Sentido y narración

Having decided to use interviews as a method, and more specifically semi-structured interviews, I then had to make decisions about where to conduct the research. I wanted to speak to head teachers and teachers in primary schools in Greece in different geographical locations.

In thinking about which participants to approach and include in my research, I had to bear in mind a number of factors. Firstly, I wanted to approach women head teachers, because they are my main interest. Their experiences of the job, from the selection process, their problems etc, were of interest to me. Then, I wanted to approach women teachers who have all the necessary qualifications and requirements but who chose not to become head teachers or whose applications were unsuccessful. I also wanted to see how teachers viewed their head teacher, whether women or men. In addition I wanted to include men head teachers and teachers as well, because I wanted to compare their views and perceptions to those of the women.

Furthermore, I wanted to ensure that there were participants of diverse ages and school types (urban/rural, large/small) in order to gather a variety of experiences and views. My intention was to include a variety of geographical areas, but due to restricted resources I chose four areas, three in the North of the country and one in the South (these areas will be described in detail later in this chapter), as I believed they would represent potentially different views.

I decided on the four areas that I would research based on practicalities and always keeping in mind the restricted means, in terms of financial resources and limited mobility, that I had. So, the areas were selected mainly because they were close to the place I live in Greece (the first three) and so I could go there in the morning and then return home. The

fourth was much further away, but I had a friend with whom I could stay for the duration of the research. Also, although I wanted to do my research in urban and rural schools, I had to exclude the rural schools that were inaccessible (they were mainly in mountain areas).

The first 3 areas (A, B, C5) are in North Greece. They are considered neither as ‘poor’ nor as ‘rich’ areas. A large part of their population moved to bigger cities like Thessaloniki or Athens or emigrated (especially to Germany) during the 1950’s and 1960’s. The population is diverse, as there are many migrants from the former Soviet Union, from Albania and from Bulgaria. All areas also have Muslim minority populations (Turkish-speaking, Roma and Pomaks6) and schools for the Muslim minority7. In area B an increase of population was noted during the last population census in 2001 (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2001a), as many repatriates from the former Soviet Union had settled in the area. The other areas have faced minor decreases in their populations. A big part of the population are farmers and the rest are working either in family businesses or in the public sector. Although areas B and C have 5.18% of all the factories of the country and 6.4% of all the investment during 1999-2000, more jobs have not been created and unemployment rates are quite high, reaching 48% in area B and 35.5% in area C (80% and 60% respectively among young people aged 16-24). In area A comparable rates of unemployment were 40% overall, and 60% among young people. At the same time, the unemployment rate in Greece as a whole was 26.4% overall, and 50.7% among young people (Eurostat 2014).

As far as the educational level is concerned, 55.4% of the population in all three areas have completed only primary school education, and 20% have completed secondary education (while the same numbers for the rest of the country are 38.1% and 30% respectively). 15.2% of women in area B and 13% in area C are illiterate (cannot read or write), while the same percentages in the whole of the country is 6.5%. Because there are many mountains that make transportation difficult for young children, there are many schools in villages that are small with one to five classes (but catering all years). Schools with more than 5 classes are mainly in urban or semi-urban areas. In the research both small schools and larger ones were included. Twenty-two participants from urban schools were interviewed

5 _{Areas are coded to ensure confidentiality.} 6

They live in the mountains and they are of Slavic origin. They speak Pomak, and their language belongs to the linguistic family of the Southern Slavic languages. They attend, in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, bilingual schools where the teaching is done both in Turkish and in Greek.

7 _{These schools were not included in the research, as they have a different legal framework and, as a}

(five from Area A, six from B and six from C) and 18 participants from rural schools (five from area A, five from B and four from C).

So, the first three areas have highly mobile populations and are multicultural as there are minority populations and repatriates and migrants from Eastern Europe. Especially in area B, the repatriates have led to an increase in the population, and an increase in the number of languages being spoken in schools, with more difficulties in communication due to this multiligualism (making the head teachers’ job more difficult, as indicated during my research with head teachers). Also, it is noted that although a large amount of money has been invested in the areas, the unemployment rates are high (among the highest in the country). The low literacy amongst women (especially in areas B and C) reflects the traditional women’s roles and women’s place in society (Athanasiasdou 2002). Finally, the variety of schools and school locations may lead to different views of head teachers and teachers about headship.

The fourth area, is in South Greece. It is considered a ‘poor’ area and since the 1950’s has lost almost half its population through emigration, mostly to the Americas. The great majority of the population are farmers and many others work in a large factory in the area8 and at a coal mine. Unemployment rates are lower than the other areas, reaching 20% (23% among young people). About 10% of the population are non-Greeks, mostly from Albania. The schools are both urban and rural and include a variety of students from different socio-economic and cultural environments. In my research I included both urban and rural schools (five from urban areas and four from rural) in order to ensure that all kinds of school are represented. For a summary of the characteristics of the four areas, see Table 3 below.

I was also mindful of the practicalities of access (Burgess 1984), as I needed official research permission from the Greek Pedagogical Institute, which I will discuss later in this section. I also, of course, needed the participants’ consent for participation and I was unsure whether I would be able to persuade them to participate (I discuss how I negotiated access later on in this chapter, in section 5.3.3.).

Because there was no online database with the names of the head teachers and their schools, I decided to call each LEA and ask for the contact information of the schools that

had a woman head teacher and I considered all the rest as having a man head teacher. Then I made a list for each area that I had decided to study with the women head teachers and a list of the men head teachers. The teachers were chosen from these schools as well. I took care to have an equal number of participants from each area.

Table 3: Characteristics of research areas

Geographical location Illiteracy among women Unemployment (young unemployment) Area A North 8.1% 40% (60%) Area B North 15.2% 48% (80%) Area C North 13% 35.5% (60%) Area D South 7.1% 20% (23%) Greece as a whole 6.5% 26.4% (50.7%)

After compiling this list with the schools I provided the Greek Pedagogical Institute with a detailed plan of my research (rationale for the study, research method, research tool, details of how I would ensure confidentiality for my interviewees, etc) along with the list of the schools that I wanted to include in my research in order to obtain an official permission to conduct my research in the schools. This was a very lengthy and bureaucratic procedure, that lasted for about 7 months. I had to send the application to the Ministry of Education, then they had to send it to the Pedagogical Institute, they had to discuss my application and after they made a decision, they had to notify the Ministry of Education again. Then the Ministry sent me the approval. [A translated version of the research permission is to be found in the appendix section, as APPENDIX 3.]

After getting permission, I was ready to start my research. Contact with the schools was initially made by phone. I talked with the head teachers, informed them about myself and the research and also told them that I had permission to conduct the study from the Ministry of Education. Then I went to the schools and asked for their willingness to participate. I also gave the head teachers and the teachers a letter outlining the area of

focus and the method to be used. The letter also promised confidentiality and anonymity to protect their identity. Generally, those who agreed to be interviewed felt that the area of focus was of particular interest (on the other hand, some men laughed and commented that women’s place was in the kitchen!). *The letter can be found in the appendix section, as APPENDIX 4.]

After that first contact in person, I called each school and I asked for their decision. Where the decision was positive, I proceeded with the interview. Where the decision was negative, I contacted another head teacher or teacher from the same area, until I reached the number of participants I wanted. I should say here, that most of the head teachers I contacted agreed to participate. Out of the initial 40 people that I approached, five teachers did not want to be interviewed (all women) and four head teachers (one woman and three men). The reasons they gave for their decision were that either they never participated in research, or that they were very busy and could not fit me into their schedules. Those who were more willing to participate were the older head teachers, the younger teachers and those who had at some point been a member of the teachers’ union. The probable reasons for this are that they were experienced in expressing views (members of the Union) or they had nothing to be afraid of (older head teachers) or they had experiences of doing research because they had graduated recently or they were doing research themselves as part of a post-graduate dissertation (the younger teachers).