SISTEMA DE GESTIÓN DE CALIDAD EN LOS SISTEMAS DE

As previously established, my interest in this case study arose from my own experiences with South Carolina school policy-making as a Statehouse journalist, a staff member in the Riley administration, a public school teacher, and as an education policy advocate. In one light, these experiences over a 30 year period can be seen as valuable in understanding the political context and historical timeline as it relates to this study. However, these experiences also call into question my subjectivity as the researcher.

Citing the definition of “subjectivity” in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Alan Peshkin (1988) wrote that subjectivity is the quality of the investigator that may affect the outcome of an investigation. Peshkin believed subjectivity arose in all aspects of the research process, but of importance was the systematic acknowledgement of this fact by the researcher during the course of the study. At the very least, Peshkin (1988) stated that researchers should “disclose to their readers where self and subject became joined” (p.17).

Having experienced subjectivity bias in his own research, Peshkin (1988) recommended researchers audit their research, looking for “Subjective I’s.” He wrote, “By monitoring myself, I can create an illuminating, empowering, personal statement that attunes me to where self and subject are intertwined” (1988, p. 20).

Adopting Peshkin’s approach, there were a number of “Subjective I’s” I monitored during this case study. One was my “Personal Investment I.” Having been closely involved in the EIA initiative, it would be to my personal advantage to convey it

58

in the most flattering light. Some of the EIA’s messages were crafted through my writing under the guidance of Riley’s education and political advisors. Understandably, I am proud of this involvement. However, knowing a sense of personal achievement must be checked, I was particularly thorough when examining records and documents that gave the most unbiased approach or a contrary stance.

These articles, particularly the editorials, were used extensively throughout the case study to counterbalance the impression that the Riley plan had no opposition or any tension among the supporting groups. I specifically included articles and documents to serve as a negative case analysis, particularly since it proved difficult to interview staunch opponents of the EIA plan, as previously explained.

Most opposition to the EIA was directed at the one cent sales tax increase and the proposed increase in teacher pay. Internally, tension between the two teacher

associations also occurred. In writing this case study, I specifically included statements from opposition groups and negative editorials written about the tax increase and the proposed teacher pay. In addition, the obstacles section of the Findings chapter specifically addressed these issues.

My “Legacy I” also could be a possible source of bias. The “Legacy I” would be my tendency to maintain and bolster the reputation and achievements of a public elected official I admire and those who assisted him. I was especially cognizant of this when interviewing the participants in this case study. My experience as a former journalist assisted in asking follow-up questions to yield better, more detailed explanations. Also, having read 15 months of media articles on the EIA, I was able to focus the interviews on the details of the EIA efforts, especially questioning the obstacles that arose.

59

During the researching and writing of this case study, I was very aware of my various subjectivities. Consequently, I may have avoided using some articles, editorials, op-ed columns, or national comments praising the role played by Gov. Riley or the achievements of the EIA. This was done under an abundance of caution and may be criticized by those who witnessed and supported the campaign and public engagement endeavor.

Due to my concerns about the current state of public education in South Carolina, I also was conscious of my “Activist/Political I.” In order to mitigate that stance, I limited data collection to 1983 through 1984, the specific years of the EIA effort. Also excluded were any interview questions seeking the opinions of participants regarding current state school policy or politics. In a like manner, there were no individuals interviewed who did not participate directly in the EIA reform movement.

As a former journalist, I consciously relied on my ability to record, question, analyze, and write objectively throughout this case study and strove to maintain “an objective eye for your own objectivity,” as Wolcott stated (1992, p. 44).

60

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

This case study describes the construction of an unprecedented statewide citizen network to actively promote passage of Gov. Dick Riley’s signature school reform bill before the S.C. General Assembly. This chapter examines how the grassroots effort was built and legislative passage accomplished with research gathered from interviews, published and internal staff documents, archival material, news accounts, and editorials.

Construction of any project requires a specific plan, following a logical

progression of steps. Building a grassroots network from the ground up is no different. So it was with Riley’s EIA proposal. Activities were deliberately designed to activate a statewide citizen support network aimed at pressuring the state Legislature to enact the reform plan and a one cent sales tax increase. Methodical planning of this grassroots effort was particularly important because no such voter-based statewide network existed in South Carolina. Strong, active citizen engagement would be critical in a legislative election year.

To investigate the process of building the EIA grassroots movement, I used a chronological approach in the interviews. To present the findings that emerged, I employed a thematic approach. The questions and themes addressed were:

1. Initial strategies for passage of the EIA 2. Organizing the grassroots lobbying effort 3. Engaging citizen support throughout the state

61

4. Sustaining grassroots lobbying through the legislative session 5. Obstacles encountered in building and sustaining citizen activism 6. The most effective lobbying strategies

7. The impact of citizen engagement on the bill’s passage.

These broad themes arose from the interview transcripts, as well as news articles and other documents published during the time the EIA effort was planned and executed.