In this paper, we present a common general framework for curriculum work-leadership. We are particularly interested in changes in the nation state in the midst of globalization, homogenization of curriculum and evaluation policies, and local (district and school) responses to these policies. Theoretical Framework Our framework builds upon literature from two distinct fields, educational leadership and curriculum theory/didaktik as well as philosophy and discursive institutionalism that we believe address a key blindspot in both fields. A blind spot for both curriculum theory / didaktik and educational leadership is the limited attention paid to the interplay between, on the one hand aims, contents and methods, and leadership forms / structures and interactions on the other. Discursive institutionalism offers a complementary approach to understanding how educational policies, ideas and values relate to administrative processes on different levels. Expected Outcomes In contrast to pre-modern and modern explanations of education as being located within existing society (socialization-oriented), education as revolutionary or super-ordinated to society (transformation-oriented), and centrist that combine social reproduction and transformation perspectives, our general framework explains the relation between education and politics, economy and culture, respectively, as non-hierarchical. We further consider what kind of influence educational leadership has and how this influence is related to the person being influenced. In our framework, educational leadership, from classroom to school, district, national, and transnational organizations, is understood as an invitation, intervention or provocation, a violation, disturbance or expectation concerning the Other’s relation to himself/herself, the world and others. Educational leadership is, then, to recognize somebody as if they are already capable of doing what they are supposed to become capable of - and to act accordingly (Kant, Fichte, Herbart, Schleiermacher as conceptualized further by Benner, 1991). To elaborate, we find three concepts particularly relevant: 1) recognition - how the Self is aware of the Other as being free (ontological assumption); 2) summoning to self-activity - how a teacher or a principal has a mediating role with respect to the Other in the maintenance and development of the Other’s self-relations; and 3) Bildsamkeit - the individual’s own conscious efforts aimed at making sense of the world and her experiences. These concepts may be used for both teaching and educational leadership. This general framework and related research agenda will extend our understanding of what curriculum work-leadership means in a neoliberal era and beyond.

Benner, D. (1991). Allgemeine Pädagogik: eine systematisch-problemgeschichtliche Einführung in die Grundstruktur pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns. Weinheim: Juventa. Crossley, M. (2000). Bridging cultures and traditions in the reconceptualisation of comparative and international education. Comparative Education, 36(3), 319-332. Hopmann, S. (2015). ‘Didaktik meets Curriculum’ revisited: historical encounters, systematic experience, empirical limits. 2015, 1: 27007 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.27007 Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 303–26. Uljens, M. & Ylimaki, R. (2015). Towards a discursive and non-affirmative framework for curriculum studies, Didaktik and educational leadership. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 1(3). http://nordstep.net/index.php/nstep/article/view/30177