Vías para diagnosticar y potenciar el liderazgo en directivos

The second pilot, focused on theatre artist, John who at the time was working on his doctoral fieldwork research in a school in Warwickshire. He has over 40 years of theatre acting, producing, directing and scripting television and radio drama background prior to research and teaching young people in a school environment. My intention of administering the second pilot was to test out the data collection methods: pre-observation semi-structured interview, observation of classroom practice, post-observation interviews.

In this pilot, the pre-observation semi-structured interview, conducted two and half weeks prior to the observation, explored a) the participant’s artistic and pedagogic background, b) the experience of working in a school, c) the intention, motivation and experience of designing the lessons as well as d) the aims of the work with young people. The interview lasted 65 minutes and was transcribed prior to the observation.

My observation of John’s session on 19 April 2010 began with a school tour that ended at the drama studio. The observation was of John teaching Personal, Social and Health Education (PSE) using Shakespeare. Below is an extract taken from a memo written of the visit. It offers a glimpse of the situation.

Memo, 19 April 2010

We arrived at the drama studio 5 minutes early (the ‘replacement’ room). 67 students, aged between 14–15 years, arrived. They filed in two rows outside the drama studio, a room that was not the designated space, but a space, which the artist had to negotiate with the administration and the teachers. The change in room was made upon John’s request as he felt the initial room, the hall, was not appropriate. This was mentioned to me as he took me on a tour of the school*. The class could not begin on time, as the drama teacher was working with her drama students on an assessment and they were running late. The drama teacher popped her head out twice to apologise and once, behind the slightly opened door, told the students to “be quick, there is another class waiting”. She then left the studio to return 5 minutes later. Eventually the artist, 67 students and myself entered the drama studio, 10 minutes later than the scheduled time. *(Prior to arriving at the drama studio, the artist highlighted to me that this studio is the drama teacher’s designated classroom. “It is her room, so I am in her turf, so to speak. This is her room”, John commented.)

7.2.1: Observation record mechanism

I adapted Van Maanen’s (cited in Eisenhardt 1989) approach to note-taking observations. He designed a two-column structure which tracks a stream-of- consciousness commentary on the goings-on, reflecting the ‘sub-text’ or inner

dialogue that exits whilst observing the activities and the analysis of them during observation. Consequently the researcher is encouraged to write post-reflection notes. My adaptation works with a three-column structure, taking into account the observation, the simultaneous researcher reflections during observation, as well as the post-observation reflections a few days after. The three different columns run parallel to each other to ease analysis. It offers a comprehensive look at the observation record along with the reflective and reflexive accounts of the researcher’s thoughts. Table 3.1 illustrates the adapted observation record structure.

Table 3.1: Adapted observation record

Time Observation of activities Dated: 19 April 2010, Monday Venue: John’s host school

Reflection in observation Reflection on observation (31 April 2010)

1148 hrs

John begins. He introduces the new topic: Sex Education & Relationship.

Powerpoint on screen: recapitulation and reminder of the rules for the class (3 items listed). He reminds the class of the 3 rules. He highlights the importance of generating and experiencing ‘real knowledge’ as opposed to ‘rumours’. He tells them that they need to be aware of the facts on sexually transmitted diseases. He highlights facts: he read that sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise in the UK, indicating that few are practising safe sex. He announces that experts will be coming to work with them––nurses, youth workers, policemen to offer more information. He adds, “We think you are ready for this. That you are mature enough and responsible enough to work on this topic” – John.

Students are seated on the floor, in a circle. John is in the circle, not part of the circle.

See enlarged spatial

arrangement in Table 3.2. John’s tone: encouraging, gentle, almost deferring to students. Performing mid status–– apologising when realising his back faces one of the students. He tries to engage the students and when they hesitate, he refers to Monday being the first day out of the Easter break as a reason for the slow start. He attempts to create a friendly atmosphere, as if distinguishing himself as a non- teacher.

1) His interaction with the administrator when we first entered the school. The conversation was an interesting one about the daughter of the administrator who started school extremely shy and now nearing the end of her Form Six, she is confident and writing suggestions to the city council. The administrator’s exchange with John centred on how she thought that his work may have contributed to it.

Action to follow:

- Why, how and what impact does this have on his work?

- How does the school administrative and teaching staff perceive him? Is there a status difference?

Table 3.2: Spatial arrangement in the drama studio

Students seated on the floor, in a circle. John in the circle, not part of the circle. (T) J (T) (T) (NM)x X– Karen’s desk

Keys: (T) – 3 teachers seated on chair by the side of the circle of students J – John seated on the floor in the circle

NM – myself seated on a chair at the edge of the circle X – Karen seated at her desk

This 3-column approach became the structure with which all subsequent observations were archived. This was accompanied by post-observational interviews for clarification on the observed teaching sessions. Although it proved useful as a means to retain and separate information between observation, researcher reflections and follow-up actions, nonetheless, there were emergent challenges.

7.2.2: Challenges experienced in pilot 2

During the observational phase, I became increasingly aware of my subjective imprint and selective receptivity on what I observed (Gallagher 2007). In Gallagher’s ethnographic study of Theatre of Urban, she noted how differently each researcher read the same sequence of observation, nuances in behaviour, movement, atmosphere and speech.

The advantage of having several researchers is the ease in comparing and cross- referencing observation records to produce a composite image of the observed situation. However being the only researcher in the field, such comparative analysis is not possible. Furthermore, being new to the space, I am left with only the artist as the compass to the environment. For instance in the pre-observational interview, the artist (John) emphasised the issue of ownership of the space. He also mentioned the complicated relationship he had with the drama teacher (see Appendix 1). This may explain the residual tension that affected his relationship with members of the

teaching staff. However, a crucial question to ask is: What impact does this information have on my research undertakings?

Memo: 21 April 2010

Does the perceived or real complexity of the relation between artist and teacher have an affect on a) the way the artists teach b) the perception of artists on teachers and school at large c) impact the perception of their identity within the school and d) the perception of the value of their work in the school? To what extent should this be primed, as something the researcher ought to be sensitive to? To what extent were these iterations John’s perception of what he thinks I need to hear? Is he speaking to me as a fellow artist whom he thinks may be sympathetic to his experience as the ‘outsider’ in the school? Is he highlighting what I should be sensitive to? Has my role as a fellow artist, PhD student and researcher aligned myself to him, and by association, his concerns as well? Did what he say affect the way I observed the classroom? Should I have done the observation first before the interview? Perhaps I should include Karen in the research process, interview her to offer her a means to voice her perspective? Is this necessary to understand how he teaches?

I began to question the notion of an asymmetrical relation in favour of the researcher. The direction of the hierarchical distortions that Bourdieu (1996) points out is not fixed. While I may be the initiator of the research, at times, I am the ‘recipient’ of information that is catered for my researching ear. The willing participant, in this case John, with limited prompting, was comfortable to offer me information on the school.

I also questioned Newkirk’s (1996) suggestion of the researcher’s “act of seduction” on their research participations. Newkirk refers to ‘seduction’ as the process by which research participants are persuaded into the research. This occurs when trust is gained because of the implied researcher knowledge of community membership, assumed expertise as well as the backing of prestigious research or academic institution. My response to Newkirk’s claim is that ‘seduction’ is not a one-way process. The reverse may be true. The research participants, in narrating their personal accounts, may elicit empathy or evoke resonance in the researcher. As the memo reflected, there were moments where the sympathetic researcher in me may have been susceptible to the hypnotic resonance of the difficulties John, as a fellow artist, faced in school. Consequently, this may affect the means with which I observe and write the accounts. As such, acknowledging the possibility of ‘reverse seduction’ demands a heightened sensitivity to my reflexive researcher ‘eye’ and ‘feel’. I am alerted to remain critical but not prejudicial of the participants’ accounts.

There was also my mistaken assumption that someone with a theatre background would automatically teach drama. In John’s situation, his directorial and acting background nor the use of Shakespeare meant little to the class he was teaching. His focus was the use of Shakespeare as a context to examine morality. Much of what was happening in class was discursive. It left me with little means to analyse nor discuss how he used his previous theatrical and directorial experience to bear on his teaching. Upon reflection, I attributed the problem to what Linda Evans (2002) defined as an issue with ‘construct validity’. As such, the operationalisation of ‘theatre artists’ needed revisiting for clarity.

The final challenge is the negotiation of the language of reflection and a critical understanding of what is deemed as a subjective judgement. An example is offered in Table 3.3, where the stream of consciousness response (italics) is appended in the heading, ‘Reflection in Observation’. The subsequent review and discussions with my supervisor highlighted the tension between my subjective imprint and intersubjective inquiry on the observed.

Table 3.3: Observation field notes with supervisor’s comments

Time Observation of activities Dated: 19 April 2010, Monday Venue: John’s host school

Reflection in observation Reflection on observation (31 April 2010)

1148

hrs John begins. He introduces the new topic: Sex Education & Relationship.

Powerpoint on screen: recapitulation and reminder of the rules for the class (3 items listed). He reminds the class of the 3 rules. He highlights the importance of generating and experiencing ‘real knowledge’ as opposed to ‘rumours’. He tells them that they need to be aware of the facts on sexually transmitted diseases. He highlights facts: he read that sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise in the UK, indicating that few are practising safe sex. He announces that experts will be coming to work with them–– nurses, youth workers, policemen to offer more information. He adds, “We think you are ready for this. That you are mature enough and responsible enough to work on this topic” – John.

Students are seated on the floor, in a circle. John is in the circle, not part of the circle.

See enlarged spatial arrangement in Table 3.2. John’s tone: encouraging, gentle, almost deferring to students. Performing mid status: apologising when realising his back faces one of the students. He tries to engage the students and when they hesitate, he refers to Monday being the first day out of the Easter break as a reason for the slow start. He attempts to create a friendly atmosphere, as if distinguishing himself as a non-teacher.

1) His interaction with the administrator when we first entered the school. The conversation was an interesting one about the daughter of the administrator who started school extremely shy and now nearing the end of her Form six, she is confident and writing suggestions to the city council. The administrator’s exchange with John centred on how she thought that his work may have contributed to it.

Action to follow:

- Why, how and what impact does this have on his work? - How does the school administrative and teaching staff perceive him? Is there a status difference?

2) John offered the history of the school as well as his connection with the place. He talked about how he has offered his time to the school, to repay for their kindness in accepting his project and hosting his PhD research.

How does this relationship impact teaching practices? 3) He talked about the teachers who were supposed to assist him. But now that he is more familiar with the kids, he is able to manage them.

- What is his relationship with the rest of the teaching staff? - What is missing from my observation?

Teachers’ lounge interaction between John and the rest of the teachers

Follow-up: Make a list of questions post-observation interview.

1152

hrs John asks students to raise their hands if they have an opinion on which is more important: Sex or Relationship. When John said ‘Sex’––students are hesitant to raise their hands. I see some students giggling, and some whispering to each other. A boy nudges his friend, another boy. Another boy shifts his hand, as if to raise it, then stops, smiles, and turns to his friend. Some students turn their faces away from the centre when John says, “come on now is your time to be honest. Say what you really feel”. No reaction. He offers “Relationship” and more hands are raised, almost everyone.

Wonder if asking the question at the start meant anything to the work. How could honesty play its part at the start of the session? Students warming up? They may be uncomfortable. There were more than 60 students (and teachers present too) in the room.

[Supervisor’s response:

Problematic. Subjective imprint.

Researcher’s response:

Would it be better if phrased and followed up with more questions later?

What is the role of honesty in this class?

It seems important, why is it? What shapes that emphasis?]

Language in this instance was a challenge. How the statement was written reflected not just the situation but also revealed my judgement and subjectivity. John Allen

(2003) points to the complexity of expression as historically and ideologically constituted; that the moment of expressing what is being observed implicates past knowledge. Recognising the discursive constraints bound within the act of communication in this instance was an important lesson learnt and a good reminder of reflexivity.