Micropolitics of the Staff Meeting in a Taiwanese Primary School

Problem Statement: Micropolitics can be used as a useful lens to investigate how shareholders within the school exercise their formal and informal power to achieve their goals and protect their interests. Although quite a few studies have concentrated on teacher culture and school management, less attention has been paid to staff relationships through the lens of micropolitics. This study focuses on the staff meeting, which as part of a weekly routine within the school, can become a political arena. The study explores, through the lens of micropolitics, how teachers and administrators (including the principal) interact with one another at the researched site. Purpose of the Study: The research aims to investigate how teachers and administrators use formal and informal power, particularly at the staff meetings at the researched site, from the micropolitical perspective, taking into account power struggles, professional dilemmas and political tensions that impact school innovations and teacher culture and practices. Methods: This study employs the ethnographic case-study approach, through participant observation and in-depth interviews, conducted over a 5-month period in a Taiwanese primary school. The data was triangulated and analyzed thematically. Findings and Results: Research findings indicate that the staff meetings at the school reinforced collegial intimacy and enhanced staff morale. However, despite some positive outcomes, such as building a sense of community, the staff meeting is under the political control of administrators (particularly the principal) who often transmit information through pseudo-participation to legitimate and maintain the nature of hierarchy. In addition, micropolitical tensions between teaching and senior staff due to their divergent interests could be found at the staff meeting. Conclusions and Recommendations: On the whole, the relationships among school members at the investigated site seemed to be positive, with a positive outlook for the future; however, hidden conflicts might still emerge. This study suggests that the micropolitical lens should be applied to both negative forms (i.e. conflict) of interpersonal relationships as well as in cooperative ones (i.e. collaboration, collegial) within school settings.

PDF

___

Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 421-455.
Achinstein, B. (2006). New teacher and mentor political literacy: Reading, navigating and transforming induction contexts. Teachers and Teaching, 12(2), 123-138.
Acker, S. (1999). The realities of teachers’ work: Never a dull moment. London: Cassell.
Atkinson, P. (1983). The reproduction of the professional community. In R. Dingwall & P. Lewis (Eds.), The sociology of the professions: Lawyers, doctors and others (pp. 221-245). London: Macmillan.
Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university: Research in the sociology of complex organisations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micropolitics of the school: Towards a theory of school organisation. London: Methuen.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London: Routledge.
Blase, J. (1987). Political interaction among teachers: Sociocultural contexts in the schools. Urban Education, 22(3), 286-309.
Blase, J. (1989). The micropolitics of the school: The everyday political orientation of teachers toward open school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 377-407.
Blase, J. (1990). Some negative effects of principals’ control-oriented and protective political behaviour. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 727-753.
Blase, J. (1991a). The micropolitical perspective. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation (pp. 1-18). London: Sage.
Blase, J. (1991b). Everyday political perspectives of teachers toward students. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation (pp. 185-206). London: Sage.
Blase, J. & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. London: Cassell.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1997). The micropolitical orientation of facilitative school principals and its effects on teachers’ sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 35, 138-164.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: mechanisms of institutional change. Administration Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281.
Cooper, B. S., Ehrensal, P. A. L., & Bromme, M. (2005). School-level politics and professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing teachers. Educational Policy, 19(1), 112-125.
Chen, H.-J. (2004). Parental participation in school decision-making: Exploring the school affairs committee in a Taiwanese primary school. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Democratic Education. 20-21, May, 2004. University of Canakkale, Turkey.
Curry, M., Jaxon, K., Russell, J. L., Callahan, M. A., & Bicais, J. (2008). Examining the practice of beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 660-673.
Cusack, I. (1993). Looking back in anger. The Times Educational Supplement, 8 January, 7.
Davis, L. (1994). Beyond authoritarian school management: The challenge for transparency. Ticknall, Derbyshire: Education Now.
Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. T. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of conflict solution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ehrich, L. C., & Cranston, N. (2004). Developing senior management teams in schools: Can micropolitics help? ISEA, 32(1), 21-31.
Frost, D. (1997). Reflective action planning for teachers: A guide to teacher-led school and professional development. London: David Fulton.
Frost, D., Durrant, J., Head, M. & Holden, G. (2000). Teacher-led school improvement. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.
Gronn, P. (1988). Talk as the work: the accomplishment of school administration. In A. Westoby (Ed.), Culture and power in educational organizations (pp. 289-314). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation (pp. 46-72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the post-modern age. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I. F. (1996). Teachers’ professional lives: aspirations and actualities. In I. F. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 1-27). London: Falmer Press.
Havelock, R. G. (1973). The change agent’s guide to innovation in education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology.
Haworth, J. G., & Conrad, C. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education: Developing and sustaining high quality programs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hoyle, E. (1988). Micropolitics of educational organisations. In A. Westoby (Ed.), Culture and power in educational organisations (pp. 247-271). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Jeffrey, B. & Woods, P. (1998). Testing teachers: The effect of school inspections on primary teachers. London: Falmer Press.
Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 995-1006.
Kelchtermans, G., Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrativebiographical study on teacher socialisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 105-120.
King, R. (1983). The sociology of school organisation: Contemporary sociology of the school. London: Methuen.
Lally, V., & Scaife, J. (1995). Towards a collaborative approach to teacher empowerment. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 323-338.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lukes, S. (1977). Essays in social theory. London: Macmillan.
Mayrowetz, D., & Price, J. (2005). Contested territory: parents and teachers wrestle for power in an urban neighborhood school located within a Gentrifying community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 8(3), 72-87.
McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as a ritual performance: Towards a political economy of educational symbols and gestures. London: Routledge.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (Rev. ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organisations. Cambridge, MA: Pitman.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers' commitment. Sociology of Education, 63(4), 241-257.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353-389.
Rudduck, J. (1991). Innovation, involvement and understandings. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Scribner, J. P., Hager, D. R., & Warne, T. R. (2002). The paradox of professional community: Tales from two high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 45-76.
Talbert, J, E. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Teacher professionalism in local school context. In I. F. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 127-153). London: Falmer Press.
Tyler, W. (1988). School organization: A sociological perspective. London: Croom Helm.
Young, B., & Brooks, M. (2004). Part-time politics: The micropolitical world of part-time teaching. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(2), 129-148.