Not thinking straight? A critical discourse analysis of the 2006 Irish High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Attorney General

The recognition and protection of constitutional rights is a fundamental precept. In Ireland, the right to marry is provided for in the equality provisions of Article 40 of the Irish Constitution (1937). However, lesbians and gay men are denied the right to marry in Ireland. The ‘last word’ on this issue came into being in the High Court in 2006, when Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan sought, but failed, to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland. My thesis centres on this constitutional court ruling. So as to contextualise the pursuit of marriage equality in Ireland, I provide details of the Irish trajectory vis-à-vis relationship and family recognition for same-sex couples. In Chapter One, I discuss the methodological orientation of my research, which derives from a critical perspective. Chapter Two denotes my theorisation of the principle of equality and the concept of difference. In Chapter Three, I discuss the history of the institution of marriage in the West with its legislative underpinning. Marriage also has a constitutional underpinning in Ireland, which derives from Article 41 of our Constitution. In Chapter Four, I discuss ways in which marriage and family were conceptualised in Ireland, by looking at historical controversies surrounding the legalisation of contraception and divorce. Chapter Five denotes a Critical Discourse Analysis of the High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan. In Chapter Six, I critique text from three genres of discourse, i.e. ‘Letters to the Editor’ regarding same-sex marriage in Ireland, communication from legislators vis-à-vis the 2004 legislative impediment to same-sex marriage in Ireland, and parliamentary debates surrounding the 2010 enactment of civil partnership legislation in Ireland. I conclude my research by reflecting on my methodological and theoretical considerations with a view to answering my research questions. Author’s Update: Following the outcome of the 2015 constitutional referendum vis-à-vis Article 41, marriage equality has been realised in Ireland.

Development of a general internet attitude scale and internet self-efficacy scale

The measurement of users’ attitudes towards and confidence with using the Internet is an important yet poorly researched topic. Previous research has encountered issues that serve to obfuscate rather than clarify. Such issues include a lack of distinction between the terms ‘attitude’ and ‘self-efficacy’, the absence of a theoretical framework to measure each concept, and failure to follow well-established techniques for the measurement of both attitude and self-efficacy. Thus, the primary aim of this research was to develop two statistically reliable scales which independently measure attitudes towards the Internet and Internet self-efficacy. This research addressed the outlined issues by applying appropriate theoretical frameworks to each of the constructs under investigation. First, the well-known three component (affect, behaviour, cognition) model of attitudes was applied to previous Internet attitude statements. The scale was distributed to four large samples of participants. Exploratory factor analyses revealed four underlying factors in the scale: Internet Affect, Internet Exhilaration, Social Benefit of the Internet and Internet Detriment. The final scale contains 21 items, demonstrates excellent reliability and achieved excellent model fit in the confirmatory factor analysis. Second, Bandura’s (1997) model of self-efficacy was followed to develop a reliable measure of Internet self-efficacy. Data collected as part of this research suggests that there are ten main activities which individuals can carry out on the Internet. Preliminary analyses suggested that self-efficacy is confounded with previous experience; thus, individuals were invited to indicate how frequently they performed the listed Internet tasks in addition to rating their feelings of self-efficacy for each task. The scale was distributed to a sample of 841 participants. Results from the analyses suggest that the more frequently an individual performs an activity on the Internet, the higher their self-efficacy score for that activity. This suggests that frequency of use ought to be taken into account in individual’s self-efficacy scores to obtain a ‘true’ self-efficacy score for the individual. Thus, a formula was devised to incorporate participants’ previous experience of Internet tasks in their Internet self-efficacy scores. This formula was then used to obtain an overall Internet self-efficacy score for participants. Following the development of both scales, gender and age differences were explored in Internet attitudes and Internet self-efficacy scores. The analyses indicated that there were no gender differences between groups for Internet attitude or Internet self-efficacy scores. However, age group differences were identified for both attitudes and self-efficacy. Individuals aged 25-34 years achieved the highest scores on both the Internet attitude and Internet self-efficacy measures. Internet attitude and self-efficacy scores tended to decrease with age with older participants achieving lower scores on both measures than younger participants. It was also found that the more exposure individuals had to the Internet, the higher their Internet attitude and Internet self-efficacy scores. Examination of the relationship between attitude and self-efficacy found a significantly positive relationship between the two measures suggesting that the two constructs are related. Implication of such findings and directions for future research are outlined in detail in the Discussion section of this thesis.

Inclusive education policy, the general allocation model and dilemmas of practice in primary schools

Background: Inclusive education is central to contemporary discourse internationally reflecting societies’ wider commitment to social inclusion. Education has witnessed transforming approaches that have created differing distributions of power, resource allocation and accountability. Multiple actors are being forced to consider changes to how key services and supports are organised. This research constitutes a case study situated within this broader social service dilemma of how to distribute finite resources equitably to meet individual need, while advancing inclusion. It focuses on the national directive with regard to inclusive educational practice for primary schools, Department of Education and Science Special Education Circular 02/05, which introduced the General Allocation Model (GAM) within the legislative context of the Education of Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act (Government of Ireland, 2004). This research could help to inform policy with ‘facts about what is happening on the ground’ (Quinn, 2013). Research Aims: The research set out to unearth the assumptions and definitions embedded within the policy document, to analyse how those who are at the coalface of policy, and who interface with multiple interests in primary schools, understand the GAM and respond to it, and to investigate its effects on students and their education. It examines student outcomes in the primary schools where the GAM was investigated. Methods and Sample The post-structural study acknowledges the importance of policy analysis which explicitly links the ‘bigger worlds’ of global and national policy contexts to the ‘smaller worlds’ of policies and practices within schools and classrooms. This study insists upon taking the detail seriously (Ozga, 1990). A mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis is applied. In order to secure the perspectives of key stakeholders, semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary school principals, class teachers and learning support/resource teachers (n=14) in three distinct mainstream, non-DEIS schools. Data from the schools and their environs provided a profile of students. The researcher then used the Pobal Maps Facility (available at www.pobal.ie) to identify the Small Area (SA) in which each student resides, and to assign values to each address based on the Pobal HP Deprivation Index (Haase and Pratschke, 2012). Analysis of the datasets, guided by the conceptual framework of the policy cycle (Ball, 1994), revealed a number of significant themes. Results: Data illustrate that the main model to support student need is withdrawal from the classroom under policy that espouses inclusion. Quantitative data, in particular, highlighted an association between segregated practice and lower socioeconomic status (LSES) backgrounds of students. Up to 83% of the students in special education programmes are from lower socio-economic status (LSES) backgrounds. In some schools 94% of students from LSES backgrounds are withdrawn from classrooms daily for special education. While the internal processes of schooling are not solely to blame for class inequalities, this study reveals the power of professionals to order children in school, which has implications for segregated special education practice. Such agency on the part of key actors in the context of practice relates to ‘local constructions of dis/ability’, which is influenced by teacher habitus (Bourdieu, 1984). The researcher contends that inclusive education has not resulted in positive outcomes for students from LSES backgrounds because it is built on faulty assumptions that focus on a psycho-medical perspective of dis/ability, that is, placement decisions do not consider the intersectionality of dis/ability with class or culture. This study argues that the student need for support is better understood as ‘home/school discontinuity’ not ‘disability’. Moreover, the study unearths the power of some parents to use social and cultural capital to ensure eligibility to enhanced resources. Therefore, a hierarchical system has developed in mainstream schools as a result of funding models to support need in inclusive settings. Furthermore, all schools in the study are ‘ordinary’ schools yet participants acknowledged that some schools are more ‘advantaged’, which may suggest that ‘ordinary’ schools serve to ‘bury class’ (Reay, 2010) as a key marker in allocating resources. The research suggests that general allocation models of funding to meet the needs of students demands a systematic approach grounded in reallocating funds from where they have less benefit to where they have more. The calculation of the composite Haase Value in respect of the student cohort in receipt of special education support adopted for this study could be usefully applied at a national level to ensure that the greatest level of support is targeted at greatest need. Conclusion: In summary, the study reveals that existing structures constrain and enable agents, whose interactions produce intended and unintended consequences. The study suggests that policy should be viewed as a continuous and evolving cycle (Ball, 1994) where actors in each of the social contexts have a shared responsibility in the evolution of education that is equitable, excellent and inclusive.