 |
Investing
in the power of teachers
to improve teaching and learning. |
     |
|
  |
Project
#31 August
25, 1997
Report
Summary The purpose of this study was to ascertain the use of dynamic harmonization, a new decision making process, as a means for implementing a second-order change in a school setting. Dynamic harmonization (DH), as conceptualized, consisted of authentic consensus and shared decision making. The components of authentic consensus were cooperation, a sense of the meeting, leadership by consensus, dissent, and dialogue. The elements of shared decision making were collaboration, collegiality, empowerment, shared leadership and the use of win/win strategies. DH encompassed all of the attributes that are promoted as being pivotal for building schools as communities so that improved education for students can be the result. A participatory action research (PAR) design was used since the aim of this research was to produce knowledge and action useful to a school staff and to empower them through construction of their own knowledge. PAR offered an approach which accommodated the intense involvement of the staff and the researcher in a setting most conducive to studying decision making and its effect on change implementation. Twenty-two staff members in a inner-city elementary school participated in this study that involved the use of participant observation, reflective meetings, interviews with participating staff members, artifact collection, and personal reflective journals. As well, field notes, journals writing, and tape recordings were used to chronicle each of these activities over the six-month period of the study. The study activities used the cycle of plan-act-observe-reflect-plan again. The school staff's use of DH was examined by looking at the way in which it produced change in the individual and the culture of the group. A set of indicators was used to ascertain the use of DH in the school. The results of the study showed that the staff believed DH encouraged the development of a high level of trust and became an effective process for implementing change at the school. Moreover, DH was a process that not only promoted an effective way to make decisions, but also offered staff a forum that encouraged learning a new way of communicating and that nurtured an appreciation for the importance of collaboration, collegiality, empowerment, and cooperation. Through the process the staff began to understand and value dissenting voices, use win/win strategies, and come to collective agreement. Leadership became a joint venture in which everyone shared ownership of and responsibility for the decisions made and the directions chosen. The consociates reported the belief that DH had helped and was continuing to help them implement their chosen change initiatives. They felt that DH helped them find solutions to problems and to work through the day-to-day reality of instituting change. While this study raises many questions about implementing change, decision making, the use of consensus, and the effects of synergy, it opens the door for anyone who wishes to extend their knowledge about people, the way they communicate, and the importance of valuing others. This study concluded with several noteworthy reflections. DH made the life of the staff better, personally and professionally; "things" were better, more reasonable, coherent, just, humane, and satisfying. In this study the staff lived the reality of the importance of developing trusting relationships, reinforced the significance of leadership style, developed an appreciation for acknowledging differences, and gained new perspectives about themselves and each other. Because of the complexity of decision making the staff came to the understanding that learning a new way to make decisions meant having to learn a new way of being. The Problem Decision making is an integral part of life. While the decisions that we make give direction to all aspects of our lives, they dramatically impact the personal and professional areas of our world when fundamental changes are being instigated. The need to make effective decisions can be seen clearly in school restructuring endeavours. Rapid, continuous change is a reality in today's society. Our response to change is frequently negative. The reaction of many individuals in numerous organizations is "the more things change the more they stay the same." While this attitude is pervasive in many organizations it seems especially endemic in education. Even though educators today acknowledge the need for change at all levels of the educational system, they are confounded by the lack of success of many restructuring attempts (Fullan, 1992; Hawley, 1988; Glickman, 1990). Fullan (1991), stating one of the reasons why educators seem to be reluctant to change even if that change appears to be a "good" one, says, "One of the most fundamental problems in education today is that people do not have a clear, coherent sense of meaning about what education change is for, what it is, and how it proceeds" (p. 4). The crux of the problem is learning how to implement change so that students' education can be improved. Successful change implementation involves each individual becoming an integral part of the process and promoting the restructuring initiative. Having a meaningful role in the decision making process is a vital part of the implementation process. This study was designed to ascertain if "dynamic harmonization," a new decision making process, could help a school staff implement a change initiative and become an active contributor in the endeavour. Dynamic harmonization was considered "new" in that it was a synthesis of many ideas that others have introduced. Background to the Problem Although the components of change are often discussed, examples of productive, effective, meaningful change are few (Allen & Glickman, 1992; Barth, 1990; Fullan, 1993). If so much is known about change, why is successful change implementation so elusive? Why is the restructuring movement not supported on all fronts? What is so difficult about change? The answer to each of these questions appears to involve the actions, reactions, and interactions of the participants. Individuals involved in a change process bring their own agendas, problems, concerns, and ideas. In other words, group dynamics seem to play a pivotal role in a change venture. Without individuals "buying into" the change attempt, the plans are difficult, if not impossible to implement. Mitchell (1995), in reporting an attempted change implementation in one school system, states:
As well, Muncey and McQuillan (1993, p. 487) found that, in many of the schools they studied, a significant problem was the lack of consensus on the fundamental question of whether or not change was needed. The crucial aspect of teachers' attitude toward and commitment to change is pivotal in whether or not change happens in a school. The lack of effective communication is often seen as a fundamental element in failed change endeavours (Fullan, 1993; Lieberman, 1986; Maeroff, 1988). In fact, communication is essential to all human endeavours (Habermas, 1973). As a result of the preliminary examination of the literature concerning the elements that are deemed to be essential for effective communication, I developed dynamic harmonization as the vehicle that could promote many of the basic elements necessary for effective group interaction. Dynamic harmonization is a process designed to be used in making a fundamental or "second order" change. "First-order changes are those that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of what is currently done, 'without disturbing the basic organizational features, without substantially altering the way that children and adults perform their roles'" (Fullan, 1991, p. 29). Many first-order changes can be implemented or ignored without impacting the organization profoundly. "Second-order changes seek to alter the fundamental ways in which organizations are put together, including new goals, structures, and roles" (p. 29). Second-order change is fundamental and therefore involves the whole organization and directly affects each individual within it. Second-order change is the one being considered here since it can make a significant difference to the organization and the participants. The degree of success in a change endeavour appears dependent on individuals and the way in which they communicate, co-operate, and make decisions. If second-order change is desired then group interactions appears to be the area that needs to be examined. Purpose of the Study This study introduced a new way of making decisions that promotes and encourages "upside down" thinking. Dynamic harmonization, an authentic, consensual, shared decision making process, is intended to encourage participation by all involved and to ensure that vital change is implemented. Dynamic harmonization was introduced to a school staff and together we explored the use of this concept in the world of teaching. While consensus is a word that is defined in various ways depending on the context, for the purposes of this study it was closely aligned with that described by the Society of Friends (Quakers). For Friends, consensus connotes a cooperative effort to find a sound solution acceptable to everyone rather than a competitive struggle in which an unacceptable solution is forced on the losers (Sheeran, 1983). An essential part of the process is building trust through valuing the views of dissenters. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the use of dynamic harmonization as a process for implementing a second-order change in a school setting. This purpose was addressed through the following questions:
Significance of the Study This study used participatory action research to observe, analyze, and assess dynamic harmonization (DH) as a basis for implementing a second-order change in one school. While group dynamics and restructuring have been frequently discussed and researched topics, DH, being a new process, had not been the focus of an investigation. Therefore, there was a need to examine its use and importance in a school restructuring endeavour. The findings of this research give insight into the nature of DH and provide a picture of an approach to consensual, shared decision making. The DH process incorporates collaboration, collegiality, professionalism, shared leadership, the use of win/win strategies, cooperation, "a sense of the meeting," "leadership by consensus," dissent, and dialogue. DH attempts to encourage the development of community which is seen to be essential for promoting restructuring. As well, this study attempts to provide helpful information for other restructuring projects. The following is a list of terms and their meanings used for the purposes of this study.
The use of participatory action research to study dynamic harmonization resulted in a number of assumptions, limitations, and delimitations. Assumptions Some assumptions relate to the use of dynamic harmonization and the implementation of change, while some relate to the research process. In this study, it was assumed that:
Delimitations
Limitations
Experimentation connotes trying something new to see if or how it works. The essence of this study was to try a new decision making process to see how it worked. Studying a new process that involves making substantial changes in the way things have been done is difficult, as exemplified by Kurt Lewin's words: "If you want to understand how something works, try changing it" (in Schein & Bennis, 1965, p. 29). The need to connect the research method with the purposes of the study is fundamental. Each study needs to match the questions being asked with the way in which these questions are to be answered (Sherman & Webb, 1988; Shulman, 1988). The purpose of this study was to ascertain the use of dynamic harmonization in a school that was attempting to implement a change. This study was based on theory in action. According to Lather (1991), "theory adequate to the task of changing the world must be open-ended, nondogmatic, speaking to and grounded in the circumstances of everyday life" (p. 55). While "world changing" can be considered an exaggeration of the intention of this study, the examination of the problem was addressed in an open-ended fashion, which was grounded in everyday life of a school staff and that, hopefully, does affect the world in a small way. After reflecting on the most appropriate way of answering the questions addressed in this research, I choose action research (AR). Action research gives both researcher and participants the opportunity to observe actions and to infer meaning from those actions (Elliott, 1991, p. 7). AR has been divided into various types and categories by many writers (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996; Carson, 1989; Reason, 1994). The descriptions of AR that best fits the present research are participatory, practical, and emancipatory. The aim of participatory action research (PAR) is to produce knowledge and action useful to a group of people and to empower people through construction of their own knowledge (Reason, 1994, p. 328). PAR offers the type of approach which accommodates the intense involvement of the staff and the researcher in a setting most conducive to studying decision making and its affect on change implementation.
Practical action research deals directly with school practice and uses theories to improve practice (Carson, p. iv). Zuber-Skerritt states that emancipatory action research is "collaborative, critical, and self-critical inquiry by practitioners into a major problem or issue or concern in their own practice. They own the problem and feel responsible and accountable for solving it through teamwork and through following a cyclical process" (p. 3). General Description
Stone (1980) states, "The aim of action research is to identify and gather pertinent data that will help a group solve a problem" (p. 3). Carr and Kemmis (p. 165) assert that the two basic aims of AR are to involve those participating in the practice under investigation and to improve its practice, understanding of it, and the situation surrounding it. An effective way to solve a problem is to learn about the issue by studying the interpersonal dynamics involved, by observing the changes which are produced from intervention, and by acknowledging the changes in perceptions over time (Stone, 1980, p. 3).
The functions of AR are to improve practice and to illuminate theory. "Action research is small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of the effects of such intervention" (Cohen & Manion, 1985, p. 208). AR is concerned with diagnosing a problem in a specific context and is therefore situational; it is collaborative since the researchers and participants work together; it is also participatory because researchers take part in the project; and it is self-evaluative in that modifications are continually evaluated (Cohen & Manion, p. 208). Collaboration between researcher and participants is seen as yielding a superior method of study as compared to a researcher working in isolation because the forum leads to an understanding of the issues that is more complete, and the information gleaned is more likely to be used (Schensul & Schensul, 1992, p. 164). AR can be described as a method of collaborative problem solving with numerous outcomes and benefits. "Collaborative problem solving incorporates creative and critical thinking skills and generates the 'aha' that motivates the problem-solver to move in new directions" (Schensul & Schensul, 1992, p. 195). AR improves practice by "developing the practitioners' capacity for discrimination and judgment in particular, complex, human situations. It unifies inquiry, the improvement of performance and the development of persons in their professional roles" (Elliott, 1991, p. 52). Cohen and Manion (1985, pp. 216-17) describe the occasions when AR could be effectively incorporated: (1) replacing a traditional teaching method with a new or different one; (2) changing learning or teaching strategies; (3) improving evaluative procedures; (4) developing some modification or change in attitudes or values; (5) providing teachers with in-service; (6) introducing new management and control techniques; and (7) changing some aspect of administration. The concept of "ideas -- in -- action" is linking theory and action which is the essence of AR (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, p. 6). Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, pp. 22-23) summarize some of the key features of AR. AR improves education by changing it and learning from the consequences of these changes. AR is participatory in that people work to improve their own practices. It is developed through self-reflection, is collaborative and establishes self-critical communities of people. AR encourages people to theorize about their own practice. Essential Components This study can be described as a story involving a group of detectives solving a mystery. Wolcott (1994, p. 22) proposes that all research should be viewed in this manner. In solving a mystery the detective needs to make sure all pertinent information is gathered and analyzed. The same is true of research; care must be taken that the necessary steps and procedures are followed in order for the problem to be properly examined. The stages of AR are addressed in various forms and orders by many writers (e.g., Wolcott, 1994; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Elliott, 1991; Stone, 1980). The stages followed in this research were: reading and analyzing the literature surrounding decision making and school restructuring; devising (with many modifications) a new decision making model; introducing this model and the research plan to a school staff. The staff then agreed to use DH (dynamic harmonization) as a model in implementing two second order changes and decided to use DH in their staff meetings. Together, we evaluated the use of DH. The AR spiral of planning, action, and evaluation that begins with planning, followed by acting and observing , then moves to reflecting, next to revising the plan, and ultimately to repeating the steps (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, p. 11) was an integral aspect of this research. The need for flexibility due to AR's unpredictability as described by Kemmis and McTaggart (p. 13) became an important feature as the study progressed. As well, the need for critical self-reflection that is evaluative and descriptive as Kemmis and McTaggart highlight (pp. 13-14) was a pivotal component. The framework of activities for conducting AR as delineated by Elliott (1991, pp. 72-77) was followed in this study. The first step of linking an idea to an action by identifying and clarifying a situation that one wishes to change or improve was accomplished by the staff employing DH to make the daily decisions in the school. Monthly staff meetings, three individual interviews, and five reflective meetings that were all tape recorded as well as the staff's writing in their reflective journals fulfilled the next step of information gathering or reconnaissance. The description and explanation of this information in order to ascertain their impact on the situation was analyzed on an on-going basis. Rigour and Validity Although there is some disagreement concerning the use of such terms as rigour and validity in qualitative research (Leininger, 1994), many writers feel these terms may be used with the understanding the meaning is not interchangeable with the usage in quantitative research (e.g., Eisner & Peshkin, 1990; Bryman, 1989; Argyris & Schon, 1989; Wolcott, 1990). Since AR does not have a set structure as does research in the quantitative realm, the question of maintaining rigour and validity is raised. "In quantitative research, the good may be found in fidelity to design, whereas in qualitative research, relatively lacking in canons and conventions, the good is more elusive because its procedures are more idiosyncratic" (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990, pp. 1-2). While AR lacks conventional standards of rigour, the more rigorous methods do not have the same level of participant involvement and therefore might be less effective (Bryman, 1989, p. 183). The action researcher's job is to meet standards of appropriate rigour. "And for this purpose, AR needs three things: a way of representing research results that enhances their usability, a complementary way of constructing causality, and an appropriate methodology of causal inference" (Argyris & Schon, 1989, p. 612). Rigour is intimately intertwined with the establishment of validity. Lather's (1991, pp. 65-68) four validity criteria for establishing empirical rigour were used in this study. Triangulation is one strategy for establishing data trustworthiness. Data collection triangulation included the use of reflective journals, taped interviews, participant observations, reflective meetings from the researcher and participants' points of view. Another criterion is construct validity that involves theory-building. The staff engaged in several professional development activities involving the study of the theoretical underpinning of decision making. The next criterion is face validity that provides a 'click of recognition' and a 'yes, of course'. The consociates exchanged viewpoints and insights that produced many "ahas" along the way. The last criterion is catalytic validity that represents the degree the research focuses the participants toward reality. Using a decision making process in the "real world" of teaching kept us all focused on reality and our thoughts and reflections enmeshed in that world. While validity is presented in many forms: external, internal, instrumental, concurrent, theoretical, criterion, predictive, and apparent, the essence of validity is ascertaining whether one is measuring whatever it is that is supposed to be measured (Wolcott, 1990, pp. 122-123). All of the participants worked together to assure that we were staying focused on decision making and its effects on the staff and the culture of the school. Even though Wolcott (1990) does not appear to be overly concerned with others' emphasis on validity, he acknowledges the need to maintain validity in his work in order to "satisfy the implicit challenge of validity" (p. 127). I attempted to follow the nine points Wolcott (pp. 127-134) believes are essential. The first point of talking a little and listening a lot was a constant struggle; knowing when to talk and when to listen was a continuous dilemma for me. His second and third points are to record accurately and to begin writing early. I found, as he suggests, that early writing gives time for disclosing the need for further information as well as getting feedback from others. His fourth point involves letting readers "see" for themselves. He stresses the need to "let informants speak for themselves" so that their thoughts are expressed rather than the observations and interpretations of the researcher alone. Knowing when to write a letter to the staff to keep everyone on track and well informed and knowing how much to comment in the staff's reflective journals were concerns I faced daily. The fifth guideline is to report fully even data that does not seem to fit for one never knows where such unexplained or unexpected information might lead. This research has produced a very large amount of data. It is difficult to ascertain the information that fits into this category of "unexplained or unexpected" and which is simply unnecessary. The sixth is to be candid. Qualitative research is subjective and one should not attempt to establish objectivity. Being honest and open with my feelings has been an interesting activity that has required a great deal of reflection. The final three points are to seek feedback, to try to achieve balance, which Wolcott describes as "rigorous subjectivity," and to write accurately. I have attempted to meet these goals by seeking feedback after summarizing the individual interviews, checking perceptions in the reflective journals, and attending weekly mini-staff meetings. Wolcott (1990) summarizes his thoughts with a statement and a question. "A preoccupation with validity may be a distraction to our collective efforts at qualitative research" (p. 148) and "How valid is valid enough" (p. 149)? Following the steps suggested by Wolcott appears to establish an acceptable level of rigour and validity without undermining the importance of maintaining the AR format. Generalizability Another concern for action researchers is the difficulty of generalizing their findings. Eisner and Peshkin (1990) purpose that "one of the central aims of scientific inquiry is to create ideas that allow us to anticipate the future" (p. 171). If qualitative research is to be acknowledged, then generalizing the findings of all research must be seriously considered. In generalizing the finding of AR, patterns and linkages are the most important aspects, rather than attempting to infer the results on a population. Eisner and Peshkin (1990) support this thought. Generalizations "consist of ideas-images that in some way allow us to understand or anticipate phenomena we have not yet encountered from phenomena we have encountered.. Generalizations enable us to form expectations on the basis of prior experience" (p. 171). They further assert that we are generalizing each time we learn a lesson from the past and that qualitative research can be generalized by "focusing on what is, what may be, and what could be" (p. 172). Donmoyer (1990, p. 181) describes this sort of generalization as "experiential learning". Learning from mistakes and refocusing on the task at hand (maybe even changing the task at hand) is the mainstay of AR. Donmoyer (1990) and Schofield (1990) also find this method of generalizing at least as effective, if not more, effective than the traditional type. "It no longer makes sense to think of generalizability as synonymous with the use of large samples and statistical procedures designed to ensure that the large samples accurately represent the population" (Donmoyer, p. 181). Schofield (pp. 208-209) highlights the impracticality of research producing universal laws and reiterates that social science can be generalized to what is happening, to what may be happening, and to what could be happening. She further states that "generalizability is best thought of as a matter of "fit" between the situation studied and others to which one might be interested in applying the concepts and conclusions of that study" (p. 222). Generalization of AR must be viewed on a very different plane than the findings produced in the quantitative realm. Generalizing the results of this study will best be considered in the "fit" category. Using the information discovered here will be useful to others who find their current decision making process inadequate. This study was designed using the principles and characteristics of PAR. In this section, the general orientation and specific elements of the study design are described. Although some specifics of the design were specified at the beginning of the study, many of the decisions were made collaboratively by all the participants, staff and me. To capture, understand, and, eventually, classify and compare the perspective of the participants, the researcher must choose, assess, and redesign research methods and schedules to fit the community being studied (Pitman & Maxwell, 1992, p. 754). General Orientation This study incorporated the features of AR proposed by Cohen and Manion (1985, pp. 209-10). The first step is the "spur - to - action" in order to expedite an objective. Next step is the improvement of relationships that includes job analysis to improve professional functioning and efficiency, organizational change and innovation, and development of theoretical knowledge. Each of these were important components of my research since group dynamics and relationships were examined. The AR requirements as described by Carr and Kemmis' (1986, pp. 165-166) were important features, as well. First, the subject-matter is a social practice that can be improved. In this study the decision making process and its impact on a change endeavour were the subject matter. Second, the planning, acting, observing, and reflecting spiral were incorporated. Third, the project involved those responsible for and affected by the practice studied. Twenty-two of the twenty-nine school staff and I participated in this study. While Carr and Kemmis (1986, p. 157) encourage the involvement of parents and students, the design and time constraints of this study did not lend itself to the involvement of more than one group. Site Selection Selecting an appropriate school in which to conduct the study was crucial. The key was finding a school in which the staff had already decided to implement a fundamental or second-order change and to be invited by the staff to become involved with this change project. I contacted a Deputy Director of the public school system in the urban area where I wished to conduct the study. He was able to provide me with the name of a school that might wish to participate in this study. After receiving the name, I then contacted the principal and she invited me to make a presentation to the staff. The school staff then agreed for me to assist them in implementing their restructuring endeavours using DH. The staff's involvement in deciding to become part of my study was paramount. If PAR is to be successful, it is vital to build a collaborative, trustful relationship. I believed that this was more likely to happen if the whole staff rather than the administrators were the ones to make this commitment. Phases of the Study I gave a brief presentation to the staff in the spring before my study began in earnest at school opening after summer vacation. The beginning activities focused on getting to know each other and introducing the theoretical underpinnings and basic components of DH to the staff. As the study progressed I was in attendance at the school almost daily. I spent as much time as possible in the staffroom so that I could get to know the staff on a personal level. I also wanted the staff to see me as a member of the staff and not as an administrator. The three stages for this study were program building, focused exploration, and theory development (Mitchell, 1995, p. 64). While I found, as had Mitchell, that program building was more prominent in the early days, focused exploration in the middle, with theory development in the latter days, there were times that these stages were combined or revisited. Program Building Two projects were undertaken at the school. The staff had chosen to implement two program change initiatives and I introduced DH as the process for implementing these changes. The beginning of this study involved deciding on a focus for the school staff's planned improvement. The use of dynamic harmonization was introduced to the staff and time was needed to build an understanding of the process. This understanding of the process was an on-going procedure. Focused Exploration The spiral of plan - act - observe - reflect - plan again as described by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p. 11) was the basis for this study. While Kemmis and McTaggart (p. 48) suggest that one-month time periods are appropriate, the time periods varied because they were influenced by the restructuring project chosen and the way in which the staff decided to implement it. Theory Development From time to time, as seemed appropriate, the staff discussed what DH meant to the them, how DH influenced the change process, and the ways in which DH impacted teachers personally. At various times discussions were held in large group settings, small group settings, and individually. These discussions were conducted during monthly staff meetings, the three individual interviews, and the five reflective small group meetings. I also wrote letters to the staff concerning our progress and to explain pertinent issues as questions and concerns arose. As well, I provided the staff with access to books and articles on topics of interest. Data Collection Techniques A qualitative researcher needs to be a storyteller (Wolcott,1994, p. 17). "To be able to tell the story well is critical" and the story must be grounded in the observed experience (Wolcott, p. 17). If this story is to be well grounded, Pitman and Maxwell (1992, pp. 762-63) believe that a qualitative researcher must include five components in data collection: writing extensive field notes, developing a regular procedure for rewriting and indexing, tracking and noting researcher bias, conducting early analysis, and using multiple sources of evidence. Wolcott (pp. 17-22) adds the necessity to record events both in chronological order and narrator order that is based on a logic other than chronological sequence. Further, he stresses progressive focusing, description of a "day-in-the-life," and emphasizing a critical or key event in the process. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of introducing the characters and the plot, describing the group interactions, following an analytical framework, using the Rashomon effect, and endeavouring to write a mystery. These components were addressed in my use of participant observation, reflective meetings, interviews with participating staff members, artifact collection, and personal reflective journals. I used field notes, journals writing, and tape recordings to chronicle each of these activities. The consociates were asked to write in their journals weekly. I wrote field notes and reflections on an "as need" basis that resulted in my writing many times each week. I asked for reflective groups to be convened when there were issues of concern that needed to be resolved by a group of the staff. These issues dealt with DH, their chosen program changes, and other problems of a more general nature. Each group's recommendations were presented to the staff for their consideration at the monthly staff meetings. Three individual interviews were conducted, one at the beginning, middle, and end of the study. Data Analysis My analysis is of the "describe and display" format described by Pitman and Maxwell (1992, pp. 763-65). The first stage of the written analysis served to acquaint the reader with the data available. The initial stage of the final analysis served to reacquaint the reader with all the data and outlined the data for the discussion section. The next level of analysis was conceptual and included such activities as labeling and indexing. The data were inspected to find patterns and themes. The aim was to identify data categories. Following this the data were assessed to find the critical or central information to the study. Once again the data were indexed, coded, and classified so that reflection on the research questions could be accomplished. The distribution of the thinness and thickness of the data was indicated. Finally, there was a narrative description of the findings presented. During the process, I also used the ten elements that Wolcott (1994, pp. 29-35) outlined: (1) highlight the findings; (2) display the findings; (3) follow and report "systematic" fieldwork; (4) flesh out whatever analytical framework guided the data collection; (5) identify patterned regularities in the data; (6) compare with another case; (7) evaluate; (8) contextualize in a broader analytical framework; (9) critique the research process; and (10) propose a redesign for the study. These elements overlapped with these ideas suggested above, but also added emphasis and detail to the steps described by Pitman and Maxwell. Due to the nature of participatory action research (collective self-reflection) (Kemmis & Taggert, 1988, p. 5), the guidelines for determining the use of DH in successfully implementing a change endeavour was decided by the researcher and staff together. "Participants must collaborate in discussion to build a language by which they must analyze and improve their understandings and action in the situation" (p. 12). The analysis of DH and its use by the school staff was examined by looking at the way in which it produces change in three aspects. These three aspects had to do with the individual work and the culture of the group: changes in the use of language and discourses, changes in activities and practices, and changes in social relationships and organization (p. 15). In attempting to formulate an effective way to evaluate the use of DH by the staff, I drew-up a list of indicators. These indicators were: (1) the feelings and examples of increased empowerment expressed by the staff; (2) the attainment of the change goal that was set by the staff; (3) the degree of collegiality and collaboration experienced by the staff; (4) the level of trust among the staff; (5) the opportunities provided for dissenting points of view and the reaction to these views in the meetings; (6) the use of language which is inclusive and invitational; (7) the amount of carry over into other problem solving situations; and (8) the degree of community achieved. Research that involves people needs to be conducted with extreme care regarding ethical considerations. The guidelines as developed by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada were followed, and each person on the school staff was given a copy of the guidelines. The participants were informed about the nature and purposes of the study. Their participation was voluntary, and they were allowed to withdraw from the study at any time. They were each given the opportunity to react to reports and interpretations of the data of which they were a part. Anonymity of the school and participants continued be maintained. I have described the research design that I used in this study. The activities that made up the study were used in the cycle of plan-act-observe-reflect-plan again. The framework of the analysis presented was followed in an attempt to avoid "any temptation to go beyond the data" (Wolcott, 1994, p. 39). Explaining the way that data were collected and analyzed is given in hopes of aiding the reader to get a sense of where this study planned to go and how it got there (if it got there). I have endeavoured to "cast [my] lot with a creative human imagination capable of being informed rather than bound by an ever-expanding universe of facts' (p. 41). During the compilations and analysis of the data, the idea of storytelling has been a compelling one for me. This study is designed to enable me to tell a mystery tale filled with adventure that unfolds in the life of one school implementing change using dynamic harmonization. The Study of Dynamic Harmonization in a School Restructuring Endeavour
When school restructuring initiatives are being introduced we often hear such comments as: "They can decide anything they want, but I will close my door and do as I wish," "This is nothing new, I have seen these changes before," "This is something downtown wants but they don't know what it is like here." The study reported here introduced a new way to make decisions about restructuring that invited the teachers and administrators to redefine their roles and to become actively involved in making the decisions that impact them and the way students are educated. School restructuring is a topic of conversation for educators everywhere. Often this conversation revolves around which type of restructuring initiatives should be implemented or why the implementation of seemingly good ideas has not taken place. There are numerous changes that are being proposed for schools, for example, shared governance, charter school, and Glasser's quality school. Each of these ideas are permeated by decisions that need to be made. Decisions, such as, which changes to implement, which to avoid, how the change might best be implemented, or who should be involved in the change, are legion. Decision making is the point at which many people withdraw from or became an advocate for the purposed change. Whether the decisions reached are effective or ineffective is often determined by the way in which decisions are made. The decision making process needed for making choices about possible changes that will enhance education for students appears to be more complex than often has been used and involves far more than simply following a set of steps. The process includes the way in which people are included or excluded, whether or not the leader is trustworthy, and whether the procedures followed are inviting or uninviting. In fact, Hoy and Miskel (1991, pp.325-26), in reporting the findings of what they term the "most comprehensive study of decision making in education," state that while many decision making models were used, the effectiveness of the decisions reached was determined not by the model used but by what the principals did. The complexity of decision making is apparent in viewing the various classical models of decision making and the shortcomings found in each. Hoy and Miskel's comments concerning shared decision making could be said about any decision making model.
If decisions are not accepted by the stakeholders and if everyone involved is not committed, then the model used is a moot if not superfluous point. Some writers have noted the lack of acceptance of and lack of commitment to decisions by teachers in school restructuring endeavours (e.g., Hargreaves, 1994; Fullan, 1991). Others have stressed the need for a decision making role for all members of an organization (e.g., Secretan, 1996; Brown & Isaacs, 1995). "If certain essential elements are missing from our work, such as information or opportunity to contribute to the decisions that affect the organization and therefore our own life and livelihood, our work will deprive our souls" (Secretan, p.157). The study reported here used participatory action research (PAR) to examine the use of dynamic harmonization, an alternative model of decision making, that encouraged a staff to make good decisions about change for their school and which invited all staff members to become an integral part in the implementation of that change. The first part of the paper discusses the essential elements of dynamic harmonization, the process of the study, and the findings. The second part of the paper discusses the implications of this study. Dynamic harmonization (DH) is decision making that is shared and is based on authentic consensus (Figure 1). This model involves arriving at agreement in which a free and open exchange of ideas continues until agreement has been reached. DH is a collaborative effort to find a sound solution acceptable to everyone rather than a competitive struggle in which an unacceptable solution is forced on the losers. Relationships are cooperative, sharing is more important than controlling, and respect for differences is essential. In any decision making process adjustment and agreement, or the lack there of, have a direct impact on the people involved. As seen in Figure 1, the elements that comprise DH are shared decision making and authentic consensus. Sharing in decisions facilitates the development of synergy (Piper, 1974) and promotes commitment to the decision made (Sergiovanni, 1984).
The elements of shared decision making (Figure 2) are collaboration, collegiality, empowerment, shared leadership and the use of win/win strategies. Collaboration and collegiality are required for people to work together successfully (Fullan, 1993; Lieberman, 1986). Empowerment, on the other hand, builds respect (Glickman, 1990; Maeroff, 1988). In shared decision making the roles of the participants are redefined (Meadows, 1992) resulting in a win/win attitude (Maeroff, 1988; Glickman, 1990).
The components of authentic consensus shown in Figure 3 are cooperation, "a sense of the meeting", "leadership by consensus", dissent, and dialogue. Although consensus is a word that is defined in various ways depending on the context, consensus for the purposes of this study, will be as described by the Society of Friends (Quakers). For Friends, consensus connotes a cooperative effort to find a sound solution acceptable to everyone rather than a competitive struggle in which an unacceptable solution is forced on the losers (Sheeran, 1983). "Sense of the meeting" involves accepting the group's conclusions that have been reached in a free exchange of ideas (Likert & Likert, 1976). "Leadership by consensus" views process and product as equally important (Barth, 1990). Working together (Sheeran 1983) and developing dialogue (Habermas, 1973) are vital for effective problem solving. The impact of consensus is seen in valuing differences (Barth, 1990) in that it promotes dissent which helps avoid groupthink (Partridge, 1971).
The combination of shared decision making and authentic consensus is the process I have termed dynamic harmonization. The potential usefulness of DH is seen in Figure 4. DH is grounded in trust and has the capacity to encourage the development of community that many writers feel is the place schools need to be (Sergiovanni, 1994; Glickman, 1990; Lieberman, 1988). This development of community, in turn, is seen as setting the stage for implementing change that is vital for improving education for students. Although DH may not be needed for all decision making, the possibilities this process has for implementing second order change makes this approach worth pursuing. Ineffectual decision making appears to be a primary cause for the failure to implement many creative and exciting ideas. Instilling change in a school is a complex endeavour and unilateral, imposed decisions often do not meet the needs of those participants who are endeavouring to promote new ways of being.
The Components of the PAR Study Change and restructuring are complex processes; the realities and uncertainties of change can be intimidating as well as exciting. "Restructuring is not an end to our problems but a beginning; a chance to set new rules for new purposes and new learnings in a newly constructed world" (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 261). The importance of and need for viewing our world differently is proclaimed by Albert Einstein (in Morgan, 1993, p. v): "Imagination is more important than knowledge. To raise questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science". Change is not likely to be successfully implemented unless attitudes are revised and new processes are attempted. The Study I introduced DH to a school staff and together we explored the use of this concept in the world of teaching. This study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What did DH look like in the school? (2) How did the process of DH unfold in the school? (3) How did the staff use DH in the group setting? (4) What conditions affected the use of DH? (5) What did the concept of DH come to mean to the staff? (6) What skills did the staff develop as a result of using DH? (7) Was DH a beneficial process in a restructuring endeavour? Method Participatory action research (PAR) was chosen as the most appropriate method for this study. PAR gives both researcher and participants the opportunity to observe actions and infer meaning from those actions (Elliott, 1991, p. 7). The aim of PAR is to produce knowledge and action useful to a group of people and to empower people through construction of their own knowledge (Reason, 1994, p. 328). PAR offers the approach which accommodates the intense involvement of staff and researcher in a setting most conducive to studying decision making and its affect on change implementation.
PAR improves education by changing it and giving the participants an opportunity to learn from the consequences of these changes. It is participatory in that people work to improve their own practices. PAR is developed through self-reflection, is collaborative, establishes self-critical communities of people, and encourages people to theorize about their own practice. The Context Inkonze School is a small inter-city elementary school in a urban setting. There were twenty-seven staff members: two administrators (one teaches half-time), eleven classroom teachers, two resource teachers, two interns, one teacher librarian, one community coordinator, and eight support staff. Twenty-two staff members were participants in this study. Inkonze staff had decided to implement Glasser's (1990) quality school principles and to form family groupings instead of individual grades. The family groupings consisted of each teacher having multiple grade levels in the classroom. There were two grade teachers; each teacher had grades one and two students in her room. There were three grade 3/4/5 teachers; each teacher had all three grade levels in her classroom. The same arrangement was true for the three grade 6/7/8 teachers. PAR The concept of DH was introduced to the staff at the beginning of the school year. We discussed the basic elements that are fundamental to implement DH. After the foundational aspects of DH were explained, the essential features were presented. These features included: (1) Time frame must be flexible but this does not mean endless meetings. (2) No debate - ideas are a gift to the group and only stated once. (3) Reflection time is built into the meeting (4) Everyone is free to speak. Dissenting voices are encouraged. (5) Record of the meeting is read at the end of the meeting so that changes can be made immediately. (6) Unanimous decisions. There will be no voting. (7) Agreed upon way to disagree. The Quakers' Ways to dissent are: "I disagree but do not wish to stand in the way," "Please minute me as opposed," "I am unable to unite with the proposal." (8) Listen to each other. Dialogue is expected rather than discussion. (9) Absence of leader control. The leader steers but does not dominate. (10) Long focus. By focusing on something distant you can see more, even though everything closer is a little out of focus. At the initial meeting, the staff agreed to use DH at all staff meetings and at other meetings if all members of the group were comfortable using this process. Three levels of agreement were chosen; (1) I agree with and support the decision, (2) I disagree with the decision but will support it, (3) I disagree with the decision and want it stopped for now. They also decided to modify the process as the need arose. After the first two meetings, more questions than answers surfaced. I was asking myself; How do I encourage reflection time?, How do I get everyone involved in the discussions?, What should my role be? I noted that there were many rapid fire conversations. Reflection for many didn't seem to be happening. I was also concerned that humour seemed to be lacking. The staff noted some of the same questions and concerns as they reflected on the process in their journals. Their comments ranged from "How is this different from what we've done before?" to "I am excited about the process and hopeful that it will help me to learn more about others." The second staff meeting was long, laborious, and could be described as total confusion. Chaos reigned. My reflections for that day consisted of "Yikes! This was terrible - way too long, one person dominating, the five second waiting time has been forgotten. Ideas are being repeated and turf wars are evident! Do we need to limit the number of times people can speak? Everyone is frustrated." Two days later I wrote a letter to the staff which began "Thanks for not lynching me!" and then went on to explain that chaos is to be expected when second order change is taking place. The staff were frustrated and disgusted by what had happened at the meeting but were not disillusioned with DH. In fact, many said that the reason that the meeting had been such a mess was due to their not using DH. Many expressed the hope that DH could keep this kind of meeting from happening in the future while explaining that in the past meetings had been equally disorganized. As we went through staff meetings from August to February DH was refined and altered to fit the staff at this school. Many of the adjustments were made based on comments in the staff's reflective journals, individual interviews, questions being addressed in reflective groups (small groups set up to talk about issues and concerns as they arose), and insights gained through professional development activities. The November staff meeting was a turning point. Issues surrounding leadership and the way to take turns speaking so that reflection time could be preserved were resolved. Many staff members wrote comments such as, "We had fun and everyone was more relaxed. The meeting was very productive. The time was used well. This is one of the best staff meetings I have ever attended." We seemed to be past the point of frustration and discomfort. Everyone reported a feeling of progress. While many people requested that I stay involved in the school for several more months, they have couched this request in a desire to hone their skills in the use of DH so that they would be able to use the process successfully after I left. Data Collection and Analysis Data collection consisted of taped recordings of the staff meetings and three sets of individual interviews, notes taken at all staff meeting and five reflective group meetings, weekly entries in personal reflective journals, and notes taken as students in grades 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 were introduced to DH.
What Did DH Look Like in the School? Monty, the vice-principal, commented in this third interview that DH at the beginning was a "new beast." There was never a typical staff meeting. One of the staff meetings near the beginning of the study was one of the most trying for everyone. It was long, one topic took up the majority of the meeting, only tentative decisions were reached, and reflection time was disregarded for the majority of the meeting. The staff meeting six months later at the end of the study was very different. During this meeting there were many, major decisions made, reflection time was evident, and a new style of leadership was used. The feelings of the staff concerning these meetings were reflected in their journal entries. In their journals for the first meeting the staff reported frustration and disappointment but also a willingness to try again, while in the entries for the last meeting they noted optimism and feelings of accomplishment. From the outset, many staff members felt that DH had the potential of meeting their needs. Rosebud, new to the staff this year, commented, "It is about as close as you can come to pleasing everyone. Some people always seem to dominate a discussion. DH reminds them not to dominate. They have a hard time giving up the power. DH makes people stop and think instead of interrupting or going back to their own idea." Similar views were held by Ellen, a teacher with many years of experience. "I like the DH process. Thinking time before you talk shows respect for different opinions. We tend to speak before we think. When the staff was discussing the supervision schedule, the group didn't follow DH. This showed that decisions go better when we follow DH." DH was readily embraced by the quieter more reticent members of the staff. They reported feeling empowered by DH because it gave them a forum for speaking, even though many of these people did not actually speak at staff meetings. May, a teacher new to the school, stated it well, "This process encourages collaboration." Kalther, an intern, reported seeing a direct connection between DH and Aboriginal decision making. He sees processes like DH as being the only way to make decisions because any other way gives some people power and control over others. The staff members who tended to be very vocal were more reluctant to use DH. Some raised concerns about using time efficiently, needing to speak about an issue often, and seeing quickly made decision as efficient. One of these vocal members said that she felt that she needed to restate ideas because she "can say it better than anyone else." Many staff members liked having a stated way to disagree without being seen as wanting to stop the decision. Nan, an experienced teacher, believed that DH recognizes all people as professional and that they can make sound judgments. She said it puts the onus on her. She is self-directed and appreciates being recognized as capable of making decisions. Nan stated she is insulted by attitudes that give the impression she is not capable or lacks reasonable judgment. She liked "the recognition of professionalism" because teachers have the expertise to make good decisions and they understand the context. Monty wrote in his journal at the beginning of the year, "I wonder if reflective time is a waste of time. It seemed unnatural. Reflecting time may be calming or it may put some people out of focus (asleep). I feel that the decision making process dragged." At the end of the project he stated,
Some of the frustrations that were encountered had to do with the use of time. Time was an issue with which we dealt throughout the study. At one point, early in the study the principal was quite concerned with time and the problem of discussing all the issues that needed attention in one staff meeting. But at the end of the study Mary (the principal), among others, had changed her mind about time being a negative component of DH. She described her thoughts,
How Did the Process of DH Unfold in the School? Reflection time, while valued by all of the staff, was the most difficult skill to develop. It was also a source of frustration for many. A quiet member of the staff said, "It is hard for me to articulate my ideas. I need the reflection time to think." Kim, a quiet, special education teacher, stated, "I often reflect in meetings now but there are always some people who don't reflect. They need to think before they speak. The person needs to see how they impact others. Some people feel jumped on and then don't share their ideas." Many staff wanted some guidelines for reflection time, therefore, a five second wait time was adopted. Subsequently, the staff were distressed that some members were counting very rapidly and "jumping in". Sharon, a teacher associate, was frustrated over the five second count. She felt people were concerned about counting rather than spending their time reflecting. At times the principal or vice-principal were reminding people of our agreed upon reflection time. Celeste, a support staff, remarked in the first interview that she "hates to be reminded to reflect." We then agreed to have the leader read the elements for DH before each meeting. Dissatisfaction was still evident. As a result of the second reflective group's dialogue concerning reflection time, more stringent guidelines were put in place. There were three major changes. The first two concerned leadership. The leader (who was not one of the administrators) was instructed to guide the discussion in a more structured manner. The leader was to write down names and recognize people as they signalled their wish to speak. People were to signal by raising their hands. The third change was that informational items were to be written and copied for all. Time was given for reading the information sheets at the beginning of the meeting. Everyone liked the staff meeting with the leader giving more direction to the meeting and giving everyone an opportunity to speak. Ellen commented, "Raising hands was effective and done in a gentle way. The staff has grown to respect the quieter person's space. There seemed to be a sigh of relief when people were reminded to wait their turn to speak." Some people were hopeful that signalling to speak would not always be necessary. Kim felt,"Right now people aren't monitoring themselves but maybe we will all learn to self monitor. Someone taking ownership raises awareness and helps with understanding." Making these changes to the process made everyone feel better about DH, the staff meeting, and each other. Sharon felt the last meeting was "a pleasure". She commented, "We accomplished a lot. I liked the information written down so that I can go back to it. It also cut down on the time spent." She enjoyed the meeting and did not feel like it was long and drawn out. "We didn't get sidetracked. Taking turns is the biggest issue. It takes self discipline." Dana, who has been a teacher at Inkonze for several years, said, "The last staff meeting was a turn around. We wanted more input by more people in our staff meetings but it was not happening before this meeting. The last meeting had more input by more people. We accomplished a lot. There seemed to be no tension." These changes in conjunction with having worked with DH for a little more than three months did seem to have marked a turning point for the staff. Comfort levels have increased as has an understanding of how best to use the process. Learning how to listen to each other and coming to an understanding of what kind of leadership was most beneficial for the group were finally sorted out. While the process was difficult and time consuming, many staff found that they did a great deal of growing and changing in the process. Our struggles in learning to listen were incorporated in our developing an understanding of the difference between discussion and dialogue and learning not to debate but to give our ideas as gifts. The statements of Nan showed the most dramatic change in this area. Early in the study she stated, "I like a good argument. Sometimes it is good to disagree and be opinionated. DH wants to include everyone and needs to accept everyone's ideas. When you are with friends you can have a heated discussion." At the end of the study, in discussing what DH had come to mean to her, she said that she had always thought before that anyone who did not speak did not have anything to say. Now she realized that in debates many people had felt excluded. She concluded by saying, "The important part of the project for me was seeing how consensual decision making empowers." Monty stated his convictions quite strongly,
Appreciating the need for all to be winners was a vital step in learning to dialogue; first we had to learn to truly listen. How Did the Staff Use DH in the Group Setting? The staff, early in the study, agreed to use DH in their monthly staff meetings but did not seem to be using it in their family or committee meetings. But as the study progressed more people began reporting using the basic elements of DH in school meetings and in other places as well. It seemed that DH was becoming second nature for many. Early in the study Monty noted, "Everyone seems to agree that something needs to change and DH seems to be the ticket." The use of DH and the perceived need for DH in various forums was highlighted by numerous staff members. Sarah, an upper years teacher, noted, "I really do not like voting. I went to a [provincial teachers' association] meeting and saw the need for being minuted as opposed. I believe that it is affirming to say I disagree with the decision but can live with it." Mary described a situation at Inkonze where a discussion had broken down into a power and control battle in a meeting that she did not attend. She recounted, "I was asked to intervene and I suggested using DH. It worked well for them and the differences were resolved. I felt the team spirit was reestablished." Lou, an experienced, upper years teacher, said, "I am making an effort to use the five second reflecting time in other places than just staff meetings. I am working on really listening to other people." Kirsten, a middle years teacher, said, "I didn't realize how much we are using DH format in our meetings until I attended a meeting conducted in the traditional way. I was very frustrated. Things went in circles and the same points were made repeatedly. They voted and the majority ruled. Many people were frustrated. The same few people dominated the discussion and have been for a long time" Once the teachers recognized the benefits of DH for themselves they wanted to share the process with their students. I was asked to help teach the DH process in four classrooms. Monty and I taught the grade 6/7/8 students the process. Initially these students expressed a lack of appreciation for their ability to make important changes in their world. Monty felt that DH was an important concept for them to learn so that they could develop a power base to make effective decisions and bring about changes that mattered to them. While building an understanding of DH was slow going at times ("why don't we just vote?"), to this point the students have used the process in two endeavours to change their world at school. The first was an attempt to acquire a "pop" machine for their area. At a parent council meeting, the parents narrowly voted the students' idea down. The experience gave the students some strong reasons to like DH and reject voting. They expressed a strong desire to try again on another issue. A few days later, these students requested that the staff allow them to wear hats in the school. This same issue concerning hats had been raised and voted down by the staff the previous year. This year, using DH, approximately five teachers stated that they did not agree with the decision but that they could live with it and the rest agreed with the decision. Monty reported,
What Did the Concept of DH Come to Mean to the Staff? In describing what DH ultimately meant to them, the staff used many metaphors. On one hand, they talked about DH giving them voice, promoting a team spirit, and leveling the playing field. On the other hand, they said that in using DH they were, at times, on shaky ground and were going in circles. The positive aspects of DH far outweighed the negative for the staff. In fact, they discussed the importance of everyone "buying into" all three changes and pondered how they could go about ensuring that DH and their other change initiatives would be continued next year. They also talked about dialogue and empowerment and discussed how DH might look in the future. In describing the importance of having voice, the staff expressed a desire for all, students and staff, to be recognized and cared for in the school setting. They felt that DH was a nurturing process where care and concern for others were paramount. Monty suggested that DH gave voice to the students as illustrated by the "hat incident" but also gave voice to the staff. "Everyone in the school has the same say. The caretaker has as much voice as the principal. Their words carry equal weight." Early in the study Summer expressed a belief that "this process will bring the staff together because every one has a voice." Nan explained a concern she felt at the beginning of the study, "Change often comes from the top down. [While] teachers and students in the trenches are the ones affected by the changes, students often come last. Do they have a voice? Maybe it is only through their parents and teachers [that they have a voice]." Later her concern seemed to be alleviated when she stated, "It is good to be part of giving voice to people." Others were impressed that they actually had voice at Inkonze. Lynne remarked, "I can't get used to having a voice; a voice that is listened to. In another school I did not dare speak. What I think actually counts here." Kirsten noted the sense of power DH instilled in her. She stated,
Giving voice to the less vocal was important to Terri, an early years teacher. She described the impact of DH as positive in many ways. "People who were less vocal before now have voice. They are now able to contribute. This process has tied nicely to Quality Schools. It has empowered even less vocal people." Madeline, a beginning teacher, liked the new process. She went so far as to say, "I don't dread staff meetings. I almost look forward to them. Here it is positive and everyone has more voice." The reality of having voice and developing a team mentality appeared to level the playing field as described by several staff members. Kirsten said,
Madeline felt that reflective time was important "because not everyone can respond quickly so it helps put everyone on an equal basis." During a staff meeting, Monty had used the analogy of being like a dog team when he was expressing the need for them to all work together. Terri picked up on this analogy and used it to describe her perceptions of the current change initiatives.
Brown, a support staff, explained the reason for working as a team. She felt that it would have been beneficial for "the staff to have built trust and confidence in the beginning. Get to know each other. Then when we had stumbles we would be more secure and comfortable with each other. The way it was we were insecure and that caused some misunderstanding because the communication was not there. It would be best to build a strong team first" The importance of leveling the playing field so that everyone was equal seemed to be an important quest for the staff. But achieving that equality was at times very difficult. To get to level ground we had to go through some periods when the ground was shaky. In commenting on the fun factor, Summer, a teacher associate, explained why she believed that Inkonze began the year on shaky ground. She recounted, "I do not believe that the lack of fun was due to DH. I believe it had to do with the staff change and the fact that last year ended up on shaky ground. Trust had to develop for some people to feel safe." In discussing her feelings on whether or not to continue using DH after the research was completed, Kim stated,
In fact, when the staff explained why they wished to see DH continue, the diversity of the staff members' viewpoints became apparent. While the reasons to keep DH were varied, the staff was united in their decision to maintain the process for the rest of this year and next year as well. Madeline said, "Everyone needs power and control. I believe that people's need for love and belonging are being met in DH. Encouraging everyone to speak fosters an attitude of belonging and enables them to have power and control.". Reflective groups were seen as vital because they gave the staff a way to deal with complex or controversial matters. Madeline described why the reflective group was meaningful for her, "I like the reflective meetings and being part of a small group. It was good to be part of gaining insights and helping come up with effective solutions." Shirla, a special needs teacher, described her work in a reflective group as empowering. Gina, a half-time teacher, summarized what others expressed, "I liked the reflective meetings. Good things came out of those." Dialogue rather than discuss became a watchword for all of us. Nan, in describing the way DH enhanced dialogue, reflected on the growth she was experiencing. She noted,
Kim highlighted the importance of listening in the process of dialogue. She wrote that listening is as important as speaking and is interactive in nature. Learning to dialogue was an on-going process because in essence we were all doing some "unlearning" as well as learning. Dialogue was often linked by the consociates to empowerment. Shirla explained how she saw dialogue and empowerment intertwined and expressed how important being empowered was to her. She wrote:
Red, a support staff member, described the significance of empowerment for him: "I feel the staff seems to want to continue DH because it represents staff empowerment. When DH lends itself to the community it represents community empowerment." Nan saw a connection between her own empowerment and the empowerment of her students. She stated,
Lynne, one of the new teachers, communicated her belief in the value of empowerment for staff when she described her view of DH and the "hat issue". She recounted,
Red reiterated the belief that voting is not beneficial or empowering. He said, "Making decisions everyone can live with works because it empowers and supports everyone when we can veto the decision if we need to. Consensus is the best part of decision making." Monty, whom appeared to be a wise visionary, expressed strongly his conviction that empowering people is something we should all be "about." He explained,
Indeed, going back to the previous way was not a wish I heard anyone expressing. Red described the insights he was gaining when he wrote:
What Skills Did the Staff Develop as a Result of Using DH? Gaining insight into the feelings and thoughts of others was seen as a positive outcome of the research. In describing their own learning, many consociates reported a new, fresh appreciation for others on staff. In a candid journal entry, Nan discussed her personal journey. She noted,
Others knowingly or unknowingly attempted to put themselves in the skins' of others as well. Some stated it as simply as Red when he said, "I learned that everyone has their hang ups." Or Brown when she explained, "My listening skills improved and I didn't have blinders on. I was not so quick to judge and react to people's different ideas; listening and hearing how they feel is important. I really didn't listen before." Others' accounts were more complex. Lynne critiqued herself by saying,
Celeste explained her growth in the context of the school. She said, "I learned that I tend to make decisions too quickly. Now I think about others' reactions. This research has given staff a chance to view other staff members." Dana, who was throughout the research the most cautious and at times critical staff member, said:
Monty felt that he had become a better administrator. He related,
Often the staff reported new skills, insights, and growths that were very personal. Celeste described an experience with her family:
During the last interview Mary commented that she had become more introspective during this project and that this introspection had led her to feel that she was reacting defensively at times. In the early days of the research Summer stated, "We need to respect each other and pausing gives you time to think and process without reacting. It is a skill we need to learn. I want to work on this." Sarah provided snippets of her journey during this research in each of her interviews. She remarked, "I tend to be willing to try new ideas and see the best. I have difficulty working with people who won't try something new. I am not afraid to talk about my weaknesses." Then she noted, "The biggest thing about the decision making process is that it makes me more aware of not restating my ideas." Towards the end of the study she stated, "I am more aware of what I am doing in other groups. It has been good for me. Personally, I try to listen more in meetings and not restate ideas." Was DH a Beneficial Process for a Restructuring Endeavour? The staff explained the way that they saw DH supporting and facilitating the concepts and beliefs fundamental to Quality Schools and the way it ameliorated the everyday discussions and problem solving that naturally followed the formation of family groupings in the place of grade levels. The staff reported seeing a fit between Quality Schools and DH. They felt that both concepts encouraged the development of what is called a quality world by Glasser (1990) and community by Peck (1993). Glasser's description of trust revealed it to be a foundational element in his Control Theory as it was in DH. He stated,
From her administrative standpoint Mary talked about the way she saw the processes fitting and some reasons why both were important in the school and important to her. She said,
Staff members felt that DH had made for an easier and more effective implementation of Quality School and families. Rosebud noted how much DH was influencing what was happening in a Control Theory meeting and felt that"everyone was reflecting before speaking". She felt that "it was wonderful." Nan discussed the importance of many of the elements that are fundamental to DH. She noted,
Lynne explained her feelings about DH and reported a discussion that she and Terri had about DH and Quality School. Lynne recalled, "I hope we stick with DH. I like having a different decision making process that is fair and promotes understanding. Terri and I were discussing the fact that it goes with Control Theory. Everyone is aware of what they want and the good of the group." Terri said,
The Importance of Trust The indispensability of trust was reflected in the words of some consociates when they felt trust was lacking. Sharon wrote in frustration after a particularly contentious meeting,
After this same meeting Kalther's remarked, "When I presented the ideas about the newsletter the body language of the staff in a superior position left me feeling like I had nothing to contribute. The feeling of power was transmitted effectively. I am feeling squashed." Yet another reaction to this meeting was reported by Nan who had come from another school environment that was intimidating. She noted,
She did talk to the other staff member and found him to be very trustworthy. She reported, "I was glad I talked to him about the problem. I trusted him enough to do that. I think it is a professional obligation." The positive aspects of trust were highlighted by many people. I was constantly impressed by the staff's commitment to building trusting teacher/teacher, teacher/student, and student/student relationships. Sarah relayed how important trust was to her and to her students. She commented on how trustworthy Mary and Monty were. She also related that "trust and power are a big deal for teachers. It is surprising that when you give up power to students, your relationship improves. They are trustworthy and ethical." Gina highlighted the connection between Control Theory and trust. She remarked, "I had a wonderful experience at the Control Theory weekend. I feel more in touch with my needs. I noticed the trust and honesty exhibited by the staff. It helped me with understanding others and their basic needs." Several staff noted that DH built trust and respect and they commented on how essential these aspect were for them. Shirla's vignette was particularly insightful. She revealed,
Trust was fundamental in the staff /administrator relationship. In reporting about their relationship with the administrators, staff often discussed the level of trust that had been established. Leadership Styles Leadership style was paramount in the minds of all the staff including the administrators themselves. Monty believed, "Trust and positive assumptions are important parts of leadership. Theory X & Y are still relevant. It is important to empower others and team build. Mary is very open and trusting. She is honest with feedback and is empowering." Kim noted, "Mary has an empowering leadership style. She treats me as a professional. If I have a problem she will help me solve it. She does what needs to be done. She respects individual differences and style.". Nan felt that a trusting relationship with the administrators was vitally important. In the second interview she revealed,
Lou remarked, "Mary is good for the staff. She is not a power person. Mary's leadership style is not power and control. She lets you teach and trusts you." The leadership style that was evident in this school was a mirror image of the style that writers such as Tichy and Devanna (1986) and Bennis (1989) say is needed for change endeavours to be successful. The trust that the administrators extended to the staff was reciprocated. As was reflected by Celeste's comments when she conveyed the way she saw Monty and Mary's style and their effect on the staff: The trust and faith goes both ways; they trust and have faith in the staff and the staff in them. Lynne noted, "The leadership in this school is 100% trustworthy and ethical." That trust was vitally important to all the staff is apparent. Whether or not DH could have been implemented without that basic trust having been established early in the study, based to a large degree on the model of trust set by the administrators, is an intriguing question. What the Staff Sees Monty believed DH to be an important part of the way we communicate. In his final interview he presented his wish for the future,
Others described their desires for the future in varying ways: "DH is the way to operate - doing the right things. I don't think we should vote;" "I would choose DH for the group.. There are many strong personalities that would like control but in this there is freedom for all;"I will take this process with me to other groups. I have noticed when we only vote yes or no people don't feel like they are listened to;" "In summary DH is the best decision making process. I agree with it in my heart. I am trying it at home and in my classroom;" "DH has helped us to communicate better by speaking out and listening to each other. We can evolve with this process to become more effective members of the school community. We are all in a learning process. All of us want to improve our communication and leadership skills for the benefit of our school." The staff was united in wanting to use DH because it promoted communication that was people centered. What I See The aim of action research, in particular participatory action research, has been promoted as emancipatory by numerous authors (e.g., Zuber-Skerritt, 1996; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Reason, 1994). Initially this study appeared to be an emancipatory one in that it would help the staff learn to use a new and freeing way to dialogue, make decisions, solve problems, and implement change; however, as the study progressed I began to question whether or not all the staff would agree that it had freed them. For the staff who said that they now had voice it seems likely that they felt emancipated by this approach, but the ones who talked about toning down and learning to listen might say they were more confined than freed. In reflecting on this paradox, I discovered McTaggart's (1996) statement that we assume "that 'emancipation' is some ideal state to be achieved" but "it is not the aspiration of participatory action research, which works on critique of current conditions and more or less immediate attempts at concrete improvement. Its referent is 'Are things better than they were?' not 'Are we emancipated yet?' " (p. 245). In reflecting on this study and what we learned, I agree with McTaggart (1996) that "action researchers must simply ask regularly whether things are a little more rational (or reasonable), coherent, just, humane and satisfying for participants and others than they were" (p. 245). The words of the consociates in our study suggest a strong "yes" answer to this question. DH has made their life better, personally and professionally. Things are better, more reasonable, coherent, just, humane, and satisfying.
What Is Important to the Staff If school staff are going to be supportive of the undertakings of their school, whether that undertaking be "Meet the Teacher Night" or learning to be a Quality School, they need to know that what they think and feel matters. The consociates often talked about how "cared for" they felt when their personal calenders and family commitments were considered when dates were set at various times during the year. Being included in small details became less important to them as they realized that they had a say in all areas of the school life. They were willing to allow others to make "less important" decisions for them because they had a way to signal disagreement if needed. Knowing that their ideas and contributions were valued, the staff were able to be more caring toward others. They were able to see how much each person had to share and were able to provide support in ways that had not been possible before. The staff extended this care toward their students and were willing to help them learn to care for others. Learning to listen to each other and value the ideas of others was a pivotal step in creating community. The realization that everyone had ideas to contribute whether or not they had been spoken led to everyone feeling that they had voice at the school. The distribution of power was changed dramatically during the course of this study. Many of the people who had been the most powerful in the school became more aware of their position of power as did many of the ones without the power base. Having the power base become more obvious was a natural if, at times problematic, part of the study. An important step in empowering the staff meant attempting to move toward power equity by recognizing who had the power. During this study, everyone was invited to reflect about their own position and decide how they affected the group process. Power was not just an issue for the administration. While everyone was encouraged to reevaluate their roles, many people did change some of their traditional roles. For DH to be implemented, the administrators have to change the way in which they relate to the staff and to alter expectations of their administrative roles. One obvious example of sharing leadership was when the administrators were willing to allow the staff to take the role of leader in the staff meetings. Shared leadership was valued by the staff and showed in a visible way that the administrators trusted and valued them. Also, the administrators gave the staff ownership over decisions that were made. The staff had the responsibility of deciding how to carry out group decisions while the principal and vice-principal took seriously their obligation to support them in these decisions. These changes in the relationship between staff and administration were based on trust and were an outgrowth of the trusting relationship that developed. Trusting relationships were an integral part of the DH process. Staff needed to know that they would not be demeaned if in trying something new they were unsuccessful. DH meant that we were often unsure of where we were and where we were going much less how we were going to get there. The staff found that they were able to go through these uncertain times because they had the support of their colleagues. Collaborating in meaningful ways meant letting others see their weakness and their failures. Spending time together collaborating in reflective groups on concerns and issues of importance for all staff helped produce an appreciation of the each person's talents. These times helped illuminate some of the assumptions they held about each other and educating students. These collaborative activities promoted trusting relationships. Feeling that they were all working together was an indispensable part of the study for most of the staff. When they focused on what they valued and realized that they were all emphasizing the needs of students, they were more willing to be accommodating to others. This insight developed through group dialogue at staff meetings and in reflective groups as well as through their own quotes I shared with them. During a more traditional staff meeting often what surfaced was differences rather similarities. Staff needed to know what others were thinking and valuing to come to appreciate others and therefore "pull together." While the staff valued having input into decisions, they also did not want endless staff meetings. Working together to solve the problems endemic to DH produced a pride in accomplishing something worthwhile. The staff was able to produce creative solutions to difficult problems. In dealing with the problem of the amount of time spent in the staff meeting they developed a plan to allot ten minutes at the beginning of each staff meeting to read through the items of information that did not need discussion unless someone indicted a wish to do so. They also defined leadership for their staff meeting in a completely new way and devised a way for anyone to signal a wish to speak so that the staff could hear from more people. In working through these problems the staff gained new insights into the thinking of others. They used these opportunities in many cases to "see as others see." The Decision Making Process Using DH to make decisions had an instantaneous effect on the staff. They wrote in their journals at the beginning of the study about the need to share discussion time. Those who were outgoing and accustomed to having a major say in the decisions reflected on ways to encourage others to speak. The quiet ones said that the process had provided them with a way to have voice in the group. But as Napier and Gershenfeld (1993) emphasize "even a change that promises positive results can cause people to be doubtful and threatened by the unknown that will change group norms" (p. 158). The process raised everyone's consciousness about group dynamics and exposed the perfections and imperfections of group members. DH provided a forum for helping the staff deal with issues that normally go unexamined. Hidden agendas were exposed. In exposing some of the agendas, such as the need to control, the need to avoid conflict, and to be liked, the staff struggled with their feelings about themselves and others. Because they were treated as professionals and given space and support to see and deal with personal issues, by the end of the study each person could indicate some area of personal and staff growth. While learning to reflect was a difficult skill to develop, the benefit of using reflection time in making decisions was apparent. The consociates talked about needing this reflection time to understand an issue and to be able to respond appropriately. They talked about how frustrating it was not having reflection time in other meetings. Not only did they find reflection time freeing but it gave the quieter people, who we seldom heard from in a meeting, the opportunity to have a say. Apparently reflection time is far more significant than I had thought at first. When reflection time is not part of the decision making process, it is likely that many creative ideas go unvoiced. DH also promoted sharing of information. Since everyone was responsible for the outcome of the decisions made, they all had "a need to know." Information was shared freely and resulted in decisions that were based on all the known facts. The staff then felt in control of what was happening in their school and had no reason to question the motivation of others. At various times during the study the staff talked about the significance each of the elements of authentic consensus and shared decision making held for them. The way that the staff viewed consensus at the culmination of the study was similar to Schmuck et al.'s (1972, p. 258) in that they saw group consensus as a method by which everyone shared their ideas and thoughts and the final decision. The staff also found the end result to be a willing acceptance of the group's conclusions (sense of the meeting) as espoused by the Quakers (Likert & Likert, 1976, p. 146). The staff felt that dialoguing was an integral part of the process and agreed with the conclusions drawn by Buber (1957, p. 238) that in dialogue each person learns to value the other. An integral part of learning to value others was developing an appreciation for the dissenting voice as described by Partridge (1971, pp. 67-68). Through the problems that developed, the staff learned that cooperation was a necessity. But the consociates also determined that it was necessary for their decision making and learning process to be built on trust. The staff demonstrated the increased commitment that shared decision making is purported to produce (Sergiovanni, 1984; Meadows, 1990). The benefits of shared leadership, collaboration, and collegiality, as was suggested by writers such as Barth (1990), Lieberman (1988), and Maeroff (1988), was seen in the way the staff modified and molded DH so that it was an effective process for helping them improve education for their students by promoting the implementation of their chosen changes. This study also confirmed the importance of empowerment as described by Mertens and Yarger (1988, p. 35). The staff talked about feeling empowered and as a result strove to empower their students. Learning to work together so that all consociates were winners was a pivotal element in coming to agreement with which everyone could live and share the responsibility of making decisions. Instituting Change The consociates reported the belief that DH had helped and was continuing to help them implement their chosen change initiatives. They felt that it had given them a process for making important decisions about how things were to be done at Inkonze and therefore, helped them find solutions to problems and work through the day-to-day reality of instituting changes. As has been noted, the staff often mentioned the close connection between DH and Quality Schools and reported feeling that the shared elements of both meant that DH successfully helped them put into practice the things they had learned at the Control Theory workshop. Glasser (1990) talks about the importance of valuing students, promoting trust, and respecting the student's quality world. DH promoted these same values as important for the staff. This overlap appears to have enabled the staff to better understand the basic tenets of Quality School. It seemed that the staff's feeling of being supported and cared for was vital as they valued and cared for the students. The significance of the connection between DH and the change initiatives suggested that if change is to take place then the process for instituting that change must be compatible with and supportive of the chosen changes. Inkonze became a learning organization as defined by Mitchell (1995) and Senge (1990). Mitchell defines organizational learning in a school setting as "the ways in which school personnel created, acquired, interpreted, shared, and applied information in order to increase their personal effectiveness and productivity in support of various school tasks" (p. 8). A learning organization as explained by Senge is an organization "that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future" and encompasses both adaptive or survival learning and generative learning that enhances the capacity to create (p. 14). Reflection and reframing to improve their world was constantly evident. The staff could truthfully say that they were not "prisoners of their own thinking" but were using their experiences in creative ways to change their life at the school. While some of the elements of DH were modified to fit the needs of this staff, the basic structure has remained unchanged. The use of DH by Inkonze staff reinforced the need for trust, redefined leadership, empowerment, and dialogue that have been highlighted. I believe that DH will look different used in other situations by a new group of people but the assumptions on which it is based will remain the same. The significance that we all place on being a valuable part of a group was emphasized again and again. The need to be heard that was manifest in learning to listen was an invaluable skill that we all took with us. We experienced the up-side-down thinking (looking at everything in a new and different way) that Handy (1990) promotes if change is to be implemented. As one consociate said, none of us will ever think about group decision making in the same way again. We have lived through an adventure that invites us to become advocates for making changes that are important for ourselves and our students.
|
|||||||||||||
