METHOD I - Part A: Online Questionnaire

4.3 METHOD I - Part A: Online Questionnaire

Based on a review of literature pointing to language and practices considered indicative of managerialism (Chapter 3), an online questionnaire was used to ascertain whether this language and these practices are found in the sampled international schools (Research Questions I and II).

This approach rested on the hypothesis that finding frequent incidence of managerial practice would point towards a technical and functional requirement for Heads to adhere to these practices, at least occupationally. In contrast, it was conjectured that finding limited incidence of actual practice or language might point to either a lack of functional need for such practice and/or to the moderating influences of other factors – perhaps to Heads’ strong identification with educational discourse and to the influences of resistant institutional work (and to resistant identity work).

Again, in an effort to represent the international nature of the field, by distributing this questionnaire online (via SurveyMonkey³⁹) it was possible to extend the reach of the study globally. Moreover, casting a wide net ensured that the questionnaire encompassed schools of varying types: for-profit, not-for-profit, corporate, proprietorial, small and large. This variety allowed for comparison between practices common in different types of school and, therefore, for subsequent analysis of whether pressures of ownership or school type influence Heads’

identity work. The final online questionnaire sample, covering 150 respondents, is made up of the following proportions (raw numbers):

39 SurveyMonkey was chosen for its ability to allow for intuitive questionnaire design and for its in-built analysis and graphing tools. Using SurveyMonkey mitigated any chance for researcher error in transcribing results (into a third-party application such as Microsoft Excel, for example). SurveyMonkey also had the best reputation for online security – a feature, mindful of research ethics, that was particularly important.

148

Private Owned/Proprietorship 42% (61) Charitable Trust/Foundation 36% (53)

Corporate 14% (22)

Other 8% (14)

Franchised 4% (6)

Non-Franchised 89% (134)

Other/Prefer Not to Say 7% (10)

Single School 72% (108)

Part of a group of schools 28% (42)

For-Profit Schools 58% (85) Not-For-Profit Schools 39% (58) Other/Prefer Not to Say 3% (7)

The questionnaire broadly covered:

• School Ownership

• School Governance and Management

• School Leadership

• Strategy, Marketing and Development

• Human Resource Management

• Performance Management

• Budgeting

Under each of these themes, questions were directed to particular managerial practices (the use of performance-related-pay, for example), to the presence or absence of particular business ideologies (profit share, for instance) and to the extent of business influences on school governance. Each question gave appropriate response categories, an ‘Other’ or ‘Prefer Not to

149

Care was taken when devising the questions to avoid bias, leading questions or assumptions. In order to do this, questions were constructed with the support of my Supervisor and with the guidance of other University staff familiar with international schooling. Further, I also sought the input of a former international school Head (qualified at PhD level) who was also a past Chair of several international school associations, hence being in a position to comment with some expertise on the relevance of the questions (to preserve anonymity this colleague is referred to hereafter as DH). With the help of these various trusted advisors, questions, topics and themes were revised to ensure methodological validity and appropriateness for purpose.

With the questions and design refined, I then piloted the questionnaire with three additional colleagues. Each of these pilot respondents was a Head currently working in an international school, specifically chosen because they gave a different perspective from my own or from those whose input I had previously sought. Where, for example, input to that point had been exclusively individuals with experience of British international schools, here I deliberately sought the input of colleagues with American and International Baccalaureate experience. Each of these trial participants were asked to time completion of the questionnaire and to make comments on any difficulties or issues they had with particular questions. Further adjustments were made in light of this feedback. As these respondents completed a trial version of the questionnaire their results are not included in the final analysis. In its final iteration, the questionnaire included 60 questions, taking 15-20 minutes to complete.

To maximise the number of responses, attempt was made to distribute the questionnaire as widely as possible. SurveyMonkey generates a web link that participants can use to access the questionnaire online. With accompanying explanatory letters (see appendices), this link was sent by e-mail to approximately 1,000 Heads within my own professional networks and, with the assistance of DH in facilitating introductions, via the British Schools of the Middle East (BSME),

150

the Federation of British Schools in Asia (FOBISIA), the East Asia Regional Council of Schools (EARCOS), the Association of International Schools in Africa, the Association of American and International Schools in South America (AASSA) and the Confederation of British International Schools (COBIS) to their member schools.

The questionnaire was open for completion between January 2014 and June 2014. The questionnaire was not publically viewable, being accessible only via the bespoke web link (i.e.

only those to whom the link was sent). This approach allowed me to tightly control the sample, ensuring that the link was only sent to international schools⁴⁰ and, within those schools, to the Head/Principal.

In total, 150 schools responded to the questionnaire, a response rate of 15%. This low response rate was disappointing, though given typical questionnaire returns not unexpected. Taking a total population size of 7,000 international schools at the time of the questionnaires operation (as reported by ISC Research, 2014) with a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval (margin of error) of +/- 5%, the ideal sample size would have been 364. Of those schools approached (approx. 1,000), using the same confidence interval and level, a sample size of 278 (a 28%

response rate) would have been statistically sound. Significantly, this suggests that my data is not statistically representative of the overall population. However, the final sample, although small, includes schools covering Europe, South America, Asia, Australasia, Africa and the South Asia. It also covers schools with student rolls ranging from 55 to 5,000 (the average roll within the sample being 749 students). Within this, schools offering British curriculum, American curriculum, Canadian Curriculum, International Baccalaureate and Montessori schools (plus various other hybrid and country-specific curricula) all responded. Despite the proportionately low response

40 See Chapter 1 for a discussion of the related complexities with regard to what actually counts as an ‘international’

school.

151

rate, I believe that the results represent a sufficiently diverse sample and a sufficient number of responses to be broadly applicable. Moreover, as noted, the purpose of the questionnaire was to inform the qualitative interviews and this, I assert, the sample adequately allowed for. That said, the low level of statistical validity and the limitations this presents in drawing conclusions is reflected and acknowledged in my data analysis.

In constructing the questionnaire, I took the decision not to offer participants a summary of results immediately on completion (a facility SurveyMonkey offers). Instead, participants were offered a summary of results by request, though only after full analysis had been undertaken.

This decision was made to ensure the integrity of the data (had the results ‘leaked’ into international school networks that leak could have biased future responses) and, as importantly, to ensure that early release of results did not reduce the overall response rate. A summary of results, with letter of thanks, was sent to all respondents who requested such.

Finally, participants were asked at the close of the questionnaire if they would be willing to be interviewed face-to-face for Part C of my research. If participants indicated willingness they were then asked to send an e-mail to my Keele University e-mail address indicating such. Asking participants to e-mail helped to maintain confidentiality within SurveyMonkey itself (no personal details were requested in the questionnaire) and helped to affirm the principle of informed consent and double opt-in (participants had to actively e-mail to indicate willingness). A small number of questionnaire participants indicated their willingness to be interviewed. On three occasions these expressions of interest were followed up, selection being by convenience of location and through identification of ‘information-rich cases’ (Merriam, 1998:61). Indeed, on two occasions the questionnaire results presented such potentially rich sites of investigation (with willing participants) that I flew to Taipei and to Vietnam specifically to undertake interviews.

152

4.3.1 Online Questionnaire Ethics

In all cases it was made clear to potential questionnaire respondents that participation was entirely voluntary. Anonymity was also fully assured and rigorously maintained at all stages of the process.

The broad (though not specific) purpose and the intended use of the questionnaire was made clear to participants in both the introductory e-mail and on the first page of the questionnaire itself (see appendices). It was also emphasised that respondents could skip questions they did not wish to answer and that a ‘Prefer Not to Say’ option was provided where relevant. The questionnaire could be exited at any time without penalty or prejudice. No reward, save the option to request a copy of the results, was offered for participation. No individual’s name or other means of identifying individuals was requested in the questionnaire. School name was requested (primarily for follow-up of potentially rich sites of qualitative enquiry), though it was made clear that this was not required and could be left blank. In the final results, no school, group of schools, or entity of any form is identifiable. All results are presented in the aggregate; the only exception being the inclusion of fully anonymised comments made by participants in relation to particular questions. The questionnaire results were only accessible by myself, password protected within SurveyMonkey.

In no sense did contact through the various international schools associations represent any compulsion to complete the questionnaire. The distribution of questionnaires through these associations is normal practice and it is understood, indeed made clear in distribution e-mails by Association chairs, that completion is voluntary. This method was used simply because it extended reach beyond my own network of contacts, giving access to a globally located sample.

153