Principals navigating discipline decisions for social justice: An informed grounded theory study

Abstract

Purpose School leaders are charged with making equitable decisions almost daily, but little about this process is known. Due to research suggesting principal implicit bias, or the stereotypes and attitudes held by individuals unconsciously that may or may not reflect actual preferences, may contribute to discipline gaps, the present study aimed to better understand how principals make discipline decisions and how implicit bias might interfere in these decisions. Research methods This qualitative study used in-depth interviews and document analysis with six mid-Atlantic principals to explore their discipline decision-making processes. Constant comparative analysis inclusive of explicit coding and analytical procedures supported the development of an informed grounded theory. Findings The data revealed a four-part recursive process of discipline decision-making inclusive of four themes relevant to equity. Principals used communication and data to gather information in a first step driven by relationships, reflected on considerations and policy to develop options in a second step driven by flexibility, selected an outcome in a third step driven by morality, and evaluated their efficacy in the recursive loop driven by experience. Implications for research and practice The findings allow for targeted research of the discipline decision-making process and potential consideration of practical interventions and curricular design for principal preparation programs that would allow for greater equity in discipline following office referrals.

Exploring the potential impact of household photovoltaic systems on low-carbon production behavior in rural areas: unveiling the pro-environmental spillover effect

“…The selective coding phase involves extracting core categories, further refining extracted concept categories, and selecting a central category for subsequent analysis of related codes, concepts, and categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Due to its advantages in theory construction, many scholars have adopted this method as the primary means for qualitative research (Gullo and Beachum, 2020).…”