Repositioning Out-of-School Learning

This chapter describes methodologies used in the project ‘Out-of-school activities and the education gap’. The project explored how the out-of-school environment affects children, whether it impacts on primary school attainment and whether it reinforces existing socioeconomic differences. A mixed-methods approach combined three areas of research: statistical analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) linked to the National Pupil Database (NPD); a qualitative study through interviews with key stakeholders in 10 schools in London and the North East and the articulation of theories of change for how out-of-school activities may affect attainment. Patterns in how children spend their time, and whether and how this affects attainment, were investigated by analysis of the MCS linked to the NPD. Qualitative research with parents, teachers, pupils and activity providers from schools in London and the North-East afforded an in-depth understanding of drivers and barriers influencing how children spend their time and pathways by which activities may affect children's learning and development. The qualitative research also provided a narrative intersectional analysis of responses in terms of class, gender, ethnicity, religion and disability. Mixing quantitative and qualitative research was made difficult by the volume of data and the time needed to analyse and report each area separately, the different nature of data in the three areas of research and the timing of each phase of data collection. However, meaningful combining of methods occurred at the level of research questions and contributed to a more critical analysis of children's out-of-school activities than had been possible before.

This case focusses on how a charity in the United Kingdom uses youth sport programmes to develop what we understood as an aspiration to sculpt ‘good citizens’ (Foucault, 1991). Specifically, our aim was to qualitatively explore how the charity SportHelp worked with urban socioeconomically disadvantaged young people (predominantly aged 8–18) to, in the words of SportHelp's mission statement, ‘improve their lives’ and help them become ‘better individuals’. ¹ More broadly, our research aimed to explore third sector involvement in the shaping of personhood as a means of achieving behavioural change among target social groups (Rose, 1989). Researching this in the context of a complex research site (a charity) entailed making a substantial number of challenging methodological decisions. Though some of these were planned in advance, many others were reactions to unexpected and spontaneous circumstances. In this chapter, we will focus on six areas: adopting a multi-perspectival stakeholder approach; drawing on multiple qualitative methods; the importance of access and flexibility; ethical considerations; reflexivity and the role of the researcher and deciding how to analyse the data. At the end of the chapter, we summarise the two core lessons we learned from conducting research in a non-formal education setting.

Over the course of a two-year project, we set out to investigate the mathematics in children's everyday lives. We recognised the fact that this was a challenging project and that gaining access to children's personal lives would take time and some careful research design. A particular challenge centred on the difficulty of ensuring that our participants shared our understanding of ‘mathematics in everyday life’ and were happy and confident in sharing examples with us. In this chapter, we describe the way that we gradually increased the depth of our understanding of children's experience of mathematics outside of school through a series of studies with groups of primary school children. A structured diary study, and parental survey, allowed us to start a conversation with our participants about the kinds of activities we were interested in. A photo elicitation study then encouraged participants to cross the home-school boundary and share representations of their lives outside of school. These studies enabled us to develop enough of a shared language to carry out small group interviews with children and explore the mathematical thinking and learning in their out-of-school lives.

In this chapter, I describe a project that sought to explore the ‘lived experience’ of a group of children engaged in on- and off-screen play, during an after-school Minecraft Club. Building on established research methodologies, an approach that I called ‘rhizomic ethnography’ was developed to study this complex site of play. Drawing on the work of Deleuze and Guattari (1987), I demonstrate how this suite of participatory, playful and multimodal approaches, including use of video, comic strips and virtual model making, helped to illuminate the children's collaborative creation of a ‘virtual community’. I explain how employing a range of methods, which often emerged during the process of research, allowed for unexpected meanings to develop and, therefore, afforded new insights into the nature of children's play. Here, I also seek to demonstrate how taking an adaptive and playful approach to research, working in synergy with the research context, could have affordances for examining other examples of children's playful, social interactions.

This chapter focuses on the learning arising from an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) knowledge exchange secondment undertaken by a university researcher for a full academic year within a charity in a socio-economically deprived area of the North East of England. The charity worked alongside schools and other organisations to co-ordinate out-of-school learning activities, but there was a concern with the low levels of engagement by girls with the provision. A usual approach by the charity to finding out why the girls were not engaging with the activities provided might have involved asking the girls what provision they would like. Instead, we developed a participatory process where we – the researchers – worked with a group of young women to co-create a piece of research about their lives. As part of the process, we participated in a residential trip with them and their group leaders which provided a space – both physically and methodologically – for authentic dialogue and relationships of trust to develop. In this chapter, we outline the practical, methodological and ethical challenges (and opportunities) of engaging in this way in the context of a residential setting and conclude that this way of engaging with the girls led us to different kinds of insights that may not have been achieved with adopting more conventional research approaches.

Football games, youth-led creative projects, spaces to ‘drop in’ and ‘hang out’, mentoring, fun trips are some things that youth work and community organisations do with young people. The informality, flexibility and responsiveness of youth work make it an accessible and important space for young people who are disenfranchised from schooling and even from informal educational services. Furthermore, geography is a constitutive element of youth work, which engages with young people in their everyday neighbourhood spaces, movements and communities, as well as facilitating their mobility beyond the neighbourhood. In this chapter, we reflect on our experiences in the United Kingdom and Slovakia to explore some of the methodologies, challenges and richness of researching the geographies of youth work. Decentring narrative methods in favour of ethnography was essential to capturing the primacy of relationships, the significance of the embodied and emotional and the place-based nature of youth work. However, more than this, ethnographic approaches needed to be aligned with youth work principles, collective dynamics and localised politics. At times, methodological strategies and research agendas – the desire to learn about research participants and their learning, lives, and places – had to be laid aside in favour of a mutual learning to be together. We came to understand both research and the learning that goes on in youth work settings as processes that are simultaneously individual and collective, private and public, cognitive and emotional, spatial and political.

This chapter discusses the relationships between researchers and parent participants in a project that aimed to empower parents to support their children's informal mathematics learning. The Everyday Maths project used a parent-centred approach to empower parents in supporting their children's maths learning at home, through a series of workshops that took place in primary schools. In particular, we focus on relational issues between us (as researchers), parents, and schools – specifically, the way in which those relationships enabled both researchers and participants to develop new ways of thinking about their roles and positions, as well as develop their understanding about mathematics and about research. Relational agency (Edwards, 2010, 2017a) is used to understand the way in which these relationships played out. We also consider the way in which schools, as hosts of the project, impacted on this thinking. We reflect on schools' positions in the dynamics: they welcomed and supported our project, but as the project evolved, we questioned the way that schools positioned parents in relation to supporting children's learning, and encouraged parents to rethink their role. The potential for such disruption of relationships will be considered from an ethical stance. As researchers, we explore the ways in which we came to recognise each other's perspectives and develop a set of common understandings that were fundamental to our methodological approaches in this study.

This chapter will detail the methodologies and methods used in a research project aimed to develop a working democratic model of parent engagement in a coastal primary school in England. Building on John Macmurray's (1958/2012) insistence that learning to live and act in relationship with each other is vital to democracy and thus education, the project involved working with a group of parents who explored different ways of working with and relating to the school. Initially, the study involved using Community Philosophy (SAPERE, 2015) which provided a forum to discuss, problematise and develop new concepts and forms of parent engagement. As the research project continued, it was necessary to take a post-structuralist turn and develop a more dissensual approach to both parent engagement and research. This chapter explores the need for such an approach argues for a re-conceptualisation of action research as the rope makers tool, the fid, an approach that ruptures understandings and the status quo. The implications of such an approach are explored, especially the need for a destabilising approach to methodology and research ethics.

The chapter will explore a collaborative theory of change approach that the authors used to evaluate three projects. The three projects worked with young people out of school in different ways to enable the young people to become agents of change in tackling the causes of alcohol misuse in their local Scottish communities. A theory of change approach provides a way of conceptualising programmes from inception, through to implementation and the evaluation of outcomes, in order to develop an understanding of how they work, for whom and in what circumstances. Using a collaborative model of this approach challenged prevailing notions of evaluation being the job of the evaluator and situated evaluation as a shared endeavour with the project staff. We outline the key attributes of such a collaborative model of theory of change and reflect on how this model can contribute to the evaluation of out-of-school activity.

Proponents of robust research design and methodology (particularly, although not exclusively, in more positivist-leaning epistemology) have often suggested that the role of the researcher should be as invisible, or distanced, as possible in the research process. Many of the case studies presented in this book take a more qualitative, interpretative approach, reflecting the often complex, situated, local and dynamic contexts in which out-of-school learning occurs. This raises particular challenges relating to the researcher role, especially when the researcher's presence materially changes the context and phenomena that are being researched. Some of the case studies describe the tensions and affordances of the researcher as insider/outsider and demonstrate how this role can develop and change as a project progresses and the implications this has for research practice, research quality and research governance.

This chapter discusses the different types of researcher/participant relationship described in the case study chapters, alongside the extent to which the projects were (and could be) pre-defined in terms of structure and expected outcomes. The case studies ranged from secondary data analysis methods with no researcher/participant contact, those with structured one-off interviews, those with more ongoing, but still researcher-led, relationships between researcher and participant, to more ethnographic and participatory research where relationships were negotiated between researcher and participant and, in some cases, led by the participants. This chapter highlights that researcher/participant relationships lie parallel to the structure of the project and the extent to which the outcomes are pre-defined. Despite the range of types of relationship, however, all the case studies highlighted the value of trust in those relationships, for participants to feel happy to share the details of their personal lives beyond that which is usually visible in the formal education setting of school. Edwards' (2017a) concepts of relational agency, relational expertise and common knowledge are used to help explain why these relationships matter in research on out-of-school learning – to understand activities that we do not know about, which take places in spaces that we are unfamiliar with.

This chapter reflects on the concept of knowledge – or perhaps, more accurately, the multiple knowledges – generated in this field of study. We consider, through drawing on some of the examples of ways in which knowledge about out-of-school learning is constructed in the case studies, issues such as the authenticity and value of knowledges pertinent to this field, the power structures and knowledge hierarchies involved and the localised sites of such knowledge production. We conclude with some thoughts about how researchers can manage the tensions involved in making decisions about whether to try to integrate or to keep separate such multiple forms of knowledge.

The phrase ‘out-of-school’ inherently refers to the whereabouts of learning. This chapter thus discusses the role of place in learning itself and in its research. The idea of place does not envelop only physical locations, but rather how these integrate with social dynamics, personal meanings and attachments and with the matter of power and inequalities. Reflecting on the case studies presented in the book, the chapter focusses on two issues. First, it considers what role place plays in the constitution of different forms of learning. It questions where ‘out-of-school’ learning actually takes place (at home, in the community, in other institutionalised environments) and how these places differ in terms of relationships between children and adults as well as among children themselves, in terms of materialities and embodied activities and in terms of rules and expectations facilitating the learning process. It also considers how places like home, community and school are connected, revealing patterns of power and agency that foster and transform children's learning experiences. Second, the chapter notes that place also influences the process of researching out-of-school learning, showing that researchers' emplacement is critical for the form and scope of knowledge research can produce. Examples in the chapter show the importance of where the research activities are located, where researchers engage with their participants, how their presence sits with the pre-existing power dynamics that constitute the place itself and how the question of emplacement has both epistemological and ethical implications in research on children's learning.

This chapter explores how the case studies were ‘messy’ research. Because we were researching in contexts with many unknowns, the research process was unpredictable. ‘Tidying up’ the research in advance and working within clearly defined parameters was not usually possible. Across the case studies, mess occurred at different points and in different ways in the research process. For some projects, the design itself was subject to uncertainty and change; sometimes what had been planned was not possible; sometimes what had been planned was not the best course of action as the project progressed; and sometimes the design itself was emergent, requiring creativity and flexibility to meet the project outcomes. Some projects faced messiness when trying to combine methods and data. Others encountered messiness when collecting data, deciding what counted as data, and interpreting data. The real-world nature of our research and our need to be responsive to dynamic and often unknown out-of-school contexts meant that our methods could not fit into the neatly structured shorthand that is often used to think about (and teach about) methods. As researchers, we were constantly dealing with fluid and changing identities, as our relationships with participants and spaces developed during the project. This also means that tidying up our research could be counter-productive. The chapter concludes that making sense of mess in research can reveal understandings that are sometimes hidden. Mess and complexity, then, is something to be held on to, celebrated and engaged with, rather than tidied away.

Ethics work in research is often conceived of as a process of research governance. The case study chapters, however, provide evidence of a much more sophisticated engagement with ethical dilemmas arising in research and an enactment of ‘everyday ethics’, in other words, a concern with our relationships with, and responsibilities to, other people (Banks, 2016). This emphasis on relationality can often lead to what Cook (2009) describes as ‘mess’ in research, which needs to be made sense of. This is in contrast to the notion of ‘well-ordered’ research, which underpins many of the ethical frameworks, principles and guidelines that are produced for research. The chapters also indicate the opening up of new spaces for research that raise new challenges in respect of ethical practice, including, for example, digital spaces (Case Study 4 – Minecraft Club). Case Study 8 – Democratic Engagement also demonstrates that both researchers and participants in the research process find ways in which to challenge conformity and research norms in order to access knowledge, and this is not always a harmonious process. The following sections try to make sense of the implications of these issues for the ethical practice of research. This chapter pulls together three key themes emerging from the case studies of research governance, ethical relationality and ethical spaces, presenting an analytical overview of all three areas using the concept of ‘willful subjects’.

One of the themes that cut across most of the cases is the importance of spending time forging relationships with participants in the research setting. Whilst this can be a long process which under the drivers of the current ‘neoliberal academy’ may appear to yield few tangible outputs, we argue that dedicating effort to building relationships – and being willing to take a ‘slow’ approach – is an essential methodological aspect of researching non-formal education. In this chapter, we first outline the importance of developing relationships and embracing slowness in research, illustrating how these concepts play out in Case Study 2 – Youth Sports Programmes, Case Study 6 – Geographies of Youth Work, Case Study 7 – Parents' Everyday Maths, and Case Study 9 – Theories of Change. Finally, we distil two key recommendations from the four cases: trusting relationships can lead to richer data collection, and building relationships can lead to a more ethical and caring form of research.