Research on institutional logics in the field of education oversight is modest. This study offers an exploration of the usefulness of “institutional logics” by looking more closely at a selection of cases. Exploring this usefulness is particularly relevant because of ongoing changes in European collaboration regarding education oversight through, for example, big initiatives like the OECD but also smaller ones like the international network for education inspectorates, SICI (see, for example, Grek et al, 2013). Education oversight is no longer “just” a national affair but requires a nuanced way of thinking which both enables cross-national comparison while also doing justice to specific historical and cultural circumstances. This study aims to contribute to developing this way of thinking by describing and discussing the combination of institutional logics in different education oversight systems in Europe. To achieve interesting variation, systems were picked from distinct political-administrative traditions: the Nordic (Norway), Continental-European (the Netherlands), and Anglo-Saxon tradition (England).

Institutional logic research is a well-established field. Already in 1991, Friedland & Alford emphasized how useful the concept of institutional logics can be to address contradictory practices and procedures in institutions. Since then, scholars have embarked on theoretical reflections on how the concept can be best understood (see, for example, Meyer et al, 2021; Ocasio et al, 2017; Scott, 2014). Many studies aim to refine the concept by taking a closer look at core convictions and beliefs in policy development, which can concern, for example, leadership decisions in specific organizations but also government decisions for a particular policy field (see, for example, Michel et al, 2021; Pache & Santos, 2013; Greenwood et al, 2011). Some studies explicitly discuss institutional logics in the context of oversight systems, which are the government policies that are designed for evaluating practices (see, for example, Maroy & Pons, 2019; Hall & Sivesind, 2015; Lodge & Wegrich, 2011). In this latter strand of literature, institutional logics concern core regulatory beliefs about what oversight is for and what drives regulatee practice. However, the concept has been scarcely used in gaining a better understanding of intrinsic tensions in systems for school inspection. Some studies use phrases like “inspection models” or “governance styles” to articulate distinctions between systems; however, these studies most often have an instrumental approach to education oversight, and, for example, direct attention to the potential effectiveness of a particular model or style (see, for example, Ehren et al, 2017; Ehren, 2016).

The research question for this study is three-fold: Which combinations of institutional logics are reflected in the formal arrangements for school inspection in Norway, the Netherlands, and England; what might explain the main differences and similarities; and how might the logic constellations lead to tensions in policy implementation? This question directs the gaze towards core convictions of oversight of education and their potential origins, while also looking into possible tensions resulting from particular combinations of logics. By doing so, this study moves beyond school inspection as a tool for evaluation with straightforward technical or idealistic aims and instead addresses underlying beliefs and convictions which may or may not be reconciled in how inspection is formally designed.

To answer the research question, a cross-national comparison is being done. The selected cases are education oversight systems in Norway, the Netherlands, and England. These systems consist of all the formal policies and laws for school inspection. All three countries have a long history with school inspection, while their systems have undergone changes as a result of New Public Management-inspired reforms of education policies in the last decades. At the same time, the countries are seen as representatives of different political-administrative traditions (Painter & Guy Peters, 2010). These cases have a shared European context but different backgrounds, and can thereby possibly contribute to interesting variation. For the comparison, a thematic analysis of formal documents is being done. The documents consist of inspection frameworks, education laws, and core policy reports. Similar types of documents were selected as much as possible. However, because of cultural and legal differences it was at times necessary to include additional documents to acquire all relevant information. A particular challenge in this study is the operationalization of the core concept. To be able to recognize reflections of institutional logics in the documents, a categorization is being made abductively (that is, in interaction with both the literature and the data). A general distinction is used between logics following an instrumental approach and logics that follow a cultural/value-driven approach. Part of the first category are, for example, the bureaucratic or state (classic Weberian) logic, and a pure market logics (including variants, like self-regulation and network regulation), while the second category, for example, includes a democratic logic, professional logic, and pedagogical logic. The coding scheme is still under development and will be further refined throughout the coding process. The data analysis is expected to be finished in June 2026.

The study aims to clarify whether it is possible to expose intrinsic tensions in formal arrangements for school inspection with the help of the concept of institutional logics. In addition, the study aims to contribute to a better historical understanding of origins of the individual systems by contrasting the cases with each other.

Ehren, M.C.M. (2016), Emerging models of school inspections. Shifting roles and responsibilities. Ehren, M.C.M. (ed.) (2016), Methods and modalities of effective school inspections. New York: Springer. Ehren, M.C.M., Janssens, F.J.G., Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., & Shevlin, P. (2017), Evaluation and decentralized governance: Examples of inspections in polycentric education systems. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 365-383. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E.R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011), Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Managements Annals, 5(1), 317-371. Grek, S., Lawn, M., Ozga, J., & Segerholm, C. (2013), Governing by inspection? European inspectorates and the creation of a European education policy space. Comparative Education, 49(4), 486-502. Hall, J.B., & Sivesind, K. (2015), State school inspection policy in Norway and Sweden (2002-2012): a reconfiguration of governing modes? Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 429-458. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2011), Governance as contested logics of control: Europeanized meat inspection regimes in Denmark and Germany. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 90-105. Maroy, C., & Pons, X. (2019), Accountability policies in education. A comparative and multilevel analysis in France and Quebec. Cham: Springer. Meyer, R.E., Jancsary, D., & Höller, M.A. (2021), Zones of meaning, Leitideen, institutional logics – and practices: A phenomenological institutional perspective n shared meaning structures. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 70, 161-186. Michel, C.L., Meza, O.D., & Cejudo, G.M. (2022), Interacting institutional logics in policy implementation. Governance, 35, 403-420. Ocasio, W., Thornton, P.H., & Lounsbury, M. (2017), Advances to the institutional logics perspective. In: Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B., & Meyer, R.E. (eds.) (2017), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage Publications. Pache, A.C., & Santos, F. (2013), Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. The Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001. Painter, M., & Guy Peters, B. (eds.) (2010), Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Scott, W.R. (2014), Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. London: Sage Publications.