The nationwide competence network ”lernen:digital” develops evidence-based offerings for teacher professionalization and school development in the context of digitalization, fostering dialogue between educational practice and educational research. The subproject “LeadCom” focuses on leadership communication and cooperation in the context of data-based school improvement.

In a research-practice partnership, researchers from FAU collaborate with school practitioners, administrators, and evaluators to explore how evaluation data on school and teaching quality can be jointly discussed and leveraged for school development. As part of this partnership, evaluation leaders aim to develop a new discussion format for providing feedback on evaluation data.

The scientific inquiry focuses on the orientations and logics guiding leadership actors cooperating at the intersection of schools, supervisory authorities, and evaluation. For the project partners, this development represents a significant step toward school system reform. By expanding the participation of diverse stakeholders in discussions of evaluation data, the data is expected to become more actionable for school development. Additionally, direct networking and collaboration both within schools and between administrative and support systems aim to enhance transparency and foster synergies.

In the context of output-oriented reforms after 2001, external evaluation was introduced to provide evidence for guiding school development. However, this newly established role risks being perceived as superior, potentially creating asymmetries among governance actors within the education system (Diedrich, 2020). Notably, 20 years after its introduction, the effectiveness of evidence-based governance remains scientifically unsubstantiated (Preuß et al., 2015; Malin et al., 2020). Across Germany's federal states, evaluation practices have been revised and, in some cases, discontinued. Initially regarded as a response to the "crisis of school supervision," evaluation itself is now considered an actor in crisis (Preuß et al., 2015; Heinrich, 2015). Meanwhile, school networks have emerged alongside the state system, developing their own feedback routines (Backhaus et al., 2009).

Within “LeadCom”, evaluation practices are being redesigned, particularly the feedback process for evaluation data in one federal state. Researchers act as facilitators, supporting the redesign of feedback conversations for school evaluation while studying stakeholder collaboration across different governance levels. The project offers a dual perspective on leadership orientations by (1) fostering cross-level cooperation in workshops and (2) co-developing cross-level communication and cooperation strategies within a new feedback format. The goal of the workshops is to develop prototypes for a new discussion format in which actors from school practice and school administration collaboratively discuss evaluation results and apply them to school development.

From a governance analysis perspective (Altrichter et al., 2007; Abs et al., 2015), the project provides a suitable context for closely examining actor coordination within the multi-level system. The analysis focuses on guiding orientations, actor and organizational logics, as well as the dynamics of power and influence within workshop settings. A practice-theoretical research approach is employed to investigate how negotiations among actors unfold. Concepts such as Leading from the Middle (Fullan 2015), Distributed Digital Leadership (Dohmen & Martens 2024), Collaborative Professionalism (Sliwka & Klopsch 2022, Hargreaves & O’Connor 2018), and Transversality (Eickelmann et al. 2024) are deemed useful for navigating organizations in a VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) world. These concepts underscore the need for sophisticated cooperation among governance actors. The new feedback format aims to foster shared responsibility in the sense of distributed leadership.

In the project, researchers also act as facilitators of design-thinking workshops and are partially involved in the interactions being analyzed. This setting provides additional insights into the practical collaboration between researchers and school practitioners.

The interpretation of in-situ documentation using the documentary method (Bohnsack et al., 2007; Zala-Mezö et al., 2021), investigates how governance is enacted at steering interfaces and in the handling of evaluation data. It also examines the guiding orientations shaping actor collaboration. In 2024, we observed, facilitated, and recorded meetings and workshops. Our research focuses on individual and collective sense-making during negotiation and decision-making processes, which we examine through the analysis of communication and interactions in design workshops.involving 20 participants from diverse groups: (a) school principals, (b) teachers, (c) personnel responsible for extracurricular student supervision in full-time schools, (d) school supervisors, (e) administrative system consultants, and (f) external evaluators. The interpretation of in-situ documents is conducted using the documentary method, based on the praxeological sociology of knowledge (Bohnsack, 2017, 2024). This approach reveals the underlying structures and patterns of social actions and orientations beyond participants' explicit perspectives. Our aim is to identify the organizational logics that participants adhere to during communication and collaboration within the complex school system. Laloux's (2015) descriptions of organizational paradigms (hierarchical, mechanistic, participative, purpose-driven) are used as an interpretive framework. Furthermore, the documentary method enables the reconstruction of shared sense-making processes concerning communication and collaboration within the groups.

The data reveals that participants perceive project work as an open, co-constructive, and creative environment, positively evaluated as an opportunity for collaborative engagement. The diversity of perspectives is described as enriching. However, on the conjunctive level, hierarchical and departmental structures persist and dominate the project structure at critical leverage points. This applies both to the positioning of actors within the collaborative setting and to the participation opportunities developed in the prototypes for the new communication framework. Hierarchical dynamics are often addressed through experiences and metaphors as defense or confrontation. On both communicative and performative levels, efforts are made to disrupt entrenched routines and establish participatory practices. Participants frequently reflect on their experiences and highlight successful strategies. Although these processes seek to challenge hierarchical structures, the solutions and compromises reached often still reference the existing hierarchy. Despite partial incongruities, hierarchical orientation remains the dominant framework for actors engaged in school system development.

Abs, H. J., Brüsemeister, T., Schemmann, M., & Wissinger, J. (Hrsg.). (2015). Governance im Bildungssystem. Springer VS. Altrichter, H., T. Brüsemeister, T., & Wissinger J. (2007). Governance im Bildungsbereich Erträge, Desiderate und Potenziale der Forschung Springer. Backhaus, A., Brügelmann, H., Harder, W., & Seydel, O. (2009). „Blick über den Zaun“. Schulen lernen von Schulen. Vorschläge zur Planung und organisatorischen Ausgestaltung von Peer-Reviews durch kritische Freunde. Aufl. 1-300. (S. 30 S.). Schulverbund Blick über den Zaun Bohnsack, R. (2007). Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis (2. Aufl.). Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Budrich. Bohnsack, R. (2024). Konstituierende Rahmung und praktisches Erkennen und Reflektieren in der organisationalen Praxis. In. Bohnsack, R., Sturm, T., & Wagener, B. Konstituierende Rahmung und professionelle Praxis Pädagogische Organisationen und darüber hinaus. Budrich. Diedrich, M. (2020). Die veränderte Rolle der intermediären Akteure. In. Klein, E. D., & Bremm, N. Unterstützung – Kooperation – Kontrolle (Bd. 48, S. 263–285). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28177-9_13 Dohmen, T. & Martens, M (2024): Entwicklung von Distributed Digital Leadership. Partizipation und Führung in digitalen Schulentwicklungsprozessen. Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J. Hauck-Thum, U. Maaz, K. (2024) Navigator Bildung Digitalisierung. Konzeptionierung und Orientierung zum Stand der digitalen Transformation im schulischen Bildungsbereich in Deutschland. Forum Bildung Digitalisierung Fullan, M. (2015). Leadership from the middle. A system strategy. Canadian Education Association (CEA), 55(4), 22–26. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative Professionalism: When Teaching Together Means Learning for All. Corwin Press. Heinrich, M. (2015). Zur Ambivalenz der Idee evidenzbasierter Schulentwicklung. Das Beispiel „Schulinspektion“—Fortschrittlicher Rückschritt oder Innovation? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:15425 Laloux, F. (2015). Reinventing Organizations. Ein Leitfaden zur Gestaltung sinnstiftender Formen der Zusammenarbeit. Vahlen. Malin, J. R., Brown, C., Ion, G. van Ackeren, I., Bremm, N., Luzmore, R., Flood, J. & Rind, G. M. (2020). World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education. What can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7 (1), 1–14. Preuß, B., Wissinger, J., & Brüsemeister, T. (2015). Einführung der Schulinspektion: Struktur und Wandel regionaler Governance im Schulsystem. In H. J. Abs, T. Brüsemeister, M. Schemmann, & J. Wissinger (Hrsg.), Governance im Bildungssystem (S. 117–141). Springer. Sliwka, A., & Klopsch, B. (2024). Das lernende Schulsystem: Paradigmenwechsel in der Bildung. Mit E-Book inside (1. Auflage). Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG. Zala-Mezö, E., Häbig, J., & Bremm, N. (Hrsg.). (2021). Die Dokumentarische Methode in der Schulentwicklungsforschung. Waxmann.