Interpretivism and narrative inquiry

We all see the world differently. We all interpret the world in our own subjective way. We can all look at the same thing, experience the same thing, but interpret it differently. It is for this reason that I chose various respondents to determine how they experienced the school board. I needed to determine why it was that boards were perceived as being ineffective and inefficient.

I needed first-hand information from role players who were involved with the school boards on a regular basis. I also needed as much information as possible to make sure of “thick”

descriptions. I therefore decided to use interviews and questionnaires. The respondents were teachers, parents and board members. I also interviewed the principals to see how they experienced working with their respective boards. The respondents represented five schools.

Although I had originally chosen six schools, I had to withdraw the sixth school since it was impossible to get a group of teachers and a group of parents to attend an interview. I did

manage to interview the principal as well as the board, but all efforts to interview the other role players failed. I did not choose any other role players because I felt that the teachers, parents

60

and principals interacted with the board more than anyone else. I interviewed the board members as well to determine whether they understood their role, whether they felt they were fulfilling their role, and whether they needed any training in preparation for their role as school governors. Using narrative inquiry helped me to understand whether the ‘social construct’

called the school board was fulfilling its role effectively and efficiently.

How we see the world differs from social group to social group. Our ‘social constructions’ are constantly changing as new experiences encountered on a daily basis force us to readjust to how we understand things. It is for this very reason that we need the interpretive and hermeneutic tradition for us to understand the world from the perspective of the tradition of which we are a part (Pring 2000, 55). As mentioned before, none of us is alike. Each one’s life history is different. We do not all see things the same way. This is important for narrative inquiry, since we also see events and life experiences from another person’s perspective. All this then becomes very subjective, since it is my perspective and the perspective of the other. Pring (2000, 98) reinforces this when he says:

Since no [wo]man can have another person’s life history, no one will share exactly the same interpretations and thus have the same experience. The phenomenological

emphasis upon the examination of experience as such combined with the claim that such experience will be filtered through one’s unique life experiences, points to the

importance of ‘subjective meanings’ or subjective interpretation of that experience in our understanding. To understand particular events one must see things from the point of view of the participants or of the people who are involved-how they interpret events and thereby constitute those events as events of a certain sort.

With the advent of decentralisation in education, the need arose for strong democratic structures at grassroots level to manage the education process in the school. School boards were appointed for this very purpose. This meant that there now needed to be close working relationships among several role players. In the past, most of the decisions were made by the principal as head of the institution. At times there would be consultation with senior staff members, but it was the principal who controlled and managed the school. The principal now has to share power with several role players as a result of a change in governance structures. In fact, it is now the principal’s responsibility to empower the board and other role players to ensure effective and efficient governance of the school. This ‘giving away of power’ or ‘sharing’

power has not met with the approval of all principals. Even teachers see the inclusion of parents on the school board as a threat to their role in the school, particularly in the classroom. The difficulty has been to get all the role players to work together and not to engage in power struggles. Unfortunately, various role players still see each other as a threat. This became obvious as the interviews progressed. Narrative inquiry thus helped to get all these negative

61

feelings verbalised in both written and spoken form. As a result, narrative inquiry provided a vehicle to understand what the various role players were experiencing. Young (2000, 7) says that narratives can also serve to explain meanings and experiences when groups do not share premises sufficiently to proceed with an argument. She further states that groups must be willing to work out just solutions to their conflicts and problems from across situated positions.

Many who were marginalised, and many who do not have a high level of education, have been reluctant to participate in the democratic practices of school governance. They have also shown a strong reluctance to serve on school boards, as I have found in some of the Adventist schools.

In the case of one of the schools, no one wanted to serve as chairperson. There are several reasons why people do not want to serve. Young (2000, 11) explains:

Democratic theory has not sufficiently thematized a problem that people frequently identify with democratic processes that formally satisfy basic normative conditions of the rule of law, free competitive elections, and the like. Many criticize actually existing democracies for being dominated by groups or élites that have unequal influence over decisions while others are excluded or marginalized from any significant influence over the policy-making process and its outcomes. Strong and normatively legitimate

democracy on this intuition, includes all equally in the process that leads to decisions all those who will be affected by them. Theorists and political actors might call this theme of inclusion into question, however, from several points of view.

As indicated earlier, the main role players involved in policy making and decision making in the school were those in the Education Department at head office, whilst the principal had to carry out the decisions made. All that changed with the birth of a democratic South Africa.

Education has been decentralised, and all the role players now have input into the education process in the institution. The Education Department still hovers over all, but the policy-making and decision-making processes involve the principal, teaching staff, support staff, parents, learners, the school board, and other co-opted individuals. However, as mentioned before, some do not want to serve for various reasons, including lack of education, lack of expertise and ingrained negative experiences of the past. It is for this reason that narrative is so important.

Narrative also serves to empower and helps disenfranchised groups to assert themselves. It further provides a way in which these groups can express their experiences and beliefs, which they otherwise would not have shared, and thereby engage in fruitful debate (Young 2000, 53).

Young also argues that a more complete account of modes of political communication serves as a remedy for exclusivism in deliberative practices. She says that it describes ways in which respect and trust can be developed, making it possible to understand all cultures and also moving people to acceptance and action (Young 2000, 57).

62

Young (2000) refers to the political functions of three modes of communication, in addition to making arguments. The three modes are greeting, rhetoric and narrative. Her argument is particularly relevant in the light of all the changes that have taken place in education, including open schools and the admission of learners from all cultural groups. It calls on all to be

particularly tolerant of each other, to accept that there are cultural differences and that these differences carry over into school governance structures. This means there should be

democratic participation in school governance structures in which no one is excluded. Whereas confrontation accompanied participation in the past, we now need understanding, maturity in dealing with one another, cooperation between cultures, sensitivity, and a conciliatory spirit.

Seventh-day Adventist schools are multicultural schools.² In order to avoid a clash of cultures it was imperative that the prejudices of the past remain in the past. All role players in school governance structures should be exposed to the possibilities of working together as fellow South Africans. It is encouraging to see all race groups represented on the school boards of SDA schools, especially where the school body was composed of various groups. However, historical reasons, which include lack of education, feeling of low self-worth, and feeling that “I will not be able to make a meaningful contribution” were used by parents, especially previously disadvantaged parents, to decline positions on the school board.