Middle leadership is increasingly recognised as being critical in and for school-based professional development. Over the last decade, the nature, role and practices of middle leaders in leading change in their schools has been the subject of more focused research attention (Harris & Jones, 2017). In many school districts across the world, policy documents and role descriptions specifying the ‘expectations’ and ‘professional standards’ for the work of middle leaders are gradually gaining prominence in school leadership discourses (Day & Grice, 2019). Despite a burgeoning interest in and the prime position of middle leaders for impacting teaching change, the practices and influence of middle leading for professional learning and school development remains generally under-researched (Forde et al., 2019; Harris & Jones, 2017). Although middle leadership is conceptualised differently in different education jurisdictions and there may be similarities in their remit (Farchi & Tubin, 2019), for the purposes of this paper, middle leaders are conceptualised as those educators in schools with dual responsibilities for classroom teaching and leading teacher development in their own school (Grootenboer et al., 2015).

Within the conditions provided by senior leaders in schools, middle leaders are considered to be key drivers of educational change (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019; Fullan, 2011). They are well positioned to determine the specific curriculum and pedagogical needs required by teachers in their own schools. Middle leaders who both teach students and lead the learning of their colleagues have the distinctive responsibility for engaging formally and informally with ranges of learners on a daily basis. This designation is intensely relational work because the middle positioning ‘between’ senior school leaders (e.g., deputy principal(s) or principal) and their teaching colleagues require close interpersonal relationships (Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021).

This paper reports on the findings of a large-scale 4-year Australian study investigating the practices of middle leading for site-based education development. A key question for the research was: what is the nature of middle leading practices that facilitate site-based professional development? The research traces the flow of influence of middle leading to teacher learning by examining the actual day-to-day temporality of middle leading activity to uncover the oft hidden ‘in between’, yet time demanding, informal and/or incidental practices of middle leaders. It aims to extend the gaze beyond the documented ‘formal’ descriptions about middle leading to gain more nuanced, perhaps sophisticated, details about the in-situ realities experienced by middle leaders as they negotiate their teaching and leading work in their schools.

Theoretical Framework: The study was framed by the theory of practice architectures (hereafter TPA) (Kemmis et al., 2014). TPA is a practice theory which provides a comprehensive framework for conceptualising practices and the conditions comprising the temporality, sociality, discursivity and site-ontology of ‘practicescapes’ where practices, like middle leading, happen (Grootenboer & Edwards-Groves, 2024). Practice architectures are combinations of interrelated site-based conditions formed by cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements which influence how practices (comprised of sayings, doings and relatings) unfold through activity, relationships, language, and intersubjective meaning-making in time and space (Grootenboer & Edwards-Groves, 2024). According to TPA, these arrangements form site-based conditions which always already exist in some form in any situation of human sociality (for instance, leading the professional learning of colleagues) but enable and constrain ongoing activity as it is practised anew (Kemmis et al., 2014). Influenced by a Schatzkian (2002) ‘site ontological’ stance, Kemmis et al. (2014) argue that it is by establishing more nuanced site-based understandings, detailed descriptions and critical explanations about the ‘happeningness’ of practices (Schatzki, 2002) and the conditions that both enable and constrain and connect and influence them, that deep understandings about and transformations to that practice are possible.

The research involved shadowing (Czarniawska, 2007) seven middle leaders from three primary (elementary) and four secondary (high) schools. Each shadow aimed to develop comprehensive, contextual insights about the distinctive development practices of middle leaders responsible for leading a school-based initiative (e.g., improving writing across the curriculum or improving mathematics assessment). Shadowing put the researcher inside the empirical ‘happeningness’ of the middle leader practicescape, placing the actual enactment of practices directly within the scholar’s gaze (Hughes et al., 2022; Service et al., 2018; Shan et al., 2022). In each case, shadowing was conducted over four-five consecutive school days in 2023 at times negotiated with middle leaders; this yielded approximately 279 hours of recorded middle leader activity. The shadower/researcher had a hand-held audio recorder (their phone or mp3 device), and a notebook for recording observations, questions, insights and points for later clarification. Researchers conducted daily briefing and debriefing meetings with participants which intended to ‘gap fill’ by addressing unanswered questions or seeking clarification; these meetings were also considered important for ongoing researcher-participant relationship building and to counter ‘observer effect or bias’s’ (McDonald, 2005). Field notes constituted the main source of data in the shadowing phase. These were comprised of an almost continuous set of written notes forming a detailed running record of the middle leader’s activity. The records included noting persons with whom middle leaders were interacting, the times and contents of the conversations, and broad categorisations of activity (planning, teaching, presenting, greeting, emailing, sourcing materials/resources etc) and whether the activity was scheduled or unplanned/incidental. As much detail about the activity as possible was recorded, including noting verbatim exchanges, instructions, questions, comments and responses (and by whom), body language and reactions of persons were noted, etc. Other written and audio-recordings of ‘between spaces’ (e.g., as middle leaders moved from activity to activity, like from classroom to staffroom) and debriefing meetings were made. In these between spaces, researchers asked questions (e.g., what’s happening here? why that now? where did that idea come from? etc) or prompted participants for further information or clarification (e.g., I noticed you… that this happened... can you tell me tell me more about that, discuss how ‘normal’ has their day been, other similar days etc) that aimed to fill the gaps. Any audio recorded exchanges with the middle leader were made when convenient. National ethics protocols were followed, informed consent was provided by all personnel involved.

Analysis highlighted the minute details of the practices and practice architectures (conditions) which enabled and constrained the daily work of middle leaders. Whilst the designation of middle leaders involved both teaching students and leading the learning of their colleagues, shadowing made it possible to make the invisible visible. From the shadows, researchers traced the situated realities facing middle leaders in their daily work from their teaching into occasions of informal, incidental and formal leading. Thematic analysis revealed their leading activity involved the predominance of informal practices where relational intensities (involving continual engagement in interactions with others) and empathetic responsivity (involving frequent flexible and spontaneous actions responding to the needs and circumstances of others). These features of their work were not generally accounted for in, for example, their role descriptions. Apart from the formal scheduled leading responsibilities of middle leading, there was a prevalence of informal, often incidental and unplanned, leading activity. Informal leadership practices were many and varied; e.g., daily check-ins with teachers, spontaneous 1-1 mentoring or coaching, attending impromptu meetings, troubleshooting, after hours contact with teachers or parents. These informal practices appeared to be a taken-for-granted part of their workload, yet a critical feature of their leadership. Conclusion: Results have important implications for school administrators and middle leaders globally. Specifically, understanding the taken-for-granted workloads demanded by the ‘hidden’ informal work of middle leadership is necessary for creating the conditions (practice architectures) required for supporting the sustainability and efficacy of school-based development work. Recognising, acknowledging and accounting for the contours and consequences of the intense relationality, time demands, relentless sporadic attention shifts, and the seeming persistent responsivity facing middle leaders is critical for avoiding burnout, their self-preservation and longevity in their roles. Bringing balance to the lived realities of middle leaders is consequential for the realisation of site-based education development.

Czarniawska, B. (2007). Shadowing: And Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in Modern Societies. Copenhagen Business School Press. Day, C., & Grice, C. (2019). Investigating the influence and impact of leading from the middle: A school-based strategy for middle leaders in schools. Commissioned research report. The Association of Independent Schools Leadership Centre New South Wales. Edwards-Groves, C., & Grootenboer, P. (2021). Conceptualising the five dimensions of relational trust: middle leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management, 41(6),1-24. Edwards-Groves, C., Grootenboer, P. Hardy, I., & Rönnerman, K. (2019). Driving change from ‘the middle’: Middle leading for site based educational development. School Leadership & Management, 39(3-4), 315-333. Farchi, T., & Tubin, D. (2018). Middle leaders in successful and less successful schools. School Leadership & Management, 39, 372–390. Forde, C., Hamilton, G., Bhróithe, M., Nihill, M., & Rooney, A. (2019). Evolving policy paradigms of middle leadership in Scottish and Irish education: Implications for middle leadership professional development, School Leadership & Management, 39(3-4), 297-314. Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Centre for Strategic Education Melbourne. Grootenboer, P., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2024). The theory of practice architectures: Researching Practices. Springer. Grootenboer, P., Edwards-Groves, C. & Rönnerman, K. (2015). Leading practice development: voices from the middle. Professional Development in Education, 41(3), 508-526. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2017). Middle leaders matter: reflections, recognition, and renaissance. School Leadership & Management, 37(3), 213-216. Hughes, M., Kilderry, A., & Kim Keamy, R. (2022). Shadowing methodology and the role of the Educational Leader. Early Years, DOI: 10.1080/09575146.2022.2084512 Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P. & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Springer. McDonald, S. (2005). Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 455-473. Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University of Pennsylvania Press. Service, B., Gulay Erin Dalgic, G., & Thornton, K. (2018). Benefits of a shadowing/mentoring intervention for New Zealand school principals. Professional Development in Education, 44(4), 507-520. Shan, X., Yulian, Z., Ng Mooi, A., & Jiwen, L. (2022). Shadowing as a method of principal development: A qualitative cross-case study in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 7.