Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:09 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
22 SES 08 C JS: Joint Paper Session - NW 22 and NW 26
Joint Paper Session | ||
    | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Teacher Authority as Everyday Academic Leadership: A Comparative Study of Student Perspectives in Polish and Ukrainian Higher Education University of Bialystok, Poland Presenting Author:In contemporary higher education, authority can no longer be understood as a stable or self-evident attribute of the academic role. Intensifying social polarisation, growing distrust in institutions, and shifting epistemic norms have profoundly reshaped how authority is constructed, enacted, and evaluated within universities. Against this backdrop, the present study examines teacher authority as a form of everyday academic leadership, focusing on how it is perceived and legitimised by university students in two socio-politically distinct yet historically interconnected contexts: Poland and Ukraine. Positioned within the thematic framework of ECER 2026, “Knowing and Acting: The changing conditions and potentials of education research”, the study addresses the tension between epistemic authority (grounded in expertise and knowledge) and relational authority (grounded in trust, fairness, and ethical conduct). By foregrounding students’ perspectives, the research responds directly to the Network 22 special call on academic leadership for building a fairer world and fostering trust in polarised times, offering empirical insight into how leadership is enacted at the micro-level of everyday teaching practice. The overarching objective of the study is to investigate how university students conceptualise and attribute teacher authority, and how these attributions relate to perceptions of trust, fairness, and legitimacy in higher education. The study is guided by the following research questions: 1. How do university students in Poland and Ukraine conceptualise teacher authority in higher education? 2. Which dimensions of teacher behaviour and practice are most strongly associated with perceived authority and trust? 3. To what extent do student perceptions of teacher authority differ between the two national contexts? 4. How can teacher authority be interpreted as a form of everyday academic leadership that contributes to (or undermines) trust in higher education institutions? The study adopts a relational and constructivist understanding of authority, drawing on sociological and educational theories that conceptualise authority not as coercive power, but as a form of legitimacy recognised by others. Teacher authority is thus treated as co-constructed, emerging through interaction, communicative practices, and shared norms rather than institutional position alone. Framed in this way, teacher authority is interpreted as a manifestation of academic leadership enacted in everyday pedagogical encounters. This perspective aligns with contemporary leadership theories that emphasise distributed, relational, and practice-based forms of leadership, particularly relevant in higher education contexts characterised by weakened hierarchies and heightened expectations of participation and inclusion. The comparative design (Poland–Ukraine) allows the study to explore how broader socio-political conditions shape students’ expectations of authority and trust in academia. While both systems share historical legacies of hierarchical education, they currently operate under different conditions of institutional stability, reform, and public trust. This contrast provides a productive lens for examining how authority is negotiated in contexts marked by varying degrees of social polarisation. By empirically grounding discussions of academic leadership in student perceptions, the study contributes to higher education research in three ways: (1) it reframes teacher authority as a key site of academic leadership; (2) it provides comparative evidence on trust and fairness in higher education; (3) it bridges theoretical debates on authority with actionable insights relevant to teaching practice and institutional credibility. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs a quantitative, cross-sectional comparative design to examine university students’ perceptions of teacher authority in higher education in Poland and Ukraine. A survey-based approach was selected to capture patterns of authority attribution across a sizeable and diverse student population and to enable systematic cross-national comparison. The design is exploratory and comparative, focusing on both shared tendencies and context-specific differences in how authority and trust are perceived. Data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed among university students enrolled in higher education institutions in Poland and Ukraine. The final dataset comprises over 322 valid responses. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and respondents represented various fields of study and stages of academic progression. The use of student-generated data is methodologically central, as it positions students as active interpreters of academic authority and leadership rather than passive recipients of institutional norms. The survey instrument operationalised teacher authority as a multidimensional construct, encompassing epistemic, relational, and ethical dimensions. Items were measured using Likert-type scales and addressed perceived subject-matter expertise, clarity of instruction, communicative practices, fairness, consistency, and trust in teachers. The questionnaire was informed by existing research on authority, trust, and academic leadership and adapted to ensure contextual relevance in both national settings. Data analysis proceeded in three stages. First, descriptive statistics were used to identify dominant trends in students’ perceptions within each national sample. Second, comparative analyses were conducted to examine differences between Polish and Ukrainian respondents. Depending on scale properties and distribution, appropriate inferential statistical tests (e.g. independent-samples t-tests or non-parametric equivalents) were applied. Third, correlational analyses explored relationships between perceived authority dimensions and levels of trust, supporting the study’s conceptualisation of authority as a relational and legitimacy-based phenomenon. Where applicable, internal consistency measures were used to assess the reliability of scale components. The study followed standard ethical guidelines for educational research. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their right to withdraw, and no identifiable personal data were collected. All analyses were conducted on aggregated data, with sensitivity to cross-national and socio-political contexts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to demonstrate that teacher authority in higher education is primarily constructed as a relational and legitimacy-based phenomenon, rather than as a function of formal position or institutional power alone. Across both national contexts, students are anticipated to attribute authority most strongly to teachers who combine epistemic credibility with fairness, clarity of communication, and ethical consistency. This finding would support contemporary theoretical perspectives that conceptualise authority as co-constructed through everyday academic interactions and sustained through trust. At the comparative level, the analysis is expected to reveal both shared patterns and context-specific differences in how authority is perceived by Polish and Ukrainian students. While core dimensions such as subject-matter expertise and organisational competence are likely to be valued similarly in both groups, differences may emerge in the relative importance assigned to relational practices, adaptability, and student-centred approaches. These differences are expected to reflect broader socio-political and institutional conditions shaping expectations of leadership, legitimacy, and trust in higher education. From the perspective of the Network 22 special call, the study is expected to highlight the micro-level foundations of trust in polarised times. By demonstrating how authority is negotiated in routine pedagogical encounters, the findings foreground the role of university teachers in shaping students’ broader orientations towards institutional fairness and legitimacy. Authority, when enacted responsibly, appears to support inclusive academic cultures and mitigate the effects of social and epistemic polarisation. References Arendt, Hannah (1961). Between Past and Future. New York: Viking Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bryman, Alan (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710. Bush, Tony (2020). Educational Leadership and Management (6th ed.). London: Sage. Fairhurst, Gail T. (2007). Discursive Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giddens, Anthony (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hargreaves, Andy & Fullan, Michael (2012). Professional Capital. New York: Teachers College Press. Shils, Edward (1982). The Constitution of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trowler, Paul (2014). Doing Insider Research in Universities. London: Bloomsbury. Tyler, Tom R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Trust and Responsibility in the Management of Educational Institutions: Dimensions of Cooperative Leadership Universität Innsbruck, Austria Presenting Author:Leading educational institutions is a complex task that requires a balance between responsibility (control) and trust (Simsa, 2022). Leaders must take responsibility, make decisions, and provide direction, while simultaneously allowing freedom, supporting educational processes, and trusting the abilities of their staff (Schreier & Ammann, 2023). Against this background, this article explores how leaders in the education sector understand and experience trust and responsibility by. This topic is important because it helps to better understand the tension between responsibility and trust. It may also offer impulses for the further development of relationship-oriented leadership. The aim of the article is to conceptually develop practice-relevant knowledge for relationship-based and cooperative leadership in educational institutions. First, existing research on leadership tasks, effective leadership, and trust and responsibility in leadership practice was reviewed (e.g., Fichtner et al., 2023; König, 2023; Ellwart et al., 2023; Kamm et al., 2023). In addition, a model of cooperative leadership (Huber, 2005) was used as the theoretical framework for the empirical study (Schreier et al., 2023). Based on this framework, empirical data were collected at a conference for educational leaders entitled „Perspectives between Trust and Responsibility“, which took place in February 2024 at the University of Teacher Education Tyrol. The sample consisted of N=159 leaders from the education sector (116 women and 43 men): 79 from early childhood education, 45 from primary education, and 35 from secondary education. Participants were randomly assigned to 17 discussion groups using room numbers distributed at registration (Vogl, 2019). After a short introduction, participants discussed the guiding question of how trust and responsibility appear from their own perspectives. They documented the results of their discussions in writing. The data were analysed using the Grounded Theory research approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1996; Strübing, 2019). First, the written notes were digitised, divided into smaller units, and openly coded to identify central ideas. In a second step, the codes were axially coded, meaning that relationships between them were identified and grouped into categories. Finally, the categories were selectively coded to develop core categories that capture the main findings. These core categories are presented in the results section as complete sentences, such as: „In leadership practice, trust is shown through the ability to let go.“ Each core category is supported by concrete examples from the discussion notes. The results show that, regardless of the type of educational institution, trust is expressed in several ways. These include confidence in staff, a positive approach to mistakes, the ability to let go, recognition of diversity, appreciation of individual strengths, and communication on an equal level. Leaders see their responsibility mainly in administrative tasks, but also in the ongoing development of their educational institutions. The discussion of the findings based on the cooperative leadership model (Huber, 2005) shows that the model can be expanded through this research. In particular, the results highlight additional dimensions that focus on the responsibility of leaders within a cooperative leadership culture, such as measures to systematically ensure and improve teaching quality (Miedlich, 2022). The article concludes by discussing the limitations of the empirical study. Finally, the key findings are conceptually summarised as dimensions of cooperative leadership and critically discussed in the context of educational research. Special attention is given to the question of how knowledge gained from educational research can be transferred back into educational practice in order to strengthen its practical relevance. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Based on this framework, empirical data were collected at a conference for educational leaders entitled „Perspectives between Trust and Responsibility“, which took place in February 2024 at the University of Teacher Education Tyrol. The sample consisted of N=159 leaders from the education sector (116 women and 43 men): 79 from early childhood education, 45 from primary education, and 35 from secondary education. Participants were randomly assigned to 17 discussion groups using room numbers distributed at registration (Vogl, 2019). After a short introduction, participants discussed the guiding question of how trust and responsibility appear from their own perspectives. They documented the results of their discussions in writing. The data were analysed using the Grounded Theory research approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1996; Strübing, 2019). First, the written notes were digitised, divided into smaller units, and openly coded to identify central ideas. In a second step, the codes were axially coded, meaning that relationships between them were identified and grouped into categories. Finally, the categories were selectively coded to develop core categories that capture the main findings. These core categories are presented in the results section as complete sentences, such as: „In leadership practice, trust is shown through the ability to let go.“ Each core category is supported by concrete examples from the discussion notes. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results show that, regardless of the type of educational institution, trust is expressed in several ways. These include confidence in staff, a positive approach to mistakes, the ability to let go, recognition of diversity, appreciation of individual strengths, and communication on an equal level. Leaders see their responsibility mainly in administrative tasks, but also in the ongoing development of their educational institutions. The discussion of the findings based on the cooperative leadership model (Huber, 2005) shows that the model can be expanded through this research. In particular, the results highlight additional dimensions that focus on the responsibility of leaders within a cooperative leadership culture, such as measures to systematically ensure and improve teaching quality (Miedlich, 2022). The article concludes by discussing the limitations of the empirical study. Finally, the key findings are conceptually summarised as dimensions of cooperative leadership and critically discussed in the context of educational research. Special attention is given to the question of how knowledge gained from educational research can be transferred back into educational practice in order to strengthen its practical relevance. References Ellwart, T., Russell, Y. & Blanke, K. (2023). Führung in reduzierter Arbeitszeit (FIRA) – Co-Leitung, Teilzeitmodelle und Delegation von Führungsaufgaben. In J. Felfe & R. van Dick (Hrsg.), Handbuch Mitarbeiterführung. Wirtschaftspsychologisches Praxiswissen für Fach- und Führungskräfte (2., überarb. u. erw. Aufl.) (S. 385–401). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68185-5 Fichtner, S., Bacia, E., Sandau, M., Hurrelmann K. & Dohmen, D. (2023). „Schule stärken – Digitalisierung gestalten“ – Cornelsen Schulleitungsstudie 2023. FiBS Forschungsinstitut für Bildungs- und Sozialökonomie. https://www.cornelsen.de/schulleitungsstudie/vorjahre Heiser, P. (2024). Meilensteine der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung entlang klassischer Studien (2., überarb. u. aktual. Aufl.). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44128-9 Huber, S.G. (2005). Kooperative Führung in der Schule: Entlastung oder Entmachtung von Schulleitung? In A. Bartz, J. Fabian, S.G. Huber, C. Kloft, H.S. Rosenbusch & H. Sassenscheid (Hrsg.), PraxisWissen SchulLeitung. Basiswissen und Arbeitshilfen zu den zentralen Handlungsfeldern der Schulleitung (10.42). C.H. Beck Kamm, I., Kamm, F. & Anderegg, N. (2023). Raum für Demokratie und die Rolle der Führung. In O. Bokelmann (Hrsg.), Demokratiepädagogik. Theorie und Praxis der Demokratiebildung in Jugendhilfe und Schule (Soziale Arbeit als Wohlfahrtsproduktion, Bd. 29) (S. 327–340). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42649-1_24 König, A. (2023). Sinnorientierte Führung. Leadership für die Gen Y und Z neu denken. Schäffer-Poeschel. https://doi.org/10.34156/978-3-7910-5942-6 Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz (6., überarb. & erw. Aufl.). Beltz Juventa. Miedlich, H. (2022). Erfolgreich Führen in Transformationsprozessen. Kompetenzen einer entwicklungsbereiten Führungskraft. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66317-2 Schreier, A. & Ammann, M. (2023). Der Beitrag der Schulleitung in Schulentwicklungsprozessen für das Schaffen einer handlungsleitenden und werte-basierten Schulkultur. heiEDUCATION Journal, 12, 105–124. https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.heied.2023.12 Schreier, M., Echterhoff, G., Bauer, J.F., Weydmann, N. & Hussy, W. (2023). Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor (3., überarb. u. erg. Aufl.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66673-9 Simsa, R. (2022). Leadership und Veränderung – Veränderung von Leadership. In O. Koenig (Hrsg.), Inklusion und Transformation in Organisationen (S. 133–147). Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.35468/5978-08 Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen der Qualitativen Sozialforschung. Beltz Strübing, J. (2019). Grounded Theory und Theoretical Sampling. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (2., vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl.) (S. 525–544). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_36 Vogl, S. (2019). Gruppendiskussion. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (2., vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl.) (S. 695–700). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-2130 8-4_46 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper How Can We Develop Our Capacity to Shared Leadership in the VET-sector? An Action Learning Project 1: Aalborg University, Denmark; 2: University College Copenhagen Presenting Author:In recent years, vocational education and training have attained much political and societal attention – and it seems to continue. This heightened interest reflects a growing recognition that future labor markets are likely to face an even greater shortage of skilled workers than today. Indeed, the trend appears to be moving in one direction, raising increasing concern. Consequently, there has been growing debate on how this development might be reversed. Discussions have focused on a range of interrelated issues, including efforts to improve the reputation and attractiveness of vocational education and training, enhance educational quality, strengthen pedagogical leadership (Ydesen et al., 2024), and reduce student dropout rates (EVA, 2014; EVA, 2023; Mahler et al., 2023). Addressing these challenges is widely regarded as essential, given the central role of VET in societal and economic development. Despite the growing research interest in vocational education and training, the leadership in vocational schools remains underexplored (Frimann & Bundgaard, 2018; Friche & Andersen, 2017), despite increasing attention to collective, shared and post-heroic understandings of leadership in complex organizational settings (Crevani et al., 2007; Drath et al., 2008; Raelin, 2016). This gap is striking given the complexity, scope and societal significance of leadership in this sector. The leadership role in vocational education differs from other educational contexts due to the unique organizational and institutional characteristics of vocational schools (EVA, 2014, 2018), including the integration of workplace-based training, governance arrangements involving local training committees and social partners (CEDEFOP, 2012), and extensive ongoing collaboration with labor market stakeholders. In addition, leadership in vocational schools also encompasses internal coordination across educational programs, continuous quality development of teaching and learning, and the enactment of shared and distributed leadership across multiple organizational levels, reflecting broader shifts towards distributed leadership in complex organizational contexts (Bolden, 2011). The societal situation indicates that the demand for change and development in the VET sector will most likely continue to increase. Consequently, vocational schools operate in contexts of increasing complexity, while research-based knowledge on the implications of these conditions for leadership remains limited. Against this backdrop, the paper takes a pragmatic, practice-based perspective on leadership development, focusing on how leadership teams in vocational education develop the capacity to lead together through action learning, rather than on prescribing leadership models or solutions. Here we present findings from an action learning project examining how VET leaders can develop their capacity to shared leadership in order to respond to increasing complexity and accelerating change. The action learning project is one element of the larger the research project on "Future Leadership in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) Sector – Complex Challenges, Local Collaboration, and Responsive Educational Leadership," conducted in collaboration between Aalborg University and the University College Copenhagen. It is a three-year project (2024-2026) funded by the Danish government. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study is situated within a practice-based action learning research design aimed at developing leadership capacity. It is informed by prior research on leadership development through action learning in teams, which highlights how collective inquiry, reflection, and experimentation can support the development of shared leadership in complex organizational contexts (Revans, 1982; Pedler, 1997; Marquardt, 2011). The empirical setting consists of leadership teams from five vocational education and training (VET) schools. Each school established a leadership learning community comprising 4–7 leaders ranging from middle to executive management. The design combines locally embedded action learning processes with cross-institutional workshops supporting shared learning, reflection, and knowledge. At each school, the action learning process unfolds through four facilitated sessions over approximately ten months. The sessions follow a cyclical and iterative structure in which leadership teams jointly identify a shared leadership challenge grounded in their everyday practice, formulate hypotheses, design and implement leadership actions (experiments), and reflect systematically on their outcomes. The objective is to strengthen leaders’ collective capacity to inquire into, reflect on, and act upon their own leadership practices, drawing on each other’s perspectives and expertise (Pedler, 1997; Marquardt, 2011). Researchers take on the role of facilitators and co-inquirers, responsible for framing the process, sustaining reflexivity, and supporting analytical depth without directing content or outcomes. This understanding of facilitation aligns with relational and process-oriented perspectives on leadership development, emphasizing responsiveness, resonance, and attention to social dynamics in learning processes (Cunliffe, 2002; Frimann, 2021). This reflects a pragmatic understanding of action learning, in which learning develops through collective and dialogic inquiry into concrete leadership challenges, (Revans, 1982; Schön, 1987; Raelin, 2016). Each leadership team determines its own focus area. Data generation is integrated with the action learning process and evolves iteratively from one session to the next. Empirical material includes recordings of initial scoping meetings, researchers’ ethnographic field notes from action learning sessions, photographs of visual artefacts produced during meetings (e.g., flipcharts and post-it notes), and semi-structured focus group interviews conducted after completion of the local action learning cycles. In addition, three cross-institutional workshops generate data through reflective dialogues across schools. The analytical strategy combines iterative thematic analysis with process-oriented attention to how collaboration develop over time with particular attention to collective sensemaking processes within leadership teams (Weick, 1995). Analysis focuses on patterns of collective inquiry, shifts in leadership orientations, and emerging capacities to conduct shared leadership. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper reports from an ongoing action learning project exploring how vocational school leaders develop the capacity to lead collectively in contexts characterized by increasing complexity and pressure. At the time of submission, the local action learning cycles are still in progress; however, by the time of the conference, the full empirical material will be available, allowing for a more consolidated analysis and presentation of findings. Preliminary insights from indicate that leading as a team represents a significant shift in leadership practice for many participants, moving away from individually oriented leadership roles towards more collective and relational forms of leadership (Crevani et al., 2007; Raelin, 2016). Across cases, leaders describe difficulties in articulating a shared direction as a leadership team and in prioritizing time and attention for relational work with leadership colleagues, highlighting the challenges of developing alignment, commitment and shared responsibility in leadership teams (Drath et al., 2008). Creating spaces where doubt, loneliness, and failure can be voiced is described as both necessary and risky. The action learning process appears to interrupt these patterns by slowing down decision-making and creating structured spaces for dialogic inquiry, reflection and shared meaning-making (Weick, 1995, Raelin 2016). Leaders are encouraged to remain curious, resist premature conclusions, and attend to multiple perspectives. Early observations point to the development of a shared leadership language, increased attention to relational dynamics, and a growing capacity to frame collective leadership challenges. The analysis will examine how emerging capacities evolve and how action learning can support leadership teams in navigating complexity, fostering trust, and developing more collaborative forms of leadership practice. These insights suggest that developing the capacity to lead as a team is not primarily a matter of new tools or structures, but of cultivating shared inquiry, language, and relational trust over time. References Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251–269. CEDEFOP (2012): Vocational Education and training in Denmark. Short description. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Cunliffe, A.L. 2002. Reflexive Dialogical Practice in Management Learning. Management Learning, 3 (1), 35–61. Crevani, L, M. Lindgren & Packendorff, J. (2007) Shared leadership: A post-heroic perspective on leadership as a collective construction. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (1), 40-67. Danish Evaluation Institute (2014): Pedagogical leadership in vocational schools [In Danish]. EVA. Danish Evaluation Institute (2018): Use of data in vocational education and training. [In Danish]. EVA. Danish Evaluation Institute (2023): Knowledge on dropout and student well-being in vocational education and training [In Danish]. EVA. Drath, W., Mccauley, C.D., Palus, C. J., Velsor, V. E., O'Connor, P. & Mcguire, J. (2008). Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Toward a More Integrative Ontology of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 19 (6) 635-653. Friche, N, & Andersen, V. N. (2017). Four logics of governance: Governing vocational Education and Training. Journal of Vocational Education & Training Conference. Frimann, S., & Bundgaard, S. B. (2018). Knowledge brief no. 1: Leadership development in practice in vocational schools. LIP – Leadership Development in Practice in Vocational Schools. [In Danish]. Frimann, S. (2021). Leadership development through action learning in teams. In L. Hersted (Ed.), Leadership in social processes: Relations, resonance, and responsiveness (pp. 285–314) [In Danish]. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Mahler, A., Thomsen, E. S., & Louw, A. (2023). Dropout, retention, and completion in vocational education and training: A review of research on young people in the Danish context (2011–2023) [In Danish]. Center for Knowledge on Vocational Education and Training (CEVEU), Center for Youth Research. Marquardt, M. J. (2011). Optimizing the power of action learning. Nicholas Brealey. Pedler, M. (Ed.). (1997). Action learning in Practice. Gower Publishing. Raelin, J.A. (2016) Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership, Vol. 12(2), 131–158. Revans, R. W. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Chartwell-Bratt. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Ydesen, C., Ziethen, M., & Rohwedder, A.-B. (2024). Pedagogical leadership [In Danish]. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Weick, C. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations: Foundations for organizational science. Sage Publications. | ||