UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Negotiation of ethical principles and procedures in case study evaluation : the Humanities Curriculum… Bath, Stephen William 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 B38.pdf [ 11.08MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054747.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054747-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054747-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054747-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054747-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054747-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054747-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054747-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054747.ris

Full Text

NEGOTIATION OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES IN CASE STUDY EVALUATION: THE HUMANITIES CURRICULUM PROJECT AND THE SUCCESS AND FAILURE AND RECENT INNOVATION PROJECT By STEPHEN WILLIAM BATH B.A., The Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1983 ® Stephen William Bath, 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date July 1983 DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT This thesis reports on the methodology and the use of the case study by educational researchers associated with the Centre for Applied Research i n Education (CARE) i n the University of East Anglia. The role of negotiation i n e s t a b l i s h i n g c e r t a i n key p r i n c i p l e s and procedures when case studying the CARE group's Humanities Curriculum Project (HCP) and Success and F a i l u r e and Recent Innovation Project (SAFARI) led to the developmnt of a 'SAFARI e t h i c ' This ethic was a response to issues confronting an approach to evaluation derived from the a l t e r n a t i v e ' i l l u m i n a t i v e ' paradigm of educational research. A conceptual analysis of the issues and strategies dealt with when developing t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e evaluation approach reveals a fundamental problem. The SAFARI ethic i s shown to lack a p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e without which the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the other two fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and the r i g h t to know i s i n i m i c a l . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v I INTRODUCTION 1 Problem and Overview 1 P r i n c i p l e s and Procedures 3 Primary Sources . . . . . . 5 The Cambridge Conferences 7 The CARE Group . . . 9 SAFARI II AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF RESEARCH 11 The Agricultural-Botany Paradigm 13 The Behavioural Objectives Approach . 15 Democratic Evaluation 20 Negotiation of Interpretation 26 Condensed Fieldwork 28 Problems With C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . . . . . 37 The P r i n c i p l e of J u s t i c e 38 The Knight's Move 41 I III AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO RESEARCH 50 An A l t e r n a t i v e Response to the P s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l 50 The Controlled R e l a t i v i t y Paradigm 53 Systematic Inquiry Made Public 57 S e n s i t i z i n g Versus D e f i n i t i v e Concepts 62 Progressive Focussing 68 Portrayal 74 IV THE SOCIO-POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH PARADIGM 78 The P o l i t i c a l Nature of Research 78 Methodological Implications 83 The F a l l a c y of O b j e c t i v i t y 85 V AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF EVALUATION 90 Evaluation Versus T r a d i t i o n a l Research 90 MacDonald's Four Propositions 93 A Non-Objective's View . . . . . 95 The H o l i s t i c View 97 The Innovation Gap 97 The Schools Council 100 Multiple D e f i n i t i o n s of Innovation 108 i i i CHAPTER EMS. VI AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO EVALUATION 110 The Humanities Curriculum Approach 110 Value Decisions 113 P o l i t i c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . 115 Ambitions of the Project 117 I n t r i n s i c Recommendations 120 Controversial Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 The HCP Evaluation 127 The Measurement Phase 129 A Fresh Approach to Evaluation 130 Information C r i t e r i a 133 HCP Evaluation Reports 134 VII IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT APPROACH ON THE EVALUATION OF THE HCP 13 7 The Halo E f f e c t 138 The Hawthorne E f f e c t 139 The Status Enhancement E f f e c t . . . . . . . . . 142 Simbiotic Relationships 145 Fear of Reprisal 147 Cognitive Dissonance . . 149 I n s t i t u t i o n a l Dissonance 152 Evaluating Dissonance 153 Confused Thinking 155 VIII IMPLICATIONS OF THE CASE STUDY APPROACH TO CURRICULUM EVALUATION 159 The Bias of the A l i e n Subjective Perception . . . . . . . . 160 G e n e r a l i s a b i l i t y 165 V a l i d i t y 170 An Indeterminate Perspective 172 IX THE NEGOTIATION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF THE FOUR HCP CASE STUDIES 175 Introduction 175 The R o s e h i l l Study 178 Canon Robert's School 180 Case Studies of the D i f f u s i o n Stage 192 Redmore 193 Brookland/Brookshire 197 X SUMMARY 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY 216 APPENDIX A 225 APPENDIX B 227 i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Thanks must go to C e c i l e Hoey, the publications secretary, of the Centre for Research i n Education i n the Un i v e r s i t y of East Anglia. Ms Hoey was indispensable i n f a c i l i t a t i n g the 'trans-oceanic' l i t e r a t u r e search involved i n the writing of this t h e s i s . Her prompt and safe forwarding of materials and her 'chasing up' of mimeographed papers and out of p r i n t materials was greatly appreciated. v 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This report provides an understanding of cer t a i n e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s and negotiation procedures used by a group of researchers associated with the Centre f o r Applied Research i n Education (CARE) i n the University of East Anglia, England. Two projects conducted by the CARE group have been chosen which were concerned with curriculum innovations: the Humanities Curriculum Project (HCP), and the Success and F a i l u r e and Recent Innovation (SAFARI) Proj e c t . These projects led to the development of an action based view of educational research of which the p r i n c i p a l method of evaluation was the case study. Out of the i r experience, CARE members who used the case study evolved a concern with e t h i c a l problems and the role of negotiation i n es t a b l i s h i n g the key p r i n c i p l e s : the r i g h t to c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , the ri g h t to know, and the r i g h t to j u s t i c e . Problem and Overview Central to case study evaluation are e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s that inform the c o l l e c t i o n and use of information. The CARE researchers have pursued case study evaluation for a number of years, and more than any group, have written r e f l e c t i v e l y and c r i t i c a l l y on t h e i r own work. The question addressed by thi s t h e s i s , therefore, i s : What e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s guided the case study evaluation of the Humanities Curriculum Project and the Success and F a i l u r e and Recent Innovation Project? 2 The central p r i n c i p l e s and the set of procedures for case study negotiation, and the premises and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for these p r i n c i p l e s and procedures, informed the process of a p o r t r a y a l of an instance; e x e m p l i f i -cations of c u r r i c u l a r action were bounded and validated by the negotiation of those involved. The three p r i n c i p l e s guide the researcher and research p a r t i c i p a n t s while data gathering; the negotiated release of information; the negotiated control of both access and release; and the negotiated safeguards against the enstrangement of the separate e t h i c s . The p r i n c i p l e s and procedures are as follows: The F i r s t P r i n c i p l e i s the Right to Privacy. Premise One. Participants have control over the facts of t h e i r l i v e s . Premise Two. Researchers negotiate access to information i n exchange for c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . J u s t i f i c a t i o n . Educational research has consequences for the l i v e s of those involved. The Second P r i n c i p l e i s the Right to Know. Premise. The researcher may exercise control over the release of information i n the i n t e r e s t of d i f f e r e n t groups. J u s t i f i c a t i o n . Democratically j u s t i f i e d release pre-empts the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of s e c t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . The Third P r i n c i p l e i s the Right to J u s t i c e . Premise. Negotiation requires equal l i b e r t y and f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i a l and economic advantage. J u s t i f i c a t i o n . The exercise of c o n t r o l requires f a m i l i a r i t y and a s p i r i t of s e l f - d e n i a l . Procedural Standards must be Negotiated. Premise. Procedural standards must be subjected to on-going negotiation as some groups have more knowledge i n s i t u a t i o n s which may be employed expediently. J u s t i f i c a t i o n . No one group should gain control of knowledge. P r i n c i p l e s and Procedures The discrepancies that continued to thwart a successful accomplishment of case study p r a c t i c e clustered around the developing and safeguarding of two e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . The problematic ethics concerned the r i g h t to c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and the r i g h t to know. The f i r s t p r i n c i p l e was based on two premises about the role of the researcher and the p a r t i c i p a n t s of research during the information gathering. Participants of educational research were i n c o n t r o l of the facts of t h e i r l i v e s . The educational researcher had to negotiate access to information i n exchange for c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . The second problematic p r i n c i p l e involved the role of the researcher i n releasing information. The major CARE premise was that a democratically j u s t i f i e d p u b l i c r i g h t to know could pre-empt negotiated c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . The researcher could exercise control over the release of information i n the i n t e r e s t of d i f f e r e n t groups. The problem was the i n s u f f i c i e n c y of safeguards against enstrangement of these two e t h i c s . Procedural standards could not be a r r i v e d at to ensure that no one group could gain control over knowledge. A p r i n c i p l e was missing, and the f i r s t two p r i n c i p l e s alone were i n i m i c a l . 4 CARE advocates and c r i t i c s discovered an antagonism between the r i g h t to privacy and the r i g h t of the public to know the facts of educational research. The inconsistency between the two ethics could not be ameliorated without the acceptance of a t h i r d p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e . If p a r t i c i p a n t s were to be given only c o n d i t i o n a l c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y (as there were democratically j u s t i f i a b l e instances that pre-empted t h e i r ownership to the facts of t h e i r l i v e s ) then they needed to have on-going negotiation of the procedures for e x e r c i s i n g t h i s authority i n the maintenance of the r i g h t . Just conduct required deliminations that would provide equal l i b e r t y and f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i a l and economic advantage. This a d d i t i o n a l concept was that of the negotiation of contiguous control over access and release of information. J u s t i f i c a t i o n came from the experience where researchers or p a r t i c u l a r groups could use p r i v i l e g e d information (the 'whole or complete picture') to c o n t r o l negotiation. Unfair advantage could be manipulated expediently. The three p r i n c i p l e s and the set of procedures that evolved from the CARE concern with a l t e r n a t i v e evaluation and from the experiences of the Humanities and SAFARI projects are c e n t r a l to action-based research. The key concepts that define these ethics of case study are s i g n i f i c a n t c r i t e r i a for the p r a c t i c e of c u r r i c u l a r evaluation. Negotiation and the CARE e t h i c a l premises are a developing method of bounding and v a l i d a t i n g the portrayal of an instance of educational a c t i o n . The formation of the SAFARI e t h i c s under discussion can be traced i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of an a l t e r n a t i v e view of research (Chapter I I ) . This a l t e r n a t i v e was a response to argued inadequacies of the ' p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l ' or 'agricultural-botany paradigm. 1 The a l t e r n a t i v e view to research resulted i n an a l t e r n a t i v e approach (Chapter I I I ) . This approach accepted the 5 prominence of 'educational research 1 over 'research on education.' The a l t e r n a t i v e view and approach to research had many implications (Chapter IV). As a r e s u l t of the a l t e r n a t i v e s to t r a d i t i o n a l research, a s i m i l a r a l t e r n a t i v e view of evaluation (Chapter V) and approach to evaluation (Chapter VI) were devised. The HCP Development Team was an exemplar of t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e approach to curriculum research. The HCP Evaluation Team Team provided a working out of the a l t e r n a t i v e approach to evaluation (Chapter V I ) . The HCP Development Team and the Evaluation Team had many t r a d i t i o n a l issues to deal with (Chapter V I I ) . Furthermore, the adoption of the case study approach brought many unique issues (Chapter V I I I ) . The early e f f o r t s of the HCP evaluators were not 'successful' (Chapter IX). Yet, the case study experiences greatly informed the developing SAFARI e t h i c . These p r i n c i p l e s and procedures were more a response to the HCP examples of what ought not to be done, than the extension of a successful ' s t y l e ' . The expanded notion of case study developed by SAFARI was also problematic, however. Both external and i n t e r n a l c r i t i c s perceived a missing p r i n c i p l e -the absence of which reduced the SAFARI procedures to 'manipulation' (Chapter X). This p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e was a means of providing adequate negotiation of p r i n c i p l e s and procedures for case study. Primary Sources The l i t e r a t u r e to be drawn upon was compiled from those writings addressing the methodological and epistemological debate surrounding the attempts to provide an a l t e r n a t i v e to the t r a d i t i o n a l research on education. This debate informed the development of the s p e c i f i c case study p r i n c i p l e s and procedures negotiated. The in t e n t i s not to review the l i t e r a t u r e , nor 6 to provide a b i b l i o g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t i o n . Neither i s this report to be considered a curriculum c r i t i q u e of either p r o j e c t . The writings included for analyses are a l l a v a i l a b l e from the Centre for Applied Research i n Education or are published materials. No d i s s e r t a t i o n s nor unpublished papers (unavailable from CARE) are included. The CARE group writings were written at d i f f e r e n t times between the inception of the HCP and the publishing of SAFARI papers (1967-81). Authors were involved to varying degrees and at d i f f e r e n t periods. The concerns d e a l t with were e c l e c t i c : there was l i t t l e sense of a contiguous t r a d i t i o n . Hence, many of the elaborate themes i n this l i t e r a t u r e were excluded for purposes of this present t h e s i s . Issues concerning the comparison of case study research to mass observation, i n v e s t i g a t i v e journalism, documentary f i l m making or l i t e r a r y n arration have been avoided ( c f . Barton and Lawn, 1981; Humble and Simons, 1978; Kemmis, 1981; MacDonald, 1977; Simons, 1980 and 1977; Stenhouse, 1979b; Stake, 1978; Walker and MacDonald, 1975; and Walker, 1981). The methodological problems of p a r t i c i p a n t observation and open-ended interviewing (the p r i n c i p a l techniques of case study) have not been dealt with except as they inform the issues and strategies of the negotiation of e t h i c s and procedures. The 'race r e l a t i o n s pack' controversy of the HCP i s not taken up. And f i n a l l y , the phenomenological umbra that shadowed discussions of the s o c i a l construction of r e a l i t y are discussed only to c l a r i f y . The apparent pervasiveness of such concepts would provide enough discussion to constitute another t h e s i s . The scope of the l i t e r a t u r e includes the early writings about the Raising of the School Leaving Age (ROSLA) i n i t i a t i v e to which the HCP was a 7 response ( c f . Great B r i t a i n , Early Leaving, 1954; Nisbet, 1973; Schools Council, 1965, 1967, 1970 and 1970); a l l of the summative publications of the HCP (Humble, 1971; Humble and Simons, 1978; MacDonald and E l l i o t , 1975; MacDonald, 1978; Rudduck, 1976; and Verma, 1980); the interim papers of SAFARI (MacDonald and Walker, 1974; Norris, 1977); the summative accounts of the two seminal Cambridge Conferences (Hamilton, et a l . , 1977 and Simons, 1980) as well as the (too numerous to l i s t ) relevant CARE associate w r i t i n g s . The Cambridge Conferences The analysis of the CARE e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s guiding case study provides an understanding of important issues regarding the access and release of knowledge i n general, but p a r t i c u l a r l y i n reference to an a l t e r n a t i v e paradigm of research ascribed to by a group f i r s t associated at a Cambridge Un i v e r s i t y conference. In 1972 the N u f f i e l d Foundation sponsored a conference that explored no n - t r a d i t i o n a l modes of evaluation. The conference was held at C h u r c h i l l College i n Cambridge and was convened by Barry MacDonald and Malcolm P a r l e t t . At t h i s time MacDonald was the d i r e c t o r of the Humanities Curriculum Project Evaluation Unit. The HCP was i n i t i a l l y funded by the N u f f i e l d Foundation and the Schools Council. Malcolm P a r l e t t was involved with David Hamilton i n conducting the N u f f i e l d Resources for Learning P r o j e c t . Out of this research came a seminal discussion paper for the colloquium: "Evaluation as Illumination: a New Approach to the Study of Innovatory Programmes" (Hamilton and P a r l e t t , 1976). The mutual concerns of MacDonald, P a r l e t t and Hamilton set out the aim of the conference: "guidelines for future develop-8 merit i n non-t r a d i t i o n a l modes of evaluation." Subsequently, a reader i n 'a l t e r n a t i v e or i l l u m i n a t i v e ' curriculum evaluation was published by these authors, et a l . : Beyond the Numbers Game: A Reader i n Educational  Evaluation (1977). In December of 1975 a second Cambridge conference was convened by Barry MacDonald and Rob Walker, in l i n e with the two researchers' adoption of the method of case study, the conference was e n t i t l e d "Methods of Case Study i n Educational Research and Evaluation." A p r i n c i p l e aim of this colloquium was to d i s p e l the "mystique of method" c r i t i c i s m that was prevalent against the " i l l u m i n a t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e " to t r a d i t i o n a l evaluation. Illuminative evaluators were accused of r e l y i n g on enigmatic interpersonal s k i l l s as a method. P a r t i a l l y due to some in-house advocates, the f l e d g l i n g a l t e r n a t i v e was acquiring an assumed methodological and epistemological stance that claimed the methods for forming judgements and interpretations about educational phenomena were in e x p l i c a b l e - as they r e l i e d on " i n t u i t i o n " (Simons, 1980: 6). The conference f e l l short of i t s goal to provide a handbook of p r i n c i p l e s , procedures and methods of case study i n education. The actual book " a r i s i n g from the conference" was: Towards a Science of the Singular: Essays about  Case Study i n Educational Research and Education. Editor, Helen Simons. Centre f o r Applied Research i n Education, Un i v e r s i t y of East Anglia. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers #10, 1980. In Towards a Science of the Singular, Helen Simons brought together the " c o l l e c t i v e thinking" of those authors concerned with the theory and practice of case study. Her book, however, was e x p l i c i t l y not a "state of the a r t " account. 9 The CARE Group The researchers who attended the conferences and continued to contribute to an emerging t r a d i t i o n of case study were distinguishable by t h e i r association with the Centre for Applied Research i n Education i n the University of East Anglia, England. CARE was established i n 1970 with the r e l o c a t i o n of the Humanities Curriculum P r o j e c t . The HCP had been centred i n P h i l l i p a Fawcett College of Education from 1967. MacDonald became the Schools Study O f f i c e r , i n i t i a l l y , then the d i r e c t o r of evaluation. The d i r e c t o r of the Project was Lawrence Stenhouse, and he also became the d i r e c t o r of CARE. SAFARI At the same time as the conference, and subsequent to the opening of CARE, MacDonald submitted a proposal from the Centre to the Ford Foundation for a Success and F a i l u r e and Recent Innovation Project (Ford SAFARI). When th i s proposal was accepted, MacDonald e n l i s t e d the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the majority of the conference members. They were to study "'medium term' e f f e c t s of several recently concluded projects i n the curriculum of B r i t i s h secondary schools" (MacDonald, 1974). I n i t i a l l y MacDonald proposed to use " h i s t o r i c a l reconstruction and analysis" as an approach. When SAFARI received the go-ahead, MacDonald (as the director) appointed Rob Walker as the Senior Research Associate. Walker came to CARE from the N u f f i e l d Secondary Science Programme, when funding was terminated (1972). He became the sole f u l l - t i m e member of SAFARI. Walker and MacDonald "took the best part of a year to a r r i v e at a resolution to work with what [they] c a l l e d 'case study' methods" (Walker, 1981: 199). 10 MacDonald and Walker proposed, i n "Case Study and the S o c i a l Philosophy of Educational Research" (1974), to examine the "pedigree" of the case study as a research method. They wrote some three years after the beginning of SAFARI that a method had not been s u c c e s s f u l l y reached. This acknowledgement came seven years after the s t a r t of the Humanities Curriculum Project. MacDonald and Walker stated: As we imagine i t and describe i t , educational case study has as yet no p r a c t i t i o n e r s . We have attempted to describe a kind of research we f e e l ourselves working towards rather than one we have s u c c e s s f u l l y accomplished. (1974: 11) At l e a s t u n t i l 1981, successful p r a c t i c e of the case study as educational research was s t i l l only an a s p i r a t i o n ( c f . MacDonald, 1978b; Humble and Simons, 1978; E l l i o t , 1977; Simons, 1980; Kemmis, 1980; Jenkins, 1980; and Lawn and Barton, 1981). 11 CHAPTER II AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF RESEARCH In his a r t i c l e "Case Study and Case Records: Towards a Contemporary History of Education" (1978), Stenhouse outlined some inadequacies of the dominant paradigm of educational research. At the same time, he described a need for research that was based on an adequate notion of teacher "action": The encounter with the unpredicted c a l l s for con-tinous responsive i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as a basis for re s o u r c e f u l action, and he [the teacher] f i n d s i t more e f f e c t i v e to base such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on a non-behaviourist model which allows as data the reported experience of others and possibly the r e f l e c t i v e testimony of pupils as well. Second, he i s c a l l e d upon to j u s t i f y his own actions i n terms which imply a frame of responsible a c t i o n . Third, his own actions are at stake and he cannot observe h i s own behaviour purged of his own r e f l e c t i o n on his experience. He needs a theory of action as i t i s experienced, not simply a theory of behaviour. The device of conceptualising action as behaviour i s adopted only i n order to make possible a strategy of observational study productive i n many f i e l d s , but apparently y i e l d i n g disappointing r e s u l t s i n education. If we are to go back to basics, we must, I believe, question this concept of behaviour and return to commonsense views of educational phenomena as com-p r i s i n g actions i n the f u l l e s t sense. Actions, not behaviours, are the raw data, so raw that we s h a l l not assume that we know p r e c i s e l y how to conceptualise them to make them accessible to study. (p. 23) The CARE group, of which Stenhouse was the d i r e c t o r , based much of i t s case study r a t i o n a l e on the necessary development of a theory of action and a return to commonsense views of educational phemomena. This was a re a c t i o n against the "agricultural-botany" view of research i n which a p r i o r i concepts defined strategies for observational study; these ' d e f i n i t i v e 12 concepts' often superseded the commonsense conceptualizations of the p a r t i c i p a n t . In place of research on education, the CARE group's educational  research o r i g i n a l l y derived from what they c a l l e d the i l l u m i n a t i v e model. Subsequently, the case study was adopted as the means of conducting democratic evaluation. Rather than i l l u m i n a t i n g the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' world to them, the democratic approach assumed that no one d e f i n i t i o n of a s i t u a t i o n was p o s s i b l e . The case worker only c o l l e c t e d d e f i n i t i o n s which were then val i d a t e d by a continuous process of negotiation by those involved. The i n t e n t to portray the i n t e r - s u b j e c t i v i t y (or multiple r e a l i t i e s ) of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s , i n an attempt to inform t h e i r decision making, led to the development of 'condensed fieldwork'. The premises were that the researcher had to carry out the case study under the every-day r e s t r a i n t s confronted by the p a r t i c i p a n t ; that the language of the study should not supersede common-sense notions; and that data, to be useful to decision makers, had to be turned over q u i c k l y . The time demands of democratic evaluation - where both the description of the phenomena c o n s t i t u t i n g data and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of educational action were negotiable - and the time r e s t r a i n t s of condensed fieldwork, re s u l t e d i n a tension that undermined the procedures safeguarding e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . As a r e s u l t , a c a l l was made to re-introduce judgement into the CARE proceedings. Access to and release of data were concomitant procedures to be negotiated. Since i t was i n the i n t e r e s t of a l l groups to protect t h e i r l i b e r t y , then each group needed to negotiate an answer to the question, "What constituted release of information i n the public i n t e r e s t ? " Only when th i s conditional c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was acknowledged, and the 13 p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e applied, could the dilemma between access and release be addressed. The Agricultural-Botany Paradigm The CARE group was involved i n the development of an a l t e r n a t i v e to the t r a d i t i o n a l paradigm that defined educational research. The epistemological and methodological premises of the agricultural-botany paradigm were challenged. This paradigm was a l t e r n a t e l y described as the "psycho-s t a t i s t i c a l , " a f t e r Stephen Feinburg coined the phrase i n "Next Steps i n Q u a l i t a t i v e Data C o l l e c t i o n " (1977). Lawrence Stenhouse addressed the a s p i r a t i o n towards an a l t e r n a t i v e to this s t y l e of research at a conference of the S c o t t i s h Educational Research Association (SERA): The i l l u m i n a t i v e t r a d i t i o n , sometimes c a l l e d "portrayal", sometimes c a l l e d "humanistic" sometimes c a l l e d " d e s c r i p t i v e " , now seems to have got off the ground both i n research and i n evaluation. I t no loner needs to f i g h t to e s t a b l i s h i t s e l f as an a l t e r a n t i v e to the " p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l " paradigm worthy of con-si d e r a t i o n ; and today I want to look from a p o s i t i o n of sympathy at the problem of e s t a b l i s h i n g acceptable standards within that research s t y l e . (1979b: 5) David Hamilton considered the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l s t y l e a derivation of the agricultural-botany paradigm, and he traced the development of this l a t t e r type of research i n "Educational Research and the Shadows of Francis Galton and Ronald Fisher" (1980b): The mental measurement movement began i n the nineteenth century with Francis Galton's work on i n d i v i d u a l differences; the experimental movement 'took o f f i n the 1930's with the impetus offered by Ronald Fisher's research with a g r i c u l t u r a l b o t a n i s t s . In B r i t a i n both 14 these educational research t r a d i t i o n s were imported from psychology where they developed side by side i n r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n . . . . (p.154) Hamilton asserted that procedures were rashly deduced and applied to educational research from the writings of these two pioneers. This borrowing resulted because the writers' concepts "not only agreed with the current d e f i n i t i o n s of science but also resonated harmoniously with the prevalent educational ideologies" (p.163). Hamilton c r i t i c i z e d this a p p l i c a t i o n on the premise that the agricultural-botany paradigm " l a i d the bases for analyses of educational phenomena that play down the importance of h i s t o r i c a l and s o c i e t a l influences" (p.163). Relegation of such important influences, i n deference to methodological exigencies, was considered to be an inexorable feature of this research: ...applying the agricultural-botany paradigm to the study of innovations i s often a cumbersome and inadequate procedure. We are not, of course, arguing here against the use of experimental l o n g i t u d i n a l or survey research methods as such. Rather, for the reasons suggested, we submit that they are usually inappropriate, i n e f f e c t i v e or i n s u f f i c i e n t for p r o j e c t evaluation purposes. Too often, the evaluation f a l l s short of i t s own t a c i t claims to be c o n t r o l l e d , exact and unambiguous. Rarely, i f ever, can educational projects be subject to s t r i c t enough c o n t r o l to meet the design's requirements. Innovations, i n p a r t i c u l a r , are vulnerable to manifold extraneous influences. Yet the t r a d i t i o n a l evaluator ignores these. He i s restrained by the d i c t a t e s of his paradigm to seek generalized findings along pre-ordained l i n e s . His d e f i n i t i o n of empirical r e a l i t y i s narrow. One e f f e c t of this i s that i t diverts attention away from questions of educational p r a c t i c e towards more c e n t r a l i z e d bureaucratic concerns. (Hamilton, 1976: 88) 15 CARE researchers sought an a l t e r n a t i v e that broke away from the d i c t a t e d r e s t r a i n t s . They wanted to p r a c t i c e i n q u i r y that r e f l e c t e d the natural concerns of the p a r t i c i p a n t s - rather than c e n t r a l i z e d a c c o u n t a b i l i t y concerns expressed through the behavioural objectives approach. The Behavioural Objectives Approach: Faulty Practice Much of the r e v o l t against the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm derived from the perception of a lack of success and the problematic nature of the behavioural objectives approach to curriculum research. At l e a s t two fundamental issues bedevil the aspirations of this approach. The f i r s t i s whether i n our society there i s s u f f i c i e n t consensus about learning p r i o r i t i e s to sustain and j u s t i f y the use of the approach for a c c o u n t a b i l i t y purposes. The second issue i s whether we have the technological capacity to measure those learnings we most value. The answer to both questions i s , I suspect, i n the negative. (MacDonald, 1978: 133) Whether behavioural objectives could be agreed upon, and then whether they could be measured, were problems which had not been addressed to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the c r i t i c s . MacDonald was concerned when the behavioural objectives model was applied to educational evaluation because, i n the name of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , learning p r i o r i t i e s could be 'manufactured' and then further d i s t o r t e d to f i t e x i s t i n g psychometric technologies: 'Tunnels to dystopia' seems not too strong a term to apply to those emergent forms of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y which r e s t t h e i r f a i t h on the f a l s e promise of t h i s v a r i e t y of educational scientism. The d i f f i c u l t i e s of gaining consensus on the range of s i g n i f i c a n t learnings force them to adopt a process of consultation that i s closer i n e f f e c t to the manufacture of consensus than to i t s discovery, while the 16 l i m i t a t i o n s of psychometric c a p a b i l i t y ensure that even this a r t e f a c t w i l l not survive technological conversion without further d i s t o r t i o n . (MacDonald, 1978: 135) In MacDonald's view, reaching goal consensus i n terms of behavioural objectives necessitated acquiesence to the technological honourifics of the technologists. This group consensus on goals then underwent more changes. The r e s u l t was a two-fold t r a n s l a t i o n of i n t i t i a l a s p i rations: The question i s , what happens to these aspirations i n the hands of the technologists who have the task of devising instruments and procedures for the monitoring team? Under the requirement of mass implementation, aims must be translated into objectives and objectives i n t o key questions or test items, a process which t y p i c a l l y imposes increasing s t r a i n upon the consensus reached at the goal-generation stage. What happens i s that the constraints of the technology r a p i d l y become predominant, the process of item or c r i t e r i o n preparation becomes decreasingly subject to endorsement by the system-representative groups, and the gap between the i n i t i a l aspirations and the products of the technologists widens alarmingly. (p.134) For MacDonald the approach was s i m p l i s t i c and led to a narrow focus. A l t e r n a t i v e evaluation designs provided "a more adequate view of what i t i s we are t r y i n g to change, and what i s involved i n changing i t " (MacDonald, 1979: 89). The inadequacies of the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm (and i t s evaluation models such as the behavioural objectives approach) were, to the i l l u m i n a t i v e evaluators, i m p l i c i t i n the paradigm's postulates: We suspect that what students learn i s the product of many s o c i a l and b i o l o g i c a l forces which i n t e r a c t i n ways we dimly apprehend but cannot quantify i n even a s i n g l e case, so that 17 we are unable to i s o l a t e the contribution of school. And we know that the conditions of s o c i a l l i f e which generate these forces are unstable and uncontrollable, so that we cannot know to whom or what we may a t t r i b u t e changes i n the learning accomplishments of students. Despite a l l this uncertainty, we are asked to believe that the way to improve schooling i s to take instruments which few of us comprehend and apply them r e g u l a r l y to a form of s o c i a l l i f e that we do not understand. The resultant samples w i l l , i t i s argued, function as indices of p r o d u c t i v i t y , to guide resource a l l o c a t i o n , curriculum p o l i c y , and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of praise and blame. No need, apparently, to f i n d out whether the schools provide humane and caring environments for the young, or whether the processes through which the young pass make sense to those who presently entertain doubts. (MacDonald, 1978: 136) Defining school l i f e so that i t f i t s the c r i t e r i a of our instruments, then using the resultant samples as indices of productivity, f i t s n i c e l y with a 'technological' or 'end-means' conception of innovation, but i t lacks semblance with educational p r a c t i c e . Hamilton and P a r l e t t addressed how this ends-means approach was problematic. They c i t e d a t y p i c a l example of an 'assembly-line' breakdown of goals: (1) What goals should the program achieve? (2) What i s the plan for achieving the goals? (3) Does the operating program represent a true implementation of the plan? (4) Does the program, when developed and put into operation, achieve the desired goals? (Hamilton and P a r l e t t , 1976: 86) Question (1) establishes the ends. Question (2) establishes the means. Questins (3) and (4) are the measurement of goal achievement, checking (2) against (1). Of th i s scheme they observed: 18 At face value these questions seem reason-able. But they embody problematic assumptions. For example, projects r a r e l y have c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d and commonly agreed 'desired g o a l s 1 . Measurement of 'goal achievement 1 i s never unequivocal. To speak of a 'true implementa-t i o n ' i s Utopian, even non-sensical i n terms of educational p r a c t i c e . (p. 98) If the desired goal was increased crop production and the means had to do with various s t r a i n s of grain grown under equal condition, then the measurement of goal achievement could be quite unequivocal. S t r a i n A, i n one section of the f i e l d under duplicate conditions, produced more y i e l d than S t r a i n B. Educational l i f e i s not t h i s simple. Stenhouse also noted c r i t i c a l problems facing the objectives approach: Rational curriculum planning must take account of the r e a l i t i e s of classroom s i t u a t i o n s . I t i s not enough to be l o g i c a l . And there are two c r u c i a l p r a c t i c a l problems; achieving a degree of value consensus as a basis for action, and i n t e r p r e t i n g that consensus into educational p r a c t i c e . ...objectives are inadequate as d e f i n i t i o n s of value p o s i t i o n s . Their a n a l y t i c nature, far from c l a r i f y i n g and defining value divergence, appears to make i t possible to mask such divergence. Teachers i n t e r p r e t objectives d i f f e r e n t l y and synthesise them i n d i f f e r e n t ways, according them d i f f e r i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l status. Of course, objectives may c l a r i f y problems of value consensus, but i t seems clear that they frequently provide a conceptual framework which serves as a medium through which to r a t i o n a l i s e incoherence of values. Groups of teachers who claim to have agreed on t h e i r objectives often demonstrate i n the classroom that t h e i r agreement was i l l u s o r y . (Stenhouse, 1971b: 78) 19 While Stenhouse f e l t that behavioural objectives may c l a r i f y problems, others of the i l l u m i n a t i v e paradigm were much less l e n i e n t . MacDonald and P a r l e t t stated: The o p t i m i s t i c rationalism which shaped and sustained the movement has been muted, i t s inherent assumption of value-consensus exposed as an h a l l u c i n a t i o n . (MacDonald and P a r l e t t , 1973: 75) Such references as i l l u s o r y , h a l l u c i n a t i o n , non-sensical and dystopia are s u c c i n c t l y derogatory. They r e f l e c t the zeal with which adherents to the "new paradigm" held their views. More to the point, they demonstrated the ir r e v e r e n t view held by these authors for the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm. MacDonald r e i t e r a t e d this disregard when he spoke of the absurdity of using an evaluation design based on the behavioural approach i n the HCP evaluation: There i s i n the f i r s t place a lack of adequate e f f i c i e n t procedures and instruments of evaluation. Even i f you reduce evaluation to the testing of pu p i l learning, which i n a pr o j e c t of this kind I would regard as form of reductio ad absurdum, one quickly becomes aware of the li m i t e d range of available measures, not to mention th e i r dubious v a l i d i t y . Even tests of cognitive s k i l l s tend to be characterised by fact u a l r e c a l l , and when you get into the f i e l d of a f f e c t i v e outcomes then good measures are almost non-existent. (MacDonald, 1978b: 14) This accusation of "reductio ad absurdum" was made i n a 1971 speach to the new "trainees" of the HCP school teams. The a l t e r n a t i v e paradigm was, however, a r a d i c a l s h i f t . I t was not simply an exchange of methodologies i n an attempt to shed behavioural o b j e c t i v e s . 20 The paradigm s h i f t e n t a i l e d i n adopting i l l u m i n a t i v e evaluation requires more than an exchange of methodologies: i t also involves new suppositions, concepts and terminology...The aims of i l l u m i n a t i v e evaluation are to study the innovatory project: how i t operates; how i t i s influenced by the various school sit u a t i o n s i n which i t i s applied; what those d i r e c t l y concerned regard as i t s advantages and disadvantages; and how students' i n t e l l e c t u a l tasks and academic experiences are most a f f e c t e d . I t aims to discover and document what i t i s l i k e to be p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the scheme, whether as teacher or p u p i l ; and, i n addition, to discern and discuss the innovation's most s i g n i f i c a n t features, recurring concomitants, and c r i t i c a l processes. (Hamilton, 1976: 89) Discovering and documenting innovatory projects from the particpant's perspective, while taking into account the manifold extraneous influences that operate i n educational settings, was a response to the t r a d i t i o n a l paradigm. Rejecting design requirements that minimized h i s t o r i c a l and s o c i e t a l influences challenged fundamental suppositions, concepts and terminology. In t h e i r place, the new paradigm had to develop a l t e r n a t i v e and acceptable standards. Democratic Evaluation Barry MacDonald i n i t i a t e d the core p r i n c i p l e s of the a l t e r n a t i v e to c e n t r a l i z e d bureaucratic concerns with his notion of democratic evaluation. This type of evaluation incorporated much from the i l l u m i n a t i v e educational research t r a d i t i o n , yet was d i s t i n c t . The case study was the p r i n c i p a l strategy for democratic evaluation. In the r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the p a r t i c i p a n t s , the democractic evaluator and the i l l u m i n a t i v e evaluator had the s i m i l a r aim to inform the decision 21 makers. They d i f f e r e d , however, i n t h e i r conception of the role of these p a r t i c i p a n t - d e c i s i o n makers. The i l l u m i n a t i v e report sought to provide a comprehensive understanding that acts upon the decision makers. The case study report was to be a concomitant endeavour that included the decision maker-participants i n the bounding of the case and the conduct of the study. Hamilton and P a r l e t t described the i l l u m i n a t i v e approach. Illuminative evaluation thus concentrates on the information-gathering rather than the decision-making component of evaluation. This task i s to provide [emphasis added] compre-hensive understanding of the compex r e a l i t y (or r e a l i t i e s ) surrounding the project: i n short, to ' i l l u m i n a t e 1 . In his report, therefore, the evaluator aims to sharpen discussion, disentangle complexities, i s o l a t e the s i g n i f i -cant from the t r i v i a l , and r a i s e the l e v e l of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of debate. (Hamilton and P a r l e t t , 1976: 99) In the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the evaluator and the p a r t i c i p a n t s , the former i s the predicator while the decision makers are the r e c i p i e n t s . The roles of the democratic evaluator and his or her audience define a much d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . MacDonald outlined democratic evaluation i n the paper "Evaluation and the Control of Education" (MacDonald, 1974 - l a t e r published i n Tawney, 1976). While the paper was f i r s t published i n 1974 f o r SAFARI Papers One, the SAFARI Project (and the democratic approach) grew out of the e a r l i e r case study experience of the HCP. The type of democratic case study d e a l t with by the HCP eventuated SAFARI'S primary goal: "develop-ing a case-study method of educational inquiry" (MacDonald, 1976b: 135). MacDonald made a d i s t i n c t i o n between evaluation and research. The e s s e n t i a l difference centred on p o l i t i c a l considerations. Describing the d i s t i n c t i o n of evaluation and research MacDonald stated: 22 I t remains the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the researcher to s e l e c t the problem and devise the means, a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y safeguarded by the totem of 'academic freedom 1. The p o s i t i o n of the evaluator i s quite d i s t i n c t , and much more complex. The enterprise he i s c a l l e d upon to study i s neither of his choosing nor under his c o n t r o l . He soon discovers, i f he has f a i l e d to assume i t , that his s c r i p t of educational issues, actions and consequences i s being acted out i n a s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l street theatre which af f e c t s not j u s t the performance, but the play i t s e l f . I am suggesting that the r e s o l u t i o n of these issues commits the evaluator to a p o l i t i c a l stance, an attitude to the government of education. No such commitment i s required of the researcher. He stands outside the p o l i t i c a l process, and values his detachment from i t . For him the production of new knowledge and the s o c i a l use of that knowledge are r i g o r o u s l y separated. The evaluator i s embroiled i n the action, b u i l t i n t o a p o l i t i c a l process which concerns the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power, i . e . , the a l l o c a t i o n of resources and the determination of goals, roles and tasks. (MacDonald, 1976b: 131) The r e s o l u t i o n of the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l issues that MacDonald ascribed to the process of evaluation required a commitment to a p o l i t i c a l stance. The i l l u m i n a t i v e evaluator, on the other hand, could avoid the p o l i t i c a l pro-cesses of decision making - concentrating rather on "information-gathering MacDonald f e l t such avoidance was naive. "The evaluator i s embroiled i n the ac t i o n " which i s neither "of his choosing nor under his c o n t r o l " . A stance must be taken on "which decision makers he w i l l serve". The degree to which the evaluator addressed issues of power and intent, and his or her methods of such i n c l u s i o n , were defined by three 'stances' that could be taken. The democratic, the bureaucratic and the autocratic were the choices MacDonald defined i n "Evaluation and the Control of Education" (1976b). 23 MacDonald referred to the 'bureaucratic evaluator' as the 'hired hack': Bureaucratic evaluation i s an unconditional service to those government agencies which have major control over the a l l o c a t i o n of educational resources. The evaluator accepts the values of those who hold o f f i c e , and offers information which w i l l help them to accomplish t h e i r p o l i c y o bjectives. He acts as a manage-ment consultant, and his c r i t e r i o n of success i s c l i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . His techniques of study must be credible to the policy-makers and not lay them open to public c r i t i c i s m . He has independence, no control over the use that i s made of h i s information, and no court of appeal. The report i s owned by the bureaucracy and lodged i n i t s f i l e s . The key concepts of bureaucratic evaluation are 'service', ' u t i l i t y ' and ' e f f i c i e n c y ' . Its key j u s t i f a c t o r y concept i s 'the r e a l i t y of power'. (p. 132) The 'autocratic evaluator' was the 'evaluator king.' Autocratic evaluation i s a c o n d i t i o n a l service to those government agencies which have major co n t r o l over the a l l o c a t i o n of educational resources. It o f f e r s external v a l i d a t i o n of p o l i c y i n exchange for compliance with i t s recommendations. Its values are derived from the evaluator's perception of the c o n s t i t u -t i o n a l and moral o b l i g a t i o n of the bureaucracy. He focuses upon issues of educational merit, and acts as expert adviser. His techniques of study must y i e l d s c i e n t i f i c proofs, because his power base i s the academic research community. His contractual agreements guarantee non-interference by the c l i e n t , and he retains ownership of the study. His report i s lodged i n the f i l e s of the bureaucracy, but i s also published i n academic journals. If his recommendations are rejected, p o l i c y i s not v a l i d a t e d . His court of appeal i s the research community, and high l e v e l s i n the bureaucracy. The key concepts of the autocratic evaluator are ' p r i n c i p l e ' and ' o b j e c t i v i t y ' . His key j u s t i f a c t o r y concept i s 'the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of o f f i c e ' . (p. 133) In place of these two r o l e s , MacDonald defined the democratic evaluator's r o l e : Democratic evaluation i s an information service to the whole community about the c h a r a c t e r i s t -i c s of an educational program. Sponsorship of the evaluation study does not i n i t s e l f confer a s p e c i a l claim upon this s e r v i c e . The democratic evaluator recognizes value p l u r a l i s m and seeks to represent a range of i n t e r e s t s i n his issue formulation. The basic value i s an informed c i t i z e n r y , and the evaluator acts as broker i n exchanges of information between groups who want knowledge of each other. His techniques of data-gathering and presentation must be accessible to n o n - s p e c i a l i s t audiences. His main a c t i v i t y i s the c o l l e c t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s of, and reactions to, the programme. He o f f e r s c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y to informants and gives them control over his use of the information they provide. The report i s non-recommendatory, and the evaluator has no concept of information misuse. He engages i n p e r i o d i c negotiation of his r e l a t i o n s h i p s with sponsors and programme p a r t i c i p a n t s . The c r i t e r i o n of success i s the range of audiences served. The report aspires to ' b e s t - s e l l e r ' s t atus. The key concepts of democratic evaluation are ' c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ' , 'negotiation' and ' a c c e s s i b i l i t y ' . The key j u s t i f i c a t o r y concept i s * the r i g h t to know'. (p. 133) MacDonald's reference to the bureaucratic evaluator as a "hired hack was p e j o r a t i v e , yet his greatest disdain was for the autocratic evaluator. MacDonald rejected the notion that the independent evaluator could p r o f f e r value-free study. Furthermore, the alleged bedrock of academic "external v a l i d a t i o n " was suspect: I t seemed to me that the act of evaluation i s not value-free. The research community might be n o t i o n a l l y construed as custodian of the s c i e n t i f i c detachment of i t s members, and guarantor of the v a l i d i t y of t h e i r conclusions, i n fact, the community has shown few signs 25 of any desire to extend that j u r i s d i c t i o n . When research i s c l o s e l y related to ideology/ as i s the case with educational research, h i s t o r y suggests that we lock up the s i l v e r . (MacDonald, 1976b: 134) MacDonald f e l t that the h o n o r i f i c afforded custodians of " s c i e n t i f i c detachment" was a c t u a l l y s u r r e p t i t i o u s despotism. An evaluator could not "stand outside the p o l i t i c a l process." Any affirmation to the contrary was simply a contrivance that may have had as an aim "aiding and abetting" c e r t a i n decision makers. Research could not be value-free as i t was " c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to ideology" - as was evaluation. While research could be founded on a 'professional ideology' and s t i l l be v a l i d - as long as i t has no claims to absolutism - evaluation had to be concerned with "the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power" and the s o c i a l use of the knowledge generated. MacDonald concluded h i s discussion of autocratic and bureaucratic evaluation with the assertion that th e i r promulgations had been "exposed as h a l l u c i n a t i o n s . " Evaluation cannot escape being viewed as a p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i n i t s e l f . Unlike the i l l u m i n a t i o n approach, the case study developed at CARE required negotiation of the evaluator's i n t e r p r e t i o n . Interpretations were not 'provided' but were m u t u a l i s t i c a l l y derived. Case studying the socio-p o l i t i c a l ethos of schools required democratic evaluation p r i n c i p l e s as well as condensed fieldwork. Educational settings made s t r i c t demands both e t h i c a l l y and pragmatically. A case study designed to inform decision-making needed to be quickly completed to be of use to persons involved i n curriculum 26 innovation. Yet, the implications such a report had for p a r t i c i p a n t s required time to negotiate p r i n c i p l e s and procedures. These two demands were counteractive. The i n i t i a l f a i l u r e by CARE workers to discern t h i s i n i m i c a l i t y led to an e t h i c a l s l i g h t of hand which undermined the c r e d i b i l i t y of the moral p r i n c i p l e s governing democratic evaluation. To reduce such discordance, a t h i r d p r i n c i p l e that governed the negotiation of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and p u b l i c a t i o n was needed. This was the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e . Negotiation of Interpretation The s k i l l i n case studying, E l l i o t maintained, " i s avoiding a disruption of normal patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n " (1978: 23). Avoiding d i s r u p t i o n did not mean non-involvement. The participant-observer had to get "into the action s u f f i c i e n t l y to begin to see things from the p a r t i c i -pant's perspective" (p.23). What was needed was a 'control' f o r intrusiveness - not reduction (Walker, 1981b: 205). Involving the p a r t i c i p a n t s d i r e c t l y i n the drawing of the case boundaries answered the concern about i n t e r v e n t i o n . Having accepted the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of the evaluator's intrusiveness, and given the e x p l i c i t concern with s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l decisions, the CARE group sought ways of providing control to p a r t i c i p a n t s . When par t i c i p a n t s assumed their r e c i p r o c a l r i g h t to intervene, they provided the researchers with means of c o n t r o l l i n g their e f f e c t s on normal patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n . The conduct and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the case were negotiable. 27 MacDonald provided a possible scenario of such negotiation i n "Letters from a Headmaster." The l e t t e r s were to a researcher who had requested to conduct a case study. MacDonald's f i c t i t i o u s headmaster provided the type of questions that constituted the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s " r i g h t to intervene i n the process of research": ...I have brought together our queries about the nature of the process of case study and the part we expect to play i n i t . What does access mean, exactly? Access to s t a f f , p u p i l s , myself, classrooms, staffrooms, school f i l e s and records, governors, parents? Which of these, how often, and on what c r i t e r i a of selection? How, i n other words, are the boundaries of the case to be drawn? And what conventions or p r i n c i p l e s of information con-t r o l do you intend to employ? ... In any pub-l i s h e d account, what i s the status of our int e r p r e t a t i o n s and evaluations v i s a vis yours? (MacDonald, 1980: 40) Simons provided a des c r i p t i o n of the negotiated process queried by the head. She addressed both the boundaries of the case and the status of p a r t i c i p a n t regarding the f i n a l report: The i n t e n t i o n i s to r e f l e c t issues of con-cern to the interviewees and s e l e c t i o n of which issues are to be reported i s negotiated with them. This may help to reduce bias i n the interviewer's s e l e c t i o n . (Simons, 1980: 27) MacDonald r e p l i e d to the l e t t e r s . He outlined how the negotiation described above by Simons defined what was incorporated by p o l i c y : Our p o l i c y (and i t seems to be that any other p o l i c y would be counter-productive) i s to seek the agreement of the s t a f f concerned about the v a l i d i t y of the study and to incorporate i n the f i n a l version any additions or modi-f i c a t i o n s which would gain such agreement. (MacDonald, 1980: 27) 28 The CARE workers' concerns with negotiation of issues regarding i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and bounding would, they f e l t i n i t i a l l y , counter-act the methodological problems confronting case study research. Walker and MacDonald l i s t e d the many issues confronting case study workers i n "Case Study and the S o c i a l Philosophy of Educational Research" (1975). The development of the SAFARI e t h i c was a response to these issues. The p a r t i c i p a n t s were to be given a means of control that could replace re l i a n c e on personal t r u s t : Normally i n case study research the case study worker i s heavily dependent on personal t r u s t . Instead of r e l y i n g e n t i r e l y on personal t r u s t we f e e l that i n the contexts we work i n i t may be possible to maintain t r u s t through holding strongly to a c a r e f u l l y formulated e t h i c . The t r u s t we seek depends on generating a s t y l e of educational research i n which methods and procedures are e x p l i c i t and v i s i b l e . We are interested i n attempting to play down the personal expertise of the researcher i n order to enhance professionalism. (Walker, 1981: 52) Early e f f o r t s to formulate this e t h i c were problematic, however. The aim of case study research - to inform decision makers - was inconsistent with the need of democratic evaluators to negotiate methods and procedures. Condensed Fieldwork In his a r t i c l e "The Conduct of Educational Case Studies: Ethics, Theory and Procedures" (1981 [ o r i g i n a l l y published i n 1974]) Walker outlined a double-bind facing the case study. On one hand (viz democratic evaluation) the aim was to "confront and portray what i s ac t u a l l y happening i n schools" (p.31). This e n t a i l e d the problems of "access to knowledge" which MacDonald was most concerned with. Secondly, however, the case study sought "a f a s t 29 turn-around of data to those being studied" (p.32). Walker wrote of the consequences of the dilemma: These aspirations c o n f l i c t i n that the f i r s t tends to push us towards methods of research that seem to require long term immersion both i n the f i e l d and subsequently i n the data. On the other hand the second tends to push us towards short-term, almost j o u r n a l i s t i c s t y l e s of reporting i n which the researcher has l i t t l e time to check his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s against e i t h e r the data or continuing events. (Walker, 1981: 32) Walker f e l t that "condensed" fieldwork followed from the democratic s t y l e . Simons took exception with this t h e s i s : In l i n k i n g condensed f i e l d work automatically with a democratic s t y l e of research SAFARI has confused several issues. Condensed f i e l d work i s not, as Rob Walker i n d i c a t e s , 'an i n e v i t a b l e consequence of the demands of a democratic mode of research.' (Simons, 1977: 34) Simons developed her argument against l i n k i n g fieldwork with a democratic s t y l e i n her a r t i c l e , "Building a S o c i a l Contract: Negotiation, P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Portrayal i n Condensed Fieldwork Research" (1977) . Negotiation could not be condensed: Negotiation, as I have already argued, i s incompatible with short time scales, p a r t i c u -l a r l y when c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y - one of the 'key concepts' of a democratic s t y l e of research - i s adopted. (Simons, 1977: 36) Bounding the case i n terms of i t s circumstances and defining shared b e l i e f s were very time consuming when each stage was to be negotiated: Negotiation with sponsors and subjects and the representation of a range of i n t e r e s t s i s c e n t r a l but there i s nothing inherent i n the model as defined by Barry MacDonald and quoted by Walker to suggest that this be c a r r i e d out i n a short time. (Simons, 1977: 5) 30 The p r a c t i c a l exigencies adopted when seeking to inform decision makers would appear to exclude protracted negotiation. As a consequence, SAFARI invoked the necessity of condensed fieldwork i n the hope of matching the time scales for decision making by p r a c t i t i o n e r s . In addition to the p r a c t i c a l needs of decision makers, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s necessitated reduced time s c a l e s . Teachers and students were i n constrained p o s i t i o n s . E s p e c i a l l y with students, short periods were not s u f f i c i e n t to establish the necessary t r u s t . With such r e s t r i c t i o n s i n mind, the following agreed set of rules had been used by the CARE case study s t a f f as a guide to condensed f i e l d work: interviews should be conducted on the p r i n c i p l e of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ; inteview data i s the property of the interviewees and should only be made accessible to others with t h e i r agreement; how the data may be used should be negotiated with the people interviewed; interviewees have ultimate control over what i n f o r -mation becomes public; the study i s r e s t r i c t e d to seven days i n the f i e l d gathering data and twenty-one for writing and negotiating spread over a year. (Simons, 1977: 112) Unfortunately, the set of rules appeared to be u n r e a l i s t i c : Just as the twenty-eight day time scale poses problems for the negotiation and release of data so the seven day i n the f i e l d r e s t r i c t i o n i s a constraint on the s t y l e of interviewing advocated i n this paper. To put [democratic p r i n c i p l e s ] . . . i n t o practice requires more time than a t h i r t y - f i v e to f o r t y minute period and a few days i n a school. (p. 132) 31 Adherence to the p r i n c i p l e s of democratic evaluation required more time than condensed fieldwork provided. Simons f e l t the blend of the two styles was impracticable. SAFARI, i t seems, speaks with two voices. The ground on which the research claims are made s h i f t s frequently so much so that one i s l e f t wondering i f a marriage was arranged between the two concepts of research because MacDonald (advocating a democratic s t y l e ) and Walker (advocating condensed fieldwork to close the gap between research and practice) joined forces at one p a r t i c u l a r point i n time. (p. 39) The long standing member of CARE went as far as to suggest that condensed fieldwork i n e v i t a b l y led to an autocratic mode of research: When time i s l i m i t e d ...one i s tempted to argue from practice that an autocratic mode of research i s an i n e v i t a b l e consequence of condensed fieldwork. (p. 35) Simons was not alone i n her suggestion that condensed fieldwork could lead to an erosion of democratic p r i n c i p l e s i n evaluation. As far on as 1981, two CARE workers asserted that the ' f i n a l chapter' of a case study report most often remains autocratic, despite the democratic a s p i r a t i o n . Kushner and Norris described, i n "Interpretation, Negotiation and V a l i d i t y i n N a t u r a l i s t i c Research," the time constraints faced by researchers of such n a t u r a l i s t i c studies: Researchers do not have to be overly jealous about guarding t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and conclusions - time w i l l usually do a l l the guarding necessary. N a t u r a l i s t i c studies i n education present enormous management problems i n that they usually demand to run over deadlines i n order to confirm their 32 responsiveness and non-preordinacy. To discuss i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s with p a r t i c i p a n t s i s c o s t l y i n time, and there comes a point i n the research when time i s l e a s t a v a i l a b l e . The " f i n a l chapter" most frequently remains the preserve of the researcher. (1981: 35) The a s p i r a t i o n towards a "quick turn-around of data 1 necessitated short cuts of negotiation. Complex democratic aspirations could often be antagonistic towards aspirations of condensed fieldwork. The key j u s t i f i c a t o r y concept of democratic evaluation was the r i g h t to know. The basic value was an informed c i t i z e n r y . On the other hand, the evaluator offered c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y to informants and gave them control over his or her use of the information they provided. There was considerable tension between these two a s p i r a t i o n s : The researcher i s caught i n the tension between meeting the obligations owed to the audience and the obligations owed to the subjects. The democratic model does not disso l v e this tension but formalises the need for negotiation. (Walker, 1981: 55) MacDonald suggested (in the words of his f i c t i t i o u s headmaster) that such negotiation could, indeed, be formalized: We would l i k e to work towards a written agreement, a contract between yourself and us to be lodged with a t h i r d party (another item to be negotiated) who would constitute a court of appeal i n the event of any c o n f l i c t between us reaching the point of impasse. The agreement would constitute an appendix of any published study, perhaps. (MacDonald, 1978b: 294) The early conduct of the CARE group, however, never formalized negotiations to the point of a written agreement. There were, nevertheless, i n i t i a l 33 contacts which imposed a "framework of constraints a f f e c t i n g the conduct of the entire study" (Kemmis, et a l . , 1980b). These constraints were a necessity of the p r a c t i c a l i t i e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s : Case study research and evaluation, because i t i s rooted i n the p r a c t i c a l i t i e s and p o l i t i c s of r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s i s more l i k e l y to expose those studied to c r i t i c a l a p p r a i s a l , censure or condemnation. The uses to which in-depth case study reports are put are t y p i c a l l y beyond the control of the case study worker. The case study worker w i l l be party to many insi d e s t o r i e s not a l l of which w i l l be negotiable currency i n discussion outside the group under study. He knows more than he should t e l l . The l i m i t i n g con-s i d e r a t i o n i s that the case study worker acknowledges that others must l i v e with the consequences of his f i n d i n g s . (Kemmis, et a l . , 1980: 146) Participants needed the opportunity to l i m i t access to data, conditions for f i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n or release during the study. MacDonald premised his "Portrayal of Persons as Evaluation Data" with a dramatic reminder of the consequences of educational evaluation. He did so with a reference to Harry Wolcott and the s o c i a l consequences of evaluation, where the ethnographer stated: "How would you f e e l i f your data was used to continue, revise or terminate a culture?" (MacDonald, 1977: 51) If researchers accept (as d i d Walker and MacDonald) "that knowledge i s often the spring for action and that access to knowledge i s frequently used as a mechanism of c o n t r o l " (Walker, 1981: 30), then they need to address the s o c i a l consequences of educational evaluation for i n d i v i d u a l persons. 34 Brugelmann referred to the influence of the evaluation report as i t s "disturbance p o t e n t i a l " . His use of m i l i t a r y metaphors i l l u s t r a t e d the considerable influence reports may carry: ...reports carry a considerable disturbance  potential...the researcher has some o b l i g a -t i o n to face the consequences of his i n t e r -ference rather than leaving p a r t i c i p a n t s with a well-equipped arsenal of weapons on the b a t t l e f i e l d at the end. (Brugelmann, 1974: 53) The r e l a t i v e strength of arms that each p a r t i c i p a n t would assume i n such a show-down was not n e c e s s a r i l y determined by h i e r a r c h i a l p o s i t i o n : . . . i t may not be those i n the lowest part of the hierarchy who are at r i s k but those at the top or i n d i v i d u a l s i n key positions i n between. (Simons, 1977: 43) Whichever l e v e l was at most r i s k was d i f f i c u l t to know, but the disturbance p o t e n t i a l was found to place someone i n a vulnerable p o s i t i o n : Innovations i n schools threaten the balance of power around e s s e n t i a l values which are i n e x t r i c a b l y linked with the i d e n t i t i e s of those concerned. Innovations frequently threaten to make e x p l i c i t the taken-for-granted assumptions that members of the school hold about the nature and value of education, so creating new v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s , new a l l i a n c e s , new views as to what i s p o s s i b l e . (MacDonald and Walker, 1975: 18) An evaluation report can expose those concerned to public censure. Internal c o n f l i c t s , v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s and s h i f t s i n power allegiances can ensue. Without the formalisation of the tension between access to and release of information, the p a r t i c i p a n t s may have l i t t l e power at the conclusion of a study. The evaluator has an o b l i g a t i o n to the subjects, but also to the 35 audience. The r i g h t to c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y competes with the public's r i g h t to know. The tension between the two 'r i g h t s ' needed formalized negotiations: When the 'understanding* on which the study has proceeded turns out to be misunderstandings, when the 'expectations' they have entertained and the 'assumptions' they have made prove to be at variance with the a c t i v i t i e s or intent-ions of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , there i s l i t t l e they can do other than appeal to the inves t i g a -tor or threaten to disavow the study, an action l i k e l y to have the same e f f e c t as the denial of rumour. Once the data has been c o l l e c t e d the balance of power has t i l t e d conclusively i n favour of the in v e s t i g a t o r , who may dispose of i t v i r t u a l l y ' as he sees f i t . (MacDonald, 1978b: 19) The question of con t r o l was cen t r a l i n MacDonald's statement. The CARE group worked through many issues i n the i r attempt to arri v e at the proper balance of power and to develop the procedures which allowed such an agreement. The sharing of con t r o l was l a r g e l y made necessary by the i n f e a s i b i l i t y of anonymisation. If the anonymisation i s s u f f i c i e n t l y impenetrable to disguise the i d e n t i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s even from those close to the s i t u a t i o n , then, i t i s doubtful whether i t can feed r e f l e c t i o n and action within the s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f . I f , on the other hand, the anonymisation works only for outsiders, those with most to gain or lose are scarcely pro-tected by i t . (Kemmis, et a l . , 1980b: 146) Anonymising data that was to be drawn from a sample i n order to provide generalisations was possi b l e . Anonymising the data of a case i n order to publish a portrayal that fed n a t u r a l i s t i c generalisation was not p o s s i b l e . While names could be and were f i c t i t i o u s , the 'richness' necessary i n the study made the i d e n t i t i e s discernable to a large sphere of readers. The 36 s o l u t i o n seemed to be negotiation of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (which included access) and then negotiation of p u b l i c a t i o n . MacDonald and Walker wrote of the pros and cons of shared c o n t r o l : The sharing of control over data with p a r t i -cipants does mean that the researcher often has to face the f a c t that some of his f i n e s t data i s l o s t , d i l u t e d or permanently consigned to the f i l e s . On the other hand his access to knowledge about what are s e n s i t i v e issues to his informants may guide his research i n s i g n i f i c a n t and unexpected ways. (1975: 10) When p a r t i c i p a n t s expect c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y (unless otherwise negotiated) they were apt to reveal more s e n s i t i v e material. They could, however, refuse to allow dissemination of such information. Yet, the researcher could use the information as ' s e n s i t i z i n g concepts' to guide future observation and i n t e r -viewing. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was not unproblematic. Questions needed to be answered e x p l i c i t l y and e a r l y i n the study. As MacDonald stated, once the data has been c o l l e c t e d the balance of power t i l t s i n the researcher's favour. Sooner, rather than l a t e r , the p a r t i c i p a n t needs to adopt the role of " p l a i n t i f f " : For the p a r t i c i p a n t s , i t i s a problem of l i m i t i n g the scope of the research so that the boundaries between what i s public and what i s p r i v a t e (or what i s secret and what i s open) are c l e a r l y defined...The role the p a r t i c i p a n t s are asked to play i n the negotiation of issues i s that of P l a i n t i f f . (Kushner and N o r r i s , 1980: 85) The "boundaries between what i s public and what i s p r i v a t e " were not e a s i l y drawn, nor were they permanent: ...while i t i s possible to apply the p r i n c i p l e s and procedures to statements made by i n d i v i d u a l s about th e i r own b e l i e f s and 37 p r a c t i c e s , things q u i c k l y get involved once they begin t a l k i n g about each other...One person may i n s i s t that data on the private l i v e s of the teachers remain a prominent part of the study, another may i n s i s t i t should be reduced i n s i g n i f i c a n c e . (Walker, 1981b: 202) Such problems needed strategies or p r i n c i p l e s of procedure to safeguard the ' p l a i n t i f f s ' r i g h t s . Problems With C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Assuring c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y across the board f a c i l i t a t e d candidness, but there was a pri c e to pay: Giving blanket c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y creates a problem over the use of the data; i t tends to defeat the a s p i r a t i o n to complete the study i n a short time because release of data confident-i a l i t y has to be negotiated at each stage; i t sometimes means that data which could be used to break the rh e t o r i c or push the interview forward i s locked i n confidence. (Simons, 1977b: 132) The researcher may have become bound - l i t e r a l l y - by the constraints negotiated. The time of the study may have been lengthened. The researcher could also f i n d himself or herself i n a semantic obstacle course: While much of the data must remain locked i n c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i t i s d i f f i c u l t for the interviewer to avoid using the information gained from previous interviews to sharpen and focus subsequent ones. I t may also be necessary to further understanding. But i t does r a i s e a d i f f i c u l t e t h i c a l question i f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s assured. The interviewer may breach c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y quite unwittingly as he asks a question which was stimulated by information he gained from previous interviews. (p. 121) 38 I t may not have been easy to keep the t r u s t negotiated when i n the day-to-day p r a c t i c e of case studying. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y had many subtleties that could go unnoticed. The p a r t i c i p a n t s may needed guidance to preserve themselves from s e l f - i n f l i c t e d 'damage1. Furthermore, even presupposing that a l l parties understood t h e i r r i g h t s and were competent i n advocating such r i g h t s , there were s t i l l the problems of time and access. The P r i n c i p l e of J u s t i c e Simons, E l l i o t and Jenkins a l l had fundamental c r i t i c i s m s of the democratic evaluation p r i n c i p l e s that eventually were referred to as the "SAFARI e t h i c . " The essence of t h e i r c r i t i q u e s centred on the p r i n c i p l e of the r i g h t to know. Simons challenged this e s s e n t i a l assumption: The democratic p r i n c i p l e of equality of access on the face of i t marries uneasily with the p r i n c i p l e of equality of r i s k . One cannot assume that i t would be i n the best i n t e r e s t s of a l l groups to give knowledge of themselves to other groups. (Simons, 1977: 43) Simons reduced the notion of public i n t e r e s t down to the l o g i c a l elements of a p l u r a l i s t i c society: the i n t e r e s t s of d i f f e r e n t groups. E l l i o t addressed the same reduction i n "Democratic Evaluation as So c i a l C r i t i c i s m " : Since 'the c i t i z e n r y ' e x i s t i n a state of value pluralism the aim of the democratic evaluator i s to represent 'the i n t e r e s t s ' of a range of s o c i a l groups i n h i s evaluation study. In other words MacDonald apprears to assume that i n d i v i d u a l s i n a p l u r a l i s t s o c i e t y have the r i g h t to know as members of p a r t i c u l a r ' i n t e r e s t ' groups rather than as members of the general p u b l i c . ( E l l i o t , 1977: 191) 39 E l l i o t agreed with Simons that one cannot assume a l l groups should have knowledge of a l l others. I want to argue that this assumption i s false ( l a t e r I s h a l l also assert that i s i s c y n i c a l and d e s t r u c t i v e ) . If i t i s correct then every group i n a democracy i s obliged to fost e r the i n t e r e s t s of every other group by providing them with information about t h e i r own a c t i v i t i e s . There i s an obvious paradox here since i t may not be [in a group's]... i n t e r e s t s to inform [another group] who may use the information to harm them. (p. 192) Given the "obvious paradox" of democratic evaluation, E l l i o t refuted MacDonald's entire democratic perspective: MacDonald's view of democratic society i s wrong. As a member of a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t group democracy requires me to tolerate but not to a c t i v e l y promote i n t e r e s t s which d i f f e r from my own. If democracy as such does not require everyone to a c t i v e l y promote the in t e r e s t s of every s o c i a l group, i t does not ascribe to everyone as members of p a r t i c u l a r groups the r i g h t to know...The decision to release information about one group's a c t i v i t i e s to members of other i n t e r e s t groups can never be j u s t i f i e d democratically on the grounds that people have an automatic r i g h t to know as members of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t groups. (p. 192) In place of an automatic r i g h t to know, E l l i o t offered the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e . He began with the premise "that since a l l groups desire to pursue the i r i n t e r e s t s i t i s i n everyone's i n t e r e s t to desire freedom from interference" (p. 193). Hence, a l l groups should work towards the " f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i a l and economic advantage" (p. 194). This l i n e of thinking then defined the public i n t e r e s t as those "pr i n c i p l e s which everyone would accept i n a s i t u a t i o n where they are free from bias" (p.195). 40 Negotiating from a s i t u a t i o n free from bias was not the same as negotiating from a standpoint of a member of the p u b l i c . The p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e provided the c r i t e r i a to negotiate out of the paradox: Democratic evaluation appropriately involves an appraisal of the extent to which the presumption of privacy i s j u s t i f i e d . I t c e r t a i n l y involves being taken into p a r t i c i -pants' confidence but always on the under-standing that the promise of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s c o n d i t i o n a l upon them warranting the r i g h t of privacy i n the l i g h t of the p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e . If they cannot j u s t i f y their possession of this r i g h t , i f t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s c l e a r l y i n f r i n g e the p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e , then they are obliged to t e l l the truth about t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s to members of the public who now warrant the r i g h t to know. ( E l l i o t t , 1977: 198) Without such c r i t e r i a , the SAFARI ethic was a case of moral schizophrenia. I t was i r r a t i o n a l to assume both the r i g h t to privacy and the r i g h t to know. The p r a c t i c a l dilemmas induced by an incomplete ethic reduced i t to a 'manipulative technical device': MacDonald argues that the key j u s t i f i c a t o r y concept of democratic evaluation i s 'the r i g h t to know'. However, while this r i g h t e t h i c a l l y j u s t i f i e d negotiation as a  procedure i t does not, I bel i e v e , e t h i c a l l y j u s t i f y promising c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . The key j u s t i f i c a t o r y concept for the l a t t e r i s 'the r i g h t to privacy'. This concept i s con-veniently ignored by MacDonald i n his desc r i p t i o n of the key concepts of democratic evaluation and yet i t i s the only grounds against which promising c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y can be e t h i c a l l y rather than merely t e c h n i c a l l y j u s t i f i e d . I f 'the r i g h t to know' i s the sole j u s t i f i c a t o r y concept as MacDonald claims then 'promising c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ' lacks r e a l e t h i c a l intent and becomes as Jenkins 41 suggests, a manipulative, t e c h n i c a l , device rather than an e t h i c a l stance. Perhaps i n the SAFARI project we have no genuine ethic of access at a l l . A l l can be reduced to the ethics of release based on the r i g h t to know. (p. 197) The SAFARI ethic was incomplete and manipulative because there was l i t t l e r ecognition that the promise of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was co n d i t i o n a l . The negotiations were a c t u a l l y a sequence of two e t h i c s . F i r s t came the ethics of consensus which governed access to data. Participants and researchers negotiated an agreement. Much l a t e r , when the study was nearing completion, a second ethic was introduced. The researcher or other i n t e r e s t groups could evoke an assumed democratic r i g h t of the 'public' to know the facts of educational research. The ethics changed from agreement to defence. P a r t i -cipants having been offered blanket c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y could be faced with the pre-empting of the i r r i g h t to privacy by the p r i n c i p l e of the public i n t e r e s t . The Knight's Move David Jenkins, i n "An Adversary's Account of SAFARI'S Ethics of Case Study," (1980) l a b e l l e d the e t h i c a l s h i f t as the "knight's move." Jenkins was involved with a curriculum development project that began near to the time of the HCP and which was also "embarked on" with the young school learner s p e c i a l l y i n mind (Schools Council Working Paper #33, 1971: 5). The Keele Integrated Studies Project ran from 1968-71. The intent of the study was related to the Humanities: A Study to explore the possible means to and meaning of integ r a t i o n i n the humanities. (Working Paper #33, 1971: 40) 42 The approach also had s i m i l a r i t i e s : The approach, which involves some form of team teaching, i s based on the conviction that integrated units are viable within a number of organizational patterns. Each unit contains an analysis of the area of inquiry, suggested a c t i v i t y patterns, teaching materials, and information of further sources. (p. 41) Jenkins attended and published i n CARE endeavours (Jenkins, 1977; 1980); CARE workers reciprocated ( c f . MacDonald, et a l . , 1975). He was, however, not a member of the CARE group, per se. Jenkins also i d e n t i f i e d the "paradox at the heart of MacDonald's account of 'democratic evaluation'." In his adversary's account he took the p o s i t i o n that "the whole [of the SAFARI e t h i c a l ] structure i s manipulative." In doing so, Jenkins argued that the p r i n c i p l e s of procedure of the democratic evaluator were " l i k e a r h e t o r i c a l contrick, based on the devious knight's move..." (Jenkins, 1980: 156). The knight's move described the i n t e r n a l l o g i c governing an i m p l i c i t s h i f t of e t h i c . When the negotiation of the release of data took over from the negotiation of the r i g h t to privacy, there was a " s h i f t i n power base" between the confidants and the researcher. I n i t i a l l y the researcher appeared to be r e l i n q u i s h i n g power by forming a 'contract' (Kushner and N o r r i s , 1980: 33). Yet, the c r i t i q u e of the f i n a l d r a f t constituted a separate set of negotiations: negotiation for release. The construction of the separate " e d i f i c e s " , according to Jenkins, was expedient as opposed to moral. While the i n t e n t was "to create a more honest p o s i t i o n , " Walker stated that " o f f e r i n g blanket c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y [was adopted] i n order to gain faster access...Release of data i s then progressively negotiated" (1981: 55). 43 "Freed by a code of practice...[the case worker could] go after the t r u t h confident that the f i g h t i s now f a i r " (Jenkins, 1980: 151). There was a " t r i c k , " however. I t lay i n the s h i f t i n the power base between negotiation for control over the data and negotiation of the r i g h t to know. When he was addressing the d i s t i n c t i o n between public and private information, Walker both acknowledged this s h i f t and that the researcher became more powerful because of i t : This kind of s h i f t i n the p o s i t i o n o f f e r s some concession to the c r i t i c i s m made both by s t r u c t u r a l i s t s and by bureaucrats commission-ing the reports, for i t allows the researcher a stronger hand i n i n t e r p r e t i n g public state-ments, and, to some degree, makes i t possible for the researcher to argue for the p u b l i c r i g h t to know what i n d i v i d u a l subjects may prefer to suppress. (Walker, 1981b: 203) Walker also acknowledged Jenkins' c r i t i c i s m i n the same a r t i c l e , "Getting Involved i n Curriculum Research: A Personal History": [Jenkins]...argued that the SAFARI p o s i t i o n i s a rather subtle s l e i g h t of hand. Pro-t e c t i o n of subjects' r i g h t s i s seen as a device for breaking down t h e i r resistance and, while presenting a r h e t o r i c of subjects c o n t r o l l i n g the uses made of data, t h i s i s used to disguise a range of s o c i a l and informal pressures that are brought to bear i n order to secure th e i r agreement to the release of s e n s i t i v e data. Far from being a p o s i t i o n of weakness, i t i s argued, the SAFARI p o s i t i o n i s , i n f a c t , a p o s i t i o n of disguised strength. (Walker, 1981b: 204) The presence of a r h e t o r i c a l "device for breaking down...resistance" appears substantiated by the CARE group's own words. When they described how, during negotiations, researchers ascribe p a r t i c i p a n t s i m p l i c i t r o l e s , Kushner and Norris stated that the SAFARI team: 44 ...employed qua s i - l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s and procedures intended to normalise the power context i n a way that allowed for greater access to information. The team's voca-bulary was heavily suffused with quasi-legal terminology, and t h e i r appeal for legitimacy was to loosely defined concepts of j u r i s -prudence and p o l i t i c a l s e r v i c e . The aim was to coopt the respondents into a c o l l a b o r a t i v e stance by promising them a c e r t a i n degree of control over the process of data c o l l e c t i o n and presentation or use;... (1980: 34) Procedural negotiations, aimed a t 'coopting' p a r t i c i p a n t s into c o l l a b o r a t i o n , were given to imply an a r b i t e r role for the subject. Technically, however, i t had the e f f e c t of " f a c i l i t a t i n g access to the researcher" (Jenkins, 1977). Simons attested to this e f f e c t : A l l interviewees were guaranteed c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . This guarantee of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y would, we hoped, provide the kind of s e t t i n g i n which they would speak f r e e l y and honestly. (Simons and Humble, 1978: 193) What m o r a l i s t i c a l l y could be seen as protecting the confidents, t e c h n i c a l l y gained for the researcher access to s e n s i t i v e data: In the hands of s k i l l e d interviewer most people are inexperienced and w i l l reveal things they do not intend. Only by allowing retrospective control of e d i t i n g and release of data to informants can the case study worker protect his subjects from the pene-t r a t i v e power of the research as well as checking his own misinterpretations or mis-understandings . (Walker, 1981: 56) Having been given a blanket guarantee and having l i t t l e knowledge of adequate models of r e f u s a l , during the f i r s t 'set' of negotiations, the subjects 'revealed things they did not intend.' 45 What the case worker had effected was a 'tone' that pre-empted att e n t i o n to the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the data. " I t i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p that has become c o n f i d e n t i a l " (Jenkins, 1980: 155). The p a r t i c i p a n t was susceptible to the argument that the researcher could be entrusted with secrets because release of data was off the current agenda. The seducer, E l l i o t stated, was prepared to wait. Later, the p a r t i c i p a n t would find that "the ethics of consensus [had been] s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y replaced by the ethics of power" (p. 155). When the time came to negotiate release of data, the r i g h t of a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l or group to have i n t e r e s t s remain private no longer depended on a blanket agreement of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . The ethics of the access to data were not the same as those of i t s release. Jenkins provided a scheme of the s l i g h t of hand. access to s e n s i t i v e data low high 1 2 low ) ) a b i l i t y to 3 4 ) release data high ) SAFARI "case study e t h i c s " i s i n part a r h e t o r i c a l device to f a c i l i t a t e performance of this question-able knight's move. Between boxes 1 and 2 we have a gate l a b e l l e d the ethics of access. Between boxes 2 and 4 we have a gate l a b e l l e d the ethics  of release. S o f t l y . S o f t l y . (Jenkins, 1980: 153) The p r a c t i c a l consequences of the 'moral schizophrenia' practiced by SAFARI l e d E l l i o t to r e a l i z e the inconsistencies of such evaluation. There was a need to put judgement back into evaluation. The underlying cause of the p r a c t i c a l dilemma stems from the inconsistent b e l i e f s of the evaluator [and] the e t h i c a l i n c o n s i s t e n t nature of his procedures... (p. 197) 46 People have a r i g h t to privacy as members of a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t group because i t i s a guarantee of non-interference i n t h e i r freedom to pursue th e i r i n t e r e s t s without in t e r f e r e n c e . But t h i s l a t t e r r i g h t of freedom of action only holds i f i t i s compatible with those p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e which constitute the common good, e.g., such as that of 'equal l i b e r t y ' . S i m i l a r l y people have 1 the r i g h t to know' as members of the public i f the pursuit of s e c t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i n f r i n g e s the p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e . MacDonald's SAFARI ethic can only escape i n t e r n a l inconsistency i f i t puts judgment back into evaluation. ( E l l i o t , 1977: 199) The evaluator would i n e v i t a b l y be confronted with a need for subtle negotiation methods. A conception of 'substantive c r i t e r i a ' was needed i n order that the common good or public i n t e r e s t could be judged. The ethic had s h i f t e d : While the concept of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y defines the ethics of access (move one), that of negotiation defines the ethics of release (move two). Within the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ethic the power of the evaluator to use information i s r e s t r i c t e d . But within the negotiaton e t h i c a l l kinds of manipulative devices, which r e s t r i c t the p a r t i c i p a n t s control over the data and increase the evaluator's, become permissible. Jenkins r e f e r s to such standard devices as 'the manipulation of time scales' and that of 'representing the task' as "improving" an account and thereby d e f l e c t i n g attention from the f a c t of release to i t s form'. ( E l l i o t , 1977: 196) Part of the s h i f t i n power r e l a t i o n s was a t t r i b u t e d by Jenkins to the changed status of the researcher. The 'outsider' became " i n the know...a qua s i - i n s i d e r . " Rapport had been established. The evaluator was i n charge of the management of negotiation and as a quasi-insider could claim to have most knowledge about 'infringements' by sectional i n t e r e s t s . A l l - i n - a l l , the 47 subjects were l u l l e d i n t o a f a l s e sense of security, then placed under a d i f f e r e n t set of e t h i c a l procedures. "Acquiesence" was most often the r e s u l t . Jenkins concluded his account of the SAFARI e t h i c with the statement that "the main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an e t h i c a l stance i s i t s s e l f - d e n i a l . " The SAFARI group's use of such terms as coopting; the 'r e a l p o l i t i c k ' ; the help of the aut h o r i t a t i v e p o s i t i o n ; and provoking divergency, pointed towards Jenkins' "disreputable conclusion." The SAFARI p r i n c i p l e s of procedure did "not begin to q u a l i f y as [an] e t h i c a l stance" (p.157). The r e a l i z a t i o n of an e t h i c a l inconsistency, according to E l l i o t , required a change i n the evaluator's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : MacDonald i s wrong i n his assertion that democratic evaluation has no conception of 'information misuse'. The evaluator cannot escape r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for judgment against p u b l i c c r i t e r i a i f he i s to remain genuinely democratic. ( E l l i o t , 1977: 194) Walker acknowledged the presupposed values that operated within the democratic mode: The democratic mode of evaluation i s conservative i n that i t presupposes values i n the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n that need prote c t i o n . Its negative aspect i s i n e r t i a , which i s inherently conservative p r e c i s e l y because i t off e r s support, perhaps even unthinking support to the status quo...It i s p o t e n t i a l l y a way of screening out the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e a l l y r a d i c a l view. Whether this l o g i c ever gets turned into p r a c t i c e i s another matter. (Walker, 1981: 38) When the existence of a d i f f e r e n t e t h i c a l set was not re a l i z e d , i t was not possible to ' f u l l y - d i s c u s s ' values i n the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n that needed pr o t e c t i o n . Without a c r i t e r i o n of the public i n t e r e s t , groups and 48 i n d i v i d u a l s lapse into i n e r t i a . If actors i n a s i t u a t i o n do not r e a l i z e that they are at a stage where the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e p r e v a i l s , they w i l l "support...the status quo." E l l i o t defined the p r i n c i p l e as that "which everyone would accept i n a s i t u a t i o n where they are free from bias." Such was not the accepted s i t u a t i o n amid SAFARI pr o j e c t s . The confidents (having no c r i t e r i o n of " j u s t i c e " ) would s t i l l be advocating the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e i r own ' i n t e r e s t s . ' I t would be easy to see why the common denominator of negotiation involving "sectional i n t e r e s t s " would screen out the " r e a l l y r a d i c a l view." The desire to correct the imbalance of power, by upholding the p r i n c i p l e s of the SAFARI ethic, f e l l short of i t s goal. In f a i r n e s s , Jenkins allowed that the i r o n i c a l increase i n power to the researcher may not have been the hidden agenda: It i s more humane to consider the SAFARI case students as hopelessly caught i n the c r o s s f i r e between c o n f l i c t i n g a s p i r a t i o n s . (Jenkins, 1977: 152) Walker would appear to support t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of paradoxical r e s t r a i n t s - and not a deliberate " r h e t o r i c a l contrick." There was no pretense that the researcher's authority had been once and for a l l controlled: Those who have c r i t i c i s e d the SAFARI rh e t o r i c for adopting too s o f t a p o s i t i o n , for conceding too much to the r i g h t s of the subject, have sometimes f a i l e d to see the power that the r h e t o r i c can give the researcher once the p r i n c i p l e s and procedures are established. In e f f e c t you can say to people 'Feel free to t e l l me whatever you want. Our conversation i s c o n f i d e n t i a l . If you want i t to go no further we can e d i t i t from the record.' As Jenkins has pointed out i n his c r i t i q u e (Jenkins, 1977) i t i s often much more d i f f i c u l t for people to e d i t the 49 record than we tend to assume. The authority of the researcher cannot be ignored as a factor i n the s i t u a t i o n , nor can the f a c t that everyone involved has suspicions as to what others might have said to you. Con-f i d e n t i a l i t y may be intended to protect the i n d i v i d u a l , but i t s e f f e c t i s often to divide people and to engender mistrust. (Walker, 1981: 206) Walker's defense against the c r i t i c i s m of a 'soft p o s i t i o n ' was to point out that c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y often divided p a r t i c i p a n t s , and a c t u a l l y enhanced the authority of the researcher. The p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e was the necessary next step to be included i n the development of CARE's case study method. This p r i n c i p l e was premised by the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s of educational research as well as by an incomplete set of e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . This inadequacy was revealed by the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of two styles of case study: democratic and condensed fieldwork. The r e s t r a i n t s of time of the f i r s t approach precluded the necessary negotiation time of the second. The r e s u l t could be an expedient manipulation of e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s by the researcher i n his or her desire to q u i c k l y inform decision makers. Whatever the developmental l i m i t a t i o n s of the case study became, however, CARE researchers were committed to the development of an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to the dominant agricultural-botany paradigm. They e s p e c i a l l y believed that the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l approach to educational research, with i t s use of p r e s p e c i f i e d terminal behaviours as benchmarks of successful implementation, was too s i m p l i s t i c . Such research on education superseded the commonsense i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e a l i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s and i t superimposed a technological d e f i n i t i o n of curriculum a c t i o n . 50 CHAPTER III AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO RESEARCH The a l t e r n a t i v e view of research accepted by the CARE group necessitated a d i f f e r e n t approach to the study of educational a c t i o n . The group described t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e approach as 'Educational Research', as opposed to 'Research on Education.' A basic premise of such research was that no one d e f i n i t i o n of a s i t u a t i o n was a u t h o r i t a t i v e . In place of the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of phenomena, the CARE group (with exceptions) adhered to the 'con t r o l l e d r e l a t i v i t y paradigm.' In place of ' d e f i n i t i v e concepts' which acted as a p r i o r i research descriptors, the a l t e r n a t i v e ' s e n s i t i z i n g concepts' were employed. These l a t t e r concepts allowed 'progressive focussing' during research. The r e s u l t of such focussing was a 'portrayal' of the i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of pa r t i c i p a n t s i n their own commonsense concepts. The a l t e r n a t i v e approach to research presented methodological problems. An A l t e r n a t i v e Response to the P s y c h o - S t a t i s t i c a l E l l i o t l a b e l l e d the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l s t y l e "Research on Education." The a l t e r n a t i v e paradigm became "Educational Research." He outlined the d i s t i n c t i o n s : Parameter Educational Research Research on Education Perspective Natural-objective S c i e n t i f i c Concepts S e n s i t i z i n g D e f i n i t i v e 51 Data Theory Method Generalization P a r t i c i p a t i o n Techniques A p r i o r i Quantitative Formal Experimental Formalistic No teacher/pupil p a r t i c i p a t i o n A p o s t e r i o r i Q u a l i t a t i v e Substantive Case Study N a t u r a l i s t i c Teachers and pupils p a r t i c i p a t e P a r t i c i p a n t observation Non-participant observa-and informal t i o n using a p r i o r i interviews category systems. ( E l l i o t , 1978: 20) The paradigm outlined by E l l i o t and explored by the CARE group was not without i t s own problems. Methodological questions were p a r t i c u l a r l y bothersome. Rejection of the established method entailed the development of a new j u s t i f y i n g base for research. An ontol o g i c a l basis was necessary to substantiate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and an epistemological basis was needed to val i d a t e q u a l i t a t i v e knowledge. However, the CARE group was not a continuous nor cohesive t r a d i t i o n . Educational researchers were associated with CARE at d i f f e r i n g periods and with d i f f e r i n g degrees of involvement. Furthermore, the c e n t r a l concern was applied research. The p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the case study approach outstripped the e x p l i c a t i o n of the p h i l i s o p h i c a l provenance. This lack of succintness l e f t 'mists of ambiguity' surrounding the CARE work. A great deal of ambiguity had surrounded the i l l u m i n a t i v e approach. This ambiguity continued and affected the practice and theory of case study: "Many of the issues are s t i l l problematic; a l l need to be subjected to the scrutiny of pr a c t i c e and t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e " (Simons, 1980: 10). Stenhouse also referred to this uncertainty i n reference to doctoral d i s s e r -ta t i o n s : As an examiner of doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n s I f i n d no substitute for the b u i l d i n g of a research t r a d i t i o n as a basis for v e r i f i -cation and cumulation i n i l l u m i n a t i v e research. I think some doctoral students -and some post-doctoral researchers - are declaring themselves " i l l u m i n a t i v e " to escape the pressure of standards and that t h i s cannot be allowed to continue. At the same time most doctoral supervisors are unsure what standards to advocate i n i l l u m i n a t i v e research. (Stenhouse, 1979b: 7) In 1979 he stated, "Now, at the moment I'm quite tender on this problem, because i t i s not p u b l i c l y clear within the academic community what the standards for th i s kind of work should be...." In 1981, Lawn and Barton stated that the CARE ambiguity s t i l l p r e v a i l e d . The Centre was said to operate " l i k e a charismatic movement around Stenhouse, a t t r a c t i n g the discontent amongst the educational f a i t h f u l , with their i n t e r n a l tensions acting as a cohesive force against outsider h o s t i l i t y , and with t h e i r ambiguity a condition of t h e i r continued existence u n t i l the new orthodoxy i s created" (p.11). The authors maintained that an orthodoxy or t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n was not exi s t e n t . They went so f a r , i n fac t , as the assertion that the CARE group had turned i t s back on theory -which Lawn and Barton f e l t was a necessary condition of a bona fi d e a l t e r n a t i v e t r a d i t i o n . Most CARE members rejected the c r i t i c i s m that they were ' a n t i -t h e o r e t i c a l . ' Instead, they considered the c r i t i c s to be locked into an a l t e r n a t i v e perspective which could not encompass that of the CARE 53 researchers. Kushner and Norris considered t h e i r CARE work as " n a t u r a l i s t i c research." In the 1981 a r t i c l e "Interpretation, Negotiation and V a l i d i t y i n N a t u r a l i s t i c Research" the two authors wrote of the paradigmatic d i s t i n c t i o n : N a t u r a l i s t i c research arises out of an i n t e r e s t i n understanding. It i s not simply an a l t e r n a t i v e method for conducting empirical research i n educational settings but an a l t e r n a t i v e way of seeing and construing the world of education. Thus, n a t u r a l i s t i c research has d i f f e r e n t e piste-mological and o n t o l o g i c a l presuppositions to those of, say, the experimental or psycho-s t a t i s t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s i n educational research. As such, we should be wary of seeing them as compatible, or even comple-mentary, forms of enquiry. (Kushner and N o r r i s , 1981: 27) The b e l i e f expressed was that d i f f e r i n g perspectives are founded on d i f f e r i n g psychological world views. This conception of truth and the implied notion of r e a l i t y construction was shared by other CARE members. The Controlled R e l a t i v i t y Paradigm John E l l i o t termed such p e r s p e c t i v a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n 'contingent r e l a t i v i s m ' (1974). He coined the term i n the context of a c r i t i q u e of an a r t i c l e by Hans Brugelmann (1974). E l l i o t ' s notion described the r e j e c t i o n of an ' a b s o l u t i s t view 1 by Brugelmann. E l l i o t addressed Brugelmann's argument: Note that so far i n the argument we are working at the l e v e l of s o c i a l psychological explanation. P e r s i s t e n t disagreement i s explained i n terms of d i f f e r e n t conceptions of t r u t h . I ' l l c a l l t his thesis contingent  r e l a t i v i s m . If true i t c e r t a i n l y f a l s i f i e s the a b s o l u t i s t view that there i s some archimedean point against which we can check the o b j e c t i v i t y of our theories. (1974: 119) 54 I f one accepted the premise of ' d i f f e r i n g conceptions of truth,' then (as Kushner and Norris asserted above) the tenets of the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l theory could not be applied as c r i t i c i s m against the new paradigm. S i m i l a r l y , i n the search for ontological/epistemological tenets to guide case study research, t r a d i t i o n a l forms of v a l i d a t i o n had to be abandoned; these represented "an a l t e r n a t i v e way of seeing or construing the world of education." As E l l i o t went on to write, i n "The SAFARI S o l i p s i s t s " , applying the notion of a paradigm s h i f t meant that any: ...change of allegiance from one paradigm to another cannot be a matter of r a t i o n a l commitment. At best i t i s non-rational. S i m i l a r l y for Brugelmann who argues that the i n i t i a l step of commitment 'cannot be founded on any l o g i c a l or empirical pre-supposition outside the b e l i e f system i t s e l f . ' ( E l l i o t , 1974: 120) As E l l i o t ' s essay t i t l e might suggest, he rejected t h i s t h e s i s . E l l i o t took exception to the premise of the CARE view of case studies which stated that "no group's d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n i s allowed to become a u t h o r i t a t i v e . " Brugelmann, i n "Towards Checks and Balances in Educational Evaluation: On the Use of S o c i a l Control i n Research Design," out l i n e d this premise i n his d e s c r i p t i o n of "the controlled r e l a t i v i t y paradigm" (Brugelmann, 1974). MacDonald and Walker, according to E l l i o t , also " s p e l l i t out, together with i t s methological implications, very c l e a r l y " : I t i s i m p l i c i t i n the notion of case-study that there i s no one true d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n . In s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s , truth i s multiple. The case worker i s a c o l l e c t o r of d e f i n i t i o n s . The c o l l e c t i o n i s validated v i a a continuous process of negotiation with those involved. (Walker and MacDonald, 1975b: 9) 55 The l o g i c of Brugelmann, Walker and MacDonald was painstakinly examined by E l l i o t i n his e f f o r t to show how the i r "epistemological r e l a t i v i s m " was i l l o g i c a l : The view that we cannot know whether the facts are independent of our conceptions of them i s based on an appeal to cer t a i n psychological f a c t s . It i s equivalent to saying 'I want you to believe there are no objective facts because of these objective f a c t s . ' The whole argument i s i l l o g i c a l . . . If Brugelmann wants to argue that o b j e c t i v i t y i s not possible he must do so on philosophical rather than psychological grounds. As a precondition he must admit that I can accept the psychological f a c t that I cannot know r e a l i t y independently of my conceptions of i t and s t i l l quite c o n s i s t e n t l y ask the question, 'How can I know that what I conceive e x i s t s independently?' Notice that my question assumes the p o s s i b i l i t y of o b j e c t i v i t y . His task would be to provide some p h i l i s o p h i c a l grounds to show that the assumption behind my question i s f a l s e . I s h a l l now show that every single objection he makes leaves me free to go on asking t h i s question. ( E l l i o t , 1974: 120) The f a c t that Brugelmann did not ( i f one accepts the completeness of E l l i o t ' s analysis) provide adequate p h i l i s o p h i c a l grounds for the quint e s s e n t i a l premise (which E l l i o t l a b e l l e d "contingent relativism") does not rule out the p o s s i b i l i t y for such an argument being advanced s u c c e s s f u l l y . Yet, Brugelmann's venture into "ontological and epistemological presuppositions" f e l l short of a r t i c u l a t i n g a 'new orthodoxy.' In the view of Bartin and Lawn, CARE s t i l l lacked a systematic t r e a t i s e concerning t h e i r p h i l o s o p h i c a l grounding i n 1981: We are sympathetic to the enterprise upon which they are engaged, yet we fi n d a public 56 discussion with them hard to generate. In response to our c r i t i c i s m s , "the mists of ambiguity" was a phrase used i n one l e t t e r from the Centre, describing t h e i r need for privacy and a deliberate a n t i - t h e o r e t i c a l journey!... From the ea r l y days of the deviant Humanities Curriculum Project to the present ambivalence about involvement with theory and education-a l policy-making, CARE has developed an ambiguity about i t s work, though i t has always been f o r t h r i g h t i n i t s independence. This p o s i t i o n i s not without contradictions, since Centre s t a f f may also be u n i v e r s i t y l e c t u r e r s , higher degree supervisors, and conference speakers. And the integration of CARE with a l o c a l college of education (teacher training) within the Un i v e r s i t y merely sharpens the p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r a d i c t i o n of e x i s t i n g within a Un i v e r s i t y yet r e s i s t i n g academia. (Barton and Lawn, 1981: 8) The CARE group, however, rejected such ' a n t i - t h e o r e t i c a l ' c r i t i c i s m . I t was considered a misapplication of f a l s e c r i t e r i a . The adherents to the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm sought to explain CARE research by the tenets of t h e i r own theory. The notion of paradigm established the f a l l a c y of such c r i t i c i s m . S c i e n t i s t s act within paradigms which are defined i n terms of the basic t h e o r e t i c a l concept possessed by the i r adherents. These concepts specify standards for what are to count as true or f a l s e claims. Now Kuhn (1970) claimed that many p e r s i s t e n t disagreements amongst s c i e n t i s t s can be explained i n terms of the disputants adhering to r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t conceptions of t r u t h . Moreover, since the dispute i s about what i s to count as truth there i s no way i n which the adherent of one paradigm can judge the claims of adherence of another against some neutral c r i t e r i o n . ( E l l i o t , 1974: 119) 57 E l l i o t f e l t that the conception of theory to which Kuhn ascribed was the same as that of his fellow CARE workers (Brugelmann, MacDonald and Walker). MacDonald and Walker f e l t that people from d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s had multiple d e f i n i t i o n s of t r u t h . There was no one true d e f i n i t i o n of any instance. Furthermore, where Kuhn maintained that there was an absence of neutral c r i t e r i a against which the adherents of one paradigm could judge the claims of another, Brugelmann believed that as there were multiple r e a l i t i e s , t r u t h was contingent on the r e l a t i v e adherence of people to a l t e r n a t i v e s o c i e t a l b e l i e f systems. The "academia" to which Lawn and Barton adhered (and CARE re s i s t e d ) was one such source of d e f i n i t i o n s of tr u t h . As such, the CARE workers considered t h e i r educational research to have a l t e r n a t i v e presuppositions to the dominant p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l research on education. Systematic Inquiry Made Public Lawrence Stenhouse provided some understanding of the ambiguity of the CARE group i n "Applying Research to Education" (1978b). This paper was presented at the B r i t i s h Educational Research Association conference of September, 1978. Stenhouse described an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to studying educational p r a c t i c e which he c a l l e d experimental action research. Stenhouse began his discussion by defining research as systematic i n q u i r y made p u b l i c . He further defined inquiry as "a t e l e o l o g i c a l pattern of action whose purpose i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . " Such s a t i s f a c t i o n was structured upon understanding. Understanding, i n turn, was the opposite to both misunderstanding and not understanding. The need for a d i s t i n c t i o n between these two l a t t e r psychological states was "to l i n k the personal and the 58 s o c i a l . " To no longer misunderstand required a public assessment of that claim. To understand, where one had not understood, was a personal claim that had a psychological basis: From the point of view of a research t r a d i t i o n the discrimination between under-standing and misunderstanding hinges on the bu i l d i n g of p u b l i c l y accessible i n t e r p r e t a -tions of theories, which are susceptible of improvement. This implies public c r i t e r i a for judging what constitutes an improvement -that i s , metatheories - and behind these a study which regards the theories and meta-theories as problematic. This i s epistemology, the in q u i r y into the basis of claims to knowledge; and this i t s e l f has behind i t the area of in q u i r y which A r i s t o t l e c a l l e d metaphysics and i s now that branch of metaphysics c a l l e d ontology, whose inquir y i n t o the nature of r e a l i t y n e c e s s a r i l y has implications for epistemology. (Stenhouse, 1978b: 2) If a research t r a d i t i o n was to be b u i l t on experience, then there must be a basis for assessing a c o l l e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of work done i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n . In l i g h t of the need for systematic scepticism, there must be c r i t e r i a for assessing the "discrimination between understanding and mis-unders tanding." This public possession of the standards and c r i t e r i a which underwrite the p o s s i b i l i t y of scepticism i s one main reason why our d e f i n i t i o n of research must include the idea of making pub l i c , of publishing. A second main reason i s that research i s co l l a b o r a -t i v e . I t enables each researcher to use the work of others, to stand on many shoulders. Thus i t i s important that published work should be presented i n forms which are at once accessible to c r i t i c i s m and u t i l i z a b l e by others as contributions to the i r own work. When I address the problem of the ap p l i c a t i o n of research to education, the c r u c i a l issue i n education, as i n other applied f i e l d s , i s 59 that of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of scholarship and research to a c t i o n . (p. 3) The r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm of scholarship and research to action was believed to be problematic. Stenhouse was 'indebted' f o r much of his r e f u t a t i o n of the psycho-s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm to David Hamilton. Stenhouse referred to Hamilton's treatment of the development of the 'agricultural-botany paradigm' (1980). Applications of agricultural-botany designs to curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n a l research were problematic. ...the discrimination of the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of two a l t e r n a t i v e procedures by the use of an experiment cast i n the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm i s an e f f e c t i v e guide to action only i f a standard procedure must be used i n a l l cases. At system l e v e l t h i s implies uniformity of treatment i n a l l schools i r r e s p e c t i v e of context. At c l a s s -room l e v e l t his implies uniformity of treatment of a l l c h i l d r e n . Teaching i s l a r g e l y a response to the obser-vation and monitoring of learning i n cases. If t his i s so, then a c r u c i a l problem of the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm as the design for a discriminant experiment i s not simply that i t deals i n general p r e s c r i p t i o n s , but that i t o f f e r s to guide teachers by overriding, rather than by strengthening t h e i r judgement. (pp. 6-8) Theoretical applications to practice could only guide action i f a l l classrooms were treated uniformly. In p r a c t i c e , however, not only was such general p r e s c r i p t i o n i n f e a s i b l e , the 'art' of teaching mitigated against uniformity. Teaching s t y l e s worked towards i n s t r u c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n t a t i o n - to meet disparate student c a p a b i l i t i e s - not towards uniformity. The a l t e r n a t i v e to the problematic r e l a t i o n s h i p between scholarship and research to action was "experimental action research." 60 I am arguing for a s h i f t of paradigm on the part of at l e a s t a proportion of researchers, for testing a new approach. The key to this approach i s the a p p l i c a t i o n of research to education through an appeal to teacher judgement. The assertion i s that the improvement of teaching rests upon the development of the a r t of the teacher and not through the teacher's adoption of uniform procedures selected from competing a l t e r -natives .... The point of view I am taking implies that research i s best applied to education by producing theory which can enrich ac t i o n . The action i s the action of the teacher, and t h i s implies that the theory of teaching must be understood by the teacher. Of course, t h i s c a l l s for greater research l i t e r a c y among teachers, but i t also c a l l s for much more accessible research and theory. (p. 9) The expressed aims were to not override teacher judgement; to not o f f e r procedures for 'adoption'; to not make theory and research inaccessible to p r a c t i t i o n e r s ; and to not pre-ordain c u r r i c u l a r and teaching s t r a t e g i e s . The a l t e r n a t i v e experimental action research was to provide a theory of teaching which was to be understood by teachers. In order that such p r a c t i c a l theory could be understood, i t must have come from and be phrased i n commonsense concepts. I t was not the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the teacher to 'go to the research' - as the audience of such research was the teacher, i t should go to him or her. The function of educational research i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to pr a c t i c e i s to provide a theory of educational pr a c t i c e testable by the experiments of teachers i n classrooms. In a sense this c a l l s for the development of the role of teacher as researcher, but only i n a minimal sense. The basic desideratum i s 61 systematic inquiry; i t i s not necessary that t h i s inquiry be made public unless i t o f f e r s a contribution to a public theory of educat-i o n . (p. 10) The commitment to a new form of research precluded the necessity of p u b l i c v e r i f i c a t i o n of theory ('consensual v a l i d a t i o n ' ) . This was not, however, a f l i g h t from theory. Alternative experimental action research e n t a i l e d a systematic structure of procedures designed to generate a d i f f e r e n t kind of theory. Action research i n education rests upon the designing of procedures i n schools which meet both action c r i t e r i a and research c r i t e r i o n , that i s , experiments which can be j u s t i f i e d both on the grounds of what they teach teachers and researchers and on the grounds of what they teach p u p i l s . A systematic structure of such procedures I c a l l a hypothetical curriculum. Such a curriculum i s the appropriate experimental procedure through which research i s applied by t e s t i n g , r e f i n i n g , and generating theory i n the laboratory of the classroom. (p. 11) The role of the researcher i n generating hypothetical curriculum c a l l e d upon new concepts. Both action c r i t e r i a and research c r i t e r i a had to be generated. The development of a systematic structure of procedures had to derive from the 'day-to-day' t e s t i n g , r e f i n i n g , and generation of theory. How such generation took place entailed further s h i f t s i n i n t e r e s t and concerns. Such s h i f t s resulted i n recasted notions - of the role of the researcher. The researcher, having abandoned the a p r i o r i guides to research, needed new canons. Although the nature of the research was an a l t e r n a t i v e , there was s t i l l the necessity of testing r e f i n i n g and generating theory. While such theory was to be meaningful to p r a c t i t i o n e r s , and hence 62 cut the researcher loose from the lexicon of d i s c i p l i n e s , meaning s t i l l had to be selected i n a r e l i a b l e and v a l i d manner. D e f i n i t i v e and S e n s i t i z i n g Concepts Rob Walker wrote of the problems of s e l e c t i n g meaning in "Making Sense and Losing Meaning" (1976). Making sense i s e s s e n t i a l l y a matter of s e l e c t i n g meaning. Problems of making sense are continuous and c o n t i n u a l . For the s o c i a l researcher, i n whatever medium, they have to be accepted as both endemic and systemic. (p. 234) The continual problems i m p l i c i t to research are those involded i n s e l e c t i n g meaning. When E l l i o t stated that Educational Research was a p o s t e r i o r i , whereas Research on Education was a p r i o r i , he drew a d i s t i n c t i o n that was a t the centre of "making sense." Educational research would develop understanding by induction after the case had been 'portrayed'. Research on education, on the other hand, would s e l e c t the facts of the case by a method of deduction, having defined (by an a p r i o r i categorizing system) what constituted ' f a c t s ' from a formal theory. Unfortunately, i n the absence of p r i o r i concepts, understanding did not simply spring from a "locale and subculture." Meaning was selected. The p r i n c i p l e of i n t e n t i o animi implied that abandoning s e n s i t i z i n g (a p r i o r i ) concepts t o t a l l y , was impossible. Nevertheless, educational researchers were c a r e f u l not to systematically pre-ordain a method of deduction. The subtle yet fundamental d i s t i n c t i o n between d e f i n i t i v e concepts and s e n s i t i z i n g concepts was taken up by E l l i o t . E l l i o t re-introduced " d e f i n i t i v e anbd s e n s i t i z i n g concepts" i n "Classroom Research: Science or Commonsense?" (1978). In order to c l a r i f y the problem of s e l e c t i n g meaning, he drew on the ideas of Herbert Blumer from 63 the a r t i c l e "What i s Wrong with S o c i a l Theory?" (Blumer 1954). In an attempt to answer his t i t l e question, Blumer f e l t that the conceptual l e v e l of research needed to be addressed: In my judgment the appropriate l i n e of probing i s with regard to the concept. Theory i s of value i n empirical science only to the extent to which i t connects f r u i t f u l l y with the empirical world. Concepts are the means, and the only means of es t a b l i s h i n g such connection, for i t i s the concept that points to the empirical instances about which a t h e o r e t i c a l proposal i s made. (Blumer, 1954: 4) E l l i o t believed that Blumer provided a rationale that allowed theory to remain behind "mists of ambiguity" (Lawn and Barton's quote) without jeopardizing the ve r a c i t y of research. E l l i o t stated that educational research employed s e n s i t i z i n g concepts which gave only a general sense of the empirical instance. Research on education, as applied by the dominant t r a d i t i o n of classroom research, used operational d e f i n i t i o n s of variables i n advance of the research which were d e f i n i t i v e concepts. The d i s t i n c t i o n between s e n s i t i z i n g and d e f i n i t i v e concepts was taken from Blumer: The d e f i n i t i v e concept 'refers p r e c i s e l y to what i s common to a class of objects, by the a id of a clear d e f i n i t i o n i n terms of at t r i b u t e s or fixed bench marks' and serves 'as a means of c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y i n g the i n d i v i d u a l instance of the class and the make-up of that instance that i s covered by the concept 1. The s e n s i t i z i n g concept on the other hand 'lacks such s p e c i f i c a t i o n of att r i b u t e s or bench marks and consequently i t does not enable the user to move d i r e c t l y to the instance and i t s relevant content. Instead, i t gives the user a general sense of reference and guidance i n approaching empirical instances.' Blumer sums i t up by suggesting that d e f i n i t i v e concepts t e l l us what to see while s e n s i t i z i n g concepts merely 64 give us a general d i r e c t i o n along which to look. ( E l l i o t , 1978: 13) Without the use of a p r i o r i bench marks, the researcher who used s e n s i t i z i n g concepts had only "a general sense of reference and guidance." While the Researcher on Education was committed to c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of a t t r i b u t e s , the Educational Researcher had to "act and react i n r e l a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n and p a r t i c u l a r people and events within i t . " Rather than subjugating s u b j e c t i v i t y to d e f i n i t i v e concepts (which " t o l d the researcher what to see 1) s e n s i t i z i n g concepts (when tested and assayed against the empirical instances) allowed a d i s c i p l i n e d s u b j e c t i v i t y . Blumer ou t l i n e d the two li n e s of attack: The f i r s t seeks to develop precise and fixed procedures that w i l l y i e l d a stable and d e f i n i t i v e empirical content. I t r e l i e s on neat and standardized techniques, on experi-mental arrangemetns, on mathematical categories. Its immediate world of data i s not the natural s o c i a l world of our experience but s p e c i a l i z e d abstractions out of i t or substitutes for i t . The aim i s to return to the natural s o c i a l world with d e f i n i t i v e concepts based on p r e c i s e l y s p e c i f i e d procedures. While such procedures may be useful and valuable i n many ways, th e i r a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h genuine concepts r e l a t e d to the natural world i s confronted by...serious d i f f i c u l t i e s which so far have not been met s u c c e s s f u l l y . . . . The other l i n e of attack accepts our concepts as being i n t r i n s i c a l l y s e n s i t i z i n g and not d e f i n i t i v e . It i s spared the l o g i c a l d i f f i -c u l t i e s confronting the f i r s t l i n e of attack but at the expense of f o r f e i t i n g the achievement of d e f i n i t i v e concepts with s p e c i f i c , objective bench marks. (Blumer, 1954: 10) 65 At f i r s t glance, the apparent loss of rigour associated with the use of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts may make them seem questionable. I t may seem (as Stenhouse found for many doctoral students) to be an escape from the pressure of standards. Yet, as Blumer asserted, this was possibly but not necessarily the case: The great vic e , and the enormously widespread vice , i n the use of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts i s to take them for granted - to r e s t content with whatever element of p l a u s i b i l i t y they possess. Under such circumstances, the concept takes the form of a vague stereotype and i t becomes only a device for ordering or arranging empirical instances. As such i t i s not tested and assayed against the empirical instances and thus f o r f e i t s the only means of i t s improvement as an a n a l y t i c a l t o o l . But th i s merely indicated inadequate, slovenly or laz y work and need not be. If varied empirical instances are chosen for study, and i f that study i s c a r e f u l , probing and imaginative, with an ever a l e r t eye on whether, or how f a r , the concept f i t s , f u l l means are provided for the progressive r e -finement of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts. (Blumer, 1954: 9) Inadequate, slovenly or lazy work could lead to the s u b s t i t u t i o n of vague stereotypes for d e f i n i t i v e concepts. Necessary testing and assaying, on the other hand, allowed for abandonment of d e f i n i t i v e concepts i n favour of "progressive refinement of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts." The move away from the "canons of the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm" was a move away from the perceived inadequacies of that paradigm's d e f i n i t i v e concepts (and the a p r i o r i importance afforded them). The move towards "commonsense concepts" was a move to adopt s e n s i t i z i n g concepts: The connection between s e n s i t i z i n g and commonsense concepts should now be obvious. They are descriptions of the same concepts because s e n s i t i z i n g concepts - concrete universals - get t h e i r sense from a world of 66 common experience. They are the concepts of commonsense. I would suggest that one can theorize either from the standpoint of science or from that of p r a c t i c e , and that the l a t t e r consists l a r g e l y of developing our understanding of commonsense concepts through the study of concrete p a r t i c u l a r s . In other words p r a c t i c a l theorizing explores commonsense concepts through case study. It i s therefore through case study that the s e n s i t i z i n g concepts which guide pra c t i c e can be improved. ( E l l i o t , 1978: 15) Case studies, then, were the means of e m p i r i c a l l y grounding p r a c t i c a l theory. This grounding was a connection made possible by the r e f i n i n g of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts. These concepts (in Blumer's words) pointed "to the empirical instances about which a t h e o r e t i c a l proposal i s made." Discomfort with attempts to disentangle accumulated wisdom from i t s s p e c i f i c context, was a concern with a problematic r e - d e f i n i t i o n of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts to d e f i n i t i v e concepts. This process, as E l l i o t out-l i n e d , was the r e - d e f i n i t i o n or supersession of em p i r i c a l l y grounded concepts i n t o a "separate domain of thought": It i s this c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of commonsense b e l i e f as e s s e n t i a l l y •taken-for-granted' which leads many ' t h e o r i s t s ' to conclude that there i s no room for r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y within the domain of commonsense. 'Rationality' i s defined by ' d i s c i p l i n e s ' , which operate i n a separate domain of thought. Therefore commonsense concepts cannot be improved by r a t i o n a l inquiry within the domain of commonsense. They can only be improved upon and superseded. Hence the tendency to 'redefine' commonsense concepts o p e r a t i o n a l l y . However, the tr a n s l a t i o n of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts cannot occur without the d i s t i n c t i v e character and meaning of the data from which they derive t h e i r sense being l o s t . . ( E l l i o t , 1978: 16) 67 The r e - d e f i n i t i o n (and subsequent application) of d e f i n i t i v e concepts from "commonsense concepts" was c r i t i c i z e d by the CARE proponents as too s i m p l i s t i c and i n s e n s i t i v e . When the t r a n s l a t i o n took place, " d i s t i n c t i v e character and meaning" were l o s t . When these improved-upon concepts were then used, a p r i o r i , to new s i t u a t i o n s , they were equivocal and inadequate. Furthermore, the i n i t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n for superseding commonsense concepts was challenged. E l l i o t f e l t the claim that commonsense concepts were e s s e n t i a l l y taken-for-granted came from a 'confused' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : In my view the assumption that commonsense conceptualizations are necessa r i l y 'taken for granted' i s based on a confusion between contingent and necessary features of common-sense b e l i e f . Commonsense theorizing through case study doesn't function to generate r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t i v e generalizations l i k e s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i z i n g . ( E l l i o t , 1978: 16) The necessary procedures that Blumer outlined to test and assay concepts against empirical instances were the means of not taking conceptualizations fo r granted. To E l l i o t , t h is procedure was the case study: When a concept i s taken for granted i t takes the form of a vague stereotype into which instances i n the world are made to f i t . As such i t s adequacy as a means of understand-ing the instance cannot be tested against the study of the instance i n a l l i t s p a r t i c u l a r -i t y . Case study then i s necessarily the means by which commonsense conceptualiza-tions of the world are tested and improved. ( E l l i o t , 1978: 15) 68 The case study, then, was a means for testing s e n s i t i z i n g or a n t i c i p a t o r y concepts. Yet, as E l l i o t stated above, the purpose was not to then " t r a n s l a t e " such assayed concepts into " r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t i v e generaliza-t i o n s . " The case study was not simply a means of generating concepts for a formal theory. The commitment was to p r a c t i c a l concerns. E l l i o t drew a d i s t i n c t i o n between a r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t i v e generaliza-t i o n and a p r a c t i c a l a n t i c i p a t i o n . The intended outcome of the testing of conjectures was not the proof of some hypothesis. The end i n view was an understanding of the process and milieux of the empirical instance. The s e n s i t i z i n g concept was used i n the " i n t e r e s t s and concerns of p r a c t i c e , " and not so that commensense concepts could be redefined operationally into d e f i n i t i v e concepts. Progressive Focussing Hamilton described the t e s t i n g of aspirations - the improvement of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts - as "progressive focusing." He outlined the p r a c t i c a l purposes of this process: The t r a n s i t i o n from stage to stage as the i n v e s t i g a t i o n unfolds, occurs as problem areas become progressively c l a r i f i e d and re-defined. The course of the study cannot be charted i n advance. Beginning with an extensive data base, the researchers syst e m a t i c a l l y reduce the breadth of th e i r i n q u i r y to give more concentrated attention to the emerging issues. This 'progressive focusing' permits unique and unpredicted phenomena to be given due weight. I t reduces the problem of data overload, and prevents the accumulation of a mass of analysed ma t e r i a l . (Hamilton, 1976: 93) Kemmis and Robottom added to the metaphor: 69 In order to accommodate the evolutionary nature of innovative programmes, the evalu-ation undergoes a process of 'progressive focusing' from a broad data-base to more concentrated attention on emerging issues. (1981: 152) 'Progressive focusing' was the a p o s t e r i o r i grounding of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts. I t avoided the premature closure and i n s e n s i t i v i t y of a p r i o r i c a t e g orization and answered the 'taken for granted' c r i t i c i s m against commonsense t h e o r i z i n g . The use of s e n s i t i z i n g concepts was e s s e n t i a l i f educational research was to serve the "i n t e r e s t s and concerns of pr a c t i c e . " As E l l i o t wrote: The development, modification, and r e v i s i o n of concepts through case study i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature of educational research. This follows from the f a c t that s e n s i t i z i n g concepts are embedded i n the world. ( E l l i o t , 1978: 22) Concepts embedded i n the world were a s p i r a t i o n s , mediated by i n t e l l i g e n t a c t i o n , that were c o n t i n u a l l y developed, modified and revised. Stenhouse wrote of th i s process: Educational action...involves an inescapable element of responsiveness. I n t e l l i g e n t a ction i s i n t e r p r e t i v e and mediates the s p i r i t of an a s p i r a t i o n i n terms of a reading of s i t u a t i o n a l responses. I t involves con-t i n u a l reassessment and judgement. (Stenhouse, 1978: 29) Given t h i s nature of educational a c t i o n , making sense involved the following: A commonsense approach to understanding action i n the educational process goes, I think, something l i k e t h i s . We seek to in t e r p r e t i n the l i g h t of our experience, which provides both e x p l i c i t and t a c i t knowledge, the situ a t i o n s i n which we have to act as they unfold. We seek to improve our 70 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s by discussion with others and to revise them when they are f a l s i f i e d i n action by the experience of s u r p r i s e . This surprise i s not experienced because of the negation of p r e s p e c i f i e d predictions based upon general p r o p o s i t i o n a l law. Rather i t arises from the disappointment of a n t i c i -pations continuously created by diagnostic judgements which r e l a t e the experience of a p a r t i c u l a r course of events i n which we are involved to general experience founded on the encounter with other courses of events with elements of s i m i l a r i t y . I t i s the a p p l i c a -t i o n of experience to the p a r t i c u l a r instance - that i s , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the instance - which i s revised rather than the general p r i n c i p l e . General experience i s extended gradually by each appearance but no experience can f a l s i f y the previous experi-ence of other cases. i) (Stenhouse, 1978: 29) The a p p l i c a t i o n of experience to the p a r t i c u l a r instance was the i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n of the instance. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was not then applied as negation or support of p r e s p e c i f i e d p r e d i c t i o n . It i s because our p r a c t i c a l purposes i n inter-personal s i t u a t i o n s necessitate s t r u c t u r i n g our experience i n terms of basic subjective categories that the less funda-mental concepts we employ specify subjective phenomena. Attempts by behavioural ' s c i e n t i s t s ' to o p e r a t i o n a l l y define those concepts can only r e s u l t i n making them la r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t for p r a c t i c a l purposes. In the context of action mental concepts are e s s e n t i a l l y s e n s i t i z i n g . ( E l l i o t , 1978: 17) Anticipations guided p r a c t i c a l purposes within educational a c t i o n . The a p p l i c a t i o n of experience to the p a r t i c u l a r instance was i n terms of "basic subjective categories." These mental concepts were p r a c t i c a l a n t i c i p a t i o n s and not construed as r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t i v e generalizations. The aim of case studying was the r e v i s i o n of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the instance rather than 71 of general p r i n c i p l e s . The r e s u l t was p r a c t i c a l theory which did not supersede the commonsense conceptualizations of the parti c i p a n t s i n educa-t i o n a l a c t i o n . As E l l i o t stated, much of the c r i t i c i s m of the alleged CARE " a n t i -t h e o r e t i c a l journey" was a problem of confusion. Walker rephrased the confusion as misconceptions of CARE's "recasted notions of research and of the role of the researcher" (Walker, 1981). Walker's aim was p r a c t i c a l theory i n the sense of the "progressive focussing" discussed above. P r a c t i c a l theory required that research not supersede commonsense concepts. The " p r a c t i t i o n e r audience" gave a study r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y by their involvement i n procedures and ethi c s - i n their every-day language. The c e n t r a l theme of the recasted notions of the role of the researcher was that of 'making sense.' A reluctance to use a p r i o r i concepts as guides to research required the procedure of 'progressive focusing.' This r e f i n e -ment of ' s e n s i t i z i n g concepts', i n Blumer's view, was not r e a l i z e d . ...by introducing a new vocabulary of terms or s u b s t i t u t i n g new terms - the task i s not one of lexicography. It i s not achieved by extensive r e f l e c t i o n on theories to show their l o g i c a l weaknesses and p i t f a l l s . It i s not accomplished by forming or importing new theories. It i s not achieved by inventing new technical instruments or by improving the r e l i a b i l i t y of old techniques - such i n s t r u -ments and techniques are neutral to the concepts on behalf of which they may be used. (Blumer, 1954: 5) Furthermore, according to CARE procedures, concepts were not to be grounded v i a the process of " d i s c i p l i n e d s u b j e c t i v i t y " , when the researcher developed i n s i t u t h e o r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s . Such s o c i a l anthropological procedures were also held problematic: 72 Ethnographic theory tends to be esoteric and inac c e s s i b l e to the actors i n the s i t u a t i o n studied. There i s already c r i t i c i s m of s o c i a l anthropology as tending to increase the power of the community to which the ethnographer belongs without making a si m i l a r contribution to those who are studied. In a pro f e s s i o n a l school research should feed pra c t i c e and hence should be accessible to p r a c t i t i o n e r s . This c a l l s for parsimony of theory, and theory which i s within the l i t e r a c y of the actor. (Stenhouse, 1979b: 8) Stenhouse alluded to a time when researchers could win their way back to a "lexicography" that could be grounded i n the empirical instances of educational a c t i o n . Such was not the state of research i n 1978, however: The s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i q u e of understanding rests t r a d i t i o n a l l y on successful p r e d i c t -ion of the outcomes of s p e c i f i e d procedures by reference to general laws or propositions. The s c i e n t i s t ' s procedure i s i d e a l l y pre-ordinate, not responsive. That i s , i t i s designed i n advance according to an experi-mental model of research which stresses p r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n as a warranty of the i n t e g r i t y of the method and i s c r i t i c a l of ex post facto i n t e r p r e t i v e responses. Such a strategy does not involve the judgement of situat i o n s as wholes but rather the analysis of factors i n the s i t u a t i o n , i n terms of which the outcome may be parsimoniously predicted. I t i s the categorisations which t r a d i t i o n a l l y l i e behind such analyses of human action which I have argued should be held problematic. Hence we cannot adopt the s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i q u e of understanding, though i n due course, as a r e s u l t of a programme of research, we may win our way back to i t on d i f f e r e n t terms of ca t e g o r i s a t i o n . (Stenhouse, 1978: 24) The terms of categorizaton that may eventually be won would present a f a i t h f u l p ortrayal of i n d i v i d u a l s i t u a t i o n s as wholes. The p r e v a i l i n g a l t e r n a t i v e was the problematic analysis of f a c t o r s . 73 The discussions of making sense, e s p e c i a l l y where concerned with h o l i s t i c perspectives, was pronouncedy e i d e t i c . While Blumer was removed from the group under discussion, he emphasized the use of v i s u a l metaphors l a t e r found i n the writings of CARE evaluators and researchers: Since the immediate data of observation i n the form of the d i s t i n c t i v e expression i n the separate instances of study are d i f f e r e n t , i n approaching the empirical instances one cannot r e l y on bench marks or f i x e d , objective t r a i t s of expression. Instead, the concept must guide one i n developing a p i c t u r e of the d i s t i n c t i v e expression. (Blumer, 1954: 8) The image of a "picture" - f i l l e d i n by researcher and p a r t i c i p a n t a l i k e , and then s c r u t i n i z e d by a l l f o r i t s 'realism' - was an apt metaphor. Blumer f i l l e d out his metaphor more s u c c i n c t l y . S e n s i t i z i n g concepts were formulated and communicated: ...by exposition which y i e l d s a meaningful picture, abetted by apt i l l u s t r a t i o n s which enable one to grasp the reference i n terms of one's own experience. This i s how we come to see the meaning and sense i n our concepts. Such exposition, i t should be added, may be good or poor - and by the same token i t may be improved. When describing action s i m i l a r to what Blumer referred to above as the "exposition" of the observer, Stenhouse revealed why the picture of the researcher could not be regarded as portraying a l l that was "worthy of notice": Now i t i s clear than any d e s c r i p t i o n , ...rests upon the judgement of him who observes and describes, both i n respect of what he selects as worthy of notice and i n respect of i n t e r p r e t a t i v e perception. There may also be evaluative comment and r e f l e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and indeed i t may be argued that these make the d e s c r i p t i o n more access-74 i b l e to c r i t i c i s m because they provide evidence regarding the p o s i t i o n of the observer. A l l d e s c r i p t i o n derives i t s form from f a l l i n g into place within a perspective whose s t r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e i s inseparable from the point of view of an observer. (Stenhouse, 1979: 8) Stenhouse's caution regarding the i n s e p a r a b i l i t y of perception and perspective was but one of the intentions for adopting an e i d e t i c "portrayal" approach. MacDonald included this i n t e n t i o n among three which he provided i n a d e s c r i p t i o n of the case study concept of p o r t r a y a l . Portrayal MacDonald provided further e i d e t i c d escription i n his a r t i c l e "The Portrayal of Persons as Evaluation Data" ( i n : Norris, 1977). He began with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the appeal of the concept, of 'portrayal': Portrayal i s a key concept of the counter-culture i n evaluation which i n the l a s t decade has mounted an i n c r e a s i n g l y a r t i c u l a t e challenge to the p r e v a i l i n g engineering paradigm. Whether the i n t e n t i o n i s to provide "vicarious experience" as Stake suggests, or to "re-educate perception" as Eisner has i t , or more simply (irony intended) to " t e l l i t l i k e i t i s " (Kemmis), there i s a shared concern among members of t h i s school to create and convey images of educational a c t i v i t y which both preserve and illuminate i t s complexity. (MacDonald, 1977: 51) To preserve the complexity of an educational instance - with i t s "diverse patternings of meaning, s i g n i f i c a n c e and work" - required i l l u m i n a t i o n i n the language and i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Portrayal created and conveyed these "images" i n the vocabulary of the non-research community. Furthering such p i c t o r i a l conceptualization, Kemmis (1980) wrote about the s e l e c t i o n of meaning as influenced by "frameworks": 75 The observation process unavoidably c a l l s i n t o play the frameworks of the observer just as the process of communication unavoidably c a l l s into play the frameworks of the hearer. In a l l knowing, the knower - the cognitive subject - brings to bear his language and perceptual habits, framed by a personal and c u l t u r a l background. In observing and i n communicating the " r e s u l t s " of observation, these are further influenced by the actual and anticipated language, the perceptual habits, and the personal and c u l t u r a l back-grounds of others. (p. 108) The observance of the influence a knower brings to bear on observation required procedures and e t h i c s . The "language and perceptual habits" of the researcher needed to be c o n t r o l l e d . In observation, when multiple r e a l i t i e s were believed to e x i s t , the frameworks of the observer needed to be addressed to preserve complexity. Likewise, the frameworks of the pa r t i c i p a n t s were to be used as the i l l u m i n a t i v e process when communicating. Portrayal hopefully provided the 'vocabulary' which could control perspectival influences. Brugelmann described the function of portrayal to preserve the multi-p l i c i t y of r e a l i t y as v e r i s i m i l i t u d e . The intent to illuminate such po r t r a y a l i n the vocabulary of p a r t i c i p a n t s was to provide richness: One should bear i n mind that a case-study has two quite d i f f e r e n t functions: one i s to describe a s p e c i f i c instance as accurately as possible ( ' v e r i s i m i l i t u d e ' ) ; the second i s to stimulate other people's perception and j udgement ('richness') . (Brugelmann, 1974: 54) A r i c h picture of an educational instance provided the reader ('viewer') with v i c a r i o u s experience. Perceptions and judgements were stimulated which f a c i l i t a t e d n a u t r a l i s t i c g eneralization to the audience's own s i t u a t i o n . V e r i s i m i l i t u d e and richness allowed 're-education' of the audiences' perceptions of t h e i r own experience, which could allow them to change t h e i r circumstances. The intentions of portrayal by case study were to provide accounts of research that were open to recognition and comparison. Unlike psycho-s t a t i s t i c a l data which were 'stripped' of recognizable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and contexts, p o r t r a y a l of cases provided for c r i t i c i s m i n l i g h t of experience. And i n addition, the researcher did not presume to give his or her i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the case, but the audience was provided a h o l i s t i c p o r t r a y a l . To pursue these l i n e s of development f u l l y may have r a d i c a l implications for research, i n p a r t i c u l a r i t may d i v e r t us from the primary quest for analysis, and instead lead us to develop p o r t r a y a l as our primary goal. In other words we r e f r a i n from giving p r a c t i t i o n e r s our view of how the system works ( f o r them to accept or reject) and instead concentrate on getting to them information which provides a more complete basis for taking decisions. Or a l t e r n a t i v e l y by making available s k i l l s which allow them to create their own information independently. (Walker, 1977: 22) The role of the 'counter-culture' evaluator was that of providing a more complete basis for decision makers. The case study was the c o l l e c t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s of an instance i n a c t i o n . The aim of this p o r t r a y a l was to make sense of the multiple truths i n a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . Exploring multiple meanings of an instance i n the every-day-language of p a r t i c i p a n t s provided a basis for v i c a r i ous experience. Such experience was enhanced or f a c i l i t a t e d by the richness of the p o r t r a y a l . The case study allowed p a r t i c i p a n t s and d e c i s i o n makers to create t h e i r own information and to re-educate t h e i r own experience of educational a c t i o n . They were i n t e g r a l l y involved i n making sense of action based research. 77 The CARE group decision to pursue an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to educational research brought them face-to-face with the formidable task of e x p l i c a t i n g a new p h i l i s o p h i c a l b a s i s . At the same time, the d i c t a t e s of an i n t e n t to p r a c t i c e experimental action based research provided more immediate yet no less demanding challenges. Adopting the premise that no one d e f i n i t i o n of a s i t u a t i o n was a u t h o r i t a t i v e meant having to define adequate procedures to capture the m u l t i p l i c i t y of r e a l i t y . Furthermore, such a port r a y a l needed to be illuminated i n the language of the p r a c t i t i o n e r . When s e l e c t i n g meaning, the case study worker was challenged by the psychological premise that perception and perspective were inseparable. The case study approach faced considerable methodological issues. 78 CHAPTER IV THE SOCIO-POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH PARADIGM Abandoning the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l research approach was necessitated by the CARE group's a l t e r n a t i v e view of research. This d i f f e r e n t perspective r a i s e d p o l i t i c a l and methodological challenges. The acceptance of the existence of multiple r e a l i t i e s ; the a s p i r a t i o n to portray these i n the language of 'every-day-life'; the hope to democratise the research and evaluation process; and the i n t e n t i o n to inform decision makers opened the case study process to constraints and i n f l u e n c e s . These s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l implications led to a need for rules of conduct i n case studying educational instances. Such rules were not, however, a methodology per se. They were a set of e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s that informed the role of the case study worker as he or she produced procedures for the i n d i v i d u a l and d i s t i n c t case study i n  s i t u . The P o l i t i c a l Nature of Research In "Case Study and the S o c i a l Philosophy of Educational Research," Walker and MacDonald discussed the p o l i t i c a l nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the researcher and the researched (1975). The re-orientation to both information gathering and release discussed by the authors was a necessary response to the CARE a l t e r n a t i v e view and approach to research. C o l l e c t i o n of data and release of information to decision makers were both subject to p o l i t i c a l conditions and r e s t r a i n t s . : We have presented a view of case-study research i n education which has i t s primary focus on the p o l i t i c a l nature of r e l a t i o n -79 ships between the researcher and his subjects, sponsors, audiences and rela t e d groups. We have emphasised such questions as who has co n t r o l over, or access to data, and under what conditions and constraints should the researcher seek and present his fi n d i n g s . Our recommendations are derived from a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i o / p h i l o s o p h i c a l stance. (p. 11) • The p o l i t i c a l circumstances of the case study impinged on the seeking and presenting of f i n d i n g s . Kemmis, et a l . , i n the i r synopsis of the second Cambridge conference, also addressed the p o l i t i c a l nature of case studying. They wrote how the circumstances of a p a r t i c u l a r instance would l a r g e l y determine the conduct of the study: In evaluation research, the circumstances i n which the case study i s conducted w i l l vary according to whether the evaluation i s by mandate, i n v i t a t i o n or negotiation, and whether the funding agency i s 'outside' the i n s t i t u t i o n to be studied. At i t s crudest t h i s means that any p a r t i c u l a r case study w i l l have been sought, bought or sponsored. (Kemmis, Adelman and Jenkins, 1980b: 53) The 'crude' acknowledgement was that any case study w i l l have been an outcome of some " p o l i t i c a l . . . r e l a t i o n s h i p between the researcher and his subject" (MacDonald and Walker, 1975). The CARE group made i t t h e i r mandate to delve into the p o l i t i c s of case study with only a few 'al t e r n a t i v e ' p r i n c i p l e s to guide them: They endorsed three s p e c i a l i n s i g h t s : f i r s t , that evaluation and research are necessarily p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s ; second, that the ethics of educational research had been i n s u f f i c i e n t -l y explored; and t h i r d , that there was a need to explore a research ethic enacted i n procedures which aimed to democratise the research and evaluation process. (Kushner and Norri s , 1980: 28) 80 The f i r s t i n s i g h t (that evaluation and research were necessarily p o l i t i c a l ) pertained to the actions of the researcher/evaluator as well as to the circumstances of c u r r i c u l a r innovation. The influences on the researcher had much to do with the purpose of informing decision makers. The needs of the audience could dictate relevance i n the ' s e l e c t i o n of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' . A broad base of agreement at CARE about the nature of education and the researcher's role i s c l e a r from writings and conversations. Yet the p a r t i c u l a r emphasis of each i n d i v i d u a l in r e l a t i o n to his or her work i n evaluation, research, or teacher development projects i s s i g n i f i c a n t . It i s not j u s t a question of personal b e l i e f s and influences but the audience and the writer has i n mind - the teacher i n the classroom, the educational administrator, or the unversity academic. The audience a l t e r s the emphasis. (Barter and Lawn, 1981: 1) MacDonald i l l u s t r a t e d the influence of the audience by reference to an analogy he a t t r i b u t e d to Robert Stake. The metaphor i s now dated, yet r e v e a l i n g . 'A see-through blouse was not a see-through blouse unless someone was looking. 1 A case study that aimed to inform present and p o t e n t i a l decision makers (curriculum implementors) had to aspire to 'best s e l l e r ' s t a t u s . If the information was not relevant to the decision makers' needs, i t was of l i t t l e use. The audience, thus, had a strong influence on the s e l e c t i o n of meaning. The second area of p o l i t i c a l action to be acknowledged was that within the school i t s e l f . A l l o c a t i o n and exercise of authority were important conditions and r e s t r a i n t s acting on innovation. Questions of power were foremost i n the study of schools: In the analysis of schools the balance of power between departments, and between the departments as a whole and the senior s t a f f , 81 provides c r i t i c a l l i n e s of cleavage i n the organization. When power resides i n the c o l l e c t i o n of knowledge, the department becomes the basis of p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n . Attempts to innovate within the curriculum i n e v i t a b l y touch the p o l i t i c s of the school because they can be seen as attempts to a l t e r the r e l a t i v e status of subjects, to readjust t e r r i t o r i a l boundaries, or i n extreme cases to bring about the creation or demise of departments. If the head of the school i s king, the head of department i s baron. Faculty structures, while abolishing narrow i n t e r e s t s , succeed i n replacing them with larger ones which may contain their own tensions. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y so where teachers working i n f a c u l t i e s suspect allegiances a r i s i n g from th e i r background, education and pr o f e s s i o nal experience. The barons become super-overlords i n such a dispensation. (MacDonald and Walker, 1975b: 13) Curriculum innovation was subject to "super-overlords" who were involved i n a 'tense' struggle under the rule of t h e i r king - the school head. If the metaphor were applied further to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the implementation team at the school and the external LEA [see Appendix for a glossary of B r i t i s h Educational terms], the l a t t e r would be the Court of the Exchequer. The LEA o f f i c e r c o n t r o l l e d the c o f f e r s . He or she was responsible for promotion, d i s p e r s a l , workshop ( t r a i n i n g ) , and other components of carrying on the curriculum: The p o t e n t i a l of the LEA for the project c e n t r a l team lay i n i t s a b i l i t y to promote the adoption of the project i n schools. [The]... other face concerns the constraints which LEAs may impose upon schools - more s p e c i f i c a l l y , the influence which LEAs may have over curriculum innovation. (Simons and Humble, 1978: 56) The balance of power within the schools entailed choices: who w i l l have an innovation 'promoted' t h e i r way; who w i l l get the most support when 82 'adopting' the project; and what i n t e r n a l influences w i l l allow or not allow planned change to take place? A l l of these actions influenced, i n turn, the ' r e l a t i v e status' of an educational s e t t i n g . To report on these p o l i t i c a l machinations i n v a r i a b l y touched this balance by r e f l e c t i n g the ' r e a l i t i e s ' of the s i t u a t i o n - thus " i l l u m i n a t i n g " such tensions to one and a l l . The p o l i t i c a l concerns regarding presentation were compounded by the p o l i t i c s of data gathering. "The ethics of educational research", Kushner and Norris stated, "had been i n s u f f i c i e n t l y explored". Ethics were d i r e c t l y concerned with the d i s t i n c t i o n between r i g h t and wrong. When combined with a focus on p o l i t i c a l influence, the concern became one of the good or bad exercise of power. In any ethos p o l i t i c a l action must have a b a s i s . Walker and MacDonald f e l t that knowledge was the c a p i t a l of such moral planning and conduct: We believe that the dissemination of new knowledge ought to be a p r i o r , not a post, consideration i n the planning and conduct of educational research. Knowledge i s the basis on which many forms of power are legitimated and, i n the case of education, the medium through which power i s exercised. (Walker and MacDonald, 1975b: 6) The emphasis upon the dissemination of knowledge and the consequential influences upon power r e l a t i o n s h i p s extended to both the information gathering and presentation stages of evaluation. In fact, the p r i n c i p l e s of democratic evaluation were applied to the processes of curriculum innovation, implementation and summative reporting. Such p r i n c i p l e s led to procedures that had d i r e c t impact on the pattern of dissemination of knowledge. The case study worker was not 'objective', though he or she did aspire towards ' n e u t r a l i t y ' . 83 Methodological Implications The decision to acknowledge and include p o l i t i c a l concerns when case studying raised methodological problems. The researcher had to include such influences i n the port r a y a l as well as account for his or her 'obtrusive' conduct. The l a t t e r account concerned the e f f e c t s that the researcher's presence had on the research s e t t i n g : Case-study methods r e l y heavily on human instruments, about which only l i m i t e d knowledge can be obtained and whose private expectations, desires and i n t e r e s t s may bias the study i n unanticipated and unacknowleged ways. Lack of rules for case-study leaves research opportunities open to both r e a l and imagined abuse. (Walker and MacDonald, 1975b: 9) Researchers needed to acknowledge and control for their e f f e c t . Such impact was unavoidable. This did not imply that such obtrusiveness necess a r i l y d i s c r e d i t e d the v e r a c i t y of a study. There were ways to bring such influences under " c r i t i c a l s c r u t i n y " . Stenhouse introduced a means of s c r u t i n i z i n g case study work, c a l l i n g i t ' c r i t i c a l i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y ' . His statement was i n reference to the 'case record': which was to the case study what an ethnographer's f i e l d notes were to an ethnography. He wrote: The problem of compiling a case record i s to attenuate and expose to c r i t i c i s m the p o l i t i c a l and academic bias of the research workers as well as his personal bias, which i s more e a s i l y detectable by t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t i c i s m . The a s p i r a t i o n i s to produce subjective data whose s u b j e c t i v i t y i s s u f f i c i e n t l y c o n t r o l l e d to allow c r i t i c a l s c r u t i n y . The a s p i r a t i o n i s to c r i t i c a l i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y , not to o b j e c t i v i t y . (Stenhouse, 1978: 33) 84 Stenhouse drew heavily on the h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n to outline how such con t r o l could be r e a l i s e d . Elsewhere, c r i t i c a l i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y was equated with such concepts as ' d i s c i p l i n e d s u b j e c t i v e l y ' , 'self-monitoring 1, and 'perspectival bracketing'. The key notions involved i n c o n t r o l l i n g ' s u b j e c t i v i t y ' and researcher impact were openess, c l a r i f i c a t i o n and professionalism. To r e t a i n the v i a b i l i t y and i n t e g r i t y of h i s research p o s i t i o n and the t r u s t of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the project, the investigator needs from the outset to c l a r i f y his r o l e , to be open about the aims of his study, and to ensure that there i s no misunderstanding or ambiguity about who, for example, w i l l receive the report. (Hamilton and P a r l e t t , 1976: 9) The reason that an 'open record' of documentation was not s u f f i c i e n t had to do with the u n r e p l i c a b i l i t y of educational events and the sheer volume of case records. And even i f time had permitted a f u l l review, and a s i t u a t i o n could have been re-enacted, the complexity of educational l i f e c a l l e d for s e l e c t i o n which would have been (by the p r i n c i p l e of i n t e n t i o animi) determined i d i o s y n c r a t i c a l l y . Simons discussed this inexorable residue, and the problem of 'close-up' research i n Science of the Singular: One of the other major issues facing responsive evaluation or case study research i s the interpersonal, i n t e r a c t i v e nature of the exercise where the ' s e l f i s the primary instrument of data gathering and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and where the case study worker or evaluator i s i n control of the exchange of information between d i f f e r e n t groups of people within and between i n s t i t u t i o n s . Whatever procedures are adopted to document the process of the study and check for bias and co n t r o l there i s much in the techniques of data observing and 85 reporting i n case study that i s l e f t to the judgement of the evaluator.... (Simons, 1980: 6-7) The unavoidable judgement of the evaluator could be p a r t i a l l y met by c l a r i t y and e x p l i c i t n e s s : I t i s common i n research to use the term r e l i a b i l i t y to refer to a further d i f f i c u l t y and one which often dominates discussion of case study research: the problem of r e p l i c a b i l i t y . Would another researcher entering the same s i t u a t i o n produce s i m i l a r results? Educational s i t u a t i o n s are r a r e l y r e p l i c a b l e and this proposition would be d i f f i c u l t to test, but i n theory i t would seem that where procedures are clear and e x p l i c i t then r e l i a b i l i t y i n this sense would be higher than i t would given a free hand to the researcher i n the design and conduct of the case study. (Walker, 1981: 45) R e l i a b i l i t y could be increased given c l e a r and succinct reporting of procedures. C r i t i c a l self-awareness or i n t e r - s u b j e c t i v i t y could provide a basis for scr u t i n y - but not for o b j e c t i v i t y . The F a l l a c y of O b j e c t i v i t y Against allegations that the case studies were 'personal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ' , the CARE researchers turned the tables on p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c i a n s . Such c r i t i c i s m of the CARE studies was made on the basis of 'erroneous assumptions': Behind such questions l i e s a basic but erroneous assumption: that forms of research e x i s t which are immune to prejudice, experimenter bias and human e r r o r . This i s not so. Any research study requires s k i l l e d human judgements and i s thus vulnerable. Even i n evaluation studies that handle automatically processed numerical data, 86 judgement i s necessary at every stage: i n the choice of samples; i n the construction or s e l e c t i o n of tests; i n deciding conditions of administration; i n s e l e c t i n g the mode of s t a t i s t i c a l treatment (e.g. whether or not to use factor a n a l y s i s ) ; i n the r e l a t i v e weight given to d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s ; and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , i n the s e l e c t i o n and presentation of findings i n reports. (Hamilton, 1 9 7 6 : 96 ) The p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm was argued to be equally susceptible to 'prejudice, experimenter bias and human e r r o r ' . Human att r i b u t e s can be sampled, but we deny ourselves the assumption that actions can be regarded as a t t r i b u t e s . Whether and under what conditions actions can be sampled and whether and under what conditions actions can be represented as behaviours - and sampled as such - are problems whose solu t i o n must be deferred u n t i l we understand much more c l e a r l y the world of educational a c t i o n . The immediate problem i s how to approach the task of understanding, when we r e j e c t the premises of the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l paradigm. (Stenhouse, 1 9 7 8 : 24) Adherents to the t r a d i t i o n a l paradigm had f a l l e n victims to the r e i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r representative model. Describing human action as behaviour explained away the problem of s o c i e t a l and h i s t o r i c a l influences, but such a model could not provide the type of understanding sought by the CARE group. Confronting the dominant paradigm without a firm p h i l i s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e or meta-theory made the a l t e r n a t i v e researchers hyper-conscious of t h e i r greater r i s k : The proposed methodology e n t a i l s , however, a greater r i s k of a r b i t r a r i n e s s and possible abuse than the c l a s s i c a l design. Lest i t s c r e d i b i l i t y should s u f f e r , safeguards have to be b u i l t i n to minimise such r i s k s . (Brugelmann, 1 9 7 4 : 31) 87 The greater r i s k was not simply the absence of a p r i o r i canons of research, against which the conduct of the study could be measured. The new approach to research involved active p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the part of the researcher. Case study research was obtrusive by intent and circumstance: Case study r a r e l y proceeds by observation i n the sense of merely watching: observation also e n t a i l s such interventions as i n t e r -viewing, recording and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . l e t alone data analysis, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and s e l e c t i o n of p a r t i c i p a n t s to observe or interview. In these respects case study... resembles other forms of research as interventive, not passive. (Kemmis, 1980: 109) An interventive researcher was, by d e f i n i t i o n , not objective. He or she had to s t r i v e for n e u t r a l i t y i n place of o b j e c t i v i t y . 'Neutrality' required e x p l i c i t rules of conduct. Walker described the consequences of the absence of such r u l e s : The problems we are looking at concern the production of case studies - and here there are often tremendous d i f f i c u l t i e s . Lack of rules for case study leaves research opportunities open to abuse. Not only w i l l people and i n s t i t u t i o n s studied give t h e i r own accounts as to why they are being studied, they might well have the i r own reasons for wanting to be studied and these may not always be made e x p l i c i t to the researcher. This again may influence and constrain the research i n unacknowledged ways e s p e c i a l l y when, as we are suggesting, t h e i r own perceptions and responses may be b u i l t - i n to research procedures. (Walker, 1981: 42) The necessary rules of the production of case studies were those developed i n answer to the t h i r d i n s i g h t already c i t e d from Kushner and Norris as "a need to explore a research ethic enacted i n procedures which aimed to democratise the research and evaluation process" (1980: 28). Portrayal of educational people and i n s t i t u t i o n s that r e l i e d on 'human instruments' required safeguards and r u l e s . E t h i c a l procedures for case study could not, however, be prescribed a^  p r i o r i . There could be no methodological d e f i n i t i o n appropriate to a l l cases: Since the problem for the case study workers i s always to explicate the nature of the case, and since the methods employed i n the study w i l l depend upon the hypothesized nature of the case, a "methodological" d e f i n i t i o n w i l l always seem inadequate to the experienced case study worker - i t w i l l not grasp the problem of case study as the case study worker experiences i t . (Kemmis, 1980: 108) I have discussed the 'SAFARI approach' here as though i t were a discre t e and coherent methodology but this i s misleading. What i s d i s t i n c t i v e about the approach i s i t s concern to evolve a set of d i f f e r e n t formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s between researchers/evaluators, subjects/participants and audiences. It i s less a methodology than a set of e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s translated as procedures for the design and conduct of research/evaluation p r o j e c t . Looked at another way, the as p i r a t i o n i s to develop an a l t e r n a t i v e educational professional role for educational research. (Walker, 1981: 206) The procedures that could be translated from e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s provided asp i r a t i o n s or s e n s i t i z i n g concepts about the role of the case study worker. The adoption of an a l t e r n a t i v e perspective to research resulted i n an a l t e r n a t i v e approach. The aspirations of the case study approach were to democratise the research and evaluation processes; to feed the judgement of decision makers; to accept and portray the m u l t i p l i c i t y of d e f i n i t i o n s of 89 educational s i t u a t i o n s and to convey this portrayal i n the every-day-language of teachers. These aims thrust the CARE workers into the ' s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l ' context of educational l i f e . Acknowledging the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s of research entailed both the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the researcher to those being researched and the i n t e r n a l power relationships of i n s t i t u t i o n s . Furthermore, the researcher was not only on guard for p o l i t i c a l and methodological constraints and influences from p a r t i c i p a n t s . He or she was not 'objective' and had an influence on the research s e t t i n g . Such obtrusive intervention was, however, 'neutral'. N e u t r a l i t y demanded the development of e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s which could be translated into procedures, i n s i t u . The case study ethics were not a methodology, but they were aspirations concerning the role of the case study worker. 90 CHAPTER V AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF EVALUATION Barry MacDonald was l e f t with l i t t l e choice but to develop an a l t e r n a t i v e view for the evaluation of the Humanities project. The view of research adopted by the development team precluded behavioural objectives as a means of evaluation - the project was not a "technological" approach. Following the mandate of the Schools Council, the HCP aim was teacher development of curriculum. Consequently, MacDonald had to 'look elsewhere' for a model of evaluation. MacDonald derived four propositions which can be viewed as r e f l e c t i o n s of the i l l u m i n a t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e views of research. He made a d i s t i n c t i o n between research and evaluation, yet the same perspectival concerns of the Cambridge conference that addressed research found there way into h i s concerns about the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of his judgements regarding innovation. Evaluation Versus T r a d i t i o n a l Research In the discussion of the ' a l t e r n a t i v e view of research' a d i s t i n c t i o n between research and evaluation was o u t l i n e d [see p. 21]. From t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n MacDonald developed his d e f i n i t i o n s of the three types of evaluation: bureaucratic, autocratic and democratic. Unlike the researcher who selected the 'problem' and 'means', the evaluator's perspective was forged from necessity. The researcher was outside of the p o l i t i c a l process -the evaluator was 'embroiled i n the a c t i o n ' . While the researcher could cooly f i t questions to f a m i l i a r 'technology', the evaluator was thrown i n t o the ' s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l s t r e e t theatre' of the s e t t i n g . 91 MacDonald was c r i t i c a l of the absence of an acknowledgement by researchers of the bias i n t h e i r work. He was also quite e x p l i c i t about the value bias i n evaluation: The relevance of this issue to my present thesis [evaluation and the control of education] i s easy to demonstrate. The p o l i t i c a l stance of the evaluator has consequences for his choice of techniques for information-gathering and a n a l y s i s . (MacDonald, 1976b: 132) MacDonald acknowledged that his choice of techniques was d i r e c t l y influenced by his involvement with values. He had a "personal preference for the 'democratic' stance" (p. 133) distinguished by i t s focus on the information needs of p a r t i c i p a n t - d e c i s i o n makers: A c r u c i a l problem i s the f a c t that educational decision makers are forced by the complexity of required decisions to review a much wider range of evidence than has usually been gathered i n educational research. (MacDonald and P a r l e t t , 1973: 76) Such audience needs, i n MacDonald's view, were not met by research - where the researcher 'selected' the problem and 'devised' the means. The " c r u c i a l problem" would only be met when the evaluator accepted the " s c r i p t " provided. The HCP's deliberate abandonment of behavioural objectives l e f t the evaluator without an established model. The die had been cast (or more appropriately not cast) before MacDonald joined the Project. As Stenhouse described: To abandon the support of behavioral objectives i s to take on the task of f i n d i n g some other means of t r a n s l a t i n g aim into p r a c t i c e . We attempted to analyze the implications of our.aim by deriving from i t a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of use of materials and a teaching strategy consistent with the pursuit 92 of the aim. In other words we concentrated on l o g i c a l consistency between classroom process and aim, rather than between predetermined terminal behaviours and aim. (Stenhouse, 1973: 163) The absence of predetermined terminal behaviours l e f t "no ready-made niche for the evaluator". MacDonald was l e f t to design a suitable evaluation devoid of behavioural objectives. The evaluator began to look elsewhere. Furthermore, when he began to study the project to provide interim 'feed-back' he quickly became aware of the shortcomings that the 'intention achievement' model would have presented, had Stenhouse not chosen "to abandon" i t . MacDonald wrote: As I became aware of the complexity and d i v e r s i t y of what was going on i n the experimental schools, I became incr e a s i n g l y s k e p t i c a l of the notion of confining evaluation to measurement of intention achievement....Any e f f o r t to reduce the complexity to s i n g u l a r i s t i c perspectives tends to d i s t o r t the r e a l i t y , and may mislead those who seek to understand the r e a l i t y . Least of a l l does i t help those who l i v e i n i t . (MacDonald, 1971: 166) By necessity, then by choice, MacDonald's skepticism with s i n g u l a r i s t i c perspectives led to a 'bolder evaluation' design. He sought a 'more adequate view'. His r e j e c t i o n of the too s i m p l i s t i c approach led to a b e l i e f i n "a h o l i s t i c approach to evaluation" (p. 169). Later members of the evaluation team described t h i s type of evaluation as "an attempt to locate curriculum innovation i n a f u l l e r context, to define i t s t o t a l constituency" (Simons and Humble, 1978: 178). MacDonald's Four Propositions MacDonald's development of an a l t e r n a t i v e view of evaluation was influenced by his contact with other evaluators at the f i r s t Cambridge Conference. Lawrence Stenhouse, i n his r e c a l l of MacDonald's 'attempt to understand innovation', referred to the conference contacts as a " c r u i c i a l s e r i e s of dialogues": Looking back on MacDonald's work and on conversations with him, I see a s i g n i f i c a n t pattern. He was presented with a project lacking a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of obje c t i v e s . Objectives constitute a s e l e c t i o n of hypotheses according to hopes. Lack of objectives thrusts on the evaluator of a complex action research with vast numbers of variables the task of s e l e c t i n g hypotheses. MacDonald struggled with the problem of j u s t i f y i n g his own judgements of s i g n i f i c a n c e and i n a c r u c i a l series of dialogues with the Project team and with American scholars began to develop propositions which reached towards generalisation and distinguished s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s . (Stenhouse, 1973: 165) In the attempt to ' j u s t i f y his own judgements of s i g n i f i c a n t ' and to understand the considerations that influence c u r r i c u l a r action, MacDonald devised four propositions: 1 Human behaviour i n educational settings i s susceptible to a wide range of var i a b l e i n f l u e n c e s . This i s commonplace yet i n curriculum evaluation i t i s sometimes assumed that what i s intended to happen i s what a c t u a l l y happens, and that what happens varies l i t t l e from s e t t i n g to s e t t i n g . 2 The impact of an innovation i s not a set of disc r e t e e f f e c t s , but an o r g a n i c a l l y r e l a t e d pattern of acts and consequences. To understand f u l l y a single act one must locate i t f u n c t i o n a l l y within the pattern. I t follows from this proposition that innovations have many more unanticipated consequences than i s 94 normally assumed i n development and evaluation designs. 3 No two schools are so a l i k e i n t h e i r circumstances that presciptions of c u r r i c u l a r action can adequately supplant the judgement of the people i n them. Historal/evolutionary differences alone make the innovation 'gap' a variable which has s i g n i f i c a n c e for decision-making. 4 The goals and purposes of the programme developers are not necessarily shared by i t s users. We have seen the power struggle between s t a f f f actions, as a way of increasing the effectiveness of a c u s t o d i a l pattern of p u p i l control, and as a means of garnishing the image of i n s t i t u t i o n s which cover the wrapping, but not the merchandise of innovation. The l a t t e r gives r i s e to the phenomenon of innovation without change. (MacDonald quoted i n Stenhouse, 1973: 164) MacDonald's f i r s t proposition raised the f a m i l i a r concern with the i n s u f f i c i e n c y of a p r i o r i outcome measurements and t h e i r i m p l i c i t over-s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . The second supposal outlined the complexity that was over-s i m p l i f i e d . Human behaviour i n educational settings was defined as an " o r g a n i c a l l y related pattern of acts and consequences". MacDonald developed t h i s premise into a theme he c a l l e d h o l i s t i c evaluation. A single act could not be understood without locating i t f u n c t i o n a l l y within that pattern which was the ' t o t a l context' of an innovation. The t h i r d postulate informing MacDonald's judgement of s i g n i f i c a n c e concerned the 'innovation gap'. Much of the evaluation l i t e r a t u r e t r a c i n g the f a i l u r e of the dissemination of c u r r i c u l a of the American educational reform movement had lamented the gap between project intentions and actual innovation i n the schools. This phenomenon was perceived to be p a r t i a l l y unique to the North American experience, "as American as popcorn", yet the CARE group was influenced by conclusions drawn from the f a i l u r e of p r e s c r i p t i o n s of curriculum, and the r e s u l t i n g innovation gap. The theme addressed by MacDonald's l a s t p roposition concerned the sharing (or lack of) goals and purposes; power struggles; s t a f f factions; a c q u i s i t i o n of "pupil c o n t r o l " and the phenomenon of innovation without change. MacDonald addressed this theme, and the included concerns, where he wrote about multiple d e f i n i t i o n s of s i t u a t i o n s . This approach to evaluation was c i t e d as "guiding [MacDonald's] continuing fieldwork". A Non-Objectives View The f i r s t proposition MacDonald's view of evaluation referred to the inadequacies of pre-ordained behavioural objectives. The major premise was that the "wide range of variable influences" of school settings precluded uniform treatment conditions. In the case of the HCP, this latency was e s p e c i a l l y c r i t i c a l : I t soon became obvious that to have such c r i t e r i a . . . [ s h o r t term p u p i l learning] i s inappropriate when the programme under consideration constitutes a r a d i c a l intervention i n the whole organizational structure of the school system. (MacDonald, 1971: 164) The " r a d i c a l " nature of the HCP was also expressed by Stenhouse. When discussing the Schools Council Working Paper #2 (1965), as the "point of departure of the project", the d i r e c t o r stated that this i n i t i a l mandate: ...suggested that the whole pattern of r e l a t i o n s h i p s and of authority i n schools would have to be rethought to achieve such a programme. If this were so, a curriculum which faced this demand would have a s i g n i f i c a n c e far beyond i t s own place on the timetable. I t would provide a laboratory experience i n which teachers could work out a 96 new view of t h e i r task and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with p u p i l s . The function of a teaching aim was b r i e f l y to describe the d i r e c t i o n of classroom work i n order to influence the 'set' of the teacher i n the classroom. The aim f i n a l l y adopted for the project handbook (1970) was as follows: 'to develop an understanding of s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s and human acts and of the c o n t r o v e r s i a l value issues which they r a i s e ' . I t was intended that this should imply an a p p l i c a t i o n of the perspectives of s o c i a l science, history, the arts and r e l i g i o u s thinking to the understanding of human issues. Such understanding should take account of the need to attempt o b j e c t i v i t y on the one hand and to tap imaginative sympathy on the other. And i t was believed that the c r u c i a l problem i n handling human issues was c o n t r o v e r s i a l ! t y . (Stenhouse, 1973: 153-4) It i s within t h i s " f u l l e r context" that the evaluation team sought an "adequate approach". MacDonald was e x p l i c i t that the aims of the Project were c o n f l i c t u a l and necessitate this enlarged o r i e n t a t i o n : The p r a c t i c a l implications of this aim, i n terms of p u p i l and teacher roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , meant s e t t i n g up i n many schools a pattern of behaviour i n c o n f l i c t with established assumptions and habits. Given the l i k e l i h o o d that such a c o n f l i c t would influence the work of the project, and the c e r t a i n t y that the degree of c o n f l i c t would d i f f e r from school to school, the evaluator had to study the context i n which the programme was to operate. The c e n t r a l assumption of the project's design was that there could be no e f f e c t i v e , far-reaching curriculum development without teacher development. It was important for the success of the project that teachers should understand this p o s i t i o n and see themselves as creators of curriculum change rather than mere spectators. For the evaluator t h i s indicated that some study of the project team's communications and personal contacts with the schools would be 97 c a l l e d for, i n order to gain information about the success or otherwise of this e f f o r t . In short, some attention to input from the project was necessary. (MacDonald, 1973: 82) The H o l i s t i c View The ' f u l l e r context 1 implied by such far reaching ' r a d i c a l ' aims required the type of evaluation MacDonald premised with his second p r o p o s i t i o n . The view expressed was that evaluation design needed to locate an act f u n c t i o n a l l y within a larger ' o r g a n i c a l l y related pattern': "more unanticipated consequences" would have to be expected. MacDonald and Walker alluded to this unknown " s c r i p t " using a whimsical si m i l e , i n Beyond the Numbers Game: A Reader i n Educational Evaluation: In the s o c i a l sciences, as i n bank robbery, the method of attack i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y an opportunistic response to the observed nature of the case. (Hamilton, et a l . , 1977: 183) MacDonald's view of evaluation became one of opportunistic f l e x i b i l i t y and thorough 'casing' of the whole organizational structure. The Innovation 'Gap' MacDonald's t h i r d proposition dealt with a notion a r i s i n g from what he f e l t was a f a l s e premise. Manyof the curriculum evaluations of his time of w r i t i n g and "looking elsewhere" for a l t e r n a t i v e s were a d i r e c t response to the dominant and p r e s c r i p t i v e centre-periphery models of curriculum dissemination. According to such models, the reduction of 'gaps' between measured outcomes and intended outcomes was accomplished by increasing understanding and/or reducing resistance to 'adoption'. MacDonald f e l t , to the contrary, that 'gaps' were an unavoidable consequence of attempts to 98 supplant the judgement of the people i n the shools for whom the p r e s c r i p t i o n s of c u r r i c u l a r action were intended. His view was not to look for 'causes' of possible innovation 'gaps', but expect and report unanticipated consequences. The questions was not why c e r t a i n intended changes did not happen, but how innovation (by d e f i n i t i o n opportunistic) a c t u a l l y took place. As Simons wrote i n 1971, the aim was to know: ...what happens to these projects, how and why do they survive or f a i l i n the rough and tumble of the schools once the external support systems that have i n i t i a t e d and promoted them are withdrawn. (1971: 120) This subtle d i s t i n c t i o n was a moot point. The difference between posing the questions, "How do schools deal with change?" versus "How much gap i s there between intent and outcome?" reveals a c e n t r a l tenet of the CARE group. The team was aware of the North American concern with 'lack of adoption'. When writing about the American "curriculum reform movement, two decades old" (1971), Simons c i t e d John Goodlad, where he pointed to the 'precise nature of the alleged f a i l u r e ' of that movement. It was "the formidable gap between the intent of curriculum projects and what a c t u a l l y happens i n the classroom" (Simons, 1971,: 124). To the CARE group, the 'alleged f a i l u r e ' , had been p r e c i p i t a t e d by the American view of society. MacDonald was "suddenly struck" by this idea of a " c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t , as American as popcorn". The thought occured to him years l a t e r as he t r i e d to explain the e a r l i e r and puzzling f a i l u r e of the Tylerian application of curriculum development "to take root" i n B r i t a i n . MacDonald associated Tyler (1950) with the advent and p r o l i f e r a t i o n of that concept of curriculum development st r e s s i n g "engineering-style" end-means assumptions. MacDonald described the model as follows: [It] begins by specifying learning objectives i n terms of end-of-course p u p i l behaviour. The content of the programme and the method by which i t i s taught are then varied u n t i l the desired behaviour i s e l i c i t e d . These programme objectives provide the evaluator with his c r i t e r i a of success, since his main task i s to assess the extent to which they have been achieved. This model i s c l e a r l y most us e f u l where statements of objectives are easy to make and command wide agreement, where side e f f e c t s are l i k e l y to be i n s i g n i f i c a n t or e a s i l y detected and co n t r o l l e d and where s t r i c t adherence to the objectives i s u n l i k e l y to undermine educational values which they do not contain. (MacDonald, 1973: 82) By advancing a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t to explain the containment of th i s model of curriculum development to North America, MacDonald was aware that he could be accused of " i n c i p i e n t e l i t i s m " . Nevertheless, he want on to state that: The theory and prac t i c e of the objectives model of evaluation i s thus wedded to an American view of society , and an American f a i t h i n technology. P l u r a l i s t s o c i e t i e s w i l l f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to use. Unified s o c i e t i e s w i l l use i t , and discover they are p l u r a l i s t . (MacDonald, 1976b: 129) It was assumed that the B r i t i s h curriculum development model, at least as pract i c e d by the HCP, was not 'wedded' to such a view of society. The h i s t o r i c a l / e v o l u t i o n a r y differences of separate instances of implementation (that could be viewed as innovation gaps) were given a more p o s i t i v e and creative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Rather than conceiving of differences as a f a i l u r e of optimum implementation of the "prescribed technology", the differences were a desired outcome that needed to be planned f o r . The Schools Council The difference between the American and B r i t i s h perspectives was 100 evidenced by the aims and purposes of the Schools Council i n England. The Council was the co-sponsor, then sole f i n a n c i a l supporter of the HCP. In the address of the J o i n t Secretary of the Schools Council to a 1970 national convention, the Council was described as: ...a deliberate resort to democracy, an attempt to secure the commitment of teachers by involving them d e c i s i v e l y at every stage i n the innovation programme. (Nisbet, 1973: 31) The address continued with a discussion of why the Council sought such democratic involvement. Defining authority as the r i g h t to enforce obedience, the Secretary asserted that the Council "cannot i n s t r u c t anyone to do anything." I t means that the use of any materials or methods that the Council may recommend requires a p o s i t i v e act of agreement by the teachers concerned. (p. 31) The Council had a c o n s t i t u t i o n that was "extremely elaborate" and designed to "prevent i t becoming a curriculum d i c t a t o r " (p. 9). While the Humanities Curriculum Project was begun by the N u f f i e l d Foundation, the organization provided only an i n i t i a l 25% of the funding. The Council assumed the remainder and l a t e r (during the dissemination/evaluation stage) provided 100% of the funds. The philosophy and c o n s t i t u t i o n of the Council was i n t e r r e l a t e d with the CARE approach. Simons and Humble wrote of the outlook that guided the HCP Evaluation Unit: ...we wanted to report the experience from the perspective of the people involved, not our own. To t r y and meet this a s p i r a t i o n we adopted the role of the sympathetic 101 independent observer who r e f r a i n s from j udgement. (Simons and Humble, 1978: 200) This aim may seem at f i r s t to be a hybrid of the bureaucrat and the autocrat - r e f r a i n i n g from judgement yet claiming independence. The 'democratic' diff e r e n c e arose, however, with the means of assessing needs and the manner of choosing audiences. The democratic goal was to discern the community basis of issue formation. The purpose was to inform the c i t i z e n r y . Speaking of these goals and purposes, Simons and Humble stated: We took as our audiences teachers and school heads. LEAs, the Schools Council and examining boards. This procedure i s not as straightforward as i t may seem. The information requirements could not be f u l l y p r e - s p e c i f i e d . The study of the project involved the study of decision-making about the project, so that part of our learning experience was the attempt to create a f i t between the information we were gathering and the needs of our audience. (Simons and Humble, 1978: 182) The notion of creating a " f i t " between information gathering and needs was analogous to MacDonald's metaphor of the democractic evaluator as a "broker i n exchanges of information." H i s t o r i c a l / e v o l u t i o n a r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the the innovation (proposition two) were the data to be shared. The establishment of the range of issues that the evaluation team held to be relevant, further i l l u s t r a t e d t h e i r democratic conception: In time our aim for evaluation was formulated i n terms of providing evidence about the project i n d i f f e r e n t settings, from which i n d i v i d u a l decision makers might glean h e l p f u l clues about the importance of c e r t a i n problems and factors i n implementing i t . We were not attempting to prescribe decisions, only provide relevant information. Relevance, i n our view, was not to be defined by your personal preferences and values. (Humble and Simons, 1978: 182) 102 The democratic evaluator was not the 'guardian of important educational values', nor was he or she an amoral technocrat, accepting the p r e s c r i p t i o n of a sponsoring agent or p a r t i c u l a r power group. Instead, the broker maintained the informed dialogue of the market place. Simons alluded to t h i s r o l e i n "Innovation and the Case-Study of Schools": The l a t e Derek Morell, a pioneer of the Schools Council, writing of the need for an open professional dialogue to be established and maintained to cope with rapid s o c i a l change s a i d : "The f i r s t and most important form of support open to human beings who have anxious problems i s to draw closer together, and to pool resources, experiences, and perspectives. Unless this i s done, i t i s easy for p a r t i c u l a r groups within the education service to imagine that they alone are the guardians of important educational values, which other groups either do not value so highly, or even wish to destroy..." Case-studies of schools w i l l be about human beings facing anxious problems. They could provide an agenda for such a dialogue, or be the unwitting instrument of further mistrust. (Simons, 1971: 123) The evaluation team was to drawn t h e i r audiences closer together. Success, as MacDonald described, was to acquire ' b e s t - s e l l e r ' s t a t u s . What was sold was an agenda for professional dialogue. That Simons quoted Derek More l l , and that she attached to him the compliment of "pioneer", demonstrated the a f f i n i t y that the HCP evaluation team had for the p r i n c i p l e s and p r i n c i p a l s of the Council. Derek Morell was a private secretary to the Minister of Education, Sir David Eccles, i n the e a r l y 1960's. These years saw the formation of the Schools Council. Morell became one of the f i r s t J o i n t Secretaries of the newly formed Council. In May, 1963, a conference was proposed between the 103 Ministry of Education, the teacher's associations, and l o c a l education authority representatives to discuss s e t t i n g up a new Schools Council for Curriculum and Examinations. The memorandum c a l l i n g this conference repeated the statement, phrased as a questions, by Morell at the 1962 Annual General Meeting of the National Foundation for Education Research: How can we best give form and shape to a genuine partnership between the various agencies concerned, which w i l l increase the speed and relevance of curriculum development, and base i t more soundly on an increased volume of research, without i n the process surrendering or even endangering what i s e s s e n t i a l to a free society i n our t r a d i t i o n of freedom for the teachers i n curriculum matters? (Nisbet, 1973: 24) Two weeks l a t e r , i n the pu b l i c a t i o n Education, the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, S i r William Alexander, gave an answer: I t i s a matter of urgency and importance that the work of the Curriculum Study Group should be brought e f f e c t i v e l y under a representative body i n which l o c a l education a u t h o r i t i e s and the teaching profession are i n membership. (Nisbet, 1973: 25) When the conference was proposed, then convened i n July of 1963, the d r a f t i n g of terms of reference was begun: "giving pride of place to the p r i n c i p l e that each shool should have f u l l e s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i t s own work" (p. 27) . Following the f i r s t conference, S i r John Lockwood, the Secretary of the Secondary Schools Examinations Council, completed a report of the proposed "terms of reference". At the second conference, J u l y 1964, a vote approved the recommendations unanimously. John Nisbet wrote of the purpose and p r i o r i t i e s : 104 The Lockwood Report set our precise terms of reference for the Council, and these were adopted without a l t e r a t i o n . The f u l l text extends to 23 l i n e s of p r i n t . The opening paragraphs state: "The objects of the Schools Council for the Curriculum and Examinations are to uphold and i n t e r p r e t the p r i n c i p l e that each school should have the f u l l e s t p ossible measure of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i t s own work, with i t s own curriculum and teaching methods based on the needs of i t s own pupils and evolved by i t s own s t a f f . . . In order to promote these objects, the Council w i l l keep under review c u r r i c u l a , teaching methods and examinations i n primary and secondary schools..." (paragraph 19) The i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the school i s thus placed f i r s t , and the task of reviewing c u r r i c u l a and examinations i s f i r m l y subordinate to that primary objective. In the report, no doubt i s l e f t about t h i s : "The r e s u l t s of the Council's work should possess only t h e i r own inherent a u t h o r i t y . . . ( I t should) produce recommendations which...had taken a l l relevant factors into account and were agreed by representatives of a l l the member int e r e s t s concerned. But they should s t i l l be recommendations, addressed to those who have th e i r own decisions...In p a r t i c u l a r , the Council would neither publish, nor approve, anything i n the nature of a text book." (paragraph 21) (Nisbet, 1973: 29) The i n t e n t was quite e x p l i c i t : "the i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the schools i s thus placed f i r s t " . Members of the schools and LEA "must be free to take t h e i r own decisions". The Councils' only authority was that inherent i n t h e i r o f f e r i n g s . MacDonald wrote during the i n i t i a l stages of the evaluation: The sponsor of the evaluation was a government agency with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for 105 national curriculum development, but with l i t t l e experience i n the r o l e . There was a need for information that would aid planning at this l e v e l . This suggested that our focus for evaluation might be upon the patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n within the system i n i t i a t e d or illuminated by project inputs. (MacDonald, 1973: 83) While the Council may have had " l i t t l e experience" i n i t s new role, i t s purpose and p r i o r i t i e s were succinct. Furthermore, i t had a budget during the i n i t i a l HCP period of four m i l l i o n pounds. Analysis of the eventual objectives of the HCP Team, next to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l aims of the Council, reveals a marked s i m i l a r i t y of purpose. The view of evaluation adopted owed much to the Council. The overlap of the two purposes i n no way implies a weakness or inconsistency. In fact, since the task of the evaluation came to be democratic, and since the Council was a major "consumer", i t was encumbant on the team to u t i l i z e , i n part, the Council's relevancies. The task began to c r y s t a l i z e : The findings from the evaluation of the Humanities Curriculum Project had to be relevant to recurring problems of educational choice, and contribute to a cumulative t r a d i t i o n of curriculum study. With these considerations i n mind, the objectives of the evaluation u n i t could be defined as follows: (a) to ascertain the e f f e c t s of the project, document the circumstances i n which they occurred, and present this information i n a form which would help educational decision-makers to evaluate the l i k e l y v consequences of adopting the programme; (b) to describe the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n and operations of the schools being studied so that decision-makers could understand more f u l l y what i t was they were tr y i n g to change; (c) to describe the work of the project team i n terms which would help the sponsors 106 and planners of such ventures to weigh the value of this form of investment, and to determine more p r e c i s e l y the framework of support, guidance and co n t r o l which were appropriate; (d) to make a contribution to evaluation theory by a r t i c u l a t i n g problems c l e a r l y , recording experiences and, perhaps most important, p u b l i c i z i n g errors; (e) to contribute to the understanding of the problems of curriculum innovation generally. (MacDonald, 1973b: 88) This d e f i n i t i o n of the task and l i s t of objectives was derived from an exploration of the needs of the consumers of the evaluation. In time the team redefined consumers as decision makers. In large part the "need for information at...[the Council] l e v e l " suggested the task. John Nisbet outlined how, on the other end of the consumer analogy, the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the Council created a 'buyer's market' (the HCP being the s e l l e r ) . Paragraph 22 of the Lockwood Report "shaped the a c t i v i t i e s and structure of the Council". I t showed i t s e f f e c t s " i n the committee structure, the s t a f f i n g and i n the patterns of the Council's development p r o j e c t s " . Paragraph 22 echoed (perhaps foreshadowed) the l i s t of HCP objectives above: ...we are recording our b e l i e f that i f new ranges of choice are made av a i l a b l e , the schools w i l l f r e e l y s e l e c t for themselves any approach to syllabus content or teaching methods which c l e a r l y o f f e r s a better educational s o l u t i o n than that previously a v a i l a b l e . The need for a more rapid response on the part of the schools to changing educational needs i s not i n doubt. But there i s no need to transfer r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the centre i n order to bring this about. The response w i l l be f r e e l y made by the schools themselves once th e i r room for manoeuvre has been increased, and once the teachers are enabled to play a bigger part i n research, and i n the 107 development of new ranges of professional choice." (paragraph 22) (Nisbet, 1973: 30) Just as MacDonald's choice of an a l t e r n a t i v e view of evaluation was i n i t i a l l y necessitated by the Project's abandonment of behavioural objectives, his choice of a democratic s t y l e of evaluation was, perhaps, necessitated by the stance of the Council. In l i n e with the b e l i e f s of the Council, the HCP Evaluation Unit (and the CARE group generally) continued to develop means that could o f f e r a "new range of choice" to their audiences. They sought to present this information i n a form which would help educational decision makers i n an e f f o r t to provide the transfer of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y envisioned i n Lockwood's report. They attempted to provide such information so that decision makers could understand more f u l l y and weigh the value of the work of the Project 'appropriately'. They were attempting to provide the room for manoeuvre outlined by Lockwood. Multi p l e D e f i n i t i o n s of Innovation Simons and Humble wrote of the HCP evaluation team aims: The t e s t of how good a job we have done i s how successful we have been i n enhancing the reader's understanding of the process of curriculum innovation from the perspective of the people involved. (1978: 194) The hope of such a view was to enable teachers ('readers') and others involved i n the future and contemporary innovation of the project to gain an understanding of the 'actual' (as opposed to 'intended') implementation. Furthermore, the perspective of those involved was the d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n to be passed on (as a broker would transfer stocks or bonds). Such an aim was that expressed i n MacDonald's fourth and l a s t proposition: 1 0 8 addressing the information needs of both p o t e n t i a l users and pa r t i c i p a n t s of curriculum innovation, r e f l e c t i n g various goals and purposes. In contrast to i l l u m i n a t i v e evaluation, MacDonald did not view evaluation as simply an a l t e r n a t i v e means of presenting the perspective of people involved - the evaluator i l l u m i n a t i n g the complexity to otherwise unenlightened p a r t i c i p a n t s . Evaluators were also concerned with the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of the data gathering process to research p a r t i c i p a n t s . Negotiation, c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y were means of f u l f i l l i n g the aim of invo l v i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s as predictors of the evaluation - not simply r e c i p i e n t s . Out of this view arose the procedures and p r i n c i p l e s of the democratic approach to evaluation. The a l t e r n a t i v e view of research adopted by the CARE group resulted i n a r e j e c t i o n of the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l approach. S i m i l a r l y , the a l t e r n a t i v e view of evaluation adopted by MacDonald and implemented i n the procedures of the Humanities and SAFARI Projects rejected p r e s p e c i f i e d 'terminal behaviours' as an approach to c u r r i c u l a r evaluation. Just as the a l t e r n a t i v e view of research argued against the 'technological' ends-means approach to curriculum development, MacDonald's view of evaluation required attention to the 'organically related pattern of acts and consequences' of a school s e t t i n g . Unanticipated consequences were an i n t e g r a l part of the implementation of innovation. From this h o l i s t i c view came the t h i r d premise that so-called 'innovation gap' explanations were attempts to supplant the judgement of people involved i n c u r r i c u l a r a c t i o n . The evaluator's concern mirrored the concern of the i l l u m i n a t i v e discourse about the supersedence of common sense concepts by researchers. The perspective of the p a r t i c i p a n t from which decisions were taken was a necessary and central part of the 109 explanation or d e f i n i t i o n of such a c t i o n . And f i n a l l y , the evaluator emphasized the importance of p o l i t i c a l resources and power relationships i n determining the course of implementation - influences that must be included i n the gathering and presenting of data. The i l l u m i n a t i v e paradigm developed a view of 'action-based research' which went beyond behavioural theory to include 'intentional and responsible a c t i o n ' . The emerging paradigm informed the HCP development and subsequently influenced the development of a model to evaluate the p r o j e c t . This view of evaluation and the adopted approach were also an a l t e r n a t i v e to p r e v a i l i n g t r a d i t i o n . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the HCP development team's curriculum o r i e n t a t i o n and the HCP evaluation team's model reveals the inter-relatedness of both. 110 CHAPTER VI AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CURRICULUM AND EVALUATION The development of the Humanities Curriculum was an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to the dominant 'centre-periphery' model. The project team accepted the mandate of the Schools Council to have teachers develop curriculum within the schools. Nevertheless, there were many i m p l i c i t value decisions i n the curriculum that had considerable impact on the 'set' of the teacher. Because the project had a modus operandi to develop curriculum within schools, the development team sought revisions to materials as part of the "experiment". The evaluation team, therefore, was bereft of a usual function of evaluators. Coupled with t h i s f a c t , the project was not amenable to a behavioural objectives s t y l e evaluation. Consequently, the evaluation team devised an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to evaluation that entailed informing decision makers by case study reports. The Humanities Curriculum Project The Humanities Curriculum Project began with j o i n t funding from the N u f f i e l d Foundation and the Schools Council. In 1970, after three years, the funding was extended soley by the Council for an additional two years. The extension was granted when the r a i s i n g of the school leaving age was postponed u n t i l 1972/73. The project team produced nine 'packs' of materials: Production, Race and L i v i n g i n C i t i e s , Law and Order, Poverty, People and Work, War, Education, The Family, and Relations Between the Sexes. The material on Race and L i v i n g i n C i t i e s was not cleared for p u b l i c a t i o n by the Council. The 111 other c o l l e c t i o n s were f i r s t introduced i n t r i a l form to 150 teachers i n 36 schools. The teachers were asked to adhere to teaching strategies presented as hypotheses for experiment. The t r i a l experiences were incorporated i n t o f i n a l e d i t i n g . The packs were published i n 1970 and were disseminated via a t r a i n i n g scheme throughout England and Wales. As the materials were published commercially, not every group of purchasers availed i t s e l f of t r a i n i n g . The o r i g i n a l remit of the P r o j e c t was a response to the intended r a i s i n g of the school leaving age to 16 i n 1970-71. The ROSLA i n i t i a t i v e (Raising of the School Leaving Age) had been mapped out i n the Education Act of 1944, and i t "marked a further stage along the road...leading to secondary education for a l l " (Schools Council Working Paper No. 2, 1965). The Schools Council had decided at i t s f i r s t meeting i n October, 1964, to give high p r i o r i t y to a "programme of a c t i v i t y i n preparation for the r a i s i n g of the school leaving age". This a c t i v i t y resulted i n the Working Paper No. 2:  Raising the School Leaving Age (1965) and the Working Paper No. 11: Society  and the Young School Leaver, A Humanities Programme i n Preparation for the Raising of the School Leaving Age (1967). In the spring of 1969 the Council convened a conference i n Scarborough, England. At this Conference the Humanities Curriculum Project was f a i r l y extensively discussed i n the several working groups. At the f i n a l plenary session the appointed d i r e c t o r , Lawrence Stenhouse, cautioned "that the Proj e c t was l i k e l y to f a i l i n dissemination for want of adequate provision for tr a i n i n g and support" (Rudduck, 1976: 13). The Proj e c t went ahead. MacDonald r e c a l l e d what he envisioned, when f i r s t confronted with the aims of the HCP: 112 It seemed to me that what I was going to be involved i n was an exercise i n the pathology of innovation...and that the f i n a l evaluation report might be published i n the form of a post mortem. (MacDonald, 1978b: 17) MacDonald was concerned with the curriculum's scope and inherent c o n f l i c t . Lawrence Stenhouse indicated the scope of the HCP: The point of departure of the project was a passage i n Schools Council Working Paper No. 2 (1965) r e f e r r i n g to work i n the Humanities: 'The problem i s to give every man some access to a complex c u l t u r a l inheritance, some hold on his personal l i f e and on his rela t i o n s h i p s with the various communities to which he belongs, some extension of his understanding of, and s e n s i t i v i t y towards, other human beings. The aim i s to forward understanding, di s c r i m i n a t i o n and judgement i n the human f i e l d - i t w i l l involve r e l i a b l e f a c t u a l knowledge, where this i s appropriate, d i r e c t experience, imaginative experience, some appreciation of the dilemmas of the human condition, of the rough hewn nature of many of our i n s t i t u t i o n s , and some r a t i o n a l thought about them.' (para. 60.) (Stenhouse, 1973: 151) The Schools Council d e f i n i t i o n of the aim of Humanities - "to forward understanding, d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and judgement i n the human f i e l d " - presented a d i f f i c u l t problem to Stenhouse: An extremely d i f f i c u l t problem, probably inadequately solved, was to produce a statement of aim. The aims of the project must f i r s t of a l l be separated from those of the curriculum. The aim of the project was to make i t possible for teachers to develop t h e i r work i n the d i r e c t i o n of the aspirations contained i n these basic statements. This meant a continuous development of i n s i g h t on the part of the team about teacher problems and needs. The function of a teaching aim was b r i e f l y to 113 describe the d i r e c t i o n of classroom work i n order to influence the 'set' of the teacher i n the classroom. Such an aim i s a summary 7 task d e f i n i t i o n . (Stenhouse, 1973: 151) The "Central Team' of the Project sought to uphold the Council's mandate: "to make i t possible for teachers to develop t h e i r work", yet they had an apparently contradictory teaching aim to "influence the 'set' of the teacher i n the classroom". The Council's mandate to f o s t e r teacher development of curriculum appeared contrary to the Humanities desire to influence "the d i r e c t i o n of the a s p i r a t i o n s " of the teachers. S i m i l a r l y , while the Council had the i d e a l of teacher development, they defined the purpose of the humanities a c t i v i t i e s as providing "stimulus, support and materials" to aid the ROSLA implementation. I d e a l l y the teacher would develop the curriculum. Pragmatically, teachers would need help to help themselves. There was a fine d i s t i n c t i o n between stimulus and patronage. Value Decisions Stenhouse was e x p l i c i t about the value decisions to which he and the Pr o j e c t members t r i e d 'to i n t e r e s t ' the p r a c t i t i o n e r s : When a school p r i n c i p a l claimed that h i s f i f t e e n - y e a r - o l d students were not interested i n r e l a t i o n s between the sexes, we did not attempt to j u s t i f y our i n c l u s i o n of this topic by assuring him that they were. Rather we claimed that they ought to be, and that i t was his job to try to i n t e r e s t them i n any topic as important as that one. We have also made value decisions at another l e v e l . We have asserted that procedures and materials must be j u s t i f i a b l e i n terms of c e r t a i n values fundamental to education. (Stenhouse 1971: 156) The Project workers asserted what 'ought to be' taught, that 'certain 114 values' were 'fundamental', and that teachers had to maintain p a r t i c u l a r a t t i t u d e s . Stenhouse r e i t e r a t e d these 'value p o s i t i o n s ' : It seemed that the basic classroom pattern should be one of discussion. Instruction i n e v i t a b l y implies that the teacher cannot maintain a neutral p o s i t i o n . In the discussion the teacher should be neutral on the issues which form the agenda of the group, but he should accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the r i g o r and q u a l i t y of the work. Accordingly, the teacher i s seen as a neutral and r e l a t i v e l y recessive chairman, though not a passive one, since i t would be his job to develop q u a l i t y i n the students' work by shrewd though sparing, questioning. (Stenhouse, 1971: 157) The notion of a neutral chairman and the description of what the basic classroom pattern should be, described the 'experimental' r o l e of the teachers. The chairman was to be 'recessive' yet not 'passive'. He or she had to be 'shrewdly' involved providing 'evidence' and f a c i l i t a t i o n so that discussions remained of q u a l i t y . 'Evidence' had no l e g a l i s t i c connotation. I t was not designed to support a p a r t i c u l a r stand on a c o n t r o v e r s i a l theme. The material i n each of the nine proposed packs was i l l u s t r a t i v e and f a c i l i t a t i v e as opposed to presumptive: Thus, the use of the word evidence must not be taken to imply a u t h o r i t a t i v e documentation. The word implies a way of using information and not the status of that information. The c o l l e c t i o n s have a structure which i s intended to ensure that the teacher i s l i k e l y to have at his disposal at least one piece of material to cover any issue l i k e l y to a r i s e within a given topic area. In other words, the structure i s there to help achieve coverage. The materials are not intended to be used i n a predetermined sequence, but 11 5 rather to be brought into the discussion i n response to points a r i s i n g from the group. (Stenhouse, 1969: 111) These c o l l e c t i o n s , as with the values to be fostered, c a r r i e d s p e c i f i c ' i n t e n t i o n s ' . The packs were 'intended to ensure' that topic materials were r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , and they were not intended to be used as pre-selected determinors of discussion. P o l i t i c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The HCP sought to answer their i m p l i c i t questions with e x p l i c i t aims and approaches. The questions posed by Stenhouse: What should be taught? What are the ends i n terms of educational values? and How would ' n e u t r a l i t y ' about c o n t r o v e r s i a l issue e f f e c t democratic values?, were a l l based on p o l i t i c a l suppositions: The i n i t i a l premise on which the idea of n e u t r a l i t y was based was p o l i t i c a l . I assume that education i s i n the c l a s s i c sense a branch of p o l i t i c s , and I d i s t i n g u i s h between a personal ethic and a professional e t h i c . In most s o c i e t i e s the school has two functions which may be c a l l e d education and s o c i a l i s a t i o n . Education i s concerned with the transmission of knowledge and understanding. S o c i a l i z a t i o n i s concerned with the transmission of the values and folkways of a society or a sub-group i n society on the basis of s o c i a l consensus rather than on the basis of ph i l o s o p h i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . (Stenhouse, 1973: 157) Given an assumption that education was in the ' c l a s s i c sense a branch of p o l i t i e s ' , transmission of values was i n e v i t a b l y based on s o c i a l consensus. Philosophical j u s t i f i c a t i o n could give way to the possibly i r r a t i o n a l 'real p o l i t i c k . ' This pragmatic concern was evident from the Humanities Introduction. 116 The Schools C o u n c i l / N u f f i e l d Foundation p u b l i c a t i o n , The Humanities Curriculum Project: An Introduction (1970), was an interim report and intro d u c t i o n with the aim "to make i t possible f o r . . . teachers to mount the i r own schools experimental programmes of research and development on the platform of experience gathered by the Project" ( p . l ) . The platform was acknowledged as p o l i t i c a l : Cynicism about the school as an i n s t i t u t i o n i s related to unease about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the school and l i f e , but goes beyond i t . It i s d i f f i c u l t to produce a thumbnail diagnosis, but four important elements i n i t are: the f a i l u r e of schools to make good th e i r profession that they value students equally whatever their academic a b i l i t y , the tendency of schools to l i m i t the extent to which students can shape their educational experience by the i r own choice, the endorsement by schools of styles of thinking, speaking, dressing and behaving which are merely expressions of s o c i a l class or generational fashions, and the adoption of auth o r i t a r i a n patterns of control, that i s the use of authority without s u f f i c i e n t s e n s i t i v i t y to the need to j u s t i f y i t to those affected by i t . (The HCP Introduction, 1970: 3) The rhe t o r i c used to describe schools i n this passage (cynicism, f a i l u r e , tendency to l i m i t , merely expressions of s o c i a l c l a s s , a u t h o r i t a r i a n , and without s u f f i c i e n t s e n s i t i v i t y ) was the f i r s t exposure to the project that many p r a c t i t i o n e r s encountered. The l a s t of Stenhouses' p o l i t i c a l questions concerned democratic values and how these could or would be implicated i n the intended classroom pattern. The hope was to 'develop understanding' so that students could 'approach and explore' important issues. As the HCP Introduction quotation revealed, a large part of the intended understanding was p o l i t i c a l i n nature. The students needed to 'shape their educational experience by the i r own choice'. 117 The development of such competence was the intent being served by the Humanities 1 approach: The enquiry should be a rewarding and demanding experience for students. They should emerge f e e l i n g that they have grappled p r o f i t a b l y with important issues and come to greater, a l b e i t incomplete, understanding. They w i l l have developed a variety of techniques for approaching and exploring matters and material of considerable complexity and s e n s i t i v i t y . Understanding implies the a b i l i t y to use the data supplied by research and imagination to bu i l d an appropriate and consistent i n t e r p r e t a t i v e map which structures a new experience and relates i t to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s own experience and s i t u a t i o n . (HCP Introduction, 1970: 33) The p r i n c i p l e of the use of knowledge was the aim of the curriculum, which Stenhouse distinguished from the aims of the pr o j e c t . And, as the Introduction hinted at above, the 't r a n s l a t i o n ' of these c u r r i c u l a r aims into research aims was unique. HCP Ambitions Stenhouse described the o v e r a l l 'ambitions' of the HCP as follows: The following procedure was adopted: 1 Select a cogent general educational p o l i c y statement i n the c u r r i c u l a r f i e l d i n question. 2 By r e l a t i n g i t s l o g i c a l implications to the r e a l i t i e s of the classroom, produce the outl i n e of a teaching strategy consistent with the aim and fea s i b l e i n p r a c t i c e . 3 Attempt to develop the strategy, testing i t s l o g i c a l consistency i n discussion and i t s f e a s i b i l i t y i n experimental school. 4 Make case studies of experimental schools to generate hypotheses regarding the problems and e f f e c t s to be expected i n 118 implementing the curriculum i n a wider range of schools. 5 Use this case study experience to design dissemination procedures which w i l l attempt to meet the anticipated problems. 6 Monitor the e f f e c t s i n dissemination both by case study and by measurement. 1), 2), 3) and 5) were the concern of the project; 4) and 6) of the evaluation u n i t . (Stenhouse, 1973: 151) From t h i s description of procedures, we can see that #1 was provided by the recommendations of Working Papers 2 and 11. Procedure #2 (the outline of a teaching strategy) was proferred by MacDonald as " f i v e major premises": 1. that c o n t r o v e r s i a l issues should be handled i n the classroom with adolescents. 2. that the teacher accepts the need to submit his teaching i n c o n t r o v e r s i a l areas to the c r i t e r i o n of n e u t r a l i t y at thi s stage of education, i . e . that he regards i t as part of his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y not to promote his own view. 3. that the mode of enquiry i n controv e r s i a l areas should have discussion, rather than i n s t r u c t i o n , as i t s core. 4. that the discussion should protect divergence of view among p a r t i c i p a n t s , rather than attempt to achieve consensus. 5. that the teacher as chairman of the discussion should have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for q u a l i t y and standards i n learning. (MacDonald, 1978b: 10) These premises were 'consistent with the aim' of the Schools Council, and the Project members f e l t that they were 'f e a s i b l e i n p r a c t i c e ' . Stenhouse's procedure #3 alluded to the ' t r i a l stage' of the Project where c e r t a i n schools worked with the project materials, s t r a t e g i e s , premises 119 and the s t a f f of the Central Project Team. Testing the l o g i c a l consistency of the strategy proved to be fraught with controversy and procedural problems. The experience of the t r i a l stage were to be incorporated i n the dissemination procedures (procedure #5). The case studies conducted by MacDonald (1978b), and Simons and Humble (1978) were the enactment of procedure #4 and #6, r e s p e c t i v e l y . MacDonald summed up the approach to developing such procedures: To put i t simply, they set out to answer three questions, i n the following sequence: what content i s worthwhile? what general experience i s most conducive to furthering that aim? Answering the l a s t of these questions would involve extensive experimentation in classrooms. Using hypotheses about e f f e c t s , rather than objectives, the team hoped to develop the general l i n e s of an e f f e c t i v e teaching strategy consonant with the attitude they had adopted towards the teaching of c o n t r o v e r s i a l issues. (MacDonald, 1973: 82) The 'ambiguity' surrounding the d i s t i n c t i o n between 'hypotheses about e f f e c t , rather than objectives' a l s o contributed to the problems of the P r o j e c t . Verma, the HCP Evaluation Team member responsible for the "Measurement phase" claimed that the Team did not choose themes "as a means of p r o v i d i n g . . . r a t i o n a l value judgements". The curriculum aims were not p r e s p e c i f i e d as intended student behaviours. The curriculum was designed to influence the d i r e c t i o n of classroom work, and hence to a l t e r the set of classroom s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . The aim of the project was d i s t i n c t . The Team had "nothing to recommend" i n terms of "curriculum": The Team saw themselves as a 'research' group o f f e r i n g schools new knowledge and hypotheses about enquiry teaching, rather than 120 pre s c r i b i n g a curriculum. "We have nothing to recommend", said Stenhouse. But teacher 'n e u t r a l i t y ' was a provocative concept, and they were soon caught up i n an i n f l a t i o n a r y s p i r a l of r h e t o r i c a l debate... (MacDonald, 1978B: 12) The project, despite Stenhouse's claim, had much to recommend. They had a strategy; a 'set' of values; and a p o l i t i c a l view of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l aspects of schools that was " r a d i c a l " i n i t s recommendations. I n t r i n s i c Recommendations The recommendations encompassed by the curriculum included the target ( a b i l i t y ) group. Stenhouse quoted from the Council's working papers: A l l of this may seem to some teachers l i k e a programme for people who have both the mental a b i l i t y and maturity beyond the reach of most who w i l l leave at the age of sixteen. The Council, however, thinks i t i s important not to assume that this i s so, but rather to probe by experiment in the classroom how far ordinary pupils can i n fa c t be taken. The fact i s that nothing can prevent the formation of ideas and attitudes about human nature and conduct. (Stenhouse, 1973: 152) The assumption that ordinary pupils could have their formation of ideas and at t i t u d e s extended, proved problematic in the t r i a l schools case studied. A p e r s i s t a n t c r i t i c i s m was that concerning the a b i l i t y l e v e l of the evidence. Many considered the reading l e v e l too high. A second major recommendation had to do with the role of the neutral chairman. P r a c t i t i o n e r s were advised to have f a i t h i n the students' eventual development of cohesion, even though not guided in the t r a d i t i o n a l sense: As members come to share the chairman's idea of a worthwhile discussion and accept the functions he performs they w i l l develop coherence as a group and w i l l want then to 121 take some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the discussion process. This should be viewed by the chairman as a desirable development for i t i s a c r i t e r i o n of the effectiveness of his chairmanship. I t means that students have i d e n t i f i e d themselves with the functions he t r i e d to perform on the i r behalf. (HCP Introduction, 1970: 26) Deafening s i l e n c e s , dominating i n d i v i d u a l s and inappropriate behaving were some of the severe problems encountered when enacting this recommended procedure. I t was further recommended that Humanities teachers be given s p e c i a l treatment - double blocks for periods, time for the School Humanities team to meet regularly, and other f i n a n c i a l dispensations ( f i l m h i r e , outings, e t c . ) . The Humanities teacher was also asked to be a n a l y t i c a l and diagnostic towards his or her innovatory s t y l e : The s e l f - t r a i n i n g programme assumes that teachers working together i n a school w i l l tape record t h e i r discussion sessions and l i s t e n to them a n a l y t i c a l l y . It i s most p r o f i t a b l e to meet to analyse tapes and discuss developing insights and outstanding problems. (HCP Introduction, 1920: 26) In addition to the implied a v a i l a b i l i t y of group and i n d i v i d u a l time, the precept of s e l f - t r a i n i n g proved to be the most dramatically reversed. The Central Team eventually trained teachers in the Humanities Project strategy. Teachers, i n fa c t , t r a v e l l e d to the Uni v e r s i t y of East Anglia to attend some of the t r a i n i n g sessions at CARE. A f i n a l supposition concerned the assistance of the Local Education authority. The LEA was assumed to be taking an active role i n the l o c a l development of the 'strategy'. 122 The remainder of this handbook reports on t h i s two-fold task. I t assumes that the reader, accepting the premises outlined above, wishes to adopt that strategy which i n the experience of the Project i s most l i k e l y to define c l e a r l y the problems which beset this kind of work, and to a s s i s t him towards solutions and towards the s k i l l s to r e a l i s e them i n the classroom. (HCP Introduction, 1970: 41) Furthermore, the Project Team was most involved in t e l l i n g schools (when necessary) what 'ought to be' taught and how i t should be done. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n was that the approach was developed i n 'experimental' or ' t r i a l ' schools and, hence, came as a teacher developed curriculum. The materials i n i t i a l l y c o l l e c t e d and packaged were of nine themes. The teaching pack materials were pre-assembled by editors (including Stenhouse -Relations between the Sexes - and E l l i o t - War/People and Work). The ' t r i a l ' packages were given to the experimental teachers i n 36 schools during the Developmental T r i a l s (1968-1970). These materials were produced i n t r i a l form i n order to serve the needs of experimental schools which have worked with the Project i n the sessions 1968-69 and 1969-70. The object of the experiment i n those sessions was two-fold: to test the s u i t a b i l i t y of the materials, and to develop i n the classroom p r a c t i c a l procedures for chairmen running discussion groups with the general aim and p r i n c i p l e s outlined above. (HCP Introduction, 1970: 10) The s u i t a b i l i t y of the materials was an object of experiment. These had been packaged without testing or consultation in schools. Stenhouse acknowledged that the e d i t i n g of the packs entailed "decisions of value at the most fundamental l e v e l " . The Project set about to "extend experience i n a very d i r e c t way". 123 It must be recognized that the p o s i t i o n taken by the project at this point i s not value-free. In the f i r s t place, the decision to include c o n t r o v e r s i a l issues in the school curriculum for adolescents implies a value judgment, and the choice of issues to be tackled i s based on the value judgment that they are issues of importance. We have made decisions of value at the most fundamental l e v e l i n answering the question, what i s worthwhile and therefore worth teaching? (Stenhouse, 1971: 156) Even i n the early years the fundamental nature of the value decisions taken by the project was made known: We have also made value decisions at another l e v e l . We have asserted that teaching procedures and curriculum materials must be j u s t i f i a b l e i n terms of c e r t a i n values which are fundamental to education. Education must always involve a preference for r a t i o n a l rather than i r r a t i o n a l procedure, for s e n s i t i v i t y rather than i n s e n s i t i v i t y , for example. I t w i l l always be concerned to examine and e s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a and standards. The appropriate attitude of teachers to pupils w i l l always involve respect for persons and consideration of their welfare. (Stenhouse, 1969: 107) The c r i t e r i a and standards of an appropriate attitude of teachers to pupils and of pupils to teachers was perhaps the most misunderstood and cont r o v e r s i a l aspect of the 'experiment'. Controversial Issues: When Pupils Become Old Enough Stenhouse described a "controversial issue": A c o n t r o v e r s i a l issue i s one which divides teachers, p u p i l s , and parents. Such issues tend to come into the classroom when pupils become old enough to want to i n t e r p r e t p a r t i c u l a r cases which present themselves as 124 dilemmas i n the adult world. It i s s p e c i f i c cases which make for controversy; there can be no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p r a c t i c a l values i n the adult world which does not deal with s p e c i f i c cases. (Stenhouse, 1969: 103) When the student was "old enough to want to interpret...dilemmas i n the adult world", Stenhouse wished bo see the process of transmission of the values of a society on the basis of s o c i a l consensus changed to one based on p h i l i s o p h i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n (Stenhouse, 1973: 157). The aim of developing understanding would allow such j u s t i f i c a t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The aim of developing understanding also implies the d e s i r a b i l i t y of discussion rather than i n s t r u c t i o n as the basic educational a c t i v i t y . To understand the issues, disputants must examine and r e f l e c t on d i f f e r e n t arguments and reasons with a view to assessing th e i r i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , and t h i s can only be done by understanding one's own values and attitudes and exploring the re l a t i o n s h i p between these and other people's. ( E l l i o t , 1975: 51) The basic educational a c t i v i t y that had to be enacted was quite a l i e n to that which the student normally experienced as i n s t r u c t i o n . Pupils needed to understand the change i n roles for both the teacher and themselves: I t i s e s s e n t i a l that students understand at the outset what the aim of the work i s , what thei r task i s , why the teacher i s adopting a p a r t i c u l a r role and that the enquiry consists of a balance between discussion and research and creative a c t i v i t i e s . (HCP Introduction, 1970: 40) The role changes were dramatic: The teacher as chairman of the group should not intervene to advance a view or influence a conclusion, though he should o f f e r open questions which ask for r e f l e c t i o n and s e l f - c r i t i c a l thinking on the part of the group, and he should help them toward 1 2 5 information they require. This means that he seeks to i n t e r p r e t motivation, not to organize i t . He t r i e s to be aware of the currents of the desire to learn i n the group and to know how to feed them: he i s responsive, not d i r e c t i v e . (Stenhouse, 1971: 160) The impact of this newly described responsive role had many r a m i f i c a t i o n s . Not the l e a s t of these was the e f f e c t on the previously d i r e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between teachers and pupi l s : The i m p l i c a t i o n of the project for the school authority structure became increasingly c l e a r . Teachers found themselves locked i n role c o n f l i c t s , or in attempts to bridge an unforeseen c r e d i b i l i t y gap between themselves and their p u p i l s . (MacDonald, 1973: 85) The c o n f l i c t of the neutral chairman role with the authority structure i n schools contributed to a c r e d i b i l i t y gap i n the students towards the teachers. P r a c t i t i o n e r s contemplating the HCP questioned the idealism underlying the approach. Humble and Simons quoted one headmaster: I should add that I am not i n c l i n e d to p a r t i c i p a t e , f i r s t l y on the grounds of f i n a n c i a l s t r a i n on our ca p i t a t i o n but secondly and p r i n c i p a l l y by the prime requirement that the teacher w i l l have to face the 1 t r a n s i t i o n to a new r e l a t i o n s h i p between adolescent pupils and s t a f f . 1 Whenever I read language l i k e this I know I s h a l l f a i l to match the idealism of the wri t e r . (1978: 165) Even when the t r a n s i t i o n to a new r e l a t i o n s h i p was taken up, not everyone i n the school could be expected to endorse the idealism nor the fundamental value l e v e l of the new r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Teachers who disapproved of the adult status accorded to students would not appreciate the threat to the i r authority. 126 The Project Team members were very sen s i t i v e to the 'threatening' nature of the curriculum. This threat was exacerbated by the v u l n e r a b i l i t y imposed upon the Humanities teachers. The HCP innovation played down the expertise of a subject area. The established base of high status that comes with a departmental 'esoteric body of knowledge' was removed (MacDonald, 1973: 83). Since the Humanities curriculum took the School Team d i r e c t l y into c o n f l i c t with the concerns of others, they needed au t h o r i t a t i v e support. This need, however, had been under-estimated: The importance of headmasters in innovation was under-estimated by the team, who did not at f i r s t see the scale of the demands they were making on rather i n f l e x i b l e administrative i n s t i t u t i o n s . It was not easy for schools to create the necessary conditions for the experiment, nor for teachers to undertake such d i f f i c u l t and novel work without the head's understanding support. (MacDonald, 1973: 84) The extent and nature of the head's understanding support was a c e n t r a l c r i t e r i o n of the case study. H i e r a r c h i c a l influences were necessary supports for the democratisation of the p u p i l s ' understanding. The r e l a t i o n s h i p i n ' t r a n s i t i o n ' also met a formidable and unforeseen problem from the p u p i l s . The dilemma was that students d i s t r u s t e d and were c y n i c a l about the change i n attitude apparent in the HCP s t r a t e g i e s : Of a l l the problems facing the schools, the one which looms la r g e s t i n the minds of teachers i s that of the reluctant student.* *Since i t i s one of the assumptions of this work that adolescents need to be treated as adults, the term student i s used rather than p u p i l . There are, for example, areas where, the secondary schools experience acute r e l u c t -ance on the part of the students, though the 127 primary schools are r e l a t i v e l y s u c c e s s f u l . In such a s i t u a t i o n secondary school students - and p a r t i c u l a r l y adolescents - appear s c e p t i c a l of the school's willingness to take account of l i f e as the student knows i t and c y n i c a l about the school as an i n s t i t u t i o n . But we may hope to develop educational strategies which w i l l meet legitimate c r i t i c i s m and change these a t t i t u d e s . (HCP Introduction, 1970: 3) Pupils, having reached the target population age of 14-16 and having been the most unsuccessful (ready to leave school) had been 'trained' i n t o incapacity. They had learned to acquiesce (in t h e i r 'scepticism' and 'cynicism') to the i n f l e x i b i l i t i e s of their educational l i f e : The teachers did not anticipate the extent to which a large number of pup i l s , i n t h e i r previous schooling, had been 'trained' i n t o incapacity for this work, nor the depth of a l i e n a t i o n from any kind of c u r r i c u l a r o f f e r i n g f e l t by a good many of them. Nor did teachers allow for the degree to which they and t h e i r pupils had been moulded into a t r a d i t i o n of teacher dominance and c u s t o d i a l a t t i t u d e s . (MacDonald, 1973: 85) Such a l i e n a t i o n was the anathema confronted by the idealism of the Project. The evaluation of the innovation had to portray such dissonance. The Humanities Curriculum Project Evaluation There was a strong p o s i t i o n underlying the HCP which presented considerable challenge to the HCP Evaluation Team. Stenhouse discussed t h i s : The p o s i t i o n I have outlined above i s b a s i c a l l y a p o l i t i c a l one. In pedagogical terms i t r e a l l y means a recognition that before students leave school they should learn to subject s o c i a l values to c r i t i c i s m i n the l i g h t of educational values. That i s , they should come to see that the tools of 128 thinking which the school offers them can be used to c r i t i c i s e s o c i a l and personal p o s i t i o n s . At the same time these tools are not l i k e l y to produce consensus: rather they w i l l provide procedures for handling divergence i n ways tht w i l l be conducive to understanding. This i s the essence of r e f l e c t i v e teaching and learning. (Stenhouse, 1973: 159) The intended 'tools of thinking' were conceived i n various ways by c r i t i c s and this resulted i n considerable i n s i t u problems: ...cut a d r i f t by Council (though not by N u f f i e l d ) , and a s s a i l e d variously from the L e f t - "bourgeois i n d o c t r i n a t i o n " , from the Right - "dangerous revolution", by academics - " e t h i c a l r e l a t i v i s m " , and by a c t i v i s t s -" s u b s t i t u t i n g s o c i a l action with a parlour game", the project was vigorously defended by an equally diverse range of a l l i e s , and acquired something of a ' c u l t ' reputation while continuing to compete s u c c e s s f u l l y i n the market place. (MacDonald, 1978: 12) The curriculum required a "pattern of behaviour in c o n f l i c t with established assumptions and habits". The b a s i c a l l y p o l i t i c a l essence of the P r o j e c t became something of a ' c u l t ' . The p r a c t i c a l implications of the c o n f l i c t a f f e c t e d the devising of an evaluation. The context had to be studied to determine the p a r t i c u l a r degree of c o n f l i c t a f f e c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l schools. Barry MacDonald was appointed the Director of the Evaluation Team (having f i r s t been the Schools Study O f f i c e r ) after a d d i t i o n a l funding was acquired. He worked alone during the two year t r i a l phase (1968-70) then acquired a s t a f f of three for the "dissemination phase" (1970-72): Helen Simons, Stephen Humble and Gajendra Verma. The aim of the implementation stage was to e s t a b l i s h by 1972 a network of people throughout England and Wales who could sustain the experiment. Trained and experienced educators 1 29 could introduce others, continue re-thinking the s t r a t e g i e s , and maintain the innovatory nature of the approach. The evaluation took two paths and focused on both "phases" of the Project. Verma persued the Measurement operations (during both phases). MacDonald (1978b) case-studied the t r i a l phase (Ro s e h i l l School and Canon  Roberts) and Simons and Humble (1978) case-studied the dissemination phase (Redmore and Brookland Comprehensive School: Brookshire County). The Measurement Phase The measurement proceedings were l a r g e l y unsuccessful. Problematic procedures l i m i t e d the r e l i a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s . The few s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses that could be analyzed produced no levels of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The only e f f e c t suggested by Verma could have (upon "further scrutiny") r e s u l t e d from "a few extreme cases i n the experimental group". This one variable that "seems to have some v a l i d i t y " was a negative s h i f t (contrary to a major HCP t e n e t ) . 'Untrained' Humanities teachers appeared to have classes of students that did less well than either school-leaving-aged student i n 'trained' classes; students in Humanities Schools that did not take the curriculum; and classes in schools without the Humanities. The stand-alone professional teacher who had no HCP t r a i n i n g and who t r i e d to implement the curriculum proved to be an inadequate 'experimental colleague' from whom the Project could le a r n . The evaluation by measurement was far outstripped in importance by the case study. The tenets of the Project, in f a c t , dictated a 'fresh approach' that played down the psychometric evaluation attempted by Verma. Verma had the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the measurement of student learning and the assessment 130 of the Project's measured impact. The former "required a degree of c o n t r o l which i s not available to an independent evaluation unit" (Simons and Humbler, 1978: 183). The l a t t e r national survey experienced problems " s u f f i c i e n t l y great to lead now to some reserve on our part about th e i r appropriateness" (p. 83). The case studies, however, provided "the necessary f l e x i b i l i t y to respond to unanticipated events". A Fresh Approach to Evaluation When confronted with the knowledge that the HCP would not have behavioural objectives to test, MacDonald wrote: I could of course have put pressure on the Team to translate t h e i r general aim of understanding into s p e c i f i c terminal behaviours...In any case, as I became more f a m i l i a r with the objectives model and also at the same time became aware of the nature of the impact of the Project in the schools I became i n c r e a s i n g l y s k e p t i c a l of this approach. (MacDonald, 1978b: 18) Not having the convenience of objectives MacDonald decided to 'just describe what happens'. To this end he devised reporting forms and questionnaries for Project members to complete on t h e i r v i s i t s to schools. MacDonald t r i e d to comprehend the volumes of input he was r e c e i v i n g and to combine this with school v i s i t s during the t r i a l phase. The task proved too much: We have t h i r t y - s i x schools and that's a l o t i n v i s i t i n g and study terms. I t r i e d to v i s i t a l l the schools but i t wasn't r e a l l y f e a s i b l e and i n the end I s e t t l e d for a number of case-study schools i n which I've t r i e d to understand the influences or forces which have determined the pattern of e f f e c t s i n those schools. (MacDonald, 1978b: 31) 131 The scope of the project was one of the reasons MacDonald s e t t l e d for a fresh approach to evaluation. Another reason was that he did not have the usual evaluator's function of "making judgements about materials". There were s u f f i c i e n t p r a c t i c a l reasons for devising a fresh approach to evaluation. In the case of the Humanities Curriculumn Project, the project team, not the evaluation unit, was p r i m a r i l y responsible for the t r i a l and r e v i s i o n of project materials. This meant that one of the usual functions of evaluators, making jdugements about materials, was undertaken by the p r o j e c t developers. Even more s i g n i f i c a n t , perhaps, was that the project team did not use the objectives model so common i n curriculum innovation and i t s evaluation. The p r o j e c t was an open-ended programme based on process c r i t e r i a rather than measurable o b j e c t i v e s . These were two of the considerations which the d i r e c t o r of evaluation had to take i n t o account i n the t r i a l phase of the project (1968-70) i n devising an evaluation. (Simons and Humble, 1978: 181) The developmental approach using "an open-ended programme based on process c r i t e r i a " was a t t r i b u t a b l e to the Schools Council. The project could not present the schools with an ends-means curriculum where-in the evaluator could judge materials by reference to how well they effected prescribed changes in p u p i l behaviour. The Council's c o n s t i t u t i o n was e x p l i c i t i n asserting the opposite: ...each school should have the f u l l e s t possible measure of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i t s own work, with i t s own curriculum and teaching methods based on i t s own pupils and evolved by i t s own s t a f f . [Paragraph 19 of the Lockwood Report] (Nisbet, 1973: 29) This mandate may have been the reason that HCP "had nothing to recommend"; offered an "open-ended" method and suggested that the "evidence" of the 132 material packs be used as the teacher deemed relevant to emerging disc u s s i o n . The teacher/experimental colleague needed assistance to bear this ' f u l l e s t possible measure of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ' and that was what the Evaluation Team sought to provide: With the Schools Council as our frame of reference we look upon HCP as a case-study i n the evolution and d i f f u s i o n of innovation -as a source of information that w i l l help the planners to make better decisions with regard to the s e l e c t i o n , design, s t a f f i n g , communication, support and control of future p r o j e c t s . (MacDonald, 1978b: 121) The HCP development team was active involving teachers " d e c i s i v e l y at every stage i n the innovation programme" (Lockwood Report) . The HCP evaluation team was active monitoring such input: The c e n t r a l assumption of the project's design was that there could be no e f f e c t i v e , far-reaching curriculum development without teacher development. To promote this development, the team asked teachers to accept the project as a means of exploring for themselves the problems of teaching controversy rather than as an a u t h o r i t a t i v e s o l u t i o n devised by experts. I t was important for the success of the project that teachers should understand this p o s i t i o n and see themselves as creator of curriculum change rather than mere spectators. (MacDonald, 1973: 83) Formative evaluation was needed to a s s i s t the development team with t h e i r continuing communications and personal contact with the 'creators' of the curriculum. Summative evaluation was necessary for support and control of future p r o j e c t s . 133 Information C r i t e r i a : Answers to Questions that No One i s Asking The aim to provide "information that w i l l help the planners" raised the c r u c i a l question, What information i s necessary? Given the s a n c t i t y of freedom for the teacher i n curriculum matters (Schools Council) - and the entailed s i t u a t i o n a l determinations - there was no ready made niche for the evaluator. The evaluator had to wait, observe, portray and i n t e r p r e t (MacDonald, 1973: 82). His or her accomplishment was to discover what was necessary to enable informed judgements: The major point of evaluation was to make the Project usable and to enable people to make informed judgements about i t ; to expose i t s f l e x i b i l i t y , i t s a d a p t a b i l i t y ; to communicate notions about the conditions under which i t i s l i k e l y to prosper or to f a i l . (Simons and Humble, 1978: 118) The p a r t i c u l a r problem, of which effects to study, became clearer as the various "experiments" unfolded i n the t r i a l schools. The i d e n t i t y of the consumers also became refined and restated: This notion of evaluation for consumers became refined and restated as the process of obtaining and providing relevant information for decision-makers and four main decision making groups suggested themselves - schools, l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s , examination boards, and the Schools Council. (MacDonald, 1978b: 19) MacDonald's case studies of the 1968-70 t r i a l schools were published i n The Experience of Innovation i n 1978. They came far too late to inform either the i n i t i a l experimental schools or those schools implementing the curriculum a f t e r the Project ceased i n 1972. Humble and Simons published their case studies of the l a t e r dissemination phase i n From Council to Classroom, also i n 1978. The delay was a consequence of having to discover 134 and refine the method of the case study at the same time as f u l f i l l i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e and fresh approach to evaluation (informing decision-makers). The decision-makers, hence, were presented with periodic excerpts by the Evaluation Team that were best described as b i t s of the case record. These were offered to a l l whom could be reached that were involved i n the HCP implementation; through the pub l i c a t i o n HCP Evaluation Reports. HCP Evaluation Reports There were nine HCP Evaluation Reports put out by the p r i n c i p a l e d i t o r , Stephen Humble, during the 1970-72 dissemination phase. Each report was approximately 10-12 pages long. They were i n i t i a l l y sent to a l l i d e n t i f i e d schools and i n s t r u c t o r s . Later, copies were sent to LEA's to disseminate to non-HCP schools, and others were d i r e c t l y mailed to HCP Schools. The Reports recorded accounts of problems that HCP Schools had encountered (Report #2). The aim was to contribute experience and views on any of the points raised by reading contributors. Issues also reported were those on the "study-in-depth of curriculumn innovation at work i n the schools". Humble summed up the purpose as follows: This report i s being sent to a l l schools and i n s t i t u t i o n s l i k e yours working in the HCP which have had p o s i t i v e contact with the Evaluation Unit. Its purpose i s to service a regular contact among HCP teachers and with ourselves, providing them with information and requests from other teachers, the Project Central Team and the Unit. It w i l l be published according to your demand. We hope i t provokes response and c r i t i c i s m . (HCP Evaluation Reports, 1971: I) The HCP Evaluation Report was a "news-sheet for teachers". The p u b l i c a t i o n s a t i s f i e d the one aim of informing in-process development. Case studies 135 would come l a t e r than would meet the equal aim of reporting such in-process enactment for prospective innovators. The a l t e r n a t i v e views of research and the adopted approach that resulted for the HCP Developmental Team implied major value decisions. While the intent was to have the school teachers and administrators develop curriculum i n s i t u , the Humanities approach had many impacted recommendations. The basic value assumptions were p o l i t i c a l i n nature, defining both an a l t e r n a t i v e role for the teacher and the student. The ambition was to provide the student with an understanding of c o n t r o v e r s i a l issues and how he or she could approach these i n an adult manner. The teacher was to remain 'neutral' i n this achievement - not providing autho r i t a t i v e d i r e c t i o n . The strategies to e f f e c t such role changes were considered continuously experimental. Furthermore, the teacher and student had no set of procedures to guide th e i r discovery, only p r i n c i p l e s . They had to discover t h e i r roles as they went along. Devoid of a means of prespecifying terminal student behaviours, the Evaluation Team of the HCP had to devise a "fresh approach' to evaluation. They ascertained a need to focus on both context and input v a r i a b l e s . Since the innovation was intended to develop uniquely i n each s e t t i n g , the s i t u a t i o n a l variables were most important. S i m i l a r l y , since the teachers were to receive t r a i n i n g ( a l b e i t strategies as opposed to s p e c i f i c techniques) the 'input' to each school was a determining f a c t o r . The Schools Council mandate that such s i t u a t i o n a l development had to be ca r r i e d out, and that projects must support the schools i n the i r own e f f o r t s at curriculum development, further emphasized the importance of the input of information to the schools. 136 The Evaluation Team was bereft of the usual function of judging the effectiveness of materials, as that was a function of the intent to revise packs by the Development Team. Consequently, they assumed the major task of informing decision makers involved i n the innovation ( t r i a l ) and implementation stages. They also sought to provide the perspective of such pa r t i c i p a n t s to future consumers. I t was out of these a l t e r n a t i v e views of evaluation that the a l t e r n a t i v e approaches were developed. 137 CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS OF THE HUMANITIES CURRICULUM APPROACH ON EVALUATION The acceptance of an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to curriculum development by the HCP necessitated a s i m i l a r evaluation change. Out of the uniqueness of the innovation arose a plethora of ef f e c t s that complicated the processes of interviewing and p a r t i c i p a n t observation adopted as the techniques of the case study approach. Effects analagous to those of testing and i n s t r u -mentation i n the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l approach were numerous. The project took on a ' c u l t ' image which resulted i n an acceptance of the project on the basis of this 'image.1 The schools soon found a gap between the believed 'panacea' and the r e a l i t i e s of implementing the ' r a d i c a l ' approach. Furthermore, the project development team i n t e n t i o n a l l y and un i n t e n t i o n a l l y introduced considerable dissonance. In fact, they went as far as to claim that the successful resolve of such dissonance was the e s s e n t i a l intention of the project implementation. The 'Humanities approach' e n t a i l e d a " r a d i c a l s h i f t i n power r e l a t i o n -ships" (MacDonald and Walker, 1973: 12). 'Dissonance' was introduced at the student, teacher and i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l s . This disturbance represented "the po t e n t i a l for i n s t i t u t i o n a l growth and change" (MacDonald, 1978b: 33). MacDonald f e l t that such disturbance, and how ' i n the end' i t was resolved, marked the 'transformation' in schools that was the intent of the p r o j e c t . In the case of the HCP the romantic ideals that were t y p i c a l of acceptance of the pr o j e c t - described by Stenhouse as near to a "conception of medieval scholarship" (MacDonald,1978b: 31) - mitigated the data gathering problems of the evaluation team. When the 'devout' ran into d i f f i c u l t y 'making the 138 curriculum work,1 they were cable of d i s t o r t i n g and withholding information. The evaluation team, in an attempt to enact their a l t e r n a t i v e views to evaluation, had many challenges. The Halo E f f e c t The high p r o f i l e of the project created situations where schools acquiesced or r e b e l l e d against the assumed project authority. Consequently, the evaluation team was hard pressed to d i s t i n g u i s h conscientious 'analysis of teaching' (on the part of the experimentor-teacher) from reaction to 'infectiousness'. Simons and Humble addressed this problem of authority (1978). Communication of the HCP ideas did not always produce a ' r e f l e c t i v e approach' conducive to the teacher analysis of i n s t r u c t i o n a l approach. An infectiousness was generally conveyed - "an excitement and commitment to the project's ideas that implied that they need not be questioned" (148). Without a r e f l e c t i v e approach to the 'strategy' the teacher could q u i c k l y "suffer to some extent from a loss of confidence" (p. 162). The strategy did challenge both student and teacher assumptions and habits. It was i n t e n t i o n a l l y 'experimental.' Yet, there was an intense external pressure form the p u b l i c i t y surrounding the project as well as the LEA involvement. Simons and Humble provided examples of teachers who f e l t under increasing pressure to succeed, despite a 'loss of confidence' (Simons and Humble, 1978: 162). The ' f i s h bowl' s e t t i n g created in some schools extended to s i t u a t i o n s where tours were brought through to observe the classes in a c t i o n . Some schools had requests that they be featured for media presentations. Teachers involved had d i f f i c u l t y i f they could not 'make the project work.' The case 139 study interviewer was l i k e l y to have a best (or in cases worst) side presented. The p a r t i c u l a r ' c u l t ' variable influencing the dissemination and t r i a l stages was an added issue to the inherent "halo e f f e c t " of most f i e l d s t u d i e s. Simons addressed the problem when interviewing p u p i l s . Yet, the same could be true for a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . An outside "stranger" who dropped i n for a few days could experience " d i f f i c u l t y getting beyond i n s t i t u t i o n a l habits." Students could "t r e a t the interview as a test s i t u a t i o n , and t r y to give 'ri g h t ' answers" (Simons, 1977b: 122). The teacher, head or LEA o f f i c e r could equally f e e l 'on t r i a l ' , e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of the HCP, and endeavour to present what they perceived to be a success. In short, the adoption of an interview-based case study approach raised questions about the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of data: Perceptions d i f f e r too. How the interviewee perceives the interviewer as sympathetic, c r i t i c a l or threatening, for example, w i l l influence what kind of information i s offered; how the interviewer perceives the interviewee, as interested, i n d i f f e r e n t or h o s t i l e w i l l a f f e c t how he or she behaves. The interview, in other words i s a complex s o c i a l process i n which much more than information i s being sought or communicated. (p. 117) The Hawthorne E f f e c t When dealing with an innovation aimed at improving the c u r r i c u l a offered by schools - i n the case of the HCP, an addition for the young school leaver - there was a danger that the novelty of the innovations or the excitement of the implementation were the causes of 'improvement.' The 'aura' surrounding the HCP contributed to this 'Hawthorne e f f e c t ' : " Its whole rhe t o r i c suggested that i t was a curriculum of some importance which 140 had i t s o r i g i n s f i r m l y based i n a coherent philosophy about the structure of education" (Simons and Humble, 1978: 146). Such a t t r a c t i o n and excitement reached students in various ways. Curriculum of some importance a t t r a c t e d teachers of some importance. They could bring an excitement to students involved. One deputy headmaster, who became the Humanities teacher, explained that the other s t a f f a c t i v e l y supported him. Such ' s o l i d a r i t y ' "refelected a willingness to entertain hight expectations." The students were s a i d to have met such expectations, yet the deputy head asked, "Would they have done so i n a d i f f e r e n t context?" ( E l l i o t , 1975: 142). Students were not the only people influenced by these e f f e c t s . Heads gained considerable contact with the outside schools. Competent and imaginative teachers could promote their successes. The CARE SAFARI group observed that, "Generally i t i s contact with t h i s [wider] world that leads to promotion rather than outstanding success i n the classroom" (Walker, et a l . , 1975: 14). When this a t y p i c a l zeal or motiviation was added to the t y p i c a l perception of authority that p a r t i c i p a n t s had of the Humanities Project team, the schools a c t i v e l y sought 'expert' judgements instead of experimenting (Simons and Humble, 1978: 149). Humble and Simons att r i b u t e d the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of this perception of authority to the way c e n t r a l innovation was organized. The developmental team, in i t s defence, stated that they went to some lengths to convey i n t r a i n i n g courses that they should not be perceived as a u t h o r i t a t i v e . Others did not support this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : "Religious and sales metaphors, for example, were used by teachers to describe the way i n which the project was presented to them" (Simons and Humble, 1978: 149). Furthermore, Stenhouse 141 acknowledged that the team had made two e r r o r s . Both had to do with the expression of the methodology as injunctions: F i r s t , generalisations did not hold. Teacher judgement was at a l l times necessary. Second, since injunctions were statements, they were treated as in s t r u c t i o n s to teachers rather than hypotheses. (Stenhouse, 1973: 163) The project presented an operational role d e f i n i t i o n during the dissemination stage ( a f t e r the publ i c a t i o n of the project handbook i n 1970), and they offered 'injunctions' p r i o r to t h i s . Upwardly mobile educators had a platform for promotion and a role d e f i n i t i o n within which they could demonstrate th e i r merit. The e f f e c t at issue had impact on a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s (including students) and had to be dealt with i n some way by those given the task of 'mapping' independent p a r t i c i p a n t perspectives. MacDonald alluded to the d i f f i c u l t y as the c r i t i c a l n e s s of the 'teacher variable': ...teacher expectations of pu p i l performance seems to te i n some situa t i o n s highly s i g n i -f i c a n t as sources of explanation of p u p i l response and that there are rewards and penalties i n career terms that d i f f e r e n t innovations o f f e r to teachers i n d i f f e r e n t si t u a t i o n s that seem to be an important element of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t i a l teacher response. (MacDonald, 1978b: 30) The teacher's influence on p u p i l response was not simply i n terms of the curriculum development. The evaluator was presented with teacher influence on the evaluation of teacher influence! The problem arose when the i n s t i t u t i o n a l personnel assisted i n s e l e c t i n g pupils for interviewing. The introductions by the teachers to the purpose of the interview, as well as the p u p i l s e l e c t i o n , were d i f f e r e n t from those which the interviewer would 142 have chosen. Strategies needed to be a r t i c u l a t e d that c o n t r o l l e d v a r i a b l e s which were b u i l t into the innovation. Despite the p o s s i b i l i t y that the zealousness of the HCP team may have exacerbated such influences, many CARE workers came to regard such influences as unavoidable. MacDonald reinforced Simons and Humble regarding this ' i n e v i t a b i l i t y ' : Genuine innovation begets incompetence. I t d e s k i l l s teacher and p u p i l a l i k e , suppressing acquired competencies and demanding the development of new ones...the discomfort and the dismay are b u i l t i n ; they are the d e f i n -c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of innovation. Those pundits who s t i l l cherish fond notions of the happy project bandwagon and the d i s t o r t -ing influence of the Hawthorne e f f e c t should have a close look at a full-blooded change-e f f o r t . It's no joke. (Macdonald, 1975: 11) The Status Enhancement E f f e c t The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' use of involvement i n an innovation to further paramountcy did not only involve a rush to gain e c l a t . The everyday workings of i n s t i t u t i o n a l bureaucracies provided a pervasive 'status enhancement e f f e c t . ' The e f f e c t operated i n t e r n a l l y and externally, to i n d i v i d u a l schools. Walker provided a context for discussing the e f f e c t i n a paper o r i g i n a l l y delivered at a seminar on The Applied Anthropology of School Organization at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Society of Applied Anthro-pology i n Amsterdam, 1975: A question I've found myself asking a l l week, i s i f anthropologists are so keen to preserve the culture of North American Indians why i s n ' t someone studying the Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s ? I t may not be so glamor-ous, i t may provide technical problems, but i t s u t i l i t y would be considerable. In 143 educational research we are constantly made aware that we are dealing with complex s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l systems. Useful as i t might be on some occasions to think of i n d i v i d u a l schools or classrooms as self-contained c u l t u r a l niches, what happens i n central government, i n c i t y h a l l or even in univer-s i t i e s and colleges, sends ripples into the system. Sometimes the rip p l e s constitute a t i d a l wave... (Walker, 1977: 23) The p r o f i l e of the HCP ' i n e v i t a b l y ' set up complex s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Parents, fellow teachers, LEA o f f i c e r s , heads and others were aware of the innovation. Daily a c t i v i t i e s brought l u s t r e to i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s . The head had more opportunity to drop i n and discuss the c l a s s . V i s i t s from outside 'experts' brought importance to the teacher's task. The release from other duties and afforded s p e c i a l dispensations (double blocks, rooms conducive to d i s c u s s i o n 'in-the-round', plenary and on-going committees) a l l added to the esteem of 'the project.' Some of the teachers associated with the HCP spoke of the 'ripples into the system'. One teacher described the experience as "belonging to the Order of St. Lawrence" (Simons and Humble, 1978: 150). On the 'platform of promotion' the HCP could provide considerable elevation to the teacher's standing. The evaluation team had to ascertain such 'status enhancement e f f e c t s ' on the dissemination. They also had to be adroit in the detection of this influence on t h e i r own case records. The aim to construct "'networks of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ' and perceptions of r e a l i t y i n p a r t i c u l a r contexts" (SAFARI papers 2, Introduction, p. 7) necessitated 'progressive focussing.' Often t h i s meant checking one p a r t i c i p a n t ' s perceptions against another's. In a context where ranking was an i n f l u e n t i a l determinor of behaviour, how teachers were presented to others by the evaluator was a major concern. What 1 44 those other p a r t i c i p a n t s did with this information was j u s t as important. "Giving information to somebody i n need of i t may strengthen his value p o s i t i o n instead of that of somebody else" (Brugelmann, 1974: 69). The evaluation d i r e c t o r was quickly made aware of the degree to which this concern would fashion his conduct: I have acquired a tape recorder and record interviews with heads, HCP s t a f f , other s t a f f and p u p i l s . Immediate repercussion - I am bearded i n a small o f f i c e by one HCP teacher who threatens to sue me unless I divulge to him immediately the contents of the interview I have had with the head. It takes half an hour to persuade him to l e t me leave the room. He appears to believe that the other HCP teachers are conspiring with the head against him, and that I am being used to further this conspiracy. Is this relevant to my evaluation, I ask myself on the way home, or j u s t a l i e n noise? The question never goes away. It's with me yet. (MacDonald, 1978b: 287) Status was also a f a c t i t i v e issue for students. Simons outlined the considerations that pupils might bring to bear, when asked to give 'opinions' i n an interview, i n "Conversation Piece: The Practice of Interviewing i n Case Study Research" (1977b). Students may have been constrained by their perceptions of low status ("It's only the clever people who have "opinions"), or conversly, t h e i r low status image could have led them "to adopt a bravado stance - 'I don't care what I say'" (Simons, 1977b: 114). The interviews performed for the HCP evaluation revealed how the sel e c t i o n of 'low s t a t u s 1 students could also a f f e c t the status of the evaluator. In an e f f o r t to assess the f u l l range of experiences, the team was interested i n the ' i n a r t i c u l a t e p upils' who were the less involved i n Humanities class discussions. Teachers often perceived such students as 'hostile witnesses.' By interviewing such i n d i v i d u a l s the evaluator could be 145 seen to be 'aligning' him or herself and "lose c r e d i b i l i t y i n the eyes of the s t a f f " (p. 128). There were no easy solutions to handle such 'status enhancement e f f e c t s . ' Methods needed to be devised to i d e n t i f y t h e i r latency. Simbiotic Relationships E l l i o t observed that the s k i l l i n p a r t i c i p a n t observation " l i e s i n avoiding a disruption of normal patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n " (1978: 23). Walker and MacDonald pointed out that "knowledge i s the basis on which many forms of power are l e g i t i m i z e d and, i n the case of education, the medium through which power i s exercised" (Walker and MacDonald, 1975b: 6). Placed together, these two assertions accent the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the researcher and his subjects, sponsors, audiences and related groups. The CARE group considered that the "primary focus" when studying t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p should be i t s " p o l i t i c a l nature" (Walker and MacDonald, 1975b: 11). When they applied the two procedures of p a r t i c i p a n t observation and open-ended interviewing, the p o l i t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the know-ledge accessed and the status of informant/participants c a r r i e d predominance. The power that resided in the c o l l e c t i o n of knowledge could and was perceived able to " a l t e r the r e l a t i v e status of subjects" (Walker and MacDonald, 1975b: 13). Simons also alluded to the necessity of being aware of the p o l i t i c a l nature of interviewing. In her example she was discussing the implications of "lengthy interviews with the Head": It i s d i f f i c u l t to avoid interviewing him f i r s t and i n f a c t , i t may be advantageous to do so at length to secure his confidence and involvement i n the study. However, lengthy 146 interviews with the Head may be unhelpful i n terms of how they a f f e c t teachers' percept-ions of you and your subsequent interviews with them. Already you have access to knowledge, including perhaps the head's judgement of them, which they may not have. The Head may also have given you 'carte blanche' to interview p u p i l s , a point over which teachers might have exercised more reserve. (Simons, 1977b: 113) Whether or not the Head divulged c e r t a i n information or gave permission for access to pupils was immaterial. Teachers may 'perceive' such, and t h e i r perceptions of the researchers and subsequent interviews with them would be af f e c t e d . The concern with perceived 'symbiotic r e l a t i o n s h i p s ' required sets of negotiated r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The p o s s i b l e 'reserve' of the teachers could have been a r e s u l t of misundertstandings a r i s i n g from the absence of such 'sets'. In the absence of 'rules of information use' misunderstandings a r i s e . "For example, i f the researcher interviews pupils i n confidence and does not reveal what they say teachers may see the interviewer i n a con-s p i r a t o r i a l role with p u p i l s " (p. 115). S i m i l a r l y , the p u p i l may conceive of the same r e l a t i o n s h i p between the researcher and the teacher, and they may d i s t o r t the data: Where pupils have been selected by the teacher they may associate the interviewer with teachers and the authority structure and this may r e s t r i c t d i s c u s s i o n . (p. 122) As Walker and MacDonald stated, a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the researcher have this ' p o l i t i c a l nature.' Walker i d e n t i f i e d a common perception of the evaluator as "operating under a series of constraints from sponsors" (1981: 39). Legitimate or not, a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s have an "account of why they are being studied and t h e i r own reasons for wanting to be studied" (p. 42). 147 Fear of Reprisal A s i m i l a r issue to the 'halo e f f e c t ' that arose i n the evaluation of the HCP was the p o s s i b i l i t y that 'feedback' received from open-ended i n t e r -viewing could be d i s t o r t e d out of 'fear of r e p r i s a l . ' Much could be i n the 'balance' touched by the evaluation. Stenhouse discussed how teachers f e l t 'on t r i a l ' p a r t i a l l y due to the unavoidable authority of national p r o j e c t s : We underestimated the authority of national projects backed by the Schools Council and the ambivalent attitude they may generate. We saw the project as testing hypotheses: many of the teachers with whom we worked saw either themselves or us as on t r i a l . Often instead of using th e i r judgement to inform us, teachers allowed what were intended by us as tentative hypotheses to overrule their judgement. Some experimental feedback was d i s t o r t e d by this a t t i t u d e . It might be designed to reassure us, to challenge us or merely to protect the teacher concerned. In the end, this has p a r t l y been overcome, but i t has been a formidable problem. (Stenhouse, 1973: 156) MacDonald made the same observation at the time: It emerged that the project team had f a i l e d at the outset to communicate the nature of the enterprise s u c c e s s f u l l y . From the teachers' point of view, the ethos of the project was evangelical rather than explora-tory, and the suggested teaching strategies looked l i k e tests of teacher p r o f i c i e n c y rather than research hypotheses. Many f e l t on t r i a l . This both reduced th e i r capacity to p r o f i t from the experience and adversely affected t h e i r feedback to the centre. (MacDonald, 1973: 85) The fear of f a i l u r e and the r e s u l t i n g consequences also extended to the head-masters. If the reputation of the school might be involved, the school-based team found themselves under ' g u i l t y pressures' to e s t a b l i s h a c o n s p i r a t o r i a l s t y l e of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Teachers may have learned to 148 'disguise' what they were doing as a r e s u l t of this anxiety. "False feedback i s l i k e l y to occur i n such a s i t u a t i o n and this can lead to f i c t i t i o u s implementation of a project" (Verma, 1980: 26). The evaluation team r e a l i s e d that conspiracies could be i n i t i a t e d between the head and teachers. In one case the secret purpose was not to hide information but had to do with an influence on the pattern of e f f e c t s i n the school quite unknown to the HCP s t a f f . Teachers appeared " s t i f f as boards and sweating" when MacDonald observed a c l a s s . He eventually discovered, "that the head has promised these teachers promotion i f they achieved s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved public examination r e s u l t s then followed t h i s up by committing them heavily to HCP, a non-examined curriculum i n this school" (MacDonald, 1978b: 287). At the l e v e l of student observation and interviewing the influence of power on re l a t i o n s h i p s also d i r e c t l y affected information exchange. Expression could have been c u r t a i l e d by perceptions of powerlessness or incompetence: Pupils learn to l i v e by rules and conventions prescribed by those responsible for the running of the school and may not f e e l as  free as teachers to express their attitudes and f e e l i n g s . In schools which have a f a i r l y t r a d i t i o n a l curriculum, furthermore, pupils may not have had much opportunity to talk i n class or informally to teachers outside c l a s s . (Simons, 1977b: 122) How students perceived the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the interviewer and the teacher may also have r e s t r i c t e d or di s t o r t e d t h e i r r e p l i e s . In a uni-d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n the student may not have much f a i t h i n c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . The student's experience with authority was generally narrow. I t may have been hard to believe that an 'outsider' could have 149 s u f f i c i e n t authority to r e s i s t the school s t a f f ' s i n s istances, or to protect the student from the l a t e r exercise of rules and conventions by those responsible for the running of the school. Experience bore out such fears of r e p r i s a l . D i r e c t pressure had been brought to bear on students to reveal what had been said i n interviews (Simons, 1977b: 116). Simons offered one approach that could provide i n s u l a t i o n from the power re l a t i o n s h i p s within the school: group interviewing. Unfortunately, the gain from group anonymity could be taken away by the control function of peer i n t e r a c t i o n : "...peer group norms may operate i n a c o n s t r i c t i n g way and one may get l i t t l e mileage out of group interviews with p u p i l s " (p. 125). Fear of r e p r i s a l appeared to be a major area for studying the meaning of actions toward the researcher. Means of ascertaining such intentions and d i s p o s i t i o n s were necessasry. Cognitive Dissonance The HCP presented innovators of t h e i r curriculum i n t r i n s i c recommendations. The project team had made value-decisions about what should be taught; which values were to be r e a l i z e d i n this teaching; and how best to develop democratic values. A "statement of a s p i r a t i o n " by Stenhouse revealed how the assumptions taken by the project d i f f e r e d from those of the Schools Council. The Schools Council i n i t i a l l y provided an aim "to probe how far ordinary pupils can i n f a c t be taken" (Working paper No. 2, para. 61, p. 14). MacDonald pointed out that Stenhouse 'dissented' with the Council's assumptions. The d i r e c t o r wished to provide more. In broad terms the objective w i l l be to provide for the minority of pupils, something of the q u a l i t y and range of l i b e r a l education hitherto reserved for the minority of more 150 academically-minded pup i l s , and to do this i n terms which are i n t e l l e c t u a l l y sound while at the same time i n t e r e s t i n g and relevant to the pupil' s needs. This rather low key statement of a s p i r a t i o n may well have passed unnoticed among the welter of f a m i l i a r p r a c t i c a l i t i e s and procedures outlined i n the c i r c u l a r , but i t constituted Stenhouse's f i r s t public expression of dissent from the assumptions of ...Society and the Young School Leaver [Schools Council, 1967]. (MacDonald, 1978b: 43) Stenhouse and his project team were swept up i n a 'charismatic' movement that ' b u i l t up u n r e a l i s t i c expectations' f o r teachers: "...they had been captured by the excitement, only to r e a l i z e subsequently that they had not f u l l y understood the implications of putting the project into p r a c t i c e " (Simons, 1978: 48). Without f i r s t understanding the implications of putting the project into p r a c t i c e p r a c t i t i o n e r s were ca r r i e d away by 'euphoria.' The HCP offered a ' l i b e r a l and p o t e n t i a l l y l i b e r a t i n g i d e a l . ' The rhet o r i c and charisma were perceived as a 'genuine a l t e r n a t i v e . ' Unfortunately, as MacDonald observed, Stenhouse f e l t that the project might have to be "suited only to an e l i t e of schools." The r e a l i t i e s of the schools confronted the i d e a l of the pro j e c t . Many of the teachers who joined the 'crusade' found themselves imprisoned i n a gap between the project's i m p l i c i t model of the school and the r e a l i t i e s of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l milieux i n which they were located. (MacDonald, 1976: 81) The project set up a role c o n f l i c t for the teacher which 'imprisoned' them i n a gap between the project's inwrought i d e a l of educational l i f e and the everyday interworkings of the school. 151 Teachers, heads and LEA o f f i c e r s accepted the curriculum as a genuine a l t e r n a t i v e rather than an untested i d e a l . Schools had d i f f i c u l t y accepting or understanding the experimental nature of the innovation: One of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n communication i s to break through the assumptions that people have i n a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d . It seems that i t i s not enough simply to t e l l the people that you are engaging i n an experiment - people can understand that verbally but i t doesn't seem to break through ce r t a i n assumptions which contradict that understanding and over-ride i t - so that you get people i n a state of cognitive dissonance, to use Festinger's c l a s s i c phrase, a phenomenon that has been observable i n a number of people at this conference and, I may add, i n HCP c e n t r a l team members. (MacDonald, 1978: 29) In response to the state of cognitive dissonance, some abandoned the HCP, some gave up teaching as a career. Teachers were caught up i n the 'crusade' only to find themselves b a t t l i n g against t r a d i t i o n s i n defence of an appetency only p a r t i a l l y understood. Verma wrote of the r a d i c a l s t y l e experienced in The Impact of Innovation (1981). Role c o n f l i c t was experienced since teachers had been s o c i a l i z e d , themselves, into a t r a d i t i o n of dominance and c u s t o d i a l a t t i t u d e s . The st y l e they used i n the rest of their teaching was ' i r r e c o n c i l a b l y ' c o n f l i c t u a l with the Humanities. Pupils, too, experienced c o n f l i c t as a r e s u l t of the 'switch.' They r e s i s t e d the u n f a m i l i a r i t y . Role c o n f l i c t provided dissonance: A major cause of this dissonance was the change i n roles of both teacher and p u p i l ; i . e . , the teacher was no longer seen as having expertise to transmit and the p u p i l was no longer seen as the passive r e c i p i e n t of teacher knowledge. In that kind of t r a d i t i o n a l teacher/pupil r e l a t i o n s h i p there i s p u p i l dependence on the teacher which, i n 152 HCP, i s something teachers must try to break i f the Project i s to succeed. Central to the project i s the idea that the teacher must r e l i n q u i s h his t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant p o s i t i o n . (p. 26) Teachers, pupils, the r e s t of the school s t a f f and sometimes parents were threatened by the r e l i n q u i s h i n g of a ' t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant p o s i t i o n . ' Yet, the teacher found himself or herself committed to 'making the pro j e c t work." I n i t i a l l y , they may have believed that the project could provide 'an instant panacea for classroom i l l s . ' Eventually, they r e a l i z e d that they would have to master considerable unlearning and relearning. The general expectation that innovation would make l i f e easier was not substantiated. The change of role required support. When dealing with a divergent s t y l e of teaching such a support structure implied support by 'understanding.' Teachers needed to have the i r (perhaps) unexpected and challenging experiences validated by colleagues. Mesalliance with students did not bring immediate r e s u l t s , and the disunion with t r a d i t i o n a l deportment created more tension - an " i n s t i t u t i o n a l dissonance." I n s t i t u t i o n a l Dissonance Walker described how an innovation could s p l i t s t a f f and i s o l a t e schools from l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s . The ultimate e f f e c t could be "one of d i v i s i o n and suspicion at a number of lev e l s i n the system, anarchy at the periphery as seen from the centre; malign conspiracy at the centre as seen from the periphery" (1981: 51). MacDonald l i s t e d over twenty separate ' i n s t i t u t i o n a l disturbances' created by the HCP (MacDonald, 1978b: 34). These ran from absences of st a f f while take t r a i n i n g to unfavourable parental response. The central team f e l t the project created "dissonance at 153 a l l l e v e l s of impact" (p. 80). Stenhouse described how the security of working within an academic and i n s t r u c t i o n a l framework could bl i n d one to the "profound t h e o r e t i c a l roots which l i e beneath i t " (1978: 31). Teachers were devoid of a 'supporting t r a d i t i o n ' and this led to 'in-groups,' demands on other departments, releases from other duties, ' p r i v i l e g e d ' attention and threats to established t r a d i t i o n s . The HCP was often i n i t i a l l y accepted on incomplete and erroneous assumptions. Schools accepted an image that eventually revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t gap between intent and p r a c t i c e . The educational process conceived by the project and that l i v e d by schools could and did lead to "imprisonment i n a gap f i l l e d with glamorous daydreams" (MacDonald, 1976: 84). Such c o n f l i c t , between the i m p l i c i t model of the project and the r e a l i t i e s of the classroom and school system, led to a " s p i r a l of demands" (Walker and MacDonald, 1975b: 24). Both teaching and organizational demands had to be met. Multiple goals of learning, 'pastoral care, 1 and i n s t i t u t i -onal functioning needed synthesis. The dissonance introduced could lead to "a point where re-synthesis becomes d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible" (p. 24). When the teacher was faced with the p o s s i b i l i t y of 'bridging the gap' i t could lead to i s o l a t i o n and defensiveness. School teams could acquire ' c o n s p i r a t o r i a l f e e l i n g s . ' Evaluating Dissonance Cognitive dissonance ( s p e c i f i c a l l y about role confusion) could heighten p e r t i n a c i t y , yet such persistence was not always an asset -e s p e c i a l l y to the evaluation team: ...the teachers made a greater e f f o r t to implement and sustain the model, for the 154 experiment, but they also f e l t more g u i l t and personal f a i l u r e as a r e s u l t of which feedback generally has been rather deceptive, and we have tended to get more feedback from the schools with fewer problems than from the schools with more problems. (MacDonald, 1978b: 29) The p o s s i b i l i t y of deceptive feedback and the possible lack of information forthcoming from schools with more problems were compounded by the other ' l e v e l s ' of dissonance. Eventually, attention to school attempts to resolve such incongruities became a cardinal concept of the evaluation: I may summarise that i t appears that HCP activates the school by introducing dissonance at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s - value dissonance at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to the au t h o r i t a r -i a n / p a r t i c i p a t o r y ethos of the school -cognitive dissonance at the teacher l e v e l and p a r t i c u l a r l y a degree of role confusion -a f f e c t i v e dissonance at the p u p i l l e v e l where many pupils have their s e t t l e d expectations of the teacher/pupil/knowledge r e l a t i o n s h i p confounded. In the end the l a s t i n g impact of i n s t i t u t i o n , teachers and pupils depends on how i n p a r t i c u l a r cases these dissonances are resolved, whether by moving on to new pr a c t i c e s , s k i l l s and attituded or reverting to o l d ones . (MacDonald, 1978b: 35) The project development team had been using various dissonances to e f f e c t change i n schools. The ' a u t h o r i t a r i a n / p a r t i c i p a t o r y ethos' had to change, the teacher had to reconcile values and the students had to accept new r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Successful resolve of dissonances led to ' l a s t i n g impact.' Such impact was an instance of a s h i f t i n the d i r e c t i o n of classroom work -and an a l t e r i n g of the teacher's 'set' towards students - the two major aims of the development team. These aims were not simply teacher centred, but disharmony was " a c t i v i a t e d " at i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l s and student l e v e l s . When the schools unlocked themselves from the disunion created by the HCP " i m p l i -155 cations" they had developed a pattern, an instance or a 'case' of successful or unsuccessful implementation of an innovation. The evaluation team's aims were to develop i n s i g h t into the development of dissonance resolvement and to portray such cases as p r a c t i c a l demonstrations for present and future consumers of the HCP. MacDonald r e a l i z e d that not a l l dissonance was i n t e n t i o n a l , even though i t was instrumental. In addition to the 'ac t i v a t i o n ' of enmity (to break down established assumptions) the implementation was characterized by 'bad communication" and 'confused thinking' from the central team: There was always too the question as to what extent misunderstanding on the part of t r i a l school teachers was due to bad communication from the ce n t r a l team, or perhaps e f f e c t i v e communication of confused thinking, as against simply the d i f f i c u l t y of breaking-down established assumptions about the nature of the enterp r i s e . There c e r t a i n l y was in the early days enormous confusion and lack of understanding, leading to f a i r l y wide-spread f a i l u r e to respond ' a p p r o p r i a t e l y 1 . There were many unanticipated problems and wide-spread mis-perception of the demand that the Project was making. Gaining an understanding of the 'dissonances,' the 'enormous confusion' and the 'misperceptions,' then portraying these to a s s i s t the development team and innovators during the experimental and disemination stages, became the modus operandi of the evaluation team. (MacDonald, 1978b: 26) 'Confused Thinking' MacDonald chronicled his f i r s t days with the project, revealing the confusion he found. He experienced the ambiguity f i r s t hand. Aft e r 156 'explaining' the project to MacDonald during his introduction as a new s t a f f , Stenhouse l e f t on vacation the next day. MacDonald did not understand what had been explained (MacDonald, 1978b: 285). He began to focus his i n i t i a l evaluation on the development team, i t s e l f : There seems to be no common platform -everyone has a d i f f e r e n t notion of what the Project stands f o r . No wonder Stenhouse i n s i s t s that a l l public statements go through him. (MacDonald, 1978b: 286) MacDonald confirmed his observations with a questionnaire to test consensus. Of twenty f i v e statements there was disagreement on every one from the nine s t a f f . MacDonald asked "So what has the Project been saying to those teachers out there...?" (p. 286). He revised the questionnaire to reduce ambiguity. There was only agreement on six out of sixteen items. Given the enormous confusion surrounding the group some of the dissonance had to be unin t e n t i o n a l . As an example, the under-estimation of the head-master's role meant that they were not always made to understand or at l e a s t not be presented with 'the necessary conditions' (Verma, 1980: 15) . The importance of headmasters i n innovation was underestimated by the central team, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the degree of disturbance i n the school generally which a programme of this kind can cause, the conditions which are necessary for i t s implementation, and the support structure which such d i f f i c u l t and novel work seems to c a l l f o r . The Project has been manipulating major variables i n the school including established patterns of s o c i a l c o n t r o l , a concern very r e a l to those who work i n schools. (MacDonald, 1978b: 27) 157 The team, not having anticipated the heads' importance, could not have i n t e n t i o n a l l y created t h i s 'disturbance,' which then needed to be resolved with 'understanding and support.' This l e v e l of dissonance, however, was most i n f l u e n t i a l . Simons and Humble went as far as to state that i f the project was to have a chance of success at any l e v e l the head's informed support was needed. He or she must have recognized the ' r a d i c a l implications,' met the organizational preconditions and allowed for possible f a i l u r e (1978: 164). As further example of unintentional disssonance, the development team also underestimated or f a i l e d to explicate s u f f i c i e n t l y their concept of n e u t r a l i t y . This concept d i r e c t l y affected the teacher's 'set' - but i t was not i n t e n t i o n a l l y designed to provoke the degree of discordance experienced. I t proved to be much more s i g n f i c i a n t than expected. As a r e s u l t this variable was much harder to 'track' ( i . e . , " i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to dependent variables") (Stenhouse, 1973: 159). MacDonald's i n i t i a l v i s i t s to schools during the ' t r i a l stage' supported his observation of ambiguity, yet l e f t the cause open to either or both "confused thinking" and "bad communication". In one school the teachers acknowledge that they had not understood what had been said at the induction course about the project being an experiment. "They think they can do what they l i k e . And they don't l i k e what they think Stenhouse said" (MacDonald, 1978b: 287). That p a r t i c i p a n t s 'hadn't understood' and didn't ' l i k e what they thought was said' were consequences of the equivocalness of the Project's aims and poor communication. The i n t e n t i o n a l and unintentional dissonances introduced by the HCP into schools were e s s e n t i a l variables of the innovation. The developmental 158 team f e l t that such r a d i c a l s h i f t s i n the power r e l a t i o n s of the school were necessary i f the set of the teacher and the approach to students were to be 'transformed.' Many innovators accepted the project on the strength of a charismatic image. They did not r e a l i z e the si g n i f i c a n c e of the impact (which the ' l o g i c ' implied) would have on the schools. The cognitive dissonance experienced by teachers and pupils and the many i n s t i t u t i o n a l disturbances confounded the data-gathering task of the evaluation team. F i c t i t i o u s implementation reporting had to be guarded against as well as the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of extraordinary s i t u a t i o n s and influences that might have accounted for observed and reported events. The alt e r n a t i v e approach to curriculum development adopted by the HCP resulted i n many extraneous e f f e c t s . The evaluation team had to make these dissonances the aim of th e i r evaluation. They concentrated on the success or f a i l u r e of such resolve as the indices of the implementation of the curriculum innovation. 159 CHAPTER VIII IMPLICATIONS OF THE CASE STUDY APPROACH TO CURRICULUM EVALUATION The a l t e r n a t i v e approach to evaluation that was adopted by the HCP Evaluation Unit had issues of i t s own, which were added to the problems presented by the development team's approach. Added to the lack of behavioural c r i t e r i a ; the usurpation of the t r a d i t i o n a l evaluation function of materials' judgements; and the introduction of r a d i c a l dissonances, there were endemic problems of the case study approach. The epistemological/ methodological issues of 'portrayal' were those associated with the techniques of p a r t i c i p a t a n t observation and open-ended interviewing. Sub-j e c t i v i t y , v a l i d i t y and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y were problematic concepts when applied to case study. Furthermore, the HCP Evaluation had aims to inform decision-makers and to capture the i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . From these aims arose many issues that clustered around the three major areas of the bias of the researcher's a l i e n subjective perception, the interdeterminancy of the i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , and the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the case study. The resolve of the p a r t i c u l a r issues associated with the techniques of case study, and the more general issues of the a l t e r n a t i v e approach to curriculum development adopted by the CARE group, resulted i n the negotiation of p r i n c i p l e s and procedures i n the democratic case study approach to curriculum evaluation. The Bias of the Researcher's Alien Subjective Experience In "Classroom Research: Science or Commonsense?" (1978) E l l i o t defined 160 informal interviewing and p a r t i c i p a n t observation as understood by the CARE workers. The accounts of the 'outsider' had to be checked against those of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . The interview was an extension of p a r t i c i p a n t observation. This method of observation was 'close to the data' and allowed the researcher to 'get into the action' s u f f i c i e n t l y to see things from the perspective of the p a r t i c i p a n t . Since the actions of educational research had 'subjective meaning' for those who perform them, pa r t i c i p a n t s were closer to the data. P a r t i c i p a n t s were better able to i n t e r p r e t and explain such actions. "The performer of an act has d i r e c t access to his intention and d i s p o s i t i o n v i a i n t r o s p e c t i o n " (p. 23). Interpretation of action had to be i n terms of this subjective meaning i n order that p a r t i c i p a n t s could be informed success-f u l l y . Consequently, they had an i n t e r e s t in 'getting i t r i g h t . ' The procedures which provided for greater protection for case studies that f u l f i l l e d the aims of the evaluation team were p a r t i a l l y intended to ensure t h i s 'getting i t r i g h t . ' Yet, as anyone who has been quoted out of context can a t t e s t , the sum of ' r i g h t ' parts i s not necessarily a v a l i d ' h o l i s t i c ' account of the t o t a l context. Editing takes place unavoidably. In addition, the a l t e r n a t i v e p o r t r a y a l by complete d e t a i l (or 'naturalism') was i n f e a s i b l e . C r i t i c s wading through thousands of pages of t r a n s c r i p t s , documents and fieldnotes; l i s t e n i n g to r e e l after r e e l of taped interviews; viewing hours of video tape and then seeing i f their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n matched the researcher's was an absurd a l t e r n a t i v e to the c r i t i c ' s i n a b i l i t y to r e p l i c a t e a study. Nevertheless, tests of v e r a c i t y were necessary to c o n t r o l for the p o s s i b i l i t y of the ' a l i e n subjective perceptions' of the p a r t i c i p a n t observer. 161 The case study was a form of " q u a l i t a t i v e and descriptive work" which Stenhouse described as lacking v e r i f i a b i l i t y and cumulation (1978: 33). Without such q u a l i t i e s of t r a d i t i o n a l 'public scholarship' the case study u t i l i z e d the two bases for ' c r i t i c a l assessment' of i n t e r n a l coherence and v a l i d a t i o n by those studied. In "Case Study and Case Records" (1978) Stenhouse argued that these two bases were "not s u f f i c i e n t . " In their place Stenhouse was working towards a 'manageable' case record that was lodged i n a machine-readable case record data base. "The Educational Case Records Project" at CARE was a beginning exploration into such an indexed 'national educational records archive.' I t was intended to lodge case records and be a source to which c r i t i c s could gain access when s c r u t i n i z i n g case studies. The data base would be a foundation for cummulation that provided the missing public scholarship q u a l i t y to case study research. The impact of such an information r e t r i e v a l system on c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y would be s i g n f i c a n t , but i t may have provided controls for s u b j e c t i v i t y and v a l i d i t y . The concern that Stenhouse maintained with the attempt to validate the researcher's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n v i a p a r t i c i p a n t endorsement was that the aim of research was to eventually undergo "retrospective a n a l y s i s " . While the purposes of research were furthered by a temporary focus on the ' l i v i n g i n t e n t i o n a l i t y ' of the case, the researcher's res judicata rested upon the public t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n of s o c i a l science. Eventually the researcher's viewpoint had to be detached from that of the p a r t i c i p a n t - which remained 'locked into the s i t u a t i o n observed.' E l l i o t , i n "The SAFARI S o l i p s i s t s , " also advanced concerns with the avowed control of s u b j e c t i v i t y v i a the v a l i d a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a n t s . He took t h i s view, as proposed by Brugelmann (1974) and Walker (1974), as 162 " i l l o g i c a l . " Like Stenhouse, E l l i o t maintained that the aim of research was to go beyond the empirical by means of the d e f i n i t i v e concept. The researcher was to take r e s t r o s p e c t i v e l y derived perceptions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between research action and theory and conceive an 'alt e r n a t i v e i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y . 1 Thus, the procedural 'neutral' demeanour gave way to 'l a t e r work' of fashioning a perspicuous account. Brugelmann and Walker, on the other hand, espoused that any attempt to re-define the i n s i t u commonsense concepts of the case w i l l always lead to a product born from the subjective psychological c o n s t e l l a t i o n of the in v e s t i g a t o r . Brugelmann refuted the "mirror theory" which held that, given cohesive proceedings, an 'objective r e a l i t y ' could be ascertained. Hence, consentience could only operate i n s i t u . E l l i o t rephrased Brugelmann's argument as the statement "I cannot grasp r e a l i t y independent of my conception of i t " (1974: 121). Brugelmann used t h i s psychological concept to prove that knowledge was impossible without subjective concepts, hence, there was no objective r e a l i t y . There were no objective facts because this psychological f a c t was true. E l l i o t refuted such a proof p h i l i s o p h i c a l l y . The f a c t that one could not grasp r e a l i t y independent of one's concept of i t did not prevent the consistent asking of the question, 'How do I know that what I conceive exists independently?' Perception psychology, which Brugelmann used as his basis for argument, could not preclude this p h i l i s o p h i c a l question. Furthermore, the argument that used the truth of a psychological f a c t to disprove the existence of objective r e a l i t y was inherently i l l o g i c a l . I t was based on the appeal to an objective f a c t ! With the re f u t a t i o n of this major premise, the p r i n c i p l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n 163 for r e l y i n g on the v a l i d a t i o n of the case study researcher's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by p a r t i c i p a n t s was challenged. Whereas Stenhouse and E l l i o t sought the d e f i n i t i o n of 'objective f a c t s ' of research action within a 'public t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n , ' Brugelmann, MacDonald and Walker sought approbative f a c t s . MacDonald stated that " o b j e c t i v i t y i s not obtainable" (1978b: 30). Walker maintained that the i n a b i l i t y of the researcher to produce an "authoritative study from personal own resources" necessitated the use of "responses of p a r t i c i p a n t s as part of the f i n a l study" (1981: 54). The case study worker was to r e l i n q u i s h "some authority over i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to gain greater c r e d i b i l i t y and influence" (p. 60). Brugelmann rejected the notion of an "absolute truth paradigm." What was needed i n the absence of such a notion was a "controlled r e l a t i v i t y paradigm" (1974). Stenhouse perceived a challenge to such a paradigm was the lack of " c r i t i c a l canons applicable to the perception of one whose perceptions are shaped by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n research" (1978: 36). There was "no doubt" that the f i e l d worker had to "accept d i s c i p l i n e s to make such c r i t i c i s m of his own work possible." Regardless of the strength of the c r i t i c i s m of v a l i d a t i o n and control of s u b j e c t i v i t y by p a r t i c i p a n t a r b i t r a t i o n , the HCP evaluation and subsequent SAFARI methodology 'turned i t s back' on the purposes of canonical writing, t h e o r e t i c a l a r t i c u l a t i o n and the expansion of d i s c i p l i n a r y boundaries. Instead, they sought to develop 'sets of negotiated re l a t i o n s h i p s ' - case studies that were 'epistemologically i n harmony' with the p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s experience and the p r i n c i p l e s and procedures of democratic evaluation. Open-ended interviewing was the technique for gathering the v a l i d a t i n g data of p a r t i c i p a n t s . The case study worker/participant observer checked 164 perceptions within the i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Unlike formal interviewing, where in t r u s i o n was made to " i n v i t e participants to record th e i r observations," the p a r t i c i p a n t observer case study interview was "a means of v e r i f y i n g observations or as a s e t t i n g of observations" (Stenhouse, 1978: 34). Evidence was confirmed and ascertained from p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Observations were derived from 'closeness to the data.' They were not t h e o r e t i c a l constructs or hypotheses brought to the s i t u a t i o n to be tested. The subject imposed i t s "own authority on the sense that i s made of i t by the investigator" (Kemmis, 1976: 224). Academic d i s c i p l i n e s were relegated to "deep background." MacDonald addressed the matter of d i s c i p l i n e s in "Letters from a Headmaster." The f i c t i t i o u s head asked, "By what c r i t e r i a do you intend to evaluate the information you seek on this occasion?" MacDonald, playing the part of the researcher negotiating access to the school, r e p l i e d : "...we are not committed to a single perspective. We use concepts from sociology, anthropology, psychology and economics" (MacDonald, 1980: 33). C r i t i c s have interpreted this lack of a single perspective as both naive and disorganized. The term ' e c l e c t i c ' has been applied with a derogatory connotation: The marginality of the CARE enterprise - the movement from theory and the use of e c l e c t i c procedures and a r t i s t i c methaphors - i s s i m i l a r to Mass Observation... [which] suffered the d e r i s i o n of the academic community for i t s naivety and disorganization i n the same way as CARE does. (Barton and Lawn, 1981: 20) The inference was that the CARE worker made use of t h e o r e t i c a l concepts randomly - as they helped to illuminate problems. Such c r i t i c i s m did not 165 address the 'careful bounding of instances' which prescribed a ' d i f f e r e n t range of constraints and l i m i t a t i o n s . ' The process was not random. Walker described how the perspective used when int e r p r e t i n g a case was 'imposed.' In "Making Sense and Losing Meaning" he stated that evaluation studies that "remain close to c a r e f u l l y bounded instances are subject to a d i f f e r e n t range of constraints and l i m i t a t i o n s " (1976: 225). The immediate content of the instance bounded the study, rather than t h e o r e t i c a l constructs from a p a r t i c u l a r d i s c i p l i n e . The case imposed i t s own l o g i c . The framework that informed the conduct and practice of the investigator was not u n d i s c i p l i n e d research, nor was an instance-bound study necess a r i l y a 'cul-de-sac' because of i t s case-bound practices and conduct. The fac t that such bounding made i t impossible to accumulate knowledge was seen as a trade-off - a "loss of some a n a l y t i c i n s i g h t or c r i t i c a l t h e o r e t i c a l i n s i g h t " i n an attempt to "develop research forms which connect d i r e c t l y with problems of p r a c t i c e " (Walker, 1981: 210). G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y The admission of the loss of some a n a l y t i c a l i n s i g h t and accumulation of knowledge did not mean that the case study was incapable of use i n ge n e r a l i z a t i o n s . The notion of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y from the case was, however, d i s t i n c t from t r a d i t i o n a l notions. Stenhouse addressed g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y when he rehearsed the 'issue surrounding abstraction of features from cases.' He described how the p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l experiment used samples (not cases) to obtain r e s u l t s . The case study sought judgments (not results) (Stenhouse, 1979b: 6). E l l i o t preferred to replace the " p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l " l a b e l with "research on education" and " i l l u m i n a t i v e " with "educational research." He 166 pointed out that the practice of abstracting features from cases was not considered problematic i n research on education. I t was a problem to case study. In "Classroom Research: Science or Commonsense?" (1978) E l l i o t allowed that abstracting 'across the board formulae' could provide 'trends and patterns.' However, the p r a c t i t i o n e r needed more than g e n e r a l i t i e s . I t was the p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s needs that led the HCP team to r e f r a i n from ' c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s . ' The onus f o r 'generalisation' was ' r e d i s t r i b u t e d ' to the 'consumer'. The evaluation team's auspice was to provide the study of 'cases'. The p o s s i b i l i t y of the bias of the case study evaluator i n f l u e n c i n g the s e l e c t i o n of meaning was an issue that needed c o n t r o l . The adoption of the CARE group of an aim to r e f l e c t the i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s raised further issues of e s t a b l i s h i n g the v e r i t y of such p o r t r a y a l . The CARE group were divided i n th e i r approach to resolving the inherent problems of s u b j e c t i v i t y and v a l i d i t y , and those most d i r e c t l y concerned with the case studying of schools (MacDonald and Walker) moved towards the 'grounding' of such resolve i n the case study i t s e l f . The p a r t i c i p a n t s were c a l l e d upon to provide substantiation of the ' d i a l e c t i c a l process' of the case construction. That i s , both the data and the methods of case study work were interpreted and selected. The bounding of an instance i n action demanded attention to the interdependency of actions, which then needed to be rendered 'to view. 1 By choosing to 'lose a n a l y t i c a l i n s i g h t 1 i n favour of connectedness with the p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s every-day context, the case study worker provided for a s h i f t i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of g e n e r a l i s a t i o n . The case imposed i t s own l o g i c , not the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of some 'class' to which the case was to be r e l a t e d . Hence, the reader-practitioners were 167 c a l l e d upon, through 'vicarious experience 1, to generalise 'naturally' to t h e i r i d i o s y n c r a t i c contexts. Walker described the p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s needs regarding generalisation: Our view i s that educational research operates within a paradox. I t aims for understandings which have been generalised from s p e c i f i c and l o c a l i s e d information, and o f f e r s high l e v e l s of p r e d i c t i v e r e l i a b i l i t y . Yet i t also aims to inform p r a c t i t i o n e r s who operate i n the context of problems and decisions which are e s s e n t i a l l y i d i o s y n c r a t i c and unique. The problem they face i s not how the generalise from, but how to i n f e r from the general to the s p e c i f i c . In this context most research o f f e r s the p r a c t i t i o n e r trends and patterns, but l i t t l e help with h i s p a r t i c u l a r case. In taking the next step the p r a c t i t i o n e r tends to r e l y less on research and more on wisdom accumulated from past experience. (Walker, 1974: 29) The case study audience had to i n f e r from the general to the s p e c i f i c . Their s p e c i f i c was the i d i o s y n c r a t i c and unique problems and decisions of t h e i r own contexts. Case studies needed to provide a connection with these contexts that was 'a step to action.' Case studies are 'a step to a c t i o n ' . They begin i n a world of action and contribute to i t . Their insights may be d i r e c t l y interpreted and put to use for s t a f f or i n d i v i d u a l self-development, for within-i n s t i t u t i o n a l feedback, for informative evaluation, and i n educational p o l i c y making. (Kemmis, et a l . , 1980b: 149) The case study provided steps that would f a c i l i t a t e 'natural p r a c t i c e . ' The aim of classroom observation was taken to be a means to of f e r 'natural observers' r e f l e c t i o n upon and improvement of their routine p r a c t i c e s (Walker, 1974: 25). I t was the pursuit of r e f l e x i v e means for improving 168 natural p r a c t i c e that necessitated a loss of t h e o r e t i c a l development and precluded the 'production of generalisations' by the researcher. In t h e i r account of the HCP evaluation, Humble and Simons addressed the reservations concerning the d i f f i c u l t i e s of generalising from the case study (1978: 189). They saw the use of the case as 'depicting' a s i t u a t i o n to a reader i n another s i t u a t i o n . The reader was to take descriptions of i n d i v i d u a l instances and relate them to t h e i r own 'highly i d i o s y n c r a t i c s i t u a t i o n . ' Thus, the attempt was not to provide the type of generalisation necessary f o r 'high-level policy-making' but to provide "vicarious experience" which would inform t h e i r own understandings. Vicarious experience, according to MacDonald, had as a purpose "to increase the g e n e r a l i s a b i l i t y of the data" (1977: 55). He made this point i n his a r t i c l e "The Portrayal of Persons as Evaluation Data." The case study evaluator had not 'abandoned the hope of generalisation.' MacDonald maintained that i t was a 'small step' from the axiom: "the sample must be adequately described i n terms of a l l i t s reluctant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " to the conclusion one must f i r s t seek to adequately describe ' i n d i v i d u a l cases, t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s . ' Then, when the 'burden of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ' for generalisation was s h i f t e d to the p r a c t i t i o n e r , the case study ' f u l f i l l e d the function' of g e n e r a l i s a t i o n . The audience had an ' i m p l i c i t control group' i n t h e i r heads. The knowledge of each reader's own l o c a l e provided the c r i t e r i a for 'evaluating the portrayal i n terms of what does or does not apply' to t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . This was a form of "generalisation from one case to another, making educated judgements about the degree to which known differences i n the relevant variables might lead to...implementation and e f f e c t s " (p. 55). 169 E l l i o t outlined this function of generalisation as " n a t u r a l i s t i c " a f t e r the notion presented by Stake (1978). Educational research i n classrooms generalizes n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y while research i n education generalized f o r m a l i s t i c a l l y . The two kinds of research are related here to Stake's n a t u r a l i s t i c - f o r m a l i s t i c d i s t i n c t i o n . One generalizes from the case studies of educational research n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y ; that i s , to one's own experience. Generalization here i s not the p r i n c i p l e task of educational research but of their audience, classroom p r a c t i t i o n e r s . N a t u r a l i s t i c generalization validates case study as a method of i l l u m i n a t i n g general truths which cannot be f u l l y understood i n terms of formal statements. It i s therefore teachers and pupils which validate educational research and not the procedures of science. ( E l l i o t t , 1978: 22) N a t u r a l i s t i c generalisation was not meant to inform the type of h i g h - l e v e l information needs alluded to by Simons and Humble. These needs were met, according to E l l i o t , by 'understanding i n terms of formal statements.' The case study, on the other hand, was meant to 'tutor judgement'. By adopting the goal of 'comparison of case with case' E l l i o t (above) concluded that ' v a l i d a t i o n ' of case studies became separated from 'procedures of science.' Teachers and pupils are l e f t the task of confirming the 'general truths' of the p o r t r a y a l . P r a c t i t i o n e r s needed the assurance gained from n a t u r a l i s t i c g e n e r a l i -sations before deciding to implement a curriculum such as the Humanities. The concern was not with how well the curriculum represents the whole population of c u r r i c u l a . The case had to aspire towards representing research action within a p r a c t i c a l theory. Such portrayal would allow 170 'experimental understanding' (whereas f o r m a l i s t i c generalisation led to t h e o r e t i c a l understanding). There was a 'harmony' between the reader's experience and the down-to-earth and attention-holding epistemology of the case study (Stake, 1978: 5). V a l i d i t y J u s t i f i c a t i o n or v a l i d a t i o n of the case study was imperative, i f the of p r a c t i t i o n e r s were to d i r e c t l y inform their own s i t u a t i o n s . A test of the v e r i t y was somehow to be included i n the case narrative. V a l i d a t i o n by the pa r t i c i p a n t s was 'not s u f f i c i e n t . ' Kushner and Norris, i n "Interpretation, Negotiation and V a l i d i t y i n N a t u r a l i s t i c Research" (1981) discussed how the notion that p r a c t i t i o n e r s were the "ultimate a r b i t e r s of change or t r u t h " was too s i m p l i s t i c (p. 30). P r a c t i t i o n e r s did not have 'exclusive understanding of p r a c t i c e . ' The suggestion that mere r a t i f i c a t i o n by p r a c t i t i o n e r s constituted v a l i d a t i o n 'entailed an assumption that truth was as unequivocal as i t was p l a i n tongued.' The p r a c t i t i o n e r s did not authenticate fieldwork simply on the strength that i t made "sense." Nor was truth considered unequivocal - discussions of v a l i d i t y should not have ignored "the contexts of meaning." J u s t i f i c a t i o n was cognitive and c u l t u r a l , r e f l e c t i n g the processes involved i n the fieldwork: The imagination of the case and the invention of the study are cognitive and c u l t u r a l processes; the case study worker's actions and his descriptions must be j u s t i f i e d both i n terms of the truth status of his findings and i n terms of s o c i a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . S o c i a l science has the unique problem of tr e a t i n g others as objects for study; the unique problem i n case study i s i n j u s t i f y -ing to others why the researcher can be a knowledgeable observer-participant who t e l l s what he sees. (Kemmis, 1980: 120) 171 The main reason that the case study worker had to j u s t i f y to others his or her role was rela t e d to the process of 1 making sense. 1 Walker stated that "'meaning1 does not f a l l n a t u r a l l y out of the data, sense has to be made of i t " (1976: 232). Case studies were always ' p a r t i a l accounts. 1 Selection took place at every stage, "from choosing cases for study, to sampling events and instances, and to ed i t i n g and presenting material" (1981: 43). In answer to the "considerable problems" posed by the p a r t i a l i t y of the case study, and i n response to the i n s u f f i c i e n c y of p a r t i c i p a n t corroboration, the 'examination of instances i n a c t i o n 1 had to e n t a i l v a l i d a t i o n of the 'procedures and techniques' used. The case study had to 'validate the procedures and techniques adopted as well as present the data per se.' The methods and procedures of producing the study needed to be disseminated along with the f i n d i n g s . The case study precluded methodological d e f i n i t i o n . This necessitated the i n c l u s i o n of v a l i d a t i o n within the case. The i n a b i l i t y to provide a methodological bounding derived from the "indeterminate nature of the case." Kemmis advanced this argument i n "The Imagination of the Case and the Invention of the Study" (1980). The researcher had l i t t l e foreknowledge of the ' i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . ' His or her int r u s i o n into the l i v e s and work of others demanded 'remedial actions', selec t i o n at every stage, and 'up-close' observation of the ' l i v i n g i n t e n t i o n a l i t y ' of educational contexts. The report had to 'render these interdependencies.' The case study worker j u s t i f i e d his or her own work 'through the report. 1 This view implied that he or she "should give an account of the study and 'make h i s [or her] actions open to view'" (Kemmis, 1980: 132). Kemmis described a new 'perspective' to provide such j u s t i f i c a t i o n . 172 An Indeterminate Perspective The cognitive (imagination) and the c u l t u r a l (invention) processes involved i n case study were the a c t i v i t i e s that defined the 'instance i n a c t i o n ' . "Both the objects and methods of case study work" had to preserve indeterminancy so that the audience was reminded "of the d i a l e c t i c a l processes of i t s construction" (Kemmis, 1980: 119). The ' d i a l e c t i c ' of the case study referred to the necessarily simultaneous ascertainment of " p a r t i c u l a r circumstances for action (for example, research s e t t i n g s ) " (p. 105) and v e r i f i c a t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s and shared b e l i e f s . Assertion of a truth required resolving both authentications as 'problems d i a l e c t i c a l l y r e l a t e d . 1 Unlike the case study worker, the experimentalist 'suppressed the d i a l e c t i c ' The l a t t e r saw no problem i n de f i n i n g 'samples' from ' p a r t i c u l a r circumstances for action.' A sample need not have been 'bounded' as p r e c i s e l y as the case: In any p a r t i c u l a r study the experimentalist focusses attention on one or a few t h e o r e t i c a l notions and suppresses the d i a l e c t i c of the research programme which h i s t o r i c a l l y establishes the nature of a phenomenon as a whole. The e x p l i c i t n e s s of the d i a l e c t i c i n case study i s what makes i t seem so tentative and so f a l l i b l e to those "short-run" experimentalists who "don't see the wood for trees" - who conceal from them-selves the long-term d i a l e c t i c . (Kemmis, 1980: 114) F a i l u r e to address the d i a l e c t i c ignored the nature of cases as containing relevant multivariate factors i n which i n d i v i d u a l components varied independently of one another or entered into complex i n t e r a c t i o n s . By not e s t a b l i s h i n g the i n c o n t r o v e r t i b i l i t y of the 'sample 1, the experimentalist 173 could not provide an authenticated d e f i n i t i o n of the s o c i a l s e t t i n g . The i n i t i a l "nature of the phenomenon" must have been established to provide substantiation for any perspective ('theorized r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y ' ) . The case study report had to e s t a b l i s h i t s "reasonableness" to the reader. Sustaining the d i a l e c t i c was not s u f f i c i e n t i n i t s e l f - "the d i a l e c t i c i s not a form to which appeals are made" (Kemmis, 1980: 137). The d i a l e c t i c needed to be contained within the case study report - " i t i s simultaneously a cognitive function and a manifestation of r a t i o n a l i t y as reasonableness." (p. 137) The sceptic always confirms that r e l a t i v e l y few a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s may be sus-tained and r e l a t i v e l y few independent conjectures can be refuted by the evidence presented i n the report. That i s why i f case study i s to be j u s t i f i e d , i t must make i t s process accessible to the reader: so that i t i s possible to evaluate the reasonableness of the construction of the case. To confound the n e g a t i v i s t i c c r i t i c i s m of the scept i c , the author of a case study report must set out the reasonableness of his construction of the case, thus provoking reasoned c r i t i q u e rather than simple doubt. For the reader, the report i s an a r t e f a c t of s o c i a l l i f e and i s judged accordingly; i t i s not above c r i t i c i s m . (p. 122) The case study s a c r i f i c e d a degree of connectedness to 't h e o r e t i c a l development' by not adopting goals of 1 f o r m a l i s t i c g e n e r a l i s a t i o n . 1 Rather than c r i t i c a l analysis using t h e o r e t i c a l notions, the case study opened i t s e l f to 'reasoned c r i t i q u e using the reasonableness of the construction of the case.' This s h i f t was made possible by the process of negotiation which allowed the sustained development of the d i a l e c t i c of the imagination of the case and the invention of the study. Since this generalisation was d i r e c t l y 174 concerned with informing c u r r i c u l a r decision-making, the a b i l i t y of the reader to have access to evaluating the case study became imperative. The appeal to ' r i c h d e s c r i p t i o n ' of the d i a l e c t i c and the endorsement of pa r t i c i p a n t s was not enough. Truth was not unequivocal. I t was therefore necessary to negotiate the p r i n c i p l e s and procedures for bounding the case study and to include these i n the report. Such continuous negotiation was the d i a l e c t i c , and an accurate portrayal of th i s process i n the every-day language of pa r t i c i p a n t s provided a means of e x p e r i e n t i a l understanding. 175 CHAPTER IX NEGOTIATION AND THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF THE FOUR HCP EVALUATION CASE STUDIES At the time of the i n i t i a l two case studies of the HCP (1968-70) and also during the conduct of the second two (1970-72) the "importance of negotiation as a method of data c o l l e c t i o n and involvement of p a r t i c i p a n t s " was underestimated (Simons, 1977: 26). The much discussed SAFARI i n t e n t to f a c i l i t a t e p a r t i c i p a n t control over access and release of data was reported by Walker as a r e s u l t of the ' s t y l e of case study developed by MacDonald' during the HCP evaluation. Such a r e s u l t , however, was not an acceptance of a r e f i n e d s t y l e but a reaction to the problematic and o v e r t l y undemocratic s t y l e of the early case studies. These cases were examples of what ought not to be done, and what was needed to safeguard against similar problems -rather than a developed s t y l e . Negotiation became a key concept i n response to a r e l a t i v e dearth of negotiation i n e a r l y case studies. Introduction to the Four Studies MacDonald conducted his case studies without negotiaton of the f i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n as expounded by the SAFARI w r i t i n g s . He did, however, try to capture the "subjective meanings of actions" of the school dynamics (MacDonald, 1978b: 31). The 'experience' of the i n d i v i d u a l school became the 'instance i n action.' The 'conditions' of each attempt to innovate were defined' as 'issues' that needed to be resolved. The 'lines of i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' of MacDonald's evaluation followed the pattern of this resolve, or lack of HCP resolve. He (and l a t e r the other members of the evaluation team) looked " p a r t i c u l a r l y for evidence of dissonance and consonance between the notion 176 of authority i m p l i c i t i n the Project's experimental form and the notions of authority embodied i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l practice and p o l i c y " (MacDonald, 1978b: 35). I r o n i c a l l y , when the authority of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l practice of the school of each case study was increased, the 'democratisation' of the study by the evaluator was decreased. Where the head exercised most authority, the other p a r t i c i p a n t s had l e a s t control over access and release, and v i c e  versa. MacDonald case studied a 'number of schools' but he published only two cases, per se (MacDonald, 1978b). One was f i c t i t i o u s l y named R o s e h i l l and the other Canon Roberts. The names of p a r t i c i p a n t s were also anonymatised. Both studies were of the 'experience of innovation' during the experimental or t r i a l stage of the curriculum development (1968-70). In 1970 the second or 'implementation stage' began. The evaluation team expanded as Helen Simons, Stephen Humble and Gajendra Verma joined. Verma concentrated on the 'measurement phase.' Simons and Humble conducted case studies of eleven schools. Unlike the seven day mandate of 'condensed fieldwork,' Simons and Humble varied the time spent i n each school. Case studies of the s i x trained schools lasted from one to three days on four separate occasions. From the maximum of twelve days at trained schools, the v i s i t s to untrained schools were shorter than one day each, on less than four occasions. One of the untrained schools was the subject of the shorter case study t i t l e d , "A Disaster C a l l : the Study of Redmore's dealings with the project" (Simons and Humble, 1978). Humble and Simons studied the 'unique circumstances' at Redmore. They presented the issues of the case assuming 177 that t h e i r p o r t r a y a l would contribute to "understanding the general process of curriculum innovation" (p. 19). The second longer study published i n , From Council to Classroom: An  Evaluation of the D i f f u s i o n of the Humanities Curriculum Project (Simons and Humble, 1978), was of a trained school and i t s Local Education Authority. "A Case study i n the management of curriculum innovation: Brookland Comprehensive School, Brookshire County" was written i n six sections comprising 61 pages of text. The authors described the implementation as d i f f e r e n t from the 'national pattern.' Rather than the l o c a l education authority sending delegates to a c e n t r a l t r a i n i n g course, the l o c a l s t a f f were provided with 'an extended i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g course.' In place of the 'central r e s i d e n t i a l five-day conference,' the HCP team worked l o c a l l y i n Brookshire. When Simons and Humble chose to include four 'case p r o f i l e s ' (in th e i r evaluation publication) which were 'based on case study work,1 they encountered a dilemma: Each time we t r i e d to d i s t i l the case study information into p r o f i l e s , we were unaware that we ran the r i s k of d i s t o r t i n g the experience and over-simplifying what we knew to be very complex s i t u a t i o n s : what we have t r i e d -to do i s present the ' c r i t i c a l ' i n f o r -mation ( i . e . , information which seems necessary to gain some understanding of the whole experience) i n the b r i e f e s t possible form and, by juxtaposing the p r o f i l e s , to convey the d i v e r s i t y of experiences with the p r o j e c t . (Simons and Humble, 1978: 114) Readers of the p r o f i l e s do not have access to the case records, which were ei t h e r not completed for pu b l i c a t i o n or not deemed s u i t a b l e . They were not a v a i l a b l e . Hence the p r o f i l e s were written with the aim of providing the ' c r i t i c a l information' necessary to gain some 'understanding of the whole 178 experience.' The reader of this discussion, unlike those of Simons and Humble, can gain access to the four cases of the HCP evaluation. Consequently, the following ' p r o f i l e s ' and analyses are not intended to provide an understanding of the 'whole experience' of each case study. Instead, the ' c r i t i c a l information' provided w i l l be that which addressed the development of the negotiation and p r i n c i p l e s and procedures of the CARE case study t r a d i t i o n s : the ethics of access, release and j u s t i c e . The R o s e h i l l Study The R o s e h i l l Study had the l e a s t semblance to the case study ' s t y l e ' put forward by MacDonald and Walker during the l a t e r SAFARI writings. After the curriculum had been i n i t i a t e d over a year, MacDonald sought 'permission' to do a case study 'from the Headmaster i n a l e t t e r . ' MacDonald described the subsequent 'negotiation': "Permission was granted (without any consultation with the non-Project s t a f f , I understand)" (MacDonald, 1978: 131). The Authority of the Head MacDonald included material i n the study that explored 'the various meanings of authority' at R o s e h i l l . He asked the Head about his own auth o r i t y . Mr. Edwards r e p l i e d : I'm as democratic as possible, but on occasion I have to be the autocrat...The s t a f f l i k e me to make decisions because i t makes l i f e easier for them, and yet I do with some things keep throwing i t back at them because I want them to be involved. F i r s t the s t a f f discuss...but i t often b o i l s down to the fac t that I have to s t i c k my neck out because we would never get a decision otherwise. (p. 80) 179 MacDonald began his study with only the 'outline' of h i s ' i n t e r e s t and proposed procedures' of the summer 1969 l e t t e r to the Head. He v i s i t e d the school i n September. Five weeks l a t e r there was an incident i n v o l v i n g students he had interviewed. They had been 'hauled out' of class by two members of s t a f f and forced to reveal the substance of these interviews. The i n c i d e n t caused an escalation of disharmony between the Humanities s t a f f (who were not involved) and some of the 'non-project' s t a f f . F i n a l l y a meeting was c a l l e d to which MacDonald was asked to attend by the leader of the Humanities teachers, who led the d i s c u s s i o n . The meeting sounded out extraneous issues without coming to the issue of the interviewed students. This meeting, which could have formed the type of negotiation forum alluded to as 'negotiation of access,' 'reached no conclusions' and 'dispersed amicably.' MacDonald had f i r s t , however, 'bluntly' stated his r o l e : I did so b r i e f l y , and I think b l u n t l y , emphasising that I d i d seek information about the authority structure of the school, the p u p i l s ' experience of d i s c i p l i n e , and their experience of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the s t a f f . I also said that I used information obtained from pupils to cross-check statements made by t h e i r teachers. (MacDonald, 1978b: 143) This, then, was the 'role negotiation' about access to information. Neither ' c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ' nor any of the other p r i n c i p l e s of the 'ethic' were introduced. No further negotiation was reported. The R o s e h i l l implementation was an exemplar. The ' e f f e c t i v e ' innovation offered l i t t l e 'evidence of dissonance' for MacDonald to explore. At the conclusion of the study the evaluator asked the Humanities teachers to provide "advice that they would give to headmasters who were about to begin the Project." This material was summarised into four of the 144 pages of 180 text on R o s e h i l l . The teachers 'agreed on each point after discussion.' This was the extent of t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the negotiation of release of the case study. In the absence of any other data, the i n i t i a l permission granted by the headmaster would appear to have constituted the approbation for p u b l i c a t i o n of the study. Canon Roberts School In his second case study MacDonald described the head's ' p o l i c y and power' at Canon Robert's as a ' b e l i e f i n a horizontal decision making structure.' The head, Mr. Summers, described i t thus: ...I'm organizing this school i n the same so r t of way i n which our large community i s organized - democratically. It diminishes my influence, but what i f I had a fundamental p o l i c y which was opposed by the majority of my teachers? This would be chaos. This devine r i g h t of heads i s a bunch of nonsense... If we have decisions that are taken which are i n -e f f i c i e n t i n one sense because they are not doing the job that I would l i k e to see done, they are e f f i c i e n t i n the sense that the r i g h t people took the decision - wrong or r i g h t . (MacDonald, 1978b: 186) Mr. Parry was the leader of the HCP s t a f f at Canon Roberts, and MacDonald asked him what he thought of 'the decision-making structure.' He stated that he didn't think i t worked. He never put anything up for discussion and he didn't l i k e the idea of some 'young pup' being able to vote down his ideas. Mr. K e l l y was a Humanities teacher on Mr. Parry's team and his comments on the head's philosophy were s i m i l a r l y c r i t i c a l . He stated the 'fundamental weakness of the school' was a lack of a firm hierarchy: "someone who's w i l l i n g to say: t h i s w i l l be done" (MacDonald, 1978: 187). The above comments were made before any reference to p u b l i c a t i o n of the 181 case study had been suggested. The teachers had not 'r e a l i s e d ' that t h e i r 'remarks would f i n d t h e i r way into p r i n t . ' This r e a l i s a t i o n came only after MacDonald had sought permission to publish the case study - after i t s completion and not from them but from the headmaster, Mr. Summers. The head, i n f a i t h to h i s ' b e l i e f s , ' would only agree to the release "subject to h i s former colleagues at Canon Robert's c e n t r a l l y concerned i n the work being of l i k e mind" (p. 259). I r o n i c a l l y , i t was the notions of authority embodied i n Canon Robert's i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c y and practice that not only affected the implementation but also the evaluation of the HCP. MacDonald was forced to enter into a 'negotiation of release' which raised considerable c r i t i c i s m of the v a l i d i t y of h i s 'portrayal of i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y . ' When the team was given an 'opportunity' to read the case study 'they were extremeley c r i t i c a l of the contents.' The teachers wrote that i n i t i a l l y they were i n no mood to allow p u b l i c a t i o n : "We were concerned to keep the commentary at the l e v e l of professional disagreement. But, i n the nature of the case, this did not always prove possible" (MacDonald, 1978b: 261). MacDonald agreed to an offe r to allow p u b l i c a t i o n subject to i n c l u s i o n of a 'written c r i t i c a l assessment.' This was incorporated as an addendum to the case study. It was t i t l e d "Canon Roberts - Part Two - A ref u t a t i o n of Part One" (p. 183) . The Humanities team at Canon Robert's School found i t d i f f i c u l t to keep t h e i r 'commentary at the l e v e l of professional disagreement.' When they were afforded the opportunity to react to the case study i t was not in the s p i r i t of 'negotiation of c o n t r o l ' envisioned by Simons. Furthermore, before the issues of release became a concern, the school s t a f f had had l i t t l e i n the way of 'negotiation of access.' MacDonald had asked the head only i f he 182 could share information with 'fellow e d u c a t i o n a l i s t s ' i n order to gain access to 'professional judgement.' The head agreed on condition that no information would "impugn the professional i n t e g r i t y of any member of S t a f f " (p. 278). There was no mention at this time of a case study, nor was there for the two years that the school p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the ' t r i a l stage.' The teaching s t a f f , given such a vague 'negotiation of access' "openly discussed whatever aspects of the l i f e of the School appeared to be of i n t e r e s t to members of the c e n t r a l team" (p. 280). The team at the school was afforded no opportunity to monitor the use within the the school of information from or about them. It was t h i s f a c t that allowed MacDonald to take the comments made about the head's democratic s t y l e and 'put some of these' to him. In the 'refutation' the teachers were at pains to r a t i o n a l i s e t h e i r 'less than f l a t t e r i n g ' comments. These c r i t i c i s m s were made "at a time when [their ] feelings of f r u s t r a t i o n were perhaps at t h e i r most intense" (p. 278). They went on at length to discuss the philosophy of the head i n more c o n c i l i a t o r y terms. The Canon Robert's teachers were most upset with this 'putting i t to.' They f e l t the remarks were " u n c r i t i c a l l y included i n the report without any apparent attempt to seek a d d i t i o n a l supporting evidence in the day to day l i f e of the School" (p. 256). The researchers would appear to have neither gained s u f f i c i e n t evidence through open-ended interviews nor sought supporting evidence from p a r t i c i p a n t observation, i n the opinion of the school s t a f f . The Canon Robert's team f e l t deceived regarding the ' p o s s i b i l i t y of p u b l i c a t i o n ' and t h e i r comments i l l u s t r a t e d that they had strong c r i t i c i s m for MacDonald's s t y l e . The HCP evaluator's countered the notion of deceit with a reference to a 183 l e t t e r written to the school by the Schools L i a i s o n O f f i c e r , Jean Rudduck. The teachers included the l e t t e r i n the i r r e f u t a t i o n d i r e c t i n g the reader to decide whether the contents should have alerted them to the p o s s i b i l i t y of p u b l i c a t i o n . The passage i n Rudduck's l e t t e r that led to the misconceptions di d not, indeed, present an intent to publish: The study w i l l be planned and supervised by Barry MacDonald, our Evaluation O f f i c e r . He w i l l want to v i s i t your school for, i n general, two periods of about ten days each. While there, he would hope to study the organisation of the school, learn something of the l o c a l i t y , talk to the s t a f f , pupils and some parents, and make sound video-tape recordings. The data obtained would be regarded as c o n f i d e n t i a l and on no account could i t be made available outside the pro j e c t and evaluation teams without the p r i o r consent of the school and i n d i v i d u a l s concerned. (p. 256) While the l e t t e r does not state p u b l i c a t i o n would not take place, the claim by the teachers that the l e t t e r ' s contents did not ' a l e r t them to the p o s s i b i l i t y ' seems quite reasonable. The second issue, which they c a l l e d t h e i r 'central t h e s i s ' , was also raised by this passage. The expressed intent was to study the organisation, l o c a l i t y , s t a f f , pupils and parents. MacDonald was to do a l l of this i n two periods of about ten days each. He did, i n f a c t , v i s i t Canon Robert's twice. However, a two day v i s i t i n January 1969 was made ten months before the l e t t e r regarding the request to case study the school (September, 1969). During the 1969-70 school year (the year of the study) he made only one v i s i t of two days. After Rudduck's i n d i c a t i o n of twenty days, MacDonald was i n the school only 2 days. Describing the f i r s t v i s i t he also acknowledged that since Canon Robert's had used the HCP as a single component i n a 'larger programme for early learners' 184 he had had d i f f i c u l t y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g 'between reactions to this programme as a whole and reactions to the Project proper.' MacDonald considered his i n i t i a l concern (to understand the context - the pattern of implementation -the innovations and expectations) as more involved than expected: "This was no simple task." Compounding the problem of the Project within a project, the school had attempted with the larger project to deal simultaneously with a c o n t r o l problem and an educational problem. This intention was the source of the main disagreements between the HCP c e n t r a l team and the school team regarding the actual experience of the p r o j e c t . The School f e l t that the HCP team had f a i l e d to understand the actual pattern at the school and had been s u p e r f i c i a l and over-simplifying. MacDonald's f i r s t v i s i t had followed close on the heels of a December 1968 v i s i t by Stenhouse. Stenhouse's 'routine v i s i t ' (of a ' b r i e f length) r e s u l t e d i n a written report where he stated: "Team leader i s an a u t h o r i t a r i a n with plenty of energy and perhaps not f u l l y understanding of authority implications of the Project" (p. 198). Stenhouse's remark was the f i r s t of a series by the CARE s t a f f that followed the theme of too much authority throughout the study of the school. When MacDonald v i s i t e d a month l a t e r , i n January, 1969, he had s i m i l a r "impressions": I reported my impressions of this v i s i t to a c e n t r a l s t a f f team meeting on the 22nd January 1969. The minutes record I was pessimistic about the prospects for the Project i n that s e t t i n g . There appeared to be c o n f l i c t between the need to move away from authoritarianism which the P r o j e c t c a l l e d for, and a move towards authoritarianism which the school team saw as a pre-condition of e f f e c t i v e c u r r i c u l a r a c t i o n . (p. 217) 185 MacDonald based his impressions on an interview with Mr. Parry which ' r e f l e c t e d Mr. Parry's views f a i r l y c l e a r l y . ' MacDonald surmised that "the team were reluctant to employ modes of inquiry that might prejudice the t i g h t c o n t r o l they had achieved" (p. 217).^ The text of the interview was a l i t a n y of behaviour problems encountered by Parry and his team during the e a r l y stages of the p r o j e c t . There was no mention of a fear of losing " t i g h t c o n t r o l . " The only apparent digression from a discussion of "the p a r t i c u l a r problems posed by these p u p i l s " was the a l l e g a t i o n that the curriculum was perhaps too d i f f i c u l t (an a l l e g a t i o n made by teachers i n most of the case s t u d i e s ) : And we're having this t e r r i b l e problem, you see. I wonder whether, b a s i c a l l y , i t doesn't seem to be aimed at the wrong a b i l i t y range...I mean, we stand on our heads, t r y every way we possibly can, and yet many of the materials j u s t do not go. (p. 215) Parry had expressed this same sentiment i n more confrontational language to Stenhouse when he had f i r s t v i s i t e d . MacDonald reported Parry's rememberance as that of t e l l i n g Stenhouse i f the project didn't work at their school " i t i s going to f a i l i n thousands of schools throughout the country" (p. 221). Parry's observations were substantiated by his team members. Nevertheless, Parry was marked by the HCP team as an "influence" that needed a t t e n t i o n . MacDonald's perception of Parry's authoritarianism was made without the evaluator having viewed a class of the team leader. In fact, the majority of MacDonald's en t i r e case record came from John E l l i o t ' s observations. When ' the Canon Robert's team had stated that i t had been convenient to think of the evaluation team and the development team as one, they had good reason. Despite his primary role as the HCP development team coordinator, E l l i o t ' s 186 comments and c o l l e c t e d data became a major source of the HCP evaluation team case study record. E l l i o t had sat i n on a l l three of the morning groups of the Humanities on one of his v i s i t s . One of these groups was the only observation made of Parry's s t y l e . E l l i o t c a l l e d i t 'colder, more formal.' This v i s i t was made eleven months a f t e r MacDonald's f i r s t v i s i t , fourteen months after the pr o j e c t had st a r t e d . When he drew conclusions about the 'def e a t i s t ' attitudes encountered, he had highlighted the statement of one teacher that Parry 'was allowing the Project to s l i d e for the young school-leaver group.' The acquiesence of that teacher to Parry's defeatism was drawn into a general conclusion. The problem seems to be to get members of the team acting on their own i n i t i a t i v e and to stop subduing i n d i v i d u a l judgements i n the int e r e s t s of s o l i d a r i t y or l o y a l t y . " ( p. 228) E l l i o t returned to the school four months l a t e r to get the school to remount the experiment on 'more experimental l i n e s . ' He followed up this two day v i s i t on February 1970, a week l a t e r . Parry made E l l i o t a challenge. MacDonald recounted the incident as E l l i o t attempted to chair a successful group discussion of the Humanities. E l l i o t wrote "only a few students spoke, and then only a f t e r long s i l e n c e s . . . the discussion was not a success" (P. 243). One of E l l i o t ' s p r i n c i p l e functions was to t r a i n 'chairmen' i n the Humanities approach. Something had to "be done" about Mr. Parry. MacDonald reported that Stenhouse made a sp e c i a l v i s i t to the school "to see whether anything could be done to cope with the autho r i t a r i a n cast of the team leader, Mr. Parry" (p. 221). The v i s i t was considered a f a i l u r e since Parry met Stenhouse with 187 the head and the HCP d i r e c t o r couldn't see the head alone. The f i r s t that Parry or any others learned of such v i s i t s and feelings was i n the case study they were asked to release (p. 221). Stenhouse could not influence the head, and E l l i o t ' s 'intervention did not lead to a fresh s t a r t . ' The school team eventually l e t the project drop - except for the 'examination classes.' The head stated: The team - they're worn out. They've stuck to t h e i r guns for a very long period of time and now some of the steam has gone out of them... they f a i l e d miserably with these k i d s . . . I think they gave the project a f a i r t r i a l . I would have preferred them to have gone on. I s t i l l have great f a i t h i n t h i s Project; I think i t ' s wonderful and has a l o t to o f f e r , these young school leavers. But I must accept what the team say, that they've given i t everything they've got - and i t s f a i l e d . I've even t r i e d to do i t myself. (p. 243) The HCP c e n t r a l team had conveyed through t h e i r case study that a major reason for the f a i l u r e was the establishment of a school - within-a-school, an 'authoritarian c e l l within a democratic structure.' The school team disagreed, considering this a ' s i m p l i s t i c view' l a r g e l y the f a u l t of a lack of monitoring by the central team of the early experiences of the school. The school team had pointed out i n t h e i r 'refutation' the e a r l i e r absence of research on the part of the central team and the continued i n s u f f i c i e n c y . The early ' d e f i c i e n c i e s ' were held responsible for a large part of the misconception of a 'coercive s t y l e ' . Assumptions made about the adoption of a coercive control were c r i t i c i z e d by the school s t a f f as simply not matching "the facts of the s i t u a t i o n as we r e c a l l them" (p. 267). During the unmonitored f i r s t months of the project there was a " u n i l a t e r a l declaration of i n t e n t [to try to foster]...an atmosphere 188 congenial to the teaching strategy advocated by the Project" (p. 268). The team found, however, that t h e i r outward appearance of being uncommonly toler a n t and sympathetic ( r e l a t i v e to student experience) tended to worsen the already extremely d i f f i c u l t and uncooperative behaviour of students. The students "would not, or could not" meet the expectations of the move away from authoritarianism c a l l e d for by the P r o j e c t . The team concluded that: C l e a r l y , the values inherent i n the Project's s p e c i f i c a t i o n of appropriate p u p i l behaviour, had l i t t l e i n common with the values, norms and behaviour patterns of th e i r adolescent sub-culture which exercised a powerful influence both within and beyond the walls of the School. (p. 269) The school team f e l t that the insistence on the non-authoritarian 'neutral chairman' r o l e only exacerbated ' d i f f i c u l t and uncooperative values, norms and behaviour patterns.' The possible degeneration of an already bad s i t u a t i o n was added to by the school's becoming 'an outsized g o l d f i s h bowl.' V i s i t o r s came from far and near i n search of information about the Project. This attention increased the ' v o l a t i l i t y and unpredictabilty' of the students. The team had been attempting a formal curriculum for one hundred 'leavers'. Things 'were threatening to get out of hand.' Mr. Parry was r e l i e d upon as being the ' s l i g h t l y more stable teacher.' When others 'found themselves deploying their emotional resources t o t a l l y with s i t u a t i o n s s l i p p i n g beyond th e i r c o n t r o l , ' Parry became 'perforce the l a s t d i t c h d i s c i p l i n a r i a n . ' He was c a l l e d upon to 'restore equilibrium.' Eventually the team 'took a formal decision' to return to a re l a t i o n s h i p where the teacher 'dominated.' They f e l t "there was no clear a l t e r n a t i v e to [their] requirements at the time" (p. 271). The HCP evaluation could not have 189 r e a l i s e d these events as there was no one on the scene. This fact led to the r e f u t a t i o n ' s 1 v i n d i c a t i o n of Mr. Parry: "...the bli n d assertion of Mr. Parry's authoritarianism i s p l a i n l y an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of the issues involved" (p. 281). MacDonald had impressions regarding Parry's a u t h o r i t a r -ianism which were u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y substantiated. He proposed to have ' c l e a r l y ' indicated them. The team at Canon Robert's l a b e l l e d the 'portrayal of the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s perspective' presented by MacDonald as "blind assertion." The team f e l t that the l a t e r part of the school's experience was also misrepresented because of a f a i l u r e to make clear the intentions of the study, and because the team spent i n s u f f i c i e n t time involved. 'Well over half the text' of the case study was drawn from the school year p r i o r to the head's agreement to be case studied. The s t a f f spoke to the researchers 'in an informal, relaxed and f r i e n d l y ' manner. They did not f e e l , l a t e r , that their responses would have been the same had they known the intentions. No one saw any t r a n s c r i p t s of tapes or interviews and no one saw any of the case study d r a f t . They were not aware of the nature of any of the pu p i l interviews. The lack of time at the school and the f a i l u r e to negotiate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (in SAFARI terms) led to much confusion and erroneous conclusions: ...they mistakingly elected to l i m i t t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l concern to the Proj e c t proper, on the assumption that i t was possible to evaluate i t s e f f e c t s i n i s o l a t i o n from the res t of the School's c u r r i c u l a r arrangements. In our view, i t was a fundamental e r r o r . Two examples of such confusion were sighted. In one instance, not knowing that student interviews would f i n d t h e i r way into a pu b l i c a t i o n , the HCP school team 'set up' MacDonald. 190 'Boy 2 - A Set Up' When Macdonald had asked to interview some pupils as 'examples of the majority of un-cooperative p u p i l s , 1 two of the HCP teachers (one being Parry) sent him 'the three most d i s a f f e c t e d pupils i n the fourth year.' They f e l t i t would be 'amusing.' The text of the interviews showed that "Boy 2" made 'more than h a l f the t o t a l number of responses.' The teachers described the student as the most dangerously v i o l e n t to have been i n the school. He fluctuated between ' b r u t a l l y aggressive s e l f - a s s e r t i o n 1 and d o c i l i t y . He was c l e a r l y s u f f e r i n g from a 'psychopathic disorder.' The boy was expelled the spring following MacDonald's interview i n January. Leaving the school he celebrated h i s "emancipation with a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c act of violence." He ' v i c i o u s l y attacked" a "timid" and younger student who happened to be near by, "with whom he had no q u a r r e l . " MacDonald used the text of 'Boy 2's' interview " i n a case study which, at the time of making the recording, he hadn't troubled to get permission to undertake." MacDonald had allowed the boy "to wag his vituperative tongue to uncommonly good e f f e c t " (p. 274). The second of MacDonald's 'confusions' he had acknowledged himself as the problem of the Project being a part of a larger project. On two a f t e r -noons a week a l l of the Humanities students (three times the size of a t r a d i t i o n a l classroom size) met to watch a t e l e v i s i o n show and have a large group discussion. One teacher led this discussion. This experience was not always enjoyed by the students. During the case study the pupils were interviewed i n a large group to 'probe their reactions to HCP small group discussion." At l e a s t that was the understanding of the interviewers. The students, however, p r i n c i p a l l y discussed the large bi-weekly group. 191 According to the school team, there was 'clear evidence of confusion on the part of the pupils and the interviewers regarding the discussion s i t u a t i o n being referred to.' These discussions had cast a poor l i g h t on the Humanities team. The points raised by the school team about the veracity of the case study were included i n MacDonald's pu b l i c a t i o n as a conditon of support. Yet, the opportunity to comment, indeed to read the case study, came only a f t e r MacDonald had asked for but not gained immediate support from the head at his new school. MacDonald f i r s t l e f t the study with Summers 'to see whether he was able to support p u b l i c a t i o n . ' Summers returned the study i n d i c a t i n g his willingness to agree to the publication subject to his former colleagues giving t h e i r consent. The i n c l u s i o n became the condition of these colleagues. In the conclusion of this r e f u t a t i o n they wrote, "Readers of the case-study may wonder at our willingness to support public a t i o n , even granting the safeguards that the i n c l u s i o n of the present commentary has provided" (p. 281). The rati o n a l e for consent, despite the many short-comings highlighted, was very 'brave', and so had MacDonald been courageous i n acknowledging his "clumsy attempts to grasp and construe a complex r e a l i t y " (p. 6). He published the r e f u t a t i o n along with the case study with an introduction claiming that researches could learn from "our f a i l u r e s . " In the remaining years of the HCP the CARE group doing the HCP evaluation attempted to d i r e c t l y apply the knowledge gained from MacDonald's two ' s i g n i f i c a n t learning experiences.' The applications came during the l a t t e r case studies of the 'implementation stage.' They drew from the experience a t Canon Robert's School which was more an i l l u s t r a t i o n of what ought not to be done than what should be done. 192 Case Studies of the 'Diffusion Stage' - 1970 to 1972 Humble and Simons ' b u i l t upon 1 the experiences of their d i r e c t o r , when they conducted l a t e r studies. Following the ' t r i a l ' of the curriculum, the eight curriculum packs were re-edited and published. When the materials began to flow out, i n the f i r s t two years of d i f f u s i o n on the open market, the evaluation team looked at how the project was received nationwide and how i n l o c a l areas teachers, p u p i l s , schools and LEAs responded. The r e s u l t s of t h i s research were published by the Schools Council, i n the From Council to  Classroom: an Evaluation of the D i f f u s i o n of the Humanities Curriculum  P r o j e c t . Stephen Humble and Helen Simons were the authors of this 1978 p u b l i c a t i o n . Simons and Humble used case studies as the 'main source' of their evaluation account. Only two case studies, per se, were written, however. These were "A Disaster C a l l : the Story of Redmore's Dealings with the Project" and "A Case Study i n the Management of Curriculum Innovation: Brookland Comprehensive School, Brookshire County." Humble and Simons t r i e d to check 'the inherent s u b j e c t i v i t y of the case study approach' by b u i l d i n g i n 'controls.' They r e a l i z e d a f t e r the studies had been concluded (1972), then published (1978), that their i n t i t i a l steps were an attempt to "reduce [their] c o n t r o l over gathering and presenting case study data" (p. 190). Simons and Humble asserted that th e i r early approach was ' c r y s t a l l i s e d ' i n the 'theory of curriculum evaluation i n r e l a t i o n to the data and to the people who supply i t . ' They referenced t h i s ' c r y s t a l l i s a t i o n ' to MacDonald's a r t i c l e , "Evaluation and the Control of Education" (MacDonald, 1974). In t h i s a r t i c l e MacDonald outlined an approach that was "currently guiding f i e l d work i n the Ford SAFARI Project" (p. 134). The approach was Democratic 193 Evaluation. Simons and Humble went on to describe how this efformation " i s being explored further i n p r a c t i c e , i n terms of s h i f t i n g the control from the evaluator to the case study contributors" (Humble and Simons, 1978: 190). The reference used to ' j u s t i f y ' t h i s l a t t e r practice was, "Case Study and the S o c i a l Philosophy of Educational Research" (MacDonald and Walker, 1975b). In t h i s a r t i c l e , Walker and MacDonald gave as a purpose to endorse s p e c i f i c a l l y the 'democratic' approach. It was assumed that the case study procedures p r a c t i c e d by Simons and Humble were early formations of the democratic approach. Redmore The Redmore case study was published i n twelve pages. The study was a response to a "disaster c a l l " which was described by the teacher's centre warden as a 'combination of several misunderstandings.' The LEA d i d not 'feed through' to the schools that t r a i n i n g was an i n t e g r a l part of the curriculum. Generally, there was 'no guarantee' that information sent to the LEA was automatically passed on to teacher centres or interested teachers (Humble and Simons, 1978: 31). The de s c r i p t i o n of misunderstandings was written by Daniel Findlay (the teacher centre warden) as a response to the study i n i t s completed form. This "Afterthought by Daniel Findlay" formed the conclusion/ appendix to the case study paper - much i n the same manner as the Canon Robert's School team's ' i n c l u s i o n . ' In the methodological appendix of the book, Humble and Simons referred to t h i s type of p o s t s c r i p t as the 'right to re p l y to a f i n i s h e d product.' They acknowledged that this process was "not s u f f i c i e n t . " 194 'unique circumstances' discovered, and these were deemed s i g n f i c i a n t for i n v e s t i g a t i o n . An evaluator was sent out. Right of reply i s not s u f f i c i e n t i f we are to make any headway i n giving prominence to recording p a r t i c i p a n t ' s perceptions and judgements, and to engaging them i n the educational and p o l i t i c a l process of evaluation. (p. 201) To properly address the 'educational and p o l i t i c a l process' the authors gave four 'needs*: ...to give more attention to people's reactions i n the process of gathering data, to t h e i r r i g h t s to have a check on what use i s made of the data, to be f u l l y informed of the researcher's procedures, biases and values, and to receive feedback throughout. (p. 201) Humble and Simons included t h e i r summation of needs at the end of the i r book. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the needs was si m i l a r to MacDonald's 'learning from f a i l u r e . ' The evaluators concluded this l i s t after using very few of the strategies i n t h e i r own studies. A large portion of the Redmore case study drew on information gathered by a development (as opposed to evaluation) team member. Jean Rudduck, the Schools L i a i s o n O f f i c e r , answered the 'disaster c a l l ' i n late autumn 1970. She met with a quite h o s t i l e group of teachers who were upset at the mis-communications surrounding t h e i r attempt to innovate the project. The group consisted of the ' l o c a l teacher's centre' warden, Daniel Findlay, and four teachers who had been trying to acquire the materials or who had ju s t begun the Project. Jean Rudduck f i l e d a report of the meeting from det a i l e d notes. Quotations from these notes formed part of the l a t e r case record. Rudduck's report revealed 'the haphazard nature of d i f f u s i o n ' at Redmore. Redmore was 195 not a school. I t was an i n d u s t r i a l town which gave i t s name ( f i c t i t i o u s ) to the Local Education Authority. A recent re-organization had resulted i n the 'unique circumstances' discovered, and these were deemed s i g n i f i c a n t for i n v e s t i g a t i o n . An evaluator was sent out. An evaluator (not i d e n t i f i e d ) v i s i t e d the 'centre' and interviewed Daniel Findlay, Joseph Hipwell (the general advisor) and Henry Butler (the ass i s t a n t education o f f i c e r ) . The interviewer asked to record the interviews on tape. Butler refused because he was a l o c a l government o f f i c e r . Hipwell f e l t he could speak "more f r e e l y off the record", and he also refused to be tape-recorded (p. 194). At the meeting attended by Rudduck, a proposal was made to send some teachers to the ce n t r a l team training conference i n Easter of 1971. Three teachers accompanied Findlay to this conference. They a l l consented to being interviewed while there, on tape. When these teachers returned to Redmore, they held another of t h e i r weekly one hour evening meetings at which an evaluation member sat i n , 'acting as an observer.' Henry Butler also attended. This was the extent of a l l interviews. Additional material was included i n the case study from three telephone c a l l s and three l e t t e r s . One c a l l was made by the evaluation team to the warden 'to bring the picture up to date.' One of the l e t t e r s included was addressed to the evaluation's team from 'a geography teacher i n response to a general questionnaire.' The remainder of the correspondence was to or from Jean Rudduck i n her role as the l i a i s o n for implementation. The HCP evaluators claimed to penetrate 'the surface r e a l i t y of the process' of a case study s i t u a t i o n . Such 'penetration' revealed " p o t e n t i a l l y c r i t i c a l and embarrassing f a c t s " which had consequences to the "presentation 196 of case studies" (p. 194). Having adopted the 'p r i n c i p l e of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , ' Simons and Humble 'faced the need to clear case studies' with the people whose experience they reported. Unfortunately, at the time of the Redmore study, "problems associated with the publication of close-up studies were s t i l l being resolved" (p. 195). Consequently, they acted i n away which, another time, they would not have. They published the study against the wishes of those to whom they had promised c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : In the case of the Redmore study we cleared the whole study with the teachers involved and the teacher's centre warden but two members of s t a f f did not want the study published... We sought and would have l i k e d t h e i r permission to have reported th e i r reservations about the study. Our decision to publish without t h e i r consent i s based on our judgement that the issues raised by the case study are important for understanding the process of curriculum innovation; we also, as with the other studies, attempted to anonymise the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Nevertheless i t i s d i f f i c u l t to escape the f a c t that we gave more weight to the decisions of those who granted permission (the teachers' centre warden and the three teachers) than those who did not (the a s s i s t a n t education o f f i c e r and the general adv i s o r ) . Another time we think we would not proceed without the agreement of everyone involved. (Humble and Simons, 1979: 195) The evaluators neither negotiated the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n nor the release of the study with two of the s i x p a r t i c i p a n t s . With the other four the only semblance of 'negotiation of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' was the p o s t s c r i p t - one and one h a l f pages - by the warden. This 'afterthought' was a c o l l e c t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l observations regarding the LEA's 'combination of several mis-unerstandings.' The process of negotiating release of the study the evaluators referred to (above) as ' c l e a r i n g ' the "whole study": "By 'clearing' the study they meant "asking p a r t i c i p a n t s for their agreement to 197 c i r c u l a t e to a wider audience information they had given" (p. 194). Simons and Humble had evoked the ' r i g h t to know' e t h i c . They overruled the wishes of dissenting p a r t i c i p a n t s with the j u s t i f i c a t i o n that 'the issues were important for understanding.' Negotiation of 'agreement to c i r c u l a t e ' (release) did not e n t a i l the "control" factors Simons l a t e r expounded. Pa r t i c i p a n t s may or may not have read the study (the information was not given). There was no evidence of discussions about p a r t i c i p a n t concerns except those of the two who refused to give th e i r permission - and these were ignored. I t appears that ' c l e a r i n g ' the study was a simple yes or no answer to the request to publish. Brookland/Brookshire The eth i c s of negotiation for Brookland were d i f f e r e n t than Redmore, which were d i f f e r e n t again from the case p r o f i l e procedures. I t was not indicated which of the case studies was 'negotiated' f i r s t , therefore i t i s not discernable whether the 'compromise' of the p r i n c i p l e s governing p u b l i c a t i o n were a r e s u l t of the experience at Redmore. The compromises, were to not give anyone at Brookland "the opportunity to refuse permission for the whole study to be published" (p. 195). Control was limited to deletions or amendments to personal data, or i n c l u s i o n s of other points. At Redmore the compromise was d i f f e r e n t : "we chose to accept the majority decision" (p. 195). Thus, the p r i n c i p l e s and procedures of this l a t e r negotiation were changed (to s u i t the expedient of the d i f f e r e n t cases?). At Brookland more con t r o l was extended to participants than at Redmore. The case p r o f i l e s , on the other hand, had no semblance of democratic p r i n c i p l e s : 198 We chose p r o f i l e s i n an attempt to meet the increasing demand for brevity from the busy reader. But we are far from s a t i s f i e d that they are an adequate means of portraying complex experience. We have attempted to anonymize people and places, as we have done throughout the book. But we have not asked the people involved, as we have done with the Redmore and Brookland studies, to sanction what are e s s e n t i a l l y our summaries; theirs undoubtedly would have been d i f f e r e n t . (p.115) The case p r o f i l e s were the evaluator's summary. There was no negotiation of in t e r p r e t a t o n . The release of information was s o l e l y at the d i s c r e t i o n of the case study workers. In the body of the case study reports, Humble and Simons claimed to have based the s e l e c t i o n of issues on p a r t i c i p a n t concerns. However, the actual s e l e c t i o n was t h e i r own (p. 54). These bases were chosen i n order to ' r e f l e c t the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s viewpoint.' Participants were given the c o n t r o l at Brookland to e d i t s l i g h t l y . This amounted to removing "some of the colloquialisms of conversation" (p. 58). This process was not revealed. I t was not known from the case study i f p a r t i c i p a n t s were able to read the en t i r e d r a f t (for s u f f i c i e n t context), whether the e d i t i n g of such c o l l o q u i a l i s m was the extent of control given, nor whether such requests for e d i t i n g were 'spontaneous' requests i n a l a s t d i t c h response to the pronouncement of p u b l i c a t i o n . A l l that was revealed was that "each teacher inteviewed...agreed to the p u b l i c a t i o n of the study" (p. 54). If the reader follows a reference given where this statement appears (to Appendix B: "The Humanities Curriculum Evaluation") a c o n f l i c t i n g statement was written: "we di d not give any i n d i v i d u a l the opportunity to refuse permission for the whole study to be published" (p. 195). 199 Perhaps the contradiction could be explained that i n the f i r s t case study reference to agreement meant that each teacher had "agreed to the p u b l i c a t i o n of [their part of] the study." Thus, no one could "refuse permission for the whole study to be published," only t h e i r part. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seems close to the SAFARI ethic regarding the negotiation of the ' r i g h t to know' - which was the 'key j u s t i f i c a t o r y concept' of democratic evaluation. The conclusion of the discussion of the p r i n c i p l e s for p u b l i c a t i o n , written i n "Appendix B" support this ' p a r t i a l r e f u s a l ' . The lack of any discussion about the 'negotiation' around the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and release of information leaves only conjecture. The Brookland case study, as with the other three HCP case studies, l e f t many questions unanswered. Walker's assertion (1981b: 203) that the CARE group's " s t y l e " had been "already developed" by the HCP evaluation team appears problematic. The HCP Evaluation case studies that were conducted during the two stages of development revealed very l i t t l e negotiations of the type l a t e r debated by SAFARI co n t r i b u t o r s . Furthermore, p r i n c i p l e s and procedures appeared to be l i m i t e d i n the sense of the 'SAFARI e t h i c ' While the l a t e r two studies by Humble and Simons ' b u i l t ' upon the e a r l i e r work of MacDonald, the case study workers avowed that procedures and p r i n c i p l e s they adopted ( i n 'compromise') would not have been c a r r i e d out i n the same way had they been given a second opportunity. MacDonald, s i m i l a r l y , c a l l e d his two studies (and his case study work during the 1968-70 period, i n general) 'clumsy' and ' f a i l u r e s ' from which to learn. The SAFARI group chose the HCP as one of the projects to study. They also chose the case study approach 'developed' during the evaluation of the Humanities. While Walker alluded to the SAFARI developments as steming from 2 0 0 the e a r l i e r ' s t y l e , ' much of what came after can be seen as a reaction against problems and undesirable occurrances - rather than extensions of proven p r i n c i p l e s and procedures. The role of negotiation of access and release of data became a cent r a l concern a f t e r the early HCP experiences of the CARE group. 201 CHAPTER X SUMMARY The l i t e r a t u r e written by associates of the Centre f o r Applied Research i n Education evolved from an i l l u m i n a t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e to educational research. The concepts informing t h i s perspective were reactions against the t r a d i t i o n a l p s y c h o - s t a t i s t i c a l or agricultural-botany paradigm. The development of an a l t e r n a t i v e to the dominant behavioural objectives approach of this t r a d i t i o n a l view of research resulted i n the refinement of a case study approach. The use i n c u r r i c u l a r evaluation of terminal student behaviours was passed over i n favour of negotiated i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The evaluator sought to r e f l e c t the i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of the pa r t i c i p a n t s who were experiencing the innovation rather than imposing an a p r i o r i conceptual d e f i n i t i o n onto the action observed. The decision to adopt an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to research and evaluation outside of the cummulative t r a d i t i o n of 'research on education' placed the burden of developing an a l t e r n a t i v e epistemology and ontology onto the 'educational researchers'. The r e j e c t i o n of a d i s c i p l i n a r y or t h e o r e t i c a l l y derived methodology, i n favour of a p r a c t i c a l theory i n common sense language, required p h i l i s o p h i c a l bases. The CARE group adopted the premises that no one d e f i n i t o n of any s i t u a t i o n existed and that the existence of multiple r e a l i t i e s rendered the intersubjective meaning of the p a r t i c i p a n t / p r a c t i t i o n e r superior to a f o r m a l i s t i c and superseding i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Research had to be accessible to p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n the f i e l d of education. 202 In place of the reconstructed l o g i c of d e f i n i t i v e concepts, the a l t e r n a t i v e approach was to u t i l i z e s e n s i t i z i n g concepts which were progressively focussed. The aim was to portray an instance of c u r r i c u l a r action i n a l l of i t s unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This portrayal was not only to r e f l e c t the subjective meanings of p a r t i c i p a n t s , but the process of a r r i v i n g at such a po r t r a y a l was to be opened to scrutiny. In the absence of an appeal to a cummulative t r a d i t i o n - and a subsequent guiding methodology -the case study had to be 'systematic inquiry made p u b l i c ' . The implications of entering into the ' r e a l i t i e s ' of p a r t i c i p a n t s , i n order to portray t h e i r meanings of actions, thrust the case study worker into the 1 s o c i o / p o l i t i c a l s t r e e t theatre' of the innovative context. In the case of the Humanities Curriculum Project worker, much of this a l t e r n a t i v e approach was also mandated by the Schools Council c o n s t i t u t i o n . The e x p l i c i t concern of the Council was to safeguard the autonomy of teachers i n matters of curriculum development. Teachers were to be experimental colleagues. This aim necessitated an evaluation view that encompassed the h o l i s t i c context of each instance of curriculum innovation. Barry MacDonald developed a 'democratic' approach to evaluation from his i n i t i a l ' h o l i s t i c ' approach. Rob Walker added the concept of 'condensed f i e l d work'. The two CARE approaches became incompatible. The need to negotiate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n demanded time, while the condensing of time and resources to f i t those available to p r a c t i t i o n s reduced available negotiation. Yet, both researchers maintained the necessity to control the bias of the subjective perception of the researcher; to provide the means of evaluating the v a l i d i t y of the findings of the case and the conduct of the study; and, subsequently, to allow bases for the s h i f t of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 203 for g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to the 'consumer' of the report. N a t u r a l i s t i c g e n e r a l i z a t i o n from the portrayal meant that the reader, through vicarious experience, could equate e x p e r i e n t i a l understanding of a unique instance of educational action to his or her own i d i o s y n c r a t i c s i t u a t i o n . Early attempts by the HCP Evaluation Team to provide such cases were unsuccessful. These experiences did, however, provide the understanding of necessary p r i n c i p l e s and procedures that could expedite both the democratization and condensing of case study. The p r i n c i p l e of the r i g h t to c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y provided quick and open access to data, while the p a r t i c i p a n t s were given control over the facts of their l i v e s . The p r i n c i p l e of the r i g h t to know allowed control over release of the data i n the i n t e r e s t of d i f f e r e n t groups - the public i n t e r e s t . The SAFARI ethic premised by these two p r i n c i p l e s led to procedures that could streamline negotiation of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Yet, the c r i t i c s of the e t h i c a l procedures r e a l i z e d an e s s e n t i a l f a u l t , reducing the process to 'manipulation'. The major point stressed by external and i n t e r n a l c r i t i c s of the SAFARI ethic was the absence of what Jenkins c a l l e d 'the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e ' . Without this prime constituent, the other prolegoma of the 'p r i n c i p l e s of procedure 1 were problematic. Steps needed to be taken that could e s t a b l i s h an ongoing i t i n e r a r y that could deal with the changing condit i o n a l nature of 'the r i g h t to privacy'. When the negotiations for p u b l i c a t i o n were c a r r i e d out (without the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e ) under the 'ethics of release', previously assured c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y could and was revoked. To prevent t h i s , actors i n the negotiations needed a sense datum to inform s i t u a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Case study researchers 204 and subjects were caught i n the tension between the 'obligation to the audience' and the 'obligation to privacy'. In the absence of an immanently defined expedient, when negotation of release arrived, the only deportments l e f t to a dissenting p a r t i c i p a n t were e i t h e r r e f u s a l or public rebuttal of the study. There was a d i a l e c t i c involved i n both the in t e r p r e t a t i o n and the bounding of the instance i n action, which also must have been included i n the ongoing determination of the j u s t i c e p r i n c i p l e . So that the par t i c i p a n t s may r e a l i z e c o n t r o l over the data, i n a broader sense than simple 'release', the process of de l i m i t i n g the circumstances of the case and defining the subjective meanings of this action must have been made e x p l i c i t . E s t a b l i s h i n g the v a l i d i t y of a portrayal of the pa r t i c i p a n t s ' perspectives required more than a majority vote or a researcher envoked 'right to know'. The vicarious authority of the report depended upon a successful rendering of the d i a l e c t i c a l l y defined i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . That i s , the 'reasonableness' of the case study depended upon the reader being able to v i c a r i o u s l y experience the i d i o s y n c r a t i c sets of negotiated meanings. Only then could the 'authority of the subject' gain 'purchase power' f o r the case study. The i n t e g r i t y of the e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s of the 'right to know' and the 'right to privacy' depended upon an i n s i t u derived p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e . The negotiation of t h i s suppositional authority could have provided the case with i n t e r n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n , which i n turn would allow the audience to generalize from the case ' n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y ' . For the reader to v i c a r i o u s l y experience the i n t e r - s u b j e c t i v i t y of the case study p a r t i c i p a n t s , and have some assurance of the r e l i a b i l i t y of this experience, the portrayal must have marked out i t s unique 'charter'. 205 When re-thinking the second Cambridge Conference, Kemmis, Jenkins and Adelman conveyed a f e e l i n g prominent among the new paradigm evaluators: As we have indicated, i t was f e l t that a 'victim's charter' might forumlate what those being researched might be e n t i t l e d to ask the research worker. Such a charter might contribute to an increased awareness of what i s at stake i n i n v i t i n g i n the case study worker. (Kemmis, et a l . , 1976) The conference to consider "Methods of Case Study i n Educational Research and Evaluation" had been held i n December of 1975, a f t e r the HCP case studies had been completed, but p r i o r (by three years) to t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n . MacDonald provided a cogent depiction of what p a r t i c i p a n t s might ask the researcher and what was at stake i n "Letters from a Headmaster" (MacDonald, 1980). He contributed to the notion of 'case study victims' when he described the coopting of schools during the HCP evaluation (p. 18). The schools "took for granted the evaluator's s k i l l s ' and gave no concerns regarding the proposed ethics of the case studies" (p. 18). The discussion of these case studies supports the director's d e s c r i p t i o n . The case studies were c a r r i e d out on 'the evaluator's conditions as u n i l a t e r a l l y determined*. Only a 'gentleman's agreement* existed and p a r t i c i p a n t s acquired very l i t t l e ( i f any) control over the data. The l e t t e r s used by the HCP as a procedure for securing access (as Rudduck's l e t t e r to Canon Robert's revealed) promised c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Yet, there was no h i n t of the n e g o t i a b i l i t y of this p r i n c i p l e other than an i n v i t a t i o n to answer any concerns. Both par t i c i p a n t s and researchers accepted that the monitoring of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was the auspice of the expert researchers. Even when approached to have their schools studied-in-depth, practioners had no idea what was at stake. Nor, would i t seem, did the case study workers. MacDonald and Walker (1975) assumed that the blanket c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y afforded p a r t i c i p a n t s protected them and pre-empted a need for par t i c i p a n t s ongoingly negotiating the conditions of th e i r r i g h t to privacy (p. 10). Walker perceived no e t h i c a l inconsistency with the s h i f t from 'blanket' c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y to 'conditional' when the et h i c s h i f t e d from access to release (1981: 55). E l l i o t (1974, 1980), Simons (1977, 1980) and Jenkins (1980) have i l l u s t r a t e d the highly problematic nature of negotiations according to the context of p u b l i c a t i o n and the audience being informed. Whether due to i n t e n t i o n a l manipulation or an unforeseen dilemma, the "knight's move" that accompanied negotiation for pu b l i c a t i o n established the co n d i t i o n a l c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y that a c t u a l l y existed. The i m p l i c a t i o n of o f f e r i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s ownership of the facts of thei r l i v e s , yet i n s i s t i n g on the public's r i g h t to know, challenged the notion of an independent p a r t i c i p a n t observer who only c o l l e c t e d d e f i n i t i o n s . The conduct of the HCP evaluation case studies revealed the ' i n s u f f i c i e n c y ' of such a notion of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The assumption that p a r t i c i p a n t s could exercise control over the data by simply casting a vote was too s i m p l i s t i c . The ' r i g h t of reply' (Canon Robert's and Redmore) could not give prominence to the subjective meanings of p a r t i c i p a n t s . The case studies did, however, point to the issues i n curriculum evaluation needing further a t t e n t i o n . There were "no formulae, no pres c r i p t i o n s for resolving such problems" (Simons, 1976b: 126). Researchers could only highten awareness and circumscribe a form or p r i n c i p l e s of procedure which recognized "the 207 importance and the delicacy of the s o c i a l process which the case study worker i s compelled to negotiate i n the pursuit of data" (p. 26). Casting aside the 'independent r o l e ' precluded unobtrusiveness. Yet, as Walker came to r e a l i z e , "what i s important i s not to reduce our intrusiveness, but to learn to 'control' i t - to be able to intervene but to be able to see what e f f e c t s we are having" (1981b: 205). The SAFARI e t h i c produced "situations where to study at a l l was to intervene". Intervention di d not make the case study approach ' u n s c i e n t i f i c ' , yet no formulae of generalized procedures could be described. The c r i t i c a l presence of the case study worker was his or her immersion i n the d i a l e c t i c of the case. Procedures were dictated by the l o g i c of the imagination of the case and the invention of the study. 'Instances i n action' were indeterminate. The 'bounding' of the enactment of an educational phenomenon was the delimiting of the kinds of circumstances to be included. More s i g n i f i c a n t l y , where the intention was to portray an instance from the perspective of p a r t i c i p a n t s , the bounding of the instance must have been extended through interview and negotiation. Interpretations of observed data were processes involving perceptions of phenomena. The process that ascertained subjective meanings of actions was the continual balance between negotiating and bounding this d i a l e t i c . The case study of Canon Robert's school f a i l e d to encompass the circumstances of the 'instance' (a "Project within a project" and "Boy 2"). The researchers came to erroneous conclusions, according to the teachers. The subjective meaning of the students was misconstrued to be about the small Humanities discussion groups when i t appears that the students were thinking of the larger c u s t o d i a l groups that occurred twice per week. The f a i l u r e to 208 negotiate the perspective of "Boy 2" fed i n t o the further misconception of Mr. Parry's authoritarianism. In terms of the 'status enhancement e f f e c t ' Boy 2 i l l u s t r a t e d the 'I don't care what I say' syndrome. The researchers did not control for t h i s . F i n a l l y , not having immersed themselves i n the enactment of the project at Canon Robert's from i t s s t a r t , they poorly bounded the instance and i n f e r r e d an ' i n t e n t i o n a l authoritarian cast' to the p a r t i c u l a r implementation. In addition to the d i a l e c t i c a l necessity for negotiation while case studying, the tension between the o b l i g a t i o n owed to the audience and the o b l i g a t i o n owed to the subject needed to be "formalized as the need for negotiation" (Walker, 1981: 55). "The Conduct of Educational Case Study: Et h i c s , Theory and Procedure" (1981), was o r i g i n a l l y published i n SAFARI PAPERS ONE, IN 1974. Walker's w r i t i n g pre-dated the l a t e r c r i t i c i s m s which focussed on the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e , yet, the early formation of the l a t e r discovered dilemma was evident. He reduced the above tension to more fundamental issues: More fundamentally there i s a tension between the claim that i n d i v i d u a l s and i n t e r e s t groups have a r i g h t to know about what i s happening i n areas of the system that are s t r u c t u r a l l y i n v i s i b l e to them, and the claim that such knowledge i s personal, that people own the facts of t h e i r l i v e s and have the r i g h t to deny others access to them. (1981: 55) The tension between this r i g h t to know and the premise "that people own the fac t s of their l i v e s " was dramatically brought home i n the R o s e h i l l study. The other s t a f f of the school forced the students interviewed by MacDonald to divulge the contents of the d i s c u s s i o n . They exerted t h e i r r i g h t (as teachers and those 'responsible for the rules') over that r i g h t of the student's negotiated c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . MacDonald f a i l e d to control for the 'simbiotic e f f e c t ' that his intervention provoked. He had not negotiated access with the school. S i m i l a r l y , at Brookland School, the high p r o f i l e head-master assumed a r i g h t to know both i n his 'honest account' of the project to a l l of the secondary heads and i n his u n i l a t e r a l permission to allow the study. The other p a r t i c i p a n t s had no control over release and apparently very minimal negotiation of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . At Redmore the researchers simply pulled t h e i r own d e f i n i t i o n of the public i n t e r e s t ("our judgement") when they could not gain release: "Our decision to pub l i s h without t h e i r consent i s based on our judgement that the issues raised by the case study are important for understanding" (Humble and Simons, 1978: 195). Humble and Simons j u s t i f i e d the imposition of the i r own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r i g h t to know on the grounds that they had a "majority d e c i s i o n " . The i m p l i c i t rectitude was a notion of democracy. Yet, as E l l i o t pointed out, t h i s "view of democratic socie t y i s wrong": The decision to release information about one group's a c t i v i t i t e s to member of other groups can never be j u s t i f i e d democratically on the grounds that people have an automatic r i g h t to know as members of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t groups. ( E l l i o t , 1977: 193) As researchers interested i n understanding the process of curriculum innovation, Humble and Simons had no j u s t i f i c a t i o n to over-ride their agreement of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . A p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e was needed from the beginning of the case studies so that p a r t i c i p a n t s and researchers could define the provisions of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Negotiations needed to come from a po s i t i o n of unbias. Decisions were necessary about what constituted the pursual of s e c t i o n a l 210 i n t e r e s t s to the point of infringment on the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e . Without t h i s negotiation the equality of l i b e r t y was endangered. And this equality of l i b e r t y was the mutual r i g h t which the due process of j u s t i c e affirmed. The SAFARI p r i n c i p l e s provided the informants with a r i g h t to e d i t the case record, but this did not provide s u f f i c i e n t control: One focus for the discussion of the ethics of case study evaluation and research at the conference was the SAFARI p r i n c i p l e s of procedure, emphasising the negotiation of access to and release of s e n s i t i v e data. The SAFARI p r i n c i p l e s allow informants the r i g h t to 'edit' the researcher's accounts of t h e i r views and actions. In t h i s way informants can share i n the c o n t r o l l e d release of data to audiences within and outside the research s i t u a t i o n . (Kemmis, et a l . , 1980: 147) The key phrase i n this p r i n c i p l e was "of t h e i r views and actions." In the Brookland study control of the release of a p a r t i c i p a n t ' s data only allowed him "to delete or amend those statements of h i s own that he did not wish to be shared, or to r a i s e other points" (p. 195). Such limited control was not a democratic s t y l e of research according to E l l i o t , Simons and Jenkins. "So what happens i n pr a c t i c e to those seeking to follow SAFARI'S e t h i c a l advice? The desert, as T.S. E l i o t once said, i s i n the heart of your brother" (Jenkins, 1980: 152). Henry Butler and Joseph Hipwell, at Redmore, could have attested to such c r i t i c i s m . They dist r u s t e d researchers enough to refuse to be tape-recorded and then found t h e i r veto for publication over-ruled by a judgement of the researchers that curriculum theory gave pre-emptive authority to the r i g h t to know. 211 V a l i d i t y and Praxis The entire premise of the v a l i d i t y of case study was that of the 'authority of the subject.' According to Walker, "case studies serve to va l i d a t e the procedure and techniques we adopt as well as presenting data per se" (Walker, 1974: 25). Kemmis took this concept further with his notion of -the d i a l e c t i c (1980: 125). The procedures and techniques (doing or invent ing the study) and the data per se (the construing or imagination of the case) were the "praxis i n action" (Kemmis, 1980: 124). The "reasonableness of the study was not an appeal to t h i s praxis but the provision of v i c a r i o u s experience or v e r i f i c a t i o n through the experience encapsulated by the case study report" (p. 101). MacDonald also alluded to such v a l i d a t i o n i n "Letters to a Headmaster": Our p o l i c y . . . i s to seek the agreement of the s t a f f concerned about the v a l i d i t y of the study and to incorporate i n the f i n a l version any addition or modifications which would gain such agreement. (1980: 27). Pa r t i c i p a n t s were not a r b i t e r s of the v a l i d i t y of the case, nor was v a l i d i t y assumed by the mastery of a set of procedures. Assertions that informants had an "exclusive understanding of p r a c t i c e and were the ultimate a r b i t e r s of change and truth were too s i m p l i s t i c " (Kushner and Nor r i s , 1981: 30). Instead, by ascendance of their competence at negotiation and the introduction of the t h i r d j u s t i f i c a t o r y p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e , p a r t i c i p a n t s could engage with the researcher i n the praxis of the case. Key P r i n c i p l e s i n Giving Control To assume the 'control' extended, p a r t i c i p a n t s would need guidance: 212 "Participants may have to assume more control over the use of th e i r knowledge than they have previously been led to expect" (Simons, 1977: 4 2 ) . Further-more, "people needed access to data, time to consider and a context i n which to judge" (p. 3 0 ) . In the absence of s u f f i c i e n t access and context, the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' l i b e r t y ' would need to be safeguarded ( E l l i o t ' s ' s p i r i t of s e l f - d e n i a l ' on the part of the researcher). Walker outlined how the researcher could return "permission" to pu b l i s h and refuse the "freedom" given. These were i n t e g r a l parts of their e t h i c . At f i r s t , people would not accept the researcher's 'overview' regarding c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : People would become i r r i t a t e d when we i n s i s t e d on rehearsing th e i r rights at the s t a r t of the study: 'You don't need to worry about a l l that. I have nothing to hide. I wouldn't t e l l you anything I wouldn't t e l l anyone e l s e . ' But of course they would... And i n every study we have conducted we have reached a point where we have been glad we had i n s i s t e d . (Walker, 1981: 206) Par t i c i p a n t s would require time to master the 'control' of their authority. They would need access to a l l of the data cleared by negotiation (up to that time) i n order to have a proper context for i n t e r p r e t i n g and deciding upon the "fine l i n e between what i s public and what i s private" (Walker, 1981: 4 0 ) . In the ' r e a l p o l i t i c k ' of f i e l d studies, however, Simons maintained that expediency can over-rule the desire to foster c o n t r o l : "One i s tempted to argue from experience that an autocratic mode of research i s an in e v i t a b l e consequence of condensed f i e l d work" (1977b: 3 5 ) . E s p e c i a l l y given the time constraints of condensed f i e l d work, the evaluator could be "compelled to 213 over-ride the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s r i g h t of control for the sake of securing release" ( E l l i o t , 1977: 196). Democratic procedures increased the time needed. I f 'control over data' was unfamiliar "one also has to allow time to repeat and renegotiate... Rules and r a t i o n a l e may receive consent but the implications for p r a c t i c e not be understood" (Simons, 1977: 27). The researcher may have been faced with the dilemma of whether to extend or foreclose - i n the i n t e r e s t s of completing the study i n a short time. These issues and more led Simons to ask of democratic/condensed fieldwork: "are these aspirations incompatible i n p r a c t i c e ? " (p. 28). In the case of Brookshire, the l i m i t e d control afforded the p a r t i c i p a n t s lacked the necessary access to a l l of the data; the necessary whole or s u f f i c i e n t context; and given the "crudity" of the studies, quite possibly the necessary time. By 'personalizing' the accounts of p a r t i c i p a n t s Humble and Simons may have precluded any e d i t i n g but those of the colloquialisms that ensued. E s t a b l i s h i n g the 'authority of the subject' was one way to increase the purchase power of the case study. Beyond the researcher's need to v a l i d a t e the study, however, the purchase power was also increased by the studies g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n involving case studies was ' n a t u r a l i s t i c ' V a l i d i t y , therefore, was an imperative i f people were to apply such generalizations to t h e i r own p r a c t i c e . Such "truth" of the case study r e l i e d on i t s "reasonableness": The o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n of the case i s , as has been argued, a cognitive and c u l t u r a l process. Its "Truths" are h i s t o r i c a l l y and contextually located. For the reader of a case study report, the o b j e c t i f i e d case w i l l only be comprehensible to the extent that i t can be re-created i n terms of his own 214 language and forms of l i f e . (Kemmis, 1980: 121) In order that the reader could "underwrite the account, by appealing to h i s t a c i t knowledge of human s i t u a t i o n s " (Kemmis, e t a l . , 1977: 143), the subtelty and complexity of the case must have afforded a surrogate experience. S o c i a l truths could be n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y supported among al t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . When the purchase power of a study was s u f f i c i e n t to allow re-creation among multiple audiences, the dependence of the reader upon the researcher's i m p l i c i t assumptions was reduced. The case study, i t s e l f , made the instance a c c e s s i b l e . Yet, this democratisation of decision-making (and knowledge i t s e l f ) had strong action i m p l i c a t i o n s . The case study allowed "the reader to make his own evaluations of i t " (Kemmis, 1980: 128). Having recreated the imagination of the case and the invention of the study the reader demonstrated the r a t i o n a l i t y of the p o r t r a y a l . Yet, au t h e n t i c i t y and r a t i o n a l i t y , when confounded, appear to give more vantage to i m p l i c i t assumptions than not. MacDonald had stated that the case study aspired to b e s t - s e l l e r status. While Authoritarianism a t Canon Robert's might have been a reasonable t i t l e , without the teacher's r e f u t a t i o n , we would have been reading ' r a t i o n a l ' f i c t i o n (in the school s t a f f ' s opinion). In addition to r a t i o n a l i t y and reasonableness the case study must have demonstrated " i n t e r n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n " (Kemmis, 1980: 133). The key j u s t i f i c a t o r y concept of the r i g h t to know needed to be further negotiated. According to E l l i o t , the r i g h t to privacy and the r i g h t to know had to be conjoined i f the "task of democratic evaluation i s construed as an appraisal of ' r i g h t s ' i n r e l a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i c y or course of action" ( E l l i o t , 215 1977: 198). Internal j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s r e l i a n t on the p u b l i c a l l y accessible e x p l i c a t i o n of this a p p r a i s a l . The appraisal, i n turn, r e l i e s on the capacity of p a r t i c i p a n t s to have taken the authority afforded to them by the p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e . The i n t e g r i t y of the researcher i n allowing a course of action which permits acquirement of control by the par t i c i p a n t s would be the measure of his or her s e l f - d e n i a l . Without such s e l f denial, democratic evaluation becomes a series of r h e t o r i c a l steps. "Judgement," E l l i o t wrote, "must be put back into evaluation." And judgement cannot be made without a p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e based on equ a l i t y , l i b e r t y and f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i a l and economic advantage. I t i s the function of the d i a l e c t i c a l l y developed procedures of case study to ensure the adequate negotiation of such l i b e r t y . 216 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelman, Clem, et a l . Innovation, the School and the Teacher (1): Curriculum  Design and Development Units 27 and 28. Ed. David Jenkins. London: The Open Un i v e r s i t y Press, n.d. - - - - - - - and Robert Walker. "Open Space - Open Classroom." In Curriculum Innovation. Eds. Martin Lawn, et a l . London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1975, pp. 162-170. - - - - - - - and Rob Walker. "Developing Pictures for Other Frames: Action Research and the Case Study." In Frontiers of Classroom Research. Eds. Gabriel Chanon and Sara Delamont. Sussex: King, Thorne and Stace Ltd., 1975, pp. 220-232. et a l . "Re-Thinking Case Study: Notes from the Second Cambridge Conference." Cambridge Journal of Education, 6, No. 3 (1976), pp, 139-149. Rpt. i n Towards a Science of the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 45-60. Atkins, Roderick, et a l . "An Insider's C r i t i q u e . " In Towards a Science of  the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 45-60. Barton, Len and Martin Lawn. "Back Inside the Whale: A Curriculum Case Study." Interchange, 11, No. 4 (1980-81), pp. 2-12. - - - - - - - and Martin Lawn. "Recording the Natural World: Dilemmas i n Educational Research." Interchange, 11, No. 4 (1980-81), pp. 13-24. - - - - - - - and Martin Lawn, eds. Rethinking Curriculum Studies, A Radical Approach. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1981. Becher, Tony and Stuart Maclure, eds. Accountability i n Education. Windsor, Berks.: NFER Publishing Company Ltd., 1978, pp. 127-151. Blumer, Herbert, "what i s Wrong with S o c i a l Theory?" American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review, 19, No. 1 (1954), 3-11. Rpt. i n Qualitative Methodology. Ed. W.J. F i l s t e a d . London: Rand McNally, 1970. Brugelmann, Hans. "Towards Checks and Balances i n Educatinal Evaluation: On the Use of S o c i a l Control i n Research Design." In SAFARI Papers One:  Innovation, Evaluation, Research and the Problem of Control. Eds. B. MacDonald and R. Walker. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974, pp. 29-74. Chanon, Gabriel and Sara Delamont, eds. Frontiers of Classroom Research. Sussex: King, Thorne and Stace Ltd., 1975. Delamont, Sara and Gabriel Chanon, eds. Frontiers of Classroom Research. Sussex: King, Thorne and Stace Ltd., 1975. 217 Dockrell, W.B. and David Hamilton, eds. Rethinking Educational Research. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1981. E l l i o t , John. "The SAFARI S o l i p s i s t s . " In SAFARI Papers One: Innovation, Evaluation, Research and the Problem of Control. Eds. B. MacDonald and R. Walker. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974, pp. 116-133. e t a l . Innovation, the School and the Teacher (1): Curriculum, Design and Development Units 27 and 28. Ed. David Jenkins. London: The Open Un i v e r s i t y Press, n.d. " I n i t i a t i o n into Classroom Discussion." In People i n Classrooms: Teacher Evaluations of the Humanities Curriculum Project. Eds. B. MacDonald and John E l l i o t . Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 2, 1975a, pp. 138-159. - - - - - - - and Richard Pring, eds. So c i a l Education and S o c i a l Understanding. London: University of London Press, 1975b. - - - - - - - and Barry Macdonald, eds. People i n Classrooms: Teacher Evaluations of the Humanities Curriculum Project. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 2, 1975c. "Classroom Research: Science or Common-Sense?" In Under- standing Classroom L i f e . Eds. David Hamilton and Ray McAleese. London: Londsdale Universal P r i n t i n g , 1978, pp. 12-27. "Democratic Evaluation as S o c i a l C r i t i c i s m : or Putting the Judgement back into Evaluation." In SAFARI Papers Two: Theory into  P r a c t i c e . Ed. Nigel N o r r i s . Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 4, 1977, pp. 191-203. Feinberg, Stephen. "Next Steps i n Q u a l i t a t i v e Data C o l l e c t i o n . " Anthropology and Education Q u a r t e r l y , 8, No. 2 (1977), pp. 50-57. Great B r i t a i n . C entral Advisory Council f o r Education. Early Leaving. London: HMS0, 1954. Hamilton, David. "A Preliminary Note on Case Study Methodology." In A Case  Study of a New S c o t t i s h Open Plan School. Edinburgh: Scottish Council f o r Research i n Education, 1976. ERIC ED 128 070. - - - - - - - and Malcolm P a r l e t t . "Evaluation as Illumination." In Curriculum Evaluation Today. Ed. David Tawney. London: McMillan Education, 1976, pp. 84-101. - - - -, et a l . , eds. Beyond the Numbers Game: A Reader i n Educational Evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. 218 - - - - - - -. "On Generalization i n the Educational Sciences." In Classroom Research and the Evolution of the Classroom System. Edinburgh: University of Scotland, 1978, pp. 94-114. ERIC ED 168 139. - - - - - - - and Ray McAleese, eds. Understanding Classroom L i f e . London: Lonsdale Universal P r i n t i n g , 1978b. "Some Contrasting Assumptions about Case Study Research and the Invention of the Study." In Towards a Science of the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 76-90. - - - - - - - and W.B. Dockerell, eds. Rethinking Educational Research. Suffolk: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1980. "Educational Research and the Shadows of Francis Galton and Ronald Fisher." In his Rethinking Educational Research. S u f f o l k : Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1980, pp. 153-168. Harris, Alan, et a l . , eds. Curriculum Innovation. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1975. The Humanities Curriculum Project: An Introduction. The Schools Council and N u f f i e l d Foundation. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. 1970. Humble, Stephen, ed. HCP Evaluation Report. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE) mimeos, 1971-72. - - - - - - - and Helen Simons. FromCouncil to Classsroom: An evaluation of the Humanities Curriculum P r o j e c t . Schools Council Research Studies. London: MacMillan Education Ltd., 1978. Jenkins, David. Innovation, the School and the Teacher (1): Curriculum Design and Development Units 27 and 28. London: The Open Un i v e r s i t y Press, n.d. et a l . "Rethinking Case Study: Notes from the Second Cambridge Conference." Cambridge Journal of Education, 6, No. 3 (1976), pp. 139-149. Rpt. i n Towards a Science of the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 45-60. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ f et a l . "An Insider's C r i t i q u e . " In SAFARI Papers Two: Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e . Ed. Ni g e l N o r r i s . Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 4, 1977, pp. 79-106. e t a l . Beyond the Numbers Game: A Reader i n Educational  Evaluation. Berkeley: McCutcheon Publishing Corp., 1977. "An Adversary's Account of SAFARI'S Ethics of Case Study." In Towards a Science of the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 143-160. 219 Kemmis, Stephen, et a l . "Rethinking Case Study: Notes from the Second Cambridge Conference." Cambridge Journal of Education, 6, No. 3 (1976), pp. 139-149. Rpt. i n Towards a Science of the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 45-60. et a l . "An Insider's C r i t i q u e . " In SAFARI Papers Two:  Thoery i n t o P r a c t i c e . Norwich: Occasional Papers No. 4, 1977, pp. 79-106. "The Imagination of the Case and the Invention of the Study." In Towards a Science of the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 93-142. - - - - - - - and Ian Robottom. " P r i n c i p l e s of Procedure i n Curriculum Evaluation." Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13, No. 2 (1981), pp. 151-155. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Kushner, S a v i l l e and Nigel N o r r i s . "Interpretation, Negotiation, and V a l i d i t y i n N a t u r a l i s t i c Research." Interchange, 11, No. 4 (1980-81), pp. 24-36. Lawn, Martin, et a l . , eds. Curriculum Innovation. London: Croom Helm; Open Uni v e r s i t y Press, 1975. - - - - - - - and Len Barton. "Recording the Natural World: Dilemmas i n Educational Research." Interchange, No. 4 (1980-81), pp. 13-24. - - - - - - - and Len Barton, eds. Rethinking Curriculum Studies: A Radical Approach. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1981. McAleese, Ray and David Hamilton, eds. Understanding Classroom L i f e . London: Lonsdale Universal P r i n t i n g , 1978. Maclure, Stuart and Tony Becher, eds. Accountability i n Education. Windsor, Berks: NFER Publishing Company Ltd., 1978. MacDonald, Barry. "The Evaluation of the Humanities Curriculum Project: A H o l i s t i c Approach." Theory i n t o Practice , 10, No. 1 (1971), pp. 163-168. - - - - - - - and Malcolm P a r l e t t . "Re-thinking Evaluation: Notes from the Cambridge Conference." Cambridge Journal of Education, 3, No. 2 (1973), pp. 74-82. "Humanities Curriculum Project." In Evaluation i n Curriculum  Development: Twelve Case Studies. London: Schools Council; McMillan Education, 1973, pp. 80-90. 220 - - - - - - - and Rob Walker, eds. SAFARI Papers One: Innovation, Evaluation, Research and the Problem of Control. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974. "Evaluation and the Control of Education." In his SAFARI  Papers One: Innovation, Evaluation, Research and the Problem of  Control, Some Interim Papers. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974, pp. 9-28. Rpt. i n Curriculum Evaluation Today. Ed. David Tawney. London: Schools Council; McMillan Education, 1976, pp. 80-91. - - - - - - - and John E l l i o t , eds. People i n Classrooms: Teacher Evaluations of the Humanities Curriculum P r o j e c t . Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 2, 1975. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a n c | R O D walker. Changing the Curriculum. London: Open Books Publishing Ltd., 1976. "Evaluation and the Control of Education." In Curriculum  Evaluation Today. Ed. David Tawney. London: Schools Council; McMillan Education, 1976b, pp. 80-91. Rpt. from SAFARI Papers One. - - - - - - - . "The Portrayal of Persons as Evaluation Data." In SAFARI Papers Two: Theory into P r a c t i c e . Ed. Nigel N o r r i s . Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 4, 1977, pp. 50-67. et a l . , eds. Beyond the Numbers Game: A Reader i n  Educational Evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. - - - - - - - . "Accountability, Standards and the Process of Schooling." In Accou n t a b i l i t y i n Education. Eds. Tony Becher and Stuart Maclure. Windsor Berks: NFER Publishing Company Ltd., 1978, pp. 127-151. The Experience of Innovation: Volume Two of the Revised E d i t i o n of the Publications of the Humanities Curriculum Project  Evaluation Unit. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 6, 1978b. "Letters from a Headmaster." In Towards a Science of the  Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 15-44. Nisbet, John. "The Schools Council, United Kingdom." In Case Studies of  Educational Innovation: 1. At the Central Level. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERA). N.p.: Organization f o r Economic Cooperation and Development, 1973, pp. 7-73. Nigel, Norris, ed. SAFARI Papers Two: Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e . Norwich: CARE Occasional Publications No. 4, 1977. - - - - - - - and S a v i l l e Kushner. "Interpretations, Negotiation, and V a l i d i t y i n N a t u r a l i s t i c Research." Interchange, 11, No. 4 (1981-2), pp. 24-36. 221 P a r l e t t , Malcolm and Barry MacDonald. "Re-thinking Evaluation: Notes from the Cambridge Conference." Cambridge Journal of Education, 3, No. 2 (1973), pp. 74-82. - - - - - - - and David Hamilton. "Evaluation as Illumination." In Curriculum Evaluation Today. Ed. David Tawney. London: McMillan Education, 1976, pp. 84-101. et a l . , eds. Beyond the Numbers Game: A Reader i n Educational Evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. "Training f o r Case Study Research and Evaluation." In Towards a Science of the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 240-250. Prescott, William, et a l . , eds. Curriculum Innovation. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1975. Pring, Richard and John E l l i o t , eds. S o c i a l Education and S o c i a l Under- standing. London: University of London Press, 1975. Robottom, Ian and Stephen Kemmis. " P r i n c i p l e s of Procedure i n Curriculum •Evaluation." Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13, No. 2 (1981), pp. 151-155. Rudduck, Jean. "Dissemination of Innovation: An Account of the Dissemination Programme of the Humanities Curriculum Project." Cambridge Journal of Education, 3, No. 3 (1973), pp. 143-158. Dissemination of Innovation: The Humanities Curriculum  P r o j e c t . Schools Council Working Paper No. 56. England: Evans; Methuen Education, 1976. The Schools Council. Raising the School Leaving Age. Working Paper No. 2. London: HMSO, 1965. Society and the Young School Leaver: A Humanities Programme  i n Preparation of the School Leaving Age. Working paper No. 11. London: HMSO, 1967. - - - - - - - and the N u f f i e l d Foundation. The Humanities Curriculum Project: An Introduction. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1970. Choosing a Curriculum for the Young School Leaver. Working Paper No. 33. London: Evans Brothers; Methuen Educational, 1971. Simons, Helen. "Innovation and the Case Study of Schools." Cambridge Journal of Education, 1, No. 3 (1971), pp. 118-124. 222 - - - - . "Building a S o c i a l Contract: Negotiation, P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Portrayal i n Condensed F i e l d Research." In SAFARI Papers Two: Theory  in t o P r a c t i c e . Ed. Nigel N o r r i s . Norwich: CARE Occasional Publications No. 4, 1977, pp. 25-43. - - - - . "Conversation Piece: The Practice of Interviewing i n Case Study Research." In SAFARI Papers Two: Theory into P r a c t i c e . Ed. Nigel N o r r i s . Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 4, 1977, pp. 110-136. - - - - - - - and Stephen Humble. From Council to Classroom: An Evaluation of the D i f f u s i o n of the Humanities Curriculum P r o j e c t . Schools Council Research Studies. London: McMillan Education Ltd., 1978. ed. Towards a Science of the Singular: Essays about Case  Study i n Educational Research and Evaluation. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980. "Case Study i n the Context of Educational Research and Evaluation." In her Towards a Science of the Singular. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 1-14. Stake, Robert. "Legacies and Eulogies." In SAFARI Papers One: Innovation,  Evaluation, Research and the Problem of Control. Eds. B. MacDonald and R. Walker. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974, pp. 134-139. "The Case Study Method i n S o c i a l Inquiry." Educational  Researcher, 7, No. 2 (1978), pp. 5-8. Rpt. i n Towards A Science of the Singular. Ed. H. Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 62-74. Stenhouse, Lawrence. "The Humanities Curriculum Project." Journal of  Curriculum Studies, 1, No. 1 (1968), pp. 26-33. "Some Limitations on the Use of Objectives i n Curriculum Research and Planning." Paedagogica Europaea. The European Yearbook of Educational Research. Braunshweig: Georg Westermann, 1971, pp. 73-84. "The Humanities Curriculum Project." In Educational  Research i n B r i t a i n . Eds. H.J. Butcher and H.B. Pont. London: Un i v e r s i t y of London Press, 1973, pp. 149-167. "Case Study and Case Records: Towards a Contemporary History of Education." B r i t i s h Educational Research Journal, 4, No. 2 (1978), pp. 21-39. - - - - . "Applying Research to Education." B r i t i s h Educational Research Association Conference Paper. Norwich: CARE (mimeo), 1 Sept., 1978b. 223 - - - - . "Case Study i n Comparative Education: P a r t i c u l a r i t y and Generalization." Comparative Education, 15, No. 1 (1979), pp. 5-10. - - - - . "The Problem of Standards i n Illuminative Research." The  Sc o t t i s h Educational Review, 11, No. 1 (1979), pp. 5-10. - - - - . "What Counts as Research?" B r i t i s h Journal of Educational  Studies, 29, No. 1 (1981), pp. 103-115. Tawney, David, ed. Curriculum Evaluation Today: Trends and Implications. Schools Council Research Studies. London: McMillan Education, 1976. Tyler, Ralph. Basic P r i n c i p l e s of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1950. Verma, Gajendra. The Impact of Innovation: Volume 1 of the Revised E d i t i o n  of the Publications of the Humanities Curriculum Project Evaluation  Unit. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 9, 1980. Walker, Rob and Barry MacDonald, eds. SAFARI Papers One: Innovation, Evaluation, Research and the Problem of Control. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974. "Classroom Research: A View from SAFARI." In his SAFARI  Papers One. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974, pp. 23-28. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "The Conduct of Educational Case Study: Ethics, Theory and Procedure." In his SAFARI Papers One. Norwich: University of East Anglia (CARE), 1974, pp. 75-115. Rpt. i n Rethinking Educational  Research. Eds. W.B. Dockrell and David Hamilton. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1981, pp. 31-62. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a n d Clem Adelman. "Developing Pictures for Other Frames: Action Research and the Case Study." In Frontiers of Classroom  Research. Eds. Gabriel Chanan and Sara Delamont. Sussex: King, Thorne and Stace Ltd., 1975, pp. 220-232. - - - - - - - and Barry MacDonald. "Case Study and the S o c i a l Philosophy of Educational Research." Cambridge Journal of Education, 5, No. 1 (1975b), pp. 2-11. - - - - - - - and Clem Adelman. "Open Space - Open Classroom." In Curriculum Innovation. Eds. Martin Lawn, et a l . London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1975c, pp. 162-170. - - - - . "Descriptive Methodologies and U t i l i t a r i a n Objectives: Is a Happy Marriage Possible?" In SAFARI Papers Two: Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e . Ed. Nigel N o r r i s . Norwich: Occasional Papers No. 4, 1977, pp. 18-23. 224 - - - - . "Making Sense and Losing Meaning." In Towards a Science of  the Singular. Ed. Helen Simons. Norwich: CARE Occasional Papers No. 10, 1980, pp. 222-234. - - - - . "The Conduct of Educational Case Study: Eth i c s , Theory and Procedure." In Rethinking Educational Research. Eds. W.B. Dockrell and David Hamilton. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1981, pp. 31-62. - - - - . "Getting Involved i n Curriculum Research: A Personal History." In Rethinking Curriculum Studies: A Radical Approach. Eds. Martin Lawn and Len Barton. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1981b, pp. 193-213. 225 APPENDIX A Glossary of Familiar Terms and Abbreviations to Describe the B r i t i s h Educational System AEO A s s i s t a n t Education O f f i c e r A Levels These examinations are written at age eighteen. They function as u n i v e r s i t y entrance exams. CEO The Chief Education O f f i c e r i s the head of a Local Education Authority. Comprehensive Schools Where students once were streamed into either a grammar school or a secondary modern school (after t h e i r eleven plus exams), they now may go to a comprehensive school which i s an amalgamation of both previous types. The C e r t i f i c a t e of Secondary Education i s the r e s u l t of successful performance on the A l e v e l examination. The Eleven Plus Examination i s written at age eleven (or more) to determine which school or l e v e l of programme i s most appropriate. This was once a 'streaming' exam to determine whether a student went to a grammar school or a secondary modern. Fourth Year P u p i l The Fourth Year i s the l a s t year of Middle School. GCE The General C e r t i f i c a t e of Education i s the r e s u l t of the '0' l e v e l (Ordinary) examinations. Grammar School The older B r i t i s h schooling system had state run grammar schools (as opposed to p r i v a t e l y run 'public' schools). These were open to students that had passed the Eleven plus examinations. Pr e f e c t The prefect i s the d i s c i p l i n a r i a n of the school. Public School The public or independent school received no f i n a n c i a l support from the government. They were equivalent to most private schools i n North America. 0 Level Exams 0 Level Examinations are written at the age of sixteen. These Ordinary Examinations can lead to the GCE. Secondary Modern School Students who did not pass the Eleven Plus Exams would attend Secondary Modern Schools from age eleven to sixteen. CSE 11+ Exam 226 Sixth Form The Sixth Form refers to the school years between sixteen and eighteen. This period i s between the 0 Levels and the A Level Exams i n public schools ( e s s e n t i a l l y a preparation for the A L e v e l s ) . Streamed vs Setted a b i l i t y , a b i l i t y . Streamed students are grouped by general l e v e l s of Setted students are grouped by p a r t i c u l a r subject 227 APPENDIX B CARE Worker Descriptions of Key Humanities Curriculum Project Terms and Expressions Controversy: E l l i o t and Pring (1975b) described "controversial issues...of the Humanities Project" as follows: But there are other kinds of dispute which involve not only disagreements about the consequences of p a r t i c u l a r courses of action, but disagreements about the sort of consequences which would count as good reasons for adopting one course of action rather than another. An understanding of these issues involves the r e a l i z a t i o n that i t makes no sense to say that such issues must be resolved on the basis of a r a t i o n a l consensus, since what i s to count as a r a t i o n a l s o l u t i o n i s part of the problem. This r e a l i z a t i o n i s brought about by under-standing the issue i n terms of the d i f f e r e n t sorts of reasons which are at stake; i t necessitates coming to view the problematic act or s i t u a t i o n from the standpoint of d i f f e r e n t moral, s o c i a l or p o l i t i c a l points of view. (p. 50) Dissemination Stage: After the HCP had been in the ' T r i a l Schools' (1968-70) a revised form of the various 'packs' was edited and published by Heinemann Pu b l i c a t i o n s . When the commercially a v a i l a b l e material began flowing to schools, and when the HCP development team worked on this implementation of the curriculum i n schools, they c a l l e d this the dissemination stage (1970-72). Evidence: Evidence as the word i s used by the Project has a j u d i c i a l or h i s t o r i c a l , rather than a s c i e n t i f i c , connotation. To c a l l something "evidence" i s not to imply that i t c a r r i e s authority but merely that i t i s relevant to the matter under discussion. The witness who i s l y i n g or whose memory i s playing t r i c k s with him i s giving evidence. U n r e l i -able biographies have to be weighed as h i s t o r i c a l evidence and the s o c i a l h i s t o r i a n or h i s t o r i a n of thought w i l l use among h i s evidence, p i c t u r e s , poems, magazines and pamphlets. 229 'Influencing' or 'guiding' students towards t h i s understanding must involve the teacher or counsellor qua educator i n d e l i b e r a t e l y r e f r a i n i n g from misusing his authority p o s i t i o n by attempting to 'influence' or 'guide' the students i n the d i r e c t i o n of a commitment to a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n , e.g., his own. To attempt the l a t t e r would involve discouraging students from giving equal consideration to divergent views and neglecting to protect divergence e x i s t i n g both i n society and among his students. If the teacher or counsellor i s to aim at developing an understanding of c o n t r o v e r s i a l issues he must encourage 'equality of consider-a t i o n 1 and 'protect (not encourage) divergence'. v I f he i s not 'guiding' or 'influencing' accord-ing to these procedural p r i n c i p l e s he cannot be aiming to develop his students' understanding of issues. Thus the deliberate withholding of c e r t a i n kinds of 'influence' or 'guidance' i s a necessary condition of being able to exercise those influences which f a c i l i t a t e understanding and place students i n a p o s i t i o n to make r a t i o n a l decisions i n the area of work. This ' d e l i b e r a t e l y r e f r a i n i n g from' for the sake of educationally legitimate influence i s what i s meant by procedural n e u t r a l i t y . I t i s c e r t a i n l y not to be equated with complete p a s s i v i t y or negative n e u t r a l i t y . I t involves p a s s i v i t y towards some aspects of an issue for the sake of exerting p o s i t i v e 'influence' and 'guidance' with respect to other aspects. ( E l l i o t , 1975b: 51) The HCP Packs: The project team produced i n i t i a l c o l l e c t i o n s of material i n such areas as War and Society, Education, The Family, Relations between the Sexes, People and Work, and Poverty. (Collections on Law and Order and Living i n C i t i e s were l a t e r added.) During the years 1968-70, these c o l l e c t i o n s were used by some 150 teachers i n t h i r t y - s i x schools throughout England and Wales. The project team put forward hypotheses about teaching s t r a t e g i e s , and asked these teachers to te s t them by adhering to suggested r u l e s . The teachers were also asked to comment on the usefulness of the materials when these rules were followed, to suggest a l t e r n a t i v e rules or hypotheses, and to develop other inquiry a c t i v i t i e s that needed to be b u i l t up around the di s c u s s i o n . (MacDonald, 1973: 18) 228 A key question of any piece of evidence i s : Evidence of what? I t may be evidence of a fact or event. But i t may also be evidence about a class of events, a kind of s i t u a t i o n . A state-ment may provide evidence of the existence of a point of view or climate of opinion. A poem or painting may be evidence of a c e r t a i n kind of emotional reaction to a s i t u a t i o n . (HCP Introduction, 1970: 13) The range of what constituted evidence v a r i e d . Printed texts or other material might be evidence of a f a c t , event, a s i t u a t i o n , a point of view or climate of opinion; a poem or painting, evidence of an emotional reaction to a s i t u a t i o n . Each pack of materials included extracts from drama, novels and biography, l e t t e r s , reports, a r t i c l e s , poems and songs, cartoons, and questionnaires. A s e l e c t i o n of films and s l i d e s was also suggested for each theme. There were enough copies of printed material for a discussion group of twenty. (Humble and Simons, 1978: 84) N e u t r a l i t y : In the l i f e t i m e of the project the concepts of ' n e u t r a l i t y ' received a great deal of discussion in the national press, educational journals, i n schools and LEA o f f i c e s . I t was variously interpreted, and could be taken to mean: 1. the abnegation of the teacher's academic r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for maintaining standards; 2. the abdication of the teachers' r o l e as a 'moral a r b i t e r 1 ; 3. the abdication of authority; 4. the adoption of a completely passive r o l e ('Ideally I suppose we shoud s i t and say nothing'); 5. the only appropriate procedure to explore c o n t r o v e r s i a l value issues with p u p i l s . (Humble and Simons, 1978: 77) 230 The f i r s t c o l l e c t i o n was produced i n a 'Jackdraw' format. That i s , each p u p i l had a folder of materials for each sub-topic. I t was p r i n t e d i n the p r o j e c t . On the basis of feed-back from schools the l a t e r c o l l e c t i o n s were restructured: each teacher pack contained a single copy of every document i n the c o l l e c t -i o n . A c l a s s pack contained twenty copies of each document. Audio-tapes were made by the p r o j e c t team. Later c o l l e c t i o n s were sent out to a p r i n t e r . As experience b u i l t up, the archive c o l l e c t i o n tended to become smaller i n r e l a t i o n to the pack. (Stenhouse, 1973: 161) The Teacher as Chairman: As well as exercising some influence over the inquiry i n these ways, the teacher would also be required to exercise the following functions: 1. ensuring that questions are asked and problems posed about 'evidence 1; 2. ensuring that students' ideas and their r e l a t i o n s h i p to each other are c l a r i f i e d ; 3. helping students to monitor the main lin e s of development i n discussion; 4. ensuring that the discussion i s relevant to the issue; 5. encouraging the students to use and b u i l d on each other's ideas; 6. helping the students to raise and define issues for inqu i r y and to decide on p r i o r i t i e s ; 7. ensuring that questions are asked which provide i n t e l l e c t u a l stimulus and encourage r e f l e c t i v e s e l f - c r i t i c i s m . E l l i o t , 1975b: 54 . . . i f one i s , as we are, attempting to get the group of students to accept f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for their own learning, then they must f i n d rewards i n the task i t s e l f and i n their own progress. A teacher as chairman cannot afford to say "yes" or "an i n t e r e s t i n g point." This sort of reward c l e a r l y tends to set up a guessing game i n which the students are more concerned with i n t e r p r e t -ing the teacher's behavior i n order to under-stand what he has i n his mind than with i n t e r -preting the issues before them i n the l i g h t of the evidence. The teacher needs to see that students are rewarded by being c a r e f u l l y l i s t e n e d to and fed with questions which help them to a r t i c u l a t e and express their own point of view. (Stenhouse, 1969: 26) Trained and Untrained Schools: Once the large sample had been drawn and the testing programme launched i n December 1970, the HPC evaluator selected the school for case study. The testing programme was designed to e l i c i t comparisons between 'trained' and 'untrained' schools. Both categories were included i n the case study sample. Trained schools were schools whose teachers had attended a central or l o c a l t r a i n i n g course; teachers i n untrained schools had not. The variable of t r a i n i n g was chosen because the project team considered i t a pre-req u i s i t e for implementing the p r o j e c t . T r i a l Schools: The i n i t i a l 'Humanities approach and the f i r s t editions of the 'packs 1 were t r i e d out i n a number of schools. The HCP developmental team wished to avoid the term 'experimental school,' and they decided to c a l l the i n i t i a l stage of formative evaluation the ' t r i a l stage.' Understanding: The notion of developing 'understanding' by the HCP was described thus: A necessary, but not s u f f i c i e n t , condition of making objective judgements and decisions about p u b l i c l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l kinds of acts and s i t u a t i o n s i n the f i e l d of work i s an understanding of the nature and structure of the public issues they r a i s e . I t i s not s u f f i c i e n t , because such an understanding w i l l not necessarily reveal to the student the d i r e c t i o n along which a solution to his problems can be found. Indeed, i t involves the r e a l i z a t i o n that, since the issue involves a c o n f l i c t between d i f f e r e n t standards of o b j e c t i v i t y , he not only has to commit himself to a r a t i o n a l course of action, but make a personal commitment to a view of what i n these circumstances i s to count as a r a t i o n a l course of acti o n . Neither teaches, counsellors, or society i n general can make this commitment for him. ( E l l i o t , 1975b: 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054747/manifest

Comment

Related Items