Search

In most of the Western world, high expectations of educational leadership exist. School leaders are regarded as important actors in the implementation of reforms, which are occurring at an increasing pace. Furthermore, they are regarded as professionals who can make judgments on behalf of their pupils, teachers, and schools. However, becoming a school leader is an underexposed process that typically involves a departure from one's previous professional identity as a teacher. In this article, we study this process by analysing qualitative interviews that were conducted with three school leaders in the Danish primary public school (Folkeskole): a young member, a middle-aged member, and a senior member. Our point of departure is Bourdieu's theory of habitus, as well as narrative theory. We find that all school leaders construct professional identities in continuation of their teacher identities but that these differ along the lines of what we refer to as professional leaders and leaders of the profession.

In this paper we argue that transnational as well as national political demands and expectations on the educational field are contributing to (re)produce four ideological-based educational leadership discourses in the literature. In order to conceptualize these discourses, we turn to the work of Schmidt ("Diagnosis I--Filosoferende eksperimenter". Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, 1999, "On respect". Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, 2011) and Zizek ("Mapping ideology". Verso, New York, 2000, "The sublime object of ideology". Verso, New York, 2008a). On that basis we identify four dominant educational leadership discourses: (a) a personhood-based discourse, (b) a profession-based discourse, (c) a standard-based discourse, and (d) a resource-based discourse. These discourses have--as we will show--various consequences for the way we "think" and "talk" about education and educational leadership in our age. Using examples that stem from a project about educational leadership in Danish upper secondary school, we will illustrate how educational leaders' "beings" and "doings" are "regulated" by these discourses, which place them in a tension field where different and conflicting (ideological) fantasies seem to be played out. Then, we will discuss how these fantasies can be challenged and how we can think and speak more intellectually about education and educational leadership. By using the term "intellectual" we are referring to educational leaders' ability as human beings to critically reflect on their contemporary doings and beings within and beyond the existing social order. Hopefully this can help them (and us) to establish new ways for discussing not only what educational leadership is and should be about, but also what it could be about.

The context of this study is the Danish upper secondary school, which has undergone remarkable changes during the past ten years. Cross-disciplinary activities have been introduced as a teaching principle in order to create new skills for future generations in the knowledge society, while team organization among teachers has become obligatory in order to ensure collaboration regarding a new era of student learning. The reform has been widely discussed among teachers and in the public media as well. Our research shows that the majority of teachers support the idea of teamwork, but also that there are differences in teachers' attitudes due to the diversity of interpretations of what constitutes good teaching and learning or what we call didactical values. We consider this an important discovery because it reveals that there is much resistance towards teamwork in the heterogeneous ways teachers understand their role as teacher. In this paper, we use data from a longitudinal study carried out in 2006-2009 to show that, in times of radical reforms such as the present, conflicts may be intensified exactly because of different didactical positions among teachers and between teachers and leaders in terms of how to create a viable connection between new structures and new teacher culture with the didactical values and practices that go along with them.

Scholars across disciplines increasingly hear calls for more open and collaborative approaches to scientific research. The concept of Open Innovation in Science (OIS) provides a framework that integrates dispersed research efforts aiming to understand the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of applying open and collaborative research practices. While the OIS framework has already been taken up by science of science scholars, its conceptual underpinnings require further specification. In this essay, we critically examine the OIS concept and bring to light two key aspects: 1) how OIS builds upon Open Innovation (OI) research by adopting its attention to boundary-crossing knowledge flows and by adapting other concepts developed and researched in OI to the science context, as exemplified by two OIS cases in the area of research funding; 2) how OIS conceptualises knowledge flows across boundaries. While OI typically focuses on well-defined organisational boundaries, we argue that blurry and even invisible boundaries between communities of practice may more strongly constrain flows of knowledge related to openness and collaboration in science. Given the uptake of this concept, this essay brings needed clarity to the meaning of OIS, which has no particular normative orientation towards a close coupling between science and industry. We end by outlining the essay's contributions to OI and the science of science, as well as to science practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Educational research is often criticized for its lack of impact on practice and policy. In this paper, we discuss different approaches to the application of educational research and criticize some of the existing positions for missing the point, namely that the context of interaction between researchers and practitioners is closely connected to trustworthiness and dissemination of results. Particularly, we criticize the linear model and focus on the political context of educational research instead. This is exemplified and discussed by presenting a self-reflective case about comprehensive reforms in the Danish secondary school, which illustrates possible problems in research communication with teachers in an era of reform. (Contains 1 figure.)

Openness and collaboration in scientific research are attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. However, a common understanding of these phenomena is hindered by disciplinary boundaries and disconnected research streams. We link dispersed knowledge on Open Innovation, Open Science, and related concepts such as Responsible Research and Innovation by proposing a unifying Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework. This framework captures the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of open and collaborative practices along the entire process of generating and disseminating scientific insights and translating them into innovation. Moreover, it elucidates individual-, team-, organisation-, field-, and society‐level factors shaping OIS practices. To conceptualise the framework, we employed a collaborative approach involving 47 scholars from multiple disciplines, highlighting both tensions and commonalities between existing approaches. The OIS Research Framework thus serves as a basis for future research, informs policy discussions, and provides guidance to scientists and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]