ABSTRACT
There are always different ways of reporting on a research project, different stories which might be told. In this case study we present at least two stories, one of which might be termed the ‘hard’ version and the other the ‘soft’ – or at least this is how we have come to think of them. For us the more important, and lasting, story is the soft version, and we will spend the bulk of the chapter on this, not least because our feeling is that this is where the more interesting messages are for others. Readers might prefer to start with what is for us the more interesting ‘soft’ story, which begins later (pp. 99-101). Clearly, any account of a research project involves a selection from a broader or more complete picture, and certainly any attempt to provide a full picture here would fill a book, let alone a brief chapter. However, the way we have chosen to present these two stories should not be viewed as just two differing selections from the ‘full picture’. For us, both stories provided some answers regarding what the school gained from the research, both stories are interdependent and developed from the same initial focus and both stories could be regarded as honest accounts. Our interest here is in how, through their differences, they connect with the ways in which different views emerged in the school regarding the nature, relevance and possibilities of research. In brief, the two stories we have constructed capture some crucial issues to do with how some colleagues in one school experienced research, and its relevance to them and us as professionals. We will return to these issues in our concluding discussion. Now, let us turn to the ‘hard’ story, and in doing this we will need to outline what that ‘initial focus’ was, together with some brief comments on the school.
