The literature review helped sensitise to sampling issues that needed attention, for example, if the sampling was to be representative (Ary, 1999). Once sampling had been accomplished, I set about gaining access to the sample schools. Access took place at two levels. Firstly, it occurred at the physical and superficial level, and then proceeded onto a deeper level of 'emotional' acceptance.
Physical access
Physical access to the two sample schools was requested in writing, firstly from the Regional Research Office (see Appendix 7) and then from the schools (see Appendix 8).The letter to the Regional Office was posted while letters to the sample schools were hand delivered. The decision to deliver the letters to the schools in person was prompted by a wish to gain contact with the schools prior to fieldwork; familiarize myself with directions to the schools; and make it possible for the schools to ask in person whatever enquiries they might have had regarding my study.
The manner in which the two schools responded to requests for access provided initial data on the differences between the two schools' cultures and associated leadership.
The first school to be approached was Fundiseka. This was because, being selected on the basis of good academic performance, data collection was going to commence and last longer at this school. When Fundiseka was first approached it was with an assumption that one visit would be sufficient for the purpose of acquiring access.
However, contrary to this assumption, the process involved four visits over a period of three school months. The first visit had the principal stating that although he personally did not have any objections to me conducting the study at the school, he could not grant me access without first consulting the school's Senior Management Team (SMT). A subsequent telephone enquiry about the SMT response had the principal requesting that my proposed study be presented in person to the team so the team could be in a position to grant informed access or denial, whatever the case would be.
However, the presentation still did not elicit the hoped for access, nor did it elicit denial. Instead, the SMT made its own request that the proposed study be presented to the whole staff or its representatives in order to let the staff decide on the access fate.
The SMT's caution stemmed from a fear that staff might confuse the study with the Whole School Evaluation (WSE) Programme which was being piloted in certain schools at that time and which seemed to be meeting with resistance from certain teacher union quarters. The fear that the study might be confused with WSE was because both involved class visits, and it was these visits that formed the basis for the rejection of the WSE project. The SMT felt that staff needed to be reassured that the class visits would not be about evaluations but about observing classroom culture and leadership and therefore not about subject knowledge and/or teaching methods.
The opposite took place at Umzamo where the principal happily granted access for the study on the very first visit without consultation with staff. Prompting such a response was an erroneous perception by the principal after the nature and purpose of this study had been explained to him. The explanation made him believe that the study would be a 'life-saver' for him/the school. Of particular interest to the principal was the explanation that even though part of focus in this study was leadership, the conceptualisation of leadership did not necessarily embrace him or other individuals
holding positions of formal authority. Instead, it referred to any individual with influence over other school members' attitudes and actions. The principal's immediate response was that the school needed such a study because it had
experienced problems which he thought resulted from such (dispersed) leadership!
One of the problems of such leadership, he maintained, had led to his previous three- year displacement from which he had returned the previous year.
What's in it for us?
A number of comments made by some of the participants prior to and as data collection commenced gave the impression that the participants expected something in return for 'inconveniences' experienced from activities related to the fieldwork.
What these participants seemed to be asking was: 'What's in it for us?' This was even though I had given intentions to disseminate findings in this study through publications and my teaching and had also stated that I hoped such dissemination would help inform related practice. Remarks by certain participants indicated that the participants hoped for more tangible rewards and which would be of immediate benefit to them and their schools.
Such expectations at Umzamo were conveyed by comments by participants that they viewed this study as a sort of 'deliverance'. For example, the school principal stated that he felt that findings in this study would 'fix' things for the school in that they would expose the role played by dispersed leadership towards the school's problems.
On the other hand, for a few vocal teachers, the hoped for salvation was going to be in the exposition of what was wrong with the school's leadership. As data collection progressed it became evident that by 'leadership' the individuals were referring mostly to the school principal, but also to staff, such as the SMT, in formal positions of authority. It also became apparent that the teachers making such comments were not, for one reason or another, in the principal's good books. A remark made by one of the teachers was that he hoped 'they' (people in situations of official positions of authority at the school) would get to learn about their 'wrong doings' from the findings, and repent. Comments such as this posed one other challenge in that it was not always easy to find a way of responding in a manner that, while encouraging respondents to share their feelings, did not encourage 'gossip'. It is possible that the
latter caution resulted in some valuable data being lost in this study in that in some situations I failed to provide the necessary prompts for further 'expositions'.
However, it is hoped that the protracted period of data collection helped make up for this possible deficiency.
The airing of 'reward' expectations by the Fundiseka community differed from that of Umzamo's in that the Fundiseka community openly requested assistance it perceived I was in a position of providing. For example, the young teacher who chaired the 'access' meeting and who was later identified as the most influential individual at the school, had stated during the meeting that he hoped that staff would benefit from my university teaching experience one way or the other. As fieldwork progressed, a number of teachers did approach me in relation to this expectation and either enquired about teacher programmes at the university or asked for assistance with assignments related to their studies. One such form of assistance involved getting relevant literature from the university library for a teacher who needed the literature for his masters' dissertation proposal. Another such request was made by a Grade 12 student who required information on financial assistance for further studies at university. The student shared with his class the book with this information I had provided him.
Acceptance
Once data gathering commenced it became evident that for an ethnographic study access requires much more than physical access. What became apparent at this stage was that the biggest challenge was to get participants to be so familiar with my presence that they regarded my activities as part of the schools' everyday life, not as an intrusion into tfieir privacy. Such 'access' was necessary because it was important for the purposes of this study that the participants acted naturally and normally. This was only going to be possible if the participants did not feel the need to act for, or be constrained, by being conscious of being observed. Although participants had not denied access, there were cases at the commencement of fieldwork when participants gave the impression that they were actually 'acting up' for 'the study' (see Fieldwork Notes in Appendix 9).
To help reduce such 'risks', data was gathered in as discreet a manner as possible. For example, class visits were unscheduled in the sense that requests were not made for each visit. Instead, teachers whose classes would be visited during the fieldwork were made aware that I might simply arrive at any time. To obtain the required access, explanations were provided for the necessity of such visits - that they would result in observations that were more enlightening than if scheduled. Such arrangements and explanations helped ensure that the teachers would conduct their classes and interact with students as they normally would when not being observed.