seven who wanted to take part. I could have applied the rules I had put in place in
my ethics application regarding participant over-subscription, but given my com-
ments above regarding the challenge of recruiting, and, as the school was hoping I
would provide an evaluative report, I made the decision to include all seven. I could
not, however, observe each person three times (considering I had three other
schools where I was observing). I recall discussing this problem with an experi-
enced colleague around the coffee machine at work, and his advice was simple:
separate this study out from the other three schools where the focus was more on
the development of practice inflexible, shared spaces (which includes ICT and
e-Learning too, of course). He was quite correct^4 and thus I adjusted the design for
Rosehill College, specifically in regard to the number of observations.
Following Chadderton and Torrance ( 2011 ), the implementation of the BYOD
policy became the‘case’in a specific physical setting (Rosehill College), thus
removing the requirement to treat the college and its teachers as a case in com-
parison with other case study schools. The research could then focus on (a) what
this implementation looks like for participants and (b) an evaluation of the
implementation. Flowing from this shift in emphasis, a student survey, and focus
groups of students and parents were arranged, of which more will be referred to
below, suffice to say now that additional ethics approvals were required and sought.
20.8.2 Communication
Throughout the ethnographic phase, when I was visiting the school to conduct
observations, the Deputy Principal and I met for informal updates. At the outset, he
provided me with a timetable. As the school has a 6-day timetable, planning
observations was challenging. Although the Deputy Principal often coordinated my
visits, he reflected the pressures characteristic of his job position, requiring that I
often negotiated directly with the teachers I was observing. I had their email
addresses, thus would propose dates and times of visits. In some instances, how-
ever, negotiation occurred around programming clashes that challenged observa-
tions. These included whole-class assessments and end of term processes. Thus, any
university researcher working in a school must recognise the“competing profes-
sional pressures”Walsh and Backe ( 2013 , p. 604) referred to, and these demand a
degree of mutualflexibility.
Both communication and partnership were highlighted by a decision made soon
after the research process commenced. The Deputy Principal invited me to
co-present with him at the 2015 National Association of Secondary Deputy and
Assistant Principal’s (NASDAP) Conference. This conference provided a stream
dedicated to school-university research partnerships. This decision required us to
plan and build the presentation over a number of months, developing our
(^4) I am acknowledging here my colleague, Andy Begg, for his clear advice.
20 Research in the Workplace: The Possibilities for Practitioner... 307