generalization): “Even though McCluskey’s study contains numerous generalizations as to how pupils perceive the practice of academic exclusion, these generalizations appear being utterly unsubstantiated”. It appears that, throughout her study, McCluskey was primarily focused on trying to establish links between student’s psychological anxieties and the fact that they are being subjected to academic discipline, even though that there many legitimate reasons to think that these anxieties cannot be discussed outside of students’ racial affiliation. Yet, this fact has only been briefly mentioned in “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?”, which can be thought of yet another proof of McCluskey’s lack of intellectual integrity.
5. Given the fact that there are numerous instances of McCluskey being utterly uncritical towards the inexorableness of its study’s conclusions, author had no choice but to refer to her study as such that has been conducted without the observation of a fifth principle of qualitative research (The Principle of Dialogical Reasoning): “Author continued to remain affected by her deep-seated ideological prejudices, in regards to the concept of educational discipline”. Even though that “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” does not suggest this explicitly, there can be little doubt that study implicitly promotes the idea that the very concept of educational discipline must eventually be disposed off, simply because it does not quite correlate with concept of “multicultural classroom”. In its turn, this serves as an indication of the fact that, while conducting her study, McCluskey was never able to critically assess her own ideological prejudices: “Despite the fact that McCluskey study’s argumentation appears being formally objective, it is nevertheless corresponds rather well to author’s anti-racist prejudices. And, the progressive sounding of these prejudices does not make them less prejudicious”. Apparently, McCluskey was unable to realize that her well-meaning but utterly meaningless ideas, concerned with ensuring “equality” in multicultural classroom, are nothing but intellectual by-products of her irrational psyche, which is why they can have no place within scientific study.
6. While conducting her study, McCluskey did not observe the sixth principle of qualitative research (The Principle of Multiple Interpretations), simply because “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” does not offer alternative interpretations as to the meaning of a collected data. And yet, study’s findings can be interpreted in a variety of different ways: “The apparent sameness of study participants’ reactions can be easily interpreted as the ultimate proof of researcher’s incompetence – it might very well be the case that McCluskey had simply failed to invest an adequate amount of effort in designing study’s procedures, which is why students were becoming confused, while being presented with improperly formulated questions in the questionnaire”. As author had rightly suggested, McCluskey expected her conclusions to be simply accepted as only the legitimate ones, without realizing that this could hardly be done, due to the apparent complexity of her study’s subject matter. Therefore, the validity of McCluskey’s study is being significantly undermined by author’s inability to recognize the existence of alternative interpretations as to obtained data.
7. There are no indications in McCluskey’s study of its author being aware of what the seventh principle of qualitative research (The Principle of Suspicion) stands for, simply because, as it appears out of study’s context, McCluskey never doubted the full legitimacy of students’ responses. And yet, as author had pointed out: “There is a plenty of indirect evidence in the study as to the fact that, while reacting to presented questions, many students were driven by considerations of personal interest”. Therefore, there were no objective reasons for the author to refer to “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” as such that has been conducted along the lines of seventh principle of qualitative research, which in its turn, can be explained by McCluskey’s lowered analytical abilities.

Thus, it appears that only one out of seven principles of qualitative research has been thoroughly observed in McCluskey’s study, which prevented author from referring to “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” as fully legitimate qualitative study.