Session Information
26 SES 14 A, School Leadership Success amidst Contemporary Complexities and Layers of Influence on Education (Part 1)
Symposium to be continued in 26 SES 16 A
Contribution
Contemporary principals lead schools for success amidst rapidly changing and complex national, state, district/municipality and community contexts with success defined by wellbeing and equity as well as academic outcomes. Complexities in a rapidly changing society require a multi-layered perspective (Author, 2020a) where schools are complex adaptive systems and societal institutions (Author, 2020b; Morrison, 2010). The conceptualization by the International Successful School Principalship Project is underpinned by complexity theory and ecological systems theory.
Complexity theory (e.g., Byrne & Callaghan, 2013) recognizes that organizations operate in a rapidly changing, globalized world. Closely related, ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) posits that individuals (children) typically find themselves in various interconnected ecosystems from the most intimate (home) system to the larger school system and then to the most expansive system which includes society and culture. Together, our Project conceptualization considers schools as adaptive organizations that work within contexts of multiple changes and nested influences that are culturally and historically situated. It has enabled us to construct an analytical framework which has informed new research questions and a comparative, mixed methods case study methodology. This methodology employs a systems-oriented approach in investigating successful leadership. Key areas of focus include contexts of change that influence leadership values, efficacy and practices, how they mediate organizational change and ultimately, school improvement outcomes and sustained success
Research Questions
RQ1: To what extent, and in what ways, is ‘success’ in schools perceived and measured [similarly and/or differently within and across different countries]?
RQ2: What are the key enablers and constraints for achieving school ‘success’ in different contexts?
RQ3: To what extent, and in what ways, do diverse socioeconomic, cultural, political, and professional contexts at different levels of the education system influence systems in which schools operate?
RQ4: Are there similar and/or different personal dispositions and professional knowledge, qualities and capabilities needed in enabling leaders to be(come) successful in different contexts [within and across different countries]?
RQ5: What similarities and differences can be identified in the values, beliefs, and behaviors of successful school principals across different schools in the same country, [and across national cultures and policy contexts]?
RQ6: How do different key stakeholders within and outside the school community and at different levels of the education system define successful school leadership practices [within and across different countries]?
RQ7: Is each leadership practice identified by different key stakeholders within and outside the school community and at different levels of the education system truly essential for achieving and sustaining ‘success’ [across different schools within each country and across different countries; and over time]? In what ways?
RQ8: [How do different education systems support school principals to learn to become successful, and to sustain their success over time?]
RQ9: To what extent, and in what ways, do school principals contribute to the ‘success’ of their schools (and/or groups of schools) similarly or differently [ within and across different countries]?
Methodology
We utilize a comparative mixed methods design with a variety of data sources in order to bring multiple perspectives to bear in the inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Patton, 2002). Sources include semi-structured qualitative interviews with the district/municipality, governors, principal, teachers, parents, students, and a whole school teacher survey. The comparative analysis of these data sources within and across different schools and countries (Authors, 2021) enables trustworthiness and enhances rigour (Denzin, 2012).
The first paper presents the new theoretical framing as well as the analytical framework and methodology. The next three papers present cases that draw upon the theoretical framing, analytical framework, and comparative mixed methods in England, Sweden, and the United States.
References
Authors, 2021. Author, 2020a Author, 2020b Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press. Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2013). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of mixed methods research, 6(2), 80-88. Manu, A. (2022). The Philosophy of Disruption. Bingley, Emerald Publishing. Morrison, K. (2010). Complexity theory, school leadership and management: Questions for theory and practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 374-393. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 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.