Educational qualification as secondary school principals’

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’

7

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 (ᾱ) 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 (ᾱ) was 0.50, for interpersonal 0.75, for ethnocentric 0.83 while the
intergroup cluster had an alpha (ᾱ) 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.

8

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 4.50-
5.00. 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.

9

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 5.912 4 1.478 .293 .882 NS
LOCAT .413 1 .413 .082 .775 NS
GENDER .730 1 .730 .145 .704 NS
EDQUALI 1.822 1 1.822 .361 .548 NS
EXPER .473 1 .473 .094 .760 NS
2-Way Interactions 20.106 6 3.351 .064 .679 -
LOCAT GENDER .442 1 .442 .088 .767 -
LOCAT EDQUALI .444 1 .441 .087 .768 -
LOCAT EXPER 12.324 1 12.324 2.443 .119 -
GENDER EDQUALI .030 1 .030 .006 .938 -
GENDER EXPER 1.243 1 1.243 .246 .620 -
EDQUALI EXPER 2.047 1 2.047 .406 .525 -

Explained 38.038 10 3.804 .754 .673 -

Residual 1250.958 248 5,044 -

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

conflict resolution options in interpersonal setting
Sum of Mean

Main Effects 40.773 4 10.193 2.173 .073 NS
LOCAT 3.682 1 3.683 .785 .376 NS
GENDER 28.001 1 28.001 5,970 .015 NS
EDQUALI .173 1 .173 .037 .848 NS
EXPER 1.386 1 1.386 .296 .587 NS
2-Way Interactions 23.011 6 3.835 .818 .557 -
LOCAT GENDER 5.480 1 5.480 1.168 .281 -
LOCAT EDQUALI 2.014 1 2.014 .429 .513 -
LOCAT EXPER 2.702 1 2.702 .576 .449 -
GENDER EDQUALI 2.269 1 2.269 .484 .487 -
GENDER EXPER 8.545 1 8.545 1.822 .178 -
EDQUALI EXPER 3.740 1 3.740 .797 .373 -

Explained 65.575 10 6.558 1.398 .181 -

Residual 1163.166 248 4.690 -

Total 1228.741 258 4,763 -

10

www.BellPress.org

conflict resolution options in intergroup setting
Sum of Mean

Main Effects 81.839 4 20.460 2.430 .048 NS
LOCAT 31.075 1 31.075 3.692 .056 NS
GENDER 8,173 1 8.173 .971 .325 NS
EDQUALI 20,358 1 20,358 2.418 .121 NS
EXPER 6.128 1 6.128 .728 .394 NS
2-Way Interactions 245.018 6 40.836 4.851 .000 -
LOCAT GENDER .350 1 .350 .042 .839 -
LOCAT EDQUALI 37.416 1 37.416 4.445 .036 -
LOCAT EXPER 129.479 1 129.479 15.381 .000 -
GENDER EDQUALI 3.655 1 3.655 .434 .511 -
GENDER EXPER 9.423 1 9.423 1.119 .291 -
EDQUALI EXPER 17.308 1 17.308 2.056 .153 -

Explained 269.264 10 26.926 3.199 .001 -

Residual 2087.655 248 8.418 -

Total 2356.919 258 9.135 -

conflict resolution options in intergroup setting
Sum of Mean

Main Effects 198.496 4 49.624 3.103 .016 NS
LOCAT 23.904 1 23.904 1.495 .223 NS
GENDER 40.175 1 40.175 2.512 .114 NS
EDQUALI 38.165 1 38.165 2.387 .124 NS
EXPER 14.157 1 14.157 .885 .348 NS
2-Way Interactions 142.157 6 23.808 1.489 .182 -
LOCAT GENDER .391 1 .391 .024 .876 -
LOCAT EDQUALI 15.985 1 15.985 1.000 .318 -
LOCAT EXPER .387 1 .387 .024 .877 -
GENDER EDQUALI 1.496 1 1.496 .094 .760 -
GENDER EXPER 93.191 1 93.191 5.827 .017 -
EDQUALI EXPER 9.985 1 9.985 .624 .430 -

Explained 496.731 10 49.673 3.106 .001 -

Residual 3965.957 248 15.992 -

Total 4462.687 258 17.297 -

11

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 study’s 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

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 win-
win 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 study’s 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

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). Using Conflict In Organisations. London: Sage
Publications.

Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2004). National Policy Of Education (4th ed.). Lagos: NERDC Press.

Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution & Conflict Management (2004).
http://www.disputeresolution.ohio.gov. Accessed 7th August, 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

Educational qualification as secondary school principals’

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Educational qualification as secondary school principals’

Semelhante a Educational qualification as secondary school principals’ (20)

Mais de Alexander Decker

Mais de Alexander Decker (20)

Educational qualification as secondary school principals’