This paper is part of a larger study exploring local reconceptualizations of school governance and educational leadership through a continuous, annual data collection. It will enable us to study how governance and leadership is interpreted, translated and recontextualized over time and to possibly identify trends and fluctuations in conceptualizations of leadership. It also includes developing a methodological toolbox for participatory research involving master students (Cooper & Karlsson, 2022) inspired by a Nordic tradition of collaborative research (Rönnerman & Salo, 2012).

Research shows that school leadership on different levels have impact on developing and improving schools, teachers’ collaboration, school culture etcetera (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Meyer et.al, 2023; Nehez, et.al, 2022). Context and culture in turn, matter for how leaders are perceived and expectations towards them (Forssten Seiser et.al, 2020; Moreno, 2023). Thus, conceptualisations of leadership are interrelated to context, actions, culture, language and leadership behaviour.

Our systemic approach to context and leaders extends from subgroups (such as teachers in classrooms) within school organisations to international politics and policy-making (Uljens, 2021). Drawing on the work of Stephen Ball (2006) we argue that policy-borrowing on local, national and international levels influence conceptualisations of school leadership on all levels. Similar views are expressed for instance in a study of educational administration and global policies (Sifakakis et.al., 2016) and a study of how leadership practices travel between contexts (Wilkinson et.al., 2013). What is found in one local context can consequently be discursively connected to other local understandings on a national, European and even global scale.

The objective of this particular paper is to critically examine how school governance, management and educational leadership are constructed in local contexts through interviews with educational leaders on different levels. What discourses of governance and leadership are expressed and which subject positions are made available for the leader subject?

The theoretical framework draws on theories consistent with post structuralism, post humanism and discourse analysis. They share a number of ontological and epistemological assumptions that emphasize instability, difference and contingence and regard the social and knowledge as constituted in temporary and contested discourses (Cooper, 2019, 2022). The subject is thus stripped from its hegemonic humanistic position as autonomous, rational and unified and positioned as fragmented and decentered (Foucault, 1972).

Important concepts are:

Assemblage - a constellation of diversified element such as social, discursive, material, cultural, psychological, historical and affective, which are temporarily unified and construct meaning and understandings (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987).

-       Distributive agency – agency shared between humans and other elements in an assemblage. It does not presume humans/the subject as the cause of events (Bennett, 2009; Strom & Martin, 2021)

-       Intra-action – an assemblage constitutes the social, phenomena, and subjects through intra-action within or between assemblanges (Strom & Martin, 2021)

-       Subjectivation – drawing on Laclau and Mouffe’s (1986) understanding of Lacanian theorizing, the subject is understood as a constitutive lack based on the notion of the infant’s apprehension of wholeness being confronted with external images of identity. Consistent with the idea of the subject as fragmented and decentered this constitutive lack is the driving force in the subject’s identification (Cooper, 2019).

The method used in this study is an interview technique referred to as cognitive maps (Scherp & Scherp, 2007). The development of cognitive maps is based on cognitive constructivism and gestalt psychology where the mapping technique is believed to produce a representation of the informant’s understanding of a phenomenon. The idea of mental representation is in conflict with a more post structural understanding of meaning making. Nevertheless, we deem it possible to use the method strictly as a interview technique as it comprises the characteristics of a qualitative interview (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). Each master student carries out two interviews with informants in some kind of leading position within an educational organisation (local schools, regional administration/ authorities or local political level). During the interview the interviewer make comprehensive notes on a large piece of paper that the informant can see. It is also possible to record the conversations. All applicable ethical considerations are taken into account such as informed consent, gathered by the students, confidentiality and scientific rigour. All interviews are transferred into an excel template that allows us to analytically single out different school forms (public, private), levels (preschool, compulsory schools, adult education etcetera) and leadership roles (such as headmaster/ -mistress, school inspector, governing authority, politician, senior teacher). The template also allows for further categorisation in relation to research objectives. Up to date the material consists of approximately 1000 statements about governance, management and leadership in education. The analysis for this paper has not yet started but during the pilot study performed in 2021 (Cooper & Karlsson, 2022) we used different strategies based on Fairclough, Laclau and Mouffe as well as the ‘Whats the problem represented to be’ (WPR)-approach (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). For this paper we will expand our theoretical resources and complement discourse analysis strategies with the use of assemblage as a methodological-analytical framework. In doing so the intent is to approach our empirical material to unpack variety, incoherence and contradictions (Baker & McGuirk, 2016).

Based on the findings in the pilot study (here described in terms of discourses) we expect to be able to critically examine reconceptualizations of governance, management and leadership as assemblages with conflicting but co-existing discourse. Our current findings are: - A bureaucratic discourse with political and economic governance, jurisdiction, adaptation and execution of decisions made by others. This indicates a top-down perspective on policy and governance but also shows confidence and trust in the good will of politicians and a belief that decisions must be made at the correct level. - An accountability discourse where the lack of trust is more outspoken. Quality work must be followed up and reported. This is related to the tradition of new public management, performativity and measurement. Regarding leadership we have so far identified some interesting topics that may or may not be verified in this study. It is possible to discuss leadership in terms of collaboration between systems and within the system. Leadership should be distinct, supportive and transparent. There is also an obvious discourse of lack that could indicate what is not wanted from a leader such as lack of external resources (time and money) and psychosocial resources (understanding, communication and delegation). In some ways these two understanding resonates with each other as one indicates the opposite of the other, in line with discourse analytical thinking. In addition, leadership is also about relationships as in not being alone as leader, leadership and employeeship, and distributed leadership. In addition, we have interesting findings concerning the leaders (headmasters) subject positions identifying the leader as educational leader, as builder of relations, the strong leader and also the leaders subjectivation/identification with notions of failure, dislike and being a trash can.

Baker, T., & McGuirk, P. (2017). Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for critical policy research. TERRITORY POLITICS GOVERNANCE, 5(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1231631 Cooper, A. (2019). Skolan som demokratiprojekt : en poststrukturell diskursanalys av demokratiuppdrag och lärarsubjekt. Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Pedagogiskt arbete, Karlstads universitet. Cooper, A. & Karlsson, L. (2021, June 1-3). Developing a Participatory Methodological Toolbox for the Study of Local Understandings of School Governance, Management and Leadership. [Paper presentation]. NERA 2022, Reykjavik, Iceland. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Longman. Forssten Seiser, A., Ekholm, M., & Blossing, U. (2020). Differences between Teachers’ and Principals’ Expectations of School Leaders in Simulated Situations. [Paper presentation]. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [The qualitiative research interview]. (3 uppl.). Studentlitteratur. Laclau, E., & C. Mouffe. (1986/2014). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso. Leithwood, K, & Jantzi, D. (2005) A Review of Transformational School Leadership Research 1996–2005, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4:3, 177-199, DOI: 10.1080/15700760500244769 Meyer, A., Hartung-Beck, V., Gronostaj, A., Krüger, S., & Richter, D. (2023). How can principal leadership practices promote teacher collaboration and organizational change? A longitudinal multiple case study of three school improvement initiatives. Journal of Educational Change, 24(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09451-9 Moreno, B. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions toward their new principal. School Leadership & Management, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.2277174 Nehez, J., Blossing, U., Lander, R., Olin, A., & Gyllander Torkildsen, L. (2022). Middle leaders translating knowledge about improvement: Making change in the school and preschool organisation. Journal of Educational Change, 23(3), 315-341–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09418-2 Olin, A., Lund, T., & Stjernstrøm, E. (2013). Understanding leading as travelling practices, School Leadership & Management, 33:3, 224-239, doi: 10.1080/13632434.2013.773886 Rönnerman, K. & Salo, P. (2012). Collaborative and action research within education: A Nordic perspective. Nordic Studies in Education 32:1. doi:10.18261/ISSN1891-5949-2012-01-01 Scherp, H-Å., & Scherp, G-B. (2007). Lärande och skolutveckling. Ledarskap för demokrati och meningsskapande.: [Learning and school development. Leadership for democracy and meaning making]. Karlstad University. Sifakakis, P., Tsatsaroni, A., Sarakinioti, A., & Kourou, M. (2016). Governance and Knowledge Transformations in Educational Administration: Greek Responses to Global Policies. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.1040377 Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. (2003). Discursive analytical strategies: understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Policy Press.