This section outlines the practical processes involved in identifying and obtaining participants. Initial participant selection criteria involved consideration of both school and teacher characteristics. Different indicators of diversity in the primary teaching population and the specific groups of teachers that might be included in the study were noted. It seemed important to ensure that at least some male teachers were studied as
well as some teachers who identified as Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand. A decision was also made to seek participants who represented a range of ages, years of experience and levels of seniority within the profession. A final consideration was the musical and music education background of the teachers, allowing the inclusion of teachers with formal and informal musical qualifications, those with a strong
performance base and those with specialist music making interests such as choral or rock music. Although generalising findings to the wider population of primary school music leaders was never an aim of the research, nonetheless, the research aimed to capture in broad terms a sense of the richness and diversity that I believed would be widespread among New Zealand primary school music leaders.
Some primary school music leaders, colleagues, friends or former students, volunteered to take part in the research. This informally-expressed interest paved the way for initiating the formal process of seeking consent to approach the teacher. Some of these teachers also suggested former colleagues who they felt could share valuable insights and perspectives on the music leadership role. Among the final sample were two participants who were suggested by more than one other participant in the study. When a school principal identified more than one teacher in a music leadership role, for example in one large school where the music leadership roles divided across junior/senior school lines, all potential participants were approached.
With regard to the issue of data saturation, I was guided in my decision to limit the number of participants to ten by the realisation that although new cases (from about the sixth participant onwards) were contributing new detail to the data set in relation to their work as primary school music leaders, at a structural level the collective stories were remarkably consistent. Nonetheless, I continued with the data collection in order to include teachers who represented a range in terms of demographics, teaching experience, musical background and school context.
As noted earlier, my initial expectation was that primary school music leaders were predominantly middle-aged women with similar backgrounds to my own. As Table 5.1 shows, this impression was not borne out in the final sample although the relatively small number of participants does not allow for overall generalisation about the demographic features of music leaders in New Zealand primary schools.
My personal involvement in the study as a fellow music leader, albeit a university-based teacher educator, can be justified in Cochran-Smith’s (2005) terms by the differences between outsider researchers’ insights and those of insiders: “there [is] potential for rich and different insights when the teacher educator’s own professional work [is] the
research site and his or her own emerging issues and dilemmas [are] the grist for systematic study” (p.223).
I was conscious that it would be valuable to interview some teachers who were unknown to me and who lived outside the area I had worked in as a music advisor. I felt that this would provide a perspective from teachers who were not aware of my particular music education interests and viewpoints and who were not influenced by any unspoken power imbalances; for example, the possibility that I may have an evaluative role in their music leadership practice at some time in the future or even that they may be silently judged by me as a former teacher and supposed ‘expert’ in the field. I approached broadening the range of participants in an informal manner. Teachers needed to be close enough that I could visit them up to three times without having to travel long distances and to also add something to the range and breadth of participant and school characteristics. Interestingly, the only teachers who did not give consent or who did not respond to my initial approach were teachers with whom I had only a passing acquaintance. Although this meant that I wasn’t able to introduce a less familiar perspective into the data set, it reassured me that teachers who did know me were at ease about what the research process required of them.
Along with participant characteristics, the characteristics and demographics of the schools in which teachers serve were also considered. Unlike countries such as Australia and the United States in which state governments regulate and oversee a largely autonomous education system, New Zealand has a national curriculum which is principally administered through central government structures. The result is a
reasonably even and standardised system with most variation accounted for at school rather than district or regional level. In addition, the Ministry of Education utilises a school classification system which attributes decile ratings on the basis of the school community’s socio-economic profile, 1 representing schools with the lowest and 10 representing schools with the highest socio-economic indicators.
The character and makeup of the school community and teaching staff, the physical location of the school and other factors relating to the teaching and learning programme all impact on the overall school culture. Experience suggested that school decile rating would represent a more significant variation of school type than would teachers selected from schools across the geographical regions of New Zealand. Other school variation exists in relation to urban, suburban, small town and rural schools; schools with special character such as religious schools or schools that have a formal relationship with university teacher education providers; the overall size of the school in terms of numbers of pupils; and whether the school is a full primary (Years 0-8 of compulsory schooling), contributing primary (Years 0-6) or intermediate (Years 7 & 8) school.
As I built the sample of participants, I kept note of school characteristics and towards the end of the research was intentional about selecting participants to ‘fill the gaps’. Once potential participants were identified or volunteered to participate, initial contact was made with the school principal and Board of Trustees for permission to access the school and make a direct formal approach to the teacher concerned (see Appendices A, B & C). The role of the principal as an intermediary between researcher and potential participants was not without its challenges and highlighted the complex nature of whose approval was being sought and for what.
When access to approach a teacher was granted, the preferred approach was to phone the teacher concerned and arrange a meeting at which I could outline the research, answer questions and leave the teacher with the information sheet and consent form (see Appendices C & D). At times during the initial phone call, it was difficult to restrict the contact to making arrangements for a later meeting. On one occasion, the teacher seemed ready to begin discussing music leadership issues straight away, and at least two teachers indicated an immediate wish to participate and asked me to post the forms. I agreed to this but emphasised that (i) they should feel free to contact me for clarification about any aspect of the research and (ii) they should feel under no pressure to
participate. One teacher did phone back to ask a little more about the observation phase and the kinds of activities I might want to observe. However it was clear that by this stage the teacher was thinking ahead and already considering possible observation scenarios. Another participant was reluctant to even accept the information sheet and
consent form, emphasising the trusting professional relationship that already existed between us. I found it difficult to insist on the ethical requirement and in the end made a comment along the lines of “humour me. I have to do this”. The wider explanation for this teacher’s relaxed approach to formal consent may be that music activity in primary schools takes place most commonly within an open performance arena. For example, parents’ attendance is usually welcomed at school assemblies, a common site for teachers’ music leadership practice. Teachers who are music leaders are used to exercising this role among friends and strangers, children and adults, colleagues and visitors.
Adhering to the ethical requirement for time and space between receiving information about the study and consenting to participate was problematic on two occasions. In each case, I had arranged to visit teachers after school to talk to them about possible participation. With time set aside to meet me and having made an on-the-spot decision to participate in the research, these teachers were keen to start talking about their music role immediately. On the first occasion, I was unsuccessful in stemming the
conversation and had no means to record it. Although I returned for a formal interview, I felt that the quality of the recorded data, in effect, a re-telling of the original
spontaneous story, was diminished. On the second occasion, I went prepared with my tape recorder in the car. After a lengthy discussion in which I answered the teacher’s many questions about the project, she stated definitely that she wanted to take part. Given that our combined busy schedules had already made it difficult for us to find a suitable time to meet, I suggested that we could ‘talk now’ and she readily agreed. These different situations highlighted the potentially awkward relationship between approved ethical processes and teacher pragmatism.