View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Transforming Context and Developing Culture in Schools.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Transforming Context and Developing Culture in Schools.
Language: English
Authors: Burrello, Leonard C., Reitzug, Ulrich C.
Source: Journal of Counseling and Development. Jul-Aug 1993 71(6):669-677.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 1993
Document Type: Reports - Research
Journal Articles
Descriptors: Administrator Attitudes, Cultural Influences, Educational Environment, Elementary Education, Elementary Schools, Middle Schools, Principals, Teacher Attitudes
ISSN: 0748-9633
Abstract: Examined how principals and staffs of four elementary schools and two middle schools assessed context of their schools and how they responded to contextual factors. Analyzed data within and between sites to develop cross-site summary of factors. Four factor clusters emerged and were examined in terms of context, school responses, and resultant cultural change. (Author/NB)
Journal Code: CIJJAN1994
Entry Date: 1994
Accession Number: EJ468256
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGLPixheDPkUpsys7lCISzVAAAA5DCB4QYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHTMIHQAgEAMIHKBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDGck6tXN5fB0VCy0AIBEICBnH3g3wHtScdMH6utIYwe6MrT74L8YaeY-XBpLkSMoljldav75lNqKDtOc-zrTI32HEYRJZcVxVK98TCYzm8lZv7SZNM45nbWz9ppkRe4BVr5nKKTPIrOafYBNKngGhungX2YQbeoqAzPIdDa2t98n-AvFUOuVejlOrbigzbb45munSzFB6YNbnDsXw76BxWeizUWKqc2T7mCUSZ-VQ==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN9308177191;jcd01jul.93;2005Mar02.15:43;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN9308177191-1">Transforming Context and Developing Culture in Schools </title> <p>The major premise of this research was that significant cultural change occurs when school leaders and their staff use their external and internal context to shape innovations that affect the "program regularities" of schooling. The authors conducted interviews, made observations, and studied existing documents prepared by school staff to get a descriptive peek into their school lives. The data were analyzed within and between sites to develop a cross-site summary of factors. Four factor clusters emerged and are described in terms of context, school responses, and the resultant cultural change. Five propositions were constructed on the effect of context and culture on school people at work.</p> <p>The past decade has seen the widespread emergence of the concept of organizational culture in applied fields such as business and education. For educational researchers, organizational culture has become a significant factor in the study of organizational change and, particularly, in explaining why change has not occurred despite powerful external forces. As school reform and, more recently, calls for school restructuring have continued, studies of significant change suggest that the culture of schools is inextricably linked to fundamental changes in the planning and implementation of these efforts. Deal and Peterson (1990) suggested that success in managing the reform movement at the school level will be unlikely "unless reforms are linked meaningfully to the daily realities and deep structure of life in schools" (p. 1).</p> <p>Although scholars had previously written about organizational culture (e.g., Pettigrew, 1979), it was not until the early 1980s that the concept gained increasing popularity, perhaps most notably as the result of works by Deal and Kennedy (1982) and Peters and Waterman (1982). Since the publication of these works on organizational culture, there has been a continued source of scholarship.</p> <p>The concept of organizational culture has its roots in the field of anthropology. Generally, anthropologists have described culture as " a system of ordinary, taken-for-granted meanings and symbols with both explicit and implicit content that is, deliberately and non-deliberately, learned and shared among members of a naturally bounded social group" (Erickson, 1987, p. 12). Organizational culture can be thought of as the underlying assumptions, shared values, beliefs, and ideology held by members of an organization that influence behavior and action in the organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1986). Deal and Kennedy have described organizational culture as "the way we do things around here" (1982, p.4)</p> <p>The significance of culture is that it touches all aspects of human life, including " personality, how people express themselves . . . the way they think, how they move, how problems are solved" (Hall, 1981, pa. 16). The popularity of the concept in the study of organizations, however, can be largely attributed to its link with organizational effectiveness. Although all organizations have a culture, Deal and Kennedy's (1982) and Peters and Waterman's (1982) widely read works cited the dominant effect that strong, positive cultures have on highly effective organizations. "Without exception, the dominance and coherence of culture proved to be an essential quality of the excellent companies" (Peters & Waterman, 1982, p.75). Similarly, Deal and Kennedy (1982) noted, "A strong culture has almost always been the driving force behind continuing success in American business" (p. 5). At the school level Sergiovanni (1984) has argued that "cultural and symbolic aspects . . . are essential to excellence in schooling" (p. 9).</p> <p>Positively perceived cultures have been linked to organizational effectiveness in several ways. First, they provide an unwritten set of informal norms that inform what actions are appropriate in most situations (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Specifically, the beliefs, values, and assumptions that constitute an organization's culture guide employee action and behavior. Actions that are incongruent with these cultural norms become inappropriate; those congruent with them are pursued.</p> <p>Second, in the sense that culture provides informal norms that guide action and behavior, it increases the intelligence level of the organization. New rules do not have to be developed to handle each contingency. Hall (1981) referred to this as "contexting" and noted that this is similar to programming "the memory of the system" to help it avoid information overload in an increasingly complex environment (pp. 85-86).</p> <p>Third, culture provides a positive identity for employees by linking them with excellence (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Smircich, 1983). Just as athletic teams (especially those with winning records) engender fan support, so also do organizations with strong cultures gain support from their employees. Employees feel pride in being associated with an organization they, or others, perceive in a positive light. Similar to how fans cheer more rabidly for a winner, employees put forth greater effort for positively perceived organizations.</p> <p>Fourth, culture provides a sense of meaning for individuals that engenders a sense of commitment that goes beyond self-interest (Smircich, 1983). When individuals accept the values, beliefs, and assumptions of the organization's culture as their own, they become true believers (Hoffer, 1951) in what the organization is attempting to accomplish. Their degree of commitment to fulfilling organizational tasks resembles that of a spiritual or political activist more nearly than that of a typical organizational employee. Individual needs become subordinate to organizational needs.</p> <p>Fifth, although the popularity of cultural research linked to organizational effectiveness has risen, it has also been criticized as manipulative. Developing the culture can become a newly discovered, less obtrusive, but perhaps more pervasive, way of control (Bates, 1987; Foster, 1986). Bates (1987) noted that those writing about organizational culture "are arguing for a shift from traditional forms of bureaucratic control, toward techniques of ideological control based upon the manipulation of the company culture . . . such a shift toward ideological control implies the intervention of managers in the very consciousness of workers" (p. 83). Indeed, Greenfield (1991) cited "the shaping of people and organizations" (p. 3) as one of the fundamental ethical issues of administration.</p> <p>The tension expressed in the literature encouraging and criticizing the study of leadership and culture as they relate to organizational change is based on several assumptions.</p> <p>1 . The locus of control for cultural change is the designated leader of the organization.</p> <ulist> <item>2. Cultural change is an intentional act on the part of the leader.</item> <item>3. The intent of cultural change is to satisfy the leader's needs for control or to achieve congruency between the leader's values and beliefs and organizational values and beliefs.</item> </ulist> <p>Although these assumptions undoubtedly reflect the reality of many intentionally designed cultural change efforts, from this study surfaced an alternative set of assumptions that explain how cultural change occurs in at least some schools perceived to be effective.</p> <p>1. The locus of control for cultural change is diffused between the leader and followers of the organization.</p> <ulist> <item>2. Cultural change occurs as a result of nontraditional responses to contextual conditions that are being ineffectively addressed by the traditional operating principles of the organization.</item> <item>3. The intent of nontraditional responses to contextual conditions is to more effectively address organizational problems; cultural change is a by-product of these responses.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN9308177191-2"> PURPOSE OF THE STUDY </hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine how principals and their staffs assessed the context of their schools and how they responded to contextual factors. (Reader note. Context is defined as consisting of community factors, institutional context, and beliefs and experiences. Specific factors included in these categories are location; socioeconomic status; transiency; ethnic composition; local, state, and federal programs; and the personal and professional beliefs and experiences of organizational members [see Dwyer, Barnett, & Lee, 1987]). Of specific interest was how contextually based responses challenged the operating principles that underscored program regularities and thus affected the culture of the school (Sarason, 1982).</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-3"> METHOD </hd> <hd id="AN9308177191-4"> Selection of Schools </hd> <p>The schools selected for this study were 4 elementary schools and 2 middle schools from New Mexico, Texas, and Wisconsin. A total of 15 schools were nominated by university faculty and regional or district school administrators. The nominators were asked to identify schools with distinctive leadership who were trying to change the predominant culture of their schools. They were also asked about school demography, tenure of principal, and school successes to date.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-5"> Interviews </hd> <p>Six principals, one assistant principal, and 39 teachers were interviewed individually. A set of questions was developed for the principal and a related set for teachers. In addition, teacher interviews included responses to critical incidents identified in interviews with principals. Sample interview questions were "What's it like to work here? What is it about this school that makes it special? How did it get this way?"</p> <p>Focus group interviews were also recorded and notes taken. All interview data were compiled by the principal investigator from the typed transcripts, audio-recordings, and interviewer notes (Miles & Huberman, 1984) to identify categories and themes, as well as additional questions and reactions.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-6"> Observations </hd> <p>A secondary source of data was observation of classrooms, activity centers, and playgrounds during school visitations. Observations were considered to be secondary source material because they were used to generate topics for interviews. Observations fell into two categories: (a) both formal and informal tours of the school and (b) spontaneous events (e.g., a student fight and disciplinary action). Documents</p> <p></p> <p>Documents served as another secondary source of information. Like observations, they provided topics and questions for interviews. Documents were also used to describe and understand the institutional context (Dobbert, 1984). The documents found most useful were student and faculty handbooks and school mission and goal statements. The documents obtained were summarized on document summary forms and used to develop constructions of the institutional context.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-7"> Site Analysis </hd> <p>A coding scheme was developed by the principal investigator to identify categories and themes for the purpose of organizing and retrieving data from typed and audio recordings (Miles & Huberman, 1984). A site construction was developed using the categories and themes that emerged from all interview data and documents collected. The artifacts were first developed from interviews and document analysis.</p> <p>The categories that emerged from the within-site analysis were (a) espoused beliefs about teaching and reaming, (b) principal leadership behaviors that had an effect on "program regularities" and existing norms of the school (Sarason, 1982), (c) community and institutional contextual factors, and (d) emerging or actual assumptions that guided changing practice. Additional categories were developed in most sites to include all of the site data (Miles & Huberman, 1984). A site report was resumed to each respondent to allow him or her to confirm or deny the investigator's construction of his or her words and feelings through the debriefing process. Also, categorization of site data provided the basis for analysis of data across sites.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-8"> Cross-Site Analysis </hd> <p>Data from all site visitations were standardized by means of common categories and common reporting formats starting with the initial interview protocols. Analysis of standardized data took place in four stages: (a) developing a meta-matrix, (b) clustering data, (c) identifying patterns, and (d) developing propositions.</p> <p>Once the meta-matrix was prepared, the principal investigator proceeded to cluster the data to identify commonalities and differences in themes that emerged from each category across sites (Miles & Huberman, 1984). These clusters were shared with the coauthor for his concurrence. From the cluster of common themes, propositions were developed to describe and explain (however tentatively) factors and conditions associated with highly inclusive school cultures.</p> <p>During the process of this study, we constructed an audit trail composed of (a) raw data, including tapes, transcriptions, notes, and documents; (b) products of data reduction and analysis, site reports, field notes, and interview and document forms; (c) products of data reconstruction and synthesis including category descriptions, site reports, letters and notes from respondents, and meta-analysis across thematic constructions; (d) materials related to process including research team schedules, interviews and site visits, notes on selection; and (e) correspondence between research team and notes related to debriefing.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-9"> THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF FACTORS </hd> <p>The clustering of things in common across sites forms the basis of our observations of principal and faculty leadership working together to alternately manage the current context and shape the fundamental culture(s) of a school. These constructions of schools doing something different as boundary spanners noted also serve as the basis of our propositions of how context provided the window of opportunity to study the underlying elements of school culture. Four clusters are presented representing eight themes across the six sites. The clusters serve as the unifying factors that depict what was versus what became operating practice over time. The clusters also represent the basis for an emerging mental model and strategies used by staff to implement different practices. After each set of themes is discussed, the contextual and culture factors are suggested. A tabular summary completes each cluster.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-10"> Cluster 1 </hd> <p>Beliefs valuing student diversity as enriching and holding everyone accountable for learning. In each school, faculty members quickly learned that (a) placing value on student learning and (b) recognizing that all students have worth were priorities for their school leaders. In five of the six schools, principals had turnover of virtually their entire faculties under their tenure in the schools. The words of the faculty and principals formed a chorus of voices emphasizing, "everyone has worth, everyone can be successful." One New Mexico principal whose school had a split Anglo and Hispanic population explained:</p> <p>Everybody has something unique about themselves . . . If we come from this viewpoint that all kids are special, and there is something neat about everybody, you don't talk about dark versus light skin, you talk about he's a good basketball player; she's great in art; boy!, she can read really well. That's what we focus on. In spite of the social and personal living conditions students deal with daily, we can be successful [italics added]. That is the overriding issue with us. We deal with it. We make this a safe place, a good place, a learning place, and kids develop.--Hey I can be like that person. Our students learn. That's our thing.</p> <p>In one Wisconsin elementary school, the composition of the student population included two of the city's distinct socioeconomic groups representing the upper-university community and the Southside African Americans and poor and non-English-speaking Asian Americans for a total of 34% minority enrollment. Commenting on the student diversity in this building, many staff noted:</p> <p>It is fortunate for all kids here that they have the experience of meeting all different kinds of kids and people . . . It is a real advantage . . . They are mixing .... They are learning about all different kinds of cultures.</p> <p>A teacher indicated the following:</p> <p>I think we have the kids but we don't have the categories. At first the referral rates to special education were very high. There was a real panic dealing with kids who were really different. Now we have a lot of kids referred to the building team to talk about their needs and how better to meet them.</p> <p>The student voices are also heard:</p> <p>J got a four in art. He is coming out of his shell. He is a little more confident to read in front of the class. Others volunteer to help him.</p> <p>In our Texas middle school, the teachers described their realization that these years are pivotal in the life of a student, and none should be allowed to fail.</p> <p>No child should be given up on. I've been in schools where you heard negative comments about students, lunchroom gossip about students: that person is useless. You do not hear that here. Every student here is considered worth our effort. You know whatever extra effort you have got to put forward.</p> <p>The principal observed:</p> <p>I don't have a person on this staff here who doesn't teach children first, then their subject They understand the problems pre-adolescents go through and they spend 96% of their time addressing those problems.</p> <p>At the other middle school in New Mexico, the school population was composed of three distinct groups: "Cowboys," "Indians," and the "Chicanos." The staff was equally committed to early adolescent developmental needs as well as meeting state academic standards, but they argued this was not their principal focus. '</p> <p>The student as a person seems to be the principal focus. How can we help the student grow . . . emotionally especially, to experience success regularly in a safe and orderly place.</p> <p>The teachers commented:</p> <p>We all hold the same concerns about kids. Everything we do comes to kids. We have basically become the home for these kids. We are mothers, fathers, counselors, big sisters, and big brothers for these kids. That's what our role is. And it is this kind of feeling. everybody has that type of feeling. We value what we are trying to teach our kids. We have common goals.</p> <p>Also evident were the high expectations principals held for themselves, teachers, and students. One principal talked about testing of students and his expectations for teachers.</p> <p>I breathe achievement tests. If I see gaps, I try to cover them by going back in bringing resources. Now, we're talking about all kids. When I came to the school several years ago, student achievement scores were not the best. Now, we have some of the highest in the city. And it's because we really emphasize them.</p> <p>In another school, a teacher clearly understood the expectations of the principal.</p> <p>She wanted to see students on task . . . If she didn't see excellent behavior, she wants to see us carry through with our discipline policy, and she wants to see that we had a goal in mind when we were teaching. She expects alternative grouping with different activities. Contextual and Cultural Factors</p> <p></p> <p>The internal contextual factor in changing to this direction clearly was change in the school leadership. The principals emphasized that all kids can learn under the appropriate conditions through active instructional processes. They knew their students and the home cultures and their staffs. The external contextual factor was the composition of the student populations and its unique history and socioeconomic conditions.</p> <p>The response of the school faculty to diversity, however, was not ordinary. They did not create separate programs and classrooms for students with severe learning problems; in fact, they included and celebrated the differences. They focused on individual achievement and personality differences as rich resources to be used for everyone learning. They combined the skills of their staff and engaged in team teaching and cooperative learning.</p> <p>In the Texas schools, the teachers underscored that building kids up, finding them doing things right, was the direction in which they all were working, and it brought with it an unexpected outcome. "In doing that, we were also doing it for ourselves."</p> <p>In the school with the least differences in student characteristics the principal went out and recruited two classes of students with severe disabilities to create a more diverse environment for the overwhelming majority of aforementioned average and privileged students.</p> <p>What impressed us in each setting was the commitment of the leadership to deal with diversity. In every case the staff eventually also saw the value of this position. Challenging students required challenging responses. In most cases, the faculties came to understand that they learned and taught best by working together rather than in isolation from one another. They reaffirmed that peers who share their context on a daily basis were their best resources.</p> <p> <bold> Cluster 1 Summary: Context, Response, and Resultant Cultural Change </bold> </p> <ct id="AN9308177191-11">Context Student diversity</ct> <p>Organizational Problem Differences in student ability, pathology is inherent in the child</p> <p>Former Operating Principle Focus on the group of students who are ready and prepared to learn, cut your losses</p> <p>Current Operating Principle High expectations for all; cooperative learning</p> <p>Communal Vow Everyone has worth and can succeed</p> <p>Cultural Change Celebration of difference; focus on differences as resources</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-12"> Cluster 2 </hd> <p>Leadership and faculty assuming responsibility for all students, and for one another in team configurations. Across the six schools, faculties described their experimentation with teaming as a response to dealing with an increasing student diversity and more vulnerable student and familial constellations. Forming teaching, consulting, ad hoc, and management-teaming arrangements often accompanied a new commitment to accept responsibility for all students in a school. It was succinctly expressed by an elementary principal in an innercity, New Mexico school:</p> <p>Everyone has all the students here--it isn't my kid versus your kid.</p> <p>In Wisconsin two teachers at an elementary school expressed what it meant to work in a school that housed all the district's elementary aged seriously emotionally disabled students.</p> <p>Here teachers work and care about each other. You blend in more. You have to get to know the people, it makes it more personal. We share children. Teachers don't have their own little classroom.</p> <p>Another teacher in that same school described what dealing with student failure was like in the school.</p> <p>I just lost a student who had come to school with a stack of papers indicating he was having behavioral problems . . . We started off real positive . . . But in my classroom his behavior escalated, and that wasn't the type of teaching he needed. It was difficult for him to leave my room. I thought he was mine. He was my problem but I didn't solve it . . . Here, we are not saying the boy was my problem; he was our unit's problem. We are solving problems in our environment.</p> <p>One teacher, in discussing her relationship with a peer observed:</p> <p>One person just doesn't own a child. You may be able to work well with a child in one area of their life and somebody else needs to give you some ideas to work with . . . it's not only team teaching but it is collaborative consultation. I can't begin to tell you how many ideas are generated by us teaching a subject. Neither of us could accomplish as much as we are doing because we are both communicating our perspectives and ideas.</p> <p>The second middle school in our sample spoke to the value of teaming. Their planning document highlighted six keys:</p> <olist> <item> These are our students--not my students.</item> <item> There are many ways and not just my way.</item> <item> There are goals to achieve and plans to implement the goals, including long-range as well as short-range plans and goals.</item> <item> The team must evaluate what happened last week before planning for next week.</item> <item> The team must be willing to change a plan if it appears to be going wrong.</item> <item> Team members should remember that disagreements are normal, but can and should be resolved.</item> </olist> <hd id="AN9308177191-13"> Contextual and Cultural Factors </hd> <p>In five of the six settings, the leadership and faculty came to understand that their community context characterized by high mobility of students, fragmented families, social, economic, ethnic, and cultural differences, and students with disabilities required a basic and fundamental change in the predominant teaching paradigm, school organization, and nature of teacher-to-teacher relationships.</p> <p>As teachers moved from taking responsibility for "just their own students in isolated classrooms" to "our students in teams and families," new norms emerged. One teacher said it this way:</p> <p>It's just kind of an extension of our life. I think we're aware of our community, we're aware of our parents, we're aware of our children and we feel a bond.</p> <p>A mission statement that emerged from our interviews in one building could be applied to each one we observed:</p> <p>Educate every child the best we can and in ways that are appropriate for them by encouraging teachers to assume responsibility and have the freedom to go about it in a way that is comfortable for them and for the children, and include that we must provide the motivation for reaming.</p> <p> <bold> Cluster 2 Summary: Context, Response, and Resultant Cultural Change </bold> </p> <ct id="AN9308177191-14">Context Categorical programs, student and teacher and isolation</ct> <p>Organizational Problem Ineffectiveness of individual, fragmented problem responses</p> <p>Former Operating Principle Isolationism</p> <p>Current Operating Principle Collaboration and teaming</p> <p>Communal Vow Accepting responsibility for all students</p> <p>Cultural Change Joint responsibility for all; sense of family; never facing a crisis alone</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-15"> Cluster 3 </hd> <p>Shared educational leadership and power resulted from leadership's trust, support, and concern for individual learning. The finding that leadership is a factor in transforming context and developing the culture of the school is not surprising. What is interesting about our analysis of these six principals is that each of them developed a relationship with his or her colleagues based on a set of developing or established shared values and joint models of practice. Power and influence seemed to come more from their perceived personal expertise and resourcefulness than from their position in the hierarchy. Our third communal vow became "we're in this together and we will find a way."</p> <p>Turning to the staff members in each of the six settings suggested many key leadership behaviors that illustrate the relationship between the person as principal and his or her effectiveness in creating an inclusive culture that emphasized differences as enriching. One teacher said the following:</p> <p>If I'm having a problem, I can come to her and get a hug. I respect her.</p> <p>The things that would upset her are the things that upset me.</p> <p>It wasn't surprising to hear teachers report that this principal made time for teachers she wanted to see to discuss teaching observations on her time not their instructional time. She respected the instructional function and the time to fulfill it. She also spent one entire year "reconstructing" a teacher who the staff had made an isolate in the second year of her tenure as principal. The principal spent the better part of 10 hours a week in the teacher's classroom for an entire year helping the teacher gain self-confidence and mutual respect from her peers.</p> <p>Although she created a climate of mutual respect and earned her colleagues' respect for her hard work and instructional expertise, the principal reported the staff was also very dependent on her. The teachers were reluctant after 3 years to move to school-centered decision making. Teachers were ambivalent about assuming group leadership roles, about serving as recorders, and about authority generally. When teachers were asked who was running the school, however, a teacher responded by saying,</p> <p>Teachers are running this school. Liz (the principal) is not making individual decisions. That way when something doesn't work out, teachers have to say it didn't work. It's not pointed at Liz. Gee, Liz, it's wrong, we did it.</p> <p>(Reader note. Pseudonyms are used throughout to protect the principals' anonymity.)</p> <p>A second principal had been a principal for many years in a variety of schools. In this school, the principal, Mick, was in his fifth year. Mick's staff had come very far in determining its own destiny. In Mick's view his staff was not only high powered and talented but also staff members held a mutual respect for one another. This came from their teaming within units.</p> <p>At first, we had a lot of individuals. Each teacher with their own kingdom, their own classroom, which was very much against my own philosophy . . . we went gently into teaming.</p> <p>A staff member's response to how the principal made the school a unique place was the following:</p> <p>His administrative support and trust in us is evidenced by the amount of responsibility he has given us. The power and the freedom to make our own choices, a say in budgeting, using our strengths and perspectives to make our choice a part of the school and make them happen.</p> <p>One example of his support was evident when the kindergarten staff noticed that two sections of teachers and students were struggling. The team gathered the information and designed a solution. When they pleaded their case directly to the central office, they got two aides. The significance of the effort was expressed as the following:</p> <p>Feeling, the not powerlessness feeling, we have a say in this and we do have some power to change this if we need to. That was not only a rewarding experience but it helped to reinforce the notion that this is our school and we need to do what we need to do.</p> <p>The principal's shared leadership was noted time and time again. At first, he admittedly didn't seek team input and didn't push.</p> <p>What's very important about him is whenever anybody doesn't want to deal with anything, he'll always take it back. He shares the leadership and the decision making, he doesn't DUMP IT!</p> <p>Being resourceful and supportive in times of trouble and conflict was often reflected in our conversations. For the third principal in our study teachers noted he was the following:</p> <p>Willing to put himself on the line for the well-being of kids and willing to take the guff that goes with it . . . when the first angry parents come in, others back down and take the easy way out.</p> <p>When Donna, our fourth principal, was asked about her staff reactions to her style, she shared her key concern about isolation and lack of professionalism that she believed led to a lack of recognition of teacher successes:</p> <p>I didn't see anyone congratulating one another when exciting things were going on.</p> <p>A staff member remarked:</p> <p>This is more of a student school than a teacher school. I think a lot of schools are centered around what the teachers are doing. I believe Donna has built a climate of student caring and concern.</p> <p>Working through differences, especially when Donna followed a principal of 19 years who basically shut his door after the students arrived each fall, was not a quick process. Four and a half years into her tenure, a teacher noted:</p> <p>It took 2 years to finally find the common ground with her. I really have felt her support. When you go to her with a problem, she tries to help you. When she sees progress, she will brag on you and talk about your program.</p> <p>The fifth principal, Katie, had just completed her 1 5th month on the job. The school had lost a popular principal due to illness after much controversy. The interim principal lobbied hard for a job he did not get. Due to overcrowding, staff had to split off from the district's original middle school with a long tradition of community support to come to a school on a remote country road. The school was experiencing wavering community and board support. Katie's first goal was to heal the wounds and to create some cohesiveness. A teacher noted:</p> <p>After 1 year of transition, Katie has proven herself. I think administrators have to show that they are human and we are all in this business together. People perceive education as having a hierarchy, and the way you get ahead in education is to be an administrator. I've taught for administrators who really have pulled rank. But I don't get that feeling here . . . Her human side won me over . . . Having tough decisions to make and her willingness to share them with us and not be some kind of remote person.</p> <p>Finally, our last principal, Linda, had been in the same school for 17 years, 10 as a teacher, 7 as an assistant and now as a principal. She had teamed with a colleague who basically was told 7 years ago to get the school under control. Within 2 years the school was under control and within 7, it was considered the best led in the district by her superintendent.</p> <p>A clear direction based on a philosophy of individual differences permeated the school. In addition, the staff knew the focus was on kids and giving staff as much authority as it chose to accept.</p> <p>Linda has a lot of staff members who really feel competent to take over . . . She allows us to make decisions, and we don't feel we're going to be criticized if we make the wrong decision.</p> <p>Under her leadership the staff decided to adopt a middle school family plan. Her staff developed an explicit joint model using interdisciplinary teaming. It started with a group of teachers and the two administrators at a conference.</p> <p>They let us sell it. They wanted the teachers to buy into it. They did not force it down our throats. We learned teaming and did it ourselves.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-16"> Contextual and Cultural Factors </hd> <p>From our interviews and document analysis, it was clear that all but one of these principals entered schools in need of a steward. Each school had a major external factor such as lack of community and board support, high mobility, racial and ethnic differences, disproportionate special needs students, low student achievement, and poor discipline that demanded its attention in both the short and long term. Each found faculties adrift, loosely configured, and certainly isolated.</p> <p>Each adopted a set of beliefs and big-picture assumptions (Serge, 1990) that guided its practice. Dwyer, Barnett, and Lee (1987) enlarged the definition of instructional leadership to include the "repetition of routine acts performed in accord with principals' over arching perspectives on schooling" (p. 32). From principals, voices were heard.</p> <p>I knew from my working experience with students from various cultures that the staff and parents would undergo a culture shock.</p> <p>The assumption that differences are enriching and that the faculty must model and prepare students to interact with people of color and cultures in a world of diversity became explicit in principal employment decisions and program support.</p> <p>Once the faculties came to recognize the key assumptions held by their principals, there was a great deal of faculty mobility. Each principal talked of his or her recruitment efforts to find people who understood the assumptions and the problems of shared practice in a team-oriented school. One school's planning document summarized the advantages of interdisciplinary teaming approaches:</p> <olist> <item> Rapid recognition of individual student needs</item> <item> Better understanding of the student as a person</item> <item> More continuity of instruction across subjects</item> <item> Reduction of redundancy</item> <item> Increased consistency in behavior management and discipline</item> <item> Coordination of instruction and procedures</item> <item> Capitalization of specialists and their expertise</item> <item> More involvement from resource personnel, like counselors</item> </olist> <p>The communal vow was "we are all in this together." When focused on student achievement and self-esteem, the philosophy became "we will develop our own." These leaders developed faculty leadership by focusing on a few key assumptions about their students and learning needs and recognizing student differences. They promoted teacher teaming and consultation and reminded everyone that results were expected despite student or community circumstances. They tried to direct their attention to what a staff could control and accomplish.</p> <p> <bold> Cluster 3 Summary: Context, Response, and Resultant Cultural Change </bold> </p> <ct id="AN9308177191-17">Context Changing leadership</ct> <p>Organizational Problem Divided faculties</p> <p>Former Operating Principle Hierarchical or paternalistic leadership or lack of leadership</p> <p>Current Operating Principle Shared leadership with a focus on individual students</p> <p>Communal Vow We're in this together; we will find a way</p> <p>Cultural Change Shared practice, shared decision making</p> <p>Cluster 4</p> <p>Treating students with dignity by moving from external control to an internal locus of control. In all of the schools, principals and teachers shared their concerns about how students were disciplined to ensure compliance with school and teacher rules. We were impressed with the uniformity of parent and student handbooks detailing school disciplinary procedures. Unacceptable behavior and the consequences were clearly outlined. Still, discussions with principals and teachers suggested that the legal need to inform parents and students of disciplinary criteria was not the whole of their concerns. The communal vow became respecting the dignity of each child.</p> <p>Principals and teachers questioned the "assertive discipline movement" as an isolated strategy not integrated with curricular, instructional, and learning issues. The principal who took over the integrated and pluralistic K-2 school was concerned with teacher perception of discipline and the principal's role. He was particularly concerned with faculty who had little experience working with minority students. This faculty used an assertive discipline approach initially. These faculty members came to find this approach lacking in developing student insight into self-discipline. The principal came to regard the assertive discipline program as "aggressive discipline." Subsequently, the school faculty selected a new approach to discipline called the "caring and reconstructive logic program."</p> <p>As the staff became more confident with the kids, they felt much better about getting the kids involved in decision making. They're totally sold on that much.</p> <p>A staff member noted:</p> <p>It is still okay to have a system of consequences but there is a lot more interaction that goes on between teachers and kids about behavior and a lot more support for learning responsible, acceptable behavior in using the Love and Logic system than just saying you're out.</p> <p>One Texas school district had a policy that supported the use of paddles, when used in the principal's office in the presence of a witness. When the principal came to the school 4 1/2 years ago and she found paddling was a norm, she questioned the policy.</p> <p>I personally don't think it does any good at all. School should be safe and the very warmest, caring, safest place a child ever comes to, so threatening to do bodily harm to them, it just has no place.</p> <p>Pushing teachers to consider alternative means of control led her to reflect on the following:</p> <p>Now that I look back on it, I took the one piece of power they had. The teachers said the best thing about paddling in the hall was that everybody down the hall heard it. The tone of the whole school was punishment. It was real significant when I asked them to put the paddles away because they had no alternative. They had no idea what they could do to motivate kids in a positive way. They had no idea.</p> <p>The principal's office is no longer the pitchfork any more. It's not a place where you are to be fear stricken. Where you are sitting for an hour staring at a wall or a clock and writing sentences. We have gone from that concept to the concept of self-identification of problems that led to detention and the solutions. We try to establish an accountability to work out the problem. There are definite steps that take a child from point A to point B. What's getting modeled is a new problem-solving process. We're there to help them work it out.</p> <p>The second formal self-discipline program we observed was a conflict mediation program in the New Mexico middle school. The seeds of this program were started when a new administrative team arrived. Teachers noted:</p> <p>Instead of even looking at what are we going to do to discipline, behavior, it was what are we going to do to reward good behavior.</p> <p>Some 35 to 50 students have been trained in conflict mediation skills. Teams of two students mediate disputes in a conflict resolution room. The net effect is a reduction in the number of fights and kids helping kids solve their own problems.</p> <p>Here again thinking about kids and caring about people. They're taught: "Instead of fighting, let's talk about it." You can see students using mediation skills in the halls without having to go to a formal setting. Some kids talk about taking these skills home and using them and understanding things at home.</p> <p>These teachers went on to emphasize that middle school was not just a transition period between primary and secondary education. It is a time for personal and social development. The last year before the new administrative team took over the last week of school was a disaster.</p> <p>We had eggs, shaving cream, water balloons; you name it, we had it. It's going to get worse and worse and worse. The year they took over, what we did was to have and 8th grade graduation and the last day was dress up day. We had rite of passage. Those kids who got suspended the last day found out it carried over to the high school. If they got suspended here, they had to make it up over at the high school next year. All of a sudden, it clicked. I cannot remember now the last time we had an incident of water balloons, shaving cream, or eggs. It is non-existent now, it just doesn't happen.</p> <p>This rite of passage became an annual ceremony that provided for the transition from middle school to high school. What the staff came to understand even more so under the family plan was the following:</p> <p>We were going to lose them, and they were going to lose us. This was home.</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-18"> Contextual and Cultural Factors </hd> <p>Each of these principals was charged by district leadership to take control of his or her school and make something happen. One principal believed that the large proportion of minority children would test teacher skill in managing behavior in a newly integrated school.</p> <p>In each case principals were forced to come to grips with conflict between what was and what would become in each of their settings. The contextual forces were either internal or external, where the problem was perceived differently by staff and external audiences. Board and community members saw the students as out of control, whereas teachers saw the problem as students coming unprepared for the rigors of school and parents disinterested in supporting their child or the school. Each principal worked with his or her staff to develop more appropriate curricular and instructional activities that focused on individual student success--"Catching students doing the right thing rather than punishing students for doing the wrong things."</p> <p>The cultural change was most significant. The change required faculties to place students in the center of decision making regarding their behavior. It caused the faculty to help students come to understand why they behaved the way they did and identify the personal consequences of their actions and the relationship of those actions to student goals and expectations. Finally, the schools moved from corporal punishment to reinforcement and getting kids to believe that it was "cool to be good."</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-19"> Cluster 4 Summary: Context, Response, and Resultant Cultural Change </hd> <p></p> <ct id="AN9308177191-20">Context Schools out of control</ct> <p>Organizational Principle Students not prepared to learn, disinterested parents</p> <p>Former Operating Principle External locus of control through aggressive discipline</p> <p>Current Operating Principle including corporal punishment (condoned and used)</p> <p>Communal Vow Curriculum change, high expectations, focus on positive reinforcement and internal control</p> <p>Cultural Change Respect the dignity of each child Focus on self-control through reflection, building self-confidence and self-esteem through daily success</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-21"> PROPOSITIONS AND DISCUSSION </hd> <p>As we reflected on the schools we studied, we thought a set of propositions might best express our interpretations of what and how their cultural change occurred. As interpretive researchers, we understand that others may derive different meaning from our descriptive analysis. We view these propositions as a set of working hypotheses to guide the reflective actions and behavior of practitioners and to inform future research.</p> <p>Proposition 1. Schools experience cultural change when they respond to contextual factors in ways that challenge existing program regularities. Rather than attempting to create cultural changes in a vacuum, the leaders of schools in this study continually scanned the internal and external environment of their schools to identify factors that demanded a response. For example, principals of schools characterized by great diversity and fragmented or parallel responses to it (e.g., tracking, pull-out programs) highlighted the need for alternative responses resulting in strategies that were integrated and inclusive (e.g., team teaching, building teams).</p> <p>The behavior of these principals can be classified as responsive rather than obtrusive. Of continued research interest are the criteria these principals used to select external initiatives for change and how they evaluated the potential impact of an internal or external force on their current direction, programs, or practices.</p> <p>Proposition 2. In responding to contextual factors, the role of leaders is to ask questions rather than to provide answers. This proposition extends the first to suggest that leaders are not the sole sources of wisdom in schools. Rather than the traditionally perceived leadership role of providing and dictating solutions, school leaders in this study challenged followers to evaluate their beliefs in the context of strategies proposed to address internal and external factors demanding a response. Principals continually tested the groups' collective beliefs and capacity to change. This is congruent with recent research that highlights the role of the principal as the facilitator of personal critique (Reitzug & Reeves, 1992).</p> <p>Proposition 3. The more dramatic the change in contextual factors, or the more severe the problem caused by contextual factors, the more likely a change in the organization's culture. When organizational conditions are such that "business as usual" is threatened by new conditions or there is a general dissatisfaction with existing responses to contextual factors, organizational members are faced with several choices. Choices include withdrawal, placement of blame, rationalization, or disillusionment. This choice results in a culture of "getting by," that is, exerting only sufficient effort to survive day-to-day organizational life. A second choice is to contemplate and develop alternative ways of practicing.</p> <p>In either instance the leader is faced with a situation that is ripe for stimulating conversations about program regularities, the beliefs that undergird them, and alternative ways of responding. In both instances, the leader taps the innate desire of individuals to be professionally fulfilled (albeit, temporarily stifled in the former case). In schools exhibiting less drastic contextual conditions, leaders face the additional challenge of sensitizing followers to increased possibilities inherent in considering alternative responses to what are perceived as normal contextual conditions. The primary role of leaders in stimulating cultural change might be more accurately described as "commencing the conversation" than as engineering the change.</p> <p>Proposition 4. In schools where conversations about program regularities and beliefs have occurred, responsibility for responses that prove less than optimal are accepted collectively. In hierarchial, leader dominated schools, responsibility for the failure of schoolwide practices is frequently placed on the principal. The tendency of teachers in these schools is to accept responsibility only for the success or failure of what occurs in their classrooms. A typical example is responsibility for student behavior in the hallways, cafeteria, or on the playground. In hierarchical, leader-dominated schools, teachers view this as the principal's domain.</p> <p>In the schools in this study, mistakes, failed responses, and overall school needs were accepted collectively. Rather than withdrawing from these situations and expecting the principal to accept blame and develop alternative responses, staff members engaged in individual reflection about potential alternative responses and embraced a shared responsibility for future action.</p> <p>Proposition 5. Principals adhered to a core set of beliefs that were non-negotiable. Principals, in the schools studied, extensively used shared decision-making processes, empowering staff to develop responses to the conditions they faced. Nevertheless, principals embraced a core set of beliefs with which collectively developed responses needed to be congruent. Over time these core beliefs became communal vows.</p> <p>Peters and Waterman (1982), in their study of excellent business organizations, termed this simultaneous loose-tight properties (p. 318). They elaborated that leaders of effective organizations provide their employees with much autonomy over individual practices, as long as decisions and practices revolve tightly around core organizational values.</p> <p>Reitzug and Reeves (1992) found that legitimation of cultural values and beliefs suggested by these more overt cultural forms occurs as the result of routine daily actions of organizational leaders. Key to these various mechanisms for developing an organization's culture is not so much the substance of the action, behavior, or artifact, but the values, beliefs, and assumptions they symbolize.</p> <p>The implication for leaders is that they must have or develop a limited, but strongly held set of beliefs about what the organization values. Leaders can refine their beliefs by regularly examining the congruency between their beliefs and actions and behavior.</p> <p>Previous work on organizational culture has suggested additional ways that leaders create cultural change. Schein (1986) has noted that the primary mechanisms leaders use to embed and transmit culture include what they pay attention to: their role modeling, teaching, and coaching; their reactions to critical incidents; and the criteria they use to select, reward, and terminate employees. Several scholars have cited heroes, rites and rituals, stories, and communication networks as key ingredients of organizational culture (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1986).</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-22"> CONCLUSION </hd> <p>Hall (1981) has noted, "The level of context determines everything about the nature of the communication and is the foundation on which all subsequent behavior rests" (p. 92). It can be speculated that context plays a major role in determining the meanings organizational members ascribe to leadership actions. A leadership intervention incongruent with the internal and external organizational context is likely to be perceived as intrusive and manipulative, and subsequently is likely to be rejected. As reflected in this study, leadership behavior that responds to contextual conditions, which includes the acknowledgment of members' transformation to new beliefs, values, and actions, is likely to be perceived as resourceful and empowering, and subsequently is more likely to be accepted. This should be done, according to Connor and Lake (1988), "remembering that an organization's culture consists of its norms, beliefs, values, and so forth, attempts by management to change them would have to be amazingly explicit and public to avoid charges of manipulation" (p. 174).</p> <hd id="AN9308177191-23"> REFERENCES </hd> <p>Bates, R. J. (1987). Corporate culture, schooling, and educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>), 79-115.</p> <p>Connor, P. E., & Lake, L. K. (1988). Managing organizational change. New York: Praeger.</p> <p>Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate culture: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.</p> <p>Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.</p> <p>Dobbert, M. L. (1984). Ethnographic research: Theory and application for modern schools and societies. New York: Praeger.</p> <p>Dwyer, D. C., Barnett, B. G., & Lee, G. V. (1987). The school principal: Scapegoat or the last great hope. In L. T. Sheive & M. B. Schoenheit (Eds.), Leadership: Examining the elusive (pp.31-46). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</p> <p>Erickson, F. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>), 11-24.</p> <p>Foster, W. (1986). Paradigm and promises: New approaches to educational administration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.</p> <p>Greenfield, T. B. (1991). Foreword. In C. Hodgkinson (Ed.), Educational leadership: A moral art (V-IX). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.</p> <p>Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.</p> <p>Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New York: Harper.</p> <p>Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.</p> <p>Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.</p> <p>Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.</p> <p>Reitzug, U. C., & Reeves, J. E. (1992). Miss Lincoln doesn't teach here: A descriptive narrative and conceptual analysis of a principal's symbolic leadership behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 185-219.</p> <p>Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.</p> <p>Schein, E. H. (1986). Organizational culture and leadership San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.</p> <p>Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday,</p> <p>Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational Leadership, 41, 4-13.</p> <p>Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.</p> <aug> <p>By Leonard Burrello and Ulrich Reitzug</p> <p></p> <p>Leonard C. Burrello is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington. Ulrich C. Reitzug is an assistant professor in the Department of Administrative Leadership at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. The authors thank George Kuh for his assistance in the development of the method and interview protocols and for his work with college life outside the classroom. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Leonard C. Burrello, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Indiana University, W. W. Wright School of Education--4224, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref1"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ468256
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Transforming Context and Developing Culture in Schools.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrello%2C+Leonard+C%2E%22">Burrello, Leonard C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reitzug%2C+Ulrich+C%2E%22">Reitzug, Ulrich C.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Counseling+and+Development%22"><i>Journal of Counseling and Development</i></searchLink>. Jul-Aug 1993 71(6):669-677.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1993
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Research<br />Journal Articles
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Influences%22">Cultural Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Schools%22">Elementary Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Principals%22">Principals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-9633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Examined how principals and staffs of four elementary schools and two middle schools assessed context of their schools and how they responded to contextual factors. Analyzed data within and between sites to develop cross-site summary of factors. Four factor clusters emerged and were examined in terms of context, school responses, and resultant cultural change. (Author/NB)
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: Journal Code
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JC" term="%22CIJJAN1994%22">CIJJAN1994</searchLink>
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1994
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ468256
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ468256
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 669
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Principals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Transforming Context and Developing Culture in Schools.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burrello, Leonard C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reitzug, Ulrich C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1993
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-9633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 71
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Counseling and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1