In the contemporary context of a shifting societal landscape, marked by numerous challenges, educational institutions find themselves compelled to undergo a process of self-development, with the objective of enhancing their appeal to students and assisting them in navigating the complexities of the modern world. To support these institutions in this transformation, many school systems across Europe have established a range of assistance mechanisms, including school development consulting (SDC) (Altrichter et al., 2021). In Austria, the majority of schools opt to engage external SDC (“Schulentwicklungsberatung”) to address their development needs, implement central requirements, or address perceived deficiencies. These consultants typically visit schools facing challenges that are beyond their capacity to surmount independently (Hofbauer & Bernhard, 2023, p. 151). or those seeking assistance for further growth (Altrichter et al., 2021, p. 60).

The prevalence of school development consulting in Austria is a growing trend that is gaining significant attention (Hofbauer & Bernhard, 2023) as evidenced by recent publications of official governmental documents (e.g. the White Paper SDC, 2024) and the increased funding of research projects in this area (Kemethofer et al., 2024). Moreover, the strengthening of SDC has been formally designated as a strategic goal for university colleges for teacher education (BMBWF, 2019).

However, little is known about the central actors, the school development consultants per se. While there have been isolated studies that address the consultant’s general understanding of consulting (Dedering et al., 2013; Loparics, 2021; Tajik, 2008), the topic remains understudied considering their unique situation: As external consultants they always find themselves situated in an area of tension between the schools and their individual development needs and the external demands that impose central requirements on educational institutions. Furthermore, Austrian school development consultants are a highly heterogeneous group. Typically, these consultants are employed within the school system. They often have professional backgrounds as teachers and additionally some of them persue pertinent, multifaceted training and advanced education, including in domains such as teaching development, supervision or organizational consulting (Dedering et al., 2013; Hofbauer & Bernhard, 2023). Even though universities of teacher education in Austria provide specialised courses for school development consulting, these courses are not mandatory for practising SDCs and they vary significantly in terms of their content and scope (Altrichter et al., 2021).

Consequently, consultants do not follow a standardised training program for SDC. As a result, SDC can hardly be classified as an independent profession with a shared professional identity (Helsper, 2004). Following a traditional understanding of professions, they are always characterized by a shared knowledge and language, e.g. the typical professions like medicine, law and theology (Helsper, 2021, S. 28). Furthermore, school development is a field characterized by the convergence of different demands and expectations the consultants have to deal with. On one hand, education policy establishes mandatory aims for schools, while on the other hand, schools have their own development projects and needs which often prove to be incongruent with these policy directives. This results in a state of tension between the expectations of the school and those of the policy makers, within which school development consultants must strategically position themselves.

In light of these challenges, the suggested article seeks to contribute to the existing discourse by addressing the professional identity of school development consultants and proposing a reconceptualization of their guiding principles. The central research question of this study is as follows:

Which guiding principles are constitutive for the professional identity of school development consultants?

Methodological approach The aim of the proposed paper is the empirical investigation of orientations concerning practice of school development consultants in their intermediate position of central demands and individual necessities. The aim is not to describe their opinions and attitudes, it rather refers to orientations concerning their professional identity. This aim is pursued by methods oriented on the reconstructive social research methodology, which is based on the reconstruction of the “atheoretical” (Mannheim, 1980) or "implicit knowledge" (Polanyi, 1966/2016), which is also referred to as the orientation framework composed of the action-guiding orientations (Bohnsack, 2022). In the analysis, there is a shift from the content of the informants' statements to the underlying meaning, which is often inaccessible to the individual. Consequently, the focal point of reconstructive research does not lie in the content of the actors' statements, but rather in the manner in which they articulate their experiences and the conceptual framework they employ to navigate them (Krainz, 2016). The objective of the method is to reconstruct the relationship between the individual guiding principles of the school development consultants and their personal experiences (Bohnsack, 2022). Data Collection The research question is addressed through the use of narrative interviews (Misoch, 2015). In this particular method, the interviewer (i.e., the researcher) provides only general questions, allowing the interviewee to articulate their responses quite detached. Subsequent to the interviewee's conclusion, the researcher will typically pose inquiries intended to clarify any ambiguous or unclear aspects of the interviewee's narrative. Concluding the interview with such questions enables the researcher to discern any hidden factors that may have been previously unexamined. So far, 14 interviews have been conducted with school development consultants in five Austrian provinces. These interviewees were either contacted via the university colleges of teacher education or recommended to the researcher by other school development consultants. Data analysis The evaluation is realised through the implementation of the documentary method (Bohnsack, 2013; Bohnsack et al., 2001; Nohl, 2005). In their context a clear distinction is made between the formulation interpretation which focuses on summarizing the topics discussed and the reflective interpretation which elaborates the orientation in which the personal guiding principles are constituted (Nohl, 2010). Further, an objective approach is employed in the analysis, whereby the interpretation of a particular case is systematically compared with other cases, thereby ensuring the highest attainable objectivity. The results obtained are then systematically organized into a taxonomy of types (ibid.).

Preliminary findings indicate significant variations in the professional identities of school development consultants in Austria. While some perceive themselves as less emotionally engaged in the processes as moderators, others strongly identify with the internal school actors, thereby demonstrating a profound emotional involvement in the consulting cases. These individuals are involved in both the facilitation of individual sessions and in school management coaching or mediation. Another interesting point is the varying positioning of the SDCs in the area of tension as described above. Some exclusively position themselves on the side of the headteachers by helping them implementing central demands into their schools and onto their teachers respectively. Other SDCs understand themselves solely on the teachers’ sides, trying to help them reforming their workplace. The reconstruction of a typology of professional identities among the school development consultants is currently underway. With a comprehensive understanding of the consultants' actual self-perceptions, training and support systems can be developed to foster a reflective attitude towards their diverse roles, thereby assisting them in resolving potential role conflicts. The development of a comprehensive understanding of the professional identity has the potential to contribute to the professionalization of the SDC.

References Altrichter, H., Krainz, U., Kemethofer, D., Jesacher-Rößler, L., Hautz, H. & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S. (2021). Schulentwicklungsberatung und Schulentwicklungsberatungsforschung. In BMBWF (Hrsg.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2021 (S. 375–421). https://doi.org/10.17888/nbb2021 BMBWF. (2019). PH-EP: Pädagogische Hochschulen – Entwicklungsplan: 2021-2026. Bohnsack, R. (2013). Dokumentarische Methode und die Logik der Praxis. In A. Lenger, C. Schneickert & F. Schumacher (Hrsg.), Pierre Bourdieus Konzeption des Habitus: Grundlagen, Zugänge, Forschungsperspektiven (S. 175–200). Springer VS. Bohnsack, R. (2022). Metatheoretische Rahmung der praxeologischwissenssoziologischen Professionsforschung. In R. Bohnsack, A. Bonnet & U. Hericks (Hrsg.), Praxeologisch - wissenssoziologische Professionsforschung: Perspektiven aus Früh- und Schulpädagogik, Fachdidaktik und Sozialer Arbeit (S. 31–58). Julius Klinkhardt. Bohnsack, R., Nentwig-Gesemann, I. & Nohl, A.-M. (Hrsg.). (2001). Die Dokumentarische Methode und Ihre Forschungspraxis: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung. VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften GmbH. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=6304949 Dedering, K., Tillmann, K.-J., Goecke, M. & Rauh, M. (2013). Wenn Experten in die Schule kommen: Schulentwicklungsberatung - empirisch betrachtet. SpringerLink Bücher: Bd. 23. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01402-5 Helsper, W. (2004). Pädagogische Professionalität als Gegenstand des erziehungswissenschaftlichen Diskurses. Einführung in den Thementeil. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 50. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4811 (Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 50 (2004) 3, S. 303-308). Helsper, W. (2021). Professionalität und Professionalisierung pädagogischen Handelns: Eine Einführung. utb: Bd. 5460. Verlag Barbara Budrich; UTB. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838554600 Hofbauer, E. & Bernhard, R. (2023). Schulentwicklungsberatung und Schulentwicklungsberater*innen in kulturell diversen Settings in Österreich. R&E-SOURCE, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2023.i3.a1134 Kemethofer, D., Altrichter, H. & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S. (2024). Wenn das Ganze mehr ist als die Summe seiner Teile: Schulentwicklungsberatungsforschung im Rahmen der BMBWF Förderinitiative B3. Schulverwaltung aktuell(2), 46–48. Krainz, U. (2016). Die Dokumentarische Methode: Methodologie, Arbeitsschritte und Potentiale. In C. Fridrich, R. Klingler, R. Potzmann, W. Greller & R. Petz (Hrsg.), Forschungsperspektiven 8 (S. 227–240). LIT Verlag. Loparics, J. I. S. (2021). Innovationsdruck durch Schulentwicklungsberater/innen? R&E-SOURCE. Vorab-Onlinepublikation. https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2021.i16.a992 Mannheim, K. (1980). Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft: Bd. 298. Strukturen des Denkens (D. Kettler, V. Meja & N. Stehr, Hg.). Suhrkamp. Misoch, S. (2015). Qualitative Interviews. De Gruyter eBook-Paket Sozialwissenschaften. DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110354614 Nohl, A.-M. (2005). Dokumentarische Interpretation narrativer Interviews. http://www.bildungsforschung.org/Archiv/2005-02/interview/ Nohl, A.-M. (2010). The Documentary Method and the Interpretation of Interviews. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Hrsg.), Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research (S. 194–246). Verlag Barbara Budrich. Polanyi, M. (2016). Implizites Wissen (2. Auflage). Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft: Bd. 543. Suhrkamp. (Erstveröffentlichung 1966) Tajik, M. A. (2008). External change agents in developed and developing countries. Improving Schools, 11(3), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480208098390