Session Information
23 SES 13 A, Interpreting and Enacting Reform: National and Local
Paper Session
Contribution
Improvement and development have been leading concepts in texts and discussions about schools in recent years (Fullan, 2001; Leithwood et al., 2006). A research project financed by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) in 2009-2011, a policy called the “Development Dialogue” is analysed. The dialogue was initiated by MSU (Myndigheten för skolutveckling, in English: the National Agency for School Improvement) with the objective to initiate, inspire, support and strengthen local school improvement initiatives by means of personal contacts in “dialogues” between MSU and the people responsible for school activities in the municipalities (MSU 2006; 2008). The empirical data in this study are official texts produced in connection with the dialogues between MSU and the municipalities, along with interviews carried out with representatives of MSU and municipality officials, school leaders, teachers and students concerning their involvement in the dialogues. In this study, narrative perspectives are used in order to reflect upon the ways in which different stories are produced, the characters who act in these stories and what they perform in the various contexts.
If we accept that the state has a desire to intervene in school development and an interest in developing school activities in a certain direction, and at the same time wishes to open up for the possibility for the players to become part of the process in a direction that is locally adapted, these dialogues highlight a dilemma that may be described as balancing between, for example ‘hard or soft control’, or ‘top-down or bottom-up control’ with reference to “big stories” (Bamberg, 2006; Georgakopoulou, 2006). On the one hand, school improvement is a government requirement, and on the other hand it should be based on the local needs and desires expressed by the parties involved, primarily teachers and school leaders (MSU 2006, 2008). However, more than two positions are produced in this process.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bamberg, Michael (2006). Stories: Big or Small. Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry 16:1, 139-147. Czarniawska, Barbara (2008). Narratives in Social Science Research. London; SAGE Publications. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London: Teachers College Press: RoutledgeFalmer. Gabriel, Yiannis (2000). Organizations. Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies. New York: Oxford University Press. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16:1, 122-130. Kohler Riessman, Catherine (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. London; SAGE Publications. Leithwood, K., Robert A., & Doris J. (2006). Making schools smarter: leading with evidence. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press. MSU (2006). Myndigheten för skolutveckling. National school development – for enhanced knowledge and better results. Report no 16. Stockholm: The Swedish National Agency for School Improvement. MSU (2008). Myndigheten för skolutveckling. Utvecklingsdialog för skolutveckling – metod och förhållningssätt. Stockholm: Myndigheten för skolutveckling.
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.