Conference Agenda

This paper is situated in a larger research project concerned with how principals deal with controversial issues in their everyday practice. One early finding is that resistance to change is perceived as controversial issue by many principals (Rantala, forthcoming). In this paper I seek to deepen knowledge about the resistance from employees that principals meet and how they deal with it.

Having to change is inevitable. As society changes, schools and preschools also need to change to meet the demands which is placed on children and pupils both during and after their time in school. The principal, as a change leader, has the responsibility over and an important role in the improvement work that must take place (SFS, 2010:800; Timperley, 2011), but leading change work is no easy task (Holmes, Clement & Albright, 2013; Starr, 2011). Leading change involves dealing with resistance (Dolph, 2017; Starr, 2011) and resistance is always in relation to power (Foucault, 2002).

There is a vast body of research that describes how leaders carry out or should carry out change work (e.g. Fullan, 2015; Hargreaves et.al., 2010; Kotter, 2014). Research has also focus on strategies that principals need to adapt to enable change management to lead to change (e.g. Shaked and Schechter, 2017; Soini, Pietarinen & Pyhältö, 2016; Wang, 2018). But it also emerges, in research, that change leadership is complex and that the strategies even can collide (e.g. Homes, Clement & Albright, 2013).

Previous research on teachers' resistance to change has focused on resistance to specific changes, for example change in the curriculum (Kazakbaeva, 2021), resistance against educational reforms, for example introduction of in-service teacher certification (Choi, 2017) or quality assurance policies (Terhart, 2013). These studies show how resistance can arise when there is a lack of support and resources to create understanding for the change initiative (Kazakbaeva, 2021). Resistance can be expressed implicitly and that there can be prestige in the fact that the change initiative must succeed (Chio, 2017; Terhart, 2013). Research shows four factors that influence human resistance, self-interest, different values, low tolerance and lack of trust (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2013).

There are knowledge gaps in research regarding teacher's resistance to change in relation to principal's strategies, which is done in this paper. The aim is to study principals’ and deputy principals´ leadership of change, by analyzing principals’ and deputy principals ‘description of employee’s resistance and their strategies to handle it in school development work. This is then discussed in relation to power techniques.

Amundsdotter et.al. (2015) and Linghag et.al. (2016) describes, anchored in Foucault’s theory of power techniques (2002; 2003; 2008), three different techniques, repressive, pastoral and regulated. They use these concepts both to describe employees' resistance and the principals' strategies for dealing with it. Amundsdotter et.al. and Linghag et.al. describes repressive resistance as clear and direct resistance, pastoral resistance takes more subtle expressions or is masked in other forms, e.g. lack of time or resources, and regulated resistance is about placing responsibility on others. Repressive strategies are for example when principals refer to laws or governing documents, blaming individuals, threats reporting or raising to a higher instance, pastoral strategies refer to offering help and guidance, demonstrating benefits, inspiring and motivating and regulatory strategies refer to building the change into the organization by emphasizing that it is a shared responsibility, reminding of the mission and what different roles entail. In this paper this concept is used to both to categorize and analyze the principals' and deputy principals' descriptions of employees' resistance to change and to categorize and analyze their descriptions of strategies they use to deal with the resistance.

The purpose of the study referenced in this presentation is to identify and describe local school responses to principal turnover. The rationale for examining this phenomenon rests on general knowledge about the importance of school leadership (e.g. Bush, 2020; Louis, 2015; Nihlfors & Johansson, 2013; Ärlestig et al., 2016), and previous (mainly international) research on school-level effects of principal turnover. The latter typically relates to declining student achievement (Bartanen et al., 2019; Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2013), disrupted teaching and school developmental processes (Pietsch et al., 2020; Wills, 2016), and excess expenditure due to the high cost of replacing the departing incumbent (Superville, 2014). The recruiting process may, in turn, add stress to the organisation and thus contribute to the decline in student achievement.

However, many of the reported negative consequences are “downstream effects”, i.e. they occur due to a previous event, or series of previous events. What these events are, and how they are shaped by and shape various practices, and practice conditioning arrangements within the local school organisation are less clear, since the practices that produce these effects have not received significant attention in previous research. Subsequently, knowledge about the complexity of practices and practice arrangements that link the incident of principal turnover to the stipulated consequences remains weak (Thelin & Lund, 2023). This lack of knowledge is problematic, since ‘it is not principal turnover per se that is the problem’ (Fullan, 2004, p. 31), but rather the discontinuity it creates in the organisation, and how that, in turn, affects the various educational practices on which schools are dependent for their performance. Therefore, in the presented study in this paper, attention is directed towards the discontinuity that arises when there is a shift in the principal leadership position. The research is fuelled by the following overarching questions: What happens in schools when there is a shift in the principal leadership position? When and for whom is it a problem or an opportunity? In our search for answers to these questions, the focus will be placed on qualitative changes in educational practice and practice conditioning arrangements (Kemmis et al., 2014).

The analysis of the data, which comprised 497 unique free-text answers drawn from a survey targeting staff and parents/guardians with experience of principal turnover, suggests that principal turnover is a ‘critical incident’ (Cook & Tripp, 1994) and a practice-changing event in the local school organisation. The preliminary findings of the study suggest that principal turnover is critical to local school organisations. It disrupts the ‘the flow of practice’ (Lok & de Rond, 2013, p. 186; cf. Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009), and changes practices as well as practice conditioning arrangements and practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014).

In this study we seek to illuminate the ‘happeningness’ (Schatzki, 2002) of local school organisations during times of principal turnover, and thereby provide knowledge that is of importance for the development of more robust and sustainable school organisations; in this case, schools that are less sensitive to principal turnover, e.g. better suited to prevent and deal with its negative consequences and make use of its possibilities. In an age of uncertainty and global change, the need for more robust and sustainable schools is palpable.

Methodologically speaking, educational leadership and management research has been largely underpinned by standardized surveys when carrying out quantitative research and interviews for qualitative research. Beyond these “classic” approaches, other methods, such as observations have been employed to varying degrees of popularity. Among the observational methods, shadowing has been frequently utilized to study the various facets of school principals, though less frequently than in management studies (Bøe et al., 2017; Hughes, 2019). The origins of shadowing in the educational setting are often attributed to Henry Mintzberg and Harry F. Wolcott. Wolcott conducted what he called “the ethnographic study of a school principal”, consisting of “enumeration, participant observation and interviewing” (Wolcott, 1970, p. 116). He followed a school principal for two years, which quickly earned him the nickname “The Shadow” (Wolcott, 2014). Although he himself did not use the term “shadowing” at the time of his study, his approach was labeled as such by other scholars soon after Wolcott published his research.

Numerous criticisms and advantages of shadowing can be found in the literature. With reference to more structured shadowing variants, some researchers have criticized structured observation in educational leadership research for failing to adequately capture the complex and multifaceted activities of school principals (Gronn, 1982). Representatives of a more qualitative understanding countered similar criticisms by arguing that shadowing in an open, flexible variant is actually suited for capturing complex activities because it allows for focusing on the simultaneity of events in different settings, as well as the nonsimultaneity of experiences and growing number of actions and processes (Czarniawska, 2014). Other criticisms often leveled at qualitatively and quantitatively oriented variants of shadowing are “the high level of resourcing needed and the time it takes to undertake such studies” (Earley & Bubb, 2013, p. 20).

Additionally, ethical aspects can pose a challenge when using shadowing. As that shadowing involves the direct observations of people in their (professional) daily lives, its immersive as well as intimate and relational character needs to be considered (Bøe et al., 2017). Ethical aspects are noticeable here at different levels: First, shadowing can build intimacy and trust between the observer and observed person, which Czarniawska (2007) describes as “a peculiar twosome” (p.10). Second, shadowing always has an impact on the associated institution and its members, such as the school whose school leader is followed (Johnson, 2014), especially if the consent of all persons encountered was not obtained, or they may not have all been informed beforehand, requiring the researcher to “make ethical judgements in the moment” (Ferguson, 2016, p. 23). In this context, it is also important to consider issues of data protection or the involvement of third parties who might unknowingly participate in the research, such as parents.

The present contribution seeks to address the issues raised and continue the reflection on shadowing by analyzing the objectives and parameters of shadowing studies, definitions of shadowing, identified merits and pitfalls, and ethical considerations.