2.5 Research design
2.5.3 Data-generation methods
56
Hostel staff also play an influential role in the transmission of Zulu traditions and values. The fact that all hostel staff who play a paternal role are from the Zulu ethnic group reinforces the Zulu culture at the school. It is in this way that Zulu culture becomes an integral part of the lives of learners from an early age. However, I have observed that although Deaf and Zulu culture are acquired simultaneously, Deaf culture remains the dominant culture for learners at Hilltop School.
Concluding thoughts
It is clear that the very complex and diverse context of my study has had a direct impact on my understanding of my leadership, and how I experience it. It takes effort and commitment from the leadership and management of the school to manage diversity. My readings have illuminated for me some of the issues related to the issue of diversity and school leadership. Research internationally and in South Africa has demonstrated that schools that serve highly diverse populations have many inherent conflicting cultures, each of which has an impact on the general socio-cultural context (Aleman, 2009; Brown, 2010; Chao, Wei, Good & Flores, 2011; Arnold, 2005; Petersen, 2008). According to complexity leadership theories, leaders must work with complexity and not try to reduce it (Olmedo, 2012). Brown (2010) emphasises that a school that accepts diversity and recognises the contributions of all the people in it is healthier and more productive than a school that does not. Schools that treat the diversity of their people as a strength are better able to adapt to the changes taking place in the rest of society, achieve their goals and objectives, and provide a richer learning and working environment for all its members (Olmedo, 2012; Lim, 2009).
The complexities and tensions that arise out of this diverse environment are elaborated on in my narrative.
57
There is a growing body of research in South Africa in the area of visual research methodologies, and many of the scholars use memory work as a methodological tool (for example, Mitchell, Strong-Wilson, Pithouse & Allnutt, 2011; Hemson, 2012; Masinga, 2012; Pattman, 2012;
Pithouse-Morgan, Mitchell & Pillay, 2012). Discussions of memory work have also emerged from the feminist epistemological critique of the traditional positioning of the scientific researcher as an objective and distanced observer of the social world and object of study (Jansson, Wendt & Ase, 2008). The method was intended to promote research practices that relate to women as subjects and not as objects, where closeness, experience and subjectivity are valued as opposed to objectivity, control and distance. Epistemologically, memory work rests on the position that social reality is established and reproduced by individuals in the lived practices of everyday life. This aligns very well with the ontological and epistemological position I took in my study.
The primary objective of memory work is self-knowledge (Schratz & Walker, 1995). Onyx and Small (2001) explain that “subjectively significant events, events which are remembered, and the way they are subsequently constructed play an important part in the construction of self” (p.
774). Hamerton (2001) explains that memory-work “enables people to make explicit the ways in which experiences and identities are constructed within particular socio-cultural settings” (p.
414). In the recall of my memories I discovered that I engaged in a dialogue with my memories, talked to them, challenged them, and responded to them. In remembering and reflecting on events, actions, situations, critical incidents and episodes, I found I was reflecting on my identity as a school leader and its formation in a particular socio-cultural context.
Berg (2008) explains that “memory work invites us into a room where reflections on knowledge production can inspire new ideas” (p. 224). I looked forward to this potential of memory work at the start of my study.
My research was in a sense collaborative memory work with the aim of reflecting on my subjectivity in collaboration with critical co-researchers and critical friends in particular social spaces of the school at which I am a leader. Schratz & Walker (1995) explain that collaborative memory work involves “ways of thinking about the self, and changing the self, that are socially rather than individually located” (p. 61).
During this recollection and writing, it was easy to recall vividly my story at times but at other times it was difficult and complex. However, I was aware that the aim of memory work is not necessarily to produce authentic knowledge, but rather to engage in present-day interpretations
58
of past events and experiences (Berg, 2008). Berg argues that recounting experience is never authentic, in the sense that it would be innocent, clear-cut, or straightforward. Recounting experience is complex and is about “impossible encounters and connections, about possibilities of making a difference in terms of knowledges and better politics” (Scott 1992, p. 218).
As I recalled and often relived nodal moments, I was strangely surprised by the emotions that they awakened in me. Berg (2008) explains that memory work can stir complex emotions such as uneasiness, regret, pain, guilt and shame. There were many times when I felt that what I had challenged or accomplished was unbelievable in the sense that my own courage/foolishness, perseverance and resilience seemed unrecognisable by me. I was often confronted with the dilemma of whether I was merely foolish and fearless, or determined and driven. Writing my story, therefore, became a very emotional experience for me and it often evoked fears within me.
I often stopped to wonder what my predicament would have been had events and goals turned out differently.
In addition I was unprepared for the conflicting emotions and ‘roller coaster’ feelings that I frequently experienced when I was reflexive in terms of my leadership enactments. Confronting some of my actions made me feel regret and sometimes shame as I faced the possibility that my own fears and insecurities had propelled me to achieve certain goals at the expense of the feelings of staff. My own agenda seemed to have taken precedence over all others. This made me feel uncomfortable in retrospect. At times I felt sad when I realised that I had negated the feelings of others and I questioned whether my actions were self-serving.
My insecurities came to the fore as I confronted the reflections of others on my leadership behaviours. I recall feeling intense anxiety whenever I heard or read the reflections or co- narratives of other members of staff. I often found that the judgements and scrutiny of others, which included my PhD cohort group members, staff members, critical friends and my supervisor, filled me with trepidation and dread. The vulnerability that I experienced when my own memories were up for interrogation at cohort meetings was hard to manage.
Focus group sessions with participants often evoked difficult and uncomfortable emotions in me. This collective interrogation of memories was difficult and created tensions and frustration within me (Berg, 2008). Cornforth, White, Milligan & Claiborne (2009) emphasise that subjecting the rewriting of your memories to interrogation disrupts the coherence of the stable subject from whom evidence is collected. It was in these moments of my research journey that I experienced regret for choosing autoethnography as my methodology, and felt demotivated.
59
In addition, chronicling my story became a challenge as many developments, changes and innovations at the school were happening concurrently. To assist in this regard I depended on log book entries, school magazines, minutes of meetings (especially staff and SGB meetings) and journal entries, as well as information from various members of staff who were involved in particular projects. Often this proved difficult as many staff members did not keep timeous records and confused me even further with their own recollections. My deputy principal often came to my rescue as she had always filed her documents meticulously for the past six years, and had paid attention to details such as dates. Using all this information, I constructed a timeline to assist my narrative development.
At the time that I decided to use autoethnography as my method of study, I started a reflexive journal and made a concerted effort to write every day. This proved to be an invaluable source of data as I wrote my story, particularly when I recalled emotional events that had shaped me.
However, writing every day became a struggle. My aim was to make regular reflective notes at the end of each day. However, at times I found that I could not meet this commitment after an emotionally draining day at the school. In addition, as I wrote accounts of nodal moments in my journal, I realised that I was tapping into the emotions generated by embodied memories.
However, observing, writing and thinking about my own feelings, assumptions and actions provided invaluable sources of data.
Using co-constructed narratives was a technique that I used to obtain additional data. According to Grossi (2006), the goal of a co-constructed narrative is to represent the experiences of partners. The two storytellers (researcher and partner) become co-authors. I used the two deputy principals and a Level One teacher to co-narrate with me. In this regard it was surprising to note that often the stories they told were very different from my version. I also had difficulty with one of my co-narrators, who was always happy to talk and discuss events but was not at ease with writing. He often remarked that he ‘hated writing’ and it was not his strength. Hence, he agreed to co-narrate on condition that his contribution would be oral and that I was to be the scribe.
However, he refused to allow our conversations to be audio-taped. This became a limitation in my study as I was never certain about whether I had accurately captured everything that he had narrated. I did have the advantage of revisiting issues with him at various points.
Data was also produced through semi-structured interviews. These were face-to-face interviews with selected educators and key stakeholders involved in the school. My positionality as principal of the school created tensions. In my initial discussions of the study with them, I could sense that some of the staff I had planned to interview felt that if they were negative and honest, they
60
would be victimised. They felt obliged to narrate only positive achievements and accounts. Thus, the process was complicated as I was both the subject of the research as well as the researcher, and the person in the principal’s office. To overcome this I engaged a neutral researcher to conduct the interviews. I also took the stance with them that I wanted their honest lived experiences of me as the school leader, and that their rich authentic perspectives would enhance my study.
My other sources of data included newspaper articles and magazines that featured the school, certificates of accomplishments, congratulatory letters, and photographs, as well as video recordings of special events