CHAPTER 8 TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP
4.8 TRUSTWORTHINESS
119 in different ways, sometimes ignoring issues, which results in there being a variety of interpretations at different times, which are often unexpected (Ellsmore, 2005). The use of focus groups in the analysis of the content of the selected films for this study went some way to ameliorating this phenomenon because the participants were known to each other and were apparently comfortable with the situation.
120 interpretation, but can be established through a direct correspondence between the positions and the sensory experience of them (Massey, 1999). The dangers of over-reliance on triangulation as a method of proof have been further noted by Massey (1999) who discredits the belief that a researcher can use a second method of inquiry to ‘prove’ the truth of a first method rather than having to define the first method as true; or of claiming that agreement between the results of two methods ‘proves’ the validity of the second method as well as that of the first (and presumably vice-versa). He further discredits the assumption that responses that look the same must mean the same thing, and, finally, assuming that propositions and answers derived from different methods can converge or diverge. Flick (2002) asserts that triangulation is more an alternative to validation and less a tool for validation or a strategy for validation. “The result of an analysis is some sort of higher-order synthesis in the form of a descriptive picture, patterns or themes” (Mertens, 1998, p. 351).
The data obtained in this study has been subjected to this form of analysis with care, and using every effort to limit any over-exaggeration of validity as a result of such comparisons. The juxtaposition of the variety of data obtained allowed for an emergence of inconsistencies between words and deeds, between claims made of understandings and what level of performance people actually reach. “What people do often differs from what they say they do” (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007).
‘Structural corroboration’ is described by Eisner (1998, p. 110) as a means by which a variety of types of data from multiple sources can, when considered together, support or challenge the views, deductions and interpretations of a study. “We seek a confluence of evidence, which breeds credibility, [and] which allows us to feel confident about our observations, interpretations, and conclusions” (Eisner, 1998, p. 110). This requires that the researcher collect suitable evidence for his/her inquiry. The benefits of collecting data from multiple sources have been noted by Patton (2002) and include, insofar as they refer to the present inquiry, the ability to draw a comparison between (1) statements made by the same respondents in one situation with those made by the same respondents in another situation, (2) the data obtained from observations from interviews and film-stimulus groups, (3) the views of different respondents involved in the research process, and (4) the data received from interviews and from literature referred to in the research. All these eventualities were involved in this research study.
121 In order to collect the data necessary for this study, the researcher investigated co- educational as well as single-sex primary and secondary schools and involved both male and female teachers from the greater Pinetown and eThekwini districts of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, in the process.
Flick (2002, pp. 226-227) asserts that qualitative research is “inherently multi-method in focus”. A variety of methods have been employed in this inquiry, namely individual and focus group interviews, teacher observation, and film-stimulus exercises. These methods form the basis of this inquiry and they generated such a variety of data so as to allow for triangulation (see above) and structural corroboration.
My research project, including this written thesis, is a subjective attempt to persuade, through reason and evidence, the reader on a conceptual level about a certain issue. The first important test then, when evaluating a research project, is to ask if the entire project succeeds in persuading the reader. Does it ‘hang together’, make sense, and ring true?
How well does the study relate to what is already known and understood about the topic being discussed? Are the conclusions and comments supported by enough varied evidence? Can the reader be persuaded to a point of view by virtue of the weight and logic of the evidence provided (as, for example, is attempted by an attorney making a case in court) as well as by the cogency of the interpretation? (Eisner, 1998). This judgement has been tested by the researcher during the crafting of the study, but it now remains for the reader to draw his/her own conclusion on the matter.
My judgement here, and the reader’s conclusions represent “the condition in which investigators or readers concur that the findings and/or interpretations are consistent with their own experience or with the evidence presented (Eisner, 1998, p. 56).” – that there is a satisfying degree of consensus. Consensus is not a synonym for truth in this context, rather it is a sense of believability; “can these deductions be believed, and stability - are these results stable, will the results be substantially the same next time?” (Willis, 2007, p. 165).
In a very real sense, consensus between the researcher and his/her readers suggests that persuasion has indeed occurred and that the arguments and interpretations used to assemble the evidence and draw conclusions have been successful.
122 Arguably the most important criterion, and as such the most important evaluative test, is that of a study’s instrumental value. Will the study be of any use? Will it assist in understanding an unfathomable state of affairs? Will we be better able to understand past events or foresee future conditions? Will it help to explain the environment to avoid problems? Will we be enabled to focus on features of our lives and world we might otherwise not have considered?
Insightful research creates an awareness of matters, ideas and points of view that are not or cannot be considered without such research. It is unlikely that the material evaluated by qualitative research would prove amenable to mathematical or technical analysis. To develop or deduce meaning from data requires rationality.
By rationality I mean the exercise of intelligence in the creation or perception of elements as they relate to the whole in which they participate. I do not restrict rationality to discursively mediated thought or limit it to the application of logic. Human rationality is displayed whenever relationships are among elements are skilfully crafted or insightfully perceived. (Eisner, 1998, p. 51)
Insightful research develops from and is evaluated by the quality of the deductions and interpretations that are drawn by the researcher based on the observations and data the research has made available. This novel and important inquiry into the role of the teacher as a leader within the classroom is presented with the hope that teacher leadership will increasingly occur as a result of the efforts of this study.