ANÁLISIS DE LAS ENCUESTAS REALIZADAS A LOS

Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) defined teacher leaders as those who lead within and beyond the classroom, influence others toward improved practice, contribute to a community of leaders and learners, and accept responsibility for achieving outcomes. Education researchers maintain that teacher leadership is needed to reform instructional practices and administrators must re-conceptualize the role of teachers as leaders and change agents in education (Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995; Smylie & Denny, 1990). A gap exists in the literature related to teacher leadership. A few studies exist on teacher leadership specific to social studies teachers (Eargle, 2013; Gandy, Pierce, & Smith, 2009; Rouse, 2007). Moreover, social studies departments in secondary schools are unique for having male-dominated personnel (Fitchett, 2010) and for being rooted in the masculinity of athletics (Stacy, 2014). Additionally, the role of gender is under-examined in relation to teacher leadership. Thus, the intersection of teacher leadership in social studies, social studies department culture, and social studies and gender represents an unexplored area of research.

Research Questions

To explore and develop a deeper understanding of the intersection of teacher leadership, social studies, and gender, I developed an overarching question and three particularized research questions to focus my investigation. My study was guided by the following research questions:

What is the experience of female social studies teacher leaders serving a department chairs in public high schools?

a. How do female teacher leaders serving a department chairs define the concept of leadership?

b. How do the female teacher leaders serving a department chairs demonstrate the characteristics of teacher leadership?

c. How do female teacher leaders serving as department chairs negotiate leading teachers in a potentially masculine department within schools?

With these questions, I wanted understand how the participants align with the literature on teacher leadership, how they lead beyond the classroom, what positions of leadership they hold, and how they serve informally as leaders. Additionally, I wanted to understand how the participants perceive leadership. In particular, I wanted to know how they conceptualize and define leadership and seek to translate those leadership qualities and characteristics into practice.

Finally, at the center of my study, I wanted to understand the relationships the participants have with other educators. Specifically, I wanted to understand their relationship with others in the discipline, other teacher leaders, school administration, females, males, academic positions, and athletic coaches. Also, I wanted to understand work with others to lead in their department, school, or district. With this question, I was able to answer the overarching question of female social studies teacher leader’s

experience as perceived by the participants and took steps toward generating understanding using a ground theory approach (Glasser & Strauss, 1967).

Participants Purposeful Selection of Participants

Qualitative research is based on purposefully identifying information-rich cases for (Patton, 2002). Purposeful sampling allows the researcher to “learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of inquiry” which “yields insights and in- depth understanding rather than empirical generalizations” (Patton, 2002, p. 230). On the surface, the selection of Jessica and Amanda appeared to be what Patton defined as convenience sampling. Because I knew Jessica through a professional organization and I knew Amanda for three years as colleagues, the participants were “easy to access and… study” (Patton, 2002, p. 242). However, my selection of Jessica and Amanda was purposeful. When identifying participants for the present study, I used what Patton defined as intensity sampling as Jessica and Amanda represent “information-rich cases” but are “not highly unusual cases” (p. 234). They characterized teacher leadership in ways that are individually unique but not out of the ordinary for teacher leaders.

Additionally, I used what Patton labeled as criterion sampling and theory-based sampling. Criterion sampling requires the selection of participants “that meet some predetermined criterion of importance” (p. 238). My criteria for selection as a participant in the present study included: being a female high school social studies teacher, a

department chair, and a teacher leader beyond the formal role of department chair. Jessica and Amanda both meet the predetermined criteria. Taking the criterion sampling a step further, Patton noted that theory-based sampling is the selection of participants on the condition of their “representation of important theoretical constructs” (p. 238). For theory-based sampling, I identified Jessica and Amanda using Dempsey’s (1992) images

of teacher leadership. Dempsey conceptualized teacher leaders as: Teacher as fully functioning person, teacher as reflective practitioner, teacher as scholar, and teacher as partner in learning. Jessica and Amanda both met this theory-based sampling condition. Thus, the participants in the present study met the benchmarks of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) in the areas of intensity sampling, criterion sampling, and theory-based sampling.

Protection of Participants

Qualitative research involves the negotiation of risk and benefit, resulting in researcher obligation to protect participants. Hemmings (2006) defined beneficence as “an obligation on the part researchers to do no harm, maximize possible benefits, and minimize possible harms” (p. 13). In qualitative research this is challenging because of the direct work with individuals. As Bosk and De Vries (2004) noted, “[t]o some degree, we cannot specify risks because we do not know what we will find, what interpretive frameworks we will develop for reporting what we do observe, and how the world around us will change to make those findings seem more or less significant” (p. 253). While agreeing with Bock and De Vries, Hemming (2006) noted that “researchers must

articulate potential social stigmatization, psychological trauma, and other harms that may occur as a direct result of their data collection” during the Institutional Review Board process (p. 17). While it is difficult to determine risk in a qualitative project, I considered and identified possible risks as part of the research process. I presented these risks to the Institutional Review Board for the University of South Carolina and received approval to proceed with my study (See Appendix A).

I suspected at some point in the data collection process statements the participants might critique their current colleagues in their social studies departments. A second possibility was that my findings may uncover a negative attitude toward their current school administration. Based on these two suspected outcomes, a potential risk to the participants could be that my study impedes the relationship they have with others, making future work in their schools difficult. A third risk I considered was that others see the theory produced as a result of the study as easily generalized, do not take into account cultural aspects and the personalities of the participants, and denounce it as irrelevant because it was not easily seen in their own context. As a result, this could have a negative impact on the professional reputation of the participants.

These risks are plausible, but not definite. On the other hand, the benefit of the study is definite. The gap in the research on teacher leadership among female high school social studies teachers is clear. The teachers involved in the study participated because they saw it as valuable to their growth as educators and to the development of social studies as an important discipline in our schools. A goal of my study was to empower the participants as leaders and role models and validate the work they have accomplished thus far in their careers by being the subject of an academic study. Likewise, the interviews and the journal served a dual purpose. First, they were a means of data

collection for this study. Second, they were a means of reflection for the participants and, thus, should prompted them to think deeper about their classroom practice and their role as teacher leaders.

An ethical issue in qualitative research is maintaining the anonymity of participants. Glesne (2011) described participant privacy as a “foremost concern” (p.

172). My study focuses on a two female social studies teachers who engage in leadership activities around the state. As such, I did not want to put them in jeopardy as these teachers may be easily identifiable. Glesne suggested using pseudonyms to preserve the anonymity of participants in the write-up stage of the study. As a result, I assigned each participant and their co-workers pseudonyms using the most common names from the Social Security name index and surnames in the United States according to the 2010 census. In addition, although I described their schools in general terms, I assigned the schools pseudonyms as well. I quoted sources to describe the schools and community to provide a rich background of the teaching context. These location identifying documents included a local newspaper, state department of education documents, and county

Chamber of Commerce descriptions. However, I did not cite those sources to protect the anonymity of participants as revealing the actual school, district, county or community name would point people to the identity of the participants. However, it would be

possible to identify the school with some investigation. As an additional layer of security, recordings, transcripts, documents, and location identifying documents will be saved on a password protected digital devise, such as a laptop.

Methodology for Qualitative Research Comparative Case Study

For my study, I used a comparative case study approach. The “descriptive and holistic” nature of a case study was well-suited for this particular study (Glesne, 2011, p. 22). Because I am focused on understanding the lived experiences of the two female social studies teacher leaders, a comparative case study is appropriate as it provides “variation across the cases,” an opportunity for a “more compelling… interpretation”,

and improving the validity of the findings (Merriam, 2009, p. 49-50). However, I

designed the comparative case study to allow for both within-case analysis and cross-case analysis, as a means of identifying themes across cases (Merriam, 2009). In addition, because I my goal was not to generalize or compare my findings to other teacher or situations, I chose to approach the uniqueness these particular teachers with a data collection design that is “less structured” and “individually tailored” to the participants and situation (Maxwell, 2013, p. 88). This approach allowed me to gather rich data through a variety of methods that enabled me to produce a vivid portrait of the teachers as leaders in social studies and their experience as women in a predominantly masculine discipline.

According to Glesne (2011), a case study is the study of the “complexity” and “uniqueness” of a case using “data gathered through participant observation, in-depth interviewing, and document collection and anaylsis” (p. 22). A case study approach was appropriate to my study because the phenomenon under investigation, teacher leadership in among female secondary social studies teachers, requires the depth of a case study. The rich detail of a case study allowed me to better theorize about the phenomena for future research studies. Additionally, Maxwell (2013) concluded that, because “the selection of a particular case in terms of the goals of the study” is a critical component of a case study, the methodology of a case study must include “purposeful selection” of both a site and participants (p. 78). Maxwell defined purposeful selection as deliberately selecting “particular settings, persons, or activities… to provide information that is particularly relevant to your questions and goals, and that can’t be gotten as well from other choices” (p. 97). In identifying participants for the study, I used Patton’s (2002)

intensity sampling, criterion sampling, and theory-based sampling methods to achieve purposeful selection. Because I concentrated on the female social studies teachers

working as high school department chairs who aligned with Dempsey‘s (1992) images of teacher leadership, a comparative case study with purposeful selection is best method to use to frame and present my study.

Grounded Theory Methodology Development

Stern (1980) described grounded theory as a means of conducting “investigations of relatively uncharted waters… or to gain a fresh perspective in a familiar situation” (p. 20). Because I was interested in understanding the lived experiences of female social studies teacher leaders, grounded theory suited my case study design. Grounded theory is a research approach focused on generating theory based on systematic analysis of data (Glasser & Strauss, 1967). In doing this, Stern (1980) outlined five steps for conducting grounded research, which were subsequently modified four stages by Coyne and Cowley (2006). For my study, I adjusted Coyne and Cowley’s matrix to include reflective

journals and theory development. Also, I modified Coyne and Cowley’s matrix to denote ongoing development of the analytic framework on follow-up interviews (see Figure 3.1, Research Matrix).

Grounded Theory Methodology in the Present Study

A timeline best describes the process I used of collecting data in my study. First, I identified participants using Dempsey‘s (1992) images of teacher leadership. Second, participants submitted two documents: a resume and graph that describes the members of their administrative staff and social studies departments. I then conducted initial

understanding of leadership. I conducted the interviews in February 2016. I transcribed and analyzed the interviews. Between late-February and early-May 2016, the participants recorded their experiences related leading in department and school in a biweekly

journal. The participants submitted the entries to me electronically. As I received the entries, I analyzed the entries, cross checking between the interview data and the

journaling. As this process progressed, I maintained memos to monitor my interpretations of the data and I compared the emerging findings with existing literature. At the

completion of the three-month journal writing period, I developed final interview questions based on within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. I conducted interviews using a phenomenological interview methodology (Roulston, 2010). I transcribed the final interviews. I analyzed all data in accordance to the research process matrix,

producing a theory of teacher leadership among female social studies teacher leaders via grounded methodology.

Data Collection

I collecteddata for the study primarily through participant interviews and participant journaling. I also used other documents for data collection such as resumes and report cards.

Pilot study. Developing a pilot study allows qualitative researchers an opportunity to concentrate on concepts prior to initiating the larger study (Maxwell, 2013). For my study, this meant an initial exploration of the understanding how female social studies teacher leaders lead in high school social studies departments. In 2014, I conducted a pilot case study of a female social studies teacher leader who was in the process of transitioning from one high school to another. I sought to understand how she

perceived and understood leading a largely male staff. Glesne (2011) and Maxwell (2013) noted that conducting a pilot study allows the qualitative researcher to calibrate research methodology. As a result of the pilot study, I was able to hone interviewing techniques for the present study utilizing a phenomenological interviewing approach to capture “detailed and in-depth descriptions of human experiences” (Roulston, 2010, p. 16). Additionally, I found that having data that included both participant interviews and participant-produced artifacts would allow for a richer, more descriptive narrative of the participant’s experience (Glesne, 2011). Consequently for the present study, I decided to include a reflective journal as a means of establishing a participant-generated document (Glesne, 2011; Merriam, 2009). Finally, the pilot study allowed me to sharpen the

research questions guiding the present study. Specifically, I included questions connected to female teacher leader who lead social studies teachers who serve as athletic coaches.

Contextual and biographical. My study is designed to exploreinformation-rich cases (Patton, 2002). To demonstrate this, I presented both a description of the

participants’ current work environments and biographical sketches of the participants. I believe that the description of the work environment provided an understanding of the participants’ daily instructional lives and leadership activities. Likewise, it indicated a connection between perceived teacher leadership actions and context. Additionally, I included a biographical sketch of the participants to understand how their past informed their understanding and perceptions of leadership. The biographical sketches allowed me to situate the participants along professional continuums (Feiman-Nemser, 2001;

Huberman, 1989). These components served as benchmarks for my own reflexivity procedures in the qualitative process as I understood how I relate to and differ from the

participants. These also served to identify my insider/outsider status (Merriam et al., 2001) with two people I have known prior to the study.

Interview protocols. First, I developed interview questions (see Appendix B) as open questions and open probes to garner more details about the participants’ lived experience and explore the perceptions of their experiences (Roulston, 2010; Seidman, 2006). In doing so, I avoided leading questions to may illicit a desired response or

influence the language the participants use (Roulston, 2010; Seidman, 2006). Leading can also take the form of reinforcing actions and mannerisms, which I avoided as well

(Seidman, 2006). Seidman (2006) noted that being attentive to the participant’s word selection allows the interview to probe for meaning. In my study, this was useful in determining the participants’ understanding of words such as “leadership” and “teacher leadership” and “extra-curricular.” This was particularly useful when my definitions and the participants’ definitions did not align. Because I constructed a biographical

component to the research and reconstructed the perceived narrative of participants’ daily leadership activities, I asked follow-up questions to ensure the chronologies of the actions are accurate (Seidman, 2006). Finally, I used an interview guide consisting of five to six base questions “designed to ask participants to reconstruct their experience and to explore their meaning” (Seidman, 2006, p. 92) to assist me in adhering to the above protocols (see Appendix C).

Participant interviews. First, participants received a consent form (see Appendix C). Jessica was interviewed once. Amanda was interviewed three times. I conducted interviews at times convenient for the participants. I conducted the interviews in a

“lived experiences” of the participant by focusing on their “feeling, perceptions, and understandings” as female teacher leaders in social studies (Roulston, 2010, p. 16). The first interview session focused on the participants’ growth as a teacher, a teacher leader and their leadership philosophy. The follow-up interview sessions focused on

relationships the participants have with administrators and other social studies teachers as a teacher leader and on leadership actions documented in the journals. I recorded the interviews and saved digital copies on a password-protected lap top.

Journals. I decided to use participant journals as a means of documenting instances of leadership over the course of three months. Glesne (2011) noted that participant diaries are important sources of data for generating interview questions and “supporting or challenging interview data” (p. 90). This supported a grounded theory approach in that it allowed a comparative analysis between interviews and journals in both within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. Additionally, the journal represented a personal document, which allows for the analysis of the participants’ “personal