European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.

org

Educational Qualification as Secondary School Principals Demographic Variable In Choice Of Conflict Resolution Options
Mohammed Hossein King Saud University, Saudi Arabia ABSTRACT The study was aimed at finding out what options principals would wish to adopt against the background of their educational qualification as a demographic variable. One research question and one research hypothesis were formulated. This involved studying the entire population of 260 public secondary school principals at an alpha level of 0.05 for the research hypotheses. The reliability of the instrument ranged between 0.50 and 0.88 in Cronbach alpha. The findings of the study revealed that there was no significant influence of principals educational qualification (as a demographic variable) on principals conflict resolution options (in different settings). Of the five conflict resolution options, there was a wide use of the compromise and collaboration options by principals. It was concluded that principals were handling conflicts in their schools with the use of compromise and collaboration options. This was interpreted as the principals resolving conflicts competently. Recommendations were made including the fact that, irrespective of educational qualification, school principals should be encouraged to see conflict as a natural phenomenon in the school environment which requires collaborative management. INTRODUCTION Conflict is bound to occur whenever two or more persons are involved in the workings of a formal organisation, such as the public secondary school system in Cross River State. Conflict is evident in a school when opposing ideas, opinions, feelings or wishes become observable. This conflicting atmosphere usually results in disagreements, quarrels, disputes, controversies as well as confrontations to the point of hindering the attainment of the goals of secondary education as encapsulated in the National Policy on Education (FRN, 2004). Bergmann and Volkema (1994) have aptly described conflict as an occurrence which requires at least two parties or two analytically distinct units or entities such as persons, groups or organisations to engage in antagonistic interactions. When conflict manifests in the public secondary school, it calls for conflict resolution. The manifestation of conflict may be of the intrapersonal (or intra-individual), interpersonal, ethnocentric and intergroup types. Literature suggests that these types of conflict manifestations could be resolved effectively by means of the avoidance, competition, accommodation, compromise and collaboration conflict resolution options. With regards to the options, the avoidance conflict resolution option is one in which the principal withdraws or runs away from conflict hoping that it will disappear. The competition conflict resolution option involves the principal (or any other conflict party) insisting on an all-out win or loss situation. The accommodation option relates to the principal (or any other party in conflict) simply allowing the other party to win in the interest of peace, by obliging its request or agitation. The compromise option is the middle-of-the-way approach to conflict resolution where each party wins some of its demands and loses some other demands. There is also the collaboration option that has to do with the win-win approach in which each party to a conflict wins by becoming a problem solver and a collaborative conflict participant. If education is to be managed effectively for sustainable development in Nigeria, then education at the secondary school level should be managed free of conflict. Demographic characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, years of working experience as well as educational qualification have been observed to influence the overall administrative effectiveness of school principals (Uko, 1998; Udida, 2001; Bassey, Mbipom and Akwuegwu, 2003). This study was intended to investigate the demographic influence of educational qualification of principals on their choice of conflict resolution options. The statement of the problem of the study revolves around the fact of many school principals becoming unduly alarmed, irritated and confused when they experience tensions, disputes, controversies, or outright conflicts is the problem of the study. Again, given the non-acquaintance of some principals (if not most of them) with the conventional options for conflict resolution may not know what to do in handling school conflicts. The question is, what is the influence of principals

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
educational qualification (or professional grooming) on their choice of conflict resolution options when they are faced with overt conflict? The purpose of the study was mainly to investigate the influence of educational qualification (as a demographic variable) on principals choice of conflict resolution options. In order to provide a guide to the study, the following research question was posed: What influence does principals educational qualification exert on their choice of conflict resolution options? The hypothesis of the study was: Choice of conflict resolution options is significantly influenced by principals educational qualification. METHODOLOGY The design adopted for this study was the survey research design. The area of study was Cross River State of Nigeria. The entire population of 260 public secondary school principals was used for the study. The researchers developed data gathering instrument known as Principals Conflict Resolution Options Questionnaire (PCROQ) was face-validated by Measurement and Evaluation experts in Faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka as well as 10 principals of Cross River Schools. The reliability of the instrument was ascertained through Cronbach Alpha () coefficients of clusters of the instrument. Each cluster represented one of intrapersonal, interpersonal, ethnocentric and intergroup conflict manifestation settings in which principals educational qualification will be seen to have the ability to influence choice of conflict resolution options. For the intrapersonal cluster, the Cronbach alpha coefficient () was 0.50, for interpersonal 0.75, for ethnocentric 0.83 while the intergroup cluster had an alpha () of 0.88. The internal consistency was computed for the questionnaire using scores obtained from the trial testing on 40 principals who were not among the population used for the study. The instrument had two parts. Part A required of the respondents such demographic data as the gender, educational qualification, working experience and school location of the principal. Part B was divided into Column A (depicting 20 conflict manifestation situations in public secondary schools) and Column B (depicting the five conflict resolution options which principals could adopt). The questionnaire copies were administered on the 260 principals by the researchers and their assistants. They were retrieved within 48 hours. More than 99% of the questionnaire copies were retrieved for analysis as one copy was unrecovered. RESULTS Research Question One What influence does principals educational qualification exert on their choice of conflict resolution options? To answer the research question, the mean rating and standard deviation of principals choice of conflict resolution options based on educational qualification was computed for different school conflict settings as indicated in Table 1.

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
Table 1: Mean rating (X) and standard deviation (SD) of principals choice of conflict resolution options by educational qualification Rating of conflict options Educational Qualification Qualified Less qualified Conflict Sum of Sum of Settings rating X SD Interpretation rating X SD Interpretation (X) (X) Intrapersonal 22.02 4.40 2.25 Compromise 21.95 4.39 2.21 Compromise Interpersonal 23.44 4.69 2.14 Collaboration 23.69 4.74 2.31 Collaboration Ethnocentric 22.69 4.54 3.07 Collaboration 22.42 4.48 2.88 Compromise Intergroup 22.40 4.48 4.68 Compromise 23.75 4.75 1.70 Collaboration The rating of the conflict resolution options in the descriptive statistics used in answering the research question facilitated their categorization according to the mean (X) values. They were representative of each option; favoured by public secondary school principals in Cross River State. Thus, choice of the avoidance option was rated 0.1-1.49 points; competition option 1.50-2.49 points; accommodation option 2.50-3.49 points; compromise option 2.50-4.49 while the collaboration option was rated 4.505.00. According to the literature review for the study, the ratings reflected the graduation of conflict resolution options on the basis of their usefulness in resolving conflicts in an ascending order from avoidance to competition, accommodation, compromise and collaboration option (Dreu and Vliert, 1997; Assibong, 2003). The interpretation of the data in Table 1 indicates that both qualified and less qualified principals opted for the use of the compromise option for conflict resolution under intrapersonal conflict situation. On the other hand, both qualified and less qualified principals opted for the sue of the collaboration option for conflict resolution under interpersonal situation. For conflict resolution under ethnocentric situation, qualified principals favoured the use of the collaboration option, whereas less qualified principals favoured the use of the compromise option. In intergroup setting, qualified principals opted for the compromise option in conflict handling, while less qualified principals chose the collaboration option. The implications of the results of the descriptive statistic used in analysing the research question points to the fact that the compromise and collaboration options were overwhelmingly favoured by qualified and less qualified principals in conflict resolution in the secondary school environment. This was notwithstanding the conflict setting. Hypothesis One: Choice of conflict resolution options is not significantly influenced by principals educational qualification. The hypothesis was analysed using a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the influence of principals demographic variables on their choice of conflict resolution options under the intrapersonal, interpersonal, ethnocentric and intergroup settings. Principals educational qualification was, however, highlighted under the four settings for the purpose of the study and in tandem with the research question.

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
Table 2: One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of principals demographic variables on conflict resolution options in intrapersonal setting Sum of Mean Source of variation Squares DF Square F Sig. of F Sig. Main Effects LOCAT GENDER EDQUALI EXPER 2-Way Interactions LOCAT GENDER LOCAT EDQUALI LOCAT EXPER GENDER EDQUALI GENDER EXPER EDQUALI EXPER Explained Residual Total 5.912 .413 .730 1.822 .473 20.106 .442 .444 12.324 .030 1.243 2.047 38.038 1250.958 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 248 1.478 .413 .730 1.822 .473 3.351 .442 .441 12.324 .030 1.243 2.047 3.804 5,044 .293 .082 .145 .361 .094 .064 .088 .087 2.443 .006 .246 .406 .754 .882 .775 .704 .548 .760 .679 .767 .768 .119 .938 .620 .525 .673 NS NS NS NS NS -

1288.996 258 4,996 259 cases were processed. 1 case (0.38 pct) was missing. * NS = Not Significant

Table 3: One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of principals demographic variables on conflict resolution options in interpersonal setting Sum of Mean Source of variation Squares DF Square F Sig. of F Sig. Main Effects LOCAT GENDER EDQUALI EXPER 2-Way Interactions LOCAT GENDER LOCAT EDQUALI LOCAT EXPER GENDER EDQUALI GENDER EXPER EDQUALI EXPER Explained Residual Total 40.773 3.682 28.001 .173 1.386 23.011 5.480 2.014 2.702 2.269 8.545 3.740 65.575 1163.166 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 248 10.193 3.683 28.001 .173 1.386 3.835 5.480 2.014 2.702 2.269 8.545 3.740 6.558 4.690 2.173 .785 5,970 .037 .296 .818 1.168 .429 .576 .484 1.822 .797 1.398 .073 .376 .015 .848 .587 .557 .281 .513 .449 .487 .178 .373 .181 NS NS NS NS NS -

1228.741 258 4,763 259 cases were processed. 1 case (0.38 pct) was missing. * NS = Not Significant

10

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
Table 4: One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of principals demographic variables on conflict resolution options in intergroup setting Sum of Mean Source of variation Squares DF Square F Sig. of F Sig. Main Effects LOCAT GENDER EDQUALI EXPER 2-Way Interactions LOCAT GENDER LOCAT EDQUALI LOCAT EXPER GENDER EDQUALI GENDER EXPER EDQUALI EXPER Explained Residual Total 81.839 31.075 8,173 20,358 6.128 245.018 .350 37.416 129.479 3.655 9.423 17.308 269.264 2087.655 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 248 20.460 31.075 8.173 20,358 6.128 40.836 .350 37.416 129.479 3.655 9.423 17.308 26.926 8.418 2.430 3.692 .971 2.418 .728 4.851 .042 4.445 15.381 .434 1.119 2.056 3.199 .048 .056 .325 .121 .394 .000 .839 .036 .000 .511 .291 .153 .001 NS NS NS NS NS -

2356.919 258 9.135 259 cases were processed. 1 case (0.38 pct) was missing. * NS = Not Significant

Table 5: One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of principals demographic variables on conflict resolution options in intergroup setting Sum of Mean Source of variation Squares DF Square F Sig. of F Sig. Main Effects LOCAT GENDER EDQUALI EXPER 2-Way Interactions LOCAT GENDER LOCAT EDQUALI LOCAT EXPER GENDER EDQUALI GENDER EXPER EDQUALI EXPER Explained Residual Total 198.496 23.904 40.175 38.165 14.157 142.157 .391 15.985 .387 1.496 93.191 9.985 496.731 3965.957 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 248 49.624 23.904 40.175 38.165 14.157 23.808 .391 15.985 .387 1.496 93.191 9.985 49.673 15.992 3.103 1.495 2.512 2.387 .885 1.489 .024 1.000 .024 .094 5.827 .624 3.106 .016 .223 .114 .124 .348 .182 .876 .318 .877 .760 .017 .430 .001 NS NS NS NS NS -

4462.687 258 17.297 259 cases were processed. 1 case (0.38 pct) was missing. * NS = Not Significant

11

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
Under intrapersonal conflict setting: As already shown in Table 1, the X value in respect of qualified and less qualified principals conflict resolution options were respectively 4.40 and 4.39 both of which were interpreted as compromise conflict resolution option under intrapersonal conflict setting. In the ANOVA table (Table 2), the F-value in respect of these mean values for the compromise option is 0.548. Therefore, at 0.05 level for which the difference between the values of 4.40 and 4.39 are being tested, the observed difference is not significant. In other words, the null hypothesis is retained. The implication of this is that qualified and less qualified chose the compromise option under the intrapersonal setting. This suggests that under the intrapersonal setting, principals favoured the choice of the win-some and lose-some option in which bargaining and negotiation holds sway. Under interpersonal conflict setting: As already shown in Table 1 the X value in respect of qualified and less qualified principals conflict resolution options were respectively 4.69 and 4.74 both of which were interpreted as collaboration conflict resolution option under interpersonal conflict setting. In the ANOVA table (Table 3), the F-value in respect of these mean values for the collaboration option is 0.848. Therefore, at 0.05 level for which the difference between the values of 4.69 and 4.74 are being tested, the observed difference is not significant. In other words, the null hypothesis is retained. The implication of this is that although there is no significant difference between qualified and less qualified principals in their management of conflict under interpersonal setting, both sets of principals favour the use of the problem solving strategy in conflict resolution which is the collaboration option. Under ethnocentric conflict setting: As already shown in Table 1, the X value in respect of qualified and less qualified principals conflict resolution options are respectively 4.54 (which was interpreted as collaboration conflict resolution option under ethnocentric conflict setting) and 4.48 (which was interpreted as compromise conflict resolution option under ethnocentric setting). In the ANOVA table (Table 4), the F-value in respect of these mean values for the collaboration and compromise options respectively is 0.121. Therefore, at 0.05 level for which the difference between the values of 4.54 and 4.48 are being tested, the observed difference is not significant. In other words, the null hypothesis is retained. Under intergroup conflict setting: As already shown in Table 1, the X value in respect of qualified and unqualified principals conflict resolution options are 4.48 (which was interpreted as compromise conflict resolution option under intergroup conflict setting) and 4.75 (which was interpreted as collaboration option under intergroup conflict setting). In the ANOVA table (Table 5), the F-value in respect of these mean values for the compromise and collaboration options respectively is 0.124. Therefore, at 0.05 level for which the difference between the values of 4.48 and 4.75 are being tested, the observed difference is not significant. In other words, the null hypothesis is retained. The implication of the results in ethnocentric and intergroup settings is that there were noticeable differences between qualified and less qualified principals in their choice of conflict resolution options in those settings. More or less, the principals choose between compromise and collaboration, that is, win-some, lose-some and win-win options. DISCUSSION It is interesting that the hypothesis showed evidence of no-difference significance. From the hypothesis, qualified principals, representing those with at least B.Ed or PGDE (as part of their qualification) and less qualified principals represented by those without B.Ed or PGDE as part of their qualification, were similar in using the compromise and collaboration options respectively in resolving intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts. When it came to resolving ethnocentric and intergroup conflicts, qualified principals consistently chose collaboration and compromise options. Less qualified principals consistently used compromise and collaboration in resolving ethnocentric and intergroup conflicts respectively. The wide use of the compromise option by some principals is interesting. Peretomode (1995) comments that the compromise conflict resolution option involves the process of negotiation and bargaining. If properly utilized, it can create an atmosphere of understanding and peace. However, on a negative note, Rahim (1999) has noted that a compromising principal would put expediency above principle to the detriment of a lasting conflict resolution. From the studys result, on the other hand, handling conflicts with the collaboration option implies that principals of public secondary schools in Cross River State opted for a problem-solving approach to conflict resolution between one school member and another. This would mean that when one teacher, student or non-academic staff had conflict with another, the joint efforts of the disputants were

12

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
galvanised toward solving the problem that caused them to have the conflict. In doing so, all parties endeavoured to understand the issues and the restraints to be considered. This hopefully yielded winwin results. On the whole, the study revealed that Cross River State principals only favoured the use of either the compromise or collaboration options in public secondary schools conflict resolution. Furthermore, whether the principal was qualified or less qualified, it did not affect their choice of conflict resolution option. The study found, quite surprisingly, that three out of the five conflict resolution options being avoidance, competition, and accommodation were not used at all in spite of the research instrument making an equivalent provision for them as did compromise and collaboration in terms of items distribution. There is reason to believe that the win some-lose some perspectives of compromise as well as the win-win dimension of collaboration may have appealed to public secondary school principals more than the avoidance, competition, or accommodation options. Actually, in conflict literature, compromise and collaboration are considered to be higher, more refined, more professional and more result-oriented options in organisational conflict resolution (Bergmann and Volkema, 1994; Schmid, 2000). Therefore, the principals studied may have been handling conflict competently in their schools. CONCLUSION From the findings of the study, it could be concluded that in some instances, differences exist among principals in their conflict resolution choices owing to their being qualified or less qualified to function as principals. On other occasions there were evident differences regarding principals qualification as an influence on their conflict resolution choices. From the studys results, an average principal, irrespective of educational qualification, is predisposed toward resolving school conflicts using the compromise and/or collaboration option(s). Principals of schools seem to have developed a greater tendency to choose the proper options for conflict resolutions. This applies under all conflict manifestation settings as their choice of the compromise and collaboration options are seen to be organisationally healthy. RECOMMENDATIONS School principals, irrespective of qualification should see conflict as integral to the school environment. School principals should be made to see the advantages in managing conflict collaboratively, or atleast compromisingly, as these could engender positive solutions. Training teachers in educational management before they are appointed school principals could make them place value on the type of appropriate options they should go for in resolving school conflicts. The various dimensions of compromise and collaboration options in conflict resolution should be shared with principals with a view to encouraging them to use those the more. More research should be carried out to replicate the study in other states of Nigeria, to afford a more confident generalisation on the nexus between principals qualification and school conflict resolution.

REFERENCES Argyris, C. (1967). Understanding Human Behaviour In Organisations. New York: Harper and Row. Assibong, P. A. (2003). Causes Of Conflicts And Panacea For Harmony And Cooperation. Education For Today. 3 (1), 179-191. Bassey, U. U.; Mbipom, G. & Akwuegwu, B. A. (2003). A Comparative Study Of Public And Private Secondary School Principals Administrative Effectiveness In Calabar. Education For Today. 3 (1), 91-102.

13

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.3, 2007 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
Bergmann, T. and Volkemann, R. (1994). Issues, Behavioural Responses And Consequences In Interpersonal Conflicts. Journal Of Organisational Behaviour. 15 (2), 467-471. Dahrendorf, R. (1964). Towards A Theory Of Social Conflict In Management In A. Etzioni (Ed.). Social Change. New York: Basic Books. Dreu, C. D. and Vliert, E. V. (Eds.) (1997). Publications. Using Conflict In Organisations. London: Sage

Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2004). National Policy Of Education (4th ed.). Lagos: NERDC Press. Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution & Conflict http://www.disputeresolution.ohio.gov. Accessed 7th August, 2004. Management (2004).

Peretomode, V. F. (1995). Conflict Management: An Integrative Approach. New York: Praeger. Rahim, M. A. (1999). Managing Conflict: An Integrative Approach. New York: Praeger. Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organisational Behaviour (9th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Schmid, A. P. (Ed.) (2000). Thesaurus And Glossary Of Early Warning And Conflict Prevention Terms. London: Forum on Early Warning and Early Response. Udida, L. A. (2001). The Perception Of Male And Female Principals Leadership Roles In Cross River State Secondary Schools. International Journal of Social Science and Public Policy. 4 (1), 119-124. Uko, E. S. (1998). Gender Factor And Administrative Effectiveness Of Secondary School Principals in Cross River State. An Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Calabar: University of Calabar.

14