THE USES AND EFFECTS OF HUMOR IN THE SCHOOL WORKPLACE
by
BARBARA N. MILLER
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2008
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Barbara Miller
Title:
"The Uses and Effects of Humor in the School Workplace"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Education degree in the Department of Educational
Leadership by:
Diane Dunlap, Chairperson, Educational Leadership
Philip McCullum, Member, Educational Leadership
Deborah Olson, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Jean Stockard, Outside Member, Planning Public Policy & Mgmt
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the
Graduate School for the University of Oregon.
December 13, 2008
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of
Oregon Libraries.
© 2008 Barbara N. Miller
iii
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Barbara N. Miller for the degree of
in the Department of Educational Leadership to be taken
IV
Doctor ofEducation
December 2008
Title: THE USES AND EFFECTS OF HUMOR IN THE SCHOOL WORKPLACE
Approved: _
Dr. Diane M. Dunlap
The role of humor among teachers in schools has not received much research
attention. The purpose of this study was to explore teachers' perceptions of the uses and
effects of humor in the naturalistic setting of an elementary school. A qualitative
exploratory case study was conducted. Twenty participants from one school completed a
survey on uses and effects of humor, and a focus group was conducted with five of the
survey participants. Results were transcribed and coded using the constant comparative
coding methods, and themes were developed and compared to the scant prior research
findings on the topic.
Findings identified a group of teachers who used humor mostly to provide stress
relief for themselves and each other and to alleviate some of the stresses associated with
teaching young children. Participants also reported the use ofhumor in sharing stories
and events that occurred in the school workplace. Findings also included consistent
vperceived positive effects from the use of humor in building collegial relationships, in
providing rejuvenation, and in preventing burn-out. Teachers reported using humor in
positive and productive ways and enjoying positive and productive results. Overall, study
participants were in strong agreement in regards to uses and effects of humor in their
school workplace.
As this was an exploratory study, further research is needed in additional school
settings to explore reliability in regards to uses and effects of humor in other schools and
with other mixes of teachers. As the scant previous research has shown a correlation
between positive collegial relationships and good school climate and improved student
learning, it would also be beneficial to conduct additional studies on the role ofhumor
among staff in regards to student achievement.
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Barbara N. Miller
PLACE OF BIRTH: Cleveland, Ohio
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon
Ohio State University
University of Cincinnati
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Education, 2008, University of Oregon
Master of Science in Special Education, 1992, University of Oregon
Bachelor of Science in Elementary/Special Education, 1971, Ohio State
University
Associate of Science in Early Childhood, 1969, University of Cincinnati
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
The Role of Humor in the School Workplace and Classroom
Differentiated and Brain-based Learning
Special Education
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Adjunct Professor, 2000-Present
Educational Consultant, Educational Explorations, Eugene, Oregon, 2000-Present
vii
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Dave Family Humor Scholarship, Association for Applied and Therapeutic
Humor, 2008
International Award (Second Place), Enterprise Business Plan Competition and
Presentation, Association of Pacific Rim Universities, Singapore, 2006
First Place Award for Business Plan Development and Presentation, Association
of Pacific Rim Universities Enterprise Business Plan Competition,
University of Oregon, 2006
PUBLICATIONS:
Miller, B. N. (Lead Researcher). (2002-2005). Teacher Today. Naperville, IL:
Teacher Today Publications, Inc.
Vlll
ACKJ\fOWLEDGMENTS
First, my appreciation goes to my wonderful network of friends and "family" for
encouraging and supporting me along the way - thanks for not letting me throw in the
towel! A great thanks and appreciation to Eileen Orsini and her fellow teachers who
provided the research site for my study. This just proves my premise that you are the best
staff, ever.
This academic journey would never have been accomplished without the advice,
encouragement, and guidance of my two advisors - one official, one not. To my
University of Oregon advisor, Dr. Diane Dunlap - you have taught me so much about
teaching and learning, human growth and development. Your sensibility, humanness,
dedication, and mostly your understanding and appreciation of who I am has made this
doctoral journey a joy. To my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Jill Schwimmer - without
your constant and unwavering cheerleading I would never have achieved this degree.
Thank you for your guidance and your friendship. I can't wait to discover what our next
endeavor with one another will be!
To Dr. Deborah Olson - thank you for introducing me to qualitative research, for
your ongoing encouragement and support, and for the world's best teaching fellowship! I
celebrate our personal as well as our professional connection.
Dr. Phil McCullum - you sat me in your office years ago, showed me your own
dissertation, and affirmed that I could accomplish this feat. Your sense of humor in
educational leadership is greatly needed and most appreciated. Thank you.
IX
To Dr. Jean Stockard - thank you for serving on my committee. I wish that I had
had the pleasure of your association years ago.
A most sincere thank you to proofreader, formatter, and style expert
extraordinaire, Jackie Conrad. You saved me countless long hours and many sleepless
nights!
To my son Zachariah Miller-Catlin, who encouraged me to "think outside the
box" which started me down the path of educational leadership - ok, you have earned the
"triple scoop ice cream cone."
And to the sweetheart of my life, my husband and best friend, Billy Safier, for
joining me mid-stream in both my academic and life journey. Knowing your love and
support was waiting outside my office door made all those hours of writing much more
tolerable.
xIn the loving memory of my mother, Evelyn Baratt Miller, who always supported my
educational pursuits, and my father, Charles "Whitey" Miller who always believed in me.
Xl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background 4
Definition of Terms 7
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10
Theories of Humor 10
Research Studies 14
The Gunning Study 15
The Susa Study.............. 19
The Mawhinney Study............................................................................. 21
Other Studies 24
III. METHODOLOGY... 29
Research Design 30
Design of the Study........................................................................................ 32
Constant Comparative Method 34
Generalizability and Validity......................................................................... 36
Limitations of the Design............................................................................... 38
IV. RESULTS 42
Uses of Humor 43
Effects of Humor................... 46
V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 51
Types of Humor 51
The Use of Humor to Prevent Burnout 54
The Uses of Humor 56
The Effects of Humor 57
XlI
Chapter Page
Interpretation of Findings 58
Application of Findings 62
The Answer to My Study Questions 63
Limitations of This Study...... 63
Recommendations for Further Research 65
Changes in Practice 66
APPENDICES 68
A. DRAFT SURVEY QUESTIONS 68
B. DRAFT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS 70
BIBLIOGRAPHY 71
X111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Uses of Humor 45
2. Effects of Humor 50
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Analyzing humor is like dissecting afrog. Few
people are interested and the frog dies ofit.
E. B. White
What role does humor play for teachers in elementary schools? While humor is
used every day by adults, it is usually not a topic for research and, in fact, we pay
minimal attention to the uses and effects of humor. We take it for granted as part of
everyday life. Teacher education preparation programs do not usually teach about uses of
humor, except perhaps as a minor aspect of teaching itself. For example, it is common to
advise educators entering the field "not to smile until winter break," even though the use
of humor can be both an effective and appropriate means to deliver instruction
(Wallinger, 1997). Is the topic of humor one that should be addressed in teacher
education programs? Should pre-service teachers receive information on appropriate uses
of humor in their future prospective workplaces? Should in service teachers receive
professional development on the role humor plays amongst adults in their schools?
Anyone who has worked in any complex work setting knows that appropriate
uses of humor can make the challenges of the work day lighter. With the pressures of
accountability growing, schools can be stressful places to work. All of the challenges of
2society are reflected in today's classrooms: not only do teachers have to teach a broader
range of students, they must do so in an atmosphere that may be marked by student
apathy, unruliness, use of drugs, and overt violence. Schools are increasingly diverse,
rendering even experienced teachers somewhat at a loss as to how to meet the needs of all
learners. This changing climate presents differing expectations about what teachers
should be doing every day in the classroom, which is becoming more complex with each
passing decade.
The humor used by adults who work together in a school environment can create
and sustain both positive working and learning environments. Yet little research has been
done on what type of humor works, and how, as educators, we could do more to expand
the positive uses of humor in the school work place. As Roland S. Barth, author and
senior lecturer in education at Harvard University has written: Schools are funny places
(1990). Humor can be the glue that binds an assorted group of individuals into a
community. We should make an effort to elicit and cultivate it, rather than to ignore,
thwart, or merely tolerate it.
In the culture of today's workplace, humor is not generally regarded as an
important element of the work environment. We do know that humor exists and serves
many purposes in the workplace. Norrick (1993) has written that, "Everyday
conversation thrives on wordplay, sarcasm, anecdotes, and jokes. These forms of humor
enliven conversation, and help break the ice, fill uncomfortable pauses, negotiate requests
for favors, and build group solidarity" (p. 1). Humor can have positive or negative effects
(Duncan, Smeltzer, & Leap, 1990). However, humor has been shown to have an overall
3positive effect and to be an asset to the workplace, as it has the ability to improve the
quality oflife, job satisfaction, and performance (Consalvo, 1989).
What we don't know is how the uses of humor affect adults in school settings. In
fact, research of workplace humor in naturalistic settings has enjoyed minimal study.
While the business environment has begun to address the importance and uses of humor
in the workplace, and there exist publications such as Nursing Jocularity and Humor:
International Journal ofHumor Research, this has not crossed over into research on
humor in schools and other social service settings. How can we elicit and cultivate the
positive uses of humor in the school work place ifwe don't have research that tells us
what constitutes positive uses of humor in schools? How can we know what effects the
uses of humor can have on the school workplace if we do not ask the people who are in
the schools about how humor uses affect them? It is important to know about the types of
humor that exist in schools, why and how humor is used, and what effect the use of
humor has on the school as a workplace.
Schools have long recognized that they enjoy a particular culture within each
setting. Researchers of organizational culture write about and discuss the need to
understand the underpinnings of the humorous interplay in the culture of a particular
organization (Duncan et ai., 1990). Humor is intricately connected to the culture code and
insights into a society's values (Berger, 1976) and is generally seen as an artifact ofa
particular culture within an organization (Ott, 1989; Sackman, 1991; Schein, 1992).
Through the use of artifacts, which include messages received through sight, sound, and
feelings, the values and norms of an organization, and the rules of behavior, function as a
4means of social control (Ott; Schein). While there are ambiguous definitions of culture, it
is generally agreed that culture is learned, that is both distinctive to a particular group and
shared by that group, and that it is intrinsically tied to core beliefs and values which
underlie rules of behavior.
It is necessary that teachers coordinate their core beliefs, perceptions, and
behaviors. This coordination occurs through communication with the goal of developing
some common understandings (Pepper, 1995). Taylor (1993) writes, "Organization is not
merely mediated by communication; it is continually regenerated, and recreated, by
communication ... " (p. 227).
Having worked in a variety of schools, as an administrator, a teacher, and a
supervisor, I have experienced first hand the roles of both culture and humor in school
settings. As a professor of teacher education courses, I hear teachers report on the culture
of their schools and the role humor plays among staff. It is apparent to me that
appropriate uses of humor in schools are appreciated, valued, and desired.
What do teachers think and how do they feel about the role humor plays in their
interactions with one another? The purpose ofmy study was to explore teachers'
perceptions ofthe uses and effects ofhumor in the naturalistic setting ofan elementary
school.
Background
Schools are places that are fraught with routines. Bells ring, schedules must be
followed, benchmarks must be reached. While lots of funny things happen in schools, the
5academic achievement of students is no laughing matter. Teachers view their jobs as
serious work, with the outcomes of effective educational practices essential to a healthy
and productive society. Long hours in the classroom, coupled with extensive hours of
planning, preparation, and review of student work, make teacher burnout a very real
condition.
Societal attitudes about teachers and education also add stress to today's schools
as workplaces. In general, teachers are perceived by society and by those who set national
educational policy as being at least partly to blame for the failure of many students to
achieve at even basic levels of competency. This is reflected in the prescriptive and
punitive policies of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) programs and tests. In a survey
conducted by the Teachers Network (2007), over 5600 public school teachers from all 50
states recently responded to an online survey regarding the effectiveness ofNCLB and its
impact on teaching. Seventy-five percent of the teachers surveyed reported experiencing
a great deal of pressure from NCLB to improve students' test scores. Teachers Network
expressed desire that policymakers look at the data in regard to teacher burnout, as 69%
of survey respondents "strongly agreed" that NCLB and its requirement of Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) has contributed to teacher burnout. Kyriacou (1987) suggested
both direct action in addressing teacher burnout, as well as palliative techniques,
consisting of physical methods such as relaxation and exercise, and mental techniques
such as positive perspective and humor.
Teachers are often seen as people who came to be teachers because they could not
do anything else, and may be viewed as "glorified baby-sitters." This is especially true
6for elementary school teachers. One of the most readily "at-hand" stress-relieving
mechanisms that teachers can use is humor shared with colleagues. Berkman (1985) and
Cohen and Wills (1985) suggest that one's social network can mediate the effects oflife
demands on health and well-being. In summary, the stressors from both within and
outside of the classroom contribute to a complex and often unrewarding workplace for
teachers. Humor can help to mitigate these stresses and also serve to enhance the
individuals' perceptions and attitudes in regards to their jobs.
In the following chapters, I examine the issues around humor among adults in
elementary school settings. Chapter I begins with an exploration of the topic of humor in
the school workplace setting and provides background into the uses and importance of
humor in naturalistic settings. Chapter I also provides an outline of the dissertation and
concludes with definitions of terms. Chapter II is a review of the prior related research on
this topic. Specifically addressed are the related contexts of society and culture, the
nature of public school settings, and research related to the general roles of uses of humor
in the workplace.
In Chapter III, the research methods planned and the assumptions made through
this study are discussed. The design of the planned study is presented along with a review
of the limitations of the design. I discuss attempts to compensate for limitations of the
design and for potential issues of bias. Chapter IV reports the data collected from short
answer questionnaires, focus groups, and surveys. Finally, Chapter V presents an analysis
of the findings of this study in the context of prior research on this topic. Limitations of
the study are discussed, and conclusions drawn about contributions of this study to future
7practice and to theory. I conclude with recommendations for changes in practice and for
future research.
Definition of Terms
• Artifacts - the phenomena that an individual sees, hears, and feels including
architecture, language, technology, products, artistic creations, style of clothing
worn, manners of address, emotional displays, myths and stories told about the
organization, published lists of values, and observable rituals and ceremonies
(Schein, 1992).
• Basic assumptions - implicit, taken-for-granted, non-debatable assumptions that
guide behavior and tell group members how to perceive, think about, and feel
about things. These assumptions reflect deeper issues about the nature of truth,
time, space, human nature, and human relationships (Schein, 1992).
• Climate - "the feeling that is conveyed in a group by the physical layout and the
way in which members of the organization interact with each other, with
customers, or with other outsiders ... " (Schein, 1992, p. 9).
• Culture - the attitudes and customs that individuals hold by which they
understand their own experience(s) and by which they guide their behavior(s).
• Espoused values - "the atticulated, publicly announced principles and values that
the group claims to be trying to achieve... " (Schein, 1992, p. 9).
• Focus group - "a qualitative method of gathering in-depth information on a
specific topic through a discussion group atmosphere which allows an insight into
8the behavior and thinking of the individual group members" (Bellenger et aI.,
1979, p. 15).
• Formal philosophy - "the broad policies and ideological principles that guide a
group's actions ... " (Schein, 1992, p. 8).
• Group norms - "the implicit standards and values that evolve in working
groups ... " (Schein, 1992, p.8).
• Humor - good natured, laugh, or smile-provoking stimuli that is likely to be
minimally offensive to the target of the laughter or smiling (Gruner, 1996)
including pranks, wisecracks, teasing, bantering, riddles, puns, jokes, stories,
songs, silly noises, funny faces, and gestures. Humor can also include ridicule and
sarcasm, which may not always be viewed in a positive light (Duncan, 1982).
• Joke - "any structured communication, with a witty or funny intent, which the
teller seemed to know in advance of telling it. It may be a story, riddle, pun,
skeptical question, rhyme, hypothetical book title, proverb, slogan, or similar
format" (Winick, 1976, p. 124).
• Organizational communication - "the collective and interactive process of
generating and interpreting messages" (Stohl, 1995, p. 4).
• Organizational culture - "shared values, beliefs, assumptions, perceptions, norms,
artifacts, and patterns of behavior. It is the unseen and unobservable force that is
always behind organizational activities that can be seen and observed" (Ott, 1989,
p.1).
-----------
• Organizational subculture - a "subset of an organization's members who interact
regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group, share a set of
problems, and routinely take action on the basis of collective understandings
unique to the group" (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985, p. 38).
• Shared meanings - "the emergent understandings that are created by group
members as they interact with each other. .. " (Schein, 1992, p. 9).
9
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Humor, the ability to find amusing, witty or optimistic views in life, can be found
in all societies and cultures (Clouse & Spurgeon, 1995). Functions of humor include the
development and management of social relationships, ways to deal with uncomfortable or
stressful situations, ways to reduce boredom or deal with frustration, and as a means to
illustrate or teach a message (Fry & Slavin, 1988; Morreall, 1991). Individual variances
or antecedent conditions to the use of humor include conditions of gender, ethnicity,
physical traits, as well as other conditions which may contribute to an individual being
liked or disliked. The structure of humor includes the interplay of various attributes such
as humor initiators, audiences, targets of humor, and the context and type of humor being
used (Ziv, 1984).
Theories ofHumor
There is no theoretical agreement on what constitutes humor. While over 100
types of humor have been identified (Schmidt & Williams, 1971), they are typically
divided into three groupings. One group includes the biological, relief, and ambivalence
models. Darwin's theory (1872) suggested humor being an adaptive disposition. The
re1ie£'re1ease model, identified by Freud (1928) and by Spencer (1860), suggests humor
11
being experienced when people use it as a relief from stress or strain. These types of
humor center around the function of humor, and its value to us as humans.
The second group includes incongruity, surprise, and configuration. These are
models around the stimuli for humor. The incongruity theory was first named by
Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, in 1790. Arthur Schopenhauer (1819) further
explained this theory in his work, The World as Will and Idea, by saying that laughter is a
means of acknowledging the humor that results when one idea or action "disconnects"
with one's expectations. An example of this is the element of incongruity often built into
theatre or comedy presentations. We laugh because of the incongruity of the sequence of
actions, which may startle our expectations. In 1649, Descartes identified the surprise
model of humor, which says that humor requires suddenness.
The last group includes the superiority model. This model is based on the concept
of censorship, and revolves around the concept of one person or entity being superior
over another. This conceptual model goes back as far as Plato in the 5th centuly B.C.E. It
is within this grouping that we try to find out what makes something funny, as we
consider our humorous responses.
Knowing the types of humor does not immediately transfer into application.
Minimal work has been done extending these theories to actual studies of the uses of
humor in the workplace. For example, we know little about the sometimes subtle
differences in culture, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and socio-economic level that may play
out in the use of humor in schools. Yet, we know that those sometimes subtle differences
12
make a big difference in whether a particular person finds a statement humorous, or
humorous and appropriate to the time, place, and setting.
Obviously, not all things are humorous to all people. Duncan (1982) states,
"Humor appreciation is as uniquely individual as is any other aspect of personality and
attitudes." Therefore, any study that looks at humor in the workplace needs to be aware
of and sensitive to the related characteristics of the individuals within the setting. In
today's politically correct culture, it is necessary to be perceptive as to what is considered
appropriate, and inappropriate, humor. Humor directed at minorities, ethnicities, or
gender are considered by most people today as inappropriate in a work setting and carry
the very real consideration of potentia11awsuits. This consideration is essential in school
settings, which have a unique and diverse culture and are also legal workplaces where
law suits can be filed.
Despite cultural mixes that make individual responses often difficult to predict,
and despite the possibility of humor being misinterpreted, positive humor among staff in
school settings plays an important role. Barth (1990) found that the nature of adult
relationships in a school have more to do with the success and accomplishments of its
students than any other factor, and adversaria1 relationships within the school among the
school staff can have negative effects.
The use of humor may have a positive effect on preventing teacher burnout.
Worker burnout was first identified by Freudenburger in 1974 as a phenomenon resulting
from workers in helping professions such as teaching, nursing, and social work. These
professionals reported often being pressured to give more of themselves than they were
13
able to give, resulting in worker burnout, or disengagement in their jobs. Researchers
Mas1ach and Jackson (1981) conducted much of the early research in regards to burnout
among workers, such as educators, in the helping professions. They described three
dimensions of the condition, which are widely accepted by researchers (Anderson &
Iwanicki, 1984; Byrne, 1994; Farber, 1984a, 1984b; Fisher, 1984; Jackson et aI., 1986;
Russell et aI., 1987; San-os & San-os, 1987, 1990; Schwab et aI., 1986; Schwab &
Iwanicki, 1982; Stephenson 1990). These three dimensions are measured using the
Maslach Burnout Inventory (1986). The dimensions are:
1. Emotional exhaustion - the feeling that one has used up all of one's emotional
resources;
2. Depersonalization - the development of negative and/or cynical attitudes
towards the very individuals one is supposed to be helping;
3. Feelings oflow personal accomplishment - the sense of one's loss of
effectiveness during the perfounance of one's work related duties.
Teachers are at great risk for burnout due to isolation from peers throughout the
work day. Most person-to-person contacts in elementary school settings are with children
rather than with other adults, and finding the time and/or energy to connect before or after
hours can be difficult, causing a feeling of disconnect (Bennett & LeCompte, 1990).
Barth (1990) advises educators to look for opportunities for revitalization and
recommitment to their chosen profession. Specifically, Barth suggests, "Who can do what
to provide opportunities for periodic recommitment for those who work in schools so that
14
they will continue to view their work as a vital profession and not as a tedious job?" (p.
514). Humor affords just these opportunities.
Research Studies
Humor in the workplace has primarily been addressed in trade books, such as,
Leave a Mark, Not a Stain! What Every Manager Needs to Know About Using Humor in
the Workplace, by Patt Schwab (2005), and Laughing Nine to Five: The Quest for Humor
in the Workplace, by Clyde Fahlman (1997). There is limited research on the effects of
humor in workplaces in general and even less specifically about uses of humor among
school staff. An initial Google Scholar search using the terms "humor in K-12 settings"
yielded 2,280 citations. Most of them were "how to" non-research articles about how to
use humor in teaching. A Google Scholar search using "humor in the elementary school
workplace" yielded 6,580 citations. When "classroom uses," "library teaching uses,"
"humor between the principal and teachers," and "after-school humor with students"
references were removed, only four research studies that focused on uses of humor
among teachers remained. They are discussed below.
A related sub-set of research about the medical and physical aspects of the use of
humor emerged during the search for studies of humor in the workplace. The importance
of humor to reduce stress has been recognized by the medical profession. A hearty laugh
cleanses the body of carbon dioxide, relaxes muscles, increases the flow of adrenaline,
exercises the cardiovascular system, and cleanses the eyes with tears. Humor also
releases endorphins, the brain chemical that relieves pain (Fry & Slavin, 1988). A good
15
laugh assists the body's immune system (Lefcourt, Davidson-Katz, & Kueneman, 1990).
Perhaps the most important role of humor in the workplace is its function as a relaxant.
Stress has been shown to affect worker absenteeism and productivity (Anderson, Miller,
& Cowling, 2001). The effects of stress have been shown to affect both job satisfaction
and commitment (James & Tetrick, 1986; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Common workplace
techniques to reduce stress are relaxation, yoga, meditation, and biofeedback, as well as
humor (MolTeall, 1991). In the day-to-day setting of schools, humor may be the only
viable on-site methodology.
The Gunning Study
A study on the role humor plays in shaping organizational culture was conducted
by Barbara L. Gunning (2001). The study was conducted at a child welfare agency. In a
qualitative study, using focus groups and participant observation, Gunning looked at how
humor was created and experienced within a particular social service organizational
culture. Her research was guided by studying how employees' perceptions, beliefs, and
experiences, as related to humor, were different in regards to one's place in the
organizational hierarchy. Also, she explored how employees at different levels within the
hierarchy used humor to meet similar or different goals. Qualitative methodology was
deemed the most appropriate procedure, due to the exploratory nature of her
investigation. Gunning herself was a member of the organization she studied, and she
cited research that endorsed such in-depth involvement. Schein (1992) discusses the
value of a researcher being deep within a workforce site. This is a perspective shared by
Pacanowsky and Q'Donnell-Trujillo (1982). Consideration was also given that the
16
researcher should not become overly incorporated in the setting, thus resulting in a loss of
objectivity (G1esne & Peshkin, 1992).
Gunning created focus groups as a means to gather information. Schein (1992)
contends that in a group situation it is easier to get at shared assumptions due to the
stimulus provided from interaction amongst the group members. Krueger (1994) and
Morgan (1997) also recommended focus groups if the goal of a study is to understand
individual perceptions, feelings, knowledge, attitudes, and practices. In a group interview
format different people bring different perspectives, some of which they may be unaware
of without interaction with others (Morgan). Additionally, focus groups provide an
environment that duplicates the actual workplace - where the influence of individuals
plays a role. Gunning used five focus groups to identify both trends and patterns in
perception. While the individual groups had some homogeneity in regards to the
hierarchical structure, there existed enough variation as to permit contrasting and
opposing opinions. Her goal was to form groups that were homogeneous in background
but not attitudes. Morgan (1997) found that such homogeneity allows for spontaneity in
conversation amongst the participants and also facilitates the analysis of varying
perspectives between groups.
Each focus group began with 13 open-ended questions in the manner suggested
by Krueger (1994). The intent of the first question was to establish comfort and general
rapport. The next two questions had the purpose of an introduction of the general topic
and an opportunity for participants to reflect on their own past person experiences. The
following four questions were included to assist participants in looking at the topic in a
17
broader manner, by asking participants where, with whom, and what they joke about at
work. Four key questions covered topics such as the benefits of humor in the workplace,
the appropriate use of asking where a participant may be prevented from using humor.
Participants were then given a brief questionnaire to complete, followed by asking what
goals an individual is trying to accomplish through the use of humor. At the conclusion of
the focus group, participants were asked if they felt there was something that should have
been discussed but was not.
The use of a focus group allows for gaining a deeper and richer understanding of
the role of humor in complex, naturalistic settings such as schools. Focus groups are
helpful when insights, perceptions, and explanations bear greater importance than
numbers (Krueger, 1994).
Gunning concluded that her study helped answer the research question: How is
humor created and experienced within (this) organizational culture? She felt that her
research also helped answer questions in regards to employees' perceptions, beliefs, and
experiences in relation to their position in the hierarchy of the organization, and how
employees at varying hierarchical levels use humor to meet similar or different goals. Her
findings suggest that humor is important across all hierarchical levels. Humor helps
newcomers assimilate an existing work culture, and once assimilated humor helps to
build and maintain relationships. Gunning found that humor may be an important
antecedent to getting work done, and may help in relieving stress and frustration,
particularly when dealing with child-related concerns. Humor helps people maintain
18
objectivity and rationality, and in a child protective agency may even be so essential that
without humor one may not be able to be successful in the field.
Gunning also discussed the use of humor in creating an environment with high
morale, teamwork, and an ability to be flexible and open to new ideas and concepts.
Supportive humor was found to be pleasurable across hierarchical levels. Gunning
discussed the benefits of humor to organizational leaders, as humor sheds light on the
interpersonal relationships between workers and management. Through appropriate uses
of humor, requests can be made, apologies offered, and praise bestowed. However there
are also cautions. Workers may fear using humor with supervisors, resulting in less than
ideal communication and, if the humor is only one-sided, strained relationships may
result. Humor should not be used in place of open, forthright communication. The use of
humor in the workplace is further complicated by the influence of culture and of
individuality.
Gunning addressed some limitations to her study. As the focus group members
were verbally self-reporting their attitudes and beliefs, perhaps people tended to share
only what was comfortable for them to share. The analysis was based on fragments of
information and she was aware that these fragments may not have told the whole story.
Krueger (1994) reported that fragments may in fact not necessarily be relevant, as "there
is a tendency to selectively see or hear only those comments that confirm a particular
point of view and avoid dealing with information that causes us dissonance" (Krueger,
1994, p. 129). "Our training, our background, and our experiences influence what we
notice and what we attend to" (Krueger, p. 129), leaving Gunning to feel that her study
19
would have been strengthened if, after her documentation, she could have obtained
verification. It is challenging to know what particular role humor may play in the
workplace, because functional theories of humor are, at best, educated guesses (Apte,
1985). In that sense, Gunning felt that her study was as much a study of perception as of
observable phenomenon. Perhaps this is what Morgan (1986) was implying by the
comment that one must "become skilled in the art of 'reading' the situations ... " (p. 11)
and that such a skill is developed as an intuitive process and "often occurs at an almost
subconscious level" (p. 11). Observations were limited to settings in which Gunning
could gain entry, and where there were humorous events to be observed. Gunning felt
that her study could have been strengthened by delving deeper into an organization and
by having access to more private settings in the workplace. She recommended that further
studies explore the topic in other work environments.
The Susa Study
Anthony M. Susa conducted a study on organizational humor. His study, Humor
Type, Organizational Climate, and Outcomes: The Shortest Distance Between an
Organization's Environment and the Bottom Line is Laughter (2002), looked at the
relationship between the three types of humor, (relief, incongruity, and superiority) in the
workplace. Susa found little empirical research on the role of humor in organizational
settings. He attributed this to the emerging role of the recognition of the importance of
humor in the workplace. Susa also expressed concerns in regards to the lack of a
consistent approach to the measurement of humor in the workplace, which led to the
development of The Organizational Humor Scale (2002). Susa developed The
20
Organizational Humor Scale for use in examining how the three humor types affected 75
employees of a mid-sized financial service company. He looked at the areas ofjob
satisfaction, commitment to the organization, organizational creativity, perceived
organizational support, absenteeism, and job performance. The 31 questions, with
responses gathered in a Likert Scale format, were analyzed into four generalized topic
areas. The first topic question asked, "What is the relationship between humor and
organizational climate?", from which Susa drew three main conclusions: (a) a
relationship between an individual's sense of humor is related to the climate of an
organization, (b) perceptions of superiority humor were linked to negative organizational
climates, and (c) perception of incongruity humor were associated with positive
organizational climates. The second topic question examined, "Will the three major
humor types impact organizational outcomes differently?" His study suggested that the
type of humor used relates to job performance in varying ways. The use of incongruity
and/or relief humor may be a means by which managers can increase employee
performance, where the use of superiority humor is associated with lower ratings ofjob
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Results from Susa's third topic question,
"How will perceptions ofthe different humor types impact employee creative problem
solving in a work environment?", indicated that managers who used humor effectively
were seen by their supervisors as being better prepared to solve problems and address
workplace challenges. The positive aspects of incongruity and relief humor were related
to high scores on organizational creativity measures, with lower ratings linked to the
negative aspects of superiority based humor. The fourth topic question, "What is the
21
relationship between the type ofhumor employed by management and commitment,
satisfaction, andperceptions ofmanagerial support?", found results indicating that
where uses of relief or incongruity humor may not directly increase satisfaction or
commitment, the use of superiority humor results in a decrease of these important
organizational outcomes. Overall, Susa reported results that suggest that humor has an
important role in the perception of a worker's organizational climate. The relation of
humor to organizational outcome may be different, and whether it is a positive or
negative relationship may be dependent on the very type of humor used. In general, Susa
found superiority humor to be associated with low job satisfaction, low job commitment,
low organizational creativity, as well as low overall job performance. Relief humor
especially, and sometimes incongruity humor, showed a greater positive correlation with
organizational outcomes (defined as job satisfaction, commitment, creativity, and overall
job performance, including a record of good attendance). Susa felt his research validates
the importance of additional studies of humor in the workplace, and in particular the
connection between humor and organizational climate.
The Mawhinney Study
The most current study found was conducted by Mawhinney (2008). This study
specifically addressed the value of humor in school settings and was published in
Ethnography and Education. This ethnographic study focused on the informal
interactions in one U.S. K-8 school, with a particular focus on the lunchtime break.
The paper addresses the issue of isolation for teachers, which creates a lack of
community (Rogers & Babinski, 2002) and the resultant autonomous work style (Tickle,
--------------.- ._._.-
22
2000). Several studies over the last quarter century have found that the isolation of
teachers has the resultant factor of lessening long-tenn interest in both one's work and
one's interest in his or her school (Forsyth & Hoy, 1978; Williams, Prestage, & Bedward,
2001; Zielinski and Hoy, 1983). Williams et al. (2001) also discovered that teachers place
a higher value on spontaneous collaboration that develops as a result of informal
conversations and encounters, as opposed to more structured collaboration. The
discussion addresses emotionally taxing jobs, jobs such as teaching, which require
emotional labor, a tenn developed by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild (1983).
Emotional labor is defined as "the management of feeling to create a publicly observable
facial and bodily display; emotional labour is sold for a wage and therefore has exchange
value" (Hochschild, p. 7). Occupations with the following three characteristics are
described by Hochschild as being emotional labor:
First, they [the jobs] require face-to-face or voice-to-voice contact with the public.
Second, they require the worker to produce an emotional state in another person -
gratitude or fear for example. Third, they allow the employer, through training
and supervision, to exercise a degree of control over the emotional activities of
employees. (p. 147)
While not all jobs with emotional labor contain all three elements, Mawhinney
(2008) contends that teaching certainly does. Throughout their day teachers are required
to present a positive or neutral emotional state. Teachers are expected to disguise any
negative feelings or emotions in regards to their students, colleagues, or their job, and
only reveal their true emotions in private spaces. The use of humor is an effective coping
23
mechanism and serves as a way many teachers suppOli one another (Hochschild, 1983).
Woods' (1979) study in England, found the use of humor by teachers in the teachers'
lounge to be a means to develop solidarity and to cope with everyday stresses of the
profession.
Mawhinney's (2008) study had three evolving themes from a group of seventh
and eighth grade teachers: teachers laughing at themselves and one another, a way to deal
with irritations in regards to students, and a means to deal with the frustrations of the job.
Humorous interactions provided a social support for the teachers. Interviews with the
participating teachers showed the use oflaughter to help reduce stress and as a means to
express some hidden emotions, as well as a means to cope with the hardships of being in
an emotional labor profession. Participants of the self-proclaimed "lunch bunch" sought
one another out for the purposes of humor and laughter release, and particularly sought
out individual teachers who had the reputation of being humorous or of telling humorous
stories and anecdotes. The staff of this particular school reported a long history of
practical jokes which also contributed to the relief of daily school-based stresses.
Mawhinney (2008) concluded that the social support provided through the use of
humor provided a means to deal with, discuss, and problem-solve the pressing concerns
of the job. The teachers that were observed and interviewed stated that laughter helped
them soothe their battle wounds. This study concentrated on the use of humor in the
congregational space of the teachers lounge. Data showed that informal humorous
interactions provided social and emotional support, released stress, and helped teachers
cope with everyday demands of the teaching profession. Mawhinney recommended
24
further exploration on this topic, and further study on teacher-to-teacher interactions, in
order to fully understand the professional lives of teachers.
Other Studies
Vinton's (1989) study of humor in the workplace was done in a small family-
owned business; however she had some interesting findings that assisted in framing part
of my interview and survey protocol. She found that various types of humor helped
maintain low status differentials, and that theory may be applied to schools as a work
setting. Holmes' (2000) study of four New Zealand government departments also yielded
a useful framework of how humor functions in professional organizations, like schools.
Her subsequent 2005 study of collegial relations particularly identified gender and
gendered humor sequences as an explicit focus of workplace humor.
Fine and DeSoucey (2005) contended that every interacting social group
develops, over time, a joking culture, or a set of humorous references. These cultural
attitudes are known to members of the group and members can refer to them that as the
basis of further interaction. Their ethnographic research was on mushroom collectors and
also professional meteorologists and is framed by small group and sociological theories
of social regulation.
Weiner (1988) found that in all definitions of organizational culture there is the
implicit idea of shared values, attitudes, and expectations. Schneider (1990) conducted a
study of climate research, which refers to the concept of a collection of individual
perceptions that workers have in relation to their environment. Greenberg and Baron
(1993) found the existence of group norms and socialization processes that influence, in
25
subtle or overt ways, individual workers to at least give the appearance that they are
going along with the social norms of the group. I speculated that humor would be one
value that would shape organizational culture. As organizational climate is based on a
collection of the perceptions of the individuals, gathering information from individual
teachers in regards to their attitudes and perceptions of the role humor plays in their
school provides a means by which to view the school culture through a previously
unstudied lens.
Amabile (1983) and Amabile et al. (1996) found that the creative process can be
influenced by organizational climate factors. The potential benefits of working in a
creative environment should have positive effects in the school's organizational setting.
Teaching is a creative process, and information on the role humor plays may show a
relationship to creativity in the organizational setting of a school.
Retallick and Butt (2002, 2004) conducted a study analyzing the workplace
relationships of teachers and their peers. They reference the current educational climate
of schools as learning communities where adult relationships are based on trust and
collegiality, rather than on hierarchy. Teachers were asked to respond in writing on their
feelings about their work lives, specify events that may have created those feelings, and
reflect on why they had developed the attitudes they had. Three broad themes were
found: climate, referring to the general context of the school workplace; collegial
communication, defined as a generic sense of peer verbal interactions; andfacilitating
workplace learning and teacher development, which relates to experiences of particular
events focused on both individual and collective professional learning. They concluded
26
that positive workplace relationships affect, to a large extent, satisfaction with their
workplace. When communication among peers was viewed as being positive, with
elements of positive support, encouragement, sharing, trust, and recognition, a positive
workplace climate was experienced. Their study also addresses the aspect of social
intimacy and the effects a supportive climate has on professional learning. While the
value of humor per se was not discussed, it seems safe to say that positive uses of humor
would contribute to the overall value of positive workplace environments.
The concept of schools as learning communities was explored by Mitchell and
Sackney (2000). They discuss a way to construct a learning community that consists of
three basic principles: personal capacity, interpersonal capacity, and organizational
capacity.
Building personal capacity has been found to be somewhat dependent on the ties
that are established within the community, and are developed through participation in
emotional activities (Mitchell & Hyle, 1999; Smylie & Hart, 1999). The building of
personal capacity serves to enhance and interconnect teaching and learning for the
teachers and their students. According to Wineburg and Grossman (1998), "schools
cannot become exciting places for children until they first become exciting places for
adults" (p. 350). The emotion of excitement is at the very heart and essence of schools.
Humor is perhaps one of the strongest emotional passions evident in humankind. As
Mitchell and Sackney (2000) state, "Without passion, life and learning are routine and
sterile; with passion, they are exciting and meaningful, and knowledge is not simply
accumulated but also transformed" (p. 21).
27
The building of interpersonal capacity shifts the focus from the individual to the
group. Stamps (1998) says, "Relationships, more than information, they determine how
problems get solved or opportunities exploited" (p. 37). Teachers in any particular school
come from a variety of backgrounds, knowledge bases, personal and professional
histories, and bring with them individual emotions, desires, and needs. Due to these
individual differences the workplace climate can be sensitive, and bears great influence
on the norms and culture of a school. The building and maintenance of positive
interpersonal relationships serves to enhance the overall climate of the school workplace.
The organizational capacity of a school has a strong effect on personal and
interpersonal relationships within (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000). Schools are lonely places
for many teachers, as contact with other educators is often at a minimum. The attitudes of
individualism and privacy are often the norm (Firestone, 1996). Schools need to look for
ways to break through what may be entrenched socio-cultural conditions. Humor can be
one means by which to do this.
Beer and Beer (1992) and Hodge, Jupp and Taylor (1994) studied teachers and
teacher burnout, and found that positive uses of humor in the workplace were essential to
teachers' sense of self-esteem and reduced occupational burnout. However, they did not
focus on defining specific uses and types of humor, and both studies were conducted in
England.
In summary, we know that humor is a basic human emotion, and that the presence
of appropriate humor may create a more enjoyable working environment. What we don't
know are any specifics about the role humor plays in the U.S. school working
environment, the interplay and effects of humor in regards to adult relationships in
elementary schools, or the frequency which humor is used amongst adults in school
settings. My research is an attempt to delve into those questions and therefore provide
some information where there is presently a gap.
28
29
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes my research design, discusses the strengths and
weaknesses of the model, and explains why the methods chosen were appropriate for my
research purpose. I then provide information about the setting and about the study
participants and discuss my reasons for choosing this particular site. Methods of
gathering and analyzing data are explained. By addressing the potential limitations of this
type of research design, I will discuss my attempts to reduce potential threats to validity.
The chapter concludes with a discussion on limitations to generalizability for this study.
Again, the purpose ofmy study was to explore teachers' perceptions ofthe uses
and effects ofhumor in the K-12 workplace. The generalized research question guiding
this study was: How is humor created and experienced by elementary school teachers as
related to their workplace? Ancillary questions that shaped and guided this study
included:
1. How do teachers describe and define the uses and effects of humor in their
school workplace?
2. How are the perceptions, beliefs, and experiences related to humor similar or
different from those of other teachers?
3. How do teachers use humor to meet similar or different individual goals?
----------_._----------
30
4. How do teachers use humor to meet similar or different school goals?
The reported results are grouped into three areas: (a) the reported structures of
humor and its interplay in the daily work life of the school as workplace, (b) individual
variances or antecedent conditions, and (c) the perceived functions of humor in the school
workplace.
Research Design
"Few researchers have concerned themselves specifically with the task of
describing the nature ofhumorous interchanges as these occur in naturalistic or
quasinaturalistic group settings" (Scogin & Pollio, 1980, p. 832).
Due to the exploratory nature of this study, qualitative methods were used along
with elements of quantitative methodology, making this a mixed methods study.
Qualitative research is known for its ability to provide in-depth information when there
are a small number of cases being studied. Yin, Bateman, and Moore (1983) found that
studies that used mUltiple sources of evidence had higher ratings of quality, as opposed to
those that rely on single sources of information; therefore, I developed a design drawing
on multiple sources of data. Previous researchers of workplace humor have favored
qualitative methodology (Pepper, 1995; Schein, 1992; Scogin & Pollio, 1980). In order to
understand how members of a particular community make sense of interactions with one
another, access to the knowledge that these members have in regards to their interactions
is advised (Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1982). Once this information is obtained,
"the interpretative researcher tries to discover the experience of organizational members
31
as they understand it without reference to a set of pre-established concepts" (Daniels &
Spiker, 1987, p. 251). Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo (1982) also contend that,
"Culture is amenable not to causal analysis but to interpretation. An account of
organizational culture begs not for an assessment of its reliability and validity, but for an
assessment of its plausibility and its insight" (p. 123).
Morgan (1986) and Pepper (1995) suggested that organizational communication
studies be rooted in the everyday, ordinary, and extraordinary talk and behaviors of the
site. An exploratory study can provide a detailed look at a particular setting, subject, or
event (Men'iam, 1988; Yin, 2003; Stake, 1994). Case studies are often the preferred
research methodology when "how" or "why" questions are asked, when the researcher
has minimal control over events, and when the focus of the research is on a
"contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context" (Yin, 2003). The use of a
single case study as an exploratory device was discussed by Yin (2003). A vulnerability
of such a study may be that it may later tum out to be not the case it was thought to be.
This study was revelatory in the respect that I was able to gain easy access to the teachers
and the site.
According to Bogden and Biklen (2003), in site-specific research, the following
foci are typical:
1. A particular place in the organization
2. A specific group of people
3. A specific activity
32
For this study I chose one particular elementary school (place), a group of certified
teachers (people) and the role humor played in their interactions in the school (activity).
Design of the Study
The elementary school staff that was chosen for this study was one where I had
reliable access. Teachers are busy people and they often eschew extraneous work that is
not seen as having an immediate, positive affect on their students or their jobs. Having
been a member of the staff at this school over 10 years ago, I was known to some of the
teachers. I enjoyed a personal friendship with one of the teachers who was a tremendous
asset in providing contacts within the school, with other teachers, in recruiting for the
focus group, and in assisting in the distribution of the surveys. In other words, I chose
this site because I had ready access to it, they were accustomed to me as occasionally
present in their setting, and my presence for this project was likely to have a minimal
affect on how they either responded to me or to my questions. The staff at this school
remains fairly consistent, therefore presenting a good opportunity to collect reliable data.
The site is a medium-sized elementary school of approximately 450 students in
grades K-5. The school rates "strong" in all areas of performance and attendance and has
met all annual yearly progress (AYP) standards as defined by NCLB in recent years. The
school is located in a mixed income neighborhood, with about two-thirds of students
meeting federal poverty standards, establishing it as a school eligible for Federal Title 1
funding support. The student population consists of about 25% minority students of
which the majority are Hispanic. The student mobility rate is approximately 38%. In
33
addition to the regular student enrollment, the school houses one district-wide special
needs program and one county-based special needs program. All of the teachers meet the
federal definition of "highly qualified" and possess an average of almost 18 years of
teaching experience, with over 50% holding advanced degrees.
A questionnaire with Likert-style questions that I developed based on my review
of prior research was given to the certified teaching staff at this school by me at the end
of one school day, at a pre-arranged meeting. A Likert scale is a psychometric response
scale that is used often in questionnaires. It is the most popular and widely used type of
scale in survey research. Maurer and Pierce (1998) suggested use of a Likert-type
measurement for measuring self-efficacy. I also added several open-ended questions. As
recommended by Yin (2003), the survey instrument emphasized verbal information
rather than actual behavior in both question formats. One hundred percent of teachers
returned the survey questions.
Prior to distributing the survey, I tested the survey with 15 different teachers.
There was good validity in their responses and they reported to me that the questions
were straight-forward and easy for them to answer. Several of them asked if they had to
fill out the open-ended questions on the survey; I didn't understand at that time that this
was an indicator of reluctance to complete this part, which I would later find in the
returned surveys from the study participants. Instead, I simply asked the field test
participants to complete the open-ended questions with a brief answer. They did so, and
the answers they gave were consistent and were on the topic I was attempting to analyze.
34
A focus group was conducted with five of the teaching staff who volunteered to
participate. Focus groups use group interaction as a way to generate data through
participant communication. Individuals are encouraged to talk with and interact with one
another, exchanging anecdotes and commenting on one another's views and experiences.
It is a particularly useful method for exploration of knowledge and experiences, as well
as for identifying differing points of view (Barbour & Kitzinger, 1999).
I tried to select volunteers who had 5 or more years of experience in this school
setting together. Three out of five of the focus group participants had been teaching at the
school for 12 or more years. One participant had been there for 6 years, after teaching
elsewhere for 20 years. One participant had only taught at the school for 2 years,
however, her mother had been a long-time staff member prior to her retirement and the
group was familiar with her before she became a teacher at the school. She had also
known the other members of the school staff for many years before joining them as a
member of the teaching staff. All of the teachers said that they felt as if they had a good
"handle" on the working environment of the school. In fact, they laughingly identified
themselves as "the working environment of the school."
Constant Comparative Method
For my data analysis, I used the technique of the constant comparative coding
techniques. The four stages of the full constant comparative method are (a) comparing
incidents which are applicable to each category, (b) integrating each category and their
35
individual properties, (c) delimiting the theory, and (d) writing the theory. These theories
were discussed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1998).
Strauss and Corbin (1998) outlined the constant comparative method data analysis
process into three analysis steps: (a) open coding, (b) axial coding, and (c) selective
coding.
Open coding revolves around the discovery of concepts found in data. These
concepts are then sorted into categories and sub-categories through similarities or
differences. Each category or sub-category is present on a continuum. In order to
complete the process of open coding, each transcript is analyzed line by line.
At the conclusion of the open coding process, Strauss and Corbin (1998) outlined
the next step in the constant comparative method to be axial coding. They explained axial
coding as "the process of reassembling data that were fractured during open coding" (p.
124). In this process, categories are related to their subcategories. Strauss and Corbin
outlined four responsibilities of a researcher during the completion of the axial coding
process. These responsibilities are: (a) identifying the specific properties and dimensions
of a category; (b) delineating the conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences
related to the phenomenon of interest; (c) relating categories and subcategories; and (d)
and looking for clues in the data that indicate how primary categories may be related to
each other (p. 126).
The final process Strauss and Corbin outlined in the constant comparative method
is called selective coding, defined as "the process of integrating and refining categories"
(p. 143). Through this process the researcher is able to correlate the analysis components
36
together for the purpose of writing an explanatory theory. This process is begun by first
writing the theory that has been grounded from the data in order to select a "central
category" (p. 146). This central category then "pulls together" the other categories which
have been delineated and developed during the open and axial coding process and serves
as a "main theme" of the research (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 13).
While I used the coding techniques to make sure that I had a good understanding
of my data, it was not my intent to develop theory from my data. Instead, it was my intent
to relate my findings back to extant theory on the uses and effects of humor in the
workplace. Since this was an exploratory study with a small sample size, I believe that
this was a more appropriate use of the data and analysis generated in this study.
Generalizability and Validity
For this study, I looked at the role of humor in one elementary school workplace,
looking to understand its uses and the applications for research to add to the sparse body
of knowledge on the topic of the roles and effects of humor in the school workplace.
There is the possibility of generalization from this study to other school sites and future
studies.
Generalizability as a concept is applied somewhat differently in qualitative
research and. quantitative research. According to Bogdan and Biklen (2003), qualitative
researchers "concern themselves not with the question whether their findings are
generalizable, but rather with the question of to which other settings and subjects they are
generalizable" (p. 32). In this instance, I chose to do an exploratory study of a "typical"
37
school with an intact group of teachers who were well known to one another. My
rationale was that these teachers knew one well enough to be comfortable with each other
and to have developed mutual habits of expected humor exchange. Thus, they were the
most likely of any group of teachers to be able to talk to me about their experiences with
uses and effects of humor. In that way, I was more likely to get good data from them than
I would from any random set of teachers who had not worked at the same school for a
length of time or who were unfamiliar with each other. My objective was to see ifthere
were commonalities between these teachers familiar with each other, and with the limited
prior research on this topic, in order to generalize back to existing theory. This was
instead of attempting to say that this group of teachers represented all teachers. My hope
is that this data set would be "clean" enough to add to our understanding about how
future research could be better framed and conducted on the uses and effects of humor in
school settings. Future studies could focus on the necessary construction of a sample that
could then be generalized appropriately to a larger population.
However, I have also attempted in this dissertation to describe my sample,
methods, and data sufficiently so that an experienced educator could make his or her own
decisions about whether this information might generalize to their particular setting. I
have also given sufficient details of my methodology so that other researchers can
replicate the study. Through replication and meta-analysis, findings from multiple studies
can also sometimes be used to construct a framework for further generalizability to other
populations.
38
Threats to validity are another concern of this type of research. Validity can also
be strength of qualitative research methods (Creswell, 2003, p. 195). Validity can be
defined as a means to understand the accuracy of a study and its findings. Whittemore,
Chase, and MandIe (200 I) discuss the usefulness and validity of qualitative research, by
stating, "Despite the incongruence between quantitative epistemology and qualitative
methodology, translated standards of validity have proven to be useful criteria for
demonstrating rigor and legitimacy in qualitative research" (p. 523).
The suggestion is made by these authors for primary and secondary criteria, and
for addressing openly threats to qualitative research validity. Primary threats may include
authenticity, criticality, credibility, and integrity. Secondary threats may include failure to
provide explicitness, vividness, creativity, thoroughness, congruence, and sensitivity in
data presentation (Whittemore et aI., 200 I). These threats are discussed in my results, as
well as the techniques I used to minimize such threats.
I used triangulation of two data sources, which is "a process of using multiple
perceptions to clarifY meaning, verifying the repeatability of an observation or
interpretation" (Stake, 2000, p. 443). In this study, I compared data from the focus group
and the survey questions.
Limitations of the Design
Investigators are not able to control all extraneous variables, thereby making it
difficult to detennine absolute conclusions. However, attempts were made in several
ways to control for possible intervening variables wherever possible. For example, the
39
sample consisted of a group of teachers were well known to one another in the context of
a stable school environment. I felt that this was the group of people most likely to be able
to talk to me about humor, and also that at least made their relative experiences and
backgrounds similar and reduced the number of possible intervening variables from
coming from different schools or different workgroups.
The study was conducted over a relatively brief period of time and in as few
settings and meetings as possible, in order to hold possible maturation variables at a
minimum. This type of research design, however, necessarily produces "snapshot" data
that may not be the same if looked at over a longer period of time or over a different
period of time. It reduces the possibility of error from primary or recency effects. Field
tests were conducted to reduce the possibility of logical errors in the wording of my
survey and interview questions.
I was the sole researcher. This introduces possible bias but it also makes the
researcher-participant responses consistent throughout the study. My qualifications to
conduct this study were based on my background as a teacher and my familiarity with
this school in particular. However, that also potentially raises a question of bias in my
view of the school and the teachers. Compensation for potential bias was attempted by
detailing the data itself as much as possible without violating confidentiality for the
participants so that future readers can make their own assessment of my interpretations of
the meaning of the data.
The responses of the participants in this study, in both the survey group and the
focus group, are obviously subjective; it is possible that any individual participant could
40
respond differently to some items at different times. The individual social skills of each
participant may have played a role in their responses. These skills include, but are not
limited to, social intelligence, self-perception, and the perception of others. Response bias
is another concern, as participants may have desired to view themselves, or their school
environment, in a particular fashion. The participants knew one another in the focus
group and may have made responses based on their relationships with one another or
based on the perception of themselves they wanted to present.
Survey respondents may have known which colleagues in their school
participated; as elementmy schools are difficult places in which to keep secrets. As the
study was conducted with teachers at one particular school, the existing social mores and
culture may have affected teacher responses. It is possible that the same study, conducted
in another school, particularly in another part of the country, could elicit different data.
Attempts were made to compensate for these limitations. Participation in the
focus group was voluntary. Participants met with me off-site after school hours; therefore
they did not have to disclose their activities or account for their time to anyone at the
school. The survey instrument was distributed to all the teachers in the school. A central
drop-off point for the surveys was established, so teachers could complete and submit the
survey without identifYing themselves. The surveys were distributed and collected in the
middle of the week, with the desire of catching teachers on a somewhat "average" day at
school.
As a K-12 teacher and administrator, I had been previously exposed to a variety
of school settings and had many opportunities to observe and participate in humorous
--------------
41
interplays with teachers. While I was not yet a researcher of humor in the schools, I was
aware of the role humor played in my own job performance and satisfaction. My
experiences as an educator for many years in elementary school settings provided me
with an awareness of the possible role humor plays amongst teachers. As a former
member of the selected school community, I had an "entrance" to the setting. However,
many of the colleagues I was closest to have since retired. Regardless, the culture of any
particular school enjoys a lengthy tenure; therefore, it is possible some of the mores I
experienced at the school remain. My comfort in the physical setting and the fact that I
enjoyed some introductory privileges with the staff could be viewed as having a positive
effect. However, it may also have had a negative effect, in that my personal biases could
have affected my objectivity.
In addition, teachers may have chosen to participate and/or respond in certain
fashions due to my previous association with the school. My personal biases in regards to
the topic of humor in the schools could also have an effect. Attempts to compensate for
these possible sources of error were made through careful construction of the research
design, through careful conduct of the study itself, through thorough and accepted data
coding methods, through documented steps of analysis of the data related to prior
research, or simply by naming what I could not control as possible sources of error in my
findings.
42
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose ofmy study was to explore teachers' perceptions ofthe uses and
effects ofhumor in one elementary school workplace. To do so, the use of a triangulated
model was employed. This consisted of a survey distributed to all the teachers at one
school, and a focus group with five of the school's teachers. There were 20 respondents
to the survey, which comprised the total teaching staff of the school (100% return rate).
Four of the survey questions directly addressed the uses of humor with the remaining 11
addressing the effects of humor. There were 5 participants in the focus group (one-fourth
of the school teaching staff). The focus group was conducted off-site after school on a
weekday afternoon. I had prepared some prompts and questions to guide the focus group
discussion. Short answer questions provided opportunities for participants to discuss
some uses and effects of humor. The analysis of these research techniques provided
triangulation for my study.
To obtain the responses to the survey, I provided the teachers with the document
so they could complete it at their leisure. When not all of the surveys had been returned
by my original planned date, I visited the school one afternoon after students were
excused, to collect the surveys. The host teacher at the school walked around the building
43
and reminded teachers I was there to collect the surveys, and informed them that
chocolate cake was being served with the return of completed surveys.
When I looked over the returned surveys as I began coding, I saw that few had
completed the three open-ended questions. Some who carne in to complete the survey at
the cake day said, "Oh I don't have time to do that," and others simply ignored them or
drew a line through them.
The data below is presented in order of the core topics of the survey, which were
derived in tum from my review of the literature on humor in the workplace. The
following questions/topics guided my research activities:
1. What role does humor play for teachers in elementary schools?
2. What do teachers think and how do they feel about the role humor plays in
their interactions with one another?
In order to effectively answer these questions it was necessary to look at the uses
and effects that humor played in the school workplace.
Uses of Humor
There were four survey questions related to the uses of humor. A table illustrating
the results follows this narrative report.
Survey Question 1 asked how often school staff witnessed the use of humor with
one another. Seventeen of the teachers responded that they witnessed school staff using
humor with one another often or very often, with the remaining three teachers responding
44
"sometimes." These responses show a strong response to the evidence of the use of
humor among staff in this school workplace.
Survey Question 7 asked how often staff witnessed the use of humor with one
another when planning or preparing lessons. Four responded "very often" or "often," 10
responded "sometimes," and 6 responded "rarely" or "very rarely." The reported use of
humor to plan or prepare lessons was not as strong as overall evidence of the use of
humor.
Survey Question 9 inquired about the use of humor across hierarchical roles. Two
teachers responded "very often/often" with 11 responding "sometimes" and 7 responding
"rarely." The use of humor across hierarchal roles appears to be an uncommon event at
this school.
The frequency that a responder used humor with other staff was the context of
Survey Question 15. Sixteen teachers responded "very often/often" with 3 responding
"sometimes" and 1 respondent responding "rarely." With 80% of respondents saying
humor was used "very often/often" it appears that humor is used on a frequent basis.
Due to the wording of the questions, when responses were coded as "sometimes,"
an interpretation was made that the response was of a positive, rather than of a negative
nature. The results are shown in Table 1.
Teachers were asked to respond to short answer questions aimed at describing the
use of humor, in what context humor was used, and the reasons behind the use of humor.
Half of the respondents wrote that humor was used to share events that occurred during
the day, specifically stories about students and events around students. To quote one
45
Table 1
Uses ofHumor
Very Very
Often Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Never
I witness school staff using humor
with one another 9 8 3
I witness school staff using humor
with one another when planning or
preparing lessons 3 10 4 2
I witness school staff using humor
across hierarchal roles 11 7
At school, I use humor with other
school staff 2 14 3
teacher, "I frequently tell funny and cute stories about the students. I use this to entertain
other teachers." Another said, "At the end of a particularly stressful day it is often helpful
to 'debrief' with a colleague, using humor, to see the funny side of situations that, at the
time, were feeling frustrating or hopeless."
A third of the respondents discussed using humor to laugh at and with one another
and to share work related jokes. In the short answer questions someone wrote, "I was
joking with other colleagues about the 'wild animal behavior' of my first graders. I
mentioned this to my husband and he called them 'non-domesticated children' and we all
got a chuckle out of the comment."
Three teachers wrote about humorous events that occurred during regular staff
meetings. Two people reported that the principal of the school purposely initiated
humorous events. These comments related to the incongruity model of humor. The
custodian found a toddler wandering around the school grounds in the dark. The child
46
had wandered away from home. It all turned out okay and the child was returned home,
however to alleviate the seriousness of the situation the principal reported that when the
custodian first encountered the child all he could think was ....an alien! The incongruity in
the story provided relief.
Five members of the staff met off site for a focus group discussion. It was a
beautiful sunny afternoon and I hosted the teachers at a local riverside dining
establishment. The actual focus group discussion lasted approximately one hour, however
folks visited a bit before and after. The discussion was audio-taped and later transcribed
onto paper, coded, and responses organized by themes. I took minimal written notes
throughout the actual focus group discussion, as I wanted to concentrate on the discussion
and the participants. Participants were asked to discuss circumstances where humor was
used and who the initiator of the humor was. One teacher shared a story about a shared
laugh with a colleague in regards to a computer incident. This was around an incident of
one teacher asking for assistance from another with some computer work. There were
self-deprecating comments such as, "I must be too dumb to do this," as well as gentle
jibbing from the teacher providing the assistance, "Yeah, we all know how much smarter
I am."
Effects of Humor
Eleven survey questions pertained to the effects of humor. Results are showed in
the table following this discussion.
47
Survey Question 2 asked how often a respondent witnessed the effect of humor to
develop friendships and build rapport. Sixteen reported "very often" or "often," with the
remaining 4 reporting "sometimes." This shows a strong effect of humor in building
friendships and relationships.
Survey Question 3 asked how often humor was witnessed to provide an example
or to prove a point. Eleven teachers reported "very often/often," 8 reported "sometimes,"
and 1 reported "rarely." The "sometimes" responses, added to the "very often/often,"
responses point to solid evidence of the effect of humor to provide examples or prove
points. Survey Question 4 asked how often humor was witnessed as a means to express
approval. Seven teachers marked "very often/often," 10 marked "sometimes," and 3
marked "rarely/very rarely." It appears that humor has an effect in expressing approval.
In Question 5, teachers were asked how often they witnessed humor being used to
express disapproval. One teacher said "often," 6 said "sometimes," 10 said "rarely," 2
said "very rarely" and 1 said "never." In this question the response ratings were reversed,
in that the "often" response could be viewed as a negative, rather than a positive effect.
Next, in Survey Question 6, participants were asked about the frequency they
witnessed humor being used to initiate conversation. Six reported "very often/often," 11
reported "sometimes," and 3 reported "rarely." Most respondents reported humor to
initiate conversation being used on a frequent basis.
The role humor plays in stimulating conversation and creativity was the context of
Survey Question 8. Two participants responded "very often/often," 11 responded
48
"sometimes," and 7 said "rarely." This response was interesting, as it was the only
response that showed rather infrequent effects of humor.
The use of humor as a means to exert power or influence was the context of
Survey Question 10. One person reported "often," 2 reported "sometimes," 8 reported
"rarely," 4 reported "very rarely," and another 4 said "never." One person did not
respond to this question, causing speculation as to whether this may have been a personal
Issue.
Survey Question 11 asked about the frequency humor is witnessed as a means to
gain the attention of others. Three reported "often," 11 said "sometimes," and 6 said
"rarely/very rarely." A limitation of this question is the lack of clarification as to the
definition, uses, and effects of "gaining attention."
In Survey Question 12, the use of humor being used as a means to relieve tension,
stress, or anxiety related to school situations was asked. Fourteen teachers said they
witnessed humor being used in this manner "very often/often" and 6 said "sometimes."
This is consistent with the focus group comments on the positive effects of humor in this
school workplace.
The topic of Survey Question 13 was the effects of humor to disarm aggression
with others. One person reported "often," 8 reported "sometimes," 7 reported "rarely,"
and 4 reported "very rarely/never." This response indicates that the perception of the
effects of humor in this way are mixed among the staff.
Finally, in Survey Question 14, the use of humor to insult, attack, or demean
others was asked. Three people reported "rarely," 6 reported "very rarely," and 11
49
reported "never." Again, because of the wording of the questions, responses coded as
"rarely" were more of a positive, rather than of a negative nature. The results are shown
in Table 2.
Results showed participants feeling positive about the uses and effects of humor
in their school workplace.
In ShOlt answer questions, pmticipants were asked their "feelings" in regards to
the appropriateness of humor that was used; whether they felt that evelyone involved in
the incident found the scenario humorous, and if they had any second thoughts about the
way humor had been used. In all cases, respondents reported that they felt the humor used
was appropriate. No one had a negative feeling in regards to the use of humor or reported
feeling that others found the humor objectionable or inappropriate. There were no
reported "second thoughts" in regards to the use of humor. Six respondents felt humor
was used in appropriate ways with positive effects. Six people commented on the stress
relief humor provided.
50
Table 2
Effects ofHumor
Very Some- Very No
Often Often times Rarely Rarely Never response
I witness school staff using
humor to develop friendships
and build rapport 3 13 4
I witness school staff using
humor to provide an example
or prove a point 10 8
I witness school staff using
humor to express approval 6 10 2
I witness school staff using
humor to express disapproval 6 10 2
I witness school staff using
humor to initiate conversation 3 3 11 3
I witness school staff using
humor to stimulate imagination
and creativity 11 7
I witness school staff using
humor as a means to exert
power or influence 2 8 4 4
I witness school staff using
humor gain the attention of
others 3 11 3 3
I witness school staff using
humor to relieve tension, stress
or anxiety related to school
situations 9 5 6
I witness school staff using
humor to disarm aggression
with others 8 7 2 2
I witness school staff using
humor to insult, attack, or
demean others 3 6 11
51
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The goal of this study was to explore teachers' perceptions of the uses and effects
of humor in the naturalistic setting of an elementary school.
As discussed earlier, minimal research has been conducted on the role humor
plays among staff in a school setting. Research has been emerging as to the role of humor
in the workplace in general. In this chapter, I will analyze my findings and then compare
them to prior research findings.
Types of Humor
The biological, relief, and ambivalence models were the types of humor found
most often in this study. In analyzing the uses of humor, where 75% of the school staff
reported witnessing the use of humor among staff as "often" or "very often," results
showed humor being used to reduce tension and provide relief. Having a workplace
environment that feels safe and trusting was addressed in the theme of using humor to
build trust and develop friendships, and speaks to the biological use of humor. In some
manner, the incongruity, surprise, and configuration models are also woven into these
responses, as teachers told stories of incongruity and surprises (identified as pranks) that
they played on one another.
52
One story in particular stands out from the focus group discussions. Several
teachers in the focus group chimed in to tell the story, "When Carol's Dog Died."
Teacher Carolleamed of her dog's death during a school day. Fellow teachers knew how
much she loved her dog and how devastated Carol would be at the death. For several
days afterwards, her team members were afraid to ask her how she was doing because
"she was close to tears all the time about the dog." Finally, one day, Carol called team
members into her room and told a joke about a little boy whose dog died and was told
that God wanted his dog in heaven. The little boy responded, "What does God want with
a dead dog?" When Carol told this story everyone laughed and then felt they could talk
about her dog. After that incident, whenever the team felt someone needed a laugh, they
would show up in their classroom after school and say, "We need a dead dog meeting."
This would happen after someone had a hard day and it was, to quote a focus group
participant, "all about that we need to laugh." Teachers then commented on how these
types of interchanges help in building trust and deepening friendships. This is an example
of humor used as a biological relief from tension.
The superiority method of humor was represented in responses related to the use
of humor across hierarchical roles and in the use of sarcasm. This type of humor is often
viewed as being negative, and although the respondents were given ample opportunities
to comment on or discuss negative uses of humor in the school workplace, there was only
one reported instance of humor being used in this manner. One teacher told a story of
teasing another teacher and being told that the teasing was not appreciated. This resulted
in a heightened awareness of her own use of sarcasm, and increased her understanding
53
that one needs to be very careful about how and to whom sarcasm is used. One reported
use of humor across hierarchical roles had the goal of reducing tension, and the other
reported uses of sarcasm were aimed at self-deprecation, defined as humor at the expense
of oneself.
There were several comments made, both in the short answer questions and in the
focus group, in regards to one particular example of sarcasm and its occurrence across
hierarchal roles. Reportedly, the school principal, a person staff like and admire, has a
habit teachers find humorous. When giving morning announcements the principal is
prone to make extraneous comments such as, "I'm standing here in the office" or "I'm
looking at this announcement." One teacher reported using this terminology in humorous
communications and interactions with another teacher (for example, saying "I am
standing here with my hand in my pocket") for the purpose of light sarcasm. Another
teacher reported being on a field trip and talking into the microphone saying, "I'm
standing here in the front of the bus." While these instances did not occur within earshot
of the principal, focus group members felt that, ifhe heard, he too would consider them
humorous.
During the focus group one teacher discussed an incident of using sarcasm with
an educational assistant. This use of sarcasm was across hierarchical roles. An alteration
in the day's schedule resulted in a bit of "orneriness" on the part of the assistant. The
teacher kept reinforcing the assistant with comments such as, "Oh, you are being really
good about this" and "You really saved the day." At the end of the day, the teacher
thanked the assistant for her flexibility and the assistant said, "Yeah, I'm sorry. I guess I
54
was a bit crabby about it." The teacher replied, "Well that's the only time you can be
crabby this week." The reported intent of this sarcasm was, "to lighten things up" with
the goal being to avoid a rift between one another.
The Use of Humor to Prevent Burnout
As previously discussed, humor can be an effective means to reduce and prevent
worker burnout. The three dimensions of bumout identified by the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (1986) were represented in my study.
The dimension of emotional exhaustion, described as the feeling that one has used
up all of one's emotional resources, relates to the rejuvenation teachers reported from
relief humor, as well as to biological uses of humor. In the focus group discussions,
teachers reported "feeling energized" or "experiencing the lifting of spirits that happens
after a good laugh." The most prominent theme was that of stories about children. In 14
different comments, teachers reported on humorous incidents with other staff that
involved recounting incidents that occurred with students. The use of this humor was to
release tension as well as to share with one another. In each incidence report, the
teachers remarked the effect of sharing these "kid stories" to be building comradeship
(four reports), feeling better about themselves (six reports), or using humor to help others
feel better (four reports). This relates directly to Maslach's depersonalization dimension,
defined as the development of negative and/or cynical attitudes towards the very
individuals one is supposed to be helping. Teachers in the focus group reported a sense of
55
understanding from their colleagues in regards to the challenges of working with
students.
One of my favorite focus group stories was the recounting of what they termed
"hallway incidents." In these scenarios, a teacher would have had a student in the hallway
for a serious one-on-one discussion relating to the student's classroom performance or
behaviors. The focus group participants told how, when conducting such a lecture,
another teacher would be walking down the hallway, out of sight of the targeted student.
The observing teacher would do things such as make silly faces or gestures that were
seen only by the lecturing teacher. Teachers reported on the levity such behaviors gave to
an incident, thus reducing their feelings of negativity or cynicism towards the offending
child.
Maslach's third dimension of low personal accomplishment, which includes the
sense of one's loss of effectiveness in regards to one's work-related duties, was also
evident. The peer isolation that occurs in an elementary school setting is imbedded in the
very nature of the workplace, as there are minimal opportunities throughout the day to
interact with other adults. During the focus group discussion teachers reported several
incidents where a quick encounter with another teacher energized them. In one story, a
teacher told about seeing a fellow teacher who had been absent from school. She
commented, "Oh I haven't seen you for awhile," and the other teacher looked up from
her computer and said, "Oh, it's a Mary Ann sighting." Both teachers then laughed and
went back to work. This simple exchange was reported to energize both participants.
56
Later on in the morning, the first teacher told another, "I had a Mary Ann sighting,"
sharing yet another chuckle.
The Uses of Humor
The overarching results from my study show a group of teachers who employ the
regular use of humor in their workplace. Humor was used to reduce stress and tension
and provide relief. Humor was used to build comradeship and enhance trust.
There were generous reports of stories of the amusing things children say and
how sharing it with one another lightened up the day. During the focus group, for
example, a teacher told the story of meeting one of the teacher's daughters. The child
looked at her teacher and then at her daughter and obviously noticed the family
resemblance. She then looked at her teacher and said, "Wow, you must have been pretty
once." The teacher said she shares these types of stories with other staff because it makes
them laugh and then they often share their own humorous story. Sharing a story of this
type is an example of the use of self-deprecating humor. It also may serve to build and
maintain relationships.
Participants of the focus group commented on how a lot of school humor is only
understood by school people. When they go home and tell their families the stories, non-
educators sometimes don't see them as being funny. One focus group teacher told the
story of how she was "laughing her head off' at school just the other day, but could not
recall what was so funny. Another teacher said, "Maybe you were just laughing at
57
yourself' and the first teacher said, "Maybe it was just the voices in my head." This is
another example of the use of self deprecating humor.
There were other examples of humor being used to poke fun at oneself, One
teacher, who used to teach kindergarten and is now responsible for the Title 1 reading
program, commented on how she doesn't laugh as much at school anymore, as she views
her job as more "high stakes" than kindergarten. She said, "I used to be funny 3 years
ago," and reported that when someone asked her earlier in the day if she was going to
attend the focus group she said, "Yeah, because I need to learn how to be funny again."
Although results from the survey questions showed teachers sometimes using
humor with one another to prepare student lessons or to stimulate creativity, this did not
emerge as a theme in either the short answer questions or in the focus group. Reported
incidences and uses of humor centered mostly on the themes of sharing stories, building
comradeship, and stress relief.
Overall, this research study indicated that teachers in this particular workplace
used humor to relieve stress, share job related stories, and build camaraderie.
The Effects of Humor
In five separate responses to short answer questions, teachers commented on the
positive effect humor has on their workday and on the overall school environment. There
were 11 comments made in the focus group that followed these themes of reducing stress
and enhancing the workplace environment. As earlier reported, the responses to the
--------------------_._------
58
survey instrument also followed these themes, with questions pertaining to the effects of
humor in regards to building positive interpersonal relationships.
Study results showed that the effect of humor across hierarchal roles occurred
rarely and usually in non-negative instances. The same was true of the effects of sarcasm,
with the one exception as was previously discussed.
The effects of humor in the study setting were found to be positive, with only one
reported instance that had negative connotations. Teachers in this setting seemed to feel
that humor had positive effects in their workplace.
Interpretation of Findings
The previously cited research discussing the categories of humor was present in
this study. By far, the most common was the re1iefmethod. Working with young children
provides many opportunities for comic relief, with humorous stories and events
throughout the work day. It then logically follows that sharing these stories and events
with colleagues would provide tension relief with the additional benefit of building
friendships and establishing trust with coworkers.
It was interesting that the reported uses and effects of humor were so
overwhelmingly of a positive nature, with only minimal reports of humor used in a
negative manner. There were few references or responses associated with the use of
humor in negatively sarcastic ways or using humor to exert power, control, or influence.
Also interesting is that while previous research tells us that "not all things are humorous
to all people" (Duncan, 1982) there was, in fact, strong agreement among the teachers
59
themselves on what was deemed fUlmy and why. However, they did report that what they
thought was funny was not always viewed that way by people outside of their immediate
work setting.
Earlier research pointed strongly to the risk of teacher burnout due in part to peer
isolation. Gunning (2001) found humor to be of value in building and maintaining
relationships as well as in the overall work culture, particularly when dealing with chi1d-
related concerns. This finding was validated by the participants of this study, as reported
that relating with one another in humorous ways provided levity to the stresses and
demands of their work day.
Susa (2002) spoke to the importance of humor in organizational climate. He
found relief humor to enjoy a positive correlation with organizational outcomes. Results
of my study agree.
Mawhinney's (2008) study was in close alignment with my findings. Teachers do
feel that humor is an effective means to lighten their emotional workload, and also that
the positive social interaction that occurs with the use of humor reduces stress and builds
relationships. Her recommendation for further study on teacher-to-teacher interactions is
just what my study was about.
Fine and DeSoucey (2005) reported on the joking culture that develops over time
in an interacting social group. This was also linked to my study, with the "dead dog
stories" as an example.
My speculation that humor would be a value that would shape organizational
culture appears to be valid. Throughout the focus group meeting, for example,
60
participants shared a comfortable and joking banter with one another. It was apparent
they enjoyed the culture of their school workplace. To quote one participant, "Our school
is a good place, people are definitely good to be around here, and share a sense of
humor." This comment was followed by another person saying, "I too think [our school]
is probably the most positive environment I've worked at. It is the humor, and also the
respect that's shown to one another in a caring way."
Amabile (1983a, 1983b) and Amabile et al.'s (1996) discussion of the role humor
plays in creativity did not emerge as an overall theme of my study. When asked in Survey
Question 8 if one witnessed school staff using humor to stimulate imagination and
creativity, there were only two responses of "very often/often" with the remainder of
responses being "sometimes" or "rarely." Perhaps this is due to the isolation of teachers,
and the limited time they have to plan and create with one another. Perhaps it is due to
the fact that, when teachers do come together, it is often after hectic work days and to
address some particular agenda that does not include or support creative acts.
Retallick and Butt's (2002, 2004) studies analyzing peer workplace relationships
of teachers found that positive workplace relationships influenced overall satisfaction
with a workplace. My study also found this to be evident, as illustrated by the previous
comments of teachers.
Teaching in an elementary school can be a lonely occupation as there may be
minimal opportunities to interact with colleagues throughout the school day. Having a
culture of humor within the school may aide in promoting teacher satisfaction, as even
brief exchanges may serve to "lighten" the days work.
61
When I began my study, I wanted to explore teachers' perceptions of the uses and
effects of humor on the K-12 workplace. Enjoying humor myself, I was interested to
1eam what others thought in regards to both the relief method as well as the methods of
superiority and incongruity, and how humor adds or detracts from the school
environment. Through analysis of the theory and findings of previous research, I found
the role of humor to have some importance in the workplace, and specifically in social
service settings. I wanted to look at the correlation of previous research findings to my
findings in one elementary school. Having been a teacher at this particular school 10
years previous, I had found the workplace environment and the interpersonal
relationships to be some of the best I had ever experienced. I had not, however, looked at
the environment through the lens of humor, and I was interested to see if current staff
members did.
My ancillary questions were explored through the research methodologies of
survey questions, short answer questions, and a focus group. For the first question, how
teachers describe and define the uses and effects of humor in their school workplace, I
found a group of teachers who found humor in their workplace a common occurrence and
who shared similar definitions of humor. The second question, pertaining to similarities
or differences between teachers' perceptions, beliefs, and experiences related to humor,
was upheld when I found strong similarities, as staff reported similar experiences,
attitudes, and values around humor. The questions of how teachers used humor to meet
similar or different individual or school goals were not directly answered. In retrospect,
none of the questions developed for any of the methodologies directly used an example or
62
elicited an example from the participants with which I could answer this question. This
was a flaw in my design of my instruments.
Application of Findings
While it is good to know that teachers can enjoy their work and find support with
one another through the use of humor, the underlying issue could be said to be: What
does this mean for student achievement? Comer (1984) and Eccles et al. (1993) found a
positive school climate to have a powerful effect on students' motivation to learn. A
white paper prepared in 2008 by the National School Climate Center (NSCC), the Center
for Social and Emotional Education (CSEE), the National Center for Learning and
Citizenship (NCLC) and the Education Commission of the States (ECS) reported
research showing a relationship between school climate and student self-concept (Cairns,
1987; Heal, 1978). School connectedness has also been shown to be a predictor of student
health and academic outcomes (Shochet, Dads, Ham, & Montague, 2006).
A positive school climate is characterized by healthy and collaborative learning
communities. Research indicates that positive school climate can be a contributor to
student risk prevention as well as student learning (Najaka, Gottfredson, & Wilson,
2002). When students feel safe and cared about, academic achievement increases
(Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, & Wisenbaker, 1977). Additional research shows
that a positive school climate enhances students' self esteem (Hoge, Smit, & Hanson,
1990), reduces alcohol use and psychiatric problems (Kasen, Johnson, & Cohen, 1990),
63
as well as reduces student absenteeism and disciplinary problems (Wu, Pink, Crain, &
Moles, 1982).
School climate has a profound effect on teacher retention - it is common sense
that when teachers enjoy their jobs and find pleasure in their workplace they create a
positive school climate and an effective learning community. The use of humor among
colleagues in a school environment might just be "the tie that binds," in promoting
teacher workplace satisfaction which then has a positive effect on student achievement
and on students' lives. While I am speculating on the potential of this assertion, based on
my research findings, I believe that the findings clearly point in this direction.
The Answer to My Study Questions
I wanted to study what teachers thought and felt about the uses and effects of
humor in their school workplace. While responses to all of my ancillary questions were
not obtained, I did obtain insights into others. In both of the research tools used in this
study, responses showed positive uses and effects of humor as well as similar
perceptions, beliefs, and experiences. Participants reported using humor in positive and
productive ways and enjoying positive and productive results.
Limitations of This Study
What did not emerge from my study was information on how humor was used to
meet specific to individual or school goals. Perhaps this was due to limitations of my
research questions. At the conclusion of the survey and short answer questions, as well as
64
at the conclusion of the focus group, respondents were asked to comment on the value of
the questions and for any additional suggestions of questions that could have been asked.
Only three teachers responded and their responses were inconclusive.
As this study was conducted in one elementary school, its results are limited to
that individual setting. It would be interesting to discover if the common themes that
emerged appear in other elementary school settings.
The survey and short answer questions were made available to the teachers for
several days prior to collection. Some teachers chose to respond the day of collection. It
is possible that any individual teachers' responses could vary, depending on the time and
day of their responses, affected by experiences immediately preceding their responses.
Although none repOlied to have done so, it is possible that some teachers discussed their
responses with one another, which could have affected individual responses.
In replicating this study, consideration should be given to the wording of
"sometimes" in the Likert-scale questions. A more descriptive term could be assigned to
the median response, thereby reducing ambiguity.
The focus group was limited to the teachers that had the time and flexibility in
their personal schedules to show up, off-site, after school hours. As it was viewed as
somewhat of a social event, it is possible that the teachers who attended are the ones most
likely to enjoy interpersonal relationships and open communication.
While the short answer and survey questions were anonymous, the focus group
was not. Participants may have offered only what they felt comfortable offering. Finally,
65
because I was known to some of the staff, it is possible that their impressions and/or
previous experiences with me affected their responses.
Recommendations for Fmther Research
This was exploratory research into the role of interpersonal humor in a school
setting. As this research was conducted at one particular school site, more studies are
needed, at a variety of school sites across the country, to expand the information on the
uses and effects of humor among teachers in other schools. In this study, the relief
method was the type of humor most commonly reported. Is the very nature of elementary
schools the causation of the predominance of the method? The effects of humor in this
setting were viewed as quite positive and respondents reported their satisfaction with the
effects of humor used. Would this be true in other settings? Further exploration would
discover the effects of humor in other settings, and what the effects of collegial humor are
in other schools.
It would be interesting for further research to explore any connection between the
use of humor and the retention of teachers. The average tenure for teachers is now
approximately seven years, where it used to be common for people to spend their entire
working lives in the teaching profession. Perhaps humor may be an aspect of collegiality
and the school work environment that can compensate for increased teacher
accountability as well as an increasingly stressful work environment.
The link to overall organizational culture needs further exploration. It would be
interesting to find out how the school environment compares and contrasts to other social
66
service settings, as well as to non-social service environments. Perhaps most importantly,
the link between a positive school workplace environment and the learning and
achievement of students needs to be explored.
Changes in Practice
Teacher education programs do not address the psychological needs of educators.
There is a significant gap between research aimed at school climate and the education of
teachers. Beginning teachers do not have a guide or blueprint for developing the types of
healthy relationships with other teachers that may increase their retention as well as affect
the success of their students. There is a need to educate veteran teachers about the role of
school climate, the uses and effects of humor in enhancing school climate, and the broad
implications ofteachers working in a joyful environment. School leaders need to be
educated regarding the role humor plays in their schools and be aware of and nurture the
positive uses and their effects (relief and incongruity), as well as work towards the
elimination of negative uses and effects (superiority and hierarchal). Currently there is
only one professional group that provides humorous trainings and in-services to teachers
nationwide, with most topics geared towards teacher-student interactions. Their
presentations are relatively costly and, therefore, out of reach of most schools. While
there are university courses on the research of the effects of humor on general learning
and retention, and even around the use of humor in teaching university level students, I
teach the only known university level course on the use of humor in the K-l2 classroom,
again aimed at teacher-student interchanges.
67
In summary, it is important to recruit and retain highly qualified and inspired
educators to effectively teach the next generation. Then, it is important to make sure they
work in a satisfactorily supportive workplace. It is recommended that pre- and in-service
educational trainings be developed and expanded in order to promote the practice of
humor in the school workplace. K-12 education is in urgent need of revitalization. Humor
might be just the ticket to this passage.
APPENDIX A
DRAFT SURVEY QUESTIONS
Please respond to these questions by circling one ofthe replies.
68
1) I witness school staff using humor with one another
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
2) I witness school staff using humor to develop friendships and build rapport
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
3) I witness school staff using humor to provide an example or prove a point
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
4) I witness school staff using humor to express approval
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely
5) I witness school staff using humor to express disapproval
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely
6) I witness school staff using humor to initiate conversation
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely
Never
Never
Never
7) I witness school staff using humor with one another when planning or preparing
lessons
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
8) I witness school staff using humor to stimulate imagination and creativity
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
9) I witness school staff using humor across hierarchal roles
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
10) I witness school staff using humor as a means to exert power or influence
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
11) I witness school staff using humor gain the attention of others
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
69
12) I witness school staff using humor to relieve tension, stress or anxiety related to
school situations
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
13) I witness school staff using humor to disarm aggression with others
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
14) I witness school staff using humor to insult, attack, or demean others
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Very Rarely Never
15) At school, I use humor with other school staff
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely
Please write a short reply to the following questions.
Very Rarely Never
Tell about a time you used humor with other school staff. What was your reason for using
humor in the given situation? Do you think using humor in the situation was appropriate
and helpful, or do you perhaps have second thoughts about your use of humor in the
situation?
Tell about a time when you had a good laugh with other school staff. What were the
circumstances? Who was the initiator of the humor? Do you think everyone involved (if
the incident involved more than just you and one other person) found the scenario funny?
Now that you have answered the questions, please go back and respond to the value of
each question. Was it a worthwhile question? Can you think of better wording for the
question? Can you suggest other or additional questions?
70
APPENDIXB
DRAFT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Opening Questions:
How many years have you been teaching?
How long have you been a teacher at this school?
Tell us about one humorous event - no matter how slight - that you witnessed
between school staff recently (within the last week).
Think about the last time you experienced a good laugh at school. Can you share this
with the group?
How funny do you think your teaching colleagues are? What types of behaviors make
some people fum1ier than others?
There are three main types of humor: relief, incongruity, and superiority. (I will briefly
explain each type and provide a visual support for reference.) Can you provide an
example, either actual or hypothetical, where you have observed, instigated, or
participated in each type of humor? What were some of the effects of the type of humor
displayed - on the individual that was instigating it and/or the participant? Were these
positive or negative effects?
Lastly, what is your opinion of how teachers use humor in the school workplace? Do you
feel humor has a positive, negative, or neutral effect on the school as a workplace?
71
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology ofcreativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, 1., & Heron, M. (1996). Assessing the
work environment for creativity. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 1154-
1184.
Anderson, J., Miller, L., & Cowling, E. (2001). Stress: Laughing out loud to good health.
Retrieved April, 28, 2001, from http://library.thinkquest.org/ 2550/index.html
Anderson, M. R, & Iwanicki, E. F. (1984). Teacher motivation and its relationship to
burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(2), 109-132.
Apte, M. L. (1985). Cultural perspectives on organizations. New York: Cornell
University Press.
Barbour, R. S., & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (1999). Developingfocus group research: Politics,
theory, andpractice. London: Sage Publications.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, andprincipals
can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beer, J., & Beer, J. (1992). Burnout and stress, depression and self-esteem of teachers.
Psychological Reports, 7l (2), 1331-1336.
Bellenger, D. N., Bernhardt, K L., & Goldstucker, J. L. (1979). Qualitative research
techniques: Focus group interviews. In J. R Higginbotham & K. K. Cox (Eds.),
Focus group interviews: A reader (pp.13-29). Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Bennett, K. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1990). The way schools work: A sociological
analysis ofeducation. New York: Longman. ED 324 740.
Berger, A. A. (1976, Summer). Anatomy ofthe joke. Journal ofCommunication, 113-
115.
Berkman, L. F. (1985). The relationship of social networks and social support to
morbidity and mortality. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and
health (pp. 241-262). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
72
Bogdan, R., & Bik1en, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research in education: An introduction
to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brenner, M. (1985). Intensive interviewing. In M. Brelmer, 1. Brown, & D. Canter (Eds.),
The research interview: Uses and approaches (pp.147-162). London: Academic
Press.
Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, 1., & Wisenbaker, 1. (1977). Schools
can make a difference. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED145034).
Butt, R., & Retallick, 1. (2002). Professional well-being and learning: A study of
administrator-teacher workplace relationships. Journal 0/Education Enquiry,
3(1), 17-34.
Byrne, B. (1994). Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of the causal
structure across elementary, intermediate and secondary teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 31(3),645-673.
Cairns, L. G. (1987). Behavior problems. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), International
encyclopedia o/teaching and teacher education (pp. 446-452). New York:
Pergamon.
Clouse, R. W., & Spurgeon, K. L. (1995). Corporate analysis of humor. Psychology: A
Journal o/Human Behavior, 1-20.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Comer, 1. P. (1984). Home-school relationships as they affect the academic success of
children. Education and Urban Society, 16(3),323-337.
Consalvo, C. M. (1989). Humor in management: No laughing matter. Humor:
International Journal o/Humor Research, 2,285-297.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daniels, T. D., & Spiker, B. K. (1987). Perspectives on organizational communication.
Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
73
Darwin, C. (1874; 2004). Origin ofspecies. NJ: Castle Books.
Duncan, W. J. (1982). Humor in management: Prospects for administrative practice and
research. Academy ofManagement Review, 7, 136-142.
Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1990). Humor and work: Applications of
joking behavior to management. Journal ofManagement, 16(2), 255-278.
Eccles, 1., Wigfield, A., Midgley, c., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993).
Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students' motivation. The
Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 553-574.
Fahlman, C. (1997). Laughing nine to five: The quest for humor in the workplace.
Portland, OR: Steelhead Press.
Farber, B. A. (1984a). Stress and bumout in suburban schools. Teachers Journal of
Educational Research, 77(6), 325-331.
Farber, B. A. (1984b). Teacher bumout: Assumptions, myths and issues. Teachers
College Record, 86(2),321-338.
Fine, G., & DeSoucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in
group life. Humor, 18(1), 1-22.
Firestone, W. A. (1996). Images of teaching and proposals for reform: A comparison of
ideas from cognitive and organizational research. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(2),209-235.
Fisher, M. (1984). Teacher bumout: Some Australian findings. Unicorn, 10(3), 226-232.
Forsyth, P. B., & W. K. Hoy. (1978). Isolation and alienation in educational
organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 80-96.
Freud, S. (1928). Humor. International Journal ofPsychoanalysis, 9, 1-6.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. In J. Strachey, (Trans.),
Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton. (Original
work published 1905)
Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staffbumout. Journal ofSocial Issues, 30(1), 159-165.
Fry, W. F., Jr., & Slavin, W. M. (1988). Mirthful laughter and blood pressure. Humor
International Journal ofHumor Research, I, 9-62.
74
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery 0.[grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (1993). Behavior in organizations: Understanding &
managing the human side o.[work (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Gruner, e. R. (1996). Wit and humour in mass communication. In A. J. Chapmand & H.
e. Foot, Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp.287-31l).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Gunning, B. (2001). An abstract of the role humor plays in shaping organizational
culture. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12A), 4008.
Heal, K. H. (1978). Misbehavior among school children: The role of the school in
strategies for prevention. Policy and Politics, 6, 321-333.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization o.[humanfeeling.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hodge, G., Jupp, J., & Taylor, A. (1994). Work stress, distress and burnout in music and
mathematics teachers. British Journal 0.[Educational Psychology, 64(1), 65-76.
Hoge, D. R., Smit, E., K., & Hanson, S. L. (1990). School experiences predicting changes
in self-esteem of sixth and seventh-grade students. Journal 0.[Educational
Psychology, 82, 117-127.
Holmes, 1. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the
workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159-185.
Holmes, J. (2005). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the
workplace. Journal 0.[Pragmatics, 38(1),26-50.
Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the
burnout phenomenon. Journal 0.[Applied Psychology, 71(4),630-640.
James, L., & Tetrick, L. E. (1986). Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal models
relating job perceptions to job satisfaction. Journal 0.[Applied Psychology, 71, 77-
82.
75
Kasen, S. N., Johnson, P. N., & Cohen, P. N. (1990). The impact of social emotional
climate on student psychopathology. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology,
18(2),165-177.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: An international review. Educational
Research, 29,146-152. Retrieved August 1,2008, from Web site:
http://www.allacademic.comlmeta/p_mla_apaJesearch_citation/1/1/7/710/p11770
1 index.html
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson-Katz, K., & Kueneman, K. (1990). Humor and immune
system functioning. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 3(3),305-
321.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory: Manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mathieu,1. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Maurer, T. 1., & Pierce, H. R. (1998). A comparison of Likert scale and traditional
measures of self-efficacy. Journal ofApplied Psychology, (83)2,324-329 (12
ref.). Georgia Institute of Technology, ETATS-UNIS: Publisher: American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, ETATS-UNIS (1917) (Revue).
Mawhinney, L. (2008). Laugh so you don't cry: Teachers combating isolation in schools
through humor and social support. Ethnography and Education, 3(2), 195-209.
McCracken, G. D. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, C., & Hyle, A. E. (1999, October). Reconstructing capacity: A model for school
improvement and school assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
University Council of Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a
learning community. Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Morreall, J. (1991). Humor and work. Humor, 4, 359-373.
76
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images oforganization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Najaka, S., Gottfredson, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). A meta-analytic inquiry into the
relationship between selected risk factors and problem behavior. Prevention
Science, 2,257-271.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in evelyday talk. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Ott, 1. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Belmont, CA: Dorsey Press.
Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational
cultures. The Western Journal ofSpeech Communication, 46, 115-130.
Pepper, G. L. (1995). Communicating in organizations: A cultural approach. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Retallick, 1., & Butt, R. (2004). Professional well-being and learning: A study of teacher-
peer workplace relationships. Journal ofeducational enquiry, 15(1), 17-34.
Rogers, D. L., & Babinski, L. M. (2002). From isolation to conversation: Supporting new
teachers'development. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Russell, D. W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support,
and burnout among classroom teachers. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72(2),
269-274.
Sackman, S. A. (1991). Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collective
mind. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sarros, 1. c., & Sarros, A. M. (1987). Predictors of teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Administration, 25(2),216-230.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, H. E., & Williams, D. 1. The evolution of theories of humour. Journal. of
Behavioral Science, 1, 95-106,1.971.
Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
77
Schopenhauer, A., (1819). The world as will and idea (R. B. Haldane & J. Kemp, Trans.).
London: Triibner & Co., Ludgate Hill.
Schwab, P. (2005). Leave a mark, not a stain! What every manager needs to know about
using humor in the workplace. Seattle: Rollingwood Press.
Schwab, R. L., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1982). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and
teacher burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60-74.
Schwab, R. L., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Educator burnout: Sources and
consequences. Educational Research Quarterly, 10(3), 14-30.
Scogin, R. F., Jr., & Pollio, H. R. (1980). Targeting and the humorous episode in group
process. Human Relations, 33(11), 831-852.
Shochet, I., Dads, M., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an
underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community
prediction study. Journal ofClinical Child and Adult Psychology, 35(2), 170-179.
Smylie, M., & Hart, A. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A
human and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis
(Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on educational administration (2nd ed.) (pp. 421-
441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spencer, H. (1860). The physiology oflaughter. Macmillan's Magazine, 1, 395-402.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 236-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stamps, D. (1998). Learning ecologies. Training, 35(1), 32-38.
Stebbins, R. A. (1972). The unstructured research interview as incipient interpersonal
relationship. Sociology and Social Research 56(2), 164-177.
Stephenson, D. (1990). Affective consequences of teachers' psychological investment.
Journal ofEducational Research, 84(1), 53-57.
Stohl, C. (1995). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics ofqualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
78
Susa, A, M. (2002). Humor type, organizational climate, and outcomes: The shortest
distance between an organization's environment and the bottom line is laughter.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Tickle, L. (2000). Teacher induction; The way ahead. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments ofa theory. In
P. 1. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),
Organizational Culture (pp. 31-53). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Vinton, K. (1989). Humor in the workplace. Small Group Research, 20(2), 1521-166.
Wallinger, L. M. (1997). Don't smile before Christmas: The role of humor in education.
National Association o/Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81(589),27-34.
Weiner, Y. (1988). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy 0/
Management Review, 7,418-428.
Whittemore, R, Chase, S. K., & MandIe, C. L. (2001). Vailidity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 11(4),522-537.
Williams, A, Prestage, S., & Bedward, 1. (2001). Individualism to collaboration: The
significance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified teachers. The
Journal o/Education/or Teaching, 27(3),253-267.
Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998). Creating a community oflearners among high
school teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5),350-353.
Winick, C. (1976). The social context of humor. Journal o/Communication, 26(3), 124-
128.
Woods, P. (1979). The divided school. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
Wu, S., Pink, W., Crain, R, & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspension: A critical
reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14(4),245-303.
Yin, R K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R K., Bateman, P. G., & Moore, G. B. (1983, September). Case studies and
organizational innovation: Strengthening the connection. Washington, DC:
COSMOS Corporation.
Zielinski, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1983). Isolation and alienation in elementary schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(2), 27-45.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense o/humor. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
79