不顾逻辑?探索校长制度逻辑的多重网络路径

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
E. Bridwell-Mitchell, Maxwell M. Yurkofsky
{"title":"不顾逻辑?探索校长制度逻辑的多重网络路径","authors":"E. Bridwell-Mitchell, Maxwell M. Yurkofsky","doi":"10.1177/0013161X231156874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The increasing complexity of principals’ roles, including focusing both on learning outcomes and equity issues, requires having the flexibility to view novel problems through multiple lenses. In this article, we draw on institutional theory and social network research to understand the factors enabling and constraining the cognitive repertoire principals draw on when solving problems. Methods: The data come from a field simulation of how 52 principals respond to and seek advice for two problem scenarios. Along with principals’ personal and school characteristics, we examine how the characteristics of principals’ professional networks are related to their problem-solving and reliance on institutional logics. Findings: Some imprecision in the model estimates notwithstanding, in this exploratory study intended to illuminate potential patterns for study in future research. We find evidence that principals draw on four institutional logics when solving problems: democratic and family logics, bureaucratic logics, professional logics, and market logics. Principals’ reliance on these institutional logics appears to be related to the closeness of the colleagues in their advice networks as well as the nature of the problem they are solving. Implications: One key contribution is to research is to reveal the subtlety of the social sensemaking involved in interpreting and taking action in institutional environments. The results also highlight which network characteristics might help principals respond more flexibly to new and complex problems in institutional contexts, such as racial equity.","PeriodicalId":48091,"journal":{"name":"Educational Administration Quarterly","volume":"59 1","pages":"306 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defying Logic? Exploring the Multiple Network Pathways for Principals’ Institutional Logics\",\"authors\":\"E. Bridwell-Mitchell, Maxwell M. Yurkofsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0013161X231156874\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: The increasing complexity of principals’ roles, including focusing both on learning outcomes and equity issues, requires having the flexibility to view novel problems through multiple lenses. In this article, we draw on institutional theory and social network research to understand the factors enabling and constraining the cognitive repertoire principals draw on when solving problems. Methods: The data come from a field simulation of how 52 principals respond to and seek advice for two problem scenarios. Along with principals’ personal and school characteristics, we examine how the characteristics of principals’ professional networks are related to their problem-solving and reliance on institutional logics. Findings: Some imprecision in the model estimates notwithstanding, in this exploratory study intended to illuminate potential patterns for study in future research. We find evidence that principals draw on four institutional logics when solving problems: democratic and family logics, bureaucratic logics, professional logics, and market logics. Principals’ reliance on these institutional logics appears to be related to the closeness of the colleagues in their advice networks as well as the nature of the problem they are solving. Implications: One key contribution is to research is to reveal the subtlety of the social sensemaking involved in interpreting and taking action in institutional environments. The results also highlight which network characteristics might help principals respond more flexibly to new and complex problems in institutional contexts, such as racial equity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48091,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Administration Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"306 - 338\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Administration Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231156874\",\"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/10.1177/0013161X231156874","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: 0

摘要

目的:校长的角色越来越复杂,包括关注学习成果和公平问题,这就要求校长能够灵活地从多个角度看待新问题。在本文中,我们利用制度理论和社会网络研究来了解在解决问题时所使用的认知库的促成和制约因素。方法:数据来自52名校长如何回应和寻求建议的两个问题场景的现场模拟。除了校长的个人和学校特征外,我们还研究了校长的专业网络特征与他们解决问题和依赖制度逻辑的关系。研究结果:尽管模型估计存在一些不精确之处,但本探索性研究旨在阐明未来研究的潜在模式。我们发现证据表明,校长在解决问题时采用了四种制度逻辑:民主和家庭逻辑、官僚逻辑、专业逻辑和市场逻辑。校长对这些制度逻辑的依赖似乎与他们的咨询网络中同事的亲密关系以及他们正在解决的问题的性质有关。研究的一个关键贡献是揭示了在制度环境中解释和采取行动所涉及的社会意义的微妙之处。研究结果还强调了哪些网络特征可能有助于校长更灵活地应对制度背景下的新问题和复杂问题,例如种族平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Defying Logic? Exploring the Multiple Network Pathways for Principals’ Institutional Logics
Purpose: The increasing complexity of principals’ roles, including focusing both on learning outcomes and equity issues, requires having the flexibility to view novel problems through multiple lenses. In this article, we draw on institutional theory and social network research to understand the factors enabling and constraining the cognitive repertoire principals draw on when solving problems. Methods: The data come from a field simulation of how 52 principals respond to and seek advice for two problem scenarios. Along with principals’ personal and school characteristics, we examine how the characteristics of principals’ professional networks are related to their problem-solving and reliance on institutional logics. Findings: Some imprecision in the model estimates notwithstanding, in this exploratory study intended to illuminate potential patterns for study in future research. We find evidence that principals draw on four institutional logics when solving problems: democratic and family logics, bureaucratic logics, professional logics, and market logics. Principals’ reliance on these institutional logics appears to be related to the closeness of the colleagues in their advice networks as well as the nature of the problem they are solving. Implications: One key contribution is to research is to reveal the subtlety of the social sensemaking involved in interpreting and taking action in institutional environments. The results also highlight which network characteristics might help principals respond more flexibly to new and complex problems in institutional contexts, such as racial equity.
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