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).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 15 D JS: Joint Paper Session - NW 22 and NW 26
Joint Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Feminist Leadership and Networking for Critical Research and Support for Young Scholars: A Nordic Case 1: University of Helsinki, Finland; 2: University of Umeå, Sweden; 3: Oslo Met University, Norway; 4: University of Gothenburg, Sweden Presenting Author:Abstract: Theoretic background and the aim of the paper Over the past decades, the academic landscape has undergone profound transformations with the introducing of performance management. Female and younger researchers tend to be the most critical of this model (Englund & Gerdin, 2023). Gender inequalities in career possibilities remain evident, for example in terms of pace of career advancement, workloads, positions of power, and salaries (Gruber et al., 2020; Husu, 2001; Kantola, 2008; Westoby et al., 2021). Women’s limited access to prominent research networks is one reason for this. Acker and Wagner (2017) argue that contemporary neoliberal parameters have intensified some of the difficulties of conducting research, especially feminist research that incorporates caring for the welfare of junior staff. Yet they also found ample evidence of pleasure in the work, successful outcomes, and clever, creative solutions. Few scholarly works examine academics’ resistance strategies—how they can “carve out spaces for thinking otherwise” (Archer, 2008:265). This paper takes its starting point in this dominant mode of performance management and the urgent need to create spaces where researchers are encouraged to collaborate and “think otherwise” across research content and across theoretical and methodological approaches, as well as to build academic spaces for collegial support for younger colleagues. As an example, we use the case of a former research network NordCrit (Critical Nordic Research Network on Education, Welfare, Children and Young People (2007-2014), led by us. NordCrit was initiated by the authors - four female professors from four universities in three countries, with long-standing collaboration dating back to the 1980s. The network was based on feminist leadership, solidaric collaboration and commitment to avoiding vertical hierarchy. It was created with an explicit intention to counter the dominance of managerialism and performativity in contemporary academia by relying on feminist leadership and solidaric collaboration for critical thinking and research. Bridging disciplines, research areas, and educational stages was central to our approach. We aimed to adopt a broad perspective, including research on education, welfare, children, and youth. The theoretical background drew on critical and feminist theories, as well as our earlier analyses of politics, policies, and educational processes (e.g. Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006; Arnesen, Lahelma & Öhrn, 2008). In 2007, we began working on creating a network with a dual aim: firstly, to develop critical thinking and solidarity at a time when restructuring, market orientation, and neo-liberal governance increasingly challenged European education (e.g., Robertson & Dale, 2009; Gunter, 2016). Secondly, we wanted to promote collaboration and provide support of doctoral students and postdocs in advancing their careers. Initially we used resources from our own projects but then received a grant (appr. 70 000 €) from NordForsk. A productive network of researchers and research students emerged. Members, 50-60, were predominantly doctoral students and post-docs from our own projects, vast majority female, working together on themes related to social education and social justice in education. We organized conferences, courses and symposia, and shared resources for exchange periods. We provided time for social activities and building friendships across countries. Building first on previous research on academic networks and feminist leadership in academia, and second on our own and other participants’ experiences and memories from NordCrit, we seek to illuminate what possible difference to the presently dominant research discourses and practices a collegial research network with feminist leaders may make, and to discuss the requirements for creating such an academic space. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology and outcomes: Memorizing the network For analysing the impact of NordCrit we use memories of ourselves and the earlier participants, 15 years after the project finished. We use loosely some ideas of memory work (e.g. Haug 1987) and autoethnography (e.g. Ellis & Bochner 2000). In April 2024, we asked former members to send us an email about their experiences with NordCrit. All responses (about 30, written or in discussion) were positive. Considering the open format, this cannot be taken to imply that there was nothing to criticize. However, we believe the responses are useful for outlining and discussing various positive aspects that might further the development of research networks. In the paper, we will present comments of the members, divided into the following themes: 1) Most of them mentioned the overall positive atmosphere in the network, combining academic content and informal relations in beautiful spaces. 2) The network was regarded as a safe arena for junior researchers, with metaphors such as ‘the greenhouse’. 3) The chance to experience a wider research community was appreciated. 4) Importance of feminist leadership was implicit in several comments. Moreover, there were positive comments concerning 5) the orientation and impact of research in the projects involved. The books and articles—many of them based on collaborations between junior researchers from different countries—and the several new research networks that emerged from NordCrit also testify to its fruitfulness. Also, most members still work in academia in various senior positions. NordCrit was the most important network when building a new larger Center of Excellence, JustEd 2014-2018, and merged to it. We are aware of weaknesses related to using NordCrit as a case. It is difficult to critically scrutinize a social and intellectual space that one has created and worked within. Moreover, memories may become distorted over time. There is also an obvious risk that members who were less positive towards NordCrit refrained from answering or censored critical comments. Responses might highlight what appear to be advantages of the network while saying little about its weaknesses. ¨There were problems in inclusiveness that we now are aware of. We did not critically examine our own research environments regarding support for the full diversity of junior researchers or procedures for selecting participants to join. Network participants neither included students from ethnic minorities nor students with disabilities. Furthermore, we only invited students who were already associated with projects led by our senior members, even when other candidates’ research interests aligned with our aims. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Conclusions: need of and possibilities for critical networking in contemporary time Strong academic legitimacy and shared ideals are crucial for a research team’s resilience against subordination under performative management (Englund & Gerdin, 2020). Research networks that are contract-based and driven by strategic motives rather than commitment to common goals are less likely to become sustainable over time (Kosmützky & Krücken, 2023). Led by four professors with funding for projects addressing education and social justice, NordCrit had both legitimacy and access to committed junior and senior collaborators. We believe this was essential for its sustainability and positive outcomes. So was funding for the network itself—though probably less important. We ask whether it still is possible to work like this in the current academia. The research focus within NordCrit was, from a societal and educational policy perspective, highly urgent at the time—and still is. The projects aimed to increase social justice and equality in education and in the lives of children and young people. These aims remain relevant in feminist research, whether the focus is on gender or other intersecting diversities. Addressing injustices in the structures, processes, and cultures of education was considered an urgent task then; today, this appears even more pressing. The contemporary situation offers both challenges and opportunities for researchers to form networks based on more than purely strategic and short-sighted motives. The number of established researchers willing to “go against the grain” may have decreased—but we believe they still exist and would like to support junior researchers in their teams to join a critical research network similar to NordCrit. Network funding remains available from several sources and is often easier to obtain than large research grants. Therefore, fostering diversity and working actively to include students and junior researchers from marginalized groups in research networks remains imperative. References Acker, Sandra., & Wagner, Anne. (2017). Feminist scholars working around the neoliberal university. Gender and Education, 31(1), 62–81. Archer, L. (2008) The new neoliberal subjects? Young/er academics’constructions of professional identity, Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 265-285 Arnesen, A.-L., Lahelma, E., & Öhrn, E. (2008). Travelling discourses on gender and education: the case of boys' underachievement. Nordisk Pedagogik, 28(1), 1-14. Arnesen, A., & Lundahl, L. (2006). Still Social and Democratic? Inclusive Education Policies in the Nordic Welfare States. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 285–300. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Sage. Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2020). Contesting conformity: how and why academics may oppose the conforming influences of intra-organizational performance evaluations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(5), 913–938. Englund, H. & Gerdin, J. (2023). The Neoliberal University and Its fcts on Academic Researchers – Survey Evidence from Sweden. In Benner, M., & Holmqvist, M. (Eds.). (2023). Universities in the neoliberal era: ideologies, discourses and management practices. Routledge, 86 – 109. Gruber, J., Mendle, J., Lindquist, K. A., Schmader, T., Clark, L. A., Bliss-Moreau, E., et al. (2020). The future of women in psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 483–516. Gunter, H. (Ed.). (2016). New public management and the reform of education: European lessons for policy and practice. Routledge. Haug, F. (Ed.). (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of memory. Verso. Husu, Liisa. (2001) Sexism, support and survival in academia: Academic women and hidden discrimination in Finland, Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Kantola, Johanna. (2008) ‘Why do all the women disappear?’ Gendering processes in a political science department, Gender, Work and Organization, 15(2), 202–22 Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2023). Governing Research: New Forms of Competition and Cooperation in Academia. In University collegiality and the erosion of faculty authority, 86, 31–57. Emerald Publishing Limited Robertson, Susan and Dale, Roger (eds) 2009. Globalisation & Europeanisation in Education. Oxford: Symposium Books. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Foucault, Power, and School Leadership: Ethnographic Insights from Three Bangladeshi Schools University of the West of Scotland, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Research on school improvement leadership in developing or emerging countries remains limited (Anderson and September, 2014). Most studies have been conducted in the Global North (Day, Sammons and Gurr, 2022), while comparatively little attention has been paid to leadership for school improvement in developing contexts (Moorosi, 2019). In Bangladesh, research specifically examining primary headteachers’ leadership in school improvement is particularly insufficient. Over the past two decades, the government has undertaken multiple reforms to strengthen primary education, including the Compulsory Primary Education Act (1990), the National Education Policy (2010), and successive Primary Education Development Programmes (PEDP I–IV). Despite these initiatives, significant challenges remain regarding the quality of primary education (Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2024). While access and gender parity have improved, learning outcomes continue to lag behind expectations (Mousumi and Kusakabe, 2021). Persistent constraints include poverty (Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2015), limited funding (Sarker, Wu and Hossin, 2019), overcrowded classrooms (Kundu and Chowdhury, 2022), inadequate teacher preparation (Masoom and Siddik, 2024), and weak stakeholder engagement (Kabir, Green and Chowdhury, 2020). Few studies, however, explore how headteachers understand and enact “school improvement” within these constraints, or how their everyday leadership practices shape these efforts. In Bangladesh, school improvement is operationalised through the School Level Improvement Plan (SLIP), which is developed and implemented by the headteacher in collaboration with the School Managing Committee (SMC), Parents and Teachers Association (PTA), and the local community (Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2015). Policy guidance positions headteachers as key agents of improvement, responsible for coordinating stakeholders, monitoring the quality of teaching, and ensuring accountability (Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2023). However, official documents and training manuals tend to emphasise administrative and managerial responsibilities rather than headteachers’ lived leadership experiences. For instance, the Headteachers’ Leadership Training Manual (Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2023) outlines multiple roles: teacher, supervisor, administrator, mentor, and manager, yet offers limited insight into how headteachers negotiate these overlapping expectations in everyday practice. As a result, headteachers are held accountable for improving learning outcomes while operating within tightly regulated systems characterised by resource constraints, high surveillance, and competing stakeholder demands. To examine these complexities, this paper draws on Foucault’s conceptualisation of power, particularly governmentality, disciplinary power, and the production of subjectivity (Foucault, 1977). From this perspective, leadership is understood not simply as influence or authority but as a relational and discursive practice enacted through routines, norms, and institutional mechanisms such as monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. Foucault’s framework provides a valuable lens for exploring how headteachers’ leadership for school improvement is shaped, constrained, and enabled by policy discourses and accountability structures, while also allowing attention to moments of agency, resistance, and negotiation. Using Foucauldian analysis, the study shows how headteachers’ leadership practices are influenced by disciplinary power. According to Foucault (1995), disciplinary power is a means of categorising, grouping, and normalising individuals and their behaviours. This power is often exercised through hierarchical observation, surveillance, and normalising judgment, where individuals are monitored, assessed, and judged (Gillies, 2013). Headteachers were both subjects and agents of power: they were closely monitored by education authorities while simultaneously exercising surveillance over teachers and students.
Guided by this framework, the study addresses the following research questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper adopts educational ethnography as its methodological approach (Hammersley, 2018). Ethnography was selected because it enables a detailed, contextualised understanding of leadership as it unfolds in everyday school life, rather than relying solely on participants’ retrospective accounts. While interviews and surveys are commonly used data collection tools in educational research, they are limited in their ability to capture routine practices, informal interactions, and the taken-for-granted dimensions of leadership embedded in daily school activities (Tracy, 2019). Unlike methodological approaches such as action research or other participatory designs that are oriented towards planned cycles of intervention and change, ethnography prioritises sustained observation, description, and interpretation of the complex social, relational, and cultural dynamics shaping everyday school practices (Gajardo Espinoza and Torrego Egido, 2023). Through this methodology, researchers immerse themselves in participants’ daily lives over an extended period, allowing inquiry to take place in naturalistic settings (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995; Hammersley, 2018). This immersion supports holistic, inductive, and dialogic approaches to data generation, drawing on observations, informal conversations, and documentary sources to develop a rich understanding of leadership practices as they are enacted in context (Tracy, 2019). Ethical approval for this paper was granted by the university where the research was conducted, and all research activities were carried out in accordance with established ethical guidelines. The paper employed purposive sampling to select three government primary schools in Dhaka City. Initially, fifteen headteachers were contacted, eight expressed interest, and three were selected based on clear criteria aligned with the research objectives: variation in school demographics, headteachers’ experience with SMCs, and length of leadership experience. Each participating headteacher held a master’s degree in education and had more than 10 years of leadership experience. The schools were anonymised as School A, School B, and School C. Data collection took place over five months, following an initial familiarisation visit in July 2022. The researcher acted as a participant observer, drawing on both an insider and outsider positionality as a former Bangladeshi headteacher. This positioning facilitated access and trust while also requiring ongoing reflexivity regarding the researcher’s influence on the field. Data sources included participant observation, informal conversations, field notes, and document analysis. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-phase thematic analysis, with Foucauldian concepts informing interpretation of power relations and leadership practices. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings of this paper provide nuanced insights into how Bangladeshi primary headteachers understand and enact school improvement in highly regulated, resource-limited environments. The findings revealed that school improvement extended beyond formal performance metrics or examination results to encompass maintaining discipline; monitoring teacher attendance and classroom practices; ensuring teachers are prepared, trained, and motivated; enhancing pupils’ engagement; providing a supportive learning environment; securing adequate funding and resources; and fostering constructive relationships with parents, School Management Committee members, and education officers. In relation to research question three, the findings suggest that headteachers perceive classroom monitoring as central to establishing norms within the school and exercising power in ways that encourage adherence to standards and regulations. Monitoring was viewed as a key mechanism for school improvement, with frequent oversight by headteachers increasing both teacher and student attentiveness. The paper indicates that headteachers’ direct monitoring influences behaviour even in their absence, reflecting a form of self-regulation among teachers and pupils. These practices align with Foucauldian notions of surveillance, whereby influence is maintained without the need for constant physical presence. Through such monitoring, headteachers set expectations and promote practices to improve teaching, learning, and pupils' outcomes. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by Bangladeshi primary headteachers and highlights the practical strategies they employ to navigate complex regulatory and resource constraints. By applying Foucauldian perspectives, the findings illuminate how power, monitoring, and norm-setting operate in everyday leadership practice. The paper has implications for leadership training and educational policy, underscoring the need to move beyond managerial prescriptions and to recognise the situated, relational, and context-dependent nature of school improvement work. These insights are relevant not only to researchers but also to practitioners and policymakers, as well as to future scholars seeking to analyse school leadership in primary schools in developing countries. References Anderson, S. and September, K.M. (2014) ‘School Improvement in Developing Countries.’ Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021) ‘One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), pp.328-352. Choudhury, R.K. and Rahaman, M. (2015) ‘Education for all realities, achievements and challenges. The story of Bangladesh.’ ZEP: Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Ent1icklungspädagogik, 38(2), pp.33-37. Day, C., Sammons, P. and George, K., 2022. Successful school leadership. [pdf] Education Development Trust, University of Nottingham. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. London: Penguin Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Ne1 York, NY: Vintage Books. Gajardo Espinoza, K., & Torrego-Egido, L. (2023). Dialogues, actions and discourses of a rural head teacher and an ethnographer in search of a fairer and more inclusive school. Ethnography and Education, 18(1), 75-93. Gillies, D. (2013) Educational leadership and Michel Foucault. London: Routledge. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (2015). Third Primary Education Development Program (PEDP-3) – Revised. Available: PEDP-3 Brief (Revised).pdf (portal.gov.bd) Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (2023) ‘Headteachers' Leadership Training Manual (for the trainers)’ Fourth Primary Education Development Program (PEDP- 4), Directorate of Primary Education, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (2024). Annual Primary School Census (APSC). Hammersley, M. (2018) ‘1hat is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it?’. Ethnography and Education, 13(1), pp.1-17. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice 2 nd edn. London: Routledge. Kabir, F., Green, R. and Chowdhury, K., (2020) ‘Primary Education In Bangladesh: A Critical Analysis of The Role of Head Teacher Securing Quality Primary School.’ IJARIIE-ISSN(O)- 2395-4396, 6(2). Kundu, N. and Chowdhury, A.I. (2022) ‘Factors Affecting Quality of Universal Primary Education in Bangladesh: Evidence from Cumilla.’ The Jahangirnagar Revie1: Part II: Social Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2022 ISSN 1682-7422 Masoom, M.R. and Siddik, I.A. (2024) ‘Beyond the classroom: structural and qualitative challenges in Bangladesh's primary education.’ Research on Preschool and Primary Education, pp.38-49. Mousumi, M.A. and Kusakabe, T. (2021) ‘School education system in Bangladesh.’ In Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia (pp. 443-477). Singapore: Springer Singapore. Sarker, M.N.I., Wu, M. and Hossin, M.A. (2019) ‘Economic effect of school dropout in Bangladesh.’ International journal of information and education technology, 9(2), pp.136-142. Tracy, S.J. (2019) Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John 1iley & Sons. | ||