Conference Agenda

Distributed leadership has been widely promoted in international educational leadership literature as a democratic alternative to hierarchical and bureaucratic leadership models. By emphasizing shared responsibility, participation, and collaboration, it is often assumed to foster democratic practices in schools. However, empirical evidence regarding whether distributed leadership consistently produces democratic outcomes remains mixed, particularly across different national and organizational contexts. This study addresses this gap by asking the following research question: Under what conditions does distributed leadership contribute to democracy in schools?

Conceptually, the study approaches distributed leadership not as a universally democratic leadership model but as a conditional leadership practice whose outcomes depend on social-psychological and contextual factors. Drawing on distributed leadership theory (e.g., Gronn; Spillane) and democratic organizational perspectives, organizational democracy is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing participation, accountability, fairness, and transparency in school decision-making processes. Teacher voice is theorized as a key mechanism through which distributed leadership may translate into democratic practices.

The study further integrates psychological safety as a critical enabling condition shaping whether teacher voice can be enacted meaningfully. Psychological safety refers to shared beliefs that individuals can express ideas, concerns, and criticisms without fear of negative consequences. In the absence of psychological safety, leadership distribution may remain symbolic, limiting teachers’ willingness to engage in democratic participation.

Empirically, the study examines (a) the direct relationship between distributed leadership and organizational democracy, (b) the mediating role of teacher voice, and (c) the moderating and moderated mediation role of psychological safety. The research is situated in Turkey, a highly centralized and high power-distance education system, offering a critical case for examining the limits and conditions of distributed leadership.

From a European and international perspective, the study contributes to debates on the transferability of leadership models across contexts. While distributed leadership is widely endorsed in European policy discourse, its democratic potential cannot be assumed to operate uniformly across governance systems and cultural settings. By highlighting the pivotal role of psychological safety, this study invites international audiences to reconsider leadership reforms that focus solely on structural participation without addressing relational and cultural conditions necessary for democratic school practices.

Traditional conceptions of school leadership are increasingly giving way to inclusive models grounded in collective expertise and shared responsibility rather than individual-centred approaches (Hsieh et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2022). This shift has brought the concepts of Distributed Leadership (DL) and Teacher Leadership (TL), which promote collaborative decision-making processes, to the forefront of educational administration (Harris & Jones, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2021). At the theoretical level, DL offers a systemic framework in which leadership is shared among diverse school stakeholders, whereas TL represents a more targeted approach that foregrounds teachers’ active roles and professional expertise within these processes. However, the literature reveals persistent ambiguity regarding how these two concepts are operationalised and how they influence one another, indicating an ongoing need for greater theoretical clarity.

The central debate in this line of research concerns the direction of the interaction between these two paradigms. The dominant view suggests that teacher leadership is more likely to emerge in schools where distributed leadership structures are already established (Liu, 2021; Pan & Chen, 2024). In contrast, alternative perspectives argue that TL may function as a catalyst, initiating a culture of distributed leadership through bottom-up processes (Torrance & Humes, 2015). Some empirical findings further indicate that this relationship is not always seamless, highlighting that administrative demands may, at times, constrain teacher leadership practices (Holloway et al., 2018). Collectively, these perspectives strengthen the argument that TL is not merely a derivative of DL but rather an independent paradigm characterised by professional autonomy and the capacity to foster sustainable shared leadership in schools.

In order to address these conceptual ambiguities, the present study adopts a scoping review methodology as proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). This approach is particularly well suited to mapping the existing knowledge base by integrating qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies within the field of educational leadership.

The primary aim of the study is to systematically examine how the literature conceptualises the relationship between DL and TL, with particular attention to the direction of this relationship and the contextual factors that shape it. The findings are expected to provide a theoretical framework that may guide school leaders in developing leadership capacity while supporting teachers’ leadership roles beyond the classroom. By synthesising existing research, the study seeks to clarify the nature of the interaction between these two leadership models in educational settings. Accordingly, the study addresses the following research questions:

1. How is the body of research on the relationship between DL and TL in K–12 education distributed over time and across geographical regions?
2. What are the dominant methodological trends in studies examining the relationship between DL and TL?
3. According to the literature, how do power dynamics, representation, and collaboration between formal and informal leaders influence the relationship between DL and TL in school settings?
4. What are the moderating variables that affect the relationship between DL and TL?

One of the highest priorities across American, European and international education systems, is the improvement of public schools (Wronowski et al., 2022), where school improvement has been understood as a process of building rather than the adoption of individual leadership (Day & Sammons, 2016). Recent literature has emphasized leadership as a social practice enacted through interactions among faculty and staff, routines, and organizational structures (Spillane et al., 2001). Within this perspective, coaching and collaborative observations have gained prominence as learning-oriented approaches to leadership development (Huff et al., 2013), particularly in contexts that prioritize professional autonomy, trust, and school-self-evaluation. Although, the impact that principals have on school improvement is indirect (Zuckerman & O’Shea, 2021), among all other school related factors, leadership is second to only classroom instruction (Leithwood et al., 2004) therefore, the investment in improving principal leadership matters (Grissom et al., 2021). Over the past decade the role of the principal has become multifaced, requiring an array of skills, knowledge, and expertise (Duncan & Stock, 2010). Research suggest that principals need to be equipped to implement the reforms needed that lead to sustained school improvement. School leaders need support and professional development tailored to help ensure they can meet the unique demands and realities of the school they lead (Fullen, 2002; Sackney & Wallace Foundation, 2006, Walter, 2006; Woods et al., 2009).

This study is grounded from a Distributed Leadership perspective (Spillance, J., 2006), one of the most prominent contemporary leadership theories in education (Hairon, S., & Goh, J., 2015). The assumption is that managing schools can involve multiple individuals (Spillane, et al., 2008) which looks at leadership as an activity rather than a role and is stretched across people, tools, and routines (Spillane et al., 2001). It is suggested that instructional leadership is most effective when leadership is distributed across formal leaders and embedded in daily practice (e.g. coaching, walkthrough). Effective school leaders need to be able to create a collegial environment and coaching in those specific areas (Duncan & Stock, 2010) is a beginning.

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to examine how leadership team coaching and structured walkthrough practices influence leadership behaviors, instructional focus, and collaborative practices within a school.

This study addresses three research questions

1. How does participation in leadership team coaching and walkthrough practices influence instructional leadership within a treatment school?
2. How do school leaders describe the impact of coaching on their leadership capacity and decision-making?
3. In what ways do leadership teams' walkthroughs shape shared instructional expectations and feedback practices?

Responding to ECCRs theme: Knowing and Acting: The Changing Conditions and Potential of Education Research, this study highlights how leadership team coaching reflects a shift from individualized leadership towards distributed and collective forms of leadership. It highlights the potential of education research to be developmental, formative, and improvement-oriented rather than detached from practice. Through coaching conversations and walkthrough feedback, the study demonstrates how qualitative, embedded research can strengthen professional learning and support school improvement.

Teacher innovation is widely recognised as a key driver of instructional quality and sustainable school improvement. (UNESCO, 2021; OECD, 2013) Innovative teaching behaviours—such as experimenting with new pedagogical approaches, adapting instruction to diverse student needs, and engaging in reflective practice—have been conceptualised as a form of innovative work behaviour embedded in teachers’ everyday professional activities and closely linked to their motivation and sense of agency (Klaeijsen, Vermeulen, & Martens, 2018).

Within this context, teacher evaluation represents a salient organisational practice that shapes teachers’ motivational experiences and professional learning environments.(Shanker et al., 2017), against this backdrop, a growing body of research has increasingly shifted attention from evaluation as a purely technical or control-oriented instrument toward teachers’ active involvement in evaluation processes, highlighting participation as a potential lever for professional learning and innovation. Although recent studies have begun to acknowledge the value of teacher participation in evaluation processes, two limitations remain prominent. First, teacher participation is often treated as a unidimensional construct, obscuring qualitative differences between forms of participation. Second, insufficient attention has been paid to the psychological mechanisms through which participatory evaluation practices influence teachers’ instructional behaviour.

To address these gaps, this study integrates Participatory Evaluation Theory with Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to examine how teacher participation in evaluation relates to teaching innovation through the satisfaction of basic psychological needs.

From a participatory evaluation perspective, meaningful stakeholder involvement enhances evaluation relevance, ownership, and utilisation (Cousins & Earl, 1992; Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). Although participatory evaluation theories differ in emphasis on participation’s domains and depth, they commonly highlight engagement in both decision-making and operational processes (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998).In school contexts, empirical studies suggest that teacher participation—particularly when perceived as meaningful in decision-making processes—may enhance professional agency and ownership, while more procedural forms of participation can be experienced as less influential (Brezicha et al., 2020).

Building on this literature, teacher participation in evaluation is conceptualised as a multidimensional construct comprising two forms: participation in evaluation decision-making, referring to teachers’ involvement in defining evaluation goals, criteria, and standards; and participation in evaluation implementation, referring to engagement in self-evaluation, peer feedback, and reflective practices. These forms differ in the degree of influence and autonomy afforded to teachers and are therefore expected to activate distinct psychological processes.

Guided by SDT, this study conceptualises participatory evaluation practices as motivational contexts that shape teachers’ experiences of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When evaluation is perceived as autonomy-supportive and relationally meaningful, teachers’ basic psychological needs are more likely to be satisfied, fostering self-determined motivation and proactive engagement in innovative teaching behaviours (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, & Rosen, 2016).

Consistent with SDT’s universalistic assumptions, this study treats autonomy, competence, and relatedness as fundamental psychological needs that transcend cultural contexts, providing a theoretically robust framework for international comparison.

Based on these theoretical considerations, the study addresses the following research questions:
(1) How do different forms of teacher participation in evaluation relate to teaching innovation?
(2) Does basic psychological need satisfaction mediate the relationship between teacher participation in evaluation and teaching innovation?
(3) Do participation in evaluation decision-making and participation in evaluation implementation operate through different psychological pathways?
(4) Do these relationships vary across teacher and school contexts, such as teaching experience and school performance level?

By empirically integrating participatory evaluation theory with SDT, this study aims to advance understanding of how evaluation systems can support teacher innovation, with implications extending beyond the national context of the study.