26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Understanding school middle leading practices: Developing a Middle Leading Practice Model
Sharon Tindall-Ford1, Peter Grootenboer2, Catherine Attard3, Christine Edward-Groves2
1University of Wollongong, Australia; 2Griffiths University, Australia; 3Western Sydney University, Australia
Presenting Author: Grootenboer, Peter;
Edward-Groves, Christine
School systems internationally are focused on improving classroom teaching and learning to enhance student outcomes, with teacher professional development (PD) recognised as an important strategy to improve classroom practices (Ostinelli & Crescentini, 2024; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). School middle leaders (MLs) are acknowledged experts in teaching and learning, who collaborate closely with classroom teachers and school executive (Harris & Jones, 2017). The curriculum expertise and the unique positioning of MLs sees them having the capacity to positively influence classroom teaching and learning (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019). This potential has led MLs increasingly being recruited to develop and facilitate school-based teacher PD to improve classroom teaching and learning (Lipscombe, Tindall-Ford & Grootenboer, 2019) and has resulted in a greater interest by schools and education authorities in ML roles, responsibilities, and practices (Lipscombe, Tindall-Ford & Lamanna, 2021).
Internationally a range of ML practices have been identified as potentially positively influencing classroom teaching and student learning (Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, 2020). These include, MLs collaborating with principals and teachers to ensure shared understandings (Leithwood 2016), ML translating school system policy directives, school executive expectations and curriculum changes to be successfully implemented in classrooms (Nehez et al. 2021), ML creating a collaborative school culture focused on teaching and learning (Bryant, Wong, & Adames 2020) and, ML developing and sharing resources with the support of, and through, collaboration with colleagues (Hammersley-Fletcher & Kirkham, 2007). While there are a range of ML practices identified as positively impacting classroom teaching and learning, there is limited understanding of the practices MLs perceive as central to their work, if these practices actually support classroom teaching and learning, and currently there is no empirically informed instrument to investigate the phenomenon.
Informed by a series of small-scale empirical research studies in Australia, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand, Grootenboer, Rönnerman& Edwards-Groves (2017), using the ‘theory of practice architectures’ (Kemmis et al., 2014), a ML practice model was developed. The theory of practice architectures provides an ontological perspective of ML practices, focusing on the ‘sayings, doings, and relatings’ of MLs in their particular school sites. This is an intentional ontological shift that centres the study on the (middle) leading that actually occurs in school sites, and the happening of middle leading as it unfolds in time and space.
Three broad and related practices undertaken by middle leaders when leading professional development in schools were identified, and informed the ML practice model (see Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, 2020, p. 5).
1. Leading & Teaching: Leading both curriculum and pedagogical development of other teachers AS WELL AS teaching their own classes. Includes providing professional learning for other teachers.
2. Managing & Facilitating: Managing spaces for curriculum and pedagogical development e.g., moderation meetings that require ‘management’ practices to organise time and place, AS WELL AS facilitation of the moderation p
3.Collaboration & Communication:Collaboration AND communication with senior leaders and teachers on actions needed to achieve school goals.
This presentation reports on Middle Leading Practice School Survey (MLPSS), which was theoretically grounded by ML practice model. The survey provided an understanding of the demographics of Australian MLS, but importantly investigated MLs perceptions of the practices that were central to their leading of teaching and learning in their school sites.
The research questions that guided this study were:
- What are the dominant demographic profiles of the Australian school MLs who completed the MLPSS survey? (maybe take out?)
- What practices do Australian school MLs perceive they enact in leading teaching and learning development in their school sites?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe MLPSS was an online questionnaire distributed through Australian teacher professional learning organisations and completed by school MLs (n=199). The first part of the MLPSS collected basic demographic data, the second asked MLs to respond to 23 Likert scale questions based on the three dimensions of ML practice stated above. There were nine items for the practice domain of “Teaching and Leading”, seven items for “Managing and Facilitating”, and seven items “Collaboration and Communication. The participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert Scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always) the extent to which they engaged in a specific middle leading practice. This was to ensure that the instrument had a phenomenological focus that centred on ML practices.
To answer the first research question, descriptive statistics were calculated for the MLPSS demographic data, to address the second research question a series of exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses were completed The first EFA was a parallel analysis to estimate the number of factors to retain in the next stage of the EFA, this was followed by a standard EFA. Due to inconclusive results from the first 2 analysis, a subsequent forced three and four factor EFAs were completed (Fabrigar et al., 1999). To understand the robustness of the proposed 3 factor model (MLPSS), a CFA was undertaken ( Bollen, 1989). Finally based on the parallel and exploratory factor analysis, and inconsideration of the factorial structure of the MLPSS, a four factor School Middle Leading Practice Model (SMLPM) was proposed.
1. Leading & Managing School Teaching, Learning & Curriculum: Middle leader’s practices of leading and managing the development of school curriculum, professional learning and teaching and learning initiatives and responding to school management issues – this factor focused on practices for growth and stability at the school level.
2. Supporting Colleague Teachers Development: Middle leader’s practices including facilitating class observations, teacher collaborations, mentoring and performance appraisal of colleagues and the informal part of ML work – this factor focused on practices at the teacher level.
3. Collaborating with Teacher Colleagues on Teaching and Learning: Middle leader’s practices of planning, discussing, and collaborating with colleagues on issues around teaching and learning – this factor focused on collaborating with teachers on T&L
4. Collaborating with & Advocating to School Principal: Middle leader’s practices related to working with their school principal - this factor focused on practices working with the principal.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsEducation systems and schools worldwide have an increasing expectation that MLs will lead teacher PD to improve classroom teaching and learning (Lipscombe et al., 2021), however there is limited understanding of the actual practices of MLS and if they align with those identified as having the potential to positively impact classrooms. In reference to ML practices there are several important outcomes from this study.
Firstly, as there is no known suitable instrument to investigate MLs practices the study provides a tested survey for researching ML practices, and through statistical multivariate analysis of the data, a revised model School Middle Leading Practice Model (SMLPM) is proposed. Secondly the study provides empirically informed understandings of the practices MLs perceive are core to their work. Data showed that MLs perceive their practices in relation to others (principal, teacher colleagues, school), a finding that is not surprising as previous research has highlighted the relational nature of middle leading (Edward- Groves et al., 2019). Aligned with this finding is the importance MLs placed on practicing leading upwards with the school principal. These results suggest that when developing models of ML practices and PD, attention needs to be paid to not only ML practices but whom the practices are directed.
As ML are increasingly being asked to positively impact classroom teaching and learning, an important finding of the 4-factor solution was the leading practices of MLs are primarily focused on the teachers they lead, evident in domains 2, 3 and 4, highlighting ML practices relate to collaborating with, supporting, and advocating for their teacher colleagues. This result suggests that MLs perceive their leading practices as focused on influencing their teacher colleagues and therefore what happens in classrooms; a finding that suggests that ML are well-placed to drive school PD to support classroom teaching and learning.
ReferencesBollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179.
Bryant, D. A., Y.L. Wong, and A. Adames. 2020. “How middle leaders support in-service teachers on-site professional learning.” International Journal of Educational Research. 100 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101530
Darling-Hammond, L., R. Chung Wei, A. Alethea, N. Richardson, S. Orphanos. 2009. “Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad.” National Staff Development Council and The School Redesign Network, Stanford, CA.
Edwards-Groves, C., P. Grootenboer, I. Hardy, and K. Rönnerman. 2019. “Driving Change from The Middle’: Middle Leading for Site Based Educational Development.” School Leadership and Management, 39 (3-4), 315–333.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Harris, A., and M. S. Jones. 2017. “Disciplined Collaboration and Enquiry: Evaluating the Impact of Professional Learning.” Journal of Professional Capital and Community 2 (4): 200–214. doi:10.1108/JPCC-05-2017-0011.
Grootenboer, P., C. Edwards-Groves, C. and K. Rönnerman. 2020. Middle Leadership in Schools: A Practical Guide for Leading Learning: Routledge.
Grootenboer, P., K. Rönnerman, and C. Edwards-Groves. 2017. “Leading from the Middle: A Praxis-Oriented Practice.” In Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education:Praxis, Diversity and Contestation, edited by P. Grootenboer, C. Edwards-Groves, and S.Choy, 243–263. Springer.
Kemmis, S., J. Wilkinson, C. Edwards-Groves, I. Hardy, P. Grootenboer, and L. Bristol. 2014.Changing Practices, Changing Education. Springer.
Leithwood, K. 2016. “Department-Head Leadership for School Improvement.” Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15 (2): 117-140. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2015.1044538
Lipscombe K, Tindall-Ford SK, and Grootenboer, P. 2020b. Middle leading and influence in two Australian schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 48(6): 1063–1079.
Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. 2021. School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220983328
Nehez, J., U. Blossing, L. Gyllander Torkildsen, R. Lander, and A. Orlin. 2021. “Middle leaders translating knowledge about improvement: Making change in the school and preschool organisation.” Journal of Educational Change 23 (3):15–341 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09418-2.
Ostinelli, G., & Alberto Crescentini, A. 2024. Policy, culture and practice in teacher professional development in five European countries. A comparative analysis, Professional Development in Education, 50:1, 74-90, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2021.1883719
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Middle Leaders and School Autonomy: The Italian Case
Valerio Ferrero
University of Turin, Italy
Presenting Author: Ferrero, Valerio
Teacher leadership is at the centre of numerous researches in European and international contexts (Hunzicker, 2017; Pan et al., 2023), focusing on their pedagogical action in the classroom (Warren, 2021) and their role in the institutional dimension of the school (Frost, 2008; Muijs & Harris, 2003). Indeed, the figure of the teacher as a middle leader is becoming indispensable in increasingly complex school contexts (De Nobile, 2018). A middle leader, who acts as a link between the school leadership and the teaching staff in relation to specific areas, is useful to improve the functioning of educational institutions in terms of student experience, professional development of all teachers and the administrative area (Lipscombe et al., 2023).
The middle leader is a teacher who holds a middle leadership role within a school (Harris et al., 2019). This figure plays an important coordination and management role, coordinating the relationships between the different components of the school community from a horizontal perspective (Willis et al., 2019). This figure plays a crucial role in improving the quality of education and creating a positive school climate.
This idea of the teacher as a middle leader is central in decentralised school systems characterised by school autonomy, such as the Estonian, Finnish, English, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Polish, Scottish and Swedish school systems (Eurydice, 2019). A decentralised school system with school autonomy gives individual schools considerable freedom to make decisions (Gamage & Zajda, 2005; Keddie, 2015). These institutions autonomously manage resources, educational programmes and pedagogical strategies to promote local adaptability, stimulate innovation and strengthen schools. This model aims to create dynamic learning centres and promote tailored approaches to improve the quality of education. Of course, the degree of autonomy is not the same in all school systems. In any case, in these contexts, the presence of middle leaders is crucial for the development of educational policies that are consistent with a clearly defined school vision: These teachers address specific areas of planning in collaboration with teachers and leaders, and management in collaboration with administrative staff (Hashim et al., 2023).
This theoretical-conceptual contribution focuses on the teacher as a middle leader in Italian schools; our discourse may prove useful for those school systems that have similar characteristics and problems to the Italian system. Here, since the year 2000, school autonomy has allowed schools to make organisational, administrative, financial and pedagogical decisions in order to achieve the general objectives of the educational system set by the central administration. Thus, teachers play a key role not only in pedagogical action in the classroom, but also at the management level (Agasisti et al., 2013).
In particular, we would like to answer the following questions:
- What is the nature of teachers' engagement as middle leaders in the Italian context?
- Why and how does their engagement in the processes of school autonomy work or not?
- What strategies can be implemented to strengthen teachers' engagement as middle leaders and improve the use of school autonomy by individual schools?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis theoretical-conceptual paper examines the role of middle leadership in the Italian school system based on a traditional literature review (Rozas & Klein, 2010). The aim is to understand how crucial their action is in a context characterised by school autonomy and whether or not their involvement is useful for improving the quality of schools; we also aim to identify which elements could better support the action of middle leaders in schools and thus improve the use of school autonomy.
The traditional literature review was conducted by searching scientific databases (ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar). The search terms were as follows: "school" OR "school system" AND "school autonomy" AND "school leadership" AND "teachers" AND "middle leaders" AND "teacher leadership" AND "Italy" OR "Italian school" OR "Italian school system". The results of the literature search were first skimmed by reading the title and abstract; the remaining studies were then analysed in more detail by reading the entire text.
The data collected were subjected to a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which led to the identification of three thematic strands: (1) the profile of the middle leader teacher; (2) school autonomy as a resource or constraint; (3) perspectives for the enhancement of the middle leader teacher. The data is read critically using the theoretical frame of reference in order to understand the particularities of the Italian situation and the correspondence with what is happening at European and international level.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe traditional literature review highlights the resources and constraints related to middle leaders in the Italian context. In general, the Italian system is characterised by the so-called Southern European governance (Ferrera, 1996; Landri, 2021): a strong autonomy of teachers in terms of pedagogical action in the classroom corresponds to a weak autonomy at school level. This structure is an obstacle to the action of middle management: they are usually involved in bureaucratic activities to support the principal and administrative staff without having any significant influence on educational policy. Only a few schools have developed a "culture of autonomy" in which the principal applies a distributed leadership model with strategic use of middle management: In this case, middle leaders are responsible for developing specific areas of intervention and monitor the extent to which the educational policies implemented achieve the results identified in the planning phase to continuously improve the school.
The commitment of middle leaders is effective in the context of school autonomy when they are involved in the processes of strategic decision-making and in initiatives that respond to the specific needs of the school, also in relation to the territory. Their role is fundamental when it comes to ensuring the participatory nature of the school policy.
Strengthening the commitment of teachers as middle leaders is crucial for improving the quality of schools: first, it is desirable to include this aspect in the initial training of teachers in order to place an emphasis on the institutional dimension of schools from the outset. At the contractual level, it would be necessary to provide for professional development in terms of career development for those teachers who are committed beyond the pedagogical activity in the classroom. Furthermore, involving middle management in meaningful decision-making processes can give them a sense of belonging and responsibility.
ReferencesAgasisti, T., Catalano, G., & Sibiano, P. (2013). Can schools be autonomous in a centralised educational system? On formal and actual school autonomy in the Italian context. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(3), 292-310.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
De Nobile, J. (2018). Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 395-416.
Eurydice (2019). European education systems at the 2020 milestone. Florence: Eurydice.
Ferrera, M. (1996). The “Southern model” of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European social policy, 6(1), 17-37.
Frost, D. (2008). ‘Teacher leadership’: Values and voice. School Leadership and Management, 28(4), 337-352.
Gamage, D., & Zajda, J. (2005). Decentralisation and school-based management: A comparative study of self-governing schools models. Educational Practice and Theory, 27(2), 35-58.
Hunzicker, J. (2017). From teacher to teacher leader: A conceptual model. International journal of teacher leadership, 8(2), 1-27.
Harris, A., Jones, M., Ismail, N., & Nguyen, D. (2019). Middle leaders and middle leadership in schools: Exploring the knowledge base (2003–2017). School Leadership & Management, 39(3-4), 255-277.
Hashim, A.K., Torres, C., & Kumar, J.M. (2023). Is more autonomy better? How school actors perceive school autonomy and effectiveness in context. Journal of Educational change, 24(2), 183-212.
Keddie, A. (2015). School autonomy, accountability and collaboration: a critical review. Journal of educational administration and history, 47(1), 1-17.
Landri, P. (2021). The Permanence of Distinctiveness: Performances and Changing Schooling Governance in the Southern European Welfare States. In Educational Scholarship across the Mediterranean (pp. 68-85). Leida: Brill.
Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. (2023). School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership—Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational management & administration, 31(4), 437-448.
Pan, H. L. W., Wiens, P. D., & Moyal, A. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of the teacher leadership scholarship. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103936.
Rozas, L. W., & Klein, W. C. (2010). The value and purpose of the traditional qualitative literature review. Journal of evidence-based social work, 7(5), 387-399.
Warren, L. L. (2021). The importance of teacher leadership skills in the classroom. Education Journal, 10(1), 8-15.
Willis, J., Churchward, P., Beutel, D., Spooner-Lane, R., Crosswell, L., & Curtis, E. (2019). Mentors for beginning teachers as middle leaders: the messy work of recontextualising. School Leadership & Management, 39(3-4), 334-351.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Walking Backwards Into The Future (Ka Mua, Ka Muri): Insights on Education Leadership from Aotearoa New Zealand
Tui Summers
Early Childhood NZ, New Zealand
Presenting Author: Summers, Tui
In te ao Māori (the Māori world) standing tall ensures that our ancestors stand tall (Norman, 2019). This presentation draws on the stories of two wāhine Māori (Māori women) who led in the education sphere in Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa) from the 1970s to the 2000s. This qualitative, narrative inquiry, kaupapa Māori research focused on the origins of the women’s leadership. It explored how insights into the women’s leadership could be used in the education sector. One of the benefits of using a narrative inquiry approach is that “the closer, more holistic attention to the narrator’s perspective can provide extremely rich insights” (Taylor et al., 2016, p. 21).
Kaupapa Māori research developed during the 1970s in response to the realisation that research in Aotearoa reflected colonial perspectives not reflective of Māori epistemology, values and beliefs. Kaupapa Māori research has been defined in many ways (Pihama et al., 2019; Tuhiwai Smith, 2021a). The kaupapa Māori-centred research in this presentation used stories and the kaupapa Māori principles of whānau (extended family, family or kin) and whakapapa (genealogy, lineage, descent) as proposed by Tuhiwai Smith (2021b) to celebrate the lives and education leadership of two women. The researcher’s whakapapa connection to one of the women in the research is a fundamental characteristic of kaupapa Māori research (Simmonds, 2019).
Each women’s story was compiled from archival and other sources as well as from interviews with whānau members (extended family, family or kin). The interviews focused on missing information about the origins and orientation of the two women’s social justice leadership. Two interviews were carried out for one of the women and one interview was carried out for the other woman. Reflexive journalling was used by the researcher to help understand how the researcher's assumptions and values influenced the research process and outcomes. Once the stories were assembled Nvivo qualitative research software was used to code the data and identify themes.
The women’s leadership was influenced and shaped by five factors. These are first, their role models, second, their personal struggles, third, mana wahine and four, social norms. Forster et al. (2015) define mana wahine as the strength and power of women and Simmonds (2011) definition of mana wahine emphasizes the importance of narrative. This research draws on both of these perspectives. The fifth theme identified from the research was that there was a cost to the women’s leadership. Two overarching characteristics that influenced the women and their leadership across all five themes was one, identity and two, gender, religion and generational contexts.
This presentation concludes that examining, recalling and celebrating our indigenous education leaders stories can deepen our understanding of how we lead in education in an age of uncertainty into the future.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe methods used for data generation included document retrieval and reflexive journalling. Archival sources for the women included audiotaped and videotaped interviews with the women and other items such as letters, photos, newspaper publications and speech notes. Context and time are crucial aspects of narrative inquiry (Gunn & Faire, 2016). The researcher researched publications including books, newspaper articles and journal articles on the political, social and historical contexts that existed during the women’s lifetimes. The multiple data sources, including archival sources and non-archival data, were used to assemble each women’s story with a specific focus on the origins and orientation of her social justice leadership.
This research involved a two stage analysis. The first step of the data analysis involved idenitfying missing information about the origns and orientations of each women’s stories and interviewing whānau members or colleagues with a focus on this missing information. A feature of Kaupapa Māori research practiced in this research is the process of kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) whereby Māori value the importance of face to face interactions (Smith, 2000). Therefore, with the exception of one interview where the interviewee lived remotely and the interview was held on the telephone, interviews were held face to face. A former colleague was interviewed for one of the women and two family members were interviewed for the other woman. The choice of interviewees related to the information that was missing from the women’s stories. Once the stories were assembled they were used as data and analysed.
The second step involved open and selective coding to analyse each story (Clarke & Braun, 2016). Nvivo qualitative research software was used to manage the data and to initially code the themes. In the first round of coding twelve themes were elicited for analysis. After several months and synthesis of the data these themes were reduced to five themes.
The five themes identified from the data were first, role models, second, their personal struggles, third, mana wahine, four, social norms and five that there was a cost to the women’s leadership. Two overarching characteristics that influenced the women and their leadership across all five themes was one, identity and two, gender, religion and generational contexts. This research joins existing academic scholarship that has strived to understand the origins of women’s education leadership. The unique and nuanced findings offer insights into women’s education leadership for practice, policy and future research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSocial, historical, cultural and political factors including religion, gender and generational factors were strong influences in shaping the women and their leadership. As well as following others and serving people in their leadership roles the women were role models to people in the education sphere and beyond. Knowledge of their whakapapa and the sense of identity this knowledge supported was crucial in enabling the two women to carry out their leadership. This research joins existing research from Māori researchers about the importance of identity as an aspect of leader development (Durie, 2001; Tuhiwai Smith, 2021c). Māori leadership has lessons and insights for education leaders and leadership in a global context. An important outcome of this research is the celebration and appreciation of two female education leaders stories that have never been shared in this unique way previously.
ReferencesClarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Durie, M. (2001). Mauri ora: The dynamics of Māori health. Oxford University Press.
Forster, M. E., Palmer, F., & Barnett, S. (2015). Karanga mai ra: Stories of Māori women as leaders. Leadership, 12(3), 324-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015608681
Gunn, S., & Faire, L. (Eds.). (2016). Research methods for history (2nd ed.). University Press.
Norman, W. (2019). Te aha te mea nui? In L. Pihama, L. Tuhiwai Smith, N. Simmonds, J. Seed-Pihama, & K. Gabel (Eds.), Mana wahine reader: A collection of writings 1987-1998 (Vol. I, pp. 13-18). Te Kotahi Research Institute. The University of Waikato.
Pihama, L., Campbell, D., & Greensill, H. (2019). Whānau storytelling as indigenous pedagogy: Tiakina te pā harakeke. In J.-a. Archibald Q'um Q'um Xiiem, J. B. J. Lee-Morgan, J. De Santolo, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Decolonizing research: Indigenous storywork as methodology (pp. 137-150). ZED Books
Simmonds, N. (2011). Mana wahine: Decolonising politics. Women's Studies Journal, 25(2), 11-25.
Simmonds, N. (2019). Mana wahine: Decolonising politics. In P. Leonie, T. S. Linda, S. Naomi, S.-P. Joeliee, & G. Kirsten (Eds.), Mana wahine reader: A collection of writings 1999-2019 (Vol. II, pp. 105-117). Te Kotahi Research Institute. University of Waikato.
Smith, L. T. (2000). Kaupapa Maori research. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. 225-247). UBC Press.
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2021a). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Zed Books. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350225282.0008
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2021b). Getting the story right, telling the story well indigenous activism, indigenous research. In L. Tuhiwai Smith (Ed.), Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (pp. 273-283). Zed books. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350225282
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2021c). Twenty-five indigenous projects. In Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (1 ed., pp. 163-185). Zed Books. http://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/decolonizing-methodologies-research-and-indigenous-peoples/ch8-twenty-five-indigenous-projects/
|
