Special methodological considerations in conducting field research in a school setting

SPECIAL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS I N CONDUCTING FIELD RESEARCH I N A SCHOOL SETTING'*2

MARTIN KOHN & JEROME BEKER

Bank Street College of Education

To an increasing extent in recent years, schools have been used as a field setting for research in the behavioral sciences. This development reflects perhaps an ex- panding social concern with schools and education as well as recognition of the school's usefulness as a setting for basic research by psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists, among others.

Little attention has been given in the literature to methodological problems specific to field research in schools, considering the great amount of such work going on. The problems encountered, lessons learned, and special techniques developed by investigators and school people alike have mostly remained privy to them or have not been systematically and fully reported per se except when profound compli- cations have received public attention through the press. This may well be because what is reported under the rubric of research procedure has been sharply delimited and also because insufficient account of the relationship between what is being studied and the setting in which i t is being studied has been taken into account. The school, when used for research purposes, is still thought of, by and large, as a laboratory, with no dynamic processes of its own except those introduced or selected deliberately by the scientist. Any school, of course, is engaged in its own dynamic processes. Even so, understanding and bringing them into the content of research is still comparatively rare.

Alfred Castaneda and Leila S. Fahel (1961) point out that the schools have, on the whole, been receptive to research of all kinds. Also, as requests for the use of schools for research facilities have increased, many public school systems, such as New York City (Board of Education of N. Y. C., 1962) and Chicago have organized screening and coordinating procedures to smooth the way for investigators and school personnel. Organized cooperation between universities, whose research staff are often in need of child populations, and local public school systems has also increased in recent years. The Office of Child Research has been established within the Department of Psychology a t the University of Texas with this in view. Other partnerships have been set up to coordinate long-term projects between academic institutions and local public school systems, such as the School and University Pro- gram for Research and Development between Harvard's Graduate School of Educa- tion and the public school systems in Concord, Newton and Lexington, Massa- chusetts.

These cooperative relationships have, no doubt, developed partly to avoid misunderstandings and hostility between school personnel and the investigator, which may arise through the relative ignorance that members of one discipline may have of another. The research investigator may know relatively little about education,

'The paper is based on experience gathered in connection with The Psychological Impact of School Experience, a study supported by NIMH grant # M1075, U. S. Public Health Service and The Schools and Mental Health Program, supported by NIMH grant #3M9135, U. S. Public Health Service. Both projects have been undertaken by Bank Street College of Education.

T h e authors are greatly indebted to William Hollister, M.D. of the Professional Services Branch of the NIMH for his comments and suggestions, and to Mrs. Doris Wallace for her valuable editorial assistance.

32 MARTIN KOHN AND JEROME BEKER

and the educator may be given inadequate information about the proposed research in which he is involved. When both sides do not know or understand enough about each other’s goals and procedures, mutual resentment arises.

But there is often a more basic conflict of interest between the ideas of practitioners and those of research investigators. Teachers and school administrators, especially, are beset by so many pressures and problems that they are driven to look for concrete results immediately applicable to the practical situation in which they operate. In addition, if they have had no previous contact with research and are therefore unaware of the complicated and often drawn out processes of data collection and analysis, they find themselves more and more in a situation of being asked to honor something which they feel is suspect. To them, as practitioners, research is a detour. To the research investigator, on the other hand, laboriousness and un- certainty are part of life.

For research to be conducted successfully in the schools, some mutual adaptation must be made to accommodate these interests. Since the investigator is the seeker, and potentially the guest of the school, i t is up to him to explain himself and the work he proposes to do in ways that make sense to the school people and enlist their support and active cooperation. To do so, he needs to be aware of the funda- mental difference between his motivations and theirs. For school people, cooperation with him means adjusting to something with which they are only generally identified. The only tangible outcome, from their view, is one of a series of perhaps quite technical papers appearing a t some indefinite time in the future. They may never perceive his work as directly related to their pressing professional problems. For the investigator, the school is the source of data providing the substance of his daily work. The people in the school, therefore, cannot be expected to match his en- thusiasm for research activities, even when they are cooperating fully.3

This paper is an attempt to delineate and discuss some of the special problems, both theoretical and practical, inherent in this juxtaposition. It is based on the writers’ own experience of contact with schools and school personnel for research and consultation.

The paper is divided into two sections. Section I represents an outline and discussion of some of the issues involved in establishing contact with a school and school system for research purposes and in maintaining rapport during the project. Section I1 is a consideration of the selection of a school or school system.

I. ESTABLISHING GOOD RELATIONS AND MAINTAINING RAPPORT The School

Any school system has an administrative hierarchy and established ways of procedure which can serve as a guide in making the initial approach. The first contacts are therefore usually made through the Board of Education and the Super- intendent’s ofice. When more than one school system is involved, the District

31n some situations, a field research organization can establish an independent “service” division attached to a particular research project. This may help to increase the motivation of school personnel by offering them immediate, tangible assistance with their own problems and concerns as a direct result of their cooperation in the data-gathering phase of the project. It also provides the economy of the dual use of data, for both research and service, and encourages interdisciplinary cooperation and communication on a functional level rather than in the atmosphere of abstraction and generalization that tends to govern operations devoted solely to research.

SPECIAL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS I N CONDUCTING FIELD RESEARCH 33

Superintendent would also be considered. Further contact at any other level may then be made with the approval of these authorities. The same consideration is important in subsequent contacts, so that, for example, a teacher’s help should not be sought without the principal’s approval. In doing this, the problem is to avoid giving the impression that anyone is under orders to cooperate merely because the echelon above has approved the research study. Approaching each level of the hierarchy from the top is theoretically to get whatever cooperation is necessary there, as well as the permission to present the project to people on the next leve!. Theoretically, individual participation is voluntary.

But in spite of the use of careful procedures, any investigator will know that indirect pressure is exerted by the very acceptance of the project by supervisors and colleagues. What these pressures are like and how to deal with them varies with the specific situation. Principals and teachers may feel compelled to accept a project merely on the grounds of its approval a t higher levels. People at each level may also have ways of conveying their wishes in subtle ways, of which neither they nor the recipients are necessarily aware. This is a risky foundation for conducting any research, but especially so for studies which are to continue over long periods. Each hierarchical level has different functions and therefore different interests and concerns. A principal may be interested in having a research program in his school because it can raise the prestige of the school in the eyes of parents and community or because in his view it is part of a forward looking approach important for future promotion. A teacher may think that her cooperation would help children, even if indirectly; she may feel that participating in such work would make her feel less lonely in the classroom. A t the same time, she may have reservations because of the inconvenience or additional work her participation would involve.

Of the many ways of enlisting the interest and cooperation of school people, perhaps the most important one is making sure, at the beginning, that the proposed research is clearly explained and understood. This would include an explanation of why the project is considered worthwhile, even though it may have no immediate practical implications for these educators. If the project is explained with the special interests of each group in mind, it will carry the most meaning. With superintendents and principals the administrative implications will have particular interest, for teachers what may be learned about classroom teaching, for parents how it might make for the better education and development of their children or their children’s children. A single study may often have all these implications; the differential inter- pretation to different groups is to encourage understanding of the work proposed.

The school personnel will be interested in knowing the basic principles of the study, its value and meaning, and the detailed plans for carrying it out. If this is presented and discussed in advance, they are unlikely to feel that the demands made upon them are senseless and arbitrary. Decisions can then be made with the clear knowledge of what they are committing themselves to. The detailed plans might include the anticipated length of the study; what demands are to be made of whom; frequency and length of classroom observations; whether time will be needed with children in groups, individually, or both; how often single children will be seen, the purpose of such interviews, and the tests and other instruments to be used. It is often useful to commit these plans to writing as part of the joint planning.

Acceptance and support of any project has to be sustained; it cannot be assumed


that initial agreement to cooperate ends the obligations of the research staff to school personnel. The day-to-day commitments for the gathering of data may be reviewed, jointIy if necessary, as the work progresses. When differences of opinion arise, any written statement of plans is useful for discussion, especially regarding the time asked of teachers and children. Changes in plans, if absolutely essential, are perhaps best made with full explanations and the genuine consent of all concerned.

Inadequate communication between investigators and school personnel can make the research work seem mysterious, thereby inviting resentment and hostility. The initial explanations of aims and procedure are designed to dispel this possibility; good working relationships can only be sustained if the research staff avoids in- advertently introducing the mystery factor throughout their time in the school or schools. This problem may arise, for example, if the initial contact has been made by the project director who then turns the data gathering over to members of his staff who, in turn, are not in a position to interpret all aspects of the study to school personnel who ask about it. I n such a case, and especially if the study is to continue for some time, the project director can make a point of regularly visiting the school. He is then generally available for questioning as the person in authority directly responsible for the project, as well as being able to deal with problems before they become disruptive. It is possible, for example, that teachers resent what they feel is a cold and distant attitude on the part of the research staff; a t the same time they may feel they cannot discuss this directly with them. The project director is in an ideal mediating position in such a situation.

The Parents The parent body enters the life of the school as part of the community and is

therefore the link between it and the school. The parents influence and are influenced by the school’s prevailing educational ideas and practices. In this country especially i t is taken for granted that parents wield a good deal of power in the affairs of the school. The relationship with the parents can, therefore, be seen as a dual one; as people interested and concerned about the education of their children and as an influential part of the community, t o be reckoned with by the school.

Working through the school and with the active participation of school officials is usually an effective approach to parents since i t tends to allay the doubts of both parents and school personnel. The school’s active participation in a research project may even promote an aura of prestige for the school among the parents and community.

Considerations similar to those outlined in the previous section above apply also to parents. Not only are they entitled t o know if their child is to serve as a subject in a research study, but they should be as fully acquainted with the aims, content and methods of the study as the school people. This will also help to avoid the possibility of action by parents that might endanger the research. Where contact with individual children is minor, parental consent may often be obtained through a letter sent from the Principal’s office and returned with the parent’s sig- nature indicating that permission has been given. Other projects, especially those involving direct work with parents or long procedures with their children, may need more extensive communication. A meeting can be called by the Principal so that he and a member of the research staff can explain the project; if possible, written con-

SPECIAL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN CONDUCTING FIELD RESEARCH 35

sent should always be obtained. Again, if the study is explained and interpreted with parents’ probable interests and concerns in mind, successful and anxiety-free cooperation is more likely. It is natural that parents should want to know as much as possible about the research project, including what findings, if any, they can expect and when they can expect them.

It is not unreasonable to assume that cooperation will be obtained from school people and parents as long as they are convinced that their contribution is valuable and of some eventual importance. This can be the only explanation when one considers the hundreds of studies in which parents and schools have uncomplainingly accepted the enormous demands made on their time and privacy.

Anxiety and Resistance It is natural that some people in the field location should be wary and skeptical

when first confronted by a research project in which they are to participate. A careful field selection process, which probes for the strength and extent of possible re- distance, can avoid entering a situation where research could aggravate already existing conflicts. (See Section 11.) Sometimes one can predict with relative safety that in the course of continuing contact and active collaboration these feelings will dwindle. Some anxiety can often be avoided if teachers, principals, and parents realize that they are being told as much as possible about the study. It also helps them to know that, when the study is finished, they will learn those details which they cannot be told while the work is in progress. ( I t is essential, of course, to honor such a commitment.)

If appropriate, it is helpful to put the study into larger perspective, thus de- emphasizing any one person’s or school’s part. It might be one of many studies being conducted along the same lines elsewhere, or i t may be part of a larger program going on in many parts of the country. If each participant is told these facts, he will feel less revealed or vulnerable and therefore less anxious. Careful and con- spicuous protection of the anonymity of findings is reassuring. Verbal assurance often goes a long way if it is not overdone (in which case it can have the opposite effect intended). The school people’s trust and confidence that they will remain anonymous can often be demonstrated in practice. A teacher, who wants to know what other schools are taking part in the study and is refused this information, will know by implication that his participation, too, will remain confidential.

When the details of data gathering procedures are discussed, the investigator again has the opportunity of enlisting the teacher’s good will. Being observed in the classroom, for example, is at best difficult for most teachers. (It is often taken for granted, incidentally, that teachers are under some obligation to allow investigators into their classrooms, even though psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers, among others, are usually quite unreceptive to being observed at their work.) Some investigators may feel that i t is desirable to go into the classroom when the teacher least expects them. It mostly seems to lessen their anxiety about being observed, however, if they know in advance when observers will be in their classrooms and for how long. If a good deal of observation is planned, it is a relief for the teacher t o have perhaps one day in the week when she knows no observer will be present.

A good deal can depend on this kind of groundwork, laid at the beginning through a clear presentation and discussion of the work proposed and how i t will


affect the school staff from day to day. Actual or potential conflicts can then be seen more clearly, either as stemming from misunderstandings which can be resolved or as justifiably based in reality.

Opposition and reluctance to cooperate are not necessarily always due to mere prejudice or irrational anxieties about research. They may be quite justifiable in the light of the actual situation prevailing. School life and school programs are very full and minutely planned, with a momentum of their own, which does not easily accommodate research projects. The workload of teachers is often a heavy burden on them. It may be greater during some periods of time for special reasons, such as a rapidly changing school population which makes heavy demands on their time and skill in adapting the curriculum. There may be intra-school differences about curriculum and teaching methods which make it undesirable to have outsiders in the school, or the research may interfere too much with some of the programs going on.

The investigator’s own strong motivation can make him resentful when his proposal is rejected by the school he has chosen with such meticulous care; he may have these feelings even if his project is accepted with some reservations. It is necessary, therefore, to see the objective situation the school people are dealing with and relate the demands being made of them, in the name of research, to this reality.

The investigator’s institutional affiliation often affects the school’s willingness to accept, or even listen to, his research plans. School people will have fewer reservations about investigators who come from institutions they have had previous contact with, through other research, workshop or consultant services. Sometimes the presence of former students of the institution as teachers in the system or the institution’s reputation in other school systems where its staff has worked may influence the school’s decision to approve the research study.

As far as relationships with the parents is concerned, their questions can often be anticipated and prepared for. They may very well wish to know whether any special problems evident among their children accounted for their selection. They will wonder what will be found out about their children and therefore, indirectly, about them as parents. They might ask whether they can know their children’s I. Q. or whether there is “anything wrong” with them.

The giving, for most research in schools, is usually very one-sided. Principals, teachers, children, and parents, while they may give a great deal, get very little of direct value in return. It is surprising that in the face of often quite vague state- ments, such as that cooperation will in the long run increase the knowledge of learning and developmental processes, school personnel and parents are so consistently generous with their help. Even though they may often have justifiable feelings of ambivalence and trying practical problems, it is clear that the belief prevails that research will ultimately lead to socially beneficial results and practical value.

The investigator, a t one time or another, is always faced with the problem of striking a balance between conveying the purpose and procedure of the study as fully as possible, while not revealing those aspects which he must keep secret as part of the research design. For example, when only some children in a classroom are being studied, he may not be able to tell the teacher which children they are in case this knowledge influences the teacher’s behavior towards them. In such a case the teacher might accept the necessity to withhold this information. When a great part of the research has to be disguised for the sake of objectivity, the best course is


to say that revealing certain details of the study could distort the data. It may be helpful to use familiar analogies from other fields, such as the necessity to keep secret the identities of subjects who receive drugs and those who receive placebos, in order to ensure that the end results only reflect the effects of the drug.

There are other kinds of information, such as test results administered in the course of the study, which may also have to be kept confidential. Very often, such techniques are statistically unvalidated or in an experimental stage. Research staff may also lack the resources to provide the kind of guidance that should accompany the dissemination of findings from such techniques. Sometimes it may be possible to tell teachers and parents the group trends apparent from data without disclosing results for any individual. Explaining these problems as frankly as possible is usually the best course.

Once the research project has been accepted, an immediate and major job con- fronting the investigator is to integrate himself and his work as smoothly as possible with the normal activities and routine of the setting where he will work. In practice, this is often one of the most difficult problems because the setting has a non-research function to which its personnel are fully committed. The way this problem is handled may determine the success or failure of the project.

There are simple ways in which the investigator can help to soften the inevitable disruptions his work will cause. When teachers are needed for long interviews they can perhaps be seen after school and paid for their time. If they are inter- viewed during school hours, arrangements can be made with the principal for a substitute teacher. If quite some time has elapsed between the original presentation of the study and, for example, interviews with children, teachers and parents can be casually reminded that their children are about to be seen individuallyP

Investigators can also help to promote and sustain positive feelings toward the project by being flexible in their own plans to meet the convenience of the school people. There are times during the school year, such as open-school week or teacher- parent meetings, when teachers might feel the presence of observers in their classrooms or the need to arrange test sessions for individual children as an intolerable burden. The adaptation of research activities to respect these feelings can help greatly to make the school people feel at ease both with the investigator and his work.

Each school also has rules, regulations, and mores particular to itself. Seem- ingly minor matters of protocol may be of major importance to good relations. There may be special procedures about staying in the building after school hours; parking lots may provide only limited space for school personnel; some schools will expect the research staff to sign a visitor’s book every day.

The mingling of educators and research investigators may itself lead to compli- cations. Both groups may consciously or unconsciously feel they are competing and fall into attitudes of defense of their respective professions. The difference in status between research investigators, many of whom carry the title “Doctor,” and teachers can aggravate the competitive feelings of both groups. If the investigator is a psychologist, he may unwittingly be identified with psychiatry, a profession which

4It is useful to have had parental consent in writing for this because if a child is taken out of the classroom for research purposes with untoward consequences for him, the investigator or the school can be held legally responsible.

--

38 MARTIN KOHN A N D JEROME BEKER

arouses anxiety or a feeling of being threatened in many people. It is a help, therefore, if only the project director is referred to as “Doctor” and the research staff working in the school are known as (‘Mr., Mrs., or Miss.” Quite often the school people will ask the research staff questions about the study; if these questions can be channeled to the project director (who in any case is likely to answer them more satisfactorily because he has an overall picture) , it leaves the data-gathering personnel free from this kind of pressure.

Ideally, the investigator carries a balanced attitude of objectivity and non- involvement on the one hand, and friendliness, on the other. In the interest of objectivity, it is important for the investigator t o maintain a degree of “psychological distance’’ from the processes being studied. However, apparent non-involvement of researchers may lead school personnel to feel excluded and used and, therefore, resentful and negative toward the research. They may also respond to the investigator’s aloofness by wanting to involve him in personal ways such as trying to get him to take sides in organizational or ideological conflicts going on in the school or in the school system.

If the investigator is an accepting and sympathetic listener, but refrains from interpreting or judging the concerns in question, he is helping to keep the channels of communication open without putting himself or the other research staff in the position of giving opinions which may influence the results or which may hamper his functioning with other levels in the school hierarchy. Such impersonal, friendly contact can also fortuitously supply the investigator with useful data.

Research-Introduced Distortions It is widely recognized, even in the physical sciences, that the process of study

itself may modify the thing studied. The likelihood of this kind of distortion seems significantly greater in field research in the social sciences. First, controls cannot be used in a field setting in the same way as they are in a laboratory; second, research in the field brings outsiders into established interpersonal constellations, and often unwittingly, introduces new ideas, concerns and anxieties; third, the research investigators interact continually and personally with the people and phenomena being studied.

The simplest assumption is that the very presence of the investigator has a marked influence. With an observer in the classroom, for example, one teacher manifests disorganized anxiety, another will use the occasion to demonstrate what he considers to be best teaching methods, and a third may proceed as normal. The children may collaborate with the teacher by putting on an unusually good show or they may increase her anxiety by using the occasion to express accumulated frus- tration and resentment in any number of subtle or obvious ways.

Nevertheless, it would be an oversimplification to assume that the sheer presence of the investigator is the cause of their anxieties. By the way he conducts himself, the investigator has an active hand in magnifying or reducing these problems, depending on his awareness of certain facts and their implications. Some of these have already been discussed : - school-located research is being initiated from outside the school; - project approval most likely came “down” through the administrative

hierarchy ;

SPECItlL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS I N CONDUCTING FIELD RESEARCH 39

- the project may not be directly or simply concerned with education per se; - there may be no tangible gain for the school people from the research; - the research may be introducing problems of space, time, and scheduling; - the research is perhaps creating tensions affecting intraschool relationships; - school people may have understandable or misplaced fears of being observed; - the school people may have doubts that data are or will be kept anonymous.

Unless these issues are delicately and continually handled with due respect for the feelings involved, resistance is almost inevitable, thus distorting the data in many ways. For example, a teacher’s behavior in the classroom may change because he is suppressing feelings of hostility at being imposed upon and exploited, or interviews with the teachers or others may be empty and meaningless for similar reasons. The tendency of investigators to consider access to schools as a right rather than the privilege it is has already been discussed but bears re-emphasis here as a possible source of distortion of the data.

Undertaking research in a school may have the kind of personal significance for the investigator which can dull the edge of his objectivity and worsen his relations with the school staff. The attitudes which he may believe he is objectively observ- ing may be projections, drawn from his own school experience. Since schooling is a universal and significant early childhood experience in this society, field research in the schools is especially vulnerable to such distortion. Any investigator coming into a school brings with him deeply ingrained feelings and attitudes, often unconscious, about schools, teachers, and education in general; he may also have unresolved conflicts concerning other authority figures, such as his parents, which are reawakened by his presence in the school.

When such personal factors intervene, the investigator may err in his perception and reports of situations. An observer may react so strongly to the practices of a particular teacher that he is no longer acting in an objective, scientific sense. If his feelings are hostile, moreover, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to help teachers not to feel threatened by his work.

Anyone using schools for research purposes should attempt a frank self-ap- praisal in this area and so help to avoid distortion through projection. In fact, when- ever problems arise in the course of field research, the investigator should make i t a practice to examine his own feelings and behavior and not only the actions of others. He may otherwise be unaware of his own contribution, whether from his unconscious feelings or from his failure to take other people’s difficulties into account, or both.

11. CONSIDERATION FOR FIELD SELECTION It is sometimes overlooked that no school is quite like another, a fact significant

for almost any research study using a school as a field setting. Obvious variations, such as teacher and pupil population characteristics, are not referred to here; the investigator clearly has to know these to fulfill the demands of his research design. Beyond this kind of variation, however, there are many others, of a greater or lesser subtlety which, if looked for and known, may themselves contribute to the research design. For example, in one school system, several schools may be experiencing common curriculum problems a t a certain grade level. In one such school, the teaching staff and parent body may get together to discuss and increase their understanding


of the problem and clarify related goals and responsibilities. In another, the parent body may be split into factions over the problem and pressure the school in various ways. In a third school, there may simply be no communication between school and parents on the issue. Such naturally occurring variations (on a symptomatic level 9s described) can, after examination, be translated into theoretical formulations and used as experimental variables. This may be especially useful where the field situation is such that experimental manipulation is impractical or impossible. This kind of research method, the so- called “natural experiment” is discussed by Greenwood (1945), who defines it as one where “the experimenter does not control physically what he wants, he controls mentally by selecting from the environment what he needs.”

A description of the school situation, its representativeness and its possible effect on the variables under study is also an important part of the research data. A research psychologist, for example, who may work in a particular school simply because subjects there are readily available or because he wishes to observe children away from home, is at a disadvantage if he is not aware of the variations among schools and the characteristics of this particular one. In assessing and reporting his results, it may be tremendously important to have studied and described the context of the particular school. The results of a study of personality development of children may be greatly influenced by the value system fostered in the school where the study is conducted : whether, for instance, the school emphasizes obedience and conformity to authority or children’s interests as the primary motive for learning. Since it may not be feasible for the investigator to repeat the study in a series of different school environments, a full description of the school context may enable other investigators to duplicate the study in other settings and, on the basis of the description of the school in which the original study was done, interpret the meaning of similar or different results.

In selecting a school or school system, the investigator also is well advised to try to find out whether he is likely to get the necessary collaboration and whether there are existing or impending conflicts within the school system, or between school and community that may hamper or even destroy his work (though this, of course, is not always predictable). G. Nettler (1959) discusses one such situation arising from the parent-body and the community, which ended with the burning of personality tests which had already been administered to children in school.

The kind of information which could reduce the risk of this or other such oc- currences is categorized and listed below. To make the listing as practical as possible, each factor is in the form of a question or a series of questions. Beside each question are brief reasons for asking it and comments on its significance, as well as the main sources from which the information can be obtained. The list is not meant to be universally applicable; the reader no doubt will select what might be relevant for him. It should also be emphasized that these questions are not meant to cover the selection of a school for action research, i.e., where the investigator may be trying to effect a change in the field setting under study. The concern here is with the selection of a school for study purposes only, where the sole object is the collection of research data.

Since the pupil population of any school is also a part of the community population, and since the educational philosophy of a school may be strongly influenced


by the aspirations of the parent body; since, further, the school’s freedom of action is to some extent a function of the power-and-administrative structure of the community, Part I of the series of questions to follow is devoted to the community and Part I1 to the school system itself. The outline of categories within which the questions and comments appear is as follows:

PART I. THE COMMUNITY A. Basic Characteristics B. Power Structure

PART 11. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM A. Basic Characteristics B. The School Board C. The Superintendent D. The Schools with the System

PART I. THE COMMUNITY

A. Basic Characteristics 1. What is the population? 2.

3.

4.

Is it an urban, suburban or rural community? Is it a relatively self-sufficient community or is it a (‘bedroom” community? What is the median age of the inhabitants; is it an “old” or “young” community? What is the distribution of occupation, income, race, education, national origin, and religion?

The basic purpose here is to determine the characteristics of the population. Item A. 5 will provide some indications of the extent to which the schools in the community are likely to be segregated or heterogeneous with respect to such factors as race, color, socio-economic level, and religion. What is the range of variations with respect to the characteristics listed in 4? How much geographic segregation is there in the community? How stable is the distribution of variations? Is there population movement within the community due to slum clearance, new-coming, etc.?

Much of the information under A.l-5 is available from the U. S. Census. Some of it, particularly the material covered under A. 5, will have to be obtained from sources within the community itself. Is the community relatively stable or are many people moving in and out? What is the rate of change? What groups are moving in and out? All of the factors listed as A. 3,4, and 5 are relevant here.

Stability (A. 6 & 7) may be particularly important for long term studies. Where population change is rapid, the schools are in a state of flux; this may be ideal for certain kinds of research, e.g., where change itself is studied, but may have negative implications in other respects. Teachers, for example,

5 .

6.

7.


may be having a difficult time adapting teaching methods to the new population; this is particularly true where the lower socio-economic groups replace upper socio-economic groups. A teacher who has been teaching the fifth grade for years may suddenly be forced to teach on the third grade level to reach students of the same age. This kind of difficulty may reverberate through the entire school or school system. Rapid change of population is extremely common in the U. S. today, particularly within urban areas and the surround- ing suburbs.

Indirect evidence can be obtained through questions about new industries moving in, old industries moving out, slum areas being torn down, apartment houses being erected, etc. What picture in general does the community have of itself? Does it see itself as progressive and farsighted, or staid and conservative? Are new ideas welcome, or is there a strong tendency to stick to the “good old ways?”

This may often give a clue as to whether the community is likely to welcome or resist a research effort. For many smaller studies the factors evaluated here may not be relevant, but they may be very important for larger scope studies.

B. Power Structure

8.

1.

2 .

What is the local government like and who is in control? What kind of political influence does it exert over the Board of Education and the School System? What factions within the community are exerting informal power? Are there any ethnic, religious, racial, or socio-economic groups that are particularly influential? Have the formal and informal powers exerted any outstanding influence over the local schools? If so, what?

These questions (1, 2, and 3) are important in order to ascertain the kinds and sources of likely opposition, particularly in large scope studies. Are the formal or informal powers likely to be threatened by new ideas? Are there new ideas in the educational or personality field that they consider particularly controversial? Are there aspects of school life that they wish to hide? This information will have to be obtained and gleaned from local sources, usually informed residents of the community.

3.

PART 11. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM A. Basic Characteristics

1. What are the geographical boundaries of the school district? Question A. 1 is important in order to determine the relevance of the data

considered in Section I for the particular school system in question. In some cases, and this is particularly true for rural areas, school districts are not coterminous with communities or political subdivisions. How many pupils and teachers are within the system? How many schools at each level are included in the system?

from which he will be able to select his sample.

2 . 3.

A. 2 and 3 tell the investigator the number of potential subjects and schools


4. What is the cost per pupil in the school system? 5 . What is the pupil-teacher ratio? What is the size of the average class and

what is the range? A. 4 and 5, particularly 4, are relevant as rough indices of the quality of the

educational effort. The range of variation is quite large. These data give important indications as how typical or atypical the school system is.

All of the information covered in this section, with the exception of A. 1, is available in Biennial Survey of Education i n the United States.K

B. The School Board 1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

Is the school board elected or appointed? If appointed, how and by whom? What interests, socio-economic, ethnic, religious, etc., are represented on the school board? How are these related to the overall power structure of the community?,

The issues raised in this section may be of no importance to certain kinds of research projects and of utmost importance to others. Where the research in- volves potentially controversial matters, such as issues related to mental health, innovations in education, etc., the answers to questions posed here may spell the difference between success and failure. What does the school board stand for in terms of educational philosophy, fiscal policy, etc? Is the school board particularly preoccupied with these or any other important issues? Was it elected or appointed in order to pressure certain policies in relation to these issues?

The questions are only suggestive of major areas of relevance. They are intended to assess what community powers are likely to be represented on the board, who the board works closely in collaboration with, whether the board represents vested interests or is free to function in the best interest of education in the community, whether any ideas or areas are likely to be particularly controversial for its members. Is the board likely to agree to and be interested in new ventures, experiments and ideas or is it likely to wish to maintain the status quo? What is the relationship between the board and the professional educators, particularly the superintendent of schools? Does the board keep a relatively strong check on the superintendent, or does it grant him autonomy in professional matters? Does the school board consider it important and necessary to have research proposals to be carried out in its schools submitted to it? Only proposals of large scope or all proposals? Does it tend to follow the superintendent’s re- commendations in these matters?

T h e Biennial Survey (along with the U. S. Census and local sources of information) is one of the basic tools of the researcher using school settings. It is prepared by the U. S. Office of Education, and available in several chapters (each published as a separate booklet) from the Government Printing Office. The chapter on “Statistics of Local School Systems” contains a wide variety of data on pupils, staff and finances of school systems in “cities, suburban cities, county units and rural counties.” Each of the latter four groupings is published separately. Data is not, however, provided for certain of the smaller school systems.


B. 4, 5, and 6 are intended in particular to assess how the board conceives of its working relationship with the superintendent and his professional staff- what kinds of influence it exerts over them and to what extent the Superintend- ent of Schools as the representative of the Professional Educational Staff is likely to have a free hand in matters within his professional competence. Of particular importance is the extent to which the board is likely to follow the lead of the professional staff in accepting a research proposal or needs to be worked with independently to secure acceptance.

All of the information in this section needs to be obtained through interviews with community residents, board members, or the local school staff.

C . T h e Super in t enden t 1

2.

Does the superintendent have the respect of the board? What is his administrative relationship to the board? Does he function relatively autonomously? What reputation does the superintendent enjoy in the community? Is he respected as a professional administrator? Is he able to mediate successfully among different interests of groups in the community and handle them diplo- matically? How does the superintendent function in his administrative relationships within the school system? Is he an able administrator? Does he exercise positive leadership and command the respect of his principals and staff? How closely does he exercise supervision in the various areas? How much autonomy does he grant individual school principals? What is his educational philosophy? What are his main educational aims? How aware is he of educational problems, and how willing to try new ventures aiming towards solutions? How free is he to do so?

The importance of the issues raised here depend on the scope of the study. In any weighty effort, it is important to be able to rely on a superintendent who commands respect and who, through the use of his personal prestige, can help gain acceptance for a project and help it over its rough spots. The superintendent is the “gate-keeper” through which access to the board, the school and the community is obtained. In any research involving educational ideas directly, it is important to know what he stands for, how he views educational objectives and methods, where he is free to explore, where his freedom is limited and by whom. What conflicts, if any, exist within the school system with respect to differing educational philosophies and practices? What conflicts, if any, exist within the system, or between the system and the community, with respect to segregation issues, academic emphases, fiscal policies?

It is important to know about such overtly or covertly existing conflicts- in order to be able either to by-pass them or to avoid school systems where the research and/or action effort itself is likely to become embroiled in or hampered by such conflicts.

Again, this information is mostly obtained through local sources and through direct contact with superintendents, board members and community leaders.

3.

4.

5.


D. The Schools Within the System 1.

2.

How are ethnic, racial, religious, socio-economic groups, etc., distributed among different schools in the system? What is the distribution of I. Q.’s and achievement scores among the different schools of the system? If the system has a free lunch program, what percent,- age of students within each school are beneficiaries?

Questions 1 and 2 are intended to reveal the amount of homogeneity, hetero- geneity and the nature of the population in the different schools in the system. Frequently, exact information is not directly available from the school system itself. Relevant (although crude) information can be gleaned from a knowledge of the neighborhoods within which the different schools are located. Some relevant census data may be available, depending on the boundaries of the census tracts. Sometimes a city housing bureau will be able to have available data from neighborhood surveys; this agency will frequently have available the distribution of slum areas in the various sections of the community. Some information may also be obtained from advertising agencies that have had need for this information to select samples for market research.

Some indirect information with respect to socio-economic level can be obtained directly from the schools themselves. Evidence is accumulating (Sex- ton, 1961) that lower class schools are generally characterized by a syndrome of lower I. Q.’s and lower academic achievement. I. Q. reading and arithmetic achievement test scores are generally available. These scores are helpful in themselves in characterizing the intellectual and academic level of the school population. Where the system has a free lunch program, information may be available about the number of pupils in the different schools who avail themselves of it. Are there any “Special Service” Schools within the system, schools with double sessions and triple sessions, schools with a high number of “delin- quent” children, schools with relatively high truancy rates?

Question 3 is intended to select schools at the extreme of the lower class range - schools in slum areas, although double and tripple sessions may not in themselves signify that the school is serving children from slum areas. How much administrative autonomy do the principals in the system have? How much autonomy does each of the principals within the system grant his teachers? What is the nature and quality of staff relationships in the different schools? What is the level of morale? Do any of the schools have an unusual degree of intrastaff conflict?

This information will help to determine to what extent the principal is free to decide research issues, or to what extent he needs to obtain specific permission from his superintendent ; furthermore, this information will help to determine how good an atmosphere for research the different schools in the system have and whether the staff relationships in the school are likely to promote or retard the success of a research effort. What is the educational philosophy of the principal and his staff?

This is important as a means of predicting whether there is likely to be any discrepancy or conflict with the concepts and ideas in the study, whether they

3.

4.

5.


are likely to clash with the prevailing climate of opinion. The point is particularly important where educational philosophy and practice are themselves variables to be studied. What is the composition of the teaching staff in each of the schools in the system? From what teacher’s college do they tend to come? What is the rate of staff turnover? What is the distribution of “permanent)’ substitute teachers in the different schools? Are there marked differences in the average length of employment of teachers in the different schools? If so, what are they and how do they relate to other variables?

Answers to questions posed here can often serve as objective indices for factors mentioned above. For example, the teacher’s college from which the teachers come may give clues to the educational philosophy and climate of the schools. High rate of staff turnover may be indicative of low morale or unusually difficult teaching conditions. A high number of substitute teachers is often found in difficult school situations, schools in high delinquency areas where teachers attempt to avoid teaching on a permanent basis. Length of employment similarly is indicative of the stability of a teaching staff, of morale, etc. What are the relationships of the principals and their schools to the immediate community and parent body? Is there a PTA? How does it function? What are its aims and purposes? How broadly based is it? What does the parent body expect from the school? Are there conflicting elements in the community with clashing expectations for the school and clashing values and goals for their children?

Particularly for studies which involve individual work with children and / or parents, it is important to assess the quality of the relationship between the school and the community. Since the investigator’s main avenue to the parents is through the school, it is important to assess whether the parent body is likely to follow the lead of the principal and collaborate with the research. An active PTA can also be very helpful in securing cooperation. Where there are divergent elements in the parent body, it is important to assess whether this situation makes it worthwhile or undesirable to work in that particular school.

6.

7 .

REFERENCES Board of Education of the City of New York, Bureau of Educational Research, January 1962. Co-

BALDWIN, A. L. The study of child behavior and development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.). Handbook

CASTANEDA, A., & FAHEL, LEILA, S. The relationship between the psychological investigator and the

GREENWOOD, E. Experimental sociology, a study i n method. New York: King’s Crown Press, 1945. ISCOE, I . On harmonious relationships with public schools. Amer. Psychologist, 1959,14, 694-695. MULLEN, FRANCES A. The school as a psychological laboratory. Amer. Psychologist, 1959,14, 53-56. NEITLER, GWEN. Test burning in Texas. Amer. Psychologist, 1959, 14,682-683. SEXTON, PATRICIA C. Education and income. New York: Viking Press, 1961.

operative procedures governing research proposals (mimeo).

of research methods i n child development. New York: Wiley, 1960. Pp. 3-35.

public schools. Amer. Psychologist. 1961, 16, 201-203.

Documents

Special methodological considerations in conducting field research in a school setting