以心为先:追求教育公平的制度逻辑

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ann M. Ishimaru, Mollie K. Galloway
{"title":"以心为先:追求教育公平的制度逻辑","authors":"Ann M. Ishimaru, Mollie K. Galloway","doi":"10.1177/0013161X20947459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose:Despite an explosion of professional development to help educators discuss issues of race and equity, expectations for addressing racial disparities outstrip current leadership practices, and scant empirical research exists on the organizational changes that emerge from the work of equity teams. This study examined equity teams’ theories of organizational change for equity and how those theories related to their efforts to change school policies and practices. Research Methods/Approach: Drawing on institutional logics from organizational theory, this comparative case study examined transcripts and fieldnotes from 22 meetings and 27 interviews with two school equity teams in diverse contexts in the Pacific Northwest. Findings: Despite differences in the principals, team conversations, and organizational contexts, we found that both teams’ discussions asserted a primary theory of change for shifting schools toward greater equity. According to this “commonsense” notion, efforts to become more equitable as a school first require shifts in individuals’ understandings, beliefs, and attitudes—changes to “hearts and minds”—prior to engaging in other actions to address organizational change. Ultimately, our findings suggest that the dominance of a hearts-and-minds-first theory of change constrained changes to organizational policies, structures and practices. Conclusions: Alternative theories of change to catalyze equity-focused organizational shifts hold promise for fostering educational justice. Future participatory design research with schools may yield knowledge of multiyear organizational change.","PeriodicalId":48091,"journal":{"name":"Educational Administration Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0013161X20947459","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hearts and Minds First: Institutional Logics in Pursuit of Educational Equity\",\"authors\":\"Ann M. Ishimaru, Mollie K. Galloway\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0013161X20947459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose:Despite an explosion of professional development to help educators discuss issues of race and equity, expectations for addressing racial disparities outstrip current leadership practices, and scant empirical research exists on the organizational changes that emerge from the work of equity teams. This study examined equity teams’ theories of organizational change for equity and how those theories related to their efforts to change school policies and practices. Research Methods/Approach: Drawing on institutional logics from organizational theory, this comparative case study examined transcripts and fieldnotes from 22 meetings and 27 interviews with two school equity teams in diverse contexts in the Pacific Northwest. Findings: Despite differences in the principals, team conversations, and organizational contexts, we found that both teams’ discussions asserted a primary theory of change for shifting schools toward greater equity. According to this “commonsense” notion, efforts to become more equitable as a school first require shifts in individuals’ understandings, beliefs, and attitudes—changes to “hearts and minds”—prior to engaging in other actions to address organizational change. Ultimately, our findings suggest that the dominance of a hearts-and-minds-first theory of change constrained changes to organizational policies, structures and practices. Conclusions: Alternative theories of change to catalyze equity-focused organizational shifts hold promise for fostering educational justice. Future participatory design research with schools may yield knowledge of multiyear organizational change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48091,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Administration Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0013161X20947459\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Administration Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20947459\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Administration Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20947459","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

目的:尽管帮助教育工作者讨论种族和公平问题的专业发展激增,但解决种族差异的期望超过了当前的领导实践,而且对公平团队工作中产生的组织变革缺乏实证研究。本研究考察了公平团队为公平而进行组织变革的理论,以及这些理论与他们改变学校政策和实践的努力之间的关系。研究方法/方法:本比较案例研究借鉴组织理论中的制度逻辑,研究了太平洋西北部不同背景下两个学校公平团队的22次会议和27次访谈的记录和现场笔记。研究结果:尽管校长、团队对话和组织背景存在差异,但我们发现,两个团队的讨论都提出了一个主要的变革理论,即让学校朝着更大的公平方向转变。根据这一“常识”概念,在采取其他行动应对组织变革之前,要想成为一所更公平的学校,首先需要改变个人的理解、信仰和态度——改变“心灵”。最终,我们的研究结果表明,心灵优先的变革理论的主导地位限制了组织政策、结构和实践的变革。结论:促进以公平为中心的组织变革的另类变革理论有望促进教育公平。未来与学校的参与式设计研究可能会产生多年组织变革的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hearts and Minds First: Institutional Logics in Pursuit of Educational Equity
Purpose:Despite an explosion of professional development to help educators discuss issues of race and equity, expectations for addressing racial disparities outstrip current leadership practices, and scant empirical research exists on the organizational changes that emerge from the work of equity teams. This study examined equity teams’ theories of organizational change for equity and how those theories related to their efforts to change school policies and practices. Research Methods/Approach: Drawing on institutional logics from organizational theory, this comparative case study examined transcripts and fieldnotes from 22 meetings and 27 interviews with two school equity teams in diverse contexts in the Pacific Northwest. Findings: Despite differences in the principals, team conversations, and organizational contexts, we found that both teams’ discussions asserted a primary theory of change for shifting schools toward greater equity. According to this “commonsense” notion, efforts to become more equitable as a school first require shifts in individuals’ understandings, beliefs, and attitudes—changes to “hearts and minds”—prior to engaging in other actions to address organizational change. Ultimately, our findings suggest that the dominance of a hearts-and-minds-first theory of change constrained changes to organizational policies, structures and practices. Conclusions: Alternative theories of change to catalyze equity-focused organizational shifts hold promise for fostering educational justice. Future participatory design research with schools may yield knowledge of multiyear organizational change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Administration Quarterly
Educational Administration Quarterly EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: Educational Administration Quarterly presents prominent empirical and conceptual articles focused on timely and critical leadership and policy issues of educational organizations. As an editorial team, we embrace traditional and emergent research paradigms, methods, and issues. We particularly promote the publication of rigorous and relevant scholarly work that enhances linkages among and utility for educational policy, practice, and research arenas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信