Q-metodološka analiza strategij odločanja ravnateljev med procesom uvajanja šolskih sprememb
Povzetek
Namen raziskave je bil preučiti strategije odločanja, ki jih uporabljajo ravnatelji pri spoprijemanju z izzivi v procesu uvajanja šolskih sprememb. V raziskavi, ki je bila izvedena v dveh mestih v osrednji in jugovzhodni Turčiji, je sodelovalo 29 ravnateljev osnovnih in srednjih šol, izbranih s tehniko namenskega vzorčenja. V raziskavi smo uporabili metodologijo Q, tj. dominantno kvalitativno raziskavo mešanih metod. Raziskovalci so razvili in uporabili nabor 24 specifičnih elementov, ki so se osredinjali na strategije odločanja ravnateljev glede izzivov, povezanih s šolskimi spremembami, pri čemer so kot teoretični okvir uporabili model odločanja, ki temelji na zaznavi. Za analizo podatkov smo uporabili statistično programsko opremo PQMethod. Na osnovi podane konfiguracije elementov so rezultati pokazali, da so imeli ravnatelji podobne poglede na sprejemanje odločitev v obdobju sprememb ter podoben profil pri sprejemanju odločitev in s tem povezanih strategij. Prevladujoči slog odločanja je bil vedenjski. Osebnostni profil ravnateljev je pokazal močno osredinjenost na ljudi in nizko kognitivno kompleksnost. Videti je, da prevladujoča prepričanja ravnateljev, ki vplivajo na njihove strategije odločanja, obsegajo celovito oceno trenutnega stanja, etične premisleke in organizacijske vrednote, oceno tehničnih podrobnosti in temeljito zbiranje podatkov. Nekateri sklepi v članku so namenjeni raziskovalcem in strokovnim delavcem v vzgoji in izobraževanju.
Prenosi
Literatura
Alenjung, B., & Persson, A. (2005). Decision-making from the decision-maker’s perspective: A framework for analysing decision situations. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Business Informatics Research (pp. 13–22). Sweden.
Al-Omari, A. A. (2013). The relationship between decision making styles and leadership styles among public school principals. International Education Studies, 6(7), 100–110.
Al-Yahya, K. O. (2008). Power-influence in decision making, competence utilization, and organisational culture in public organizations: The Arab world in comparative perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 385–407.
Atsan, N. (2017). Karar vermede çatışma kuramı ve özsaygı ilişkisine yönelik kültürel bir inceleme [A cultural examination of the relationship between decisional self-esteem and conflict theory of decision making]. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 63–73.
Bakioğlu, A., & Demiral, S. (2013). Okul yöneticilerinin belirsizlik durumlarını algılama ve karar verme tarzları [Principals’ perceptions of ambiguous situations and their decision-making styles in cases of ambiguity]. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 38, 9–35. doi: 10.15285/EBD.2013385564
Basi, R. S. (1998). Administrative decision making: A contextual analysis. Management Decision, 36(4), 232–240.
Bayburin, R., Bycik, N., Filinov, N., Isaeva, N., & Kasprzhak, A. (2015). Does conceptual decision-making style make school principal an efficient reforms promoter? Basic Research Program, Working Papers Series: Management WP BRP 34/MAN/2015. National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Boulgarides, J. D. (1984). The decision style inventory: O. D. applications. Management Research News, 7(4), 17–20.
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561–567.
Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2013). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış [New structure and behaviour in school management]. Pegem Akademi.
Calabrese, R. L., & Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Decision-making assessment: Improving principal performance. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 6–13.
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decisionâ€making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386.
Crosby, R. (2015). Teachers managing work demands and maintaining a sense of wellbeing: A Q methodology study to investigate the views of primary and secondary school teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sheffield.
D'Angelo, L. M. (2011). How school organisational structures impact micro-level decision making (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University.
Demir, F., & Kul, M. (2011). Algı, tutum, karakteristik özellikler, tipoloji, içerik analiz ve araştırmaları için modern bir araştırma yöntemi olarak Q metodu [Q method as a modern research method for research on perceptions, attitudes, characteristic features, typologies, and content analysis]. Adalet Yayınları.
Drucker, P. F. (2001). The effective decision. In Harvard Business Review on decision making. (pp. 1–20). Harvard Business School Press.
Eranova, M., & Prashantham, S. (2016). Decision making and paradox: Why study China? European Management Journal, 34(3), 193–201.
Ercan, G., & Altunay, E. (2015). İlkokul ve ortaokul yöneticilerinin kişilik özellikleri ile karar verme becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the relationship between the personality characteristics and decision-making skills of primary and secondary school administrators (The case of the İzmir province)]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 120–143.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
George, J. M., & Dane, E. (2016). Affect, emotion, and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 47–55.
Güçlü, N., Özer, A., Kurt, T., & Koşar, S. (2015). Liderlik stilleri, karar verme stratejileri ve kişiliğin okullardaki karar sürecine etkilerinin çok düzeyli analizi [Multilevel analysis of the effects of leadership styles, decision making strategies and personality on the decision-making process in schools]. Journal of Human Sciences, 12(2), 1756–1791.
Halama, P. (2017). Self-regulation capacity and decision making of Slovak managers in routine situations and in situations with possible negative outcomes. Studia Psychologica, 59(2), 156–168.
Hariri, H., Monypenny, R., & Prideaux, M. (2014). Leadership styles and decision-making styles in an Indonesian school context. School Leadership & Management, 34(3), 284–298.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2010). Swift and smart decision making: Heuristics that work. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(4), 351–358.
Hutson, G., & Montgomery, D. (2011). Demonstrating the value of extending qualitative research strategies into Q. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(4), 234–246.
James, C. (2011). The importance of affective containment for teacher effectiveness and successful educational change. In C. Day & J. C.-K. Lee (Eds.), New understandings of teacher’s work: Emotions and educational change (pp. 119–134). Springer.
Kalman, M., & Arslan, M. C. (2016). School principals’ evaluations of their instructional leadership behaviours: Realities vs. ideals. School Leadership & Management, 36(5), 508–530.
Kasprzhak A. G., & Bysik, N. V. (2015). Decision-making styles of Russian school principals. Russian Education and Society, 57(7), 590–613.
Khasawneh, S., Alomari, A., & Abu-tineh, A. (2011). Decision-making styles of department chairs at public Jordanian universities: A high-expectancy workforce. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4), 309–318.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organisational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010a). The decision making process. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1–12.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010b). The principal and the school: What do principals do? National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1–13.
Mason, S. L. (2016). An inquiry into how principals make decisions in secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana State University.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.
Misra, S., & Srivastava, K. B. L. (2012). Decision-making: Path to effectiveness. Human Resource Management Research, 2(4), 46–52.
Newman, I., & Ramlo, S. (2010). Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.) (pp. 505–530). Sage.
Nixon, L. A. (2017). School leaders’ decision-making process for academic program placement: A phenomenological study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Tennessee State University.
Paige, J. B. (2014). Making sense of methods and measurement: Q-methodology-part I-philosophical background. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10(12), 639–640.
Paige, J. B. (2015). Making sense of methods and measurement: Q-methodology-part II-methodological procedures. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(1), 75–77.
Podrug, N. (2011). Influence of national culture on decision-making style. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6(1), 37–44.
Ramlo, S., & Newman, I. (2011). Reply to Gourlay. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(3), 213–214.
Ramlo, S. (2005). An application of Q methodology: Determining college faculty perspectives and consensus regarding the creation of a school of technology. Journal of Research in Education, 15(1), 52–69.
Ramlo, S. (2011). Facilitating a faculty learning community: Determining consensus using Q methodology. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(1), 30–38.
Ramlo, S. (2016a). Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 28–45.
Ramlo, S. (2016b). Students’ views about potentially offering physics courses online. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 489–496.
Ramlo, S. (2016c). Centroid and theoretical rotation: Justification for their use in Q methodology research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 28(1), 73–92.
Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1983). Decision styles: A perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 4(4), 3–9.
Schechter, C., & Shaked, H. (2017). Leaving fingerprints: Principals’ considerations while implementing education reforms. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 242–260.
Schmolck, P. (2015). PQMethod (Version 2.35) [Computer software]. http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/downpqwin.htm
Sezer, Ş. (2016). Okul müdürlerinin görev öncelikleri ve karar alma süreçlerini etkileyen faktörlere ilişkin görüşleri [School administrators’ opinions on task priorities and the factors affecting their decision-making processes]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 121–137.
Shakeel, M. D., & DeAngelis, C. A. (2017). Who is more free? A comparison of the decision-making of private and public school principals. Journal of School Choice, 11(3), 442–457.
Şişman, M. (2010). Türk eğitim sistemi ve okul yönetimi [The Turkish education system and school management]. Pegem Akademi.
Smollan, R. K. (2017). Supporting staff through stressful organisational change. Human Resource Development International, 20(4), 282–304.
Stenner, P. (2011). Q methodology as qualiquantology: Comment on Susan Ramlo and Isadore Newman’s “Q methodology and its position in the mixed methods continuumâ€. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(3), 192–203.
Trimmer, K. (2016). Measurement and modelling: Sequential use of analytical techniques in a study of risk-taking in decision-making by school principals. Teacher Development, 20(3), 398–416.
Weiss, H. A. (1956). Decision-making in secondary schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 37(5), 207–210.
Yang, G. (2016). A study of cross-cultural decision-making styles: Is cognitive mapping an effective methodology for data analysis? (Unpublished master’s thesis). The Open University.
Yang, Y. & Bliss, L. B. (2014). A Q factor analysis of college undergraduate students' study behaviours. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(6), 433–453.
Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Students’ perceptions about gamification of education: A Q-method analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(191), 235–246.
Zabala, A. (2014). Qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(2), 163–173.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
