约束、价值与资讯:一个地区的领导人如何在教学决策中证明他们的立场

IF 3.5 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Alice Huguet, C. Coburn, Caitlin C. Farrell, Debbie H. Kim, Anna-Ruth Allen
{"title":"约束、价值与资讯:一个地区的领导人如何在教学决策中证明他们的立场","authors":"Alice Huguet, C. Coburn, Caitlin C. Farrell, Debbie H. Kim, Anna-Ruth Allen","doi":"10.3102/0002831221993824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using over 350 hours of observational data from district-level meetings, we investigate how leaders support their interpretations of problems and proposed solutions during closed-door negotiations around three policy decisions, and how they invoke race, class, and language in the process. District leaders primarily cite constraints from stakeholders, practical realities, and policies during deliberations. They also draw on beliefs, values, and—to a lesser extent—information like research and data. Race, class, and language discourses were layered with values-based reasons, and most often addressed structural challenges to equity. The balance of attention to these factors depended on the configuration of participants and the nature of the policy decision itself, particularly decision makers’ perception that it would be controversial among certain groups.","PeriodicalId":48375,"journal":{"name":"American Educational Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constraints, Values, and Information: How Leaders in One District Justify Their Positions During Instructional Decision Making\",\"authors\":\"Alice Huguet, C. Coburn, Caitlin C. Farrell, Debbie H. Kim, Anna-Ruth Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/0002831221993824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using over 350 hours of observational data from district-level meetings, we investigate how leaders support their interpretations of problems and proposed solutions during closed-door negotiations around three policy decisions, and how they invoke race, class, and language in the process. District leaders primarily cite constraints from stakeholders, practical realities, and policies during deliberations. They also draw on beliefs, values, and—to a lesser extent—information like research and data. Race, class, and language discourses were layered with values-based reasons, and most often addressed structural challenges to equity. The balance of attention to these factors depended on the configuration of participants and the nature of the policy decision itself, particularly decision makers’ perception that it would be controversial among certain groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Educational Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Educational Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831221993824\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"American Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831221993824","RegionNum":1,"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: 7

摘要

利用350多个小时的地区级会议观察数据,我们调查了领导人在围绕三项政策决定的闭门谈判中如何支持他们对问题的解释和提出的解决方案,以及他们在此过程中如何引用种族、阶级和语言。地区领导人在审议期间主要引用来自利益相关者、实际现实和政策的限制。他们还会利用信仰、价值观,以及(在较小程度上)研究和数据等信息。种族、阶级和语言话语都是基于价值观的原因分层的,最常见的是针对公平的结构性挑战。对这些因素的注意的平衡取决于参与者的构成和政策决定本身的性质,特别是决策者认为它将在某些群体中引起争议的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constraints, Values, and Information: How Leaders in One District Justify Their Positions During Instructional Decision Making
Using over 350 hours of observational data from district-level meetings, we investigate how leaders support their interpretations of problems and proposed solutions during closed-door negotiations around three policy decisions, and how they invoke race, class, and language in the process. District leaders primarily cite constraints from stakeholders, practical realities, and policies during deliberations. They also draw on beliefs, values, and—to a lesser extent—information like research and data. Race, class, and language discourses were layered with values-based reasons, and most often addressed structural challenges to equity. The balance of attention to these factors depended on the configuration of participants and the nature of the policy decision itself, particularly decision makers’ perception that it would be controversial among certain groups.
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
American Educational Research Journal
American Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) is the flagship journal of the American Educational Research Association, featuring articles that advance the empirical, theoretical, and methodological understanding of education and learning. It publishes original peer-reviewed analyses that span the field of education research across all subfields and disciplines and all levels of analysis. It also encourages submissions across all levels of education throughout the life span and all forms of learning. AERJ welcomes submissions of the highest quality, reflecting a wide range of perspectives, topics, contexts, and methods, including interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work.
×
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