Research topic/aim 

Previous research has shown (Eilard, 2022) how the School Inspectorate´s use of sanctions underscores the purpose of accountability and turns up “the voice of the state” in the governing chain. It has also affected the way principals and superintendents govern. However, which strategies or patterns of action principals use to handle contradictory demands is not really explored, especially in relation to other local governing actors. The focus in this study is to explore principals’ and superintendents’ strategies and discretionary power (Karseth & Møller, 2020) in relation to the national governing system.

Theoretical framework

The study draws on theories about institutional crowding (Blomgren & Waks, 2015), which implies that different institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012) fight for principals’ and other local actors’ attention as schools are increasingly in processes of marketization and juridification (Novak, 2018).This affects the local governing of schools, and inspection accentuates these contradictory institutional demands. Principals’ choice of strategies after an inspection including judicial sanctions, therefore induce several relevant questions.

Jacobsson och Svensson (2017) developed a model for analyzing principals´ and other local actors’strategies and discretionary power when handling post-inspection demands. Four relevant action categories were identified; adaption, prioritizing, de-coupling and negotiation. The model can be complemented by further one category; resistance (Lundquist, 1998).

Methodology/research design

The study reanalyses interview data from a previous study (Eilard, 2022) were principals, superintendents and local chairs were interviewed during the inspection process that ended up in the use of juridical sanctions and therefore enhanced institutional crowding. Using Jakobsson and Svensson’s (2017) model for analysis, the local governing actors’ strategies following an inspection order can be explored on school level (principal) as well as on the level of governing body (superintendent and political district chair).

Expected results/findings

Analyses are not finished yet, but further knowledge about which strategies principals´ and governing bodies´ use under institutional pressure and their discretionary power will be developed.Relevance to Nordic educational researchThis type of changes in governance systems have been made in all Nordic countries, albeit different in scope and manner, challenging central core values that has been typical för Nordic school systems.

References

Blomgren, M., & Waks, C. (2015). Profession och politiska reformer. I S. Lindblad & L. Lundahl (Red.), Utbildning: Makt och politik (ss. 21-39). Studentlitteratur.

Eilard, H. (2022). Styrning av skolan genom statliga sanktioner: Verkningar för rektorn av den skärpta tillsynen (Publication Number 2022:5) [Doctoral thesis, monograph, Karlstads universitet]. DiVA. Karlstad. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-89112

Jacobsson, B., & Svensson, J. (2017). Rektorer. Om konsten att hantera motstridiga krav. Studentlitteratur.

Karseth, B., & Møller, J. (2020). Legal regulation and professional discretion in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(2), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1531918

Lundquist, L. (1998). Demokratins väktare: Ämbetsmännen och vårt offentliga etos. Studentlitteratur.

Novak, J. (2018). Juridification of Educational Spheres: The Case of Swedish School Inspection. [Doktorsavhandling]. Uppsala universitet.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective : a new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford University Press.