“Relationality argues that a topic's felt meaningfulness to the researcher is a value to be enacted rather than a problem to be overcome in one’s research design” (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000, p. 560). When studying relationships in an organizational context, Bradbury and Lichtenstein speak to a methodology that upholds a relationality
orientation. Uhl-Bien (2006) stresses that when studying leadership from a relational perspective, the researcher cannot focus solely on individual attributes, for leadership is relational and must be established in a relational context. Uhl-Bien, working with literature from Bouwen and Hosking (2000), proposes that relational research needs to include a relational social constructionist perspective rather that solely a constructivist perspective. Ospina and Uhl-Bien (2012) state that constructionists emphasize the study of culture rather than the focus on the experiences of individuals. The social
constructionist perspective views dialogic and other communicative processes as “the vehicle in which self and world are in ongoing construction” (Bouwen & Hosking, 2000, p. 268). Buber (1923/1970) and Bradbury and Lichtenstein refer to the need to study the space between, the area where two or more individuals evolve together, accounting for the interspace of relations rather than restricting research to persons as independent entities. Uhl-Bien emphasizes that a relational ontology changes the way the researcher frames questions for research. In a relationality orientation, questions examine how processes emerge from leadership and how knowledge, decisions, and actions are rooted in collective practices in order to continually regenerate organizational culture.
Cunliffe and Eriksen (2011) state that in a relational ontology:
people and conversations. And in contrast to the focus on process and
mechanisms found in other relational perspectives, a relational leader sees people not as objects to be manipulated but as human beings-in-relation with themselves. (p. 1431)
From a social constructionist perspective, relational research in leadership seeks to understand the organizational context of a school at the macrolevel, which is
developed through relational interactions at the microlevel. It is at the microlevel where leadership is fundamentally relational, forming the foundation for the macrolevel culture of the school (Fletcher, 2012). The researcher who studies from a relational ontology seeks to reveal the interactive contexts where leadership comes to life. Uhl-Bien and Ospina (2012) highlight that “the researcher aims to uncover constructed realities, revealing the meaning of experience, rather than accessing reality itself” (p. 24).
As stated previously, Fullan (2006) posits that change is a product of examining the change in individuals and examining the change in culture, or the shared assumptions of the group established internally and externally as a result of change processes and considered to be valid amongst the group (Schein, 2004). This is congruent with
relational leadership theory that seeks to uphold both the entitative end of the paradigm and the social constructionist end of the paradigm. Relational leadership theory allows one to go beyond the type of relationship or the qualities of a relationship and to deepen the examination of relationships by looking at relational processes that leadership uses to establish and evolve relationships across the organization (Uhl-Bien, 2006).
To study the change processes at both the objective and intersubjective ends of RLT, a case study was employed. The case study seeks to establish a holistic view of the
organization over a defined time period, using multiple methods to attain information in order to triangulate the researched evidence to create a genuine and truthful picture of the restorative culture change process experienced by the school community. The study seeks to examine the qualities of relationship, the process of relating, and the dialogic processes employed both in the culture and in the research methods, in order to better understand what it means to lead, to establish and sustain a restorative culture.
Philosophical Stance
Tsang (2014) explains that interpretivism is a philosophical stance that views social reality as being constructed by individuals. In being constructed by individuals, the meaning is subjective for each person, and thereby multiple realities are possible. In terms of an epistemological stance, knowledge is created through the research by interpreting the actions and responses of the participants according to the context they find themselves in. Tsang upholds that interpretive research is commonly done using case studies or ethnographies. Specifically, as research that upholds relational perspectives, this research will uphold the philosophical perspective of interpretivism, recognizing the social constructionist view of the research, as participants share their meaning as it relates to their interactions with others.
In case study research, Simons (2009) views interpretivism as appropriate when the researcher is examining pluralistic views that arise out of varied understandings and experiences. In terms of audience, an interpretivist view is relevant for organizational leadership, all participants, and the social science community. It is best pursued as qualitative research, employing open-ended interviews, observations, and documents to
establish a rich and holistic case. To this end, the foundations for a case study
methodology, and the methods to be employed in this case, will be expounded upon. Case Studies
“Case studies are widely used in organizational studies and across the social sciences” (Klenke, 2008, p. 58). Case studies in the field of leadership focus on change, as case studies typically examine changes over time in an organization in relation to the specific phenomenon being studied. The researcher is thereby able to establish a holistic view around characteristics and events related to leadership processes (Klenke, 2008). This upholds the case study as an effective method for addressing the research questions in this study. Research question #1 asks, “What is the role of leadership in the process of developing a restorative culture?” MacDonald and Walker (1975) describe case studies as being bounded by time and circumstances, revealing truths and human experience. In informing readers about how participants understand and create their world, the case study provides the researcher with the opportunity to recognize her/his perspective, and how this contributes to interpretation of the phenomenon (Simons, 2009). This aspect of case studies makes it an effective method for answering research question #2, “How was the process of implementing restorative culture change experienced by the school
community?” Finally, Simons (2009) describes the qualitative case study as an alternative way to study educational programs and practices, contrasting positivistic and measurable views. This provides a foundation for examining research question #3, “What evidence is there that restorative practices are reflected in the school community?”
Case studies are a study of bounded systems, made rich by comprehensive data collection, multiple and various sources of data, researched over a period of time (Stake,
1995). In fact, Yin (2014) articulates that an effective case study requires strong research questions, thorough understanding of the literature related to the case, and an effective research design.
Case studies enable researchers to fully engage with contextual factors that impact the phenomena being researched and are effective when research is interpersonal, enacted through personal interaction. As a highly interactive methodology, the case study is dependent on the researcher maintaining quality relationships, not only for accessing the research site but also for maintaining an effective research environment (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000). Eacott (2016), in speaking to studying relational leadership, argues that “educational administration can only be understood in relation to contemporary social conditions” (p. 8). To this end, he advocates for analyses that enable the researcher study actions of leaders contextually: “An analysis that separates action from contexts destroys that which is sought to understand” (p. 9).
Bradbury and Lichtenstein (2000) posit that knowledge is created through being interconnected. Therefore, to develop a holistic case of an organization, the researcher must examine relationships at multiple levels within the organization. In studying relational leaders in schools, the researcher must study leaders at multiple levels of relation and analyze a leader’s intergroup and intragroup relations (Ashkanasy et al., 2012). Studying relational space enables the researcher to examine numerous
perspectives, for knowledge is occurring between two or more subjects, and therefore multiple meanings are generated by those participating in the relational space (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2012). Uhl-Bien (2006) names that different methodologies can be used for studying relational leadership, including qualitative approaches that support
“interview-based methodologies” (p. 672). When studying relational leadership, Bradbury and Lichtenstein advocate for qualitative methods that “uncover the invisible assumptions that generate social structures” (p. 557).
Merriam (2009) describes a case study as a comprehensive description and examination of a bounded system. She adds that the most defining attribute of a case study methodology is the delimitation of the case or the entity being studied. Merriam stresses that studying a bounded system through a case study is appropriate when one particular program or phenomenon is examined. In this study, the phenomenon being examined is that of the implementation and utilization of restorative practices in the school culture. She adds, “If the researcher is interested in the process of changing the organizational culture of the workplace, for example, he or she could select a particular instance of organizational change to study in depth” (pp. 41–42). Willis and Jost (2007) uphold that case studies are about real people in authentic situations; the case study sheds light on how the reader comes to understand the case or phenomenon that is being
studied. Under an interpretivist perspective, “researchers do not seek to find universals in their case studies. They seek, instead, a full, rich understanding (verstehen) of the context they are studying” (Willis & Jost, 2007, p. 240).
Merriam (2009) describes three special features of case studies: particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic. Particularistic means that the study focuses on a particular program, event, or phenomenon. She describes the case as important for the revelation it brings forth regarding the program or phenomenon. Descriptive means that the study produces a thick description of the program or phenomenon that is being studied. Thick implies that the description is a complete and in-depth description of the case under
study. Finally, the heuristic feature implies that the case provides the reader with a deeper understanding of the program or phenomenon that was researched. Merriam believes that reports of case studies “pour vignettes and narratives that feed into the naturalistic
generalizations of readers and writers” (p. 44).
Yin (2014) describes a case study as “an empirical study” that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (p. 16). Yin adds that the use of a case study to study a contemporary
phenomenon enables the researcher to study both the present and the recent past: recent implies that the researcher can make direct observations and research individuals and groups who experienced the phenomenon firsthand.
This case study examines a middle school in southern Ontario, studying the phenomenon of undertaking a 4-year journey toward building a restorative culture and examining, through a relational leadership perspective, how relationships and dialogue are employed by members of the school community for implementing, employing, and sustaining a restorative relational culture. The case is bounded by time (4 years), and the phenomenon of restorative practices, specifically for improving school culture, to ultimately impact school characteristics including safety, learning, relationships, and school community. The school as organization provides multiple levels of participants who are able to speak to the leadership, the change process, and the current culture. As a study in the field of leadership, the case study is a methodology that readers in the administrative and organizational field will uphold as reliable and valid. As a study of individuals and of groups, the case study provides for effective study of culture.
Furthermore, as a study of individuals and groups in dialogue, the case study holds the potential to develop thick and rich research through individuals’ stories and perspectives. As a recent endeavor, the case study upholds the ability to research into the past and to learn from individuals who experienced the change, the transition, and the result of the culture change endeavor. Yin (2014) adds that case study is appropriate for research when the researcher is seeking to answer how or why questions, when the researcher has minimal influence on the case, and when the study is a study of recent or current events. The research questions, my positioning in the research as an outsider, and the study of a recent undertaking by a school to take on a change process to embed a restorative philosophy in the school culture enable this study to be fulfilled through case study research.
The Case
Yin (2014) encourages researchers to have criteria and a rationale for why a given case was chosen. When seeking a school to study, I sought a school that had invested time (at least 3 years) and resources (training) for building a restorative culture, and school leadership that believed that restorative practices had influenced the culture of the school. The use of restorative practices was a school board initiative. At the same time, the principal of the school had personally invested in learning more about restorative practices. These two factors contributed to the school leadership initiating a culture change endeavor. Training of staff in restorative practices had been an irregular but ongoing process, whereby school staff—including staff new to the school—had been trained in restorative approaches. A portion of the students at the school were trained as peer mediators, encouraged to use restorative practices to address and resolve conflict.
The school had been endorsed by an international restorative group for their work with restorative practices, upholding their commitment to restorative approaches as a key element of the school’s vision for supporting members of the school community and learning. Four years after the initial implementation, the principal at the school deemed that the use of restorative practices was integral to the current culture of the school. These qualities provided the framework for studying the journey of a school to lead culture change using restorative practices.
The school also served practical criteria that I sought in a school. First, the school district is open to my research, and the administration at the school supported my
research. Second, I wanted to investigate a school in the public system, as the research for my Master’s thesis was done in an independent school. Finally, the school needed to be within an hour of my home so I could access the school on a regular basis.
School Characteristics
The school is located in a suburban setting in southern Ontario. The school has a diverse student population, both in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The student population includes Middle Eastern, North African, Chinese, Caribbean, and Caucasian students. In terms of socioeconomic status, some students come from middle class families, while other students are from families that require subsidized housing. The school caters to the learning needs of all students, including special education classes for students with learning disabilities and students who are gifted. The diversity of the school population is an effective setting for examining how investing in dialogue and building positive relationships are employed for establishing the restorative culture in the school.
The Value of a Single Case
Sergiovanni (2000) states that “good schools improve one at a time” (p. 22). A single school has a rich story to tell in relation to culture change endeavours. Researchers that desire rich description of a case are less concerned with developing generalizable theory (Klenke, 2008). Patton (2002) upholds that single cases in the study of leadership are often distinctive or extreme and reveal unique descriptions and stories of leadership decisions and processes. Klenke (2008) upholds the single case as potentially being a critical case revealing unusual phenomena. In the uniqueness, Stake (1995) expounds that qualitative case studies allow the qualitative researcher to emphasize “episodes of
nuance, the sequentially of happening in context, the wholeness of the individual” (p. xii).
Case Study Misunderstandings
There are misunderstandings associated with case studies. Acknowledging and addressing the apprehensiveness around the methodology enables validity of the
methodology to be upheld. Simons (2009) speaks to the myths of case studies and seeks to dispel them. First, she addresses the myth that case studies are too subjective. Guba and Lincoln (1989) stress that value of qualitative research is the subjective inquiry, for qualitative case study research recognizes subjectivity and seeks to establish how both participant’s and researcher’s values and perceptions influence the research. Second, Simons speaks to the inability to generalize. She recognizes that there is the reality of naturalistic generalization, whereby the case causes readers to identify and acknowledge similarities and variances of the case as they relate to similar cases. In addition, Simons upholds situated generalization, in that participants situated in the case may adopt
findings if they make personal connections to the research, and if research participation was a positive experience.
Flyvberg (2006) also speaks to misunderstandings of case studies. First, he addresses the desire by some for research to bring forth general knowledge rather than practical knowledge. Flyvberg speaks to the need for both types of knowledge, for theory and application are necessary for effective organizations. Case studies allow space for both understanding that a given case may limit general theory while also providing examples of leadership and education in action. In speaking to the potential limits of a single case, Flyvberg refers to the cases as black swans, recognizing that unique cases are valuable to research and can make contributions to how one understands theory. In the same vein, Flyvberg upholds that unique cases may provide supportive or contrary examples that provide samples for examining existing theory. In speaking to the potential for researcher bias in case study research, Flyvberg pushes for the researcher to be
explicit in both his reflexive stance and in his research methods in order to ensure the research is valid. Finally, in recognizing that case studies are not useful specifically for developing general propositions, Flyvberg endorses the value of case studies in that they play a role in the cumulative development of the field of study and that the ultimate value of a case can lie in its uniqueness rather than in generalizing large amounts of data.
Reflexivity
Simons (2009) speaks to the need for the researcher to be transparent, and that the I and self in the research should be evident. Furthermore, the researcher needs to
continually examine how one's self impacts the outcome. The researcher’s ability to reflect on his or her actions through the research process allows others to view how the
self influences the researcher’s interpretations and conclusions (Simons, 2009). Klenke (2008) speaks to the fact that researchers are not neutral bystanders and therefore they