The symposium (A & B) also explicitly considers the distinct theory and theorizing traditions from educational leadership studies and curriculum studies and the need to develop theoretically solid and coherent educational frameworks to inform future comparative research and a language for policymakers, educational leaders of all kinds, and school development programs. In the U.S., leadership studies have a much longer history dating back to organizational theory in the early 1900s with more recent literature defined by an empirical turn and various critical theories as well as organizational theories. Across this literature, curriculum and instruction are under-theorized in educational leadership literature. An explicit focus on educational leadership grew from the 1980’s in Northern Europe but was focused on school leadership as school improvement within the system (e.g. Harris, 2002). It is thus worth observing that the increasing popularity of educational leadership research in Europe is related to the ongoing policy shift (Uljens, Möller, Ärlestig & Fredriksen, 2013).

By some contrast, curriculum theory and Didaktik have not left a theorizing tradition with theories often focused on macro societal aims and values translated into content, planning, and methods as well as micro relations among education, an individual’s self-formation or Bildung and, more recently cultural identity. Since the 1970s, curriculum theorizing in North America has been focused around Bildung and Currere in the Reconceptualist Movement (e.g. Pinar, 1975; 2012; 2013; Macdonald, 1971) and critical education studies in a parallel movement on the New Sociology of Education (Apple, 1986, 2004; 2014; Giroux, 1982; Arnot & Whitty, 1982), and, most recently in a post-reconceptualist era, cultural studies (e.g. Dimitriatis, 2009; Helfenbein, 2010). In other words,  for recent North American curriculum studies, theorizing is cultural critique, engaging a counter hegemonic dialogue about the underlying ideological bases of curriculum as well as what happens with people’s identities as a result of dominant curriculum/policy discourses and knowledge legitimation.

The same trends can be observed in large parts of the European tradition of Didaktik. In Europe, from the 1970’s curriculum research located itself partly on an axis between social reproduction and transformation. In addition to new British sociology of education being critical of unreflected reproduction and focusing on conscious social transformation (G. Whitty, M. Young) a long standing tradition of humanistic and, in essence, a hermeneutic Bildung oriented Didaktik was prevalent. Second, in Europe curriculum research never left theorizing and researching curriculum as the core policy document around which the public policy debate centered regarding educational ideals and contents (e.g. Lundgren, 2007). During the past century curriculum research and development of nation state curricula developed intertwined (Gundem, et al. 2003; Kansanen & Uljens, 1995).  Yet, educational leadership in terms of the principal’s or district leaders’ work is more or less a blind spot in Didaktik. Or, maybe better, given the collectively agreed policy document called curriculum, also directing evaluation, the principal’s work was about administrative management rather than a pedagogical leadership.

Thus, the symposium asks if and how educational leadership studies and curriculum theory/Didaktik could benefit from a closer dialogue. Curriculum theory / Didaktik extends educational leadership studies’ focus on interactional and institutional perspectives with an explicit consideration of societal interests and how they transform into educational content and practices. Leadership research, in turn, extends curriculum studies/Didaktik concerning how professional groups (teachers, school leaders and superintendents) cooperate in order to work with supporting both professional and school development.

This part of the symposium more explicitly considers historical and cultural perspectives as well as educational leadership, curriculum work and evaluation as a multi-level phenomenon from local schools to transnational levels.

Uljens, M. & Ylimaki, R. (in press). Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Studies and Didaktik. Non-Affirmative Theory of Education Framing a Comparative and International Dialogue. Dordrecht: Springer. Uljens, M., Möller, J. Ärlestig, H. & Fredriksen, L. F. (2013). The Professionalization of Nordic School Leadership. In: L. Moos (ed.), Transnational Influences on Values and Practices in Nordic Educational Leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? (pp. 133-157) Dordrecht: Springer. Uljens, M. (2007). Education and societal change in the global age. In: R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.), Education as a societal contributor (pp. 23-51). New York: Peter Lang. Uljens, M. & Ylimaki, R. (2015a). 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 Ylimaki, R., Fetman, L., Matyjasik, E., Brunderman, L. & Uljens, M. (2016). Beyond Normativity in Sociocultural Reproduction and Sociocultural Transformation: Curriculum Work– Leadership Within an Evolving Context. Educational Administration Quarterly 53(1), 70-106.