a research team in ethnography

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Dakota]On: 26 November 2014, At: 06:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal ofQualitative Studies inEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

A research team inethnographyPeter Woods , Mari Boyle , Bob Jeffrey & GeoffTromanPublished online: 25 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Peter Woods , Mari Boyle , Bob Jeffrey & Geoff Troman (2000)A research team in ethnography, International Journal of Qualitative Studies inEducation, 13:1, 85-98, DOI: 10.1080/095183900235744

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095183900235744

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/095183900235744

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095183900235744

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION, 2000, VOL. 13, NO. 1, 85± 98

A research team in ethnography

PETER WOODS, MARI BOYLE, BOB JEFFREY andGEOFF TROMANThe Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

There are signs that teams are becoming more popular in ethnographic research. New technologyand, in the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise have facilitated the establishment andcontinuance of teams. In this paper, the authors discuss their experiences in one particularresearch team in recent years. Securing adequate funding has been the essential structuralprerequisite. The authors distinguish among project, federated, and whole teams, depending onfunction and level of analysis. They consider team structure, approach, business, and processes,and the relationship between individual and team. Teamwork has enabled a wider and deepercoverage of work, a broader comparative base, and multiple researcher triangulation. The teamprovides a forum for the discussion of ethical issues, an immediate supportive reference group. Ithas opened up horizons, and promoted individual change and development. It has aided analysisand writing, and promoted clearer and more robust arguments. The article concludes with somecaveats.

Introduction

Team research can be a creative and joyful experience. (Bell, 1977, p. 61)

Ethnography by tradition is an individual pursuit. In what Douglas (1976) calls the` ` Lone Ranger ’ ’ approach, ethnographers

¼ have gone out single-handedly into the bitterly con¯ ictual social world to bringdata back alive. This approach has demanded considerable strength and couragemuch of the time and almost always an ability to operate alone, with little or nosupport and inspiration from colleagues. (p. 192)

The individualism applies to more than ® eldwork. The researcher is the main researchinstrument, investing a great deal of self in research design and data collection, andanalyzing and writing up in one’ s own style and through one’ s own frameworks.Relationships are personal. The whole research is circumscribed by the person of theresearcher.

Team working has generally been set up for speci® c purposes, then disbanded. Theadvantages of teamwork have long been known (see, for example, Douglas, 1976; Price,1973). More ground can be covered, more minds brought to bear, more cross-checkingand comparing done, more burdens shared out, wider perspectives taken. Others havealso mentioned teamwork as a basis for heightened validity and for spreading theworkload in a linked, principled manner (Hammersley, 1980; Lincoln & Guba, 1985;Patton, 1990). But teamwork also has its problems. Some attempts have foundered onthe very basis of individual diÚ erences (see Platt, 1976). It is expensive in terms of timeand cost (Liggett, Glesne, Johnston, Hasazi, & Schattman, 1994), and continuous and

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education ISSN 0951-8398 print} ISSN 1366-589 8 online ’ 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp:} } www.tandf.co.uk } journals } tf} 09518398.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

86 peter woods et al.

harmonious communication is diæ cult to maintain. Teams can hide individualresponsibility and accountability. In another context, team-working can be amanagerial device for securing functional participation of members, similar to the` ` contrived collegiality ’ ’ that has been observed in schools (Hargreaves, 1994). Forwhatever reasons? However, there are signs that teamwork is becoming more popular.Of the ten studies featuring in Bryman and Burgess’ s (1994) book on analyzingqualitative data, for example, seven involve teamwork. This contrasts with Burgess’ s(1984) earlier book The research process in educational settings, which consists ofautobiographical accounts from predominantly ` ` lone ranger ’ ’ ethnographers.

Two developments in recent years have assisted the use of teamwork in ethnography.One is the advances in computer technology, which have brought the facility of linksamong team members through electronic mail. We have illustrated one way in whichthis works in a related paper (Woods, JeÚ rey, Troman, Boyle, & Cocklin, 1998). Theother, in England at least, is the establishment of the ` ` research assessment exercise ’ ’(RAE). The RAE has its problems, but it has established a basis on which successfulresearch institutions are guaranteed funds for a period suæ cient to keep successfulresearch personnel in post for longer periods than formerly. Tripp-Reimer, Sorofman,Peters, & Waterman (1994) see duration as a central issue:

The realization that personal biases and scienti® c limitations eventually will besupplanted with a more complex understanding for science holds a truecollabourative team together. The challenge is for the teams to stay together longenough for the teams to grow. (p. 318)

One feature of the ` ` success ’ ’ of these research personnel invariably is their ability towork with others in the collegial way that is typical of the best academic work generally.Thus the links that are in place as a consequence of their initial appointment, at the veryleast with a research supervisor or director, can be expected to be maintained andindeed developed over a number of years. At the Open University, we could claim afurther contributory element to the establishmentof team work ± the fact that the wholeof the university’ s teaching is based on the team approach. Lessons learned in thatcontext are easily transferred to research. For some of us, it has become a way of life.

In this article, we discuss our experiences of working in a research team over the past6 years. The discussion complements the exposition of Liggett et al. (1994), whoconsidered the lessons learned from ` ` teaming ’ ’ in their three-year multisite policystudy. The bases of our teamwork were somewhat diÚ erent from theirs. We explainthese ® rst, before going on to consider some of the main features of the activity.

Team origins and structure

The team contributing to this paper is based on the contributors to ® ve projects, allmainly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The team wasnot planned as such, and there is an element of chance in the way it has come together,and of gradual development over the years in the way that it operates. The projects are :(1) ` ` Creative Teaching in the National Curriculum ’ ’ (1991± 95 ; ESRC ReferenceR000233194); (2) ` ` The EÚ ects of Restructuring on Teaching as Work ’ ’ (1993± 97;R00429334361 ); (3) ` ` Child-Meaningful Learning in a Bilingual School ’ ’ (1994± 97;R000235123); (4) ` ` The EÚ ects of Ofsted Inspections on Primary Teachers and theirWork ’ ’ (1995± 97; R000236406); and (5) ` ` The Social Construction of Teacher Stress ’ ’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

a research team in ethnography 87

(1997± 2000; R000237166). Some important ` ` bridging ’ ’ grants from money madeavailable as a result of the Research Assessment Exercise were made by the OpenUniversity’ s School of Education’ s Research Committee (SERC) and the Centre forSociology and Social Research (CSSR), which enabled projects and stages of projects tobe spanned. For example, the ` ` creative teaching ’ ’ project was initially funded by theESRC for only two years. Key grants were then made by CSSR, and then SERC, whichenabled analysis and dissemination to continue for a further year and nine months; andalso allowed for plans to be made for the next study ± project 4 above in this case.

Peter Woods is the Director, or Supervisor in the case of project 2, of these projects,which arose from his interest in ` ` creative teaching ’ ’ and the conditions promoting andinhibiting it. Bob JeÚ rey was appointed on project 1 as a half-time research fellow in1991. He was appointed full-time on a new contract, and moved on to project 4 aftercompleting project 1. GeoÚ Troman worked on project 2 as a full-time postgraduatestudent, and, on 2’ s completion, has been appointed to project 5 as a research fellow.Mari Boyle has been a research fellow on project 3, and continues as a consultant. Wehave been joined at times by linked postgraduate studentson projects 3 (Nick Hubbard)and 5 (Denise Carlyle), another half-time research fellow, Peter Wenham, on project 1,and a visiting academic from Charles Sturt University, Australia (Barry Cocklin), whomade an important contribution to ` ` project 6 ’ ’ , discussed below.

Each project, therefore, had its own team, what we might call a ` ` project team. ’ ’ Butwe were all members of a larger team that embraced all the projects. This, in turn, tooktwo forms. On occasions, we have operated as a ` ` federated team, ’ ’ where we bring jointresources to bear on the individual projects of members. On other occasions, we haveworked as a ` ` whole team. ’ ’ The latter was not planned, or even foreseen at the outset.Initially a kind of support forum for participants, the team came to develop its ownrationale, identifying themes and issues across the projects, aided by comparisons andcontrasts among the data. This has been given concrete expression in the organizing anddelivery of various symposia on common themes at a number of conferences over theyears. Thus a wider project was generated from the teamwork. We might call thisproject 6 ± ` ` Restructuring Schools: Reconstructing Teachers ’ ’ ± and, like the in-dividual projects, it yielded a book (Woods, JeÚ rey, Troman, & Boyle, 1997). Weregard it as ` ` added value ’ ’ to the results of the individual projects, and it is indicativeof what Douglas (1976, p. 207) calls the ` ` multiplier eÚ ect of teamwork ’ ’ .

A team approach

Platt (1976) found in her survey of research teams that several directors, if they were tobe involved in teamwork again, ` ` would take more care to recruit only collabouratorswho were really compatible and thought the same way as they did ’ ’ (p. 89). Thepotential consequences of not doing so are graphically illustrated by Bell (1977), whodescribes the tensions, con¯ icts, frustrations, stress, mistrust, and acrimony that canarise from an ill-assorted, ` ` contrived ’ ’ team. Our team does have compatiblepersonalities, common interests, values, and beliefs. We all get on well together, and areconcerned about each other’ s projects as well as our own. Our political views are leftwing to varying degrees, and we are concerned about the switch to the right in the UKin the 1980s and 1990s and what it has done to the educational system. We are allquali® ed teachers and have all taught in primary schools. We are obviously committedto ` ` creative teaching ’ ’ research in some form or other, which originated partly as a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


result of the political assault on so-called ` ` progressive ’ ’ teaching methods in the 1980s.We have a shared interest in policy and its eÚ ects in schools, and how symbolicinteractionism might contribute to understanding of these areas. Our ® eld of operationis primary schools, and our preferred approach is ethnography. Within the broad areaof qualitative method, we use participant and nonparticipant observation, interviewsand the study of documents, comparative analysis, and grounded theory. We believe inthe production of evidence in support of claims made about a ` ` subtle ’ ’ or ` ` analytical ’ ’reality (Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Hammersley, 1992). But we are not constrained bythis in all aspects of our work, and also ` ` take risks ’ ’ in experimenting with alternativemeans of data collection, and of representation (see Woods, 1996). We are intrigued,lately, by how ` ` ethnography can express the sounds, feel and taste of lived experience ’ ’(Ellis & Bochner, 1996, p. 35 ; see also Ely, Vinz, Downing, & Anzul, 1997; Rose, 1990).

This does not mean that we are in perfect agreement. Indeed a consensual approachto all matters would be somewhat suspect, illustrative, perhaps, of a contrived andmanagerialist arrangement. We have our diÚ erences, but these complement rather thandisrupt. Thus GeoÚ ’ s interest in critical theory and policy sociology, for example, addsa dimension to the team’ s basic position within symbolic interactionism, as representedby Peter, as does Bob’ s interest in Foucault and postmodernism, and Mari’ s in genderand language. Though there are common features in our backgrounds, there are alsodiÚ erences, providing a diversity of knowledge, experience, and contacts.

Liggett et al. (1994, p. 81) refer to a ` ` common bond ’ ’ or ` ` mindset ’ ’ among theircore team, which, despite their varied perspectives, sustained a collective commitmentto their study and ensured a ` ` common framework ’ ’ in presenting their work to others.Ely et al. (1997) go so far as to claim that they ` ` write as a team and often think as ateam ’ ’ (p.1), and that their writing demands ` ` more we-ness and less I-ness ’ ’ (p. 3). Weadhere to the former, rather than the latter position. There has been little ` ` writing asa team ’ ’ as such among us. Rather, the joint preparation of material usually takes theform of somebody taking the main responsibility for it, with others making commentsand contributions ± as with this article. But we do have a ` ` common framework, ’ ’consisting of complementary theoretical approaches , the use of similar concepts in ourwork, and the addressing of similar issues. The application of this framework has anintegrating eÚ ect, and adds more depth to individual work. The pains and pleasures ofwriting, the demands and pressures of preparing, presenting, and defending papers inconferences and in symposia, have cemented relationships within our team, developinga team spirit marked by mutual trust and collegiality.

Many of the problems some research teams have experienced in the past appear tohave arisen from the undemocratic nature of the relationships among members of theteam. This was the problem with the Banbury research, according to Bell (1977), wherethe team (a ` ` project ’ ’ team in his case), consisted of a largely absentee director, a` ` foreman ’ ’ in the ® eld, and two research assistants. Such ` ` three-tiered ’ ’ arrangementsare the most subject to risk (Platt, 1976). Porter (1994) describes the hierarchical modelof research held by funding agencies ± which, of course, exert a strong in¯ uence on howresearch is conducted:

¼ the principal investigator, who normally holds a full-time position in auniversity, is responsible for the theoretical formulation of the project, for itsadministration and for writing the reports, but not for actually carrying out theresearch. The principal investigator is expected to devote his or her ` ` researchtime ’ ’ ¼ to the project, but ¼ will not undertake the data collection or ® eldwork

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


¼ .Instead, the principal investigator is expected to hire research assistants,interviewers, and even more lowly, transcribers, coders and secretaries. (p. 72)

Platt (1976, p. 76) notes that ` ` no team is completely non-hierarchical ’ ’ . This iscertainly true of ours ± we hold posts of diÚ erent status and permanence for a start. Also,the initial basis on which the group came together, and the continuing form ofresponsibility to our external funding agencies, is on the terms of the traditional modeloutlined above by Porter. Beyond this, however, and especially in ` ` whole team ’ ’meetings, we operate in a democratic manner. This is aided by our ` ` immersion ’ ’ inissues of common interest. Olesen, Droes, Hatton, Chico, and Schatzman (1994) use thisconcept in explaining how their team was able to raise the analysis to ` ` a higher orderof abstraction or generality, ’ ’ as we did with the ` ` Restructuring ’ ’ project :

In part we could realize this because of our long mutual immersion in the studyof self-care. That immersion honed our analytic skills, and also provided asafeguard against any team member, faculty or not, dominating the analysis ormanipulatingagreement; others simply knew too much and too well the subtletiesof self-care ethnography readily to agree even on non-problematic categories orthemes. (p. 126)

The team meets at least once a month, though there are many other kinds ofcommunication between members, notably by phone or through email.

Meetings are informal in tone. It is open to any member to suggest items of business,or indeed how business is conducted. Originally, discussions were mainly about issues ofresearch design and data collection, gradually turning to progressive focusing as we feltour way into and through the ` ` creative teaching ’ ’ research. As the research bore fruitand papers began to emerge, the business of the meetings escalated, even more so whenjoined by the other projects. All papers go through a number of drafts, as many as nineor ten, starting perhaps from some sketchy notes or extended memo, then developingand re® ning arguments, integrating related literature, reorganizing, and editingand re-editing. Currently, we invariably have a long agenda, consisting of papers or chaptersat various draft levels, research proposals, reports, re¯ ective, analytical or theoreticalmemos, some aspect of research method, particularly interesting data such as a sectionof transcript, book proposals, relevant readings, and books, and information and newsitems. There is a kind of security in these agendas, for they represent the whole gamutof research activity from inception to completion. The whole business has a certainimpetus. There are some joint items that are the ` ` team’ s ’ ’ and some individual itemswhich members can call their own, all up for discussion. Some items are nearcompletion, giving the satisfaction that comes from a hard job done reasonably well,with many tortuous problems resolved; others are in the mind’ s eye, carrying thatfeeling of excitement that comes from the generation of a new project. In between, thereare items at varying stages. If some cause blockages, we have the reassurance of others,which have caused blockages before, moving along. And we have had each other’ s helpin ® nding ways through. We have taken up each other’ s case sometimes if we felt thatan argument or query has not been given due consideration, often out of feelings forhim } her more than academic necessity, thus supporting each other on a human, as wellas academic, level. The serious intent of matters is also cushioned by the general goodhumour shared by team members. A few jokes along the way not only help us throughlong meetings, but also make individuals feel easier in situations that might otherwise bethreatening to them. It is well known, also, that humour promotes group solidarity (see,for example, Mealyea, 1989). As a signi® cant feature of the group’ s culture, humour

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


acts as a humanizing and binding force, reminding us that people, and the bondsbetween them, are more important than abstract issues (Woods, 1990). In several ways,therefore, the team helps to counteract the traditional loneliness of the long-distanceethnographer.

Team relationships are also forged through the team’ s participation at conferences.This occurs through the joint preparation and presentation of symposia papers onlinked aspects of the research. Typically, three team members will deliver papers, withPeter acting as convener and chair, and giving an overview of the individual papers andhow they relate to each other. The conference ` ` back regions ’ ’ facilitate furtherdevelopment of ` ` subjective understanding ’ ’ and interpersonal relationships (Liggett etal., 1994). Many team discussions take place during coÚ ee breaks, mealtimes, andextended sessions in conference bars. Friends of team members and colleagues in otherinstitutions are drawn into the team during conferences and provide fresh perspectivesto our discussions.

Distribution and triangulation of work

A team can cover much more ground and take on more complex tasks than anindividual. In relation to multitrack conferences, for example, the team has adopted adivision of labour, splitting up in order to attend a variety of presentations relating notonly to their individual interest but to team concerns. Later, papers from thesepresentations are pooled for team use. Following the conference, papers are requestedfrom presenters and circulated amongst the team. Key papers then become the focus ofdiscussion at team meetings. All this aids the daunting task of keeping abreast of theliterature and current thinking.

We have divided our labours in other ways in both project teams, and in the` ` whole ’ ’ team, according to other criteria. Examples include the following.

Peter Wenham and Bob on ` ` creative teaching ’ ’

Peter and Bob focused on diÚ erent samples in diÚ erent parts of the country, providingwide and diÚ erent forms of coverage. At times, they also assumed diÚ erent roles. Forexample, at one point Peter adopted an advisory and participative role working with ateacher as a colleague on a Greek project. This assisted in developingour methodologicalapproach by showing how one research project could record aspects of creative teachingusing diÚ erent researcher engagement. Bob did not take such an involved role butequally was able to capture diÚ erent aspects of tone and atmosphere from thatgenerated by Peter’ s more involved approach.

Mari and Nick on ` ` child-meaningful learning ’ ’

The division of labour here consisted of Mari working in the main lower school whileNick researched the attached nursery unit, and a separate nursery school forcomparative purposes. Nick also had a broader focus, parents being an importantdimension of his study. Sharing data enabled the team to gather a greater amount ofinformation and to develop a broader understanding of the whole school (see Woods,Boyle, & Hubbard, 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The whole-team project on restructuring schools

` ` Restructuring ’ ’ has been a common factor in all our studies. Bob’ s sample of over 60teachers in six diÚ erent schools experiencing inspection and re¯ ecting on changes inpedagogy and educational values was enhanced by the wholeness of GeoÚ ’ s case studyof one school, which involved a microhistorical analysis of changing patterns ofteaching. Mari’ s research focused in even more depth on current pedagogy in relationto the National Curriculum and a speci® c ethnic group. Aided by Nick, she also addeda parental and community perspective to the subject of restructuring. In both depth andbreadth the analysis of teachers ’ work was enhanced considerably through the teamperspective.

GeoÚ and Denise on teacher stress

GeoÚ is focusing on teachers in primary schools, Denise on secondary, again providinga broader comparative base for the development of theory. Also, between them, theywill be much more able to explore the considerable amount of research done on stress,both sociological and psychological, and in the professions generally.

Bob, Mari and GeoÚ on school inspections

` ` Inspections ’ ’ has been another common denominator. It was the main focus of Bob’ ssecond project; an inspection of the school occurred during Mari’ s research ; and, whilethere was no inspection while he was there at GeoÚ ’ s school, they had had one just priorto his arrival and ` ` hidden surveillance ’ ’ was found to be a strong feature (see Troman,1997). This conjuncture provided strong comparative opportunities . Mari’ s examplesfrom her Ofsted inspection added to the analysis of Bob’ s data, the former being froma diÚ erent part of the country and with a specially ethnically dominated school, andadded a diÚ erent researcher’ s perspective to the analysis. The joint work on inspectionsbetween Mari and Bob resulted in a chapter comparing, from their research, threeteachers ’ diÚ erent reactions and perceptions of their experiences of Ofsted inspections.

It is clear from the above that teamwork can facilitate the triangulation of data,analysis and theory (Bell & Raafe, 1991 ; Patton, 1990). Triangulation takes variousforms, some of which are :

E several members addressing the same idea or concept (such as ` ` restructuring ’ ’ ,or ` ` role tension ’ ’ or ` ` intensi® cation’ ’ ) ± what we might term ` ` theoreticaltriangulation ’ ’ ;

E several focusing on the same substantive issue, but in diÚ erent locales, such as` ` school inspections ’ ’ , or ` ` headteachers ’ ’ ± what we might call ` ` substantivetriangulation ’ ’ ± typically providing a basis for theoretical triangulation ;

E several in a similar position focusing on the same person or event, such as whenboth Mari and Nick separately and on diÚ erent occasions interviewed the headof the school of their research, enriching each other’ s results;

E several in diÚ erent positions focusing on the same person or event. Aninteresting example of this occurred during the ` ` creative teaching ’ ’ research,with Wenham acting as involved participant and Woods as external, distancedevaluator (see Woods & Wenham, 1994). This was a similar device to whatDouglas (1976) refers to as the ` ` insider± outsider strategy ’ ’ :

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


¼ an insider± outsider team combines the value of both, especially when theoutsider then moves in to become enough of an insider to better know how tocommunicate with the insider¼ .The balance between the cool detachment of theoutsider and the more committed view of the insiders proved important at certainpoints. (p. 218)

DiÚ erent points of view can also be brought to bear on ethical problems. Price (1973)records that ` ` an integrated team with a wide diversity of personal contacts in thecommunity of study can be more sensitive than the individual to the rise of ethicalproblems as the research proceeds ’ ’ (p. 169). Where, however, an individualmember ofthe team unilaterally experiences an ethical problem, the team can help in its resolution.In ethical matters, we adopt the BERA guidelines and the position outlined in Woods(1996). However, these are general guidelines. There are always problems arising in theparticular realities of research situations that are not so easily answered, and that canprovide considerable crises of conscience, con¯ ict, strain, and anxiety for the researcher.In such instances, the team can oÚ er advice and support, and give protection.

Research horizons

Teamwork can open up new, unforeseen opportunities for its members. Ideas are oftengenerated and formulated in discussion. They emerge from the interaction as peoplecontribute diÚ erent perspectives, pool their knowledge, talk round points, challengeand defend arguments. Another’ s perspective can set oÚ new chains of thought, orenable material to be seen in a new light. They may be comparatively small points ± acontrary point of view or diÚ erent interpretation, the suggested relevance of asociological concept or piece of literature, a new theoretical slant, the introduction ofsome comparative material, a suggestion for the next step. They can be comparativelymajor, as with the generation of the whole-team book on ` ` restructuring. ’ ’ Commonthemes that linked the projects had been developed in discussion as part of the` ` support ’ ’ function of the group, but had come to take on a life of their own. They arenow feeding back into the individual projects.

Thus, the work Mari has done on researching young children has enhanced andstimulateda research proposal being made by Bob and Peter on the subject of ` ` CreativeLearning. ’ ’ GeoÚ observes that team discussions and the data and analysis by otherteam members in their projects led him to question the intensi® cation thesis in aparticular way. This shaped his subsequent analysis and was crucial in the ® nal stagesof his PhD ` ` write up. ’ ’ Also, the combination of his own research and inputs from theteam signalled the importance of the contribution of new forms of work organization toteacher stress, leading to the formulation of a new research project. Mari gives theexamples of general discussions regarding methodological issues encouraging her toconsider her role as a researcher, particularly her relationshipwith the children, leadingto, ® rst, a conference paper, then a journal paper, on ` ` Exploring the Worlds ofChildhood; ’ ’ also comments on drafts of her papers have helped her to focus on issuesconcerning what is meant by ` ` culture, ’ ’ or ` ` child-meaningful learning, ’ ’ and fromwhose perspective.

Teamwork also maximizes opportunities for dissemination of research. Membershave their own contacts, and their own favourite venues and journals, for which jointpresentations will be made. Since there are a number of people to help with these, ahigher number of possibilitiesand invitations can be taken up than if one was operating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


alone. Responsibilities and workloads can be shared out among the group, so that nosingle member is unduly overloaded at any particular time. In this way, the team hasmade regular (as well as a number of one-oÚ ) presentations at a series of national andinternational conferences relevant to the research projects, notably BERA, St. Hilda’ sat Oxford, EERA, and ISATT, rehearsing their ® ndings within appropriate culturesand bodies of knowledge on a scale that would be diæ cult for an individual to maintainfor very long. In these ventures also, the team provides moral support for individuals,enhances the quality of presentations, oÚ ers new chances for the level of analysis, andprovides a wider front for receiving and interpreting feedback. These meetings havebecome part of the structure of the group. We feel it important to have these externalreferents and schedules, since they are not only an opportunity to celebrate outcomes ofthe research, but also a discipline for the research process, in that they provideadditional inducement for the hard work of analysis and writing, which then has to beplanned and developed on a de® nite time-scale.

Similarly, the publications produced by members of the group acting in alliance orwith each other are rather higher than would be the case if individuals were operatingalone. Some of these are internally generated, such as the 1997 book, and methodspapers, of which this is one, in addition to books and papers on individualprojects. Evenwith the latter, the prospect of a book on the project has been much enhanced by thecontributions of linked students, as in the ` ` child-meaningful ’ ’ research (see Woods,Boyle, & Hubbard, 1998). Some publications are externally generated, coming frominvitations,or from personal contacts of team members. Members of the team have alsogiven a number of talks, singly and jointly.

In short, there has been a profusion of outlets for the research. There has beenconsiderable help within the team in reaching these. In a sense, individuals are pulledalong by the team in meeting assignments. A high productivity rate becomes part of thegroup culture. There is a feeling of sustained momentum ± there are deadlines,meetings, targets at various levels reaching far into the future. This may, of course, notbe suitable for all kinds of research, and we would not recommend it simply as a way ofministering to the RAE. Some matters may require a long gestation period. But for ourcurrent mode of research, which we see as highly relevant to policy and issues of the day,a comparatively fast turn-round is necessary if the research is to have any eÚ ect in aneducational world subject to continuing and rapid change.

Members have undergone individual change and development as a result of beinginvolved in the team. Bob notes that the team has helped him through diæ cult periods,and that he takes less ideological stances, and has become more constructively criticalof his own and others ’ work. GeoÚ also is more cautious about the claims he makes,more rigorous in approach, and more positive about the criticisms of others. He hasfound bene® t in the ` ` collective imagination ’ ’ of the team. When Mari joined the team,she was a considerably younger and less experienced researcher, but ` ` being able to relyon the experience and support of the team has enabled me to develop in my owncon® dence as a researcher and to have greater trust in my own judgement. ’ ’ Seeing thatothers faced the same problems enabled her to realize that she was ` ` not alone ’ ’ ± unlikea number of new researcher colleagues of hers working outside teams. Peter records :

(a) the considerable range and depth of the team’ s work provides me with plentyof quality material, thus expanding my own horizons; (b) the range of theirinterests and knowledge has broadened my outlook; (c) I have learnt more aboutmethodology from their experimentation; and (d) the quality of my work is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


improved by the team’ s attention. I have had plenty of experience as a ` ` loneethnographer, ’ ’ and while this has its attractions, there is a great danger of self-indulgence at almost every turn. One does not always realize this at the time. Theteam has an ` ` eye-opening ’ ’ eÚ ect here, and oÚ ers security against self-indulgence,while encouraging appropriate forms of re¯ exivity.

Analysis and writing

Our general approach to analysis is the ` ` constant comparative ’ ’ method (Glaser &Strauss, 1967). Compared wth the lone ethnographer, the use of a team expands thesubstantive comparative base, and also the interpretive perspectives through which thecomparisons are made. Liggett et al. (1994, p. 84) derive two lessons from theirexperiences here. The ® rst concerns the bene® ts of ` ` muddling through ’ ’ (that is,learning as they wrote rather than planning in detail from the outset), for ` ` in the` ` doing ’ of writing and thinking, we gained an appreciation of the need to have ourwritten thoughts modi® ed ; ’ ’ the other was in ` ` discovering anew the importance ofindividual latitude, even in writing. ’ ’ We would agree with the ® rst point, and partlywith the second. Our ` ` muddling through ’ ’ includes:

E shooting a particular rocket into orbit and keeping it there by developing it orletting it fall to earth as a damp squib. This is an essential part of muddlingthrough in that imagination, spontaneityand enthusiasm are given free rein. Ittakes a number of damp squibs to get a rocket successfully established in orbit ;

E being left with ` ` impasses ’ ’ , which then had to be taken up later by email afterwe had re¯ ected at leisure about the problem. After a few exchanges theimpasse either becomes resolved with renewed interest or by the generalacceptance of a perspective we can live with. Alternatively, we may ditch theidea or material as we did with a proposed chapter for the ` ` Restructuring ’ ’book on changes in pedagogy;

E presenting a large amount of data with some cursory and tentative initialanalysis and allowing the group to give their views on it, which invariablystimulates the originator to do another draft by ® rming up his} her ideas orgenerating new insights. We consider it crucial for individuals to be able towork on the data for a signi® cant period before necessarily committingthemselves to ® nal analysis because we are less willing to give up some ideas ifwe have invested considerable time in analysis. The quality of analysis isenhanced by continual kneading, and the team engagement assists in thatprocess.

As for individual latitude, we have considered it important for individuals to have aconsiderable degree of ownership and control of their own projects, and we have haddiscretion in how we present these, in articles, papers, and symposia, relying on the teamfor ` ` critical friendly’ ’ comments in the preparation. But we have also written somegenuine ` ` team ’ ’ papers, most notably in the ` ` restructuring ’ ’ book. Chapter 4,` ` Making the New Head’ s Role, ’ ’ provides a good example of the processes involved. Inthis chapter, we consider how three successful primary school heads of widely varyingstyles are adapting to the radical changes in their role in recent years. We aimed to showsome of the ` ` complicated process ’ ’ (Smulyan, 1996, p. 186) in such adjustment, asopposed to the ` ` static models ’ ’ (ibid.) usually proposed, to show there is more to success

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


than any simple listing of factors, and that there is more than one route to that success.Stages in the development of this chapter are given below:

E There was a recognition that we had a potentially highly productivecomparative base. Particularly interestingheadteachers ® gured prominently inBob’ s, GeoÚ ’ s, and Mari’ s individualprojects. Mari’ s was the subject of an earlypaper. Several months later, GeoÚ ’ s featured in a draft chapter of his thesis.Mari’ s headteacher became even more prominent, and of special interest toBob (researching the eÚ ect of Ofsted inspections), following an Ofstedinspection at her school. Bob thought a joint paper on headteachers would beinteresting if the opportunity arose.

E The opportunity came with the book. But on what basis would the comparisonbe made? We had already characterized Mari’ s head as the ` ` composite head, ’ ’the distinguishing feature of which was her attempt to take on new aspects ofthe role without relinquishing any of the old. GeoÚ felt that his represented an` ` entrepreneurial head, ’ ’ marked by the head’ s self-con® dent adoption of thenew managerial aspects of the role, which were anathema at the time to Mari’ shead. Arising from discussion, Bob reported that his headteacher (yet to bewritten about) was unlike both of these, and his description led GeoÚ to suggestthat he was more of a ` ` re¯ ective realist. ’ ’ These styles now had to be unpacked,and compared and contrasted.

E We had to ® nd a way of doing this. After several attempts, we decided tostructure the discussion around ® ve key aspects of the headteacher’ s role, assuggested by our research and the existing literature. These were : promotingand guarding the school ethos; gatekeeping; managing; professional lead-ership; and cultural leadership.

E Applying these to each of the three cases revealed some shortage of data in someareas. Files and transcripts had to be searched, and in some instances, newfocused data gathered on speci® c areas. This follows the classic data±analysis± more data± more re® ned analysis spiral of qualitative research (Lacey,1976).

E The comparisons revealed other weaknesses in the individual cases. Somearguments needed sharpening, some data to be reordered. Other ideas werestrengthened, such as that of Mari’ s headteacher as a ` ` professional mother ’ ’ inher management style. Bob’ s headteacher, who had come late into the frame,had to be reinterviewed to bring the database up to the level of the others.

E The organization of the chapter went through several experiments. The choiceeventually was between presenting the headteachers individually, in suc-cession; or structuring the chapter on the ® ve major categories. In the end, wefelt it important to preserve the individuality of the headteachers, examiningthem along the ® ve categories in turn; but reviewing their styles and their mainfeatures in a summary at the end.

The team also helps in the re® nement of arguments. Others can spot weaknesses in cases,or see alternative explanations. There have been several occasions where we havedebated key points, which have invariably followed the formula

E introduction of initial argument in a draft paper;E criticism of this on the grounds of insuæ cient or contradictory evidence, and

suggestion of an alternative explanation;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


E reformulation of the argument with closer reference to the evidence, andperhaps the introduction of new evidence;

E if not convinced, a stronger presentation of the alternative case, marshallingevidence from a wider ® eld, perhaps one of the other projects ;

E further tightening of the initial argument, and expanding on why it waspreferred to alternatives.

The interpretation of a headteacher’ s reactions to an Ofsted inspection in chapter 5 ofWoods et al. (1997) proceeded in this way. The issue was whether the joy and elationshe felt at getting a good report on her management skills, which had been a matter ofsome concern to her, was uplifting,enskillingand reprofessionalizing; or rather markinga move towards managerialism and technicism by abrogating judgement on herabilities to an external agency. The debate was a reminder that an individual researchercould have put up an equally plausible case for either interpretation (Smith, 1989). Asit was, we were forced to make the best possible case for the argument preferred, whileadmitting the possible relevance of the other if certain factors applied.

These debates take place in face-to-face meetings, but are reinforced, importantly,by email. The exchange of memos among the team enables the debate to continueoutside meetings, and forces a diÚ erent kind of concentration on the issue. Here there ispressure to be as clear, succinct, and to the point as possible, whereas oral discussionhasa great deal of exploration, experiment, and embellishment ± not always to the point(see Woods, JeÚ rey, et al., 1998, for illustrations).

Conclusion

We are part of a scholarly world. In seeking to make a contribution to knowledge, ourwork relates to that of other academics, and theirs relates to ours. We are dependent onthem for feedback. We test out our views on them, and re® ne and develop our materialin anticipationand response. In some ways, the team takes on a similar function, thoughmore intensively. But it is also a kind of halfway house between the individual and thewider academic world, enriching the process in ways we have described.

It is important to note that the team is a process, and that team practice iscontingent on characters, context, and relationships. In writing about the bene® ts ofteamwork here, we are mindful of the dangers of stagnation and complacency. It ispossible for teams to become self-indulgent and to set up exclusive cultures. However,some members leave, and new ones arrive. New partnerships can lead to new practices.We feel that the team should be open, ¯ exible, and critical enough to accommodatesuch changes, and to change with them.

There are other potential problems in teamwork. The annals record a number offailed attempts, which have been destructive, rather than constructive. We havementioned diæ culties that might be caused by unequal status, power, and resourcesamong team members. There might be exploitation of those with less power, who maydo more of their fair share of the work but receive less of the credit and bene® t. Theremight be divided loyalties to the team’ s concerns, and diÚ erent career projections thatcould aÚ ect those loyalties. There could be personal problems among team members,clashes of temperaments, diÚ erent competences, varying paradigmatic and theoreticalallegiances, all leading to counter-productive ® ghts and struggles over whose viewprevails. Some might feel that teamwork sti¯ es their individuality and originality, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


is against the very spirit of ethnography (Beidelman, 1974). As Ellen (1984, p. 208)remarks, ` ` The ® eldworker who regards the discipline of social anthropology as akin tothe art of the novelist is likely to ® nd the presence of other researchers distracting andirrelevant ’ ’ . With the ` ` literary ’ ’ or ` ` postmodernist turn ’ ’ (Tyler, 1986), we mightexpect more qualitative researchers to be of this view. Questions of size are also relevant.Ellen (1984, p. 210) notes considerable logistical, organizational , and intellectualproblems with teams larger than two, and that ` ` the degree of personal commitment ofthe lone anthropologis t is likely to be much greater than that of an anthropologist ¼ whois the member of a large ® eldwork team ’ ’ (p. 98). Interdisciplinary teams ` ` can provideunrivalled breadth and depth of authoritative data, but often lack theoretical impulseand analytical focus ’ ’ (p. 212).

Clearly, the composition of research teams and relationships among their membersare crucial. Despite the general ` ` multiplier eÚ ect, ’ ’ they might also represent constraintfor certain individuals, rather than liberation. The group itself might set up its ownconstraining parameters, beyond which it becomes diæ cult to move due to the volumeof work generated ± a victim of its own success. Democratic procedures and a respect forindividuals ± and ensuring opportunities for purely individual advancement andproducts ± would seem indicated, to go side by side with the various kinds of teamworkwe have identi® ed here. Questions of balance have to be borne in mind. To what extent,for example, was our team initially defeminized? To what extent is it deracialized? Aresearch team cannot represent every constituency ± but it can be re¯ ective of itscomposition, and aware of the implications.

The ` ` team ’ ’ is continuing for the foreseeable future with projects on teacher stressand ` ` creative learning. ’ ’ We shall continue to monitor the nature and eÚ ects ofteamwork, and will seek opportunities to do this on a comparative basis with otherresearch teams.

References

Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research.In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.

Beidelman, T. O. (1974). Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard (1902 ± 1973) : An appreciation. Anthropos 69,554± 567.

Bell, C. (1977). Re ections on the Banbury restudy. In C. Bell & H. Newby (Eds.), Doing sociological research.London: Allen & Unwin.

Bell, C., & RaÚ e, D. (1991). Working together? Reseach, policy and practice. The experience of the Scottishevaluation of TVEI. In G. Walford, (Ed.), Doing educational research (pp. 121± 146). London:Routledge.

Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (Eds.) Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.Burgess, R. G. (1984). The research process in educational settings: T en case studies. Lewes : Falmer Press.Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research: Individual and team ® eld research. Beverly Hills : Sage.Ellen, R. F. (Ed.) (1984). Ethnographic Research: A guide to general conduct. London: Academic Press.Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (Eds.). (1996). Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing. London:

Sage.Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research: Living by words. London:

Falmer Press.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Hammersley, M. (1980). On interactionist empiricism. In P. Woods (Ed.), Pupil strategies. London: Croom

Helm.Hammersley, M. (1992). What’ s wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers: Changing T imes. London: Cassell.Lacey, C. (1976). Problems of sociological ® eldwork? A review of the methodology of ` ` Hightown

Grammar ’ ’ . In M.Hammersley & P.Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling. London: Routledge & Paul.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

98 a research team in ethnography

Liggett, A. M., Glesne, C. E., Johnston, A. P., Hasazi, S. B., & Schattman, R. A. (1994). Teaming inqualitativeresearch : Lessons learned. International J ournal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 7 (1), 77± 88.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Mealyea, R. (1989). Humour as a coping strategy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(3), 311± 333.Olesen, V., Droes, N., Hatton, D, Chico, N., & Schatzman, L. (1994). Analyzing together: Recollections of

a team approach. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Platt, J. (1976) Realities of social research: An empirical study of British sociologists. London: Chatto & Windus.Porter, M. (1994). ` ` Second-hand ethnography’ ’ : Some problems in analyzing a feminist project. In A.

Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.Price, J. A. (1973). Holism through team ethnography. Human relations, 26 (2), 155± 170.Rose, D. (1990). Living the ethnographic life. London: Sage.Smith, J. K. (1989). The nature of social and educational inquiry: Empiricism versus interpretation. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.Smulyan, L. (1996). Gender and school leadership: using case studies to challenge the frameworks.

In R. Chavla-Duggan & C. J. Pole (Eds.), Reshaping Education in the 1990s : Perspectives on primaryschooling. London: Falmer Press.

Tripp-Reimer, T., Sorofman, B., Peters, J., & Waterman, J .E. (1994). Research teams : Possibilities andpitfalls in collaborative qualitative research. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative researchmethods. London: Sage.

Troman, G. (1997). The eÚ ects of restructuring on primary teachers ’ work : A sociological analysis. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Milton Keynes: Open University.

Tyler, S. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: from document of the occult to occult document. In J. CliÚ ord& G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Woods, P. (1990). The happiest days ? How pupils cope with school. Lewes : Falmer Press.Woods, P. (1996). Researching the art of teaching: Ethnography for educational use. London: Routledge.Woods, P., Boyle, M., & Hubbard, N. (1998). Child-meaningful learning in bilingual schools. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.Woods, P., JeÚ rey, R., Troman, G., & Boyle, M. (1997). Restructuring schools: Reconstructing teachers: Responding

to change in the primary school. Buckingham: Open University Press.Woods, P., JeÚ rey, R., Troman, G., Boyle, M., & Cocklin, B. (1998). Team and technology in writing up

research, British Educational Research Journal, 24 (5), 573± 592.Woods, P., & Wenham, P. (1994). Teaching, and researching the teaching of, a history topic: An experiment

in collaboration. Curriculum Journal, 5 (2), 133± 161.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Dak

ota]

at 0

6:29

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

a research team in ethnography

Documents