We are looking for ethical approval for an estrangement autoethnography activity in

which eight PE teacher trainees will experience a PE lesson while having their

physical activity restricted. The order of the activity will be:

1. Eight PE teacher trainees will read a letter explaining the activity and sign a

consent form.

2. All PE teacher trainees who signed the consent form will fill out a survey on

their attitudes to disability and record themselves reflecting on the subject of

PE and physically disabled pupils.

3. All PE teacher trainees who signed the consent form will take part in a 90-

minute activity comprising of: wheelchair basketball, blind football, seated

volleyball.

4. Trainees complete the disability questionnaire again and record and write a

reflection on the event.

5. Debrief on the details of the letter and the activity with a reminder of ways to

follow-up the activity and express comments, concerns and requests that data

is not used.

In order to ensure the activity is ethical and safe the following have been put in

place:

1. This activity is part of the regular curriculum and of a taught module.

2. All participants will be informed that have the choice of not taking part and that

not taking part will have no impact on their grades or ability to complete the

course.

3. All participants will be told they can withdraw at any point.

4. All participant responses will be anonymised.

5. Data will be kept for 12 months from the activity and then destroyed.

6. A first aider will be on site while the activity takes place.

7. An experienced PE trainer is on site while the activity takes place.

8. There will be a feedback mechanism for those involved in the activity to

express concerns and the removal of data.

The following documents will be used:

1. Letter and consent form for PE trainee teachers (Appendix One)

2. Multidimensional Attitudes Towards Persons with Disabilities (Appendix Two)

If given ethical approval, this could make an important contribution to the

understanding of disabled people in PE. It will certainly give insight to the trainees

who will take part. Considering there are 6.9 million people who are registered as

disabled, making up 19% of the working population (DFL, 2016) disability and

education is a neglected area and (Brekhus 1998; Collinson 2008). In contrast, there

are many studies of and by those who are not deemed to be ‘disabled’ but have

sport injuries (for example see Sanders-Bustle and Oliver, 2001) it seems that the

able-bodied are given greater preference, a balance this paper will try to help to

redress.

While this study falls into the category of the non-disabled studying the disabled

which is the most commonplace (Patrycja, 2016). It is important for teacher trainees

to experience some of what it is like to be positioned by society into a particular role.

Due to the physical nature of PE, it is particularly important for the trainees to have

some insight into what it must be like to be in a PE lesson with able-bodied others.

As Richards (2008) states about the purpose for his autoethnography as a disabled

person: ‘No one ever knows what I have been through unless I tell them’. We would

argue that by going through the estrangement activities, the trainees will be more

aware of how it feels and what the practical needs are for those with disabilities in a

PE lesson. In other words, the experience of being disabled, we want to ‘ground…in

lived social reality’ (Craig, 2003). This social reality will be in a PE lesson in school.

This is an exciting chance for the trainees to ‘know in action’ (see Schon, 2005)

Autoethnography has been widely used as a research method for teachers and

teacher trainees to examine their own practice (see Pennington 2007).

Autoethnography is a ‘slippery’ (Couser 2005) inter-disciplinary term which

has gained credence over the last 20 years. Autoethnography “connect(s) the

autobiographical and personal to the cultural, social, and political” (Ellis, 2004,

p. xix). Autoethnographers use experiences to analyse cultural beliefs (Wall,

2008). Theorists such as Denzin (see 1989, 1997) and Ellis (2002, 2004; Ellis

and Bochner 2000), have helped to give autoethnography a definition, place,

ethical stance and credence in the field of social science. Before them, the

Chicago School varied the places for ethnography to contemporary

workplaces taking ethnography away from ‘others’ to ‘ourselves’ (see Turner,

1947; Roy, 1960; Roth,1963). There was reference to the researcher’s

position but they did not do the ‘auto’ aspect of today’s commonly…we want to

both, ‘mov(e)…the reader to feel the feelings of the other.” (Denzin, 1989,

p.9).

The version of autoethnography we are going to use is the co-constructed type (see

Ellis, 2004) or collective form of autoethnography (see Lapadat, 2009). This usually

means a group of researchers collecting insights into a situation then sharing their

insights. (see Chang, Ngunjiri, and Hernandez (2012) for an example). Sometimes,

this become a relational autoethnography (Ellis and Rawicki 2013). In our case, the

narrative will be told by us. We will collate the experience of the estrangement

autoethnography much in the style of Keenan and Evans (2010).

Estrangement autoethnography is an innovative way of learning which fulfils Minh-

ha’s aims for learning: ‘I know I do not learn anything when I am told what to learn; I

learn when that learning comes from myself’ (Minh-ha, 1991). By making the normal

appear strange through the disabling acts of putting the trainees in wheelchairs,

putting blindfolds on them and tying their legs together, it should give them a sense

of alienation or ‘culture shock’ (Atkinson and Hammersley 2007). There are other

examples of student estrangement autoethnographies: Keenan and Evans (2010),

Crawley et al., (2008), Powers (1998). A fourth example by Cook (2014, 271)

included a useful summary of the benefit of estrangement autoethnography:

‘Through this embodied approach, knowledge of others and the self are expanded

and deepened. It is also an important teaching and learning tool, being a creative,

student-centred method that empowers and challenges students as they need to

apply theories and understand them, rather than simply describe them’.

One method of data collection is commonly used on the PE teacher trainees’ course

– reflection. We will use the estrangement activity to encourage and improve

reflection. The practices employed in autoethnography map onto well-established

learning tools used to encourage student reflection. These learning tools include

Brookfield's (1995) critical reflection model. What differentiates estrangement

autoethnographic practices from the reflective tools above is the way it helps

students view the normative framework in which s/he exist (Ellis and Bochner 2000).

In this experiential model, ‘[i]deas are not fixed and immutable elements of thought

but are formed and re-formed through experience’ (Kolb, 1984, p.9). Estrangement

autoethnography produces, we believe, ‘deep’ learning, producing ‘a qualitative

change in a person's view of reality’ (Ramsden, 2003, p.7)

This is a timely study as disabled sport opportunities are increasing and taking part is

a way of self-empowerment (Ashton-Shaeffer et al. 2001; Berger 2008). Some

theorists, though, believe that asking disabled people to emulate the achievements

of able athletes is unnecessary ( see Hahn 1984; Hardin and Hardin 2004). Indeed,

there is debate over whether we should be encouraging disabled people to engage

in sport. Sport may be seen as, “the modern project of producing desirable and

normalized bodies” has been paramount (Cole 2002, 441) and therefore, “the

hegemonic ideal of the athletic body…historically…oriented to the able-bodied”

(Promis, Erevelles, and Matthews 2001, 39). However, we disagree thinking that as

it is, societal views of disabled people can be negative (Gershick and Miller 1995;

Smith and Sparkes 2004) and hegemonic systems and labels of domination exist

(see Coakley 2004; Hardin and Hardin 2004; Promis, Erevelles, and Matthews

2001). The insight given by autoethnography into the condition of being disabled in a

sport context (see Berger 2008 for example) helps illuminate ways forward.

Pathak (2010) considered the four ethical considerations when undertaking

ethbnpgraphy: accountability, context, truthfulness, and community. One particular

concern in this study is the community of disabled people. While we are aiming for

insight into experience, it may be seen as distasteful for outsiders to dress up and

act as disabled people. We are not going to speak for disabled people (for a

discussion on this, see Engel and Munger, 2003; Fine and Asch, 1988) but allow the

PE teacher trainees to gain insight into the condition of being physically disabled. As

‘outsiders’, there will be no pretence in this study that the actual reality of the

disabled person can be shared. As we can only know part of the experience of

another person (Frank, 1995). We also recognise that the trainees come with their

own experience of disability both personal and from those close to them. The

experience of the subject wil be different not only because of this but as Hayano

(1979, 102) noted, “Cultural ‘realities’ and interpretations of events among individuals

in the same group are often highly variable, changing, or contradictory.” So, even

those sharing the same upbringing will differ in expectation. This study will allow us

to explore the possibilities. The PE teacher trainees will not be claiming insider

status (see Scott 2013 for a discussion of this) but recognise their positions as

outsiders looking in.

We will be ‘othering’ but disabled people, by their very ‘dis’ nature are already

‘othered’ (Richards, 2008). However, this further othering through the writings of

outsiders can, makes disabled people, “not us.” (Richards, 2008) and this study will

be in violation of the slogan, “nothing about us without us” (Braddock & Parrish,

2001). An awareness of this situation is all we can bring. Writing about others ‘poses

a number of conceptual problems for researchers. Writing about people with

disabilities amplifies these problems’ (Richards, 2008, p.8). Disabled people can be

“reduced to the status of malfunctioning bodies…lacking capacity to put forward their

point of view” (McDougall, 2006, p. 395) and we can only accept this critique in the

discussion.

Another similar ethical issue we have to be aware of is the perpetuating of the label,

‘disability’. ‘Differently-abled’ would be a better term and inclusion of everyone but it

can deny those with physical and mental illnesses the right to financial support and

environmental changes. As with all labels, they bring power (see Barthes, 1973;

Foucault, 1979) The label brings an homoegenising force - ‘They are all just

handicapped and nothing more’ (McDougall, 2006, p. 396) - and recognition of this

will be given in the narrative surrounding the event.

We are aware of the need to integrate this event into the trainees’ current course. It

has happened for the past four years and the subject matter is part of the

Professional Enquiry and Subject Leadership module of the Secondary PGCE

course. This module includes an examination of those with Special Education Needs

including the physically disabled. The course also has a wider aim to ‘develop critical

reflection’ and this activity supports this. We are going to integrate the activity into

this and ask them to write their reflections on this subject. The activity includes a

journal entries which can be made private and not published online if the participant

wishes. This is common for educational reflections as sometimes the experience is

too personal or about a sensitive issue at school. We hope that the activity will echo

the effect of Murphy (1987) who wrote that after studying disabled people he had,

‘learned a lessson about the relationship of social standing to disability. I had also

learned a great deal about myself’ (p.126).

Societal attitudes towards disabled people will be examined using sources such as

Scope’s (2014) Current Attitude Towards Disabled People and Public Perceptions

Towards Disabled People (Staniland, 2011). This will give a measure of some of the

prevailing impressions the abled may have towards the disabled. In order to test the

attitudes of the PE teacher trainees before and after the activity, the

Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Towards People with Disabilities (MSADP) will be

used. This survey is widely used in researching for attitudes about disability (see

Appendix Two and for a discussion, Beckwith and Matthews, 1995; Fichten and

Amsel, 1988). The responses will be anonymised and no single response will be

identified in the paper. There will be no way of identifying the respondent as no

names will be used instead, each participant will be given a number. There will be a

single sheet identifying the number with a name and this will be destroyed 12-

months from the activity date.

We will ensure health and safety procedures are in place. The 90-minute activity will

be overseen by an experienced PE Senior Lecturer and teacher-trainer (Liz

Plummer) who will brief the trainees on safety implications of the activity including ,

obstacles. The trainees will be aware of health and safety issues already as it is part

of their remit in the classroom. There will be a first aider in the sports hall for the

activity. All restraining acts will be completed by the teacher trainee who will be able

to stop the restraining act at any time.

After wheelchair basketball, blind football and sitting volleyball, the trainees will

record their “headnotes” (see Sanjek 1990 for an example), that is, ‘the researcher’s

subjective experience of engaging with the phenomena under study’ (Collinson,

2008, p.40). The trainees will be able to speak their own words, so avoiding some

people studying who end up writing in the ‘conservative voice of science’ (Krizek

1998, p.235). These recordings will be transcribed by the researchers and examined

to discover differences between attitudes before the activity and afterwards.

Appendix One

Dear Participant One (Two, Three etc.)

We would like to invite you to take part in a 90-minute PE lesson of wheelchair basketball, sitting volleyball and blind football. In each case, your ability to perform the sport in the usual way will be hindered by movement or sight. Any restriction will be administered by you and can be rectified immediately.

The schedule for the activity will be as follows:

1. Consent form to be read and signed (attached to this letter)2. Time to record views on teaching physically disabled pupils in PE3. Completion of a survey assessing attitudes towards disability4. Health and safety instruction given5. 90-minute activity of wheelchair basketball, sitting volleyball and blind football 6. Record thoughts and feelings about the activity into a recorder7. Completion of survey assessing attitudes towards disability

While we believe this activity is useful for the module, Professional Enquiry and Subject Leadership in PE which examines issues of Special Education Needs, you do not have to complete this activity in order to succeed in it. Non-participation in the activity will have no impact on your grades or our impressions of you. If you choose to take part in the activity, you may withdraw at any stage and there will be no negative effect for you or impression of you.

The survey of attitudes towards disabled people will be completed anonymously. The researchers will be able to identify you but nobody else. Your name will never be published in any document and there will be no way of identifying you personally. The sheet of paper linking your responses and your names will be destroyed 12 months after the activity.

We feel this activity will be of benefit to you in your career and give you greater insight into physically disabled people in sport. If you have any problems, suggestions or comments you can email either or both of us and we will respond in strict confidence.

Yours faithfully

Liz plummer e.plummer@newman.ac.ukJohn Keenan john.keenan@newman.ac.uk

Consent Form

I agree to take part in a 90-minute activity in which I will be placed in a wheelchair and be expected to play basketball, be blindfolded and be expected to play football and play

volleyball while my legs are restricted. I understand that at any point I may decide not to take part and that I will always be in control of the restriction so can remove it at any point.

I also agree to complete a survey about attitudes to disabled people and to record my honest thoughts on the problems and benefits of teaching physically disabled people PE. These will be anonymised and there will be no way of connecting me with the comments. The sheet of paper connecting your name with the comments will be kept by the researchers and destroyed after 12 months.

I understand that my completion or non-completion of this activity in no way impact on my studies and that this is a potentially useful but entirely voluntary addition to my course.

Signed

Print Name

Appendix Two

Bibliography

Anderson, L. (2006) ‘Analytic Autoethnography’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(4): 373–95.

Ashton-Shaeffer, C., Gibson, Autry, C. and Hanson, C. (2001). Meaning of sports to adults with physical disabilities: A disability sport camp experience. Sociology of Sport Journal 18:95-114.

Atkinson, P., and Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Barone, T., and Eisner, E.. (2006). “Arts-based Educational Research.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by J. Green, G. Camilli, and P. Elmore, 93–107. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barthes, R. (1973) Mythologies. London: Penguin

Beckwith, J. and Matthews, J. (1995). Measurement of attitudes of trainee professionals to people with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 39, 255–262.

Berger, B., ed. 1990. Authors of their own lives: Intellectual autobiographies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Berger, R. (2008) Disability and the Dedicated Wheelchair Athlete: Beyond the “Supercrip” Critique. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography Volume 37 Number 6 December 2008 647-678

Brekhus, W. (1998). A sociology of the unmarked: Redirecting our focus. Sociological Theory 16 (1): 34–51.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Camangian, P. (2010). “Starting with Self: Teaching Autoethnography to Foster Critically Caring Literacies.” Research in the Teaching of English. 45 (2): 179–20

Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F., and Hernandez, K. A. C. (2012). Collaborative autoethnography (Vol. 8). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Coakley, J. (2004). Sports in society: Issues and controversies. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Cole, C. (2002). Body studies in the sociology of sport: A review of the field. In Handbook of sports studies, edited by J. Coakley and E. Dunning, 439-460

Collinson, J. (2008) Running the Routes Together: Co-running and Knowledge in Action. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography February 2008 37: 38-61

Cook, P. (2014) To actually be sociological’: Autoethnography as an assessment and learning tool. Journal of Sociology 2014, Vol. 50(3) 269–282

Couser, G. T. (2005). Disability and (auto)ethnography. Riding (and writing) the bus with my sister. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 34 (2): 121–42.

Craig, R. T. (2003). Ethnomethodology’s program and practical inquiry. Research on Language

Crawley, S. Curry, J. Dumois-Sands, C. Tanner and Wyker, C. (2008) ‘Full-contact Pedagogy: Lecturing with Questions and Student-centred Assignments as Methods for Inciting Self-reflexivity for Faculty and Students’, Feminist Teacher 19(1): 13–30.

Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.(2000). Aesthetics and qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 256-265.

DFL (2016). Available from: http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts [accessed on 21.11.16]

Ellis, C. (1997). Evocative autoethnography. In Representation and the text, edited by W. Tierney and Y. Lincoln, 115–39. New York: State University of New York Press.

Ellis, C. (2002). Being real: Moving inward toward social change. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Ellis, C., and A. Bochner. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. Researcher as subject. In Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 733–68. London: Sage.

Ellis, C., & Rawicki, J. (2013). Collaborative witnessing of survival during the Holocaust: An exemplar of relational autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 366-380.

Fichten, C. S., & Amsel, R. (1988). Thoughts concerning interaction between college students who have a physical disability and their nondisabled peers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 22–40.

Findler, L., Noa, V., Werner, S. (2007) The Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons With Disabilities (MAS): Construction and Validation. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin 50:3 pp. 166–176

Fine, M., and A. Asch. (1988). Disability beyond stigma; Social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues 44:3-21.

Foucault, M. (1979) The History of Sexuality Volumes 1-3. London: Allen Lane.

Frank, A. W. (2000). Illness and autobiographical work: Dialogue as narrative destabilization. Qualitative Sociology, 23(1),

Gershick, T. and Miller, A. 1995. Coming to terms: Masculinity and physical disability. In Men’s health and illness: Gender, power, and the body, edited by D. Sabo and D. Gordon, 183-204.

Hahn, H. (1984). Sports and the political movement of disabled persons: Examining nondisabled social values. Arena Review 8:1-15.

Hardin, M., and Hardin, B. (2004). The “supercrip” in sport media: Wheelchair athletes discuss hegemony’s disabled hero. Sociology of Sport Online 7(1)

Hayano, D. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems and prospects. Human Organization 38 (1): 99–104.

Keenan, J. and Evans, A. (2014) 'I am a Starbucks worker... my life no longer belongs to me': The performance of estrangement as a learning tool. Teaching in Higher Education, volume 19 (2): 101-112

Krizek, R. (1998) What the hell are we teaching the next generation anyway? In Fiction and social research: By ice or fire, edited by A. Banks and S. P. Banks, 89–114. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

McDougall, K. (2006). “Ag shame” and superheroes: Stereotype and the signification of disability. Available from: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/research-data/view/3093 [accessed on 1.10.16]

Minh-ha, T. (1991). When the Moon Waxes Red. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Patrycja, P. (2016) Autoethnography as an Accessible Method of Research.

Murphy, R. (1987). The body silent. New York: Norton.

International Review for the Sociology of Sport 2016, Vol. 51(2) 238–247

Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. London: Routledge.

Lapadat, J. (2009). Writing our way into shared understanding: Collaborative autobiographical writing in the qualitative methods class. Qualitative Inquiry, 15, 955-979

Pathak, A. A. (2010). Opening my voice, claiming my space: Theorizing the possibilities of postcolonial approaches to auto- ethnography. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), Article-M10.

Pennington, J. L. 2007. “Silence in the Classroom/Whispers in the Halls: Autoethnography as Pedagogy in White Pre-service Teacher Education.” Race Ethnicity and Education10 (1): 93–113.

Powers, R.F. (1998) ‘Using Critical Autobiography to Teach the Sociology of Education’, Teaching Sociology 26(3): 198–206.

Promis, D., N. Erevelles, and J. Matthews. 2001. Reconceptualizing inclusion: The politics of university sports and recreation programs for students with mobility impairments. Sociology of Sport Journal 18:37-50.

Ramsden, P. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd ed. London: Routledge-Farmer.

Richards, R, (2008) Writing the Othered Self: Autoethnography and the Problem of Objectification in Writing About Illness and Disability. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1717-1728.

Rinehart, R. 1995. Pentecostal aquatics. Studies in Symbolic Interactionism 19: 109–21.

Roth, J. A. 1963. Timetables: Structuring the passage of time in hospital treatment and other careers. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Roy, D. E. 1959/1960. “Banana time”: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization 18:158-68.

Sanders-Bustle, L., and Oliver, K. (2001) The role of physical activity in the lives of researchers: A body-narrative. Studies in Philosophy and Education 20: 507–20.

Scott, J (2013) “The Beast Within”: Life With an Invisible Chronic Illness. Qualitative Inquiry 19(2) 101–115

Scope (2014) Attitude Towards Disabled People. Available from: http://www.scope.org.uk/Scope/media/Images/Publication%20Directory/Current-attitudes-towards-disabled-people.pdf?ext=.pdf [accessed on 7.11.16]

Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Smith, B., and A. Sparkes. 2005. Analyzing talk in qualitative inquiry: Exploring possibilities, problems, and tensions. Quest 57 (2): 213–42.

Staniland, L (2011) Public Perceptions Towards Disabled People. Office for Disability Issues 2011. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325989/ppdp.pdf [accessed on 7.11.16]

Turner, R. 1947. The navy disbursing officer as a bureaucrat. American Sociological Review