07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 337
JAMES RYAN
Dialogue, Identity, and Inclusion:
Administrators as Mediators
in Diverse School Contexts
ABSTRACT: This article describes a study that explores the identities that princi-
pals assume as they engage in dialogue in diverse school contexts. In particular,
it focuses on the various dimensions of one identity—that of mediator—and illustrates how this identity shapes the way in which administrators converse with others and how it affects efforts toward inclusion. Administrators in this study assumed either active or symbolic mediator identities in their quest to communicate
with their respective school communities. They also devised strategies to deal
with contradictions between their expressed inclusive values and their actual
communication practices.
Dialogue is important in contexts of diversity. Among other things, it can
assist marginalized groups to be meaningfully included in cultural institutions such as schools. Ideally, the right dialogical practices provide the
bridges that bring together disparate and different communities in ways
that enable them to overcome the powerful barriers that prevent them
from sharing in what schools and communities have to offer.
But the actual practice of dialogue in schools is not always such a
straightforward matter. It is not always easy to implement or sustain meaningful dialogical practices in these settings. One reason why is that members of school communities cannot always do or say whatever they feel
like. They are constrained and enabled by the contexts within which they
work and learn. These constraints and enablers can take many forms. One
is the type of identity that people take on within these institutions. Members of school communities inevitably assume identities in schools that
Address correspondence to James Ryan, Department of Theory and Policy Studies, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S
1V6. E-mail: [email protected].
Journal of School Leadership Volume 17—May 2007
337
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
338
Page 338
JAMES RYAN
dictate the manner in which they approach dialogue and, ultimately, the
way in which they attempt to include marginalized groups in conversations
and school practices. This is as true for administrators as it is for anyone
else. This article describes a study that explores the identities that administrators assume as they engage in dialogue. In particular, it focuses on the
various dimensions of one identity—that of mediator—and it illustrates
how this identity shapes the way in which administrators converse with
others in their respective diverse school communities and how it affects efforts at inclusion.
DIALOGUE AND INCLUSION
[Q1:
Please
include
in list.]
Dialogue has many meanings. The most common meaning involves talk.
Indeed, its Greek roots, dia and logos, roughly mean “through talk.” This
view of dialogue, however, is a narrow one. Another way to see dialogue is
as a relationship (Burbules, 1993). In this view of dialogue, partners establish a connection and then exchange meaning in their efforts to understand
and affirm one another. In this sense, dialogue is different from debate.
Participants work together in contexts of equality, respect, and openness
to explore and create new possibilities, as opposed to doing their best to
convince others of the value of their positions in adversarial contexts
(Zohor, 1997). Of course, the former contexts are not easy to come by. This
is why Friere (1970) believes that dialogue should acknowledge and be
geared to dismantle the unequal power relationships that set the stage for
conversations in schools and communities. Such a project becomes vital in
an increasingly diverse world.
Dialogue is important in diverse contexts. Ideally, it provides the means
for everyone—students, educators, and parents—to become meaningfully
involved in school governance and learning practices. Proponents believe
that dialogue represents one of the most promising ways of overcoming
the significant barriers to inclusion, such as racism, sexism, classism, and
homophobia. Over the years, many scholars have addressed issues of dialogue and diversity. Some have explored them on a general level, whereas
others have targeted school-related dialogue in the classroom and from an
administrative perspective. In doing so, they have addressed issues of understanding, relationships, and power.
Gadamer (1988) [Q1:.] concentrates on issues of understanding. He
contends that for dialogue to occur, people need to understand what others are trying to convey. Understanding, however, is always associated
with the practice of interpretation; to understand the messages, people
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 339
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
339
must interpret the signs and symbols that others employ. The problem
that Gadamer identifies is that people will be situated in different historical traditions, and so the interpretations that they make of the language
that they encounter may not always coincide with that of the author of a
text or other communicants. Moreover, one’s interpretations change as
one acquires new information. Though acknowledging the difficulties of
achieving common understandings in contexts of difference, Gadamer
sees possibilities for dialogue. Communicants can understand one another, up to a point, when the horizons of dialogical partners are fused—
that is, when their interpretative efforts coincide within common realms
of understanding.
Bakhtin’s approach to dialogue (1984) also focuses on issues of meaning
and diversity but more so from a social rather than an individual perspective. For Bakhtin, meaning occurs within dialogical relationships, emerging in the contexts of people’s interactions with one another. Difference
becomes a key issue in this perspective because these interactions occur
within complex diverse historical and cultural contexts. In this view, meaning emerges within relationships of difference. What Bakhtin calls heteroglossia is a natural condition that acknowledges the role of multiple
voices in the construction of meaning. The consequence of this is that
complete understanding or truth is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Understanding in dialogue, of course, does occur, but it does so not as the
result of a Gadamerian fusion of horizons but from “outside” perspectives
that allow us to penetrate the taken-for-grantedness of cultures, if only in
an inevitably partial manner.
Other scholars who study dialogue and diversity have directed their efforts at education. Burbules (1993), Shor (1992), and Friere (1970, 1985),
[Q2:
[Q2:]for example, concentrate on teaching and learning. Like Gadamer
Please
and Bakhtin, these scholars acknowledge the importance of meaning in
dialogue, but they also acknowledge other vital elements associated with include
dialogue, such as relationships, knowledge, and power. Burbules, for ex- the 1985
ample, sees dialogue first and foremost as a relation that involves two or item in
ref list
more partners. Much of Burbules’s work focuses on how relationships
can be initiated, developed, and sustained across differences. He main- (this is
cited
tains that for dialogue to be effective, partners need to be emotionally
once
committed to it. It helps if participants can establish bonds of mutual
concern, trust, respect, appreciation, and affection. Burblues also makes more in
reference to what he refers to as communicative virtues—general dispo- this article).]
sitions and practices that help support successful communicative relations over time. These include qualities such as tolerance, patience, and
an openness to give and receive criticism; the inclination to admit that
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
340
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 340
JAMES RYAN
one may be mistaken; the desire to reinterpret or translate one’s own
concerns in a way that makes them comprehensible to others; and the
willingness and ability to listen thoughtfully and attentively.
Burbules’s ideal form of dialogue (1993) is directed toward a particular
end—knowledge. In this sense, he distinguishes it from other forms of dialogue in that it is directed toward discovery and new kinds of understandings. Burbules sees dialogue as the means to improve the knowledge,
insight, or sensitivity of its participants so that they can gain a fuller appreciation of the world, themselves, and one another. He acknowledges,
though, that such efforts—particularly, those that attempt to cross differences—may often fail. But he also sees benefits from unsuccessful attempts at dialogue, especially with respect to identity and inclusion. Burbules believes that such efforts can generate more flexible identities
among participants, to the extent that they will be able to see themselves
as members of different subcommunities. He notes that although simultaneous identification can at its extremes produce internal conflict and a
feeling of schizoprehenia, it can foster a broader and more inclusive sense
of oneself and one’s relation to others. So whereas dialogue of this sort
may not always achieve its epistemological goals, its spin-offs make efforts
to practice it worthwhile.
Friere (1970, 1985), Shor and Friere (1987), and Shor (1992) also approach dialogue in the context of teaching and learning and diversity. Like
Burbules, they emphasize the importance of relationships, but they highlight more acutely the differences in status and power between students
and teachers and between (in Friere’s case) peasants and the politically
elite. These authors believe that dialogue is the key to helping students
learn and subsequently make their way in the world. The difference between these thinkers’ dialogical view and the more traditional practice of
teaching is the unique epistemological character of the knowledge that it
calls forth. Dialogical knowledge does not flow exclusively from expert
teachers to passive and naïve students, as it tends to do in many conventional settings; rather, it is created as teachers and students share their respective and equally valued experiences. In these scenarios, both parties
learn from one another, but this learning involves more than merely being
able to decode text. Dialogical teaching also helps partners to look critically at the world in which they live, recognize injustices and exclusive
practices, and do something about them. Ideally, it provides the tools that
will enable the marginalized not just to decode texts but also read the
world in a way that helps them change the oppressive conditions in which
they live.
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 341
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
341
More recently, others have employed the concept of dialogue to understand and promote inclusion beyond the classroom. Drawing on the ideas
of the aforementioned scholars, they have explored how leaders can employ dialogue to assist diverse groups to become involved in school activities (Edwards & Shields, 2002; Foster, 1989; Ryan, 2003; Shields, 2003,
2004; Smyth, 1989). Shields (2003, 2004), for example, contends that leaders need to facilitate moral dialogue if they are to provide a socially just education for all their students. She argues that
a fundamental role of the educational leader is to be a catalyst for such a conversation in her school and in the surrounding community. Dialogue is therefore central to the task of educational leadership—not a weak concept of dialogue interpreted as strategies for communicating but a strong concept of
dialogue as a way of being. (Shields, 2004, p. 115)
Drawing on Bakhtin (1984) and Burbules (1993), Shields (2004) sees dialogue as a key to developing relationships and spaces for members of the
school community to address crucial issues of difference. In particular, she
envisions dialogue as a vehicle for eliminating what she refers to as
pathologies of silence. She believes that dialogue can provide opportunities for members of the school community to engage in critical conversations that enable them to not only recognize and understand the differences among them that many fail to see or acknowledge but also
eventually do something about the associated injustices. Toward this end,
she believes that leaders should create
norms of continuous dialogue—in the halls, in the staffroom, at staff meetings, by disseminating articles, by a judicious comment or strategically posed
question in daily emails, by encouraging teachers to attend workshops and
classes and engage in peer observation or team teaching. (Shields, 2003, p.
290)
Ryan (2002, 2003) also explores leadership and dialogue in diverse educational settings. Drawing on results from an empirical study, he explores
how principals can initiate and sustain inclusive dialogue in their respective school communities. In particular, his study looks at how principals
establish relationships that make dialogue possible. The administrators in
his study were able to engender the trust and respect necessary for conducting dialogues across differences by making themselves visible and
available, by going out of their way to seek out and approach community
members, and by taking their time to listen to what everyone had to say.
Both Shields (2003, 2004) and Ryan (2002, 2003) concentrate their efforts on three areas. The first is the leaders, or administrators, themselves.
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
342
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 342
JAMES RYAN
For meaningful dialogue to occur, the authors maintain that administrators
need to be able to look critically at themselves, reflect on their often-privileged positions, and understand how they can assist in including others in
the leadership process. Second, leadership processes and administrators
must provide conditions that facilitate dialogue within their diverse school
communities. This means working to put structures into place that allow
diverse and marginalized groups to participate in influence processes and
have their voices heard. Finally, this dialogue needs to be directed at the
circumstances that prevent diverse groups from fully participating in what
schools and communities have to offer. Ideally, these conversations will
help participants look critically at their social environment, understand
how everyone is implicated in exclusive processes, and devise strategies
for dismantling these unjust practices.
Despite the hopeful attitudes of these scholars, dialogue does not always
succeed in overturning the injustices that many students and their parents
experience. Nor does it always proceed as smoothly as proponents envision. Both Ryan (2003) and Shields (2003, 2004) point to a number of difficulties. Shields (2003), for example, cites the difficulty in employing dialogical questioning, the slow pace of progress, and associated behaviors
that send implicit messages of exclusion and inferiority. Other scholars
[Q3:
have issued more fundamental challenges. Ellsworth (1989) [Q3]faults the
Please
idealism of dialogue on two counts. She believes that marginalization and
include exclusion ought not to be reduced to an us-versus-them duality, as critical
in list.
versions of dialogue tend to do. Instead, she contends that this relationship
This is is fluid; people can occupy multiple, contradictory, and perpetually shiftcited
ing subject positions that leave them as both oppressor and oppressed. She
multiple also challenges the claim that dialogue can ensure that everyone has a
times in voice. Ellsworth contends that dialogue in the conventional sense is imthis ar- possible because contemporary power relations among raced, classed, and
ticle.]
gendered students are unjust and, thus, this asymmetry cannot be overcome in the classroom. Many others have echoed these same concerns
over the years—see, for example, the contributors to Boler’s excellent edi[Q4:
tion (2004).[Q4:]
Please
The problems that many critics identify with dialogue emerge from eminclude pirical studies of real-life situations in schools and classrooms. These studin list.] ies have revealed the difficulty of putting meaningful dialogue into practice
in these situations (Boler, 2004). Scholars have found that dialogue generally does not resemble the form that proponents believe it can, nor does it
achieve its stated goals when it is put into actual practice. Some, such as
Ellsworth (1989), even go so far as to say that dialogical efforts actually exacerbate the conditions that they are supposed to alleviate. One of the
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 343
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
343
complications that Ellsworth identifies revolves around identity. She contends that educator and student identities will figure into attempts at dialogue, disrupting its ideal practice in real-life situations in school and classrooms. Ellsworth also contends that people are situated in more
complicated ways than what some proponents of dialogue assume and as
a consequence, take on identities that make it difficult to include and become meaningfully included. But members of school communities can also
take on other identities within the social circumstances of diverse schools
and communities, and these identities may also influence efforts at dialogue and inclusion.
Most of the empirical research conducted in the area of dialogue has
been within a classroom context. Few empirical studies have actually explored how administrators initiate and sustain dialogue within their diverse school communities. Questions remain regarding the difficulties and
successes that these leaders experience with their dialogical efforts. How
do administrators initiate and sustain dialogue in their school communities? Do they experience the same difficulties as do teachers who attempt
to employ dialogue in their classrooms? How do they meet the challenges
that accompany dialogue? What relationship does dialogue have with inclusion? The slim evidence that does exist suggests that the identities that
administrators assume will affect their efforts at dialogue (Collinson,
2006). One of these potential identities revolves around the practice of mediation (Anderson, 1990; Gleeson & Shain, 2003). Administrators routinely
assume mediator identities in the diverse settings in which they work, and
these identities affect the way that they conduct their practice and approach dialogue and inclusion. This study explores the mediator identities
that administrators of diverse schools take on and how such identities influence efforts at dialogue and inclusion.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: ADMINISTRATOR
IDENTITY, DIALOGUE AND INCLUSION
There is a strong tradition in educational administration of attempting to
make sense of administrator practice by employing the concept of role. Indeed, much has been made over the years of the Getzels and Guba model
(1957) that features the idea of role. And so it is tempting to employ the
concept of role to understand the multiple dimensions of administrators’
mediation practices and their association with dialogue and inclusion in diverse sites. The idea of employing a role metaphor to understand human
interaction has a long history in the broader field of social science. First
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
344
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 344
JAMES RYAN
surfacing in the 1930s (see, e.g., Linton, 1936), role theory complemented
the dominant functionalist perspective in sociology at the time. Its basic
premise was that patterns of reciprocal behavior were required for society
to function properly. To understand these patterns, role theorists found it
necessary to distinguish between the person and the social position that he
or she occupied and to assign a set of actions to each position. These actions were determined by the expectations of the occupants who held
counter positions and were reinforced by sanctions (Connell, 1983). This
view deemed that society was held together by stereotypical personal expectations, with the bottom line being that the better that people adjusted
to their roles, the smoother society functioned.
Role theory began to wane as early as the 1960s as it came under the
same criticisms as functionalist sociology, even though the literature in the
general area persisted (see, e.g., Goffman, 1971). Of the many flaws in role
theory, two stand out. The first is the overdetermined view of interaction
(Connell, 1983). It is unrealistic to assume, as most role theorists do, that
the position that a person occupies will dictate what he or she does.
Rather, real-life situations bring with them considerably more latitude for
acting. In some ways, they work like languages, laying down loose frameworks within which one can improvise. People are forced to constantly improvise because the circumstances in which they find themselves are continually changing; rarely is anyone presented with identical situations,
even in interactions with the same people over time.
The other problem with role theory is its conservative nature (Connell,
1983). Role theory was created at a time when the Western world was facing a profound legitimation crisis. The economy was in turmoil, and a
working-class revolt was brewing. Role theory was just one of a number of
cultural responses designed to demonstrate that role and function were
necessary for social survival. The idea was that humanity’s future depended on people’s accepting that everyone had his or her own place in the
world (i.e., role and function). But whereas the crisis and the conservative
hegemony in the social sciences passed, role theory found its way into
fields concerned with the management of the integration of people into the
social order, such as educational administration. Indeed, for a while in the
1950s and well into the 1980s, in the field of educational administration,
the idea of role and its determining qualities fit quite nicely into a scheme
that promised predictability and control (see, e.g., Getzels & Guba, 1957;
Hoy & Miskel, 1987). Not surprisingly, though, it has difficulty accommodating resistance. After all, the theory was created, in large measure, to
stem the tide of potential resistance in the 1930s. The problem in using role
theory to understand administrators’ mediation and dialogue is that it pres-
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 345
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
345
ents an overdetermined view of human interaction and stems the possibilities for acknowledging unfair practices that are associated with the status
quo and doing something about them. Its conservative and overdetermined
nature directs our attention toward consensus and away from troubling issues such as deviance and resistance, limiting the ways in which we can
recognize oppressive practices and actually do something to change them.
A more useful way to think of administrators’ tendency to present themselves in a variety of ways as they communicate with others is in terms of
the concept of identity. More recent approaches to identity depart from
role theory’s overdetermined and static categories and its conservative
stance to adopt a more realistic view that acknowledges human agency
without sacrificing the social element and provides possibilities for changing the status quo.
Recent views on identity provide promising ways of understanding the
variable ways in which people come to communicate (Foucault, 1979,
1980, 1982; Hall, 1991, 1997). These perspectives acknowledge that who
people are, how they see and present themselves to others, depends on the
social circumstances in which they find themselves. These social environments set up a range of fluid positions for people to occupy. This view of
identity departs from the more static and essentialist views that see it as
something permanently associated with individual selves. Instead, proponents of this perspective see identity as being radically social and fluid
(Jameson, 1991); people take on different and sometimes contradictory
identities in different social contexts.
It is all too easy, however, to overemphasize, as some of the more extreme poststructural versions do, the ephemeral nature of identity, to see
individuals as merely a collection of separate, disparate, and sometimes
contradictory identities that are intimately and exclusively tied to the
current and ever-changing circumstances. Doing so overlooks the
residue of past experiences and identities and ignores the threads that
connect the various identities. People continually draw on their memories, experiences, and past identities to shape how they step into their
current identities (Carpentier, 2005). And even though they will inevitably take on different identities in different contexts, their past and
current selves will continually intrude on the character of their identities
in progress. So although principals may see themselves as teachers in
one setting and students in another, the way that they occupy these identities will be linked to these past experiences and identities. It also means
that this will affect the ways in which they present themselves and the
manner in which they approach dialogue and promote inclusion in their
respective settings.
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
346
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 346
JAMES RYAN
A number of scholars who study diversity and identity have embraced
this view of identity (Hall, 1991; McCarthy, 1993; Rattansi, 1992, 1999;
[Q5:
Ryan, 1997). [Q5:]This was not always the case though. At one time, many
Please
“multicultural” and “antiracist” researchers presented images of individuinclude als and groups that were generally uniform and essentialist (Rattansi,
Rattansi 1992). They did so because it suited their analytic and political purposes at
1999 in the time. More recently, those exploring diversity and identity have favored
list.]
a more fluid and contingent form of identity. For example, although they
may continue to believe that ethnicity is a powerful and durable force
[Q6:
(May, 1999), [Q6:]they acknowledge that individuals may see themselves
Please
as family members, wage earners, students, friends, gangbangers, citizens,
include professionals, activists, and so on. These identities may be consistent or
in list.] contradictory, and those that individual subjects employ will depend on
the context in which they find themselves.
This concept of identity brings a number of advantages when exploring
the complexities of dialogue and inclusion in diverse schools. First, it acknowledges the agency of actors. Unlike role theory, where scripts are predetermined, this view of identity provides space for people to improvise
their acting, to have a hand in writing their own scripts as it were, but nevertheless within limited and limiting parameters. Second, it acknowledges
that people can resist or change dominant scripts. As agents, people have
the ability to short-circuit the social currents that run through them and
make them who they are (Ryan, 1998). With the capacity to shape scripts,
they can identify oppressive and exclusive scripts and social conditions
and so change the conditions associated with those circumstances.
Administrators take on many identities as they engage in their day-today activities. These identities have a significant impact on the way in
which they conduct themselves in their positions, including the way in
which they engage in dialogue (Collinson, 2006). One of the significant
identities that administrators assume is that of mediator (Gleeson & Shain,
2003). Such an identity is particularly evident in diverse contexts (Anderson, 1990). But like all others, these identities are complex; they display a
variety dimensions that are tied to one another and other related identities
in complementary and contradictory ways.
Anderson (1990) breaks down mediation in a helpful way. He approaches it from the perspective of legitimation. In his view, administrators become mediators to ensure the rightness of their organizations’ control strategies. They intervene to ensure that the everyday experiences of
the members of the school community are consistent with the common beliefs about what schools should be doing. Administrators cannot have their
students, parents, and teachers thinking that their schools do not emulate
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 347
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
347
these ideologies. So they must mediate. Mediation in this sense consists of
intervening in conflict at the point of open contention and in managing
meaning. It also involves resolving contradictions in one’s own thinking.
Anderson (1990) refers to conflict intervention as active mediation and
the management of meaning as symbolic mediation. This study explores
how administrators take up the various active and symbolic mediator identities, how this influences the character of their dialogue and their efforts
at inclusion, and how they resolve contradictions in their thinking about
dialogue and inclusion.
THE STUDY
The study revolved around face-to-face interviews with 30 principals and
two case studies. This article reports on the interview portion of the
study. A qualitative methodology (Kirby & McKenna, 1989; Merriam, 1998)
was employed because it was thought to be the most appropriate way to
generate insight into how a variety of administrators approached communication in their diverse settings and how this communication influenced
inclusion. Qualitative interviews were particularly well suited to this
study because appear as the best way to understand the complexities of
communicating in these settings, to get a sense of this communication as
a process, and to give these administrators a voice in how the process was
depicted (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Kirby, Greaves, & Reid, 2006; Merriam,
1998). Although observation would have also generated useful data, the
limited resources available dictated that observation be restricted to the
two case studies, which are not reported here. Interviewing, however, was
the preferred data collection strategy because in this case, it proved to
“get better data or more data at less cost than other tactics” (Merriam,
1998, p. 72).
The principals worked in 30 schools that were located in two school districts in and around a large North American city. The more central areas of
these districts displayed a high degree of diversity—the product, at least in
part, of changing immigration patterns. A shift in immigration policy
around 40 years ago made it easier for people from other parts of the world
to come to here. Since that time, school districts in larger cities have seen
a dramatic increase in people who are not of European heritage. The 2001
census indicated that 60% of city residents were of European heritage. Of
the many other groups, the most numerous included those of East Asian
(15%), South Asian (11%), Caribbean (6%), African (3%), Arabic and Western Asian (3%), South and Central American (2%) and Aboriginal heritage
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
348
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 348
JAMES RYAN
(1%; Ornstein, 2006). In 2001, 44% of residents were born outside of the
country. The most striking thing about the diversity breakdown, though, is
the rapid increase of non-White residents. It is predicted that non-White
people will outnumber Whites as soon as 2017 (Harvey & Houle, 2006). Another indication of this diversity is the number of language groups; some
schools in this study catered to upward of 60. Schools in the outer regions
of the city are now also becoming more diverse, but this diversity has only
recently made its presence felt. Various economic backgrounds also cut
across geographical region, ethnicity, and immigration status. For example, one school that became part of the study was attended by well-off students from Hong Kong, whereas two other schools served communities of
working poor who were born in country. Some school communities were
distinctly middle class or working class, whereas others displayed various
mixes of social class background.
I adopted a purposive sampling technique. I selected principals by virtue
of the type of school in which they worked and not by their reputations as
good communicators or champions of inclusion. I employed this strategy
because I believe that it represents the best way to get a sense of how a
range of administrators communicated in these settings and what consequences it had for inclusion. I was not initially worried about getting participants to talk about communication and inclusion. As it turned out, I
was right. Virtually all the principals in the study emphasized how important they believed communication was in their jobs, and they talked at
great length about their practices. Fewer spoke at length about inclusion.
A number of them talked about their concern with issues of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia and their efforts to meaningfully include
members of disadvantaged groups in their school communities—students,
educators, and parents—in governance and learning activities. But I also
learned much about inclusion—not all of it useful in promoting its practice—from those who did not prioritize it.
I sought to select schools that represented various degrees of diversity,
a mix of elementary and secondary, and different sizes. Ideally, I wanted
schools that displayed ranges of economic, heritage, ethnic, religious, and
language differences. Schools were eventually selected after perusing census data and consulting with district officials. Some had only a few students of European heritage, whereas in other schools, these students were
the majority. Of the entire sample, only six schools were located in what
could be considered less diverse areas—that is, in areas where almost all
students were of European heritage. In some schools, students spoke up
to 60 different languages; in other schools, most of the students and their
parents were immigrants. Schools also displayed a range of economic con-
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 349
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
349
ditions. All schools, though, displayed some diversity—whether it was ethnic, linguistic, religious, or economic or through differences in age, gender,
ability, and sexual orientation. More elementary schools (n ! 20) than secondary schools (n ! 10) were selected, simply because the former outnumbered the latter by a ratio of a least 3 to 1 in the two school districts.
School sizes ranged from 150 students to 2,000. Seven schools had student
populations of over 1,500, and three were below 500. The rest catered to
between 500 and 1,500 students.
Principals were contacted by phone, and those who agreed were visited
in person. Interviews ranged in length from 40 to 90 minutes. Most interviews were punctuated with interruptions—an indication of the hectic nature of the job. Some—generally, the elementary principals—showed the
interviewer around the school. An interview protocol was followed, and interviews were recorded and transcribed.
I initially targeted 30 principals because I felt that this number would
provide enough data to understand dialogue and difference in the various
contexts in which the administrators worked. I wanted to see how dialogue played out in schools of different sizes and levels and in areas that
displayed different mixes of ethnicities and social classes, and I thought
that fewer than 30 participants might not provide data to illuminate such
differences. This number proved to be pretty close to an appropriate one.
As the number of interviews approached 30, the data began to get repetitive, indicating a saturation point (Merriam, 1998).
The study initially revolved around research questions that sought to
probe how administrators initiated and sustained dialogue in their diverse
school communities and how their strategies affected inclusion. These research questions and the more specific ones that I asked the administrators were guided by the literature in the area—cited earlier—that pointed
to the difficulties of putting dialogue into practice. I wanted to find out
how dialogue was initiated and sustained by administrators of diverse
schools, what issues they encountered, and what successes they experienced. Toward this end, I asked them general questions about their communication strategies and probed issues associated with dialogue (e.g.,
identity), the difficulty associated with dialogical questioning, the slow
pace of progress, and implicit messages of exclusion and inferiority—issues that Ellsworth (1989) and Shields (2003) raise. The issue of mediation,
however, was not an initial area of interest. Only after analyzing the first
few interviews did it emerge as important.
The research became more focused after the initial data analysis. This initial analysis was conducted after the first 10 interviews were completed. Simultaneously analyzing and collecting data is a standard qualitative research
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
350
[Q7:
Please
include
in list.]
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 350
JAMES RYAN
strategy (see, e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Merriam,
1998). It enables the research to appropriately focus and shape the study.
Using the constant comparative method (Glasser & Strass, 1976) [Q7:]and
the N6 computer program (QSR International, 2003), a number of themes
were identified and subsequently coded. It was at this point that two things
became immediately apparent. First, it was evident that the ways in which
these administrators communicated with others depended on context. Second was the central place of mediation. Even at this early stage, the mediator theme was a powerful one. In one way or another, every one of the 10
principals spoke of assuming mediator positions when they were communicating with others in their communities. I subsequently explored the issue of
mediation in the literature—particularly, Anderson’s work (1990)—and
when the interviews with the remaining 20 principals resumed, the interview
protocol changed. I now included questions that pointedly asked them about
this mediator identity, including their potential positioning as a negotiator,
interpreter, and informer. When this second round of interviews was completed, the rest of the interviews were analyzed. Using Anderson’s mediator
categories of active and symbolic as a general guide, I identified a number
of associated themes, such as that of referee, interpreter, problem solver, informer, and clarifier. I subsequently classified referee and problem solver as
active mediators and interpreter, informer, and clarifier as symbolic mediators. Another theme included the ways in which administrators dealt with
contradictions associated with mediation and dialogue.
The rest of the article elaborates on these mediator identities and the
consequences for dialogue and inclusion. The data are presented in three
sections: active mediation, symbolic mediation, and mediation contradictions.
ADMINISTRATORS AS MEDIATORS
Administrators in the study maintained that the diverse contexts within
which they worked influenced how they communicated. Responding in appropriate ways required that they adjust to a range of different situations
and individuals. Rob is one such administrator. The principal of a diverse
high school, he is proud of the way in which he is able to communicate
with a range of people in multiple contexts:
You have to put on a different hat depending on who you are dealing with. In
certain situations, if I’m trying to get a parent on board and to get them to understand that this kid is having trouble, I can only come across to you as an
administrator now. [That is] the role I play and the stance I play. . . . You are
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 351
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
351
an actor. In essence you become an actor because you have to play the scene
according to the script that is before you. . . . If I have to chastise a kid or
whatnot, I have to put on a different hat and a different face and communicate that or take a hard line or take a softer line depending. That’s how you
communicate. If I had been a drama major, I could’ve been more of an effective communicator.
Rob articulates perhaps what most other administrators in this study observed about their communication practices—that they had to approach
different situations and partners in very different ways. Rob and the other
administrators believed that being an effective communicator required
that they adjust their practices to the variety of circumstances that they encountered. For his part, Rob uses a role metaphor to describe how he adjusts. He portrays himself as an actor who slips in and out of various roles.
In a sense, these roles are already laid out for him, and he follows the
scripts that are associated with them. According to Rob, the degree to
which he is able to communicate effectively depends on the ways in which
he can animate these roles. He believes that effective communicators in diverse settings are, by default, accomplished actors.
Rob uses the concept of role to describe the variable ways in which he
feels that he must act in various communicative scenarios. But his colloquial use of the term does not coincide with the meaning of role that academics have attributed to it over the years. He does not see a role as an impersonal position that he occupies. Rather, Rob acknowledged in
subsequent dialogue that he has the capacity to shape what happens in various situations. He says that “your personality plays a large part in how you
can communicate effectively.” Although it is not clear exactly what he
means by “personality,” he is nevertheless indicating the place that self
plays in communication activities. Rob builds on this view, stating that
“you create your own script.” Clearly, he is acknowledging that he must improvise in the diverse contexts in which he communicates and that this improvisation will be tied to the person he is—that is, to his identity.
Administrators talked about various administrator-related identities.
The most common one was that of mediator. It is really not surprising that
many administrators saw themselves as mediators in dialogical situations,
given the diverse contexts within which they worked. Most found themselves in the position of interacting with many groups that knew little
about the school system and about each other and with educators who
were unfamiliar with their communities (see Ryan, 2003). All were faced
with introducing reams of government reforms to their schools and the polarization of themselves and teachers, the consequence of the recent
forced removal of administrators from the teacher unions. The result was
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
352
7:28 AM
Page 352
JAMES RYAN
that administrators frequently found themselves positioned between the
various different constituencies in their domains. They saw themselves as
go-betweens. Mediators. June, a veteran principal of a diverse elementary
school, reflects the sentiments of many administrators:
Mediation is the whole job. In fact that’s pretty much what you do. You’re mediating between parents and teachers, sometimes, between parents and their
own children, at times, between students. I do a lot of peer mediation with
students to solve problems. You’re mediating teacher to teacher. You’re mediating yourself with teachers. You’re trying to mediate just about all day.
That’s all you do.
June’s comments speak to the importance of mediation among and between various groups. She believes that it is necessary because of the differences between the various constituencies in her school community.
The differences not only emerge between groups but also cut across
them. That is, she sees herself mediating not just between parents and
teachers but within these groups as well. Others see themselves as mediators between their school communities and the government and
“boards.” Bob, an administrator of a diverse high school, acknowledges
that he needs to act as a buffer between his school community and the
school board.
The administrator] has always been something [of a] a buffer zone between
what the board is expecting and how teachers feel, and finding the common
ground from which to address issues and changes from the different perspectives. So I believe that we often are the communicator with board policies, procedures. And then also vice versa, letting the board know about
what the issues are, what the students and staff [are feeling].
As mentioned, the practice of mediation and the identity of mediator are
complex. They subsume a number of associated practices and identities.
Following Anderson (1990), the mediator identities break down into active
and symbolic categories. Active mediation is associated with referee and
problem-solver identities, whereas symbolic mediation comprises interpreter, informer, and clarifier identities.
ACTIVE MEDIATION
Principals assume identities as active interveners as they engage in dialogue in diverse settings. They find it necessary to slip into these identities
because of the conflict that inevitably arises in their settings. For example,
Alice (a principal) said, “It’s just that when you put 1,400 teenagers in one
spot, you shouldn’t be surprised that you have differences of opinion on a
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 353
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
353
number of issues.” As such, two common intervener identities include
those of problem solver and referee.
Referee
Administrators step into the referee identity to diffuse open conflict. Although not pervasive, physical and verbal confrontations do occur on a
regular basis for most of these administrators. When they did occur, administrators and their staffs found themselves engaged in a particular kind
of dialogue with the combatants. For the most part, their communication
efforts in these cases were geared to diffuse the conflict. Janice, for example, a high school administrator, says that in these situations between
adversaries, she and her teachers
try and separate them. And staff are quite good at taking one person, taking
the other. And basically my first comment to them is “I want to hear your
story” or “I want to hear what happened to you” and so I’m not necessarily
saying, “I know it’s your fault.” I’m just giving them air time and time to tell
me what happened. I do find that the way you initially handle something, regardless of gender, is more important than gender and size. And kids are
kids, and people are people. I think they respect fair, they respect being listened to, and they respect, I think a sense of calm and not being yelled at. I
hate yelling, ever since I was very small, I have a huge aversion to yelling. . .
. What I keep thinking to myself is that I don’t want to be treated that way,
and so if I don’t want to be treated that way, I’m not going to treat somebody
else that way.
In these situations, the overriding concern is to put an immediate end to
the conflict. With this in mind, Janice adopts a conversational approach designed to separate and calm the combatants. She does not use inflammatory or directive language, opting instead to give students a chance to air
their grievances. More than this though, Janice prefers not to raise her
voice. Her experiences with yelling have led her to realize that raised and
authoritative voices and language do not help these situations. And so she
chooses instead to convey respect for combatants by listening, keeping her
voice low, and employing respectful language. Janice is able to do so because of the unique way that she steps into her referee identity, an identity
that has been shaped by her history with conflict.
Problem Solver
Administratorssee themselves as problem solvers. This problemsolver identity generally emerges when initial confrontations have been
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
354
Page 354
JAMES RYAN
diffused or situations involve more chronic differences. In these circumstances, administrators generally bring people together and use language that helps them understand the situation and come to a truce or
solution.
A principal of a large diverse secondary school, Porter likes to bring in
families if he perceives a danger of the conflict becoming “ethnic”—that is,
escalating from a one-on-one confrontation to an all-out war between
groups of students from different ethnicities.
So when we get those kinds of things, then we really try to go to great lengths
to getting the families to come in and talk with us. And we’ll have group sessions. And we know that there are going to be risks in there, that people feel
you’re reacting on a group basis. But we’ve had some success in terms of saying “On the contrary, what we’re doing is to react here at this level so it doesn’t become a group kind of thing.” And we’ve had, I’d say pretty fair success.
And one of the great satisfactions in that, for me, is seeing parents of vastly
different backgrounds coming to realize that they have a commonality,
they’re both parents and they want the best for their kids.
In these situations, Porter does what many other principals do: He attempts to help the respective parties reach some common ground. Donna
is more articulate about such an approach. She said that she prefers to
just sit down and talk. Sit down and talk, look for common ground, areas
where we can agree. Look for common solutions, make both of us part of
that solution. “How can we fix it? What can we do? How can we make it better for you?” Even when I’m dealing with students and conflicts between students, I much prefer sitting the students down and sort of mediating and
working out a solution between the two of them, rather than just a strict disciplinary approach.
Donna went on to say,
I do a lot of that back and forth. Because I’ll say to them, “Now what you’ve
said would mean this to me. Is that what you meant? Or is that what was actually said? Is that the word that was actually used?” Kind of thing. And make
sure that it’s really accurate. It takes a huge part of our day.
Donna happens to be a former school guidance counselor, and the spirit
of her former identity is still with her. Her mediator–problem-solver identity is supplemented in this case by her counselor identity. She approaches many of these situations as if she were still a counselor, noting
that it helps her considerably. Her past experience has provided her with
many skills, options, and scripts. She said, however, that she prefers not
to use the classical model because it tends to become tedious. Instead,
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 355
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
355
she draws on the array of skills that she has acquired over the years and
tailors them to the situation at hand to make peace between the conflicted
parties as best she can.
Inevitably administrators in this study found it necessary to assume referee–problem-solver identities to respond to what they saw as conflict,
one of the many by-products of having so many differences in the same relatively confined space. The way in which they stepped into these identities
was shaped by their past and present identities and experiences, and this
confluence influenced the way that they communicated with others. For
example, Janice took care not to raise her voice to combatants, and Donna
employed her counseling experiences to bring together people to ease tensions between them. But the dialogue that they employed was not always
guided by inclusive principles. Instead, administrators were preoccupied
first and foremost with putting an end to conflict, often at the expense of
attaining other goals, such as inclusion. The situations in which they found
themselves prompted them to favor short-term goals (e.g., harmony) over
longer-term ones (e.g., inclusion). Legitimizing their practices and those of
their schools required that they provide an image of peacefulness rather
than inclusion. As a consequence, they employed dialogue that they believed would lead to this state, often at the expense of dialogue that would
promote inclusion.
SYMBOLIC MEDIATION
Another key dialogue-related identity in diverse settings involves symbolic intervention. Many principals saw themselves as mediators of symbols. They found themselves in positions that required them to communicate a great deal of information to members of their school
communities, but they recognized that this dissemination was not simply a matter of passing on facts to people who will readily grasp them.
Whereas principals attempted, as far as possible, to be clear about the
information and knowledge that they passed on, many recognized that
this transfer process involved issues of interpretation, which can be particularly complex in contexts of diversity. The related identities that
principals assumed in these scenarios were that of disseminator, clarifier, and interpreter.
Disseminator
Principals see themselves as disseminators of information. They acknowledge that their positions make them distributors of information.
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
356
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 356
JAMES RYAN
Peter, principal of an elementary school, for example, observed that the
communication channels go through his office:
One of the functions of the principal . . . [is to] act as an entry way to the
school. There is, certainly most the communication into the school comes
through this office. And some of it, the commercial stuff and that, gets turned
away. Stuff from the school board or from the government gets distributed
through myself, whether it goes to the staff or whether it goes to the parents
or the School Advisory Council or directly to the students. The office acts as
a conduit and a filter of any communications. And the stuff that goes out the
other way, for the most part, official communication from the school, goes
through this office going out to the school board or the province or the parents or local businesses or the rest. So I think the official communication
channels are certainly through this office.
Peter did not see himself as someone who just passes on the information
that comes to him; rather, he admitted that he is a filter of information.
Given the nature and amount of information that comes to him, he believes
that he needs to selectively choose what information he passes along.
The reasons why administrators such as Peter distribute information
vary. Some see it as something necessary to alleviate conflict, whereas others believe that it is crucial for others to have information to make good
decisions. Jane, a principal of a midsized elementary school, is one of the
latter group. She distributes knowledge
whether it is through me or through someone else, and through the people
involved, so that they can make good decisions and be comfortable, or at
least, be willing to agree or accept a decision that’s going to be made.
Roger, however, believes that legitimating what the school does requires
that he provide the missing pieces of information to those who find it difficult to accept what the school is doing:
I will provide the parameters, pieces that they may be missing. So whether it’s
policy that they don’t understand or are having difficulty accepting. But I think
first I start by validating the position that they’re coming from without necessarily in all cases agreeing with them. “Yes I can certainly relate to the way you
are feeling.” And will ask questions. Another strategy is to ask a question what
they would like to see happen. And when you get that feedback from them, then
you can go to helping them, giving them information that they’re lacking.
Clarifier
Many principals saw themselves as “clarifiers.” They recognized the importance of making sure that the messages that they conveyed to their various constituencies were clear. Joanne, for example, emphasized that “you
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 357
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
357
need to be clear; you need to be articulate about your communication.”
Joseph, however, emphasized clarity and timeliness. He said, “I keep it
clear and simple. And I do it on a timely basis; don’t leave it sit, and give
people time to respond. No tight timelines if you can avoid it. But basically
keep the message simple.” Principals had many strategies for ensuring
clarity. When communicating with parents, Maria goes over ground covered and likes to follow this up in writing. She said,
When I am talking to them, I would make sure that they feel that I have heard
them. At the end of the discussion I will say, “So this is what I heard you say
and this is what I believe you want me to do, this is what I can do, this is what
I will do.” With some parents, I will follow up in writing and just say, “to confirm our meeting today.”
Administrators also talked about situations that demanded clarity. One
involved cases where the police were involved. Many talked about the wisdom of documenting as accurately as they could the circumstances surrounding such incidents so that when they were called to the witness stand
months later, they could confidently recount relevant details. Others
talked about being careful about what they said because they were no
longer part of the teachers union. Joan said,
As a principal, you have to be careful. I mean, we’re accountable to the ministry, to our senior staff. So I always try to make sure I’m conveying the right
message. So sometimes, I’ll get information before I meet with the staff next
Tuesday morning, so that I know that what I’m saying is right. And you have
to be very careful today, in this state we’re in because we’re not part of the
federation now. . . . I can’t be a successful principal if the staff isn’t working,
if we’re not working together. So I . . . have to be careful in what I say, I don’t
want to say something which could be misinterpreted.
Many administrators felt it necessary to put much time and effort into
thinking about and crafting their messages. Janice is one of these administrators. She maintained that
sometimes I would put a note at my door and say, “Well, I can’t talk to you
now.” I had to think about what I was going to say because everything was
an important thing that I wasn’t aware of as a leader. And I was trying to
think, “But this isn’t exactly what I meant.” And so, I thought I would spend
more time clarifying such as when someone was asking me about this and
wanting an answer about something and “we are going to check.”
Interpreter
From the statements of these administrators, it is obvious that making
things clear is not always an easy thing to do, particularly in diverse contexts.
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
358
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 358
JAMES RYAN
Passing on messages is not simply a matter of apprehending unproblematic
facts and transferring them as they are to others. Instead, this process involves interpretation. An administrator must first interpret the information at
hand, reformulate it, and pass it on to others, who will also interpret the reformulation, sometimes from a perspective that is quite different from the
sender’s. So whereas clarity may be uppermost in an administrator’s mind,
the complexity of the interpretive process may make it difficult to get across
intended meanings. Sarah acknowledged that
you have to be very clear in what exactly you mean, what exactly are your
expectations. . . . I don’t know if you can really overemphasize the role of
communications because there are so many examples of times when I
thought, “This is very clear,” this was black and white in my mind. But at the
end of the day whatever happened was nowhere near what I thought or the
direction that I thought things would go.
Some administrators acknowledge that they need to assume identities
as interpreters, or meaning makers. The reason is that they find themselves
positioned between different groups and recognize that they and others
must interpret the knowledge that they encounter. Ursula is one of these
administrators. She believes that leadership involves making meaning for
others, making sense, and helping others make sense out of chaos:
That’s what you spend a lot of your time [doing]—“Can you understand
where someone else is coming from? This is what so-and-so is saying to you?
Do you understand his perspective on this issue?” You try and make meaning
for people. I think being a principal is making meaning. I mean it’s about articulating to staff, taking all of this stuff that comes down from the government, for example, and trying to make sense of that which really you need to
learn. . . . It’s a coherence-making proposition, leadership is. And I think leadership in a school and communicating is trying to make something coherent
out of all this chaos.
Administrators frequently acknowledged that there were many ways of
interpreting their messages. Some found that they could not take for
granted that groups and individuals would interpret them in the same way
that they themselves did. For example, Fred said,
If you’re sending a message out to 500 families in your communities, you can
bet it’s probably going to be interpreted 50 different ways. And some people
are going to get the message and think it’s wonderful and some people are
going to get the message and think, “What in the world are they doing?”
Others talked about the challenges of meaning making when communicating with ethnic communities. Kathy, who is principal of a diverse elementary school, said,
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 359
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
359
If you think quite frankly that you are communicating with the ethnic community, forget it. If you are, for example, thinking that they are listening to
the radio station or they are reading the newspapers, they may or may not be.
It depends on the community and even things like closing down because of
the snowstorm. They will not necessarily have heard it on the radio or whatever. They may read various newspapers from various communities and they
are not getting the same information.
Administrators in this study saw themselves as symbolic mediators. This
identity, like the active mediator identity, influenced how they communicated with others. Caught between various groups and institutions, administrators did their best to pass information along to and from members
of their diverse school communities whom they believed were lacking in
knowledge. In doing so, they took pains to make sure that their communications were clear. Some administrators, however, acknowledged that they
were engaged in a process that involved much more than merely passing
on unambiguous facts. These individuals recognized that they were also filters of such knowledge—that they were actively involved in making meaning out of the bits and pieces of information that they transferred to others. Making meaning in ways that made sense to their diverse
communities, however, frequently proved to be challenging. A number of
administrators acknowledged that it was difficult, if not impossible, to
pass on information so that all segments of diverse communities could
comprehend it in ways that enabled their inclusion in school activities.
MEDIATION CONTRADICTIONS
Anderson (1990) contends that administrators will face contradictions
as mediators. The reason why is that putting ideals into practice is seldom
a straightforward matter. It may simply not be possible or practical to follow through on such principles in the context of the press of daily life in
their schools. This proved to be true for administrators in this study who
valued inclusion. Although they believed that it was important to disseminate knowledge to everyone in their school communities, they also
thought that they had to sometimes engage in the decidedly exclusive practice of withholding information. In such cases, though, they had ways of resolving these contradictions.
As a part of their mediator identities, administrators in this study routinely communicated information to the various members of their school
communities. The product of a number of sources—including their experience, their expertise, and their unique position in their organizations—this
knowledge was in many ways exclusive; it was not something that others in
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
360
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 360
JAMES RYAN
their school communities would possess. As a consequence, it gave them a
certain amount of power, as a number of these administrators acknowledged. Roger, for example, maintained that “if you control the knowledge
or the information, you certainly have power from that process, and that
certainly happens with people in authority, you know.” But information is
seldom an array of neutral facts; it will always be interpreted in certain
ways as it is passed on. And so power will also coincide with the opportunities to frame this information. Bob said that “people in positions of power
and authority control how an issue is defined and how it is understood because they have the information and the background data or the perspective they want to promote.” Given their unique power positions, the challenge for administrators in inclusive school communities is to share their
knowledge with students, teachers, and parents and frame it in ways that
make it transparent and accessible.
The problem for inclusive-minded administrators surfaces when they become faced with situations where they believe that they cannot share information (and the accompanying power) with others or must spin it in
unique ways. Not being transparent with their school communities violates
their inclusive principles. Even so, the administrators in this study believed
that certain situations dictated that they withhold information. They referred to two kinds of situations that demanded this stance. One involved
issues of safety. Marie, an administrator of a diverse secondary school, said,
Where I am there is a lot of deciding what to tell or not tell about anticipated
violent activity. . . . And I think it’s important on one level, I think it’s important that everybody be aware of this stuff so that everybody certainly can
protect themselves, can protect the students, you know, and can diffuse the
situation. On the other hand, you think, “Now can everybody handle this information and what are they going to do with it once they get it?” So it’s a
very difficult thing.
She believes that there are certain situations where the school community cannot handle the information. These include
when you have a student who comes into the building, for example, you may
have a child who you know, we had the child who was a bank robber, we had
the child who is a sex offender, the one that builds bombs. Now for the
child’s safety as well and so you balance the school’s safety, the general population’s safety and the child’s safety, and who needs to be privy to that information.
Another problem situation occurs when administrators are privy to information about staff members. Rose, principal of an elementary school,
maintained that
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 361
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
361
sometimes that’s really difficult because maybe you don’t want to tell—and
it’s a very conflictual situation for you if you know that you hold a piece of
information that critically affects someone’s life. Like for example, they’re
going to be surplus. And then you think about the humane thing, do you tell
the person they’re going to be surplus, or do you hope that something happens and then they’re going to be surplus, or do you hope that something
happens and then they’re being pulled back into the system?
The prospect of violating valued inclusive principles can generate a certain amount of anxiety. To alleviate such angst, administrators in this study
developed rationales for their actions. One way of resolving these contradictions was for them to convince themselves that members of their school
communities needed protection from certain kinds of information. Jake,
for example, rationalized his exclusive practice of withholding information
by saying that it is sometimes necessary because certain people will not be
able to deal with particular kinds of information. He said that it is necessary to sometimes see oneself as a parent in these situations:
I think it is kind of like a parental role that there are some things you tell your
children, but if you think sometimes that it’s going to be harmful to them, you
hold that information back. Or if you think that they cannot deal with it, then
you hold back the information.
Mediator identities generate contradictions that influence communication practices. Even the inclusive-minded administrators in this study
found that they had difficulty employing dialogical practices that were always inclusive. Although they sought to be as transparent as possible, they
nevertheless found it necessary to withhold information in certain situations. These administrators felt obliged to do this because they believed
that the members of the school community—students, teachers, and parents—were not capable of dealing with particular kinds of information.
They resolved the apparent contradiction by telling themselves that it was
more important to protect these people than to include them by sharing information with them. At least one principal was able to assuage his guilt by
imagining that he was a protective parent overseeing community members
whom he saw as vulnerable children.
DIALOGUE, IDENTITY, AND INCLUSION
This article demonstrates that administrators’ dialogue in diverse school
settings is influenced by the identities that they assume within these complex contexts. Administrators take on a number of different identities
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
362
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 362
JAMES RYAN
when interacting with members of their school communities. Prominent
among these is mediator. Given the diversity within their communities, it
is not surprising to find these administrators positioned between many different groups and individuals and, as a consequence, in situations that require them to mediate conflict and disseminate information. To do this, administrators assumed a number of mediator-related identities, including
that of referee, interpreter, problem solver, informer, and clarifier. The way
in which they animated these perpetually evolving identities was influenced not just by the circumstances in which they found themselves but
also by past experiences and identities. Even so, these identities and the
dialogical practices associated with them were part of efforts to legitimate
organizational activities (Anderson, 1990). But administrators also acknowledged that they could not always follow through on valued principles, and when this happened, they looked for ways to resolve the associated contradictions.
Mediation activities may or may not be consistent with inclusive dialogue. This is due in part to the fact that mediators can never be neutral
(Brigg, 2003). Everyone who assumes a mediator identity has interests and
experiences that shape how one sees and talks about events and what one
does about them. So those mediators who are passionate about inclusion
may find ways to promote it. However, other common interests and experiences may work against inclusion. One of the most obvious obstacles is
the common interest in maintaining the school’s legitimacy. Inclusion and
perceptions of legitimacy are not always consistent, and administrators
may look to ensure legitimacy at the expense of inclusion. Experience may
also work against inclusion. Administrators with Anglo/European backgrounds may routinely filter information in ways that exclude people from
other ethnicities (Ryan, 2003). These interests and experiences make it difficult to establish structures for community members to engage in inclusive dialogue, critique exclusive and oppressive social structures, and engage in critical self-reflection.
The mediator identity both promoted and obstructed the establishment
of structures for inclusive dialogue in schools. On one hand, active mediation can provide people with the space to have their say. Referee and problem-solver identities generally complement processes that bring people together to talk about issues of difference and allow the respective parties to
voice their concerns. On the other, mediators are never neutral. Not all administrators in the study accepted this fact, however. Some were convinced that they needed to assume a neutral stance as active and symbolic
mediators. Even though research indicates that mediators routinely favor
one party over the other and thus restrict what they can say and eventually
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 363
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
363
do (Garcia, Vise, & Whitaker, 2002), these administrators believed that they
could adopt an impartial approach to their referee and problem-solving activities. Some also believed that their task was to clarify information, implying that it was possible to pass on objective facts to different others.
Not all participants bought into this view, however. A few acknowledged
the complexity of their symbolic tasks. They recognized that they were interpreters of information, doubted that their diverse communities would
understand their messages in the way they did, and acknowledged that
their interpretations represented their own unique perspectives.
Mediator interests can impede inclusive dialogue. One of the most obvious administrator interests involved the preoccupation with maintaining
harmony in their organizations. As part of their quest to legitimate their institutions, participants in the study routinely practiced acts such as keeping information to themselves in the belief that they could better ensure
harmony in their schools. Such efforts at promoting harmony, however, are
uniquely Western (Briggs, 2003). In contrast to some non-Western approaches, Western mediation tends to favor harmony and overlook the
positive effects of conflict. The problem with this is that it can override the
impetus to change unjust practices, given that change often comes about
in response to conflict, which itself can be a symptom of widespread forms
of injustice (Schoeny & Warfield, 2000). When administrators in this study
stepped into their active mediator roles, many sought first and foremost to
put an end to conflict. In a sense, their approach was pragmatic. They
looked to the here and now and in doing so, isolated conflict from wider
issues of racism, sexism, and so on. Administrators felt more comfortable
stifling conflict at the point of origin than they did linking it to more pervasive conflict or injustice, particularly if it meant identifying such practices in their own institutions (see, e.g., Ryan, 2003). But approaching conflict in this manner cut off possibilities for recognizing or changing
practices that systematically excluded or marginalized individuals and
groups.
Assuming mediator identities does not always put administrators in positions that prompt them to encourage and take part in conversations that
seek out and critically examine exclusive and unjust practices. In fact, they
may be engaged in just the opposite—denying the existence of these practices. Administrators often find themselves mediating between community
members and the school. At times they will have to justify what the school
is doing. This may require them to defend the school against charges from
the community that it does not work in the interests of some groups. In this
capacity, it is not unusual to find administrators denying the presence of
racism in their schools, for example (Ryan, 2003). For some administrators,
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
364
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 364
JAMES RYAN
admitting that racism exists may seriously undermine their institutions’ legitimacy and, because they see themselves as being responsible for it, ultimately reflect badly on their own abilities.
Mediator identities may or may not lead to critical self-reflection. The
data from this study indicate that some administrators do reflect on their
positions. A number of them admit to the limitations of their perspectives.
However, many do not. They are too busy caught between various groups
and the school, concerned with generating harmony and ensuring the
school’s legitimacy to step back and reflect on the state of their practice.
Such a preoccupation limits efforts to engage in and promote inclusive dialogue.
Dialogue is important in diverse contexts. But if administrators and
teachers are to engage in dialogue that promotes inclusion, they need to be
aware of how the identities and, in particular, the mediator identities that
they assume within these contexts can work against this end. Only then
can they begin to shape these identities to work for inclusion.
Importance of learning about one’s own
diversity is explicit.
Importance of learning other perspectives
on diversity (different than one’s own) is
explicit.
Importance of learning about one’s own
diversity is implied.
Importance of learning other perspectives
on diversity (different than one’s own) is
implied.
Importance of learning to participate in a
democracy is explicit
Importance of understanding social issues
such as racism, poverty, human rights is
explicit
Importance of taking action toward social
issues is explicit
(coninued )
Importance of interpersonal, intrapersonal,
intellectual, etc., development is explicit.
Importance of interpersonal, intrapersonal,
intellectual, etc., development is
implied.
7:28 AM
Importance of learning to participate in a
democracy is implied
Importance of understanding social issues
such as racism, poverty, human rights is
implied
Importance of taking action toward social
issues is implied
High expectations in academic and
nonacademic areas is explicit
Clear, explicit, or recurring (3)
High expectations in academic and
nonacademic areas is implied
Socially Just Student Learning
Implied or moderately present (2)
10/16/07
Sociopolitical development
Unclear whether learning to participate
in democratic processes is valued
Unclear whether students should
understand social issues such as
racism, poverty, human rights
Unclear whether students should take
action toward social issues
Subject matter achievement
Unclear whether there are high
expectations for student achievement
in academic and nonacademic
content area
Personal development
Unclear whether interpersonal,
intrapersonal, intellectual, etc.
development is important. [or]
Academics seem to be the only
important thing students should learn
Diversity development
Unclear whether it is important to learn
about one’s own or others diversity
Diversity is primarily for “holidays”—
MLK Jr. Day, etc.
Unclear, unknown, or not expected (1)
Appendix: Rubric for Scoring Screening Interviews
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
Page 365
[Q: For
space
consideration,
I moved
the content of
the farleft column
into separate
rows
(eg,
Subject
matter
achievement);
however, I
am not
quite
sure
where
Socially
Just
Student
Learning and
Socially
Just
Teaching go.
Is my
placement
correct?]
Metaphor of service-delivery system to
facilitate the learning of students with
special needs is apparent (services are
brought to these students as maximally
possible)
Awareness of possible institutional bias
(e.g., labeling, tracking) toward students
traditionally underserved is apparent
Importance of all students and their
differences belonging in the classroom
is explicit
Importance of safe and caring classroom
is explicit
Importance of positive relationships
between teachers and students,
students and students is explicit
Importance of safe and caring classroom
is implicit
Importance of positive relationships
between teachers and students,
students and students is implied
7:28 AM
Metaphor of service-delivery system to
facilitate the learning of students with
special needs is implied (services are
brought to these students as maximally
possible)
Awareness of possible institutional bias
(e.g., labeling, tracking) toward students
traditionally underserved is implied
Importance of all students and their
differences belonging in the classroom
is implied
High classroom expectations for all
students, regardless of background or
ability, in academic and nonacademic
areas is explicit
Clear, explicit, or recurring (3)
High classroom expectations for all
students, regardless of background or
ability, in academic and nonacademic
areas is implied
Socially Just Teaching
Implied or moderately present (2)
10/16/07
Equitable inclusion
Metaphor of “pull-out” system to “fix”
students with special needs
Unclear whether differences should be
valued
Students may be uncritically labeled or
tracked
Achievement rigor
Unclear whether classrooms should
have high achievement expectations
for all students
Students, their backgrounds, or abilities
are blamed for lack of achievement
Ethic of care
Unclear whether classrooms should be
safe or caring
Unclear whether positive relationships
are important in the classroom
Unclear, unknown, or not expected (1)
Appendix: Rubric for Scoring Screening Interviews (continued )
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
Page 366
Social reconstructionist
Unclear whether classrooms should
discuss social issues or take action
toward addressing them
Differentiated pedagogy
Unclear whether classrooms should be
capable of meeting different and individual
learning needs of students
Importance of understanding,
problematizing, and taking action
toward social issues in classrooms is
implied
Implication that educators should have
abilities and multiple strategies to meet
the needs of all students in the class
Implication that educators should know
how to communicate with students of
different backgrounds
Importance of understanding,
problematizing, and taking action
toward social issues in classrooms is
explicit
Apparent that educators should have
abilities and multiple strategies to meet
the needs of all students in the class
Apparent that educators should know how
to communicate with students of
different backgrounds
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 367
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
368
7:28 AM
Page 368
JAMES RYAN
REFERENCES
Anderson, G. (1990). Toward a critical constructivist approach to educational administration: Invisibility, legitimation and the study of non-events. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(1), 38–59.
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brigg, M. (2003). Mediation, power, and cultural difference. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 20(3), 287–306.
Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Carpentier, N. (2005). Identity, contingency and rigidity: The (counter) hegemonic
constructions of the identity of the medial professional. Journalism, 6(2),
199–219.
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followship: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179–189.
Connell, R. (1983). Which way is up? Essays on class, sex and culture. Boston:
George Allen & Unwin.
Edwards, M., & Shields, C. (2002, May). Dialogic leadership: Promise or fad?
Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39–62). London: Falmer.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interview and other writings
1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.),
Michel Foucaul: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Garcia, A. C., Vise, K., & Whitaker, S. P. (2002). Disputing neutrality: A case study
of bias complaint during mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(2),
205–230.
George, G. H. (1989). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. Marshall, Trans.)
[Q8: This
(2nd ed.). New York: Crossroad. [Q8:]
item was Getzels, J., & Guba, E. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process.
not cited
School Review, 65, 423–441.
in text.
Gleeson, D., & Shain, F. (2003). Managing ambiguity in further education. In N. BenPlease innett, M. Crawford, & M. Cartwright (Eds.), Effective educational leadership
clude or
(pp. 229–246). Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
delete
Glesne,
C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introducfrom list.
tion. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Longman.
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 369
Administrators as Mediators in Diverse School Contexts
369
Goffman, I. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
[Q9: This
[Q9:]
Hall, S. (1991). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In A. D. King (Ed.), item was
Culture, globalization and the world-system: Contemporary conditions for not cited
in text.
representation of identity (pp. 41–68). Birmingham: State University of New
Please inYork.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: clude or
delete
Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 13–74). London:
from
Sage.
list.]
Harvey, E., & Houle, R. (2006). Demographic changes in Canada and their impact
on public education. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Learning Partnership.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (1987). Educational administration: Theory, research and
practice (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or the cultural logic of late capitalism.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kirby, S., Greaves, L., & Reid, C. (2006). Experience, research, social change: Methods beyond the mainstream (2nd ed.). Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
Kirby, S., & McKenna, K. (1989). Experience, research, social change: Methods
from the margins. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Garamond.
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McCarthy, C. (1993). After the canon: Knowledge and ideological representation in
the multicultural discourse on curriculum reform. In C. McCarthy & W.
Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity and representation in education (pp.
289–305). London: Routledge.
Merriam, S. D. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ornstein, M. (2006). Ethno-racial groups in Toronto, 1971–2001: A demographic
and socio-economic profile. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Social Research.
QSR International. (2003). N6 (NUD*IST Version 6) [Computer software]. Doncaster, Australia: Author.
Rattansi, A. (1992). Changing the subject? Racism, culture and education. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi (Eds.), Race, culture and difference (pp. 11–48). London:
Sage.
Ryan, J. (1997). Student communities in a culturally diverse school setting: Identity,
respresentation and association. Discourse, 18(1), 37–53.
Ryan, J. (1998). Critical leadership for education in a postmodern world: Emancipation, resistance and communal action. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 3(1), 257–278.
Ryan, J. (2002). Inclusive leadership for diverse schools: Initiating and sustaining
dialogue. In H. Fennell (Ed.), The role of the principal in Canada (pp.
119–141). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig.
Ryan, J. (2003). Leading diverse schools. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
07_643_04_Ryan.qxd
370
10/16/07
7:28 AM
Page 370
JAMES RYAN
Schoeny, M., & Warfield, W. (2000). Reconnecting systems maintenance with social
justice: A critical role for conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal, 16(3),
153–168.
Shields, C. (2003). Good intentions are not enough: Transformative leadership for
communities of difference. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Shields, C. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of
silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 111–134.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shor, I., & Friere, P. (1987). What is the “dialogical method” of teaching? Journal of
Education, 169(3), 11–31.
Smyth, J. (1989). A “pedagogical” and “educative” view of leadership. In J. Smyth
(Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 179–204). London:
Falmer.
Watkins, M., & Winters, K. (1997). Intervenors with interests and power. Negotia[Q10:
tion Journal, 13(2), 119–142. [Q10: ]
This item Zohor, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
was not
cited in
text.
James Ryan is professor and codirector of the Centre for Leadership and DiverPlease
sity at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto in
include
or delete Canada. His interests are in the areas of leadership, inclusion, and social justice.
His most recent books include Leading Diverse Schools and Inclusive Leadership
from
(2003).
list.]