Leadership Distribution in Schools. E vidences from Social Network Analysis Presenting author:

1. Leadership Distribution in Schools. Evidences from Social Network Analysis • Presenting author: • JuliánLópez-Yáñez / lopezya@us.es • ECER 2013 - Istambul Faculty of Education Universidad de Sevilla (Spain)

2. Theoretical framework • Key role of leadership in school improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Harris & Muijs, 2005) • Leadership is in a great extent distributed (Gronn, 2000; Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2009) • Leadership distribution related to knowledge distribution • It develops in communities of practice (Wenger, 1998; Engeström, 2000) • From bureaucracies to self-organised communication networks (Wheatley, 1998; Hargreaves & Fink, 2009)

3. Inquiring leadership through social network analysis • Inquiring communication patterns in communities of practice • principals centrality in 20 primary schools in California (Friedkin & Slater, 1994) • leadership distribution in portuguese secondary schools’ departments (De Lima, 2008) • great variety of leadership distribution patterns (Gronn, 2003a; Spillane, 2006; Leithwood et al, 2007; Harris, 2008; Anderson, Moore and Sun, 2009; Leithwood et al, 2009a; MacBeath, 2009; Mascall et al., 2009; Spillane et al, 2009)

4. Advantages of social network analysis • Distinguishing centralised / de-centralised networks • Intuitive information through graphic representation: knots, stars, bridges, clusters, etc. • Looking for networks of topics instead of individuals: CCO perspective (Comunication Constitutes Oganization) (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen & Clark, 2011) meets Luhmann’s (1995, 2003) social systems’ theory

5. The context: leadership in Spanish schools • Leadership is distributed according to school structure • It does not mean that always is well distributed • A management team in charge: • principal: general issues • deputy principal: academic issues • secretary: bureaucratic issues • heads of departments (secondary schools) • cycle coordinators (primary schools) • advising department • informal leaders

6. Part of a wider inquiry • The need of mixed methods to research on leadership • First stage (39 schools): • daily log • social networks analysis • Second stage (10 schools): • shadowing • in depth interviews • observation of meetings (rhetorical discourse analysis)

7. Instrument • School social network questionnaire (CURSO) • Inspired in that from Pitts y Spillane (2009) used with Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) • Participants were asked about relationships had in the present course in four fields: • INSTRUCTIONAL. Regarding teaching and learning: planning, methodology, resources, evaluation, etc. • MANAGEMENT. Regarding school organization, staff management, budget, administration, school information platform, etc. • SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. Regarding discipline, relationships in the classroom, with parents, staff, etc. • PERSONAL. Referred to problems not related to the professional field.

8. Methodology • Analysis trough UCINET IV and NETDRAW (Borgatti, Everett & Freeman, 1992) • Network density. Refers to connectivity (direct or mediated) and cohesiveness • high density networks: high cohesiveness / resistance to innovations  intentional & planned leadership distribution? • low density networks: low cohesiveness / prone to adopt innovations  emergent, ad hoc leadership distribution? • Centrality measures: • centrality degree: direct relationships (outdegree / indegree) • closeness: distance average from each actor to the rest. Refers to participation / involvement • betweenness: capacity to link multiple actors

9. Procedure • Schools participants in the project: 39 primary and secondary; two provinces of Southern Spain • 15 out of the 39 schools primarily accepted to participate in the questionnaire for social network analysis • The complete staff list was asked in order to be introduced in the questionnaire (the problem of name generation in SNA) • We have learnt that the researcher’s presence is crucial • Only 4 out of the 15 schools provided data suitable for analysis

10. Schools participants

11. Results. Networks’ density • Social networks’ densitiesbyschools / questions

12. Results. The role of the principalship team in leadership distribution • Core role / Distributed leadership: Juan de la Cosa school (instruction sphere) • P7 Principal • P15 Deputy Principal • P5 Secretary

13. Results. The role of the principalshipteam in leadership distribution • Core role / Concentrated leadership: Juan de la Cosa school (management sphere) • P7 Principal • P15 Deputy Principal • P5 Secretary

14. Results. The role of the principalshipteam in leadership distribution • Peripheral role / Highly distributed leadership: Paulo Freire school (instruction sphere) • P11 Principal • P12 Deputy Principal • P13 Secretary

15. Results. The role of the principalshipteam in leadership distribution • Peripheral role / Highly distributed leadership: Paulo Freire school (management sphere) • P11 Principal • P12 Deputy Principal • P13 Secretary

16. Results. Formal leaders’ position in San Sebastián school 1/4 • Question 1. Instruction • P25 Principal • P13 Deputy Principal • P11 Secretary

17. Results. Formal leaders’ position in San Sebastián school 2/4 • Question 2. Management • P25 Principal • P13 Deputy Principal • P11 Secretary

18. Results. Formal leaders’ position in San Sebastián school 3/4 • Question 3. Social relationships • P25 Principal • P13 Deputy Principal • P11 Secretary

19. Results. Formal leaders’ position in San Sebastián school 4/4 • Question 4. Personal • P25 Principal • P13 Deputy Principal • P11 Secretary

20. Results. Centrality meassures in Cinco Fuentes school 1/4 • Question 1 - Instruction network • P1 Principal • P5 Deputy Principal • P16 Secretary

21. Results. Centrality meassures in Cinco Fuentes school 2/4 • Centrality degree • Question 1. Instruction • Question 2. Management • P1 Principal / P5 Deputy Principal / P16 Secretary

22. Results. Centrality meassures in Cinco Fuentes school 3/4 • Closeness centrality • Question 1. Instruction • Question 2. Management • P1 Principal / P5 Deputy Principal / P16 Secretary

23. Results. Centrality meassures in Cinco Fuentes school 4/4 • Betweness • Question 1. Instruction • Question 2. Management • P1 Principal / P5 Deputy Principal / P16 Secretary

24. Conclusions • Instructional networks present the highest density in the four schools. Personal networks, the lowest. • Principalship teams tend to play a core role in the analysed schools, both in focused and distributed patterns of leadership. • The role of the principalship team varies according to the nature of the network (instruction, management, social relationships, personal) • Centrality measures draw an accurate in-depth regard on the role played by the leaders, both formal and informal ones.

25. Selected references 1/2 • Anderson, S.E., Moore, S. y Sun, J. (2009) Positioning the principals in patterns of school leadership distribution. En Leithwood, K., Mascall, B. Y Strauss, T. Distributed leadership according to the evidence, pp. 111-136. New York: Routledge. • Bakkenes, I., De Brabander, C. and Imants, J. (1999) Teacher Isolation and Communication Network Analysis in Primary Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2) 166-202. • Blaschke, S., Schoeneborn, D., & Seidl, D. (2012) Organizations as Networks of Communication Episodes: Turning the Network Perspective Inside Out. Organizations Studies, 33(7) 879-906. • Borgatti, S., Everett, M., and Freeman, L. (1992). UCINET IV Version 1.0 Reference Manual. Columbia: Analitic Technologies. • Cooren, F., Kuhn, T. R., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing, and organization: An overview and introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. • De Lima, J. (2008). Department networks and distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management, 28(2), 159-187. • Freeman, L. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239. • Freeman, L., Borgatti, S., & White, D. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13, 141-154. • Friedkin, N.E. and Slater, M.R. (1994) School leadership and performance: A social network approach. Sociology of Education, 67 (2) 139. • Gronn, P. (2000) Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3) 317-338. • Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451.

26. Selected references 2/2 • Hanneman, R.A. and Riddle, M.  (2005). Introduction to social network methods.  Riverside, CA:  University of California, Riverside (published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/) • Harris, A. (2009) (Ed.) Distributed leadership. Different perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. • Hatcher, R. (2005) The distribution of leadership and power in school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 253-267. • Jewson, N. (2007) Cultivating network analysis. Rethinking the concept of ‘community’ within ‘communities of practice’. En E.A. Samier and M. Schmidt. Trust and betrayal in educational administration and leadership, pp. 68-82. New York: Routledge. • MacBeath, J. (2009) Distributed leadership. Paradigms, policy, and paradox. En Leithwood, K., Mascall, B. y Strauss, T. Distributed leadership according to the evidence, pp. 41-57. New York: Routledge. • Monge, P., and Eisenberg, E. (1987). Emergent communication networks. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.) Handbook of organizational communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. • Muijs, D., West, M. and Ainscow, M. (2010) Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1) 5-26. • Pitts, V.M. y Spillane, J.P. (2009) Using social network methods to study school leadership. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(2) 185–207. • Scott, J. (2000) Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage. • Spillane, J.P. (2006) Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. • Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R y Diamond, J. (2004) Theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of CurriculumnStudies, 36 (1) 3-34. • Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.