Regarding the researcher stance of this author, this was inherently that of an insider. In common with many doctoral practitioners (Drake and Heath, 2011) undertaking a professional doctorate in their own work environment, this study considered the 16-19 environment that the author had just finished teaching in, and the overlap of it within an HEI context that the author’s work had progressed into. The teaching and leading both courses and people has stayed broadly similar, but the context had changed. Blaikie (2007) terms the difference between ‘outsider or insider’ stance as a choice between:
Page 81 of 255 maintaining a ‘professional’ distance from the research participants or becoming thoroughly immersed in their social world. In the former, the researcher remains aloof and separate, while in the latter, the researcher is engaged in close relationships with the research participants, even to the point of being an accepted member of that group or community. The researcher allows himself or herself not only to be influenced by those researched, but may also have influence on them.
Blaikie, 2007:11.
This is an interesting definition, as the author has worked at the level of education of academic programmes for those aged 16-19: delivering, managing, and staffing some of these courses; and is an accepted member of this group, and therefore the research position adopted is clearly that of an insider.
Although no longer teaching at secondary level, the author is still regarded as a potential SLT member. This has been discussed on many occasions both inside the governing body that the author sits on, and within the focus groups and interviews that were conducted for this research process, - schools are currently very short of senior staff (Boffey, 2014), and independent schools in particular are always keen to employ staff who have worked in higher status institutions, such as universities. As a potential SLT member, the author is – de facto – ‘not only influenced by those researched, but also may also have an influence on them’ [those in SLT roles]. This is of particular importance for the author, working with SLTs all the time. This exhibits an example of the reflexivity that has been deployed in the methodology, one being the self-reflective, essentially participant observation that has been deployed here, as demonstrated in Table 5 above.
In terms of Blaikie’s (2007) definitions this makes the author an ‘inside learner’ as the answers to the RQs emerge through the processes, rather than from a body of existing social scientific knowledge. There is a continuum between ‘outside expert’ and ‘inside learner’ and clearly one cannot set aside all existing social scientific knowledge in order to be immersed in one extreme. But neither has an intermediate position been taken between these two extremes, as with an ethno-methodological study, the position taken is far closer to that of an ‘inside learner’, as the above examples demonstrate, than it is to the ‘outside expert’. There is an additional factor to discuss here: at times, particularly when writing up the findings, the author has felt that she has played a role of being a reflective partner or what Blaikie terms a conscientizer. For example, if writing a piece of
Page 82 of 255
feminist research it would be acting as a conscientizer if it was enabling the research participants to ‘understand better their oppressed situation’ (Blaikie, 2007:12). In this research process though, given the use of critical literature sources, the author has wondered if the interview process enables the senior leaders to talk freely and individually concerning what motivates them. It was noticeable, that terms such as ‘social justice’, and ‘ability to achieve’ came up time and again – particularly from the state sector interviews. It is believed that the act of talking about issues and motivations, particularly for busy leaders (who often get little time to reflect on their actions) can be both helpful and cathartic (Miles et al, 2014), and that therefore this doctoral research process has potentially helped members of the SLTs involved who have taken part in it to understand their own positions better.
There is a link between the role of interviewer and therapist or counsellor - the role of the interviewer is not to be either of these latter occupations; but respondents did not take part in the research for therapeutic reasons (Mason, 2002). However, Rosenblatt (1995) claimed that for respondents, taking part in research might become a therapeutic experience. Indeed, one individual (respondent C) in this research stated that taking part had had a therapeutic effect on him, in particular he found talking and being listened to during the interview both ‘useful, and energising’. The questions asked made him consider his own experiences in a way he had not done for a while; and ‘had reminded him of the reasons he had come in to teaching and leadership’. Rosenblatt (1995) pointed out that although researchers are not therapists, a researcher has to have similar skills to those of a therapist which constitute good research practice. These include listening, acknowledging, managing reactions and feelings, empathy and exhibiting human warmth (Rosenblatt, 1995: 150).
The senior school and college leaders who participated in this doctoral research process are busy people, and it is not expected that all of them will look at this final write-up, but some have expressed an interest in doing so. However, seeing their responses extrapolated might potentially help to give them an additional, contextual, understanding to their positions. It also adds an additional layer of
Page 83 of 255
authenticity and validity to the research process if the respondents can recognise their role in the process when completed (Fox et al, 2007).