Democratic social systems are essential for peaceful coexistence grounded in human rights. The rise of right-wing populist parties, are endangering democracy in many countries around the world and thus the future of many people. Participation is a term with positive connotations in relation to the way in which democratic processes are shaped and is cited as a quality feature in the school context, both with regard to teaching and school development. There has been a critical discourse on the democratic potential of participation since the 1980s, which draws attention to the fact that participation, also in the sense of “distributed leadership” (Hangartner & Svaton, 2022) can lead to the reinforcement of hierarchies and power relations (Conway, 1984). Given this, possibilities and effects of participation by students have been investigated in the field of classroom research, which overall tend to show a low level of participation by students and reflect challenges due to the power-structured space of school (Budde, 2010; Häbig & Zala-Mezö, 2023). There are fewer studies that explore teachers’ participation in school development. Primarily, these studies focus on the effects of teacher participation, but their findings are inconsistent. On the one hand, participation led to higher satisfaction and better professional relationships of pedagogical staff (Benoliel & Barth, 2017; Ngotngamwong, 2012; Smylie, 1992). On the other hand, participation includes an increased potential for conflicts (Benoliel & Somech; 2010, Retzar, 2020) and negative correlations between school quality and a high level of participation have been found (Bonsen, 2010). Although, participants feel more responsible for their own school, they also perceive less individual autonomy (Smylie et al., 1996). Studies point out that school culture (Benoliel & Barth, 2017) or personality traits (e.g. the will to participate) (Alutto & Belasco, 1972; Benoliel & Somech, 2010, Smylie, 1992) are influencing factors. However, there is still a gap in research regarding the reasons behind these different effects of participation. In the present study, processes of participatory school development are explored empirically within the framework of Systems Theory (Luhmann, 2006). This assumes that structural development in school organization happens through decision-making communication and its evolution. Participation can then be understood as involvement in decision-making (Abs, 2010; Arnstein, 1969). In this sense participation increases irritations within the organization and thus makes evolution more likely. At the same time, decision-making communication can be destabilized because participative decision-making cannot be ensured through powerful communication. The theoretical conceptualization therefore also suggests that participation can have different implications on school development, which is why a closer look at different forms of participation and their effects is needed. Thus, the central question of the research project is: In what ways do teachers participate in decision-making processes and how does this effects the process of certain school development projects? The results should contribute to answering the question in how far participatory school development has a potential to democratize school. Conclusively, this question will be discussed considering in the regard of power relations. 

The empirical analyses presented here are the result of a PhD project that looks at decision-making in five different school development processes in schools in Germany under the above-mentioned question. The tertium comparisonis is the fact that all processes are described as participatory by the school leaders involved. Within the sample the observed school development processes differ both in terms of their organizational and participatory structure as well as their subject matter (e.g. architecture of the new school building, introducing formats of learning evaluation, or teambuilding measure). The data collection took place between 2020 and 2024 and included a triangulation of interviews with school leaders and teachers as well as audio recordings of communication in committees or steering groups during the decision-making process. The audio material (ca. 15 audiotaped committees and 17 interviews) is analyzed using the documentary method of text interpretation (Bohnsack, 2010). This reconstructive analysis method, based on Karl Mannheim's (1952) sociology of knowledge, is able to distinguish between explicit (theoretical) and implicit (atheoretical) knowledge, which can be in a state of tension. In organizations, informal rules of action that are in tension with the formal communicated structure are often necessary to ensure the continued existence of the organization (Kessler, 2023). The aim of the documentary method to reconstruct implicit knowledge and to analyze its relationship to explicit (normative) knowledge, is adequate to consider the specifics of organizational culture (Engel, 2018). In interviews, it can be assumed that narrations in particular provide information about implicit knowledge, which is why the analysis is accompanied by a separation of text types (Nohl, 2010). In the case of interaction data, the implicit knowledge unfolds in the course of the discourse (Przyborski, 2004; Bohnsack, 2010). As part of the comparative analysis, which accompanies the analysis process from the beginning, the individual cases or processes are compared with regard to similarities and differences in order to finally be able to show the contrast in the similarities and to draw conclusions that are valid beyond the individual cases investigated.

The empirical analyses show very different ways of dealing with the normative ideal of participatory school development. On the part of the school management, there are different understandings of participation (e.g. as a learning opportunity, personal development or formal necessity), some of which are communicated openly and some of which remain non-transparent to the teaching staff. Likewise, there are different understandings of participation on the part of the teachers involved (e.g. as job fulfillment, open exchange of ideas, consultation). It also becomes clear that the teachers' opportunities to exert influence on school development is changing over in the process. In most cases, the influence of teachers is limited. Voices are heard but in most cases the final decision is made by the school management which means that the influence of teachers on the decision remains uncertain and dependent of school leaders. This finding confirms the current state of research that power relations are not abolished but continue to exist in a different (sometimes more informal) way. It can be seen that the school principals in question protect the systems reproduction by allowing rather few opportunities for irritation through participation. Comparing these results with models of participation (e.g. Arnstein, 1969), there is a rather low degree of participation found. Against this background, it is interesting that some teachers nevertheless experience a high level of self-empowerment. One explanation can be found in the interplay between the understanding of participation at leadership and teacher level. It is noticeable that teachers experience self-empowerment when the management's understanding of participation is in line with theirs, e.g. when both sees participation as a consultation. The satisfaction of the participants does not depend on the actual opportunity to influence, but rather on the perception of the actual opportunity to influence depending on their own understanding of participation.

Abs, H. J. (2010). Gelegenheitsstrukturen zur Partizipation in Schulen und Partizipationsbereitschaft von Schülern/Schülerinnen. In Wertebildung in Jugendarbeit, Schule und Kommune Bilanz und Perspektiven (pp. 177-188). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften. Arnstein, R. S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225 Benoliel, P., & Somech, A. (2010). Who Benefits from Participative Management? Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 285-308 (224 Seiten). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231011041026 Bohnsack, R. (2010). Documentary method an group discussions. In Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (pp. S. 99-124). Opladen: B. Budrich. Bonsen, M. (2010). Schulleitungshandeln. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. S. 277-294). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften. Budde, J. (2010). Inszenierte Mitbestimmung?! Soziale und demokratische Kompetenzen im schulischen Alltag. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56(3), 384-401. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-71534 Conway, J. A. (1984). The Myth, Mystery, and Mastery of Participative Decision Making in Education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 11-40. Engel, N. (2018). Qualitative Methodologie in der Organisationspädagogik. In M. Göhlich, A. Schöer, & S. M. Weber (Eds.), Handbuch Organisationspädagogik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Häbig, J., & Zala-Mezö, E. (2023). Professionalisierung von Lehrpersonen im Kontext von Schüler:innenpartizipation. Eine rekonstruktive Analyse. In Professionalität und Professionalisierung von Lehrpersonen Perspektiven, theoretische Rahmungen und empirische Zugänge (pp. S. 259-277). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Hangartner, J., & Svaton, C. J. (2022). Distributed Leadership, Teacher Autonomy, and Power Relations between Headteachers and Teachers under Low-Stakes Accountability Conditions: An Ethnographic Account from Switzerland. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 7(2), 247-281 (235 Seiten). Kessler, S. (2023). Schule als Organisation mit der Dokumentarischen Methode erforschen. Ein Studienreview. In Dokumentarische Schulforschung Schwerpunkte: Schulentwicklung - Schulkultur - Schule als Organisation (pp. S. 189-212). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Luhmann, N. (2006). Organisation und Entscheidung (2 ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ngotngamwong, R. (2012). Effects of participative leadership on teacher job satisfaction. Nohl, A.-M. (2010). Narrative Interviews und Documentary Interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Education Research. Opladen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich. Przyborski, A. (2004). Gesprächsanalyse und dokumentarische Methode. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Retzar, M. (2020). Partizipative Praktiken an Demokratischen Schulen. Schulkulturen mit umkämpfter Schulentwicklung. 1. Auflage 2020. (Dissertation, Philipps-Universität Marburg, 2019.). Wiesbaden. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-30343-3 Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher Participation in School Decision Making: Assessing Willingness to Participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 53-67.