Session Information
32 SES 11 A, Motion, Emotion, and Identity as Aspects of Learning in and by Organizations
Paper Session
Contribution
The quantity of literature that focus specifically on organizational change and development of institutions in general is enormous and still growing (Kaufmann & Kaufmann, 2015; Senge, 2006). Consequently, the interest in organizational sustainability and change in the realm of education represents a specific area of research which is also reasonably well-developed and explored (Ertesvåg & Roland, 2013; Roland & Westergård, 2015). Some of the popular, recurring themes in the educational literature connected to development of organizational development include: leadership (in many forms) (Mulford, Silins, & Leithwood, 2004), accountability, capacity building (Flaspohler et.al., 2008), sustainability, innovation (Chen, 1998; Greenberg et.al., 2005; Roland & Westergård, 2015; Skogen, 2004), learning (organizations) (Stoll, et.al., 2006), competence, efficacy, management of change and development (Ertesvåg & Roland, 2013; Fullan, 2007), and organizational culture (Røkenes & Hansen, 2002). The importance and effects of these processes are relatively well-documented in empirical research and elaborated upon through the employment of sophisticated theoretical models (Chen, 1998; Greenberg et.al., 2005; Mulford, Silins, & Leithwood, 2004; Røkenes & Hansen, 2002; Senge, 2006). However, the literature in this field is teeming with concepts that reflect connotations of effective and productive organizational management and focus on predefined aims, strategies, evaluations, comparisons, interventions, and implementations of specific programs. Although such an instrumental approach is certainly useful and necessary in the development of organizations, there nevertheless exists an apparent risk that the majority of the processes mentioned above (1) might be experienced as “cold” by people in the field (i.e. lacking motivation), and (2) ignore the fact that human behaviours, especially those requiring modifications of existing behavioural patterns, are dependent on people’s mental readiness to accept a planned course of action.
Bearing in mind these premises, the point of departure of the present work is an attempt to develop and propose an empirically based model of educational development that maps systematic representations of stakeholders in terms of their “mental” readiness for change. In the heart of the present model lie the notion of psychologically experienced motion and sense of direction. These two processes are presently considered to be prerequisites for sustainable change.
Theoretical approach
It is easy to recognize that improvements of educational institutions presuppose change of some kind, either in terms of innovation or mere alteration of existing status quo in some alternative, equally unproductive, status (Havelock, 1971). One founding assumption in our reasoning is that directional motion is a precondition for lasting change (i.e. change as improvement) given that it is easier to change direction once one is in motion compared to inactive or motionless states. Motion is closely linked to readiness to improve (see overview in Oterkiil & Ertesvåg, 2003). In this context, motion refers to an attitude that reflects the extent to which individuals are psychologically prepared to embrace sustainable change that leads to improvement (e.g. Holt, Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007). The idea of readiness is reasonably well-developed and several models exist that include many different processes ranging from external frames to personal motivations (Senge, 2006). It is therefore interesting that none of these propositions, to our knowledge, include the notion of motion. This is astonishing considering that the importance of motion in its wider sense has been widely recognised in the history of human contemplation and has a long tradition in ancient philosophy (e.g. Aristoteles, Heraclitus, Democritus), traditional (e.g. Galilei, Newton) and contemporary science (e.g. quantum physics, the undeniable fact of life that everything in nature is in constant motion).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Chen, H.-T. (1998). Theory-driven evaluations. Advances in Educational Productivity, 7, 15- 34. Ertesvåg, S. K., & Roland, P. (2013). Ledelse av endringsarbeid i barnehagen. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Flaspohler, P., Duffy, J., Wandersman, A., Stillman, L., & Maras, M. (2008). Unpacking Prevention Capacity: An Intersection of Research-to-practice Models and Community- centered Models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 182-196. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A. & Zins, J. E. . (2005). The Study of Implementation in School-Based Preventive Interventions: Theory, Research and Practice. Promotion of Mental Health and Prevention of Mental and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 1-62. Havelock, R. G. (1971). The Utilisation of Educational Research and Development. British Journal of Educational Technology 2(2): 84-98. Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (2007). Toward a Comprehensive Definition of Readiness for Change: A Review of Research and Instrumentation, in William A. Pasmore, Richard W. Woodman (ed.) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Research in Organizational Change and Development, Volume 16) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.289 - 336 Kaufmann, G., & Kaufmann, A. (2015). Psykologi i organisasjon og ledelse (5. utg. ed.). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Mulford, W., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. A. (2004). Educational leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomesStudies in educational leadership (Vol. v. 3). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Roland, P., & Westergård. E. (red.) (2015). Implementering. Å omsette teorier, aktiviteter og strukturer i praksis. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Røkenes, O. H. og Hansen, PH (2002). Bære eller briste. Kommunikasjon og relasjoner i arbeid med mennesker. Bergen,: Fagbokforlaget Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday. Skogen, K. (2004). Innovasjon i skolen: kvalitetsutvikling og kompetanseheving. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221- 258. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.