Conference Agenda

The negotiation of diversity can be seen as a fundamental dynamic and structural feature of social orders. In the meantime, diversity has also become an integral part of organizational pedagogical debates (see, among others, Göhlich et al. 2012; Engel 2014). In most cases, diversity is simultaneously understood as a challenge and an opportunity for organizational learning processes. Following this difference-theoretical approach, different concepts of diversity management have been established and diversity is understood as a fundamental dynamic of organizational processes. For example, Göhlich (2012) emphasizes that from an organizational pedagogical perspective, "the further development of organizations related to cultural difference as an organizational learning process, but also, conversely, the participation of organizations in the design of dealing with cultural difference" is of interest. However, the resulting importance of organizations in societies characterized by diversity and their almost natural self-evidence in the co-creation of social reality (cf. Maack and Truschkat) remains to some extent unnoticed. In this context, the emergence of organizations and their constant change can be traced back to social transformation processes and, connected to this, the materialization and reproduction of certain social (problematization) practices. Following this understanding, diversity can than not only be seen as a dynamic in organizational learning and ordering processes, but organizational practices can also be understood as reproducers of difference.

This paper argues for the need of an educational infrastructure to strengthen the teaching profession and its leaders. We understand infrastructure as interlinked resources that support school development, such as a knowledge base with data, research and validated experience, administrative, physical, and technological support structures, feedback mechanisms and professional learning communities (Børte et al, 2020, Lillejord & Børte, 2020). The 1983 report A Nation at Risk, ignited a global discourse of mistrust in education and resulted in accountability reforms that ignored the complexity of education (Lillejord, 2020). As these reforms are currently waning, we need knowledge about how to strengthen the teaching profession’s research-informed, knowledge-building, professional learning processes (Lillejord, 2023) and how leaders can facilitate the co-construction and synthesizing of knowledge from various sources.

Researchers have argued that school leaders are, next to classroom teaching, the most important factor for students’ learning (Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2008). There is, however, little research on what school leaders do to accomplish this (Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2020), little research on school leaders’ workplace learning (Veelen, Sleegers, & Endedijk 2017) and little research on support structures for learning at organizational level. In schools, argued Weick (1976), two ‘systems' worked separately. One consisted of teachers, parents, students and curriculum, another of the principal and middle leaders. While the two systems are somehow attached, there is little transfer of knowledge. We draw on Shirell & Spillane (2020) who described education as a complex, learning-intensive enterprise, requiring educators to work together to improve practice and Gurr, Longmuir and Reed (2021) who suggested that a context view of schools helps us understand how school leaders influence various contextual factors to develop schools.

Due to educational institutions’ inherent complexity, leading and organizing schools for learning and development is challenging, partly because decades of neoliberal policies fixated the idea that the knowledge needed for school development and improvement was to be found outside school. External experts and consultancy firms supposedly knew more about how schools should improve than teachers and school leaders. When efforts to get this external knowledge into schools failed, teachers were often blamed (Sarason, 1998). Schools’ internal knowledge is diverse and includes how students experience teaching and learning, what teachers discuss and agree on in their professional learning communities and how school leaders organize for learning.

An Expert Group (Lillejord et al., 2021) on schools’ contribution to students’ learning found that in schools with a substantial contribution to students’ learning, school leaders systematically used the schools’ internal knowledge to improve practices. Student participation was systemic, and teachers used their professional learning communities to discuss how they could use student feedback to improve practice. While these school leaders took for granted that the knowledge needed to improve practice was in the school, leaders in low performing schools were oriented outwards, to external, knowledgeable experts. Based on these findings, an important first step in the development of an educational infrastructure is to understand how school leaders perceive and develop educational knowledge (Brezinka, 1992). Teachers and leaders must understand the schools’ internal knowledge processes and develop a meta-perspective on their knowledge work (Lillejord, 2023).

Norwegian policy documents (Ministry of Education, 2017; 2019) and evaluations of reform initiatives in schools, claim that school leaders lack analytical competence and that schools lack a support structure for development efforts. As this can be considered barriers for learning at organizational level, we will present data that allow us to explore how school leaders understand such key concepts. Our research question is:

How do school leaders understand “analytical competence” and “support structure” in relation to an infrastructure for school development?

This paper reports on the findings from a four-year research project that evaluated the organisational re-orientation of a major science centre in Scotland, Glasgow Science Centre (GSC), to develop its culture and systems to use science engagement as a platform to promote equity, inclusion and diversity and learning and skills in local communities.

The GSC is recognised as a leading science centre in the UK and beyond. In 2018, it set out an ambitious organisational change plan in its Connect programme. This encompassed improving its physical spaces, facilities, comprehensive staff development and learning, revised recruitment strategies, widening access and developing its community-based learning programme and outreach work. The Connect programme quickly evolved to influence a wider and holistic organisational change strategy which aimed to,

• Inspire and empower people of all ages, abilities, and social backgrounds to develop the skills, attitudes, and confidence to fully participate in a society.
• Connect people and communities with industry, academia, and policy makers; becoming a highly visible and trusted hub of activity; facilitating discussion, fostering understanding and participation.
• Create a diverse, inclusive, and supportive organisational culture.
• Create a financially stable and sustainable organisation.

This strategy was designed to enable GSC to play a key role within the local region and wider science learning sector, including aligning with various national social, educational, economic and wellbeing strategies.

A programme of organisational change underpinned the Connect programme. This included creating policies and practices that embed inclusion, diversity and equity within the organisation’s business planning and management processes and strengthen its learning programmes. Part of this organisational transformation involved promotion of organisational values and a culture that embraces equity of opportunity both within and outwith the Centre. In addition, the Connect programme included expanding and enhancing the GSC’s Community Learning and Development Team to build science capital within communities to promote their wellbeing, educational and economic development. Particular focus was placed on working with groups and communities who were,

• socially and economically disadvantaged, and/or
• marginalised cultural populations.

This paper provides important insights on how organisations embark on change using professional learning, technology, physical space, and partnership working to enhance their relevance to the wider community and achieve their development objectives. This often takes place in the context of a shifting policy landscape and developing social priorities, revised values, and ethical responsibilities as well as demographic change. Such organisational transformation and the learning processes involved drew on a range of knowledge and resources and, in the case of the example in this paper, the Glasgow Science Centre (GSC), benefited from co-constructed research and evaluation to inform and assess change.

The paper contributes to the European and international field of organisational education and change and to the debate within the EERA Network on Organisational Education. Our example of the GSC reflects the challenges facing science centers and similar organisations across Europe as they work to empower citizens to make a difference regarding global challenges including the climate and biodiversity crisis, misinformation, and trust in science, 21st century skills, inclusion and equity and health and wellbeing. Such challenges underpin the work of the European Network Science Centres and Museums (Ecsite) network of over 320 organisations, of which the GSC is a member. Ecsite highlights the need for such centres to contribute to European society to empower citizens to engage and participate in all aspects of science to benefit them and their communities.

The paper further reflects on the strategy underpinning the organisational change pursued by GSC and the unforeseen challenges affecting the process of change to inform concepts of organisational change and learning.