Investigating bias in implementing trauma-informed practice through critical participatory action research

Section 1: Introduction and Background

Chosen reflection: Week 4 Participatory Action Research and Critical Participatory Action research

1
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
This study uses critical participatory action research (CPAR) to investigate the impact of embedded
middle-class cultural capital on access to education for students with complex-trauma backgrounds
(STB). The CPAR draws on trauma-informed practice research to question how embedded middle-class
cultural capital continues to disadvantage STB in classrooms otherwise perceived as inclusive.

The context and cultural capital disadvantage

This study is located in a high socioeconomic status area high-school, where I…..
Although a state school, the school more closely resembles a private school in terms of funding and
academic expectation. As such, the impact of cultural capital backgrounds is evident (Tait, 2012, p. 20).
Students who do poorly are deemed to do so because of a lack of ability (Tait, 2012, p. 12). However,
the cultural capital (such as complex language use, body language, organising arguments) higher social
class students bring with them to school impacts their success (Tait, 2012, p. 27). This cultural capital
is generally lacking in students who have experienced complex-trauma affecting their development.
Teachers from predominantly middle-class backgrounds also bring a particular ontological stance that
may disadvantage students who are not perceived to be working hard or perceived to lack the
fundamental qualities to succeed (Tait, 2012, p. 13).

Trauma-informed practice

2
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
Childhood trauma, including abuse and neglect, can result in poor academic performance, difficulties
relating to others, mental health issues and school-related behavioural issues (Berger & Martin, 2020,
p. 223; Maynard et al., 2019, p. 1). Schools using trauma-informed practice approaches provide
inclusive support to all students and consider individual needs for students experiencing challenges
associated with complex-trauma (Department of Education, 2020). Research in this area is important
as many teachers and schools disregard the experiences of traumatised students and respond to
deemed inappropriate behaviours of these students using punitive approaches only (Berger & Martin,
2020, p. 223). In researching trauma-informed practice, teachers will confront their attitudes and
perceptions of social class and cultural capital to question their ontological stance to move beyond a
traditional “behaviour management” approach to a “behavioural understanding” approach (Berger &
Martin, 2020, p. 224).

Gaps in practice
Across Australia, suspension and exclusion rates remain high and these approaches to discipline are
often directed at STB (Howard, 2018, p. 1). While research exists explaining the impact that complex-
trauma has on experiences and outcomes for students (Howard, 2018, p. 1), there is little evidence in
the literature that teachers receive adequate training to address symptoms of trauma (Howard, 2018,
p. 16) and evidence of effective implementation in schools is lacking (Maynard et al., 2019, p. 1).
Further, the need for research also stems from the impact supporting STB can have on those
supporting them (Howard, 2018, p. 3). Dealing with volatile behaviours can impact the wellbeing and
retention of teachers, as some teachers may experience a sense of helplessness and opt to leave the
profession (Howard, 2018, pp. 15-16). This CPAR will empower teachers and provide a “protective
mechanism against their own feelings of decreased wellbeing” (Howard, 2018, p. 16).

Research question
Whilst the focus of the research will be developed collaboratively by participants and not dictated by
me, the research question may potentially be:

How do cultural capital and resulting embedded prejudices of teachers impact teachers' ability to
support students from a trauma background and impact the learning of these students?

Research aim
The aim of the CPAR is to inform and educate the staff about the impacts of complex-trauma and the
importance of responding to attendance, achievement and behaviour in supportive ways, and to

3
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
generate self-reflection in participants to understand how their social background limits their
understanding and impacts their practice.

4
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
 Section 2: Methodology

Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR)

CPAR has been selected as a methodology for tackling the existing social problem to potentially
achieve transformation of practice at a whole-school level. The study will be a mixed-method study as
both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis will be utilised. This study
will adopt the definition and methodology of CPAR detailed by McTaggart, Nixon and Kemmis (2017)
of an iterative cycle of “planning-acting-observing-reflecting”, conducted as a spiral of individual and
collective self-reflective cycles (McTaggart et al., 2017, pp. 21-22). The participants will engage in a
broad social analysis of the context and a collective self-study of their practices to determine how to
improve the situation. The stance adopted through the study is critical as the participants will closely
examine our practices, understandings and the conditions under which we practice, and ask critical
questions about our practices, biases and their consequences (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 29). It is
participatory as it involves a range of people involved in and affected by our practices taking action to
transform our practices (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 29)……..
The people involved in teaching and supporting students with complex-trauma experiences are in the
best position to initiate changes to site-based practice (James & Augustin, 2018, p. 335). Use of CPAR
facilitates the participation of a wide range of staff, including classroom teachers, teacher aides,
Guidance Officers, Deans of Students, Deputy Principal and other external stakeholders. Recruitment
of participants will follow a whole staff professional development session where the Guidance Officer
will present the trauma-informed practice research and I will outline the initial plan for this
practitioner inquiry project (outlined in Table 1 below). As STB may be present in every classroom and
every location in our school, all staff will be invited to participate. As well, specific teachers identified
as teaching or supporting known STB will receive a targeted invitation. Participation will be voluntary
and participants must provide informed written consent to engage (Mockler, 2014, p. 154).

A significant aspect of the CPAR process is locating myself as a co-researcher, working side by side in
“highly participatory ways” rather than me facilitating or managing the change process and imposing
change on the participants (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 21). By recognising and reflecting on my own
middle-class background and bias, I avoid an assumption of objectivity towards my participation. As
increased commitment to trauma-informed practice requires strong leadership to ensure any changes
are sustained (Berger & Martin, 2020, p. 226), I will be involved in each phase of the process, providing
access to literature, research and acting as mentor (Miller, 2013, p. 108). Involvement of leadership

5
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
researching alongside will assist in generating a supportive culture of reflection and inquiry (James &
Augustin, 2018, p. 334).

Communicative space in the public sphere

An integral part of this study is providing opportunities for participants to engage in communicative
action with others to reach “unforced consensus” about our practices (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 29).
Participants will engage in communicative action and consultative analysis through a communicative
space, which defines the social practice of CPAR (Wicks & Reason, 2009, p. 245). Use of communicative
spaces generates discussion of different perspectives to allow participants to develop mutual
understanding without perceived coercion from leaders (McTaggart et al., 2017, pp. 24-25). In
conducting conversations, confidentiality of participants and students will be maintained to ensure no
harm is done to them (Mockler, 2013, p. 154). Whilst self-study and other individual teacher research
involves a critical friend, CPAR is most appropriate in the current context to facilitate extensive
conversations amongst those affected by and involved in supporting STB.

Limitations of the study

Some potential limitations exist for this CPAR study due to the complexities in schooling contexts. STB
are in an extremely vulnerable position so student participation has been restricted. The initial CPAR
may feel unnatural to teachers as they are not used to critically questioning their own practice (James
& Augustin, 2018, p. 334), especially when they will be required to reflect on their own middle-class
advantage to change their ontological stance (Tait, 2012, p. 12). A possible limit, therefore, may be
teachers’ willingness to self-reflect and effect changes. Further, the number of teachers and staff
trained in trauma-informed practices in Queensland schools is relatively small (Howard, 2018, p. 59).
It is possible the attitudes and perceptions of teachers who feel students’ behaviour is a choice for the
student and disciplinary consequences should be applied consistently for all students may not engage
in the research as the topic is unfamiliar to them and they may not agree with the theories (Howard,
2018, p. 59). Staff workload may also be a limitation (Howard, 2018, p. 59). These limitations are
addressed in Ethical considerations below.

6
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
 Section 3: Methods of data collection

Section A: Data collection

Throughout the process, we will be documenting and monitoring what happens, reflexively re-
structuring and transforming practice (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 29). Multiple methods of data
collection and analysis will be employed from a subjective and objective standpoint (McTaggart et al.,
2017, p. 31), through qualitative and quantitative data sets. The quantitative analysis will assist the
researchers in answering the “……. The qualitative analysis will answer the ……..teachers approach
discipline in certain ways, why teachers engage in particular practices, etc. The research will employ
both approaches to data collection and analysis as this methodological triangulation will provide a
more in-depth study (James & Augustin, 2018, p. 338; Tait, 2012, p. 15).

Existing data
Data on attendance, achievement and behaviour will be collected from OneSchool and analysed from
an objective stand point. This data set includes the Headline Indicator Data for the school, which shows
the Index of Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), attendance rates, school completion and
achievement, and the suspension, exclusion and cancellation rates. This data will provide an objective
social perspective of the systems behaviour (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 33). However, this data set is
limited in its ability to show subjective data for students and teachers. The Headline Indicator Data
will be triangulated with the individual Student Profiles from OneSchool. Students are not identified
as STB on OneSchool so these students will be identified through the Guidance Officer’s welfare data
sets. Given the vulnerable situation of the students, the specific students will be deidentified and will
not be presented publicly. This comprehensive quantitative data set will contain information to
identify students and to identify staff who are involved in and affected by supporting STB. These staff
can be specifically invited to participate in the CPAR. The analysis of these data sets will be utilised to
track changes over the course of the study.

Other data sets - Practice architectures

Changing practice requires more than just changing participants’ knowledge. The CPAR will change
practice architectures to move knowledge into practice. Self-reflection from a critical stance
encourages participants to disrupt or change the practice architectures supporting the existing social
practices. As such, reflecting on the sayings, doings, and relatings through data collection and analysis,
will change the practice (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 26). McTaggart, Nixon and Kemmis, (2017, pp. 32-
33) advocate collecting evidence from a range of sources evidencing the sayings, doings and relatings

7
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
 from both objective and subjective stances. Data from questionnaires of participants, interviews and
conversations with purpose will determine individual practice and biases. Observations of lessons
(including transcripts) will map practice architectures. Data collected will be analysed through
qualitative methods of coding the data and categorising the themes in relation to the sayings, doings
and relatings in practice as they emerge. Changes in the data will be monitored over time and
triangulated to reflexively study changing practices and practice architectures (McTaggart et al., 2017,
p. 33).

Data Participant Information Time and space (in school)

Questionnaire (qualitative) 10 teachers phase 1 and 4 In- School; 20 mins
Observations 10 teachers x 2 classes over 3 30 mins per teacher
phases
Interviews 10 teachers x 3 interviews Conversational 45-60 mins
over 3 phases
Section B: Ethical considerations
As the local context is a state school, it was necessary to consider the Department of Education
Guidelines for conducting research (2019), as well as the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research (2007). As the research is conducted at one school site and publication of findings
will be internal, I will not have to submit a research application to the Department of Education. The
school Principal may undertake a review and provide approval to proceed to ensure ethical procedures
are observed (Department of Education, 2019, pp. 6-7). The privacy and confidentiality of the students,
who are already in are vulnerable position, will be protected. The workload and wellbeing of the
participant teachers will also need to be considered. The research will be conducted in a transparent
manner with informed consent at each phase and findings presented in a transparent manner.

Ethical issues arise as personal data will be collected and analysed about both teacher participants
and students at the school. While the students are not active participants, they are in a vulnerable
position in this study. I will need to conduct the collaborative inquiry in a way that represents care of
the students (Creswell, 2013, p. 594), collecting and storing data in a confidential manner. Referrals
to support services may also be required for students if the research uncovers a need.

8
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
 Section 4: Plan the phase of practitioner inquiry project

This CPAR will adopt an iterative cycle of “planning-acting-observing-reflecting” (McTaggart et al.,

2017, p. 22) over the course of one school year. The initial plan for this practitioner inquiry project is
outlined in Table 1 below. As an iterative spiral approach, changes to the plan will be made throughout.

Table 1: Summary of CPAR design (phases of research, data collection and analysis)
CPAR Phases Data Collection and Analysis
Phase 1: Planning a change - understand what is Existing data sets – OneSchool Headline
happening and evaluate it to specify the focus Indicator Report, Student Profiles – statistical
quantitative analysis of student achievement,
Purpose: critically review current attendance and behaviour data
understandings and existing attitudes and
perceptions of participants to understand our Questionnaire to gauge participants’ knowledge
practices and consequences, and the practice on trauma-informed practice and how they
architectures that support them (McTaggart et support their identified students, and to
al., 2017, p. 28); collaboratively develop action determine if attitudes and perceptions of
plan and select strategies for implementation teachers are inclusive or excluding – qualitative
(Creswell, 2013, p. 592). analysis of sayings, doings and relatings through
coding, categorising and re-categorising
emerging themes (Thomas, 2017, p. 245).
Collective and self-reflection leads to emergence of new questions and inquiry to inform next
iteration of the CPAR (McIntyre, 2014, p. 2)
Phase 2: Acting and observing - introduce Qualitative analysis of semi-structured
change and evaluate consequences of change interviews with teachers (pre-determined
interview questions) and conversations with
Purpose: evidence of teacher’s knowledge of purpose between others involved in and
and use of strategies to support students with affected by our practice (Miller, 2013, p.108) –
trauma background to analyse whether the analysis adding to coding and thematic mapping
consequences of our practices are just. in consultation with participants.
Classroom observations (using structured
observation form focused on sayings, doings,
relatings) - qualitative analysis of practice
architectures to consider if we must change our

9
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
 practice to avoid unjust consequences
(McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 29), adding to the
thematic mapping.
Collective and self-reflection to inform next iteration of the CPAR
Phase 3: Reflexive processes of further changes Continue conversations with purpose -
– critical reflection of effectiveness communicative action becomes more focused
with others to reach mutual understanding
Purpose: to evaluate impact of trauma-informed about the sayings, doings and relatings in our
practice implemented in the classroom in phase school (McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 29).
2 with greater awareness of bias. Qualitative analysis of follow-up semi-structured
interviews of participants.
Further classroom observations as we continue
to consider necessary changes to practice.
Collective and self-reflection to inform next iteration of the CPAR
Phase 4: re-planning, acting and observing Questionnaire to determine whether attitudes
Purpose: Reflect and replan to transform our and perceptions changed through the iterative
understanding and practices and check that our CPAR project (compare phase 1 questionnaire)
new ways of working are not producing new
unforeseen untoward consequences to avoid Statistical quantitative analysis of Student
more issues, such as re-traumatisation Profiles to track changes in attendance,
(McTaggart et al., 2017, p. 29; Department of achievement and behaviour.
Education, 2020).
Presentation of research findings as case studies to whole of staff

CPAR is emancipatory as it “leads not just to new practical knowledge, but to new abilities to create
knowledge” (Reason & Bradbury, 2007, p. 5). Through sharing the learning with staff, the benefits will
be scaled up to the whole school context. The potential outcomes are better outcomes and support
for STB, improvements in wellbeing for staff supporting STB, workforce training through ongoing
professional learning of participants, resourcing and greater support in school, better informed
leadership and enhancement of information sharing protocols and collaborative inquiry becomes
common stance (Howard, 2018, pp. 42-46).

10
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
 Section 5: Reference List
Australian Government. (2019). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007).
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-
human-research-2007-updated-2018

Berger, E., & Martin, K. (2021). Embedding trauma‐informed practice within the education sector.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 223–227.
https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2494

Creswell, J. (2013). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson.

Department of Education. (2019). Frequently asked questions: Applying to conduct research.

Queensland Government. https://education.qld.gov.au/about-us/reporting-data-
research/research/faq

Department of Education. (2020). Positive behaviour for learning. Queensland Government.

Queensland Government. https://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/supporting-student-
behaviour/positive-behaviour-for-learning - last updated 21 December 2020

Howard, J. (2018). A systematic framework for trauma-aware schooling in Queensland: research report
for the Queensland Department of Education. Queensland University of Technology.
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/120276/1/Howard%2C%20State-
Wide%20Framework%20Trauma-
Aware%20Schooling%2C%20Research%20Report%202018.pdf

James, F., & Augustin, D. (2018). Improving teachers’ pedagogical and instructional practice through
action research: potential and problems. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 333-348.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1332655

Maynard, B., Farina, A., Dell, N., & Kelly, M. (2019). Effects of trauma‐informed approaches in schools:
A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Review, 15, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1018

McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483385679

McTaggart, R., Nixon, R. and Kemmis, S. (2017). Critical Participatory Action Research. In L Rowell, C.
Bruce, J. Shosh, & M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (1st
ed.) (pp. 21-35). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4

Miller, M. (2013). Action for change? Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in
early childhood education curricula. Queensland University of Technology.
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/60905/5/60905.pdf

Mockler, N. (2014). When ‘research ethics’ become ‘everyday ethics’: the intersection of inquiry and
practice in practitioner research. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 146-158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.856771

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The Sage handbook of action research participative inquiry and
practice (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Tait, G. (2012). Making sense of mass education. Cambridge University Press.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=1099967

11
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
Thomas, G. (2017). How to do your research project: a guide for students (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications
Ltd.

Wicks, P., & Reason, P. (2009). Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening
communicative space. Action Research, 7(3), 243–262.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309336715

12
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background
 Appendix
Part A - Weekly Online Journal Reflections (weeks 1 to 4 reflections)

13
Note: CPAR: critical participatory action research; STB: students from a complex-trauma background