Conference Agenda
| Session | ||
99 ERC SES 04 F: Leadership, Governance and Quality Development in Education
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper After the First Warning. Response Discretion of School Inspectors in Mild, Trust-based Regulatory Regimes University of Bergen, Norway Presenting Author:This study aims to contribute to the theoretical refinement of discretion in responses as it is used in a trust-based regime, which emphasizes cooperation and dialogue. Norwegian school inspection was picked as a case because of its particularly mild and trusting approach to regulatees (Levatino et al, 2024: 269-270; Painter & Guy Peters, 2010: 23). As such, this case is suited for reflections on discretionary dilemmas which might occur when inspectors are faced with undesirable practice while the commitment to cooperation and dialogue is pushed to its limits. In addition, the study aims to contribute to empirical knowledge about inspector discretion in the field of education, which currently only a modest number of studies do (like Dedering & Sowada, 2017; Hall, 2017). The research question for this study is: how do Norwegian school inspectors use their professional discretion when they respond to undesirable school provider practice and what could be sources for their discretionary dilemmas? This question directs the gaze towards what inspectors in reality do in addition to what they formally are allowed to do, and also offers insights into how discretionary dilemmas may come about. By doing so, this study underlines the essential role of discretion in inspection: inspection is more than a tool to reach either technical or idealistic aims, but an institution which is continuously created in the interactions between social actors, including inspectors, who give meaning to policies and laws through the decisions they make (Meyer et al, 2021). Street-level bureaucracy research on how inspectors use their discretionary room is a flourishing field. Many studies focus on discretion in interpretation and judgement (see, for example, Carter, 2017; Dedering & Sowada, 2016), that is how inspectors decide what part of the legal framework is applicable in a particular situation and how this situation should be judged. But some attention has also been paid to discretion in intervention, that is the course of action inspectors choose when faced with an undesirable practice (see, for example, Mascini, 2013). The studies commonly treat discretion as the room for inspectors to maneuver within an existing formal framework. While some describe this room as a recognition of professional competence and power (see, for example, Moberg et al, 2023: 1044), others emphasize its intrinsic vulnerability and doubt (see, for example, Raaphorst, 2018: 485). Despite these valuable contributions, however, the understanding of inspector discretion is still underdeveloped when it comes to intervention. Developing this understanding is particularly relevant because of the shift to more “responsive regulation” over the last decades (Loyens et al, 2019: 2; Raaphorst, 2018). The idea of responsive regulation was introduced by Ayres & Braithwaite in 1992, and it steadily gained ground as an attractive alternative to a strict control-based approach without becoming powerless in the face of undesirable practice. As a result, inspection work has become much more than “ticking of boxes”, many scholars emphasize (see, for example, Raaphorst, 2018; Loyens et al, 2018; Rutz et al, 2017; Dedering & Sowada, 2017). Responsive regulation requires a high dependency on the professional discretion of inspectors across systems and policy fields (Raaphorst et al, 2022: 107-108). The shift underlines the societal importance of looking into how inspectors use their discretionary space in their everyday work, and not in the least how they deal with reluctant or uninformed regulatees. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To answer the research question, a single case study is being done with the help of interviews with Norwegian school inspectors and their direct leaders. In Norway, school inspection is a core task of the County Governor (Norwegian name: Statsforvalter). The County Governor is the collective name for the regional representatives of the state; Norway does not have a national education inspectorate for public schools. The regional agencies have the responsibility for overseeing multiple policy fields in their region and not just public education (DFØ, 2022: 20). Compared to education oversight systems in other European countries, like England and the Netherlands, Norwegian school inspection is mild: inspectors have no formal power to use or threaten with hard sanctions when they are observe undesirable practice; the only exception concerns situations in which individual children are in danger and feel unsafe to which the County Governor can respond with daily fines (Education Act, 2024: §12-8). In the case of undesirable practice, inspectors should first give a formal warning including a deadline. If the school provider has not or has insufficiently adjusted its practices after the deadline, the County Governor can consider offering a meeting to “discuss the situation”; in some cases, it might be “necessary” to have a “continuous dialogue” with the municipality to ensure “sufficient progress” (Udir, 2023: §8.3). For this study, semi-structured interviews are being conducted with individual inspectors and their leaders at different locations. To ensure credibility of the findings, inspectors are approached who vary in years of work experience and educational background and also work at offices in regions with variation in school density and professional capacity. The data is being analyzed with the help of thematic analysis for which a coding scheme has been developed. Half of the data collection has been done; the data collection is expected to be finished in June 2026. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Norwegian school inspectors use their discretionary room in different ways when faced with undesirable practice. They use the formal options given to them but also come up with their own solutions. Some identified responses so far are offering dialogue, repetition (“flat escalation”), change of tone, pushing orders up in the hierarchy, and shifting responsibility for coercion to the municipality. The lack of options for hard sanctions comes with several challenges, like being powerless in the face of those who are unwilling to change practices, and the time investment. The findings of this study will be used to contribute to empirical knowledge about inspector discretion in the field of education, while also offering a theoretical reflection on inspector discretion in responses. References Carter, D.P. (2017), Role perceptions and attitudes toward discretion at a decentralized regulatory frontline: The case of organic inspectors. Regulation & Governance, 11, 353-367. Dedering, K., & Sowada, M.G. (2017), Reaching a conclusion – procedures and processes of judgement formation in school inspection teams. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29, 5-22. DFØ (2022), Færre og bedre – en evaluering av statsforvalterstrukturen (Less and better – an evaluation of the structure for the County Governor). The Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management. Oslo: DFØ. Hall, J.B. (2017), Examining school inspectors and education directors within the organization of school inspection policy: perceptions and views. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(1), 112-126. Levatino, A., et al (2024), School governance through performance-based accountability: A comparative analysis of its side effects across different regulatory regimes. Review of Research in Education, 48, 248-286. Loyens, K., et al (2019), Strict enforcement or responsive regulation? How inspector-inspectee interaction and inspectors’ role identity shape decision making. In: Walle, S. van de, & Raaphorst, N. (eds.) (2019), Inspectors and enforcement at the front line of government. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Mascini, P. (2013), Why was the enforcement pyramid so influential? And what price was paid? Regulation & Governance, 7, 48-60. Meyer, R.E., et al (2021), Zones of meaning, Leitideen, institutional logics – and practices: A phenomenological institutional perspective n shared meaning structures. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 70, 161-186. Moberg, L., et al (2023), Explaining variations in enforcement strategy: A comparison of the Swedish health care, eldercare, and compulsory school sector. Regulation & Governance, 17, 1041-1057. Painter, M., & Guy Peters, B. (eds.) (2010), Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Raaphorst, N. (2018), How to prove, how to interpret and what to do? Uncertainty experiences of street-level tax officials. Public Management Review, 20(4), 485-502. Raaphorst, N., et al (2022), Nobody’s agent: discretion as individualistic accountability. In: Hupe, P. (ed.) (2022), The politics of the public encounter. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Rutz, S., et al (2017), Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands. Regulation & Governance, 11, 81-94. Udir (2023), Metodehåndbok for tilsyn (Manual for control). The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. Oslo: Udir. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Title:Middle-tier Leadership as a Catalyst for Professional Capital: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Sweden and Greece 1: University of Patras, Greece; 2: Regional Directorate of Education, Greece Presenting Author:This study investigated the evolving role of middle-tier educational leadership Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopted a comparative qualitative design (Bray et al., 2014) to examine how these middle-tier positions are constructed and enacted. The methodology integrated an institutional framework analysis to map the path dependency of governance in both nations. This was coupled with qualitative document analysis, involving a thematic review of contemporary legislative frameworks and the latest policy guidance from the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2024). To ensure robust triangulation, the research synthesized recent secondary resources, including the OECD Education Policy Outlook (2024) and Eurydice (2025) structural indicators. This approach enabled the identification of decoupling between global policy benchmarks and localized institutional practice. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Data analysis revealed a functional divergence rooted in distinct traditions. While the Swedish superintendent focuses on strategic resource management and municipal accountability to meet OECD equity benchmarks, the Greek Quality Supervisor is specialized in the coordination of education advisors and pedagogical reforms. The study suggested that the professional identity of these cadres is being redefined from bureaucratic intermediaries into managers of professional capital. In the Greek context, this is achieved by transforming isolated pedagogical guidance into a cohesive network through structured coordination. This transformation implies a shift toward a model of mediated professional trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014), where middle-tier leaders balance accountability with the empowerment of school units. In summary, the findings reveal a paradox: while Sweden seeks to reclaim central control via recent mandates, Greece utilizes new structures to foster professionalized, yet decentralized, pedagogical oversight. Conclusively, this analysis highlights how middle-tier leadership acts as a critical lever for institutional change, suggesting that reform success depends on the ability of middle-tier actors to function as institutional entrepreneurs who foster trust-based governance. References Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds.). (2014).Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods(2nd ed.). Springer Cham. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Eurydice. (2025).Structural Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training Systems in Europe 2025. Publications Office of the European Union. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2023).The Professional Capital of Teachers and Schools: Rethinking the Future of Education(2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Hellenic Republic. (2021).Law 4823/2021: Upgrading the School, Empowering Educators and Other Provisions. Government Gazette A 136/03.08.2021. National Printing House. OECD. (2024).Education Policy Outlook 2024: Empowering All Learners for the Future. OECD Publishing. Scott, W. R. (2013).Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities(4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Skolverket. (2024).National Policy Guidance for School Governance: Mandates for Re-centralization and Equity. Swedish National Agency for Education. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014).Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools(2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper A Multidimensional Maturity Model for Higher Education Institution Eötvös Loránd University/University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Hungary Presenting Author:Quality culture has emerged as a pivotal construct in understanding and enhancing educational effectiveness and quality assurance within higher education institutions (HEIs). Yet, scholarly and policy discourse reveals persistent conceptual fragmentation and methodological ambiguity in how quality culture is defined, operationalised, and assessed. Drawing on seminal frameworks in quality assurance and organisational maturity, this paper presents a conceptual maturity model designed to capture the multiple dimensions of quality culture within HEIs. The model synthesises insights from contemporary maturity frameworks including Crosby’s Quality Management Maturity Grid (1979), Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) (Carnegie Mellon University, 2018), Bollaert’s phases of quality development in European HE (2014), Harvey and Stensaker’s quality culture orientations (2008), and the matrix architecture proposed by Verschueren et al. (2023) to produce a coherent, developmental, and contextually sensitive framework that serves both diagnostic and developmental purposes. Quality culture is conceptualised as a dual-aspect construct that interweaves formal systems (governance, policies, procedures, documentation) with symbolic cultural elements (values, trust, shared responsibility, engagement). This duality reflects the complex realities of educational institutions, where structural arrangements provide enabling architecture for quality work, and cultural dispositions shape how quality commitments are interpreted and enacted by organisational actors. The proposed model positions quality culture within a five-stage developmental continuum Initial/Ad Hoc, Emerging/Awakening, Defined/Systematic, Managed/Measured, and Optimising/Embedded — offering differentiated lenses through which institutions can understand their maturity across discrete dimensions central to quality assurance and improvement. Unlike models that treat quality culture as a single, monolithic construct, the present framework adopts a matrix logic. Drawing on Verschueren et al. (2023), it identifies multiple intersecting dimensions of quality culture such as leadership and governance, stakeholder participation, communication and trust, and evidence use and situates these within normative, strategic, and operational layers of institutional activity. This layered architecture enables institutions to recognise not only where they are on a developmental trajectory but also how specific cultural and structural domains intersect, interact, and evolve. Importantly, the model incorporates contextual contingencies that characterise educational settings: institutional context (history, mission, governance traditions), external pressures (accreditation requirements, policy environments, global rankings), and staff agency (autonomy, professional identity, collective engagement). These factors are integral to understanding how quality culture develops unevenly across domains and over time, reflecting the differentiated pressures and opportunities that HEIs encounter. By presenting the maturity model, this paper contributes to ongoing debates within quality assurance research and practice. It provides a conceptual tool that bridges existing gaps between normative policy frameworks (e.g., European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance), organisational culture theory, and practical quality management. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper adopts a conceptual and design-oriented research approach to develop a comprehensive maturity model for quality culture in higher education. The method is rooted in theoretical synthesis, integrating established frameworks and critiquing their limitations and possibilities within the specific domain of educational quality assurance. The first phase involved a systematic conceptual review of quality culture and maturity model literature across organisational studies, quality assurance, and higher education research. Key works included Crosby’s (1979) foundational maturity grid, which introduced developmental stages as narrative representations of organisational learning; the CMMI framework (Carnegie Mellon University, 2018), which articulates five levels of process capacity and improvement; Bollaert’s phases of quality development in European higher education contexts (2014); and Harvey and Stensaker’s (2008) typological analysis of quality culture orientations. These sources provided the developmental logic and analytic vocabulary for differentiating maturity states. Simultaneously, the model architecture drew direct inspiration from the matrix logic articulated by Verschueren et al. (2023). Their approach organises quality culture into multidimensional matrices distinguishing structural, human, and connective elements and emphasises “ideal type” descriptions that can be applied interpretively within institutional settings. While their structure was not adopted wholesale due to its descriptive rather than developmental emphasis, the matrix form was retained and expanded to support stage-based analysis across multiple dimensions. The second phase of the method involved theoretical integration and adaptation. This entailed aligning developmental sequences (e.g., Initial → Emerging → Defined → Managed → Optimising) with the multidimensional matrix architecture. Each stage was defined with reference to both structural characteristics (governance, policy formalisation, documentation systems) and cultural attributes (values alignment, trust, shared responsibility, stakeholder engagement). The integration was informed by organisational and higher education literature on culture, agency, and institutional change, including works by Ehlers (2009), Schein (2010), and Sattler and Sonntag (2018). A third methodological strand involved embedding contextual modifiers institutional context, external regulatory environments, and staff agency as factors that shape the trajectory and expression of quality culture within institutions. This was grounded in empirical observations from post-merger and reform-intensive HE environments where uneven cultural maturity is a common feature (Cardoso et al., 2019; Harman & Harman, 2008). The resulting model represents a conceptual tool rather than an empirical instrument. It is designed to be testable and adaptable, offering a coherent framework for future quantitative and qualitative studies that explore quality culture maturity within and across educational systems. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper proposes a maturity model that advances conceptual clarity and practical relevance in the study of quality culture in higher education. By synthesising multiple strands of theoretical and methodological insight from quality management, organisational culture, and educational quality assurance the model provides a coherent developmental framework capable of capturing the complexity and context-sensitivity of quality culture in diverse institutional settings. The model’s strength lies in its dual-aspect orientation, integrating formal structural arrangements with symbolic cultural attributes. It recognises quality culture not as a static endpoint but as an evolving constellation of organisational practices, values, and interpretations. The five-stage developmental continuum facilitates nuanced description of institutional trajectories, enabling stakeholders to identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities for strategic improvement. By adopting a matrix configuration, the model enhances diagnostic capacity. Institutions are encouraged not only to determine their overall maturity stage but to profile maturity across intersecting dimensions such as leadership, communication, stakeholder participation, and evidence use. This layered perspective supports differentiated improvement planning and reflects the organisation’s internal complexity. Importantly, the model embeds external and contextual considerations including regulatory demands, global policy influences, and internal professional agency acknowledging that quality culture both shapes and is shaped by wider educational ecosystems. This makes the model particularly suited to comparative analysis across national, regional, and institutional contexts. The conceptual maturity framework offers a substantive contribution to ongoing discourses in educational improvement and quality assurance. It provides a theoretically robust and conceptually integrative tool that can support institutional reflection, policy dialogue, and strategic planning. It also lays the groundwork for empirical research that tests and refines the model in specific contexts, contributing to a more cumulative and evidence-informed understanding of quality culture in higher education. References References Bollaert, L. (2014). Quality assurance in Europe (2005–2015): From internal and institutional to external and international. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, 3, 1–24. Carnegie Mellon University. (2018). CMMI model V2.0. CMMI Institute. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. McGraw Hill. Ehlers, U. D. (2009). Understanding quality culture. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 343–363. ENQA. (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. European University Association (EUA). (2006). Quality culture in European universities: A bottom up approach. Brussels: EUA. Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.03.003 Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture: Understandings, boundaries and linkages. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 427–442. Hildesheim, C., & Sonntag, K. (2020). The quality culture inventory: A comprehensive approach towards measuring quality culture in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 892–908. Mettler, T., & Rohner, P. (2009). Situational maturity models as instrumental artefacts for organisational design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 1–9). Sattler, C., & Sonntag, K. (2018). Quality cultures in higher education institutions—Development of the Quality Culture Inventory. In P. Meusburger, M. Heffernan, & L. Suarsana (Eds.), Geographies of the University (pp. 313–327). Springer. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organisational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey Bass. Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organisational culture and effectiveness in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 219–241. Verschueren, N., Van Dessel, J., Verslyppe, A., Schoensetters, Y., & Baelmans, M. (2023). A maturity matrix model to strengthen the quality cultures in higher education. Education Sciences, 13(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020123 | ||