Agencia Gubernamental de Control
RESOLUCIÓN N.° 736/AGC/15
I decided to analyse the interview data using a hybrid approach (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006) to analyse the data. The hybrid approach (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006) combines inductive and deductive approaches, rather than seeing them as mutually exclusive. One further approach is thematic analysis. As Braun and Clarke (2006) state ‘thematic analysis is a poorly demarcated and rarely acknowledged, yet widely used qualitative analytic method (Boyatzis, 1998; Roulston, 2001)’ (ibid: 77). Fereday and Muir- Cochrane (2006) further define thematic analysis as ‘a form of pattern recognition within the data, where emerging themes become the categories for analysis.’ (ibid: 82). Pattern recognition and identifying themes is like Strauss’s (1987) work where the processes of utilising deductive and inductive ‘processes go on throughout the life of the research project. Probably few working scientists [social] would make the mistake of believing these stood in simple sequential relationship.’ (ibid: 12). The data utilises Strauss’s (1987) continuous analysis of data using induction and deduction to identify key issues and themes.
The inductive approach is about seeing themes within the data, and doing so without preconceptions and prejudgement (Regan, 2012). I doubt if one can approach data without preconceptions as does Yung (2013), but there is merit in looking at the data for themes and issues not previously identified. A hybrid approach combines the inductive with a deductive approach, which utilises a codebook (template) created a priori from research questions and a theoretical framework (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The strength of Fereday and
Muir-Cochrane's (2006) approach is the ability to combine looking at the data for new themes and applying a theoretical framework from the study. Interwoven with Fereday and Muir-Cochrane’s (2006) deductive and inductive analysis is a Straussian approach (Strauss, 1987 and Ball, 1998). This is identified by Ball (1998) as the categories, themes and codes being ‘subject to continuous interrogation and refinement as new pieces of data were collected’ (ibid: 318). Strauss (1987) believes continuous interrogation should go on until saturation where ‘nothing new happens as he or she reviews the data’ (ibid: 26). Strauss's (1987) approach was taken because the more data is processed, the more one uncovers and identifies new themes that can be applied to existing data, until the cycle yields no new meaningful information for the study.
The initial coding was conducted in stages. The initial interviews were coded first to help understand the case and build a description of the leadership structures and the issues that were important to leaders. Once the critical incident interviews had taken place these were coded, and the results presented as an adaptation of Creswell’s (2009) ‘Concurrent Embedded Strategy’ (ibid: 214). This is an approach adopted in mixed methods studies. It is useful because it outlines the approach taken, which is to embed one set of data within another. However, mixed methods research, discussed by Creswell (2009), is concerned with the mixing of quantitative and qualitative, where a secondary source of data is used to support the primary source. In this study, the first interview is used to support the second critical incident interview. The weakness of a concurrent approach from Creswell’s (2009)
perspective is the need to transfer one data type into another to ensure compatibility. In his work it is quantitative into qualitative or vice versa. However, in this study the data type (interview data) is the same, so Creswell’s (2009) perceived weakness of concurrent embedded strategy is not an issue. Once the interviews had taken place, codes and data were looked at again to ensure items had not been missed, which is the saturation approach (Ball, 1998 and Strauss, 1987). The process of saturation enabled dilemmas to be identified from first appearance to potential crisis.
To aid the process of analysing the data I used some software called Nvivo (Thomas, 2013). Nvivo was designed to aid qualitative researchers with analysis based upon coding they have created. The software’s effectiveness does rely upon creating suitable codes (See appendix 2c). Ball (1998), Strauss (1987) and Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) agree that codes are developed through the process of coding and analysis until saturation. This meant I could ensure the fullest use of valuable data and have a greater certainty I had a truer representation of leaders dealing with dilemmas in Woodhouse School.
3.8 The Case Study School
Woodhouse School is located on the border between two counties outside of a major conurbation. Prior to the study, the case study school, Woodhouse School was taken into a multi-academy trust (MAT). This occurred in September 2014 and the study started in the March 2015. A new interim head teacher was appointed by the MAT in mid-year. The head teacher post was
made permanent during the data collection phase of this study. The head teacher was put on to the school’s governing body in September 2014, prior to being promoted to lead Woodhouse School in the spring of 2015. The first interviews started in March 2015 (see table 3 below on page 121), with the head teacher, followed by the next 11 interviews in the summer term. All interviews were conducted once the school had become an academy. The school became an academy with the then most recent Ofsted grading of ‘good’ (Ofsted report in 2013). The academisation of Woodhouse School is not the usual route for schools becoming academies because it was not grade as either failing or outstanding by Ofsted. In the academic year of 2014-2015, schools either became academies because they were ‘outstanding’ as graded by Ofsted and chose to be become an academy, or they were graded ‘requires improvement’ and academisation was part of the turnaround process aimed at delivering better student outcomes. The journey towards academisation for Woodhouse School, however, began when the local authority became concerned about the school’s financial viability due to falling student numbers. At the time of the first interview, only one-year group out of five had more than 67 students. In fact, four-year groups had between 50 and 60 students, where there was capacity for 120 students per year group.
Charhill (pseudonym), was a very successful secondary school in a neighbouring county which was already developing into a MAT that also included local primary schools. Charhill chose to combine with primary schools in order to drive up standards by ensuring that students attending Charhill in year 7 were ready for the secondary curriculum they offered. Charhill had once
been the worst performing school in its area, but, under the guidance of a new head, became the outstanding school in the area. The head teacher of Charhill is now the Executive Head (CEO) of the multi-academy trust (MAT).
The structure of the academy trust is as follows: CEO – the head teacher of Charhill, who now leads two secondary schools and four primary schools; Head Teacher – each head teacher is also a chair of governors of another school in the trust. The head teacher at Woodhouse is a chair of governors at one of the four primary schools in the location of Charhill, the sponsor academy.