Session Information
99 ERC SES 08 L, Educational Leadership
Paper Session
Contribution
The innovations proposed by educational organisation staff are a specific case of so-called "bottom-up" or grassroots innovations, which arise from the initiative of individuals, as opposed to the "top-down" reform of the educational system.. An important characteristic of grassroots innovations is their orientation towards local needs and context [Gupta, 2020]. According to previous research, compared to "top-down" innovations, grassroots innovations are less constrained by institutional frameworks, are more responsive to emerging demands and opportunities, thus enabling the system to incorporate fresher and more creative solutions to existing problems [Koroleva and Khavenson, 2015; Seyfang and Smith, 2007]. In this context, innovations are understood to encompass both radically new approaches and methods, as well as existing practices adapted to the specific school context [Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019].
The emergence of grassroots innovations has been described in previous studies as a complex and risky process [Glor, 2002]. Innovations, even if they have proven their effectiveness, encounter numerous obstacles during their implementation and dissemination, especially in conservative systems such as the education system [Halasz, 2018]. Barriers associated with the dissemination of innovations and modernisation of the school environment have been addressed in previous research [Sucha et al., 2021; Koroleva and Naushirvanov, 2020]. Key barriers include funding shortages, staffing needs, and a low willingness to adopt innovations, absence of motivation among teachers, administrators, families, and society. The next logical step would involve considering ways to overcome the identified barriers, as they are currently described only fragmentarily in the literature.
In some studies focusing on barriers and drivers within organisations similar to schools, levels at which certain barriers and drivers operate have been emphasised. For example, Sucha et al. [2021] examine the barriers and drivers of innovations in Czech libraries at four different levels: personal, local, organisational, and structural. We hypothesise that such an approach could be beneficial for studying the emergence and diffusion of innovations in the field of education. Furthermore, an in-depth understanding of these results would involve a transition from a linear correspondence between barriers and levels (according to the methodology of the Czech study, a barrier cannot occur at different levels simultaneously, which seems to be an oversimplification) to an exploration of the connections between barriers and opportunities at different levels. Thus, our research questions are:
How do innovators navigate between opportunities and barriers at different levels? What happens if a barrier arises at one level while opportunities exist at other levels?
We study these issues based on the case of one region. It allows for a detailed understanding of the barriers and strategies to overcome them. Although the local specificity is important, we believe that the result might be relevant to other regions and countries as meta-analyses show that teachers from different countries face similar challenges that might affect innovation processes in schools: high workload, insufficient funding, well-being and burnout, conservative views on the education system, and so on.
Method
The empirical data collected during the spring of 2022 in one of the Russian regions which can be considered a typical region from the point of social-economic situation and a successful region in terms of educational quality. This combination of characteristics warrants the investigation and dissemination of its experience. Within the region, the sample was constructed based on the principle of maximum variation. The research was conducted in 8 cities, allowing for a diverse socioeconomic context. To find informants, the snowball sampling method was employed. Entry points into the field included 1) public information about innovative projects; 2) requests to representatives of regional universities, municipal education authorities, and school administrations. In each school, efforts were made to speak with representatives of the innovative project teams and the school administration. In total, 88 interviews were conducted in 30 schools. The majority of informants in the sample were teachers of various subjects (N=55). There was also a significant proportion of administrative staff, including 23 deputy directors and 10 headteachers. With few exceptions, the respondents were female, reflecting the actual gender distribution in schools. The study was conducted in 18 regular secondary schools, 4 secondary schools with in-depth study of specific subjects, 5 gymnasiums, 2 lyceums, and 1 private school. Semi-structured interviews were chosen as the primary method of data collection. The interview guide included questions about interest in innovation, experience in implementing new projects for the school, interaction and knowledge exchange with colleagues. Thematic analysis of the interviews was conducted using Atlas.ti software [Bryman, 2016; Braun and Clarke, 2006]. Following the merger of two classifications, two groups of two-level codes were developed: the first group denotes the substantive essence of the barrier or driver [Koroleva and Naushirvanov, 2020; Sucha et al, 2021], while the second group distinguishes the level of the barrier or driver [Sucha et al., 2021]. The substantive codes can be divided into several groups: relationships with stakeholders, financial and material-technical infrastructure, characteristics of the collective, personal qualities, laws, and competencies. The levels considered include personal, organisational, community, regional, and federal. Moreover, it is noteworthy that each barrier and driver may occur at each of the five levels. The strategy for overcoming barriers were identified based on the logic of open coding [Blair, 2015].
Expected Outcomes
Based on the interviews, we have identified the key barriers that school staff face in initiating innovative projects. The identified barriers include shortage of innovative ideas, high workload of educators, resistance to innovation from teachers and parents, the inability to establish contacts with external actors, deficiency in competencies, staff shortages, lack of funding and material-technical infrastructure. In addition, we highlighted and systemized innovators’ strategies to overcome those barriers. For example, in response to the high workload of educators hindering their professional development, we suggested transitioning training to an online format, creating a comfortable learning environment, conducting training outside of active educational cycles, and delegating training to the most competent staff members or specially hired personnel. Summarising various mechanisms of overcoming, it can be observed that interaction between the school and external organisations within the locality not only helps to overcome barriers but also encourages school staff to embrace new innovations. In case, there is no opportunity to overcome the barrier, the innovators adapt a project so that it can work with existing resources, for instance, implementing a project at the school level if it is not feasible at the city level, and so on. Using online resources should be seen as an important strategy for overcoming barriers, including those related to limitations of a specific locality. It cannot be reduced to any of the stated levels at the previous classification of Sucha et al. (2021), so we propose to expand this classification. Also, based on investigating the relation between the level of a barrier and the level of overcoming it, we argue that a barrier arising at one level does not necessarily need to be overcome at the same level. In cases where essential project resources are lacking, innovators have sought alternative solutions or bridged gaps using personal resources.
References
Blair E. A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques //Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences. – 2015. – Т. 6. – №. 1. – С. 14-29. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology // Qualitative Research in Psychology. - 2006. - №3(2). - P. 77–101. Bryman A. Social research methods. - Oxford university press, 2016 Glor, E. Innovation patterns // The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. – 2002. Gupta S. Understanding the feasibility and value of grassroots innovation //Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. – 2020. – Т. 48. – С. 941-965. Halász G. Measuring innovation in education: The outcomes of a national education sector innovation survey //European Journal of Education. – 2018. – Т. 53. – №. 4. – С. 557-573. Koroleva D. O., Khavenson T. E. The portrait of a twenty-first century innovator in education //Russian Education & Society. – 2015. – Т. 57. – №. 5. – С. 338-357. Seyfang G., Smith A. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda //Environmental politics. – 2007. – Т. 16. – №. 4. – С. 584-603. Sucha L.Z., Bartosova E., Novotny R. [et al.] Stimulators and barriers towards social innovations in public libraries: Qualitative research study // Library and Information Science Research. - 2021. - №43. - P. 1–7. Vincent-Lancrin S. Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G Measuring innovation in education 2019. – OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019.
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.