Living in a changing world we are constantly faced with new challenges which require new knowledge and capacity building. Consequently, principals’ continuous professional development (CPD) has become a central concern of educational actors in many countries (Grissom & Harrington, 2010; Gurr & Drysdale, 2012). Still, research about principals’ CPD is limited although growing. As most of the research is conducted within Anglo-Saxion countries, more knowledge of principals’ CPD practices, especially from outside of North America is needed (Huber, 2011; 2013). So far, research results have recommended a mix of strategies and methods, being embedded in practice and adjusted to local needs (Newmann, et al., 2000). However, if CPD is to challenge prevailing understanding and practices, it needs to provide opportunities for collegial inquiry and systematic learning (Goldring et al., 2012). In addition, Campbell et al. (2017) stress the importance of external support and mentoring for leaders at different stages in their career trajectory. As principals are lonely in their position, an important element of high-quality CPD is group coaching and networking with other principals who could stimulate critical reflection and help identify gaps in knowledge and skills (Aas & Varvik, 2015; Nicolaidou et al., 2016). 

In Sweden, central regulation prescribes that local education authorities (LEAs), i.e., the 290 municipalities and the many independent school providers (business companies and non-profit organizations), must ensure principals with CPD. However, due to decentralised implementation, each LEA is free to choose direction and design. To support LEAs, the National Agency of Education offers a variety of voluntary courses and seminaries, individually or in cooperation with universities. In addition, CPD for principals is also offered by companies and organized by LEAs themselves. Swedish research about principal CPD is, in line with international research, limited and primarily restricted to single case studies (e.g. Liljenberg, 2021; Sahlin 2023). Consequently, the aim of this study is to contribute to the research field by capturing a broader picture of principals’ CPD in Sweden. We do so by addressing the following research question: What characterize the CPD offered to and valued by principals? 

The theoretical point of departure for the study is taken in Wenger’s (1998) and Wenger Trayner and Wenger Trayner’s (2020) perspective on social learning and social learning spaces. In their view, a CPD initiative could be termed a constellation and understood as a designed social learning space. Constellations define relations of locality, proximity, and distance, not necessarily congruent with physical proximity, institutional affiliations, or even interactions. Hence, learning in social spaces of CPD reconfigure relations of proximity and distance. Even as principals can participate in global improvement initiatives of any kind, they can only engage locally. Engagement in the local while participating in the global are thus to be seen as related levels of participation, always coexisting and shaping each other (Wenger, 1998, p. 131). Learning can also be viewed as value-creation through experiencing meaning in life (Wenger Trayner & Wenger Trayner, 2020 p. 48). Learning to make a difference goes through practice where social learning reveals the value it creates through action. In this sense caring to make a difference is an investment in uncertainty but also in identity, it involves being in tension between caring to make a difference but not yet knowing how to get there, actualising the need to pay attention to responses in the learning process. This means, the ECER 2024 theme ‘education in an age of uncertainty: memory and hope for the future’ is inherent in the approach taken in this study.

The study builds on two qualitative datasets. The first set of data emanates from a multiple case study of six Swedish municipalities. To receive maximal variation, the municipalities were strategically selected (Flyvbjerg 2011) based on municipality classification, number of inhabitants and geographic location. Data includes 60 semi-structured individual interviews with principals. Each interview lasted 60–75 minutes, was audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The second set of data emanates from a two-day seminar with 24 principals representing additional eight municipalities. These principals have taken part in a one-year university course given in collaboration with the National Agency of Education to support principals’ CPD within improvement work and pedagogical leadership. The course is corresponding to 7.5 higher education credits at the advanced level. The principals participated in the seminar to collectively learn and share experiences of managing improvement work based on knowledge gained in the course. During the seminar, audio-recorded data from group conversations was collected. Each conversation took part in smaller groups (n=6) of four principals from different course cohorts and lasted for about 60 minutes. Recorded data was later transcribed by the researchers for further analysis. These group conversations can be classified as mini focus group discussions (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005) and are preferably used when the potential pool of participants is small but where everyone has a high level of expertise in the topics to be discussed. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Broadly, the analysis was conducted in the following way: Firstly, the two dataset was approached using the theoretical construct of value-creation (Wenger Trayner & Wenger Trayner, 2020). Analytically, the focus was set on ‘a principal’s direction in terms of their will and ability to make a difference at work’ to find out what characterizes the CPD offered to and valued high or low by principals in terms of the dual concepts of local and global as well as individual and social. Secondly, the second dataset was further approached by focusing on the shared experiences of the CPD course and inherent improvement work in terms of value-creation operationalised as meaning making and categorised as strategic, enabling, orienting or transformative, and coded as immediate, potential, applied or realized value. That means value can take a mundane and practical form but still be made sense of analytically.

Preliminary results show that CPD offered by LEAs are highly valued when based on external support from university lecturers or coaches. However, more often CPD was valued low by principals due to individual learning, short term and too general. Even when the CPD involved collegial exchange of experience, it was valued low due to being too local, sometimes combined with being too global in terms of lectures, conferences or book reading shaping a distance, thus difficult to translate into practice. To a lesser extent, principals engage in CPD’s offered by LEAs that are collegial, inquiry and research based and fairly global through organizational exchange. However, these are not always adapted to local schools’ needs. One group of principals distance themselves from university courses. The principals that participate in and value CPD university courses high are divided into two sub-groups. Both groups feel a strong care to make a difference at work by improving education. They experience courses as promoters of leadership actions, identifying and meeting the needs of their organisation, connecting global participation and local engagement. They value university courses high even when participation require additional working hours and rarely guarantee any pre-given benefits. For the first sub-group, supported by their superintendents, value-creation became a common strategic interest. Participation is experienced as enabling and transformative being applied and realized locally. For the second sub-group, less supported by superintendents, value-creation was strategic while gaining support not offered elsewhere; however, their outcome was orienting, being of immediate and potential value. In all, the CPD most valued are characterized by linking global and local features and making individual concerns social and collective. The results indicate principal CPD can contribute to strengthen school-capacity, but responsibility falls heavily on the individual principals’ shoulders.

Aas, M. & Vavik, M. (2015). Group coaching: a new way of constructing leadership identity? School Leadership and Management, 35(3), 251-265. Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K. & Hobbs-Johnson, A. (with Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J. and Steffensen, K.). (2017). The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada: Final research report. Learning Forward, Oxford, OH. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, (pp. 301-316). Sage. Goldring, E. B., Preston, C. & Huff, J. (2012). Conceptualizing and evaluating professional development for school leaders. Planning and Changing, 43(3-4), 223-242. Grissom, J. A. & Harrington, J. R. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: an examination of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 583-612. Gurr, D. & Drysdale, L. (2012). Tensions and dilemmas in leading Australia’s schools. School Leadership & Management, 32(5), 403-420. Huber, S. G. (2011). The impact of professional development: a theoretical model for empirical research, evaluation, planning and conducting training and development programmes. Professional Development in Education, 37(5), 837–853. Huber, S. G. (2013). Multiple learning approaches in the professional development of school leaders – theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on self-assessment and feedback. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 527-540. Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. (pp. 887–907). Sage Publications Inc. Liljenberg, M. (2021). A professional development practice to enhance principals’ instructional leadership – enabling and constraining arrangements. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(4), 354-366. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B. & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: lessons from Urban Elementary Schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299. Nicolaidou, M., Karagiorgi, Y. & Petridou, A. (2016). Feedback-based coaching towards school leaders’ professional development: Reflections from the PROFLEC project in Cyprus. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 5(1), 20-36. Sahlin, S. (2023). Professional development of school principals – how do experienced school leaders make sense of their professional learning? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership. Online print. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020). Learning to make a difference: Value creation in social learning spaces. Cambridge University Press.