Phase 3 Concurrent Observations and Documentation [including webpages]

Ewing & Griffiths, 2011) and can help to understand what people actually do, as well as where and when their actions are undertaken. While interviews are usually less time- consuming, they provide limited information in that they largely reflect the participants’ perceptions. Walsh et al. (2011) in their study on the use of observation as a data collection tool, found that “skills and actions that had not been described were revealed, which had not been shown by other interview-based studies” (p. 1049); Walsh et al., (2011) further

commented succinctly: “an interview allows someone to say what they do; an observation allows you to see directly what someone does” (p. 1049). This supports earlier comments by Corbin and Strauss (2008) who noted: “The reason why observation is so important is that it is not unusual for persons to say they are doing one thing but in reality they are doing something else. The only way to know this is through observation” (p. 29). Using observation provides another area of data collection that serves to triangulate and verify information gained from the survey-questionnaires and interviews (Carlson, 2010; Houghton, Casey, Shaw & Murphy, 2013).

Nevertheless, using observation as a data collection tool may involve far more than just ‘watching what goes on’. Walshe et al. (2011) noted a number of serious issues which must be considered, these included:

(a) The role of observer – how involved should the researcher be? At one end of the continuum is complete observation which could lead to an inspectorial impression, or so participatory that he/she changes the dynamic of the environment and

observed action. In this situation I simply tagged along as the Director/Leader moved from room to room, interacting with staff, and I was very conscious of facial expression – friendly interest, with no comments.

(b) How threatening could this visible intrusion of the researcher be for the participant being observed? To what extent might it change the observable behaviour?

Obviously, this could be an issue, but over a period of time with repeated interviews and in the bustle of daily activities with staff this reaction was not apparent.

(c) If the researcher assumes a highly participative role, albeit attempting to create a collegial atmosphere, how might this affect his/her ability to actually observe and take notes? This did not occur in the study as I quietly waited while the participant

spoke to a staff member, parent or child, again, very conscious of a friendly, interested facial expression.

(d) If the researcher is perceived as an ‘insider’ with personal knowledge and expertise in the area being investigated, how might this trigger stress for the participant? This could include a sense of power imbalance or even be threatening to job security for the participant. However, this was not an issue in this research project as the researcher was not an ‘insider’ nor linked to any of the employing

organisations.

Walshe et al. (2011) observed very wisely: “Participatory roles may create difficulties with maintaining the role of researcher” (p. 1051). For this reason, I elected to just quietly observe what was happening around me as well as between the participants and the people in their environment.

Earley (2012) notes that only a small number of studies have examined the work of education leaders by observation; and in particular, cites a study by Horng, Klasik and Loeb (2010) that observed 65 school principals using a ‘silent shadowing’ approach. The principals undertook 43 different activities within six categories and these were recorded by the

researcher every five minutes. Earley (2010) also notes additional studies in which the categories were very similar with leadership, management, administration, professional development, teaching and personal time as common factors, albeit with slightly differing names in the various studies (Earley, 2010, p. 21).

Notwithstanding the time required and possible complications as outlined above, observations were chosen as the third method of data collection for specific reasons. Recording how the participant behaved (facial expressions and body language);

communicated (words and tone of voice); as well as the type of communication such as instruction, comment, encouragement etc., together with what they actually did, is vital for two reasons. First, that this evidence could then be triangulated with their written comments and interview statements. Second, because the research goal is to gain a deep understanding of the applied practical aspect of Christian ECEC leadership (as well as the theory), in-situ words and actions are particularly relevant.

In this study, all of the participants were observed as they were involved in their daily routines, interacting with administrative and educational staff members before, after and even during the interview sessions. In addition, observation or investigation of printed and/or

digital material which incorporated brochures and web pages that had been constructed by the leader, was included, as these also gave insight into the beliefs, practices and intentions within each centre. Further, the choice of wall hangings and posters as well as displays intended to portray Christian values or cultural beliefs were also examined. Importantly, although observation of the participants and documentation has been termed Phase Three to distinguish it from the other aspects of data gathering, it did in fact occur concurrently with Phase Two. The documents examined included: (a) any signs, banners or posters in front of the centre and the entrance area, including the foyer; (b) the centre’s web-page and (c) printed material such as prospectuses and staff handbooks. As with the information gleaned from the in-depth interviews, the observations and documentation will be described in the case studies and discussed in Chapter Five.