Theoretical assumptions

The exploratory nature of the central research question (see 1.2 Background to the study) reflects an overarching constructivist ontology and subjectivist epistemology (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). Constructivist ontology assumes there are multiple intersubjective realities (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) which the subjective agent creates through social settings and relationships. The complexity leadership theory lens through which this study is viewed assumes these.

In this research, the experience of principalship is socially developed and subjectively constructed by the principal within the context of their particular school. The initial mobilising of Bourdieu’s notion of field (Bourdieu, 1993; Eacott, 2013b; Lingard & Christie, 2003) in Chapter

Study Phase Methods Products

Phase One qualitative data collection

Seven semi-structured interviews with principals

Interview schedule 

Phase One qualitative data analysis

Line-by-line coding (Charmaz, 2014) Thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2006) 

Beta version of survey instrument Ethics modification

 Phase Two Quantitative instrument

pilot testing

Sampling strategy Sample recruited



Phase Two quantitative data collection

Survey administered Survey completed 

Phase Two quantitative data analysis

Descriptive statistics Non-parametric tests of variance 

Integration of data analyses Iterative analyses (Bazeley, 2012) Findings

Figure 4.1. Study design.

Two locates principal leadership within spatio-temporally subjective spaces. This subjectivity is central to principal perceptions and is therefore consistent with a constructivist ontology. Such particularity is also reflective of the subjectivist epistemology of this study. Chapter Three advances theoretically the concept of field to that of complex adaptive systems (CAS) and complexity leadership theory (CLT) (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007; Wheatley, 2006, 2007). CLT similarly assumes that understanding the organisation and its needs is

inherently subjective. In a CAS, the totality of the organisation cannot be known, and the subject creates their understanding within a subjective spatio-temporal moment. As the CAS adapts, so too does subjective understanding. Other agents within the CAS similarly act based on their

subjectively constructed reality, and thus the CAS changes and is changed by multiple subjective social interrelationships (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007; Wheatley, 2007).

This research is underpinned by a symbolic interactionist approach to interpretation, a theoretical perspective through which actions and language can be interpreted for meaning (Blumer, 1969; Charmaz, 2014). Human actors construct their concepts of self, their understanding of social contexts and their meaning, and their relationship between self and collective society (Goffman, 1959). They also interpret these through shared language (Charmaz, 2014); in the context of this study, subjects use language and concepts that are shared with and familiar to me as an experienced former principal in an Australian IB school. As an interpretive strategy, symbolic interactionism views current reality as incomplete, temporary, malleable, changeable, and open to multiple interpretations (Goffman, 1959). This perspective is helpful for exploratory research involving extensive contextual variation. While this current research claims to present credible and valid findings, future research may reveal contrasts or contradictions to the findings of these temporally located and conceptually subjective findings.

This is because there is not one definitive experience what constitutes the experience of being an Australian IB principal, therefore there must be many constructed understandings, or “multiple realities” (Lincoln et al., 2011, p. 13). This is evident in the demographic profile described in Chapter Two. Principals’ personal leadership is also influenced by their personal histories, cultures and values, shaping the way principals interpret their actions (Best & Kahn, 1999). The experience of leadership for one IB principal, and the perceptions they describe within this research, is thus truthful for them (Goffman, 1959), but not necessarily normative or prescriptive of what it means to be an Australian IB principal.

The second phase of the research design is an online survey questionnaire, a data collection method usually reflective of quantitative research approaches. Such methods are generally considered characteristic of a realist ontology and objectivist epistemology which seem antithetical to interpretive research (Blumer, 1969). Quantitative paradigms typically gather facts related to causation and “empirical regularities” (Robson & McCartan, 2016, p. 21), an approach considered incommensurate with exploratory research. Positivist approaches can devalue

sociopolitical factors and be considered incompatible with constructivist ontological

perspectives. Post-positivist approaches, by contrast, acknowledge that knowledge is imperfect, and subject to the impact of researcher limitation (Lincoln et al., 2011). As such, truth claims can only be partial, leaving open the possibility that further investigation is needed to modify,

augment, or even abandon claims in the light of newer evidence. Alvesson (1996, p. 468) argues that quantitative data are “constructions made by the researcher” that reflect priorities and lines of inquiry of interest to them. As such, they ought not be considered objective per se, but should be treated interpretively through “self-critical consideration of one’s own assumptions and consistent consideration of alternative interpretative lines” (Alvesson, 1996, p. 468). This perspective is useful when analysing quantitative data within an exploratory study and has been adopted here.

Blumer (1969) argues that exploratory research by its very nature embraces any methods which can give insight into the phenomena being explored. He distinguishes two modes of inquiry which characterise a symbolic interactionist approach: exploration and inspection. Exploration is defined as “ a flexible procedure in which the scholar shifts from one line of inquiry” (Blumer, 1969, p. 40) to others. One possible purpose in adopting such an approach is to “develop ideas of what are signficant lines of relation” (Blumer, 1969, p. 40) between the

phenomena being explored. Inspection is a process whereby key elements of the researched phenomena are further subjected to “intensive focused examination” (Blumer, 1969, p. 43). He uses the metaphor of picking up and observing a physical object, turning it over, examining it from different angles, of asking different questions about the object, and then “returning to its scrutiny from the standpoint of such questions” (Blumer, 1969).

Given the absence of prior research into the experience of Australian IB principals, the Phase One semi-structured interviews comprise an initial exploration of ideas. To develop more comprehensive insights, and consistent with the symbolic interactionist approach advocated by Blumer (1969), this research then inspects these insights across the wider total population of Australian IB principals (n2 = 50, RR 28.7%). This is achieved through a Phase Two survey questionnaire developed from analysis of Phase One findings. Taken together, they represent a subjective interpretive description of principal leadership in Australian IB schools.

Notwithstanding the limitations of this study (see 1.4 Limitations of the study), the responses from other IB principals detailed in 4.8 Validity, credibility, and resonance suggest the findings of this study do provide valuable insights to the subjective experiences of principals in Australian IB schools.