Annual Report 2005, Dublin

The network was initiated and approved by the EERA Council in the beginning of 2004, so this ECER was the second conference for us as a network.
We received 25 proposals for paper presentations and symposia. None of the proposals were redirected/rejected. The criteria on which the proposals were assessed were: Relevance to this network, clear research questions, theoretical and methodological considerations and indications of findings of the research project.

At ECER we had 11 sessions and a network meeting. All of the sessions were chaired. There was good attendance; from 10 delegates up to 31 with an average of 21. The overall impression is that the presentations were of good quality, but not all paper presenters presented papers. This problem was discussed with the other network convenors after the network meeting and we agreed to strengthen the quality of presentations by making presenters aware that EERA expects them to bring papers for their paper presentation. We also discussed how to make the review procedure more focused on quality. New procedures will be issued.
A personal comment: It is obvious that not all convenors, who attended this conference, were attending all sessions within the network. We shall work on developing the network into a closer network that can continue discussions over time.
There were no language problems during the presentations.
In some of the sessions the presenters and the chair did not give enough time for discussions.

The Network Meeting

The meeting was scheduled for Friday morning 8.00-9.00 and so not so many members – 9 -turned up. A short report on the reviewing procedure was given.At the 2004 network meeting we agreed that the network could and should develop into a more robust forum for discussions and research on the European area, and not only to be an ECER-preparing network. However this has not happened this year but any initiatives are welcome.
It was discussed how we could introduce alternative forms of sessions – besides the paper presentations and symposia. Presentations with comments and discussions could be invited or perhaps there could be workshops which would involve delegates more actively. We agreed that initiatives of this kind were welcome.
We discussed the problem that some paper presenters did not bring a paper, nor did they indicate that we could get it via email, when it is finished. This problem was discussed with the other network convenors and it seems that the problem is even bigger in other networks. However we agreed that it should be made very, very clear to presenters, when they are notified that their proposal has been accepted, that EERA expects paper presenters to bring papers.
We discussed the network description – see a) below; to elect one link-convenor plus 4 convenors and name the rest of the network members co-convenor – see b) below; and to start a discussion of what kind of research on educational leadership is most important in Europe at present – see c) below; and we discussed the list of the most important issues for research into educational leadership and made amendments.
We did not, but should have, discussed how we can request paper presenters to submit their papers for the EERJ. So, if you have good ideas and names, do let me know.


The Educational Leadership Network description

This network is presenting, discussing and producing research into multiple aspects of  educational leadership. Some of the themes we want to explore and develop are

• Theories on leadership in educational institutions (e.g. transformational, instructional leadership)
• Rationales for educational leadership (e.g. educational, organizational, political)
• Relations in educational leadership (e.g. hierarchical, distributed, shared, democratic)
• Research strategies and methodology in educational leadership research
• Contexts for educational leadership (e.g. institutional, societal, cultural, political)
• Professional development, attraction and retainment of educational leaders
• New descriptors added in the 2005 network meeting:
• Relations to stakeholders (e.g. parents, policy makers)