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, 20:15:20 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 05 C: Leadership Preparation & Professional Development (Part 2)
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Principal Education as Continuous Professional Learning in Finland and Sweden 1: University of Lapland, Faculty of education; 2: University of Jyväskylä, Institute of Educational Leadership; 3: Umea University, Centre for Principal Development at the department of Political sciences Presenting Author:Principal education has traditionally been understood as a means of ensuring formal eligibility and managerial competence. However, growing complexity in school leadership has shifted attention toward how principals learn across their careers and how education systems support leadership development beyond initial qualification (Hanhimäki et al., 2024). This study addresses this shift by examining principal education as continuous professional learning in two Nordic contexts: Finland and Sweden. The paper explores how principal education programmes conceptualise school leadership as a learning process embedded in wider educational systems. The starting assumption is that continuous professional learning requires both cultural practices—such as reflection, mentoring, and professional networks—and structural arrangements, including clearly articulated learning pathways and system-level responsibilities. While Finland and Sweden share a strong commitment to lifelong learning, they differ in how learning beyond qualification is organised and governed. In Finland, principals’ continuous professional learning after initial qualification is largely supported through trust-based governance, professional culture, and locally organised initiatives. Participation in formal development activities is encouraged but only loosely regulated at the system level, placing significant responsibility on local authorities and individual principals. In Sweden, post-qualification learning is more strongly embedded in employer responsibility, leadership development structures, and performance-related expectations, making participation a more normative and system-coordinated part of principals’ professional roles. The contrast does not lie in the existence of professional learning, but in how responsibility, coordination, and structure are allocated. In summary, the meaning of cultural and structural frameworks needs to be considered because the educational policy context has both similarities and differences in Finland and Sweden (e.g. Johansson & Ärlestig, 2021; Hanhimäki & Risku, 2021). The guiding research questions are:
The analysis is organised around three interrelated themes. First, we examine how becoming a principal is framed as a learning trajectory—either as a one-off qualification or as a longer-term professional pathway. Second, we analyse responsibility for learning, focusing on how principals’ professional development is positioned in relation to individual agency, employers, universities, and national systems. Third, we consider how comparison itself functions as a developmental tool, not as competition, but as a reflective mirror that reveals strengths, blind spots, and opportunities for mutual learning. Theoretically, the study draws perspectives on leadership-as-practice, continuous professional learning, and system-oriented educational leadership (e.g. Gunter 2017, Hanhimäki et al, 2024, Moos 2016). These lenses enable analysis of how leadership learning is framed not only as individual competence development, but as a system-level process shaped by governance, professional culture, and institutional responsibility. The comparative Nordic focus provides a strong European dimension, addressing shared challenges related to leadership sustainability, professional learning, and system coherence across education systems Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs qualitative comparative document analysis (e.g. Bowen, 2009; Bray, Adamson, & Mason, 2014) in its initial phase. The data consist of publicly available materials related to principal education in Finland and Sweden, including programme descriptions, curricula, competence frameworks, and national or institutional policy documents guiding leadership development. Documents are selected to represent both initial qualification and post-qualification learning opportunities, allowing analysis of how continuous professional learning is conceptualised across career stages. The analysis follows a common analytical framework applied to both national contexts. Documents are coded using shared prompts focusing on: (1) leadership identity and learning trajectories, (2) responsibility and governance of professional learning, and (3) system-level coordination and support. Country-specific analytical memos are produced and then synthesised through cross-case comparison. This enables identification of shared logics as well as meaningful differences in how learning pathways are structured, justified, and governed. The document-based approach is appropriate for mapping underlying assumptions and frameworks, particularly in a comparative context where policy and programme texts play a central role in shaping professional learning. This phase of the study is conceptual and exploratory, establishing a foundation for potential later empirical extensions, such as interviews with programme leaders or surveys of participating principals. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to show that principal education in both Finland and Sweden is grounded in a shared Nordic commitment to research-informed leadership and lifelong learning, while differing in how continuous professional learning is organised and governed. Early analysis suggests that policy and programme documents in Finland and Sweden may articulate continuous professional learning through different combinations of trust-based practices, local initiative, system-level coordination, and employer responsibility, reflecting distinct system logics rather than fixed national models. By making these differences visible, the study highlights key developmental tensions between cultural and structural approaches to leadership learning, between professional autonomy and system responsibility, and between individual initiative and organisational coordination. Rather than identifying a single best model, the comparison demonstrates how different system logics shape what counts as legitimate and supported professional learning for principals. The findings contribute to European debates on sustainable leadership development by offering a way to conceptualise continuous professional learning as a system-embedded process rather than solely an individual endeavour. The paper also provides a foundation for further Nordic collaboration in principal education development, offering conceptual tools for designing learning pathways that support long-term leadership careers, professional well-being, and system coherence. References Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2014). Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Springer. Gunter, H. M. (2016). An intellectual history of school leadership practice and research. Bloomsbury. Hanhimäki, E. et al. (2024). Towards a Multi-form Professional Development of Educational Leadership. In: Ahtiainen, R., Hanhimäki, E., Leinonen, J., Risku, M., Smeds-Nylund, AS. (eds) Leadership in Educational Contexts in Finland. Educational Governance Research, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37604-7_4 Hanhimäki, E., Risku, M. (2021). The Cultural and Social Foundations of Ethical Educational Leadership in Finland. In: Normand, R., Moos, L., Liu, M., Tulowitzki, P. (eds) The Cultural and Social Foundations of Educational Leadership. Educational Governance Research, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74497-7_5 Johansson, O., Ärlestig, H. (2021). Culture, Structure and Leadership in Sweden: National Accountability and Local Trust. In: Normand, R., Moos, L., Liu, M., Tulowitzki, P. (eds) The Cultural and Social Foundations of Educational Leadership. Educational Governance Research, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74497-7_3 Moos, L. (2017). Trust and control in educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(1), 1–16 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Shaping Future Principals: Programme Leaders’ Sensemaking and Policy Enactment in Sweden’s National Principal Training Programme 1: Mid Sweden University, Sweden; 2: Umeå University, Sweden Presenting Author:Across education systems, principal preparation has become a key arena for shaping how school leadership is understood, practised, and governed (Bush, 2018; Woods et al., 2023; Young & Crow, 2016). Sweden offers a distinctive case through its government-initiated National Principal Training Programme (NPTP), mandatory for all newly appointed principals and delivered by contracted universities. National follow-ups report consistently high participant satisfaction and perceived relevance (Skolverket, 2024), and previous research demonstrates programme-related shifts in leadership practice and organisational routines (Forssten Seiser & Söderström, 2021, 2022). However, far less is known about how the programme itself is governed and led at the meso level, that is, how university-based programme leaders interpret national intentions, navigate competing expectations, and decide what knowledge is prioritised in principal preparation. This study addresses this gap by examining how the seven National Principal Training Programme Leaders (NPTP Leaders)—one at each contracted university—navigate, make sense of, and lead a long-standing commissioned programme situated at the intersection of state governance and academic autonomy. In Sweden’s multi-level governance system, principals are positioned as key policy interpreters, balancing national mandates with local education authority (LEA) demands under increasingly complex accountability conditions (SOU 2015:22; Jerdborg, 2022). Principal preparation is therefore expected not only to provide theoretical and practical knowledge, but also to develop principals’ capacity for sensemaking and enactment in complex governance environments (Bush, 2018; Young & Crow, 2016). Within this architecture, NPTP Leaders occupy a pivotal mediating position: they translate national goal documents into educational design, coordinate staff and curriculum, and engage in recurrent dialogue with the Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE), thereby shaping how principalship is defined and taught. The study is guided by three research questions:
The theoretical framework combines policy enactment and sensemaking. From a policy enactment perspective, policy is not implemented linearly but interpreted, negotiated, and reshaped through practice, where actors’ stances and institutional conditions shape what becomes foregrounded or marginalised (Ball et al., 2011; Braun et al., 2011). Sensemaking highlights how actors construct meaning and act under ambiguity (Weick, 1995), and foregrounds the micropolitical character of leadership work within multi-level governance contexts (Gunnulfsen, 2024). Together, these perspectives enable analysis of how NPTP Leaders’ interpretations and enactments contribute to sustaining coherence while also shaping programme priorities under institutional constraints. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs a qualitative single-case study design (Yin, 2014), with the Swedish NPTP as the case. A purposive sampling strategy included all seven NPTP Leaders directly responsible for leading and developing the programme across Sweden (Miles et al., 2020). Data were generated through semi-structured digital interviews conducted in spring 2024. The interview guide focused on (a) understandings of principals’ roles and mission, (b) perceptions of the NPTP today and in the future, and (c) the NPTP Leaders’ leadership responsibilities and their relationships to SNAE and the university. Analysis followed an iterative process inspired by Miles et al. (2020). First, both authors conducted repeated readings and analytic memo-writing to identify emerging patterns. Second, coding focused on dominant themes related to principalship, programme priorities, and leadership work. Third, preliminary findings were shared with participants through member dialogue to enhance credibility and reflexivity, which was particularly important given the authors’ prior experience within the NPTP context. The study followed national ethical guidelines for research (Vetenskapsrådet, 2024). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings indicate that NPTP Leaders enact their leadership primarily as mediating work: translating a nationally prescribed goal document into coherent educational design within specific university contexts, while safeguarding programme quality and alignment with SNAE requirements. Three interrelated findings stand out. First, NPTP Leaders describe principalship as increasingly complex, characterised by tensions between national mandates and LEA demands. Administrative and legal responsibilities are perceived to crowd out pedagogical leadership, producing a persistent gap between the ideal of instructional leadership and everyday leadership practice. Second, the NPTP is described as strong in integrating theory and practice through case-based pedagogies, reflection, and collegial learning. However, the breadth of the national goal document and the heterogeneity of participants raise questions about coherence, depth, and what knowledge should remain generic versus what may require differentiated pathways or complementary provision. Third, while NPTP Leaders identify areas that warrant stronger emphasis (e.g. student health, crisis management, sustainability, technological change), their overall orientation is towards stability and incremental adjustment aligned with the existing goal document. There is limited evidence of collective, coordinated efforts to influence national programme directions, despite acknowledgement that principals’ work has changed substantially over time. This suggests that enactment is shaped by institutional constraints within a commissioned governance structure where SNAE retains interpretative precedence regarding programme content and structure. The study contributes empirically by foregrounding programme leaders as meso-level policy actors in principal preparation, and theoretically by demonstrating how sensemaking and enactment produce a dynamic of stability-through-mediation in a national, university-based programme. References Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: Some necessary but insufficient analyses. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 611–624. Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585–596. Bush, T. (2018). Preparation and induction for school principals: Global perspectives. Management in Education, 32(2), 66–71. Forssten Seiser, A., & Söderström, Å. (2022). The impact of the Swedish National Principal Training Programme on principals’ leadership and the structuration process of school organisations. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 7(4), 826–859. Forssten Seiser, A., & Söderström, Å. (2021). Rektorer i utbildning – drivkrafter för ett lärande i samspel [Principals in education: Drivers of learning in interaction]. Högre utbildning, 11(1), 79–92. Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2024). School leadership and micro-policymaking in schools: Time use and the collective care for the self. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 27(2), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1854867 Jerdborg, S. (2022). Learning principalship: Becoming a principal in a Swedish context: A study of principals in education and practice. Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE. SOU 2015:22. Rektor och styrkedjan. Fritzes. Vetenskapsrådet. (2024). God forskningssed. Vetenskapsrådet. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE. Woods, P., Roberts, A., Tian, M., & Youngs, H. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook on leadership in education. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-on-leadership-in-education-9781800880412.html Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE. Young, M. D., & Crow, G. M. (2016). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (2nd ed.). Routledge. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Study of Site-Based School Leader Coaching as a Strategy for Contextualized Leadership Development and School Improvement University of Pennsylvania, United States of America Presenting Author:Objective: School leaders have long been considered key agents of school improvement and have demonstrated positive impacts on a host of school-based outcomes, including faculty development, instructional improvement, and student wellbeing and achievement (Grissom et al., 2021; Supovitz et al., 2010; Wise & Jacobo, 2010). Given the potential returns of highly-skilled school leaders, professional development interventions aimed at building leader capacity are increasingly common. Leadership coaching is a particularly individualized and impactful form of this intervention. Due to their positional isolation in schools, leaders can uniquely benefit from leadership coaching (Wise, 2010). Leadership coaching, where school leaders are assigned a non-supervisorial coach to support improvements in both their individual and organizational practices, is increasingly viewed as a valuable form of ongoing leader professional development (Goff et al., 2014; Wise, 2010; Wise & Jacobo, 2010). Both researchers and practitioners concur that the coaching relationship is crucial for coaching effectiveness (Huff et al., 2013; Pandolfi, 2020). Elements like trust (Ebrahimi, 2024), collaboration (Houchens et al., 2017), and effective dialogue (Lofthouse, 2019) are demonstrated characteristics of effective coaching. Less research has examined the dynamics of the coach-leader relationship over time. This study examines the focus and relationships that developed over the first year of a two-year school leader coaching program in a large, urban school district in the United States. The study investigates the nuances of coach-leader relationships, including the complexities and progressions in the collaborative goal-setting process and coaching session structure. By analyzing coach and leader interviews during the first year of a two-year principal leadership program, this study examines the evolution in coaching sessions over time, how both coaches and leaders contribute to these meetings, and how the school context impacts these meetings. Theoretical Framework: Coaching is a relationship-driven process that provides intentional support for working towards goals and enacting meaningful change (Ebrahimi, 2024; Grover & Furnham, 2016; Lofthouse, 2019). Many models of coaching support clients with both individual and organizational development (Ebrahimi, 2024; Grover & Furnham, 2016) and include collaborative goal setting, reflection, and mutual trust between the coach and client (Ebrahimi, 2024; Houchens et al., 2017; Huff et al., 2013; Lofthouse, 2019; Pandolfi, 2020; Goff et al., 2014; Wise & Jacobo, 2010). Within leadership coaching, coaches responsively vary their strategies and roles to best address their client’s needs (Bloom et al., 2005). Coaches work with clients as consultants, counselors, collaborators, facilitators, instructors, or peers, offering insider and outsider perspectives (Bloom et al., 2005; Sime & Jacob, 2018). Research Questions: Drawing from school leader perspectives and experiences, this study builds an understanding of the substance of coach-leader improvement efforts and how their relationships evolve over time. Specifically, this study asks:
. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Analytical Framework: This qualitative study uses Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to examine how participants perceive and make sense of their experiences (Smith, 2008). Rather than removing coach-client relationships from their context, this phenomenological study emphasizes the school settings, rooting the perspectives and experiences of participants in their environment, and considering the unique complexities of schools in the analysis. IPA further assumes an existing relationship between an individual’s verbal accounts and their cognitions and emotions (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Data Sources and Instruments: District leadership coaching specialists met individually with assigned school leaders approximately twice monthly from late October 2024 to May 2025 as part of a two-year leadership improvement initiative with a cohort of 24 school leaders. From a stratified sample of 10 leaders and their coaches (n=6), we interviewed the participants separately three times across the year (November, February, May). This design was intended to capture details of their most recent coaching session to capture as much detail about the session as possible, akin to experience sampling (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987). This study is based on the 27 interviews with a sample of 10 principals. Seven of the 10 principals fully participated, while we were unable to complete interviews with three principals in the spring of 2025. The sample was based on the characteristics of both the principals and schools, and included one high school principal, 3 small K-8 public school principals, 3 principals from large K-8 public schools, and three principals from charter or faith-based schools. Data Analysis: To address the research questions, we analyzed the transcripts of the interviews in three stages. First, we read through the interviews to identify the areas which the principals talked about the details of the most recent meeting with their coach. Often, but not always, the principals described the meeting contents chronologically. At times, principals went off to a different topic in their responses and circled back to add new or additional details about the meetings contents when responding to other questions. Second, we used an inductive approach to identify categories and themes within the discussions of the meeting content. Third, we reread the transcripts and coded them for the specific evidence to support the identified categories and themes, at times adjusting the themes to fit the data. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis produced five categories of meeting content. First, leaders and coaches worked on developing their relationship, which were chronicled in just under two-thirds of the meetings. As expected, this aspect was particularly prevalent in the first and second meetings we captured. Second, there were a small set of meetings dominated by critical situations that required immediate attention, which provided the leader and coach an opportunity to debrief on a shared situation. Third, we found that the most common topics of meetings were about organizational management, which were routine or non-routine leadership efforts that kept the school functioning smoothly. Fourth, particularly in the winter and spring meetings, leaders and coaches were working in improvement activities that focused on planning and/or enacting substantial changes to part or all of the school’s systems and/or culture to contribute to school progress. Fifth, across the year there were times when the leaders and coaches discussed the leaders’ personal development and well-being. The results include both examples and short vignettes that illustrate examples from each of the five categories described above. Conclusions/Implications: The paper concludes with a discussion of four emergent themes that hypothesize the unique implications of site-based coaching for leader development. These include that site-based coaching reduces the isolation of school leaders; that site-based coaching helps to address the problems of practice that school leaders face in their everyday work; that site-based coaching encourages leaders to engage in improvement in addition to refining school management, and; that site based coaching shortens the distance of learning transfer due to the timely nature of feedback and reflection. Future research will seek to understand how the findings from this study of coach-leader dynamics impact leader outcomes, including retention, wellbeing, and professional and personal growth. References Bloom, G., Castagna, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended Coaching: Skills and Strategies to Support Principal Development. Corwin Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and Reliability of the Experience-Sampling Method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), p 526-536. Ebrahimi, M. (2024). The Pulse of Connection: Trust and Confidentiality in Internal Coaching Dynamics. Journal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5590/jsbhs.2024.18.1.22 Goff, P., Guthrie, J. E., Goldring, E., & Bickman, L. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 682–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2013-0113 Grissom, J., Egalite, A., & Lindsay, C. (2021). How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research [Research Report]. The Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis Grover, S., & Furnham, A. (2016). Coaching as a Developmental Intervention in Organisations: A Systematic Review of Its Effectiveness and the Mechanisms Underlying It. PLOS ONE, 11(7), e0159137. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159137 Houchens, G. W., Stewart, T. A., & Jennings, S. (2017). Enhancing instructional leadership through collaborative coaching: A multi-case study. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-07-2016-0057 Huff, J., Preston, C., & Goldring, E. (2013). Implementation of a Coaching Program for School Principals: Evaluating Coaches’ Strategies and the Results. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213485467 Lofthouse, R. (2019). Coaching in education: A professional development process in formation. Professional Development in Education, 45(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1529611 Pandolfi, C. (2020). Active ingredients in executive coaching: A systematic literature review. International Coaching Psychology Review, 15(2), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.6 Sime, C., & Jacob, Y. (2018). Crossing the line? A qualitative exploration of ICF master certified: Coaches’ perception of roles, borders and boundaries. International Coaching Psychology Review, 13(2), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsicpr.2018.13.2.46 Smith, J. (2008). Qualitative Psychology – A Practical Guide to Research Methods (2nd Ed.). London: Sage. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 51–80). Sage Publications, Inc. Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How Principals and Peers Influence Teaching and Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353043 Wise, D. (2010). School leadership coaching: What does it look like. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 5(1), 1-6. Wise, D., & Jacobo, A. (2010). Towards a framework for leadership coaching. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663206 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Measuring What Matters: Methodological Innovation in Educational Leadership Mentoring Research Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Presenting Author:This paper examines the methodological conditions and possibilities of educational leadership research through a mixed-methods study of formal mentoring for principals in Ireland. It focuses on the first application of the Berk et al. (2005) Mentorship Effectiveness Scale (MES) to both mentors and mentees, raising critical questions about how standardised measurement tools shape what becomes knowable, visible, and actionable in education research. Responding directly to the ECER theme, the study engages with the tension between metric-driven approaches to knowing and more relational, context-sensitive forms of knowledge. The study is theoretically grounded in Kram's (1983) model of mentoring functions and phases, encompassing career development and psychosocial support, and draws on Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) to interpret how principals' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness shape mentoring engagement. Rather than rejecting standardised measurement, the research critically interrogates how such tools operate alongside these relational and motivational dimensions. The study adopted an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design that deliberately prioritised qualitative understanding before quantitative measurement. The research began with qualitative interviews with 14 participants (seven newly appointed and seven experienced principals) involved in Oide's national mentoring programme for school leaders, delivered through Ireland's Department of Education and Youth. These interviews foregrounded the lived experience of mentoring, highlighting relational complexity, emotional labour, time constraints, and boundary management, dimensions frequently under-theorised in leadership mentoring research (Crow & Grogan, 2017; Haddock-Millar, 2017). Participants described mentoring not only as a professional support mechanism but as emotionally demanding relational work, with mentor engagement shaped significantly by emotional memories of early professional isolation. Insights from this qualitative phase informed the adaptation of the MES, originally designed exclusively for mentees, for use with mentors. The adapted instrument was subsequently administered to 28 post-primary principals, generating quantitative data across twelve relational and developmental dimensions of mentoring. This dual-perspective design revealed important divergences between mentor and mentee perceptions that would have remained obscured using a mentee-only or purely qualitative approach. Differences emerged around accessibility, time demands, and relational effort: while mentees frequently reported feeling supported, mentors described significant challenges in sustaining availability alongside competing leadership responsibilities. Gendered patterns also emerged, with female leaders rating mentoring effectiveness more highly across relational and psychosocial dimensions, consistent with existing research (Ragins & Kram, 2007; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). This illustrates how standardised scales can capture patterned differences while simultaneously obscuring the contextual conditions that produce them. The paper argues that this methodological architecture exemplifies both the promise and the limits of transposing validated instruments across professional fields, national contexts, and participant roles, a challenge directly relevant to international educational leadership contexts where formal mentoring for school leaders is increasingly recognised as essential to principalship quality (Sun et al., 2024; Karakose et al., 2025). By integrating qualitative and quantitative phases through four complementary functions: initiation, development, complementarity, and triangulation (Greene et al., 1989), the study moves beyond what either strand could yield in isolation. This allows researchers to draw on the legitimacy of validated scales while maintaining the contextual sensitivity and interpretive depth that educational research demands. The paper demonstrates how the use of quantitative measurement tools in mentoring research shapes how educational leadership is understood, supported, and sustained. The findings illustrate how reliance on standardised scales can risk simplifying complex leadership work if such data are interpreted without attention to context. The study contends that quantitative scales, while valuable for informing system-level understanding and policy decision-making, must be used reflexively and in dialogue with qualitative evidence if they are to support leadership development in ways that are sustainable, ethically grounded, and responsive to the lived conditions of educational leadership. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts a pragmatist–interpretive paradigm (Shannon-Baker, 2016), treating mentoring as a dynamic, relational, and context-sensitive practice that warrants both narrative depth and empirical pattern recognition. An exploratory sequential design was employed, in which qualitative findings guided the development of the subsequent quantitative instrument, ensuring conceptual continuity across phases (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The qualitative phase involved purposive sampling of 14 post-primary principals, seven mentors and seven mentees, drawn from a range of school types and career stages. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022), with initial inductive coding followed by iterative theme development. Kram’s (1983) phase model and Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) served as sensitising theoretical frameworks during interpretation, enabling attention to how principals’ psychological needs, emotional memories of professional isolation, and motivational orientations shaped their mentoring experiences. Qualitative themes directly informed the adaptation of the MES for mentor self-assessment and the design of supplementary custom impact items. Internal consistency of the adapted scale was strong across both cohorts (mentees: α=.88; mentors: α=.751), confirming suitability for comparative analysis within established thresholds for twelve-item scales (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests were employed to identify statistically significant divergences in mentor and mentee perceptions. Integration was guided by Greene et al.’s (1989) typology, employing four of the five integration functions: initiation, complementarity, triangulation, and development. This was a recursive, iterative process rather than a single analytical stage. Qualitative findings informed survey construction; quantitative analysis confirmed consistency across themes while also introducing new variations and dimensions; and a final recursive interpretive phase re-employed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) to synthesise insights across both data strands, enabling a more nuanced and holistic account of the emotional, relational, structural, and developmental dimensions of mentoring in educational leadership. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study advances understanding of how measurement practices shape what is known, valued, and acted upon in educational leadership research and policy. In particular, measurement enables the identification of patterns across mentoring relationships that are directly relevant to leadership development and sustainability. At the same time, the study highlights that measurement is not a neutral act of knowing. What measurement tools prioritise and render visible influences how mentoring is interpreted and how policy responses are shaped. Used in isolation, standardised indicators risk elevating certain forms of knowing while overshadowing others, particularly the emotional and relational labour involved in mentoring. For example, while quantitative indicators may suggest mentoring effectiveness from the mentee perspective, they may simultaneously obscure the strain experienced by mentors in sustaining relational support alongside intensifying leadership responsibilities. These findings underscore the importance of using measurement reflexively and in dialogue with qualitative evidence. When embedded within mixed-methods designs, quantitative tools can support more contextually informed decision-making, enabling research to inform policy without over-determining it. From an educational leadership perspective, the study suggests that how mentoring is measured has significant implications for leadership sustainability. Policies informed solely by positive outcome indicators may underestimate the conditions required to sustain mentoring at scale. By contrast, measurement approaches that attend to both benefits and demands can contribute to more realistic, equitable, and sustainable leadership development strategies. Overall, the study contributes to ECER debates on knowing and acting by demonstrating how responsible use of measurement can strengthen the capacity of education research to serve the public good in complex and changing contexts. References Berk, R. A., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., & Yeo, T. P. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200501000-00017 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. Crow, G. M., & Grogan, M. (2017). Mentoring in educational leadership for organizational transformation. In D. Clutterbuck, F. K. Kochan, L. G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 436–450). SAGE Publications. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163620 Haddock-Millar, J. (2017). Critical issues in mentoring research. In D. Clutterbuck, F. K. Kochan, L. G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 52–66). SAGE Publications. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 Karakose, T., Gurr, D., Tülübaş, T., & Kanadlı, S. (2025). What factors mediate the relationship between leadership for learning and teacher professional development? Evidence from meta-analytic structural equation modelling. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 54(3), 907–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241308461 Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625. Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice. SAGE Publications. Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861 Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 365–390. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100322 Sun, J., Day, C., Zhang, R., Zhang, H., Huang, T., & Lin, J. (2024). Successful school principalship: A meta-synthesis of 20 years of international case studies. Education Sciences, 14(9), 929. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090929 Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd | ||