Research repeatedly emphasizes that if education is to provide students the best prerequisites for development and learning, principals need to support and participate in instructional development (e.g., Grissom et al., 2013; Leithwood et al., 2020; Robinson, 2010; Robinson et al., 2008). Doing so, Robinson (2010) argues that principals need to have general knowledge about management, teaching and learning as well as specific pedagogical knowledge about teaching in different subjects and curriculum orientations. Timperley (2011) too emphasizes the importance of principals’ pedagogical knowledge, but also the ability to put knowledge into action e.g., to give teachers relevant feedback in teaching situations. Despite the knowledge of the importance of principals’ support and participation in instructional development, giving priority to pedagogical leadership tend to be a challenge for many principals. Principals stress lack of time, although lack of knowledge, prevailing norms, and uncertainty in the relationship with teachers also can be contributing (Emstad & Birkeland, 2021; Leo, 2015; Ärlestig & Törnsén, 2014). While demands on principals have expanded over time, the support for principal professional development has not been as prominent.

In Sweden the principal’s role started out, up till the 1950s, as “the first among equals” but afterwards changed and became more of a public administrator of education. In the 1990s, during the NPM era, the principal’s role was further changed, and principals became more of managers of schools with responsibility for both administration and education (Jarl, 2013). In recent years a new principal’s role has been proposed where principals, although being managers and leaders, work collaboratively with teachers for the common good of educating the students (Jerdborg, 2023). However, embracing this new role might not be as easy in all school contexts and for all principals.

This study from the Swedish context, aims to explore how principals’ pedagogical leadership for instructional development can be supported in a R&D-program. The following research question directed the analytical work:

1. How do principals make sense of their role(s) as pedagogical leaders for instructional development in the R&D-program?
2. What leadership actions are implemented and how can it be understood?

The theoretical point of departure is taken in Weick’s and colleagues (1995; 2001; 2005) sensemaking perspective. Weick (1995) explains sensemaking as an ongoing process through which people seek to make sense of what is unclear and to which questions such as: What does this mean? and What to do now? can be asked. Sensemaking is done in relation to previous experiences and with the intention to be able to move on in new a situation without disruption. Reducing the interpretation options thus becomes a way of handling the situation. However, Weick (2001) believes that when we get the opportunity to create meaning together, new interpretation alternatives can emerge that give perspective on the situation and invite a broader understanding. In this way, collective sensemaking can open for new ways to handle new situations. Weick et al. (2005, p. 417) also emphasize that sense-making is shaped by the rules, norms and cultural-cognitive elements that prevail in the institutional context in which sensemaking takes place. Principals’ sensemaking can thus be understood in relation to the historical development of the principal’s role as well as in relation to the specific school contexts in which principals operate.

The study is of relevance to European educational research for several reasons. First, research about how principals’ take on pedagogical leadership for instructional development is limited. Second, as educational improvement is high up on several national policy agenda, we need to learn more about how principals’ professional development adequately can be supported.

The context of the study is a three-year R&D-program in which a total of about 170 teachers, 35 principals and 10 local education authority (LEA) officials in five Swedish school organizers (four municipalities and one independent organizer) collaborate with three researchers to achieve an 'inside-out' perspective regarding instructional development. Thus, the R&D-program has a transformative agenda (Kennedy, 2014; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013) aiming to improve instruction by taking its point of departure in the specific needs of children and students in the preschools and schools in question, and where solutions to meet the needs are sought in teachers’ multidimensional knowledge. In parallel, when teachers carry out such development work, their needs form the starting point for principals’ exploration of their pedagogical leadership and leadership actions, and principals’ needs form the starting point for LEA’s exploration of overarching support structures. The R&D-program is case-based and uses models from cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to facilitate expansive learning in the development process and for the identification of systemic contradictions that need to be overcome in order to achieve the desired inside-out perspective based on the needs of students, teachers, and principals (Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Sannino, 2020). Following the research questions this study close in on the participating principals, how they make sense of pedagogical leadership for instructional development in the R&D-program, how their leadership actions develop and how this can be understood. The empirical material consists of self-reflections written by the participating principals at six occasions throughout the program together with audio-recorded interviews with 10 of the principals conducted during the second half of the program. The analysis was conducted in several steps. Initially inductive analysis was conducted to detect emerging themes and categories responding to the research question. In the second step of the analysis the sense-making theory (Weick, 1995) was used as a layer to understand how the principals constructed meaning of pedagogical leadership for instructional development and put their meaning into leadership actions. Finally, the categories that emerged were reflected against the professional roles that have characterized Swedish principals throughout history (Jarl, 2013; Jerdborg, 2023). Coding and analysis can thus be characterized as both data-driven and concept-driven (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009).

The early analysis of principals’ self-reflections shows that the principals make sense of pedagogical leadership for instructional development in different ways. In the beginning of the R&D-program, most principals took on a role as “organiser” and focused their leadership actions on setting aside time for professional development, putting groups together, providing tools for documentation and appointing teacher leaders. Although the intension was to gradually get the principals more directly involved in instructional development, the principals hesitated to take on this role. To challenge the principals, promote learning and support a broader understanding, making it possible for the principals to try out new leadership actions, the researchers provided the principals with research-based knowledge, ‘tools for thought’ and communities for collective sensemaking. Following up on principals’ self-reflections from the second and third year of the program an expansion of principals’ sense made ideas of pedagogical leadership can be identified. At this phase of the R&D-program several of the principals started to involve themselves, more directly, in teachers’ instruction and professional learning. However, differences between the principals were identified and traced back to the principals’ roles in different time eras. Some principals took on a role as “teacher for teachers”, others assumed a “coaching role” and additional others took on a role as “co-learner”. In addition, some principals kept themselves to “organising” while others assumed several of the roles above. Consequently, those that assumed several roles expanded their understandings of pedagogical leadership for instructional development and their leadership actions the most. The results of this study give an important contribution to research about principals’ pedagogical leadership for instructional development and how it can be supported as well as stresses the need for researchers and educators to continue explore additional ways to support principals’ professional development.

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24. Emstad, A.B., Birkeland, I. K., & Robinson, V. M. J (2021). Lärande ledarskap – att leda professionell utveckling i skolan. Lärarförlaget. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-444. Jarl, M. (2013). Om rektorers pedagogiska ledarskap i ljuset av skolans managementreformer. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 18(3-4), 197-215. Jerdborg, S. (2023). Novice school principals in education and their experiences of pedagogical leadership in practice. Journal of Leadership Education, 22(1), 131-148. Kennedy. A. (2014) Models of continuing professional development: a framework for analysis. Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336-351. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SAGE. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5-22. Leo, U. (2015). Professional norms guiding school principals’ pedagogical leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(4), 461-476. Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1-26. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. Sannino, A. (2020). Transformative agency as warping: how collectives accomplish change amidst uncertainty. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1–25. Scott, W. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education. Sense Publishers. Ärlestig, H., & Törnsén, M. (2014). Classroom observations and supervision – essential dimensions of pedagogical leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(7), 856-868.