CHAPTER 8 TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP
4.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.4.1 Respondents
91 complexities and ambiguities, particularly as concerns opinions on leadership, and these are open to many interpretations, only some of which may be correct.
The realities we seek come to us in the forms of myths, paradigms, world views, cultures and belief systems, all of which serve a purpose. We learn from philosophy that the world provides a number of explanations for its problems, all of which can exist side-by-side.
This is the ambiguity of understanding life. (Koestenbaum, 1999, p.
70)
The data gathered for this study was solicited using a variety of methods, including observation, interview and film stimulus exercise, all of which involve discussion with subjects. This data is interpreted according to the specialised contexts of education and leadership.
92 The selecting of respondents in a research inquiry is referred to as sampling. Sampling processes are adopted in relation to the purpose of the inquiry. The method of sampling for this study fell within the broad category of a non-probability group as the participants were selected with the understanding that they are not necessarily to be considered as representative of all teachers. The participants were specifically “hand-picked […] because they were seen as instances most likely to produce the most valuable data” (Denscombe, 2005, p. 15) regarding leadership in teaching. This selection process did not look for variety as much as it did for similarity in terms of the richness of information that could be provided regarding teacher leadership of pupils in a class. Several focus groups were brought about naturally between teachers who work together in the same school. An advantage of this is that “friends and colleagues can relate each other’s comments to incidents in their shared daily lives” (Kitzinger, 1995, p. 3). The sampling method must therefore be recognised as ‘purposive homogeneous’ (Mertens, 1998). Purposive or judgemental sampling (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) is appropriate for use “in selecting a sample on the basis of [the researcher’s] own knowledge of the population, its elements and the nature of the research aims” (Babbie and Mouton, 2004, p. 166). Given the limitation of resources such as finance and time, there is a degree of ‘convenience sampling’ in choosing people from a geographically local and easily accessible region. It is noted that, “An element of convenience is likely to enter into sampling procedures of most research” (Denscombe, 2005, p. 17).
All the teacher respondents in this study were selected from South African state section 21 (largely self-financing) schools within KwaZulu-Natal. Such schools were previously designated as Model C (state-aided) schools. Having always enjoyed considerable advantages, these schools have a history of notable educational success. This can be attributed to the enormous financial advantages that they enjoy, as well as to the quality of their people, plant and educational resources. It can also be attributed to good leadership from principals and other staff members (the acquiring of such excellent staff is the result of the schools’ tradition of excellence over many years). Owing to my own knowledge of these schools and my experience of working with them in the past, I was confident that I would be able to find teachers well versed in the concept of leadership, whose personal experiences of role models for their own teaching careers would provide me with the understanding I seek. Independent schools are generally able to handpick the teachers they would like to employ. Such schools are therefore less likely to represent the greater
93 majority of teachers in the country, and so none of the selected schools fell into that category. Although my sample was never intended to be representative, it was felt that by excluding independent schools from the study I was less likely to derive a completely non- representative set of data.
The selecting of respondents for this study involved protracted and deep consideration.
The four teachers that were eventually chosen to be both interviewed and observed, as well as the one teacher that was chosen to be simply interviewed, were chosen based on their reputations as ‘teachers who lead in classes. The process of selecting these respondents thus relied on subjective opinion and judgement. A recent research project on excellence in teaching described the method used for selecting suitable respondents; this method involved the school’s principals, who had access to various sources of information about the performance level of their teachers.
It became clear that in order to study the teacher’s role as a leader of pupils, it was necessary to locate respondents who have a propensity for leadership. The challenge emerged when engaging with schools on the matter because there is not one common understanding of the concept of leadership. The inevitable question arose: leadership by whose standards and by whose perspective? It was imperative to find a way forward in this. To evade “this Gorgon’s knot and to avoid the technical complexities of measuring”
(Vallance, 2003, p. 251) leadership, I fell back on a technique that was used in May 1999 in a research project that was dealing with a similar challenge, namely that of identifying
‘excellent’ teachers for a research study. This previous study relied on the judgement of the schools’ principals, as is described below:
In May 1999, the principals of four Catholic systemic Secondary Schools were asked to nominate those of their teachers they thought to be Excellent Teachers. When asked ‘What do you mean by
“Excellent”?’ the reply was that the principals themselves were the ones who knew. It was presumed they gathered all sorts of information from parents, other staff, students, their own observations, end of term reports, and a thousand daily encounters to judge which of their staff they could nominate as “excellent”.
(Vallance, 2003, p. 251)
94 It is this ploy and standard that was used for this study. The principals from the eight selected schools were each requested to identify ‘teachers who lead in their relationships with pupils’. The selection would be based on the principals’ experiences of those teachers’ performances. Consideration was also to be given to pupil, parent and colleague reactions, as well as to any measures of leadership that the individual principal may wish to apply. The principals were urged to consider not only the short-term but also the long- term changes that have been brought about in pupils’ attitudes and behaviour as a result of the teachers concerned.
The teachers that had been identified by their principals as teacher leaders were invited to participate in the interview and observation process, in the focus group interviews and in the film reviews. Five individual interviews took place, although only four went on to be observed. In addition, five focus group interviews and five film stimulus groups were convened with other teachers. It was intended that by selecting four teachers from privileged and advantaged situations for observation the benchmarks of opportunity would provide unique insights into what is possible in terms of teacher leadership within schools.
In considering the context of the selection of schools, and teachers as subjects for observation and interview for this study, I have opted to focus on possibility, and what is achievable in optimum circumstances and in terms of positive examples of excellence.
Numbers of research studies focus on ‘deficit’ situations, unearthing what is not happening, why and where there is shortfall in method and outcome, with a centre of attention on underperformance and insufficiency. By contrast, for this exploration of teacher leadership, I have elected to look for examples of ‘best practice’ and draw conclusions from these. As noted earlier the literature and research on teacher leadership in the classroom is minimal. By selecting opportunities to observe best possible examples, I have been able to compare theory with practice, setting bench mark possibilities for the benefit if teaching.
To retain their anonymity, the schools and the teachers that were involved in the study are referred to (by design) by the names of precious gemstones. (Refer to Appendix C)