This paper explores the use of the Delphi Method to research middle leadership teams. It draws from a multi-strand research project, ‘The Future of Headship’, with one strand exploring the work of middle leadership teams in Scottish schools and their contribution to social justice leadership (Theoharis 2007). This strand forms part of the work of the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN) (Angelle 2017). This paper comprises a critical exploration of the use of the Delphi Method in this study, including the possibilities of the method, and issues raised by its use through investigating a school’s middle leadership team.

Scotland, like many European education systems, is looking to achieve system-wide improvement where schools are charged with raising the achievement of all learners and with closing a poverty-related attainment gap (SG 2018). Part of the policy strategy includes  a Pupil Equity Fund, with money coming directly to schools from central government. This fund can be used for the creation of middle leadership roles, specifically related to attainment and equity, making Scottish education makes an interesting case study of the role and contribution of middle leadership to educational achievement and equity. 

The significance of school leadership in improving education is highlighted by Leithwood et al. (2008), where headship/principalship is understood as having a catalytic effect in developing the conditions for effective learning. Within this construction,  the impact of leadership is intensified through distributed practices of which, the building of middle leadership teams forms an important part of Scottish policy expectations. 

 To date, the investigation of leadership teams has tended to focus on senior management teams (Wallace and Hall 1994). Zappulla (2003) noted, in her study of primary school leadership teams (including senior and middle leaders), the importance of clarity around purpose, roles and organisational structures. Chrispeels and Martin’s (2002) study of leadership teams, (including representatives from different staff groups, parents and students), identified several team roles - communicators, staff developers, problem-solvers, leaders/decision-makers. These roles were influenced by the context, expectations and relationships between the school leader and various groups and roles.  

The term ‘middle leadership’ is used variously across different systems, referring to both formal and informal leadership roles and, in relation to the latter, teacher leadership. There is a growing literature on middle leadership (Harris et al. 2019) including delineating a middle leadership role (De Nobile 2018); the experiences and challenges faced by middle leaders (Gurr and Drysdale 2013); the practice of middle leading with the ‘sayings, doings and relatings’ of leading (Grootenboer 2018). Increasingly, middle leadership enacts a dual role: leading an area of responsibility; contributing to the school’s strategic development (Irvine and Brundrett 2016). A key tension identified is the degree to which middle leaders protect their area/staff interests, leading to competition for resourcing and recognition as well as to a limited engagement with wider school priorities. 

There has been a significant evolution of the middle leadership role in Scottish schools (Forde et al. 2019), underlined by a professional standard (GTCS 2021). However, a wide variety of roles  are identified as middle leadership including curriculum leadership, subject/faculty leadership, pastoral care, learning support as well as areas related to diversity and equity, and school development priorities. There has been very little consideration of the role and work of middle leadership as a team or of the contribution that the role can make to social justice leadership practices.

This leads the group of researchers to ask: Is the Delphi a useful research method for gaining  better informed understandings of the realities experienced by middle leadership teams, including the opportunities and challenges they face on relation to social justice leadership practices?

An effective method was sought to explore with middle leaders collectively, their roles, practice and experiences. Interviews and focus group discussions were considered (Barbour 2005). However, given the size of middle leadership teams in Scottish secondary schools, as well as both time and Covid related access restrictions, an alternative method was felt desirable to facilitate the exploration of the middle leadership role, within the context of the team. The Delphi Method provides, “a communication structure aimed at producing a detailed critical examination and discussion” (Greene 2014: 6). The Delphi Method is used variously but its core features include: a group of participants who comprise ‘the panel’ and a series of rounds where initially, panellists respond to set questions. These responses are collated, analysed and then provided as feedback to the panellists for comment and evaluation. This iterative process allows participants to reflect on their contributions and also to understand different standpoints; respond critically; and potentially change their minds. This process continues until the research question has been answered, sufficient data generated. The process may be used to build consensus or map out divergent views. In comparison to focus groups, one of the strengths of this method, is that participants can express their views without the pressure of group conformity (Rowe and Wright 1999). Iqbal and Pipon-Young (2009) highlight the usefulness of the method in an area where there is limited literature available, as is the case with middle leadership teams. In these circumstances they propose that questions for round 1 are open ended. In this study the questions explore aspects such as understandings of social justice leadership; views of the role of middle leadership; practice as a member of a middle leadership team; factors facilitating or hindering contributing to social justice leadership; personal and professional journeys to middle leadership. The Delphi Method begins with an invitational email to all middle leaders with details of the project and methods; a member of the research team acts as facilitator, emailing the round 1 questionnaire with a one week turnaround time, then collating the data for each question. Collated data is anonymised, analysed thematically and then summarised. This material is used as feedback to the panellists who are asked to respond to the findings by adding evaluative comments, clarifications, amendments. Further rounds are conducted, where issues related to practice and future developments are explored. A summary report is sent to all participants.

The Delphi Method provides a useful research tool, as well as providing a developmental process in the investigation of the roles, practices and experiences of a middle leadership team. The method encourages reflection and critical appraisal by individual participants. The exchanges between participants round by round, helps build a collective stance around policy and priorities, contributing to building consensus (Rayens and Hahn 2000) and reinforcing a common purpose. However, there is a need to address a number of issues which emerged related to the research process and ethics. To ensure a systematic application of the method, the selection of the members of the panel is critical. As a forecasting tool originally, members tended to be experts in the field under investigation. In this study, the focus is on the role, practices and lived experiences of middle leaders, meaning all members of the team had sufficient expertise. The construction of the questions for round 1 is also crucial. These questions need to be sufficiently open ended to elicit different perspectives while at the same time, maintaining a focus on the research questions. Further, balancing the identification of areas of commonality with the noting of significant differences in the data analysis proved vital, to ensure in-depth exploration with critical discussion of issues and experiences. Given this method was designed to explore a middle leadership team, ethical concerns involved ensuring confidentiality and avoiding schism. To address these concerns, the data were anonymised, including the removal of all information that might indicate the identity of the participant, such as roles, remits, specific tasks, anecdotes and incidents (Fletcher and Marchildon 2014). The data was then summarised to be used as feedback in subsequent rounds.

Angelle, P. (2017). Preface. In P. Angelle (Ed) A Global Perspective of Social Justice Leadership for School Principals (pp.xv-xx). Charlotteville, NC.: IAP. Barbour, R. S. (2005). Making sense of focus groups. Medical Education, 39(7), 742-750. Chrispeels, J.H., & Martin, K.J. (2002). Four school leadership teams define their roles within organizational and political structures to improve student learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(3), 327-365. Clarke, V., and Braun, V. (2018). Using thematic analysis in counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical reflection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 18(2), 107-110. Fletcher, A.J., and Marchildon, G.P. (2014). Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 1-18. Forde, C., Hamilton, G., Ní Bhróithe, M., Nihill, M., & Rooney, A.M. (2019). Evolving policy paradigms of middle leadership in Scottish and Irish education: implications for middle leadership professional development. School Leadership & Management, 39(3-4), 297-314. Green, R.A. (2014). The Delphi Technique in Educational Research. SAGE Open. 4, 1–8. Gurr, D. and Drysdale, L. (2013). Middle-level secondary school leaders: Potential, constraints and implications for leadership preparation and development. Journal of Educational Administration. 51(1), 55-71. Harris, A., Jones, M., Ismail N. and Nguyen, D. (2019). Middle leaders and middle leadership in schools: exploring the knowledge base (2003–2017). School Leadership and Management, 39(3-4):255-277. Iqbal, S. and Pipon-Young, L. (2009). The Delphi Method. Psychologist, 22(7), 598-600. Irvine, P., & Brundrett, M. (2016). Middle leadership and its challenges: A case study in the secondary independent sector. Management in Education, 30(2), 86-92. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42. Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J. (2000). Building consensus using the policy Delphi method. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 1(4), 308-315. Rowe, G., and Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353-375. Scottish Government. (2018). Education Reform – Joint Agreement. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Theoharis, G. (2007). Social Justice Educational Leaders and Resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258. Wallace, M. and Hall, V. (1994). Inside the SMT: Teamwork in Secondary School Management. London: Paul Chapman. Zappulla, P. (2003). Issues in the development of leadership teams. Management in Education, 17(4), 29-34.