Power, domination and resistance in the process of teacher‐initiated innovation

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the process of teacher‐initiated innovation. The data presented are a small part of an extended case study carried out between 1983 and 1986 in a physical education department at a large, English, coeducational, comprehensive school called Branstown. Here, a newly appointed departmental head, called Alex, who believed that change was a rational, linear and value‐free process, attempted to introduce a series of structural changes in the physical education curriculum. These included the abolition of streaming by ability in games lessons in favour of mixed‐ability grouping and the inclusion of more individual activities at the expense of team sports. In addition, he attempted to reorientate the ideological position of those within the department towards his own. The confusions, anxieties and conflicts caused by these proposals for change were witnessed by me during the field work phase of the research, which began in September 1983. During the following academic year I adopted the role of ‘researcher‐participant’ (Gans, 1982) within the department and used ‘reflexive’ interviews (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983) to focus on the adoption phase of the innovation process when Alex began to conceive of changing the curriculum and started to introduce his ideas to the department. From September 1984 to September 1986, reflexive interviews alone were used to enhance and develop my interpretation of the adoption phase and to examine the consequences of the innovations for the teachers involved once the changes had been implemented in September 1984.

The primary focus of the paper is upon the differential power resources that were available to those within the physical education department and the manner in which these affected the quality of their participation in the decision‐making process. Power, conflict and resistance are seen to be central to the process of change as teachers attempt to enhance and protect a range of interests. The strategies utilized by the departmental head in an attempt to dominate the realities of the department, and the forms of resistance initiated by his staff, are highlighted in order to emphasize the micropolitical dimensions of curriculum change in schools.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andrew C. Sparkes

Dr Andrew C. Sparkes, School of Education, Exeter University, Exeter, Devon EX1 2LU © Not to be quoted or reproduced without the permission of the author.