Session Information
26 SES 13 A, Results Resourses and Multicultural Societies
Paper Session
Contribution
At the beginning of the millennium, Bennett, Wise, Wood, et al. (2003) pointed out two gaps in distributed leadership research: the failure to conceptualise distributed leadership and the failure to provide robust empirical evidence of its application.
In answer to the first research gap, Tian, Risku and Collin (2015) in their meta-analysis reviewed 85 distributed leadership studies published between 2002 and 2013. One key finding of the meta-analysis is the resource––agency duality model of distributed leadership. Traditionally, school leadership work is often perceived as a synonym for administration. As a result, only school administrators with formal leadership positions have participated in leadership work (Murphy, Smylie, Mayrowetz & Louis, 2009). Distributed leadership, however, challenges this traditional perception by re-defining leadership as a process (Tian, et al., 2015). By nature, leadership as a process allows a wide participation of school members in all layers of the hierarchy.
Tian et al. (2015) further define distributed leadership from two perspectives. The organisational perspective sees leadership as a resource and the individual perspective as an agency. Seeing leadership as a resource has a two-fold meaning. First, it admits that both actors (e.g. principal, teacher leaders, teachers, students) and artefacts (e.g. timetable, budget, student test score, educational policies) are valuable resources for school daily operations. Second, it advocates that the interactions among actors and between actors and artefacts may produce meaningful new resources for the school sustainable development. Seeing leadership as an agency also comprises two aspects. First, it entails organisational members’ will to use their professional knowledge and judgment at work (Eteläpelto, et al. 2013). Second, it refers to the opportunities that an organisation provides to its members to practise their professional expertise (Ci, 2011; Caldwell, 2007). The resource––agency duality is analytically separate, but in practice both dimensions are closely intertwined. This model serves as the analytical framework for the present study.
In addition to the meta-analysis, a mixed-method research was conducted to meet the second research gap identified by Bennet et al. (2003). That is to provide robust empirical evidence of distributed leadership’s application. This study was done both in Shanghai and Finland. In this presentation the focus will be on distributed leadership in the Finnish school context. During the past decade, Finnish education has been globally benchmarked due to its continuous success in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). As one of the most high-performing education systems in Europe, the contemporary Finnish education system has been built upon two core values. First, it believes that excellence derives from equity not competition. Second, it believes that efficiency is consolidated through trust instead of supervision. These two core values seem to match the fundamental ideology of distributed leadership. As earlier studies pointed out, equity and trust are two favourable conditions to nurture distributed leadership (Jing, 2010; Murphy, et al., 2009; Oduro, 2004). In practice, many Finnish schools have subscribed to distributed leadership. Nonetheless, very few studies have directly examined distributed leadership in the Finnish context. Using the resource––agency duality model, the present study raised three research questions. What are the most significant leadership resources in Finnish schools? How do Finnish principals, teacher leaders and teachers practise their professional agency? What are the organisational and individual factors that enhance and constrain distributed leadership in the Finnish context? This is what this presentation aims at answering.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bennett N, Wise C, Woods PA, et al. (2003) Distributed Leadership: A Desk Study. Nottingham: NCSL. Caldwell R (2007) Agency and change: Re-evaluating Foucault’s legacy. Organization 14(6): 769–791. Ci J (2011) Evaluating agency: A fundamental question for social and political philosophy. Metaphilosophy. 42(3): 261–281. Eteläpelto A, Vähäsantanen K, Hökkä P, et al. (2013) What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review 10: 45–65. Jing WL (2010) School leadership in two countries: Shared leadership in American and Chinese high schools. Dissertation, Arizona State University. 1–178. Murphy J, Mayrowetz D, Smylie M, et al. (2009) The role of the principal in fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership & Management 29(2): 181–214. Oduro GKT (2004) Distributed leadership in schools. Education Journal 80: 23–25. OECD (2001) Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD. OECD (2004) Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD OECD (2007) PISA 2006. Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Vol. 1. Paris: OECD OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Vol. I. Paris: OECD. OECD (2013) PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Vol. I. Paris: OECD. Tian M, Risku M, Collin K (2015) A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership: 1–19.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.