Session Information
26 SES 14 B, School Leadership Development: Emerging Trends and Topics (Part 2)
Paper Session continued from 23 SES 08 B
Contribution
Every year, organizations spend considerable amounts of money to train their leaders. The training might take place through “the education of leaders" (settings where aspiring and practicing school leaders are enrolled in programs that confer formal qualifications) or through “school leadership development” in workshops, networks or partnerships that offer continuing development without bestowing formal qualifications. The present study examines ongoing school leadership development as a research-practice partnership (RPP) between schools and universities in a reform context.The emphasis on school reforms is considerable and increasing internationally (Røvik et al. 2014). The process of implementing reform intentions is both long and complicated (Cuban, 1988). Reforms initiated at the central level often face problems when interpreting and implementing these initiatives locally. It may take time before the reforms bring about changes in the school organization (Karseth & Møller, 2014). In order to guide transformational work at the school level, reform initiatives from above and local initiatives from below must be interpreted and executed as concrete actions (Røvik et al., 2014). There is a need to be more sensitive to how reforms are negotiated and how they play out in local contexts (Rasmussen & Ludvigsen, 2009). One problem with reform research is that limited attention has been paid to the interpretation of the intentions of reforms and the negotiation of priorities at different levels in the reform work (Olson, 2003). The present study focuses on reform work in RPP at a school level. Several methods have been tried to support developmental work in RPP such as action research, design research and critical friendship. The present study implies formative interventions in so-called Change Laboratories (CL) (Engeström, 2001). Researchers and practitioners meet in workshops to explore various issues arising in workplaces. Reviews on "formative interventions" in CL the last 25 years (Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Sannino & Engeström, 2018) states that the method has been used in health and industrial work, teacher education, nursing education, vocational education, as well as the postal system. However, CL has to a limited degree been introduced in educational settings.There are however some exceptions. One study (Author 1, 2014, 2022) examined leadership development in a team consisting of principals, municipal-level leaders, and researchers, while Jachellen & Postholm (2022) examined a university–school collaboration as an arena for community-building in teacher education. Whether explorative work on leadership issues in CL becomes conducive to any changes in daily leadership practices is an empirical and a methodological question which raises issues of causality in qualitative research. Causal relationships are traditionally examined in quantitative research, although some researchers (Miles and Huberman 1989; Miller and Fredericks 1987) have attempted to reestablish both the legitimacy and potential of causal and qualitative analyses of empirical data. The attention in the present study is the ongoing processes in CL. The assumption is that the result is achieved in the processes (Engeström 2011). Theoretically, we built on third generation of CHAT which makes it possible to study developmental work in boundary spaces across activity systems such as schools and universities by tracing what is being worked on here and now in terms of different problem-spaces (situation constructed objects) (Engetsröm, 1999). The empirical data in the present study is examined with the help of three layers of causation (Engeström (2011). The purpose of the paper is to contribute with methodological insights into how causational relationships can be studied qualitatively in RPP. The following research questions have guided the contribution:
- How can causational relationships be traced in research-practices-partnership with a CHAT approach?
- What is the potential of tracing causaltional relationships in school leadership development
Method
The analyses is illustrated with examples from three upper secondary schools in Norway which have collaborated with researchers from a university since 2020. The innovation part of the present empirical study consists of eight workshops of two hours in the three schools which are led by the researchers. To ensure that the work conducted in the laboratories leads to testing and follow-up in daily leadership practice, three different types of “triggers” are introduced which may push change processes (Engeström, 2001) such as data from the school which mirrors the practice itself, theoretical models and analytical concepts that may bring conversations and reflections to a higher analytical level and help to clarify tensions that may prevent progress, and specific questions about the past, present, and future leadership practices. In formative interventions, it is the practitioners' need for change that constitutes the starting point rather than the researcher's needs, which is often the case in experimental design. The process of formative interventions is characterized by negotiation and collaboration between researchers and practitioners rather than implementing changes that are predetermined. The purpose of formative interventions is to develop action skills among practitioners. The role of the researcher in formative interventions is to provoke processes that are led by practitioners to solve problems and deal with dilemmas, whereas in experimental design it is important to control variables.These are particularly important aspects of change work that require the interpretation and development of professional judgment, which is a turning point in the leadership of reform work. The processes in CL have been video-recorded for research purposes. The video data for the present study consists of 24 hours of videotaped material from each case. The data also consists of diverse materials which has been introduced in the workshops. All video data have been transcribed. The transcripts from each case have been divided into episodes (subject specific objects). A new episode was delimited by a start or a thematic shift pertaining to the situational object (what was worked on here and now). We developed criteria for the selection of what Barab et al. (2001) conceptualized as "action relevant episodes" (ARE). For this article, we looked for episodes that could Preliminary findings suggest that causal relationships become visible in the process data of school leadership development across episodes.
Expected Outcomes
Expected Outcomes: Causational relationships can be traced in research-practices-partnership with CHAT guided by theory on three layers of causality by switching between attention to the trajectory of the partnership in terms of project object and situastional objects here and now be following specific issues being worked on. It requires attention to what motivates and drives the engagments in the teams under study rather than individual actions. The potential of tracing causational relationships in school leadership development is to contribute with insights into what triggers development over time and what matters become condusive to new perspectives and actions in school leadership. More emperical cases is needed to test out the present methdology.
References
Abbott, A. (1992). From causes to events: Notes on narrative positivism. Sociological Methods and Research, 20(4), 428–455. Barab, S., Hay, S., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2001). Constructing networks of action-relevant episodes: An in-situ research methodology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1), 63–112. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. I: Y. Engeström, R.- L. Punamäki- Gitai & R. Miettinen (red), Perspectives on Activity Theory (s. 377– 404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. Engeström, Y. (2011). Activity theory and learning at work. I M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans & B. N. O’Connor (red.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. London: SAGE. Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. Karseth, B. & Møller, J. (2014). «Hit eit steg og dit eit steg» – Et institusjonelt blikk på reformarbeid i skolen. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 98(6), 452–468. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1989). Some procedures for causal analysis of multiple-case data. Interna- tion Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2(1), 55–68. Miller, S. I., & Fredericks, M. (1987). The confirmation of hypotheses in qualitative research. Methodika, 1(1), 25–40. Olson, D.R. (2003). Psychological Theory and Educational Reform: How School Remakes Mind and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pre ss. Røvik, K. A., Eilertsen, T. V., & Furu, E. M. (Eds.). (2014). Reformideer i norsk skole: spredning, oversettelse og implementering. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
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.