Research Method

What we did
Having read and reviewed what others thought (some of the research literature), then reflected on and discussed our own experience as school leaders and recorded our stories, we wanted to investigate how all the members of the learning communities in each school viewed themselves, the school community and the tasks they faced.

We used interviews at each school as our main method for collecting this information. The interviews were recorded on digital video giving us speedy recall and access to body language as well as verbal content. Interviewees were undertaken in each school with:

- the head
- a governor
- a class teacher
- a Learning Support Assistant
- a parent
- and a group of children.

In this way we could explore how far the vision and the head’s view of the school was shared. We were also able to gauge the impact of the head on their school and look at specific leadership issues.

We each examined the data from the interviews for commonalities and emerging patterns. We looked particularly for indicators that showed a specific focus for each school on ‘thinking’ and ‘learning to learn’. This was a fascinating process and derived from an approach to research called ‘grounded theory’.

The use of grounded theory
Grounded Theory as defined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) allows the researcher to formulate hypothesis as they investigate the phenomenon of interest. The data can therefore be seen to be suggesting interpretations and the techniques modified to illuminate whether those interpretations are correct. The theory is drawn from the data, the respondents themselves, and seeks to make implicit beliefs explicit. To avoid accusation of only finding what you are looking for, the researcher increases the reliability of their findings by allowing others to review their interpretations. Alternatively the researcher can interrogate the research to find comparable deductions. In our case we ground our interpretations by working independently then reviewing each other’s work. We were fortunate to be able to use Robert Fisher to review our ideas as we progressed and so modify our research through informed debate. Further grounding occurs through direct comparison with each other’s research findings. In short, we collect the data, we say what we think it means, we check our ideas are valid with each other and also with someone ‘outside’ the research, in this case Robert. We look at what other researchers have found and then draw together our discoveries to show comparisons, similarities and differences.

Our theory therefore becomes ‘grounded’, and better informed, by the evidence we have gathered and critically reviewed from the different elements of our research.

Analysis
On our initial review of the data, it became pertinent for to pursue the following three threads. Firstly, in response to our question ‘What are the issues for leadership?’ one key factor seemed to be the importance of the leadership philosophy, theoretical constructs and practice prevailing in the three schools.

Secondly, in response to the question: ‘How can a thinking school be created and developed?’ the thread of sustainability became pertinent– that is, how the vision and practice can be sustained over time.

Finally, in response to the initial interviews with each head, a thread of involvement with the community became relevant to the study. How do we extend the culture of the thinking school into the community?