| Session | ||
26 SES 14 C: Navigating Educational Leadership: Perspectives on Governance, Juridification, Science, and Diversity
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Reconceptualizations of Governance, Management and Leadership in Education Karlstad University, Sweden Presenting Author:This paper is part of a larger study exploring local reconceptualizations of school governance and educational leadership through a continuous, annual data collection. It will enable us to study how governance and leadership is interpreted, translated and recontextualized over time and to possibly identify trends and fluctuations in conceptualizations of leadership. It also includes developing a methodological toolbox for participatory research involving master students (Cooper & Karlsson, 2022) inspired by a Nordic tradition of collaborative research (Rönnerman & Salo, 2012).
Research shows that school leadership on different levels have impact on developing and improving schools, teachers’ collaboration, school culture etcetera (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Meyer et.al, 2023; Nehez, et.al, 2022). Context and culture in turn, matter for how leaders are perceived and expectations towards them (Forssten Seiser et.al, 2020; Moreno, 2023). Thus, conceptualisations of leadership are interrelated to context, actions, culture, language and leadership behaviour.
Our systemic approach to context and leaders extends from subgroups (such as teachers in classrooms) within school organisations to international politics and policy-making (Uljens, 2021). Drawing on the work of Stephen Ball (2006) we argue that policy-borrowing on local, national and international levels influence conceptualisations of school leadership on all levels. Similar views are expressed for instance in a study of educational administration and global policies (Sifakakis et.al., 2016) and a study of how leadership practices travel between contexts (Wilkinson et.al., 2013). What is found in one local context can consequently be discursively connected to other local understandings on a national, European and even global scale.
The objective of this particular paper is to critically examine how school governance, management and educational leadership are constructed in local contexts through interviews with educational leaders on different levels. What discourses of governance and leadership are expressed and which subject positions are made available for the leader subject?
The theoretical framework draws on theories consistent with post structuralism, post humanism and discourse analysis. They share a number of ontological and epistemological assumptions that emphasize instability, difference and contingence and regard the social and knowledge as constituted in temporary and contested discourses (Cooper, 2019, 2022). The subject is thus stripped from its hegemonic humanistic position as autonomous, rational and unified and positioned as fragmented and decentered (Foucault, 1972).
Important concepts are: Assemblage - a constellation of diversified element such as social, discursive, material, cultural, psychological, historical and affective, which are temporarily unified and construct meaning and understandings (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). - Distributive agency – agency shared between humans and other elements in an assemblage. It does not presume humans/the subject as the cause of events (Bennett, 2009; Strom & Martin, 2021) - Intra-action – an assemblage constitutes the social, phenomena, and subjects through intra-action within or between assemblanges (Strom & Martin, 2021) - Subjectivation – drawing on Laclau and Mouffe’s (1986) understanding of Lacanian theorizing, the subject is understood as a constitutive lack based on the notion of the infant’s apprehension of wholeness being confronted with external images of identity. Consistent with the idea of the subject as fragmented and decentered this constitutive lack is the driving force in the subject’s identification (Cooper, 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The method used in this study is an interview technique referred to as cognitive maps (Scherp & Scherp, 2007). The development of cognitive maps is based on cognitive constructivism and gestalt psychology where the mapping technique is believed to produce a representation of the informant’s understanding of a phenomenon. The idea of mental representation is in conflict with a more post structural understanding of meaning making. Nevertheless, we deem it possible to use the method strictly as a interview technique as it comprises the characteristics of a qualitative interview (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). Each master student carries out two interviews with informants in some kind of leading position within an educational organisation (local schools, regional administration/ authorities or local political level). During the interview the interviewer make comprehensive notes on a large piece of paper that the informant can see. It is also possible to record the conversations. All applicable ethical considerations are taken into account such as informed consent, gathered by the students, confidentiality and scientific rigour. All interviews are transferred into an excel template that allows us to analytically single out different school forms (public, private), levels (preschool, compulsory schools, adult education etcetera) and leadership roles (such as headmaster/ -mistress, school inspector, governing authority, politician, senior teacher). The template also allows for further categorisation in relation to research objectives. Up to date the material consists of approximately 1000 statements about governance, management and leadership in education. The analysis for this paper has not yet started but during the pilot study performed in 2021 (Cooper & Karlsson, 2022) we used different strategies based on Fairclough, Laclau and Mouffe as well as the ‘Whats the problem represented to be’ (WPR)-approach (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). For this paper we will expand our theoretical resources and complement discourse analysis strategies with the use of assemblage as a methodological-analytical framework. In doing so the intent is to approach our empirical material to unpack variety, incoherence and contradictions (Baker & McGuirk, 2016). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Based on the findings in the pilot study (here described in terms of discourses) we expect to be able to critically examine reconceptualizations of governance, management and leadership as assemblages with conflicting but co-existing discourse. Our current findings are: - A bureaucratic discourse with political and economic governance, jurisdiction, adaptation and execution of decisions made by others. This indicates a top-down perspective on policy and governance but also shows confidence and trust in the good will of politicians and a belief that decisions must be made at the correct level. - An accountability discourse where the lack of trust is more outspoken. Quality work must be followed up and reported. This is related to the tradition of new public management, performativity and measurement. Regarding leadership we have so far identified some interesting topics that may or may not be verified in this study. It is possible to discuss leadership in terms of collaboration between systems and within the system. Leadership should be distinct, supportive and transparent. There is also an obvious discourse of lack that could indicate what is not wanted from a leader such as lack of external resources (time and money) and psychosocial resources (understanding, communication and delegation). In some ways these two understanding resonates with each other as one indicates the opposite of the other, in line with discourse analytical thinking. In addition, leadership is also about relationships as in not being alone as leader, leadership and employeeship, and distributed leadership. In addition, we have interesting findings concerning the leaders (headmasters) subject positions identifying the leader as educational leader, as builder of relations, the strong leader and also the leaders subjectivation/identification with notions of failure, dislike and being a trash can. References Baker, T., & McGuirk, P. (2017). Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for critical policy research. TERRITORY POLITICS GOVERNANCE, 5(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1231631 Cooper, A. (2019). Skolan som demokratiprojekt : en poststrukturell diskursanalys av demokratiuppdrag och lärarsubjekt. Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Pedagogiskt arbete, Karlstads universitet. Cooper, A. & Karlsson, L. (2021, June 1-3). Developing a Participatory Methodological Toolbox for the Study of Local Understandings of School Governance, Management and Leadership. [Paper presentation]. NERA 2022, Reykjavik, Iceland. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Longman. Forssten Seiser, A., Ekholm, M., & Blossing, U. (2020). Differences between Teachers’ and Principals’ Expectations of School Leaders in Simulated Situations. [Paper presentation]. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [The qualitiative research interview]. (3 uppl.). Studentlitteratur. Laclau, E., & C. Mouffe. (1986/2014). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso. Leithwood, K, & Jantzi, D. (2005) A Review of Transformational School Leadership Research 1996–2005, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4:3, 177-199, DOI: 10.1080/15700760500244769 Meyer, A., Hartung-Beck, V., Gronostaj, A., Krüger, S., & Richter, D. (2023). How can principal leadership practices promote teacher collaboration and organizational change? A longitudinal multiple case study of three school improvement initiatives. Journal of Educational Change, 24(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09451-9 Moreno, B. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions toward their new principal. School Leadership & Management, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.2277174 Nehez, J., Blossing, U., Lander, R., Olin, A., & Gyllander Torkildsen, L. (2022). Middle leaders translating knowledge about improvement: Making change in the school and preschool organisation. Journal of Educational Change, 23(3), 315-341–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09418-2 Olin, A., Lund, T., & Stjernstrøm, E. (2013). Understanding leading as travelling practices, School Leadership & Management, 33:3, 224-239, doi: 10.1080/13632434.2013.773886 Rönnerman, K. & Salo, P. (2012). Collaborative and action research within education: A Nordic perspective. Nordic Studies in Education 32:1. doi:10.18261/ISSN1891-5949-2012-01-01 Scherp, H-Å., & Scherp, G-B. (2007). Lärande och skolutveckling. Ledarskap för demokrati och meningsskapande.: [Learning and school development. Leadership for democracy and meaning making]. Karlstad University. Sifakakis, P., Tsatsaroni, A., Sarakinioti, A., & Kourou, M. (2016). Governance and Knowledge Transformations in Educational Administration: Greek Responses to Global Policies. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.1040377 Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. (2003). Discursive analytical strategies: understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Policy Press. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Juridification of Professional Discretion in Principals Work in schools NLA University College, Norway Presenting Author:For several decades, government authorities and practitioners in many countries, including Norway, have focused strongly on the prevention and restore of bullying (Olweus, 2004; Stephens, 2011). Nevertheless, the number of Norwegian students who report that they have been subjected to offensive words or acts seems to be relatively stable over the years (Wendelberg, 2017). Therefore, Norwegian students’ rights to a safe psychosocial environment, articulated in chapter 9a in the Norwegian Education Act, has been strengthen in 2017. The new law includes descriptions that are more detailed how to redress a safe psychosocial environment. This increases the pressure on principals, who are responsible for implementing measures and restore a safe school environment. On this background, three research questions are formulated: 1. How do principals interpret and translate the new law into school practices in 9a-cases? 2. How do they construct and legitimise their practice? 3. What kind of dilemmas and tensions do they experience when they try to restore a safe psychosocial environment? The theoretical framework is connected to Evetts’ (2009, 2010) distinction between two ideal types of professionalism in knowledge-based work in the public sector: occupational and organisational professionalism. The former denotes professionalism as an occupational value; that is, work is controlled by professionals and based on their discretion. Organisational professionalism, on the other hand, is characterised by standardised work procedures and practices that are closely linked to organisational objectives, external forms of regulation and accountability measures (Evetts, 2009). However, occupational and organisational professionalism need not to be mutually exclusive. While organisational control may affect professional work, exactly how this changes occupational values and the space for professionals’ discretion is an unsettled question after the implementation of the new law, depending on local organisational work contexts and the principals’ perceptions of legal regulations. International studies on changes in professionalism in schools have indicated increased external pressure from national and local governments (Evetts, 2009; Grace, 2014; Ozga, 2000; Sachs, 2001). New public management (NPM) regimes is about public sector becoming more efficient and effective. While management discourses continue to emphasise professionals’ empowerment, autonomy and discretion, professionals in schools are increasingly held accountable for adhering to regulation in law. Earlier studies have explored how institutional regulative pressure impacts work in public schools (see, e.g. Coburn, 2004; Lundström, 2015; Spillane et al., 2011) and demonstrated tensions between external and internal accountability. Discretion is described as a hallmark of professional work. Professional discretion rests on trust in the ability of certain occupational groups to make sound decisions ‘on behalf’ of social authorities. It has been suggested that in Europe, managerialist-influenced policies with increased focus on control and accountability have placed pressure on professional discretion. In welfare states, processes of juridification have been identified, indicating more detailed legal regulation and a tendency to frame emerging problems or conflicts in legal terms (Magnussen and Nilssen, 2013). A recent research in a Norwegian context, called ‘Legal standards and Professional Judgement in Educational Leadership’ have highlighted how rational–legal forms of authority are key aspects in the regulation of education, and how professionals handle legal standards in their practices (Andenæs & Møller, 2016; Ottesen & Møller, 2016; Møller & Karseth, 2016). My project builds on this and wants to understand the interplay between legal standards and professional discretion in schools after implementation of the new law, when students’ rights are strengthened. It is important to unpack the way that legal norms are translated into social practices, how principals legitimise their work in schools and what kind of challenges and dilemmas the new law brings. After recent changes in the law, we know little about how principals’ experiences more juridification in their work as school leader.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Based on individual in-depth interviews with 18 principals in Norwegian compulsory schools (grades 1-10), the study examines how legal standards are translated into school practices, how principals construct and legitimise their work, and what kind of dilemmas and tensions they experience. The analysis is based on school leaders’ stories of their experiences with cases related to the Education Act chapter 9 A, and how local practices in terms of the interactions among school staff, students, and parents emerge and are constituted within organisational and professional work contexts. The schools are in 7 different counties and 16 different municipalities. The selection of schools was purposive: the principals invited to participate had all been through the National Principal Program and had recent experience with challenging and long-lasting 9 A-cases. To ensure diversity in context and background I invited schools from different geographical regions (east, west and south in Norway), different school size, including schools from both cities and countryside, and principals in different ages. I used a semi-structured interview guide and conducted and audio-recorded all individual interviews in locations chosen by the informants. Most interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes. I had my interviews transcribed, and independently analysed the transcripts aiming to identify emergent themes. I used NVivo software as a tool in this process. The procedure enabled me to combine inductive and deductive approaches for the data analysis (Eisner, 1991). First, I performed an inductive analysis, in which I identified chunks of data where the principals talked about measure to restore the psychosocial environment and organised the data according to emergent categories. In the second step, I identified the principals’ interpretations of the legal regulation as stated in Chapter 9 A of the Education Act. I also analysed how organisational and occupational professionalism emerged as conflicting and/or consonant aspects of their interpretations. This helped me to explore the discretionary space within which professional practice was enacted. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Expected findings are: 1) Similar measures to uncover and investigate degrading treatment; specific focus in observations, surveys by socio-gram, interviews with students. Measures to restore the school environment: "stop-talks" (meetings) with students and their parents, extra supervision in recess, isolating students from the rest of the group and school shift. Still, the study reveals many difficulties in restoring work and cases with large complexity, including a) former victims of bullying, b) students with interaction difficulties, c) anxious/sensitive students, d) students with challenging behaviors, e) students who experience offense by teachers. 2) The principals legitimize their measures with support and advice (from both within and outside the school), by evidence-based theory, earlier experiences, their own values, courage and professional discretion (especially when breaking law). 3) Dilemmas are: a. Balancing the rights of one single student vs the rights for the rest of the students in the class b. When staff cannot identify bullying, but the parents think there is and require detailed actions to specific students or staff members. c. Parents lose confidence in the school and go to the county governor, who impose the school to put certain measures into place, measures the principal must carry out but does not believe in and want according to his/her professional knowledge and belief. d. To support both the teacher accused for offense and the student/parents claiming that infringement has been committed e. The Educational Act emphasizes the individual student’s perspective, but weakens at the same time the teachers-, principal-, and other students’ rights. References Andenæs, K. & Møller, J. (red.)(2016). Retten i skolen - mellom pedagogikk, juss og politikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Coburn, C.E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education 77: 211–244. Eisner, E.W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public mangagement: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociologi 8(2), 247-266. Evetts, J. (2010). Reconnecting professional occupations with professional organizations: Risks and opportunities. In: L.G. Svensson and J. Evetts (eds). Sociology of Professions. Continental and Anglo-Saxon Traditions, pp. 123–144. Gothenborg: Bokförlaget Daidalos. Grace, G. (2014). Professions, sacred and profane. Reflections upon the changing nature of professionalism. In: M. Young, and J. Muller (eds). Knowledge, Expertise and the Professions. London: Routledge, pp. 18–30. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69: 3–19. Lundström, U. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of New Public Management. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 1: 73–85. Magnussen, A.-M. and Nilssen, E. (2013). Juridification and the construction of social citizenship. Journal of Law and Society 40: 228–248. Møller, J. & Karseth, B. (2016). Profesjonell skjønnsutøvelse og kravet til tilpasset opplæring. I: K. Andenæs & J. Møller (red.), Retten i skolen – mellom pedagogikk, juss og politikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. s. 199–215. Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In: Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. and Rigby, K. (eds). Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–36. Ottesen, E. & Møller, J. (2016). Organisational routines – the interplay of legal standards and professional discretion. European Educational Research Journal, 15(4), 428–446. Ozga, J. (2000). Policy Research in Educational Settings: Contested Terrain. Buckingham: Open University Press. Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Educational Policy 16: 149–161. Spillane, J.P., Parise, L.M. and Sherer, J.Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal 48: 586–619. Stephens, P. (2011). Preventing and confronting school bullying: a comparative study of two national programmes in Norway. British Educational Research Journal 37: 381–404. Wendelberg, C. (2017). Mobbing og arbeidsro i skolen: analyse av Elevundersøkelsen i skoleåret 2016/2017 [Bullying in school: analycing of findings in the pupils’ survey in school year 2016/2017]. Trondheim: NTNU Samfunnsforskning. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Time For Science: Theorizing Time In Educational Leaders’ Sense-making About Leading Primary School Science 1Northwestern University, United States of America; 2University of Michigan, United States of America Presenting Author:Time is a central theme in policymakers’ and educators’ work on curriculum and teaching. It permeates all aspects of policymaking and decision-making from how much time should be allocated for the teaching of school subjects to time for professional learning in education systems. With respect to primary school science, research consistently points to a shortage of teaching time that in turn contribute to inequities in children’s opportunities to learn globally so they can understand the natural world and pursue STEM careers (NASEM, 2022, Tate, 2001). Conceptions of time within the literature on leading improvement in primary school science, however, are undertheorized. Recognizing the importance of time in efforts to improve the quality of elementary science education, we theorize time for primary school science to create a conceptual framework to inform empirical, development, and practical work. In this theory building paper, I examine educational leaders’ (at system and school levels) sense-making about time as they engage in efforts to lead improvement in the teaching of primary school science. To frame our work theoretically, we bring two literatures - sense-making in educational systems and the sociology of time - into conversation with each other. Educational leaders and teachers ongoing sensemaking is central to the implementation of curricular reforms (Coburn, 2001; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Whereas interpretation assumes an object to be understood (e.g., policy text), a sensemaking perspective takes a broader approach by attending to what individuals notice in their environments and how they frame, interpret, and respond to those cues (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Sense-making is triggered by situations where system actors encounter change, ambiguity, uncertainty, surprise, or discrepancy arising from changes in their environment and from interruptions to their ongoing work practice (Weber & Glynn, 2006; Weick et al., 2005). Sociologists of time identify several different conceptions of time including— 1) time as objective, 2) time as political, and 3) organizational time (Gokmenoglu, 2022; Poole, 2004; Zerubavel, 2020). Time as objective refers to how time is sometimes conceived as being a finite commodity. We often talk, for example, of not having enough time, or of saving or wasting time. Time as political refers to its “political” and value-laden nature drawing attention to how time is tied to power dynamics in society and education systems (Gokmenoglu, 2022; Zerubavel, 2020). Organizational time refers to how “people and organizations orient themselves to common externally defined time scales such as calendars, but also experience critical and significant events that interact with the objective temporal scale” (Poole, 2004, p. 22). Motivated and framed by these two literatures my research questions are: How does time figure in education leaders’ efforts to lead improvement in primary school science education? How do educational leaders, at both the system and school levels, make sense of time as they make decisions about leading improvement in primary school science? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used I draw on two different data sources to develop my argument in this paper. First, I draw on my work over the past four years advising the Irish Ministry of Education on the development and implementation of a new primary school curriculum (Walsh, 2023). This work involved extensive engagement with educators at the national, regional, and school levels through seminars, workshops, conversations, and documents over an extend period. It also involved in participation in formal events related to the new primary school curriculum. Second, I draw on data from a mixed methods multi-year study of 13 education systems’ efforts (e.g., urban, suburban, rural school districts and charter school networks) across the United States to reform elementary (primary) school science in response to new national standards for teaching science. Using a qualitative comparative case study design (Yin, 2014), we conducted 116, 60-minute, virtual, semi-structured interviews, with 101 leaders, including science coordinators, ELA/math and Title coordinators, data managers, and superintendents in 13 school districts. We used snowball sampling to select education systems by asking science education experts to recommend contacts, who in turn nominated candidate education systems that were doing system building work in elementary science. Though our focus was on leaders’ instructional decision-making about elementary science, interviewing leaders beyond those with exclusive responsibility for science, was necessary to understand the leadership work. The interview protocol was designed for eliciting leader’s practices in reforming primary school science. We asked questions on (1) their roles, responsibilities, and background; (2) state, district, and community context; (3) current priorities and visions for elementary science instruction; (4) infrastructure in place supporting elementary science instruction; (5) plans for continuing elementary science reform; and (6) challenges they were experiencing in this work. We began data analysis by coding the interviews deductively into broad analytic categories in our framework, as well as references to challenges and dilemmas system leaders were facing in system building work for primary school science. Then working inductively as a team, we coded the references within the challenges and dilemmas code to identify key themes and dilemmas across different systems (Saldaña, 2021). Finally, we wrote analytic memos about each education system (Charmaz, 2014). For the purpose of this paper, we examined similarities and differences in themes with respect to time and leading improvement in elementary school science that emerged from the two lines of work as well as the cases within the empirical study. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings While still preliminary, we describe several emerging findings from our ongoing analysis. First, finite notions about time dominate in educational leaders’ sense-making about leading improvement in primary school science with considerable attention being devoted to ‘finding time’, ‘making time”, ‘sharing time’, and ’flexing time’ These finite perceptions of time cut across levels (e.g., system, school, grade, and classroom) and, from educational leaders’ perspective, feature as one of the most prominent challenges in leading improvement in primary school science. Second, other conceptions of time, especially political and organizational, emerge from closer analysis of educational leaders’ sense-making in ways that often went unnoticed by leaders and contributing to the complexity of the challenges that these leaders grappled with in leading improvement in primary school science. Examining how different notions of time interacted contributed to more complex diagnostic framings of the challenges of time in leading improvement in primary school science. Third, and related, our account shows that understanding the time challenges involved in leading improvement in elementary science education at any one level (e.g., school level, school, system) can only be fully appreciated by careful attention to other levels simultaneously and to the broader institutional environment. The institutional environments that form around particular school subjects, for example, differ overtime contributing to some subjects being ‘more valued’ than others. Hence, a leadership challenge that is understood chiefly in terms of time as finite at one level (e.g., the school level) can only be fully understood when considered from other levels (e.g., system level) where time as political and organizational come into play. In conclusion, we sketch a practical conceptual framework for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars to use in their work related to time for teaching and learning in education systems. References Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). SAGE. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective Sensemaking about Reading: How Teachers Mediate Reading Policy in Their Professional Communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. Gokmenoglu, B. (2022). Temporality in the social sciences: New directions for a political sociology of time. The British Journal of Sociology, 73(3), 643-653. NASEM. (2022). Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford University Press. Saldana, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 1–440. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research, 72(3), 387-431. Tate, W. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity‐to‐learn considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1015-1028. Walsh, T. (2023). Redeveloping the primary school curriculum in Ireland. Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making Sense with Institutions: Context, Thought and Action in KarlWeick’s Theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639-1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606068343. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth edition.). SAGE. Zerubavel, E. (2020). The Sociology of Time. Time, Temporality, and History in Process Organization Studies, 44. | ||