The researcher proposed to answer the following research question in this study: What do women superintendent stories tell us about the gender gap in the NC superintendency? To answer this question, the researcher engaged in 14 elite interviews with current NC female superintendents. The purpose of these interviews was three-fold. First, this study serves to give voice to women. Capturing and telling the stories of female superintendents and their
experiences in a gendered field “challenge[s] women’s oppression” by providing opportunities to make meaning of their experiences (Tisdell, 2008, p.331). Second, this study serves to identify how women make meaning of their experiences as women in a male-dominated arena. Using a narrative analysis approach, the researcher analyzed each woman’s story to identify the ways in which she makes meaning of her leadership. Third, this study serves to identify the ways in which women experience barriers in advancing to the superintendency. If women make up the vast majority of the talent pipeline to the superintendency yet they remain underrepresented, it is critical to identify what barriers cause the gender gap. While the problem is defined through superintendent data, the qualitative data provided by women superintendents helps describe the problem. By analyzing all 14 NC women superintendent stories and identifying the motifs across these stories, the researcher identified the way in which the role of superintendent remains gendered such that women are excluded from the superintendency.
61
Qualitative Methodology and Narrative Analysis
While the gender gap in the NC superintendency is made apparent by a review of
numbers, quantitative methodology is inept to capture the day-to-day, systemic inequalities in the field because such a method “impos[es] a limited worldview on the subjects” (Marshall &
Rossman, 2016, p.101). Rather, due to the complexity of women’s relationship with the superintendency, qualitative methodology was best for understanding the barriers women experience in advancing to the position. A naturalist approach allowed the researcher to capture the intricacies of women’s experiences. Specifically, the researcher employed a narrative analysis methodology for understanding how women make meaning of their experiences. By using this qualitative approach, three ends were achieved: first, it gave women voice by valuing their stories; second, it allowed for analysis of how women make meaning of their leadership, and third, it led to actionable information to make educational leadership more socially just.
First, qualitative methods in this study place value on women’s voice by understanding their lived realities. In this study, the researcher engaged in elite interviewing with current NC female superintendents and analyzed their stories using a narrative analysis approach. The list of questions the researcher used are found in Appendix A. While some of the questions gathered demographic data about the superintendents, most questions sought to draw out women’s stories about gender discrimination in their advancement. One value of the women’s stories is they explained how these women understand themselves in relation to the phenomena of the study. Bell (2002) explains that participants in narrative inquiry “construct stories that support their interpretations of themselves…[and] provide a window into people’s beliefs and experiences” (p.209). This “window” shows how women make meaning of their experiences with gender discrimination. Marshall (2003) highlights how a qualitative approach allows women in
62
leadership to acknowledge their very real, day-to-day struggles. She writes this approach “exposes the very real issues of educators who have tremendous anxiety over integrating their personal- and private-sphere emotions, demands, and values with the public demands on school leaders” (p.215). Riessman (2002) argues valuing women’s stories in research methodology not only allows participants to make meaning of their experiences but also restores the power they have lost as victims of discrimination. She writes, “[F]eminist investigators…advocate less dominating and more relational modes of interviewing that…give[s] up communicative power and follow[s] participants” (p.365). The methodological approach in this study sought to “re- allocat[e] power” by allowing the female superintendents to “shap[e] and guid[e]” the research through their stories (Ross, 2017, para.5). When the research “about experiences of oppression” is guided by “people who have experienced that oppression,” it provides “participants with opportunities for reflection and for participating in the knowledge construction process” (Ross, 2017, para.5). Accordingly, because the qualitative approach employed placed value on women’s voice, it empowered women and allowed them to make meaning of their lived realities.
Second, a qualitative approach employing narrative inquiry allowed the researcher to describe how each of the 14 NC female superintendents makes meaning of her leadership. The participants in this story were asked a variety of questions that encouraged them to tell stories about their experiences in educational leadership. Narrative analysis focused on the lived experiences illustrated by participants, allowing the researcher to connect her experiences and identify themes, motifs, and concepts evident throughout her varied illustrations and anecdotes (Riessman, 2002, p.369). Through this analysis, the researcher focused on why and how the participants narrated their experiences and what this revealed about the meaning-making process. As Riessman (2002) writes, “Narrative analysts assume that tellers and listeners/questioners
63
interact in particular cultural milieus…essential to interpretation. Narrative analysis opens up forms of telling about experience, not simply the content to which language refers. We can ask the following questions: Why was the story told that way? How did the local context and
research relationship shape this account?” (p.368). Through analysis of each women’s individual experience, each woman’s story is valued as holding meaning not only about how she makes meaning of her experience but also what her meaning-making suggests about the gendered role of the superintendency. Chase (1995) explains how the narrative process values how women tell their stories, treating the narration as “a form of social action” highlighting how “professional women shape their self-understandings and how they make sense of their contradictory
experiences of power and subjection” (Chase, 1995, p.5). It is through these individual narrative analyses that rich data illustrate how women make meaning of their experiences and their leadership in a male-dominated arena.
Third, a qualitative approach produced information that will help make educational leadership more socially just for women. Qualitative methodology is best for informing real action. Lincoln (1993) explains that the aim of knowledge produced by research is the “transformation of social life towards its improvement” (p.43). Women’s stories about
experiences with gender discrimination in their advancement to the superintendency are critical in understanding how the phenomena manifests. Bell (2002) explains that narrative inquiry “go[es] beyond …simply telling stories” and instead provides “an analytic examination of the underlying insights and assumptions that the story illustrates” (p.208). In using women’s stories, “deeply hidden assumptions” were exposed (Bell, 2002, p. 209). Women’s experiences can be valued as critical data to analyze, as their “voices serve to critique the canon of existing social structure” (LeCompte, 1993, p.10). Through this analysis, the understanding of gender
64
discrimination in the NC superintendency is exposed and understood, and the participants helped provide the information needed to eliminate the barriers women face in attaining the
superintendency. Lincoln (1993) explains how women’s participation in this study provides information for action: “Therefore, those who are silenced must agree to tell those stories, and in agreeing, consummate a social contract to help reinvent the world in a less androcentric or unjust form and shape” (p.42). It is the participants’ lived realities that provided true insight for
understanding the barriers women face in advancement to the superintendency; in absence of these stories, action cannot be taken to make educational leadership more inclusive. Truly
understanding and impacting the gender gap in the superintendency requires a feminist reframing placing women’s experiences at the center of consideration.
Site Selection and Sampling
Due to the nature of qualitative methodology, it was impossible to include all NC female superintendents in this study. Morgan (2008) explains that in qualitative methodology, the researcher does not place emphasis on inclusion of a large sample size; rather, the qualitative researcher values the depth of research conducted with the sample chosen. He writes, “[T]he goals of [qualitative] research emphasize an in-depth and highly contextualized understanding of specific phenomena, and such goals are well-suited to small sample sizes” (Morgan, 2008, p.799). While a small study sample was appropriate for the methods of this study, site selection and the details of the sampling were important considerations for the study’s approach.
The research question in this study was site-specific, as the women who were interviewed are all superintendents in NC. Fourteen in-person interviews were conducted in the districts where the superintendents work. Because NC was the study’s site, it is important to consider the history of NC in relation to women’s advancement into the superintendency. The current
65
statistics on female superintendents in NC almost identically mirror those at the national level. This allows for the researcher to generalize findings about barriers to the superintendency to other states. While the superintendent statistics in NC mirror the national average, it is important to consider how NC’s history as a paternalistic state influences women’s experiences in attaining the superintendency. Paternalism in NC was the “philosophical and fiscal underpinning of many North Carolina cotton mill villages” in the 19th and early 20th centuries which employers
controlled “all aspects of an employee’s life” including housing, food, medical care, clothing, and even employee discipline (Purcell, 2006, para. 2). Also, it is important to consider that NC did not grant women any form of suffrage prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the US Constitution in 1920. These historical factors in NC inevitably shape the way marginalized groups such as women experience employee rights in the workplace in the state. Additionally, the researcher’s review of existing literature shows an absence of research focused on women’s experiences in the superintendency in the state of NC. Accordingly, using NC as the site for this study served to add to the existing research of women’s experience in barriers to the
superintendency.
Another factor to consider is the sample of superintendents interviewed in this study. Morgan (2008) explains sample in qualitative methodology should focus not the size but rather on how the sample “serve[s] the purpose of the specific study” (p. 799). Choosing a variety of female superintendents to interview based on their backgrounds was important to collecting rich data. Likewise, choosing a wide range of female superintendents allowed the researcher to argue that the similarities in their experiences with gender inequality provides evidence of oppression within the system. Marshall & Rossman (2016) provide detail about the importance of the selection sample: “Poor sampling design decisions may threaten...findings. To justify a sample,
66
one should know the universe of the possible population and its variability, and then sample according to all the relevant variables” (p.109). While the researcher sought an interview with all 26 current female superintendents by asking for their participation, 14 women or approximately 54% of all female superintendents in NC participated. This sample size allowed for “intense investigation” that emphasized “theory building [and] subjective understanding” (Morgan, 2008, p.799). Of these 14 female superintendents who participated, the researcher was intentional in collecting their demographic data to ensure the sample size was inclusive. This demographic information included each participant’s name, age, marital status, children, education, and years of experience. To ensure confidentiality, identifiable demographic information is not shared in the study; however, examination of this information in the data set was important to consider how findings can be generalized, and the average information of the demographic data can be found in Appendix D. Accordingly, these 14 women’s experiences can be interpreted for analysis of gender inequality in the entire educational field.
Entry and Access
Securing data from elite interviews with current female superintendents was foundational to this study. The researcher first sought entry using a written letter and Institutional Review Board (IRB) Adult Consent Form. Appendices B and C of this proposal include the written letter sent to participants and the IRB approval form. Both the written letter and IRB Adult Consent Form explained all considerations of the study including: the purpose of the study; why the researcher sought the superintendent’s participation; timeline for participation; benefits and risks of the study; confidentiality; and contact information for the researcher and faculty advisor. To appeal to the female superintendent’s willingness to participate, the researcher included a personal appeal, explaining that the researcher is not only a doctoral student but also a female
67
high school principal who aspires to the superintendency. The letter was sent to all 26 female superintendents by both email and mail and asked for the participant to respond directly to the researcher. While the researcher anticipated having to conduct follow up with the
superintendents by phone or in-person to ensure enough participation, the researcher received 14 confirmed superintendent interviews within just weeks of the mailing. This quick response from more than half of the superintendent confirming their desire to participate provided evidence that the women had stories to tell about the superintendent gender gap.
Another consideration for entry and access occurred after the interview with the female superintendent was granted. Because superintendents are the most powerful players in a school district, this form of qualitative data collection is considered elite interviewing. Elite
interviewing requires a specific skill-set from the interviewer and likewise presents challenges for true access. While the first challenge to elite interviewing is gaining entry, the second immediate challenge is establishing trust and rapport. Because superintendents are busy people, they needed to know the interviewer was “trustworthy” and “valuable enough to warrant [her] time” (Marshall, 1984, p.237). Because elites are used to being interviewed, they are comfortable controlling the conversation and painting a picture that is self-rewarding. This study sought instead to draw out stories that represent women’s experiences with discrimination, depicting issues most women and men likely do not want exposed. Accordingly, when interviewing elites, the interviewer took specific actions to collect meaningful data. Marshall (1984) writes that the interviewer must inform herself of the “world, personality, preferences, traditions, cycles and schedules, motivations, and concerns of the people” she is interviewing (p.236). This allows the researcher to be prepared for the unknowns of the interview. Accordingly, prior to each
68
the internet about the superintendent’s biography and current school district. Because
superintendents are political beings, they often “play politics” in order to “influence policy and resource allocation to the advantage of the agency, of themselves, and of their constituents” (Marshall, 1984, p.236). To collect authentic data, the researcher had to be strategic, “devis[ing] appropriate rules or fronts to facilitate entree and data collection strategies that are effective without violating the norms of the environment” (Marshall, 1984, p.236). In terms of this study, this manifested in the creation and order of strategic questions that facilitated conversation regarding the interviewee’s experiences with gender inequity. As outlined in Appendix A, while the researcher approached each female superintendent with a set list of questions, the researcher reordered the sequence of questions based on the breadth of responses from the superintendent. Additionally, the researcher emphasized her harmlessness to the elite’s position, taking on the role of doctoral student and aspiring female superintendent who sought to learn from the wisdom of the participant. Another consideration in elite interviewing concerns what is produced by the participant’s involvement. Marshall (1984) explains elites may vary on their views of how they are portrayed by the data: some may “want publicity and to be identified” while others may “demand the right to review the report and delete sections” (p.243). Due to this variability, it was vital the researcher clearly defined the confidentiality of the participants in this study. In the interviews with the female superintendents, the researcher disclosed to all superintendents that no names or identifying information would be used in the research at any time. By clarifying this confidentiality at the beginning of the process, trust was established more quickly, and there was no confusion of whether the interview participant will be identified.
69
Researcher’s Positionality, Reciprocity, and Ethics
To establish credibility, the researcher considered her positionality in the research process. Freeman, de Marrais, Preissle, Roulston, and St. Pierre (2007) write that in qualitative research, there is no neutrality: “Neither research participants nor researchers can be neutral, because...they are always positioned culturally, historically, and theoretically” (p.27). As a female practitioner in the field, the researcher approached the research design process having dealt with experiences of gender inequality and sexism. These experiences influenced the researcher’s positionality towards the study’s content. As Lillrank (2012) notes, the researcher cannot separate the knowledge she learns from herself because “knowledge is assumed to be embodied in subjective lived experiences and the management of identity in social interaction” (p.281). Accordingly, while it was impossible for the researcher to completely detach
emotionally throughout this process, the researcher acknowledged and considered how personal experiences in the field of educational leadership affected data collection and analysis. Because positionality in research is inevitable, Lerum (2001) explains one way to manage the researcher’s emotions is to “admit one’s loyalties” (p.468). The researcher engaged this strategy by
acknowledging her experiences with sexism in educational leadership in each phase of the process, including the research proposal, the interview introduction, and the written analysis of the study. Another strategy the researcher employed occurred during the data collection and analysis process. Lillrank (2012) suggests researchers can ensure their positionality does not negatively affect data collection or analysis by engaging in active listening during interviews. In “active listening,” researchers “suspend [their] own perspective[s] to focus on what the
interviewee has to say” (Lillrank, 2012, p.282). This was achieved in the study first through construction of open-ended interview questions that allowed participants to lead the storytelling
70
and second through a plan that allowed participant responses to lead the interviewee’s selection and sequence of interview questions. Because the researcher is positioned as a female
educational leader who aspires to a NC superintendency, admitting her loyalty to improving gender issues for women school leaders in each phase and engaging in active listening during the interview process established trust.
Another consideration of the researcher was reciprocity, of how the researcher managed herself in the setting and how this affected the participants. Crow (2008) explains “good research ethics” must examine what the researcher takes from her participants and what she can give to them (p739). Because research requires participants to give up their time to help the study, the researcher must be prepared to compensate the participants as she is “indebted” to the them