In this paper, I will take up the challenge of proposing a reading of educational leadership through the lens of Actor Network Theory (ANT). Educational leadership, and more generally educational management, with some exceptions, have not been at the center of of ANT scholars’attention (Mulcahy and Perillo 2010). On the other hand, the literature on educational leadership and management seems to display little interest in trying to follow this vocabulary. I will argue that this ‘mismatching’ is a lost opportunity. Emerging originally in science and technology studies, ANT brings the materialities of education policies and practices to the forefront (Fenwick and Edwards 2010; Fenwick, Edwards, and Sawchuck 2011; Fenwick and Landri 2012). In so doing, it offers an invitation to analyze educational leadership as an assemblage of humans and nonhumans. In other words, it proposes to see education leadership not as an coming from an individual, or essential qualities, but as a concatenation of people, technologies, and policies. By drawing on empirical investigations in schools in Italy, I will illustrate some basic concepts of ANT: Relational Ontology; the Agency of Objects; Translation; Network and Network Effects. The presentation will show how this vocabulary provides a more-than-human account of educational leadership that can drive research and practice outside the dominant discourses of school improvement/variable model of schooling.

Fenwick, T. and Landri, P. 2012. "Materialities, Textures, and Pedagogies: Socio-Material Assemblages in Education." Pedagogy, Culture, and Society 20 (1): 1–7. Fenwick, T, and Edwards, R. 2010. Actor-Network Theory and Education. London: Routledge. Fenwick, T, Edwards, and P Sawchuck, P. 2011. Emerging Approaches to Educational Research Tracing the Socio-Material. London: Routledge. Mulcahy, D. Perillo, S. 2010. “Thinking Management and Leadership within Colleges and Schools Somewhat Differently: A Practice-Based, Actor-Network Theory Perspective.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 39 (1): 122–45.