Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and diffusing research evidence

Journal of Educational Administration

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 476-497

  Daly, Alan J ^a   Finnigan, Kara S ^a,a   Che, Jing ^b  

^a University of California San Diego   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability policy; District reform; Educational administration; Research evidence; School improvement; Schools; Social network analysis; Social networks; United States of America

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992969568     PISSN: 09578234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/09578231311325668     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Anderson, T. and Shattuck, K. (2012), “Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research?”, Educational Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 16-25.
2. Argyris, C. (1999), On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
3. Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
4. Boeije, H. (2002), “A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 36, pp. 391-409.
5. Borgatti, S., Everett, M. and Freeman, L. (2002), UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA.
6. Burch, P. and Spillane, J. (2004), Leading from the Middle: Mid-level District Staff and Instructional Improvement, Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, Chicago, IL.
7. Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
8. Coburn, C.E., Toure, J. and Yamashita, M. (2009), “Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: instructional decision making at the district central office”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 1115-1161.
9. Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S.L. (2009), Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
10. Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Friedman, A. and Pine, G. (2009), “Inquiry on inquiry: practitioner research and students’ learning”, Action in Teacher Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 17-32.
11. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 128-152.
12. Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement, pp. 95-120.
13. Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
14. Cross, R., Borgatti, S. and Parker, A. (2002), “Making invisible work visible: using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration”, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 25-46.
15. Daly Alan, J. (2009), “Rigid response in an age of accountability”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 168-216.
16. Davies, H. and Nutley, S. (2008), “Using research to provide stronger services and programs for youth: a discussion paper for the William T Grant Foundation”, unpublished manuscript.
17. Duncan, A. (2011), “Winning the future with education: responsibility, reform and results”, Oral Testimony to Congress, March 9, available at: www.ed.gov/news/speeches/winning-future-education-responsibility-reform-and-results (accessed March 31, 2011).
18. Farley-Ripple, E.N. (2008), “Accountability, evidence, and school district decision-making”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
19. Finnigan, K.S. (2010), “Principal leadership and teacher motivation under high-stakes accountability policies”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 161-189.
20. Finnigan, K.S. (2012), “Principal leadership in low-performing schools: a closer look through the eyes of teachers”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 183-202.
21. Finnigan, K.S. and Gross, B. (2007), “Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 594-629.
22. Finnigan, K.S. and Stewart, T. (2009), “Leading change under pressure: an examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 586-618.
23. Fowler, F.J. (2004), “The case for more split-sample experiments in developing survey instruments”, in Presser, S., Rothgeb, J.M., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., Martin, J. and Singer, E. (Eds), Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 173-188.
24. Fullan, M. (2005), “The tri-level solution: school/district/state synergy”, Education Analyst, pp. 4-5.
25. Ghoshal, S., Korine, H. and Szulanski, G. (1994), “Interunit communication in multinational corporations”, Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 96-110.
26. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, Piscataway, NJ.
27. Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 1360-1380.
28. Granovetter, M.S. (1982), “The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited”, in Marsden, P.V., and Lin, N. (Eds), Social Structure and Network Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 105-130.
29. Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.P. (1992), “Group performance and intergroup relations”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 269-314.
30. Hansen, M.T. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
31. Hargreaves, A. and Fink, D. (2006), “The ripple effect”, Educational leadership, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 16-20.
32. Haythornthwaite, C. (2001), “Tie strength and the impact of new media”, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Maui, HI, pp. 1-10.
33. Hightower, A.M., Knapp, M.S., Marsh, J.A. and McLaughlin M.W. (Eds) (2002), School Districts and Instructional Renewal, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
34. Hite, J., Williams, E. and Baugh, S. (2005), “Multiple networks of public school administrators: an analysis of network content and structure”, International Journal on Leadership in Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 91-122.
35. Honig, M. (2006), “Street-level bureaucracy revisited: frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 357-383.
36. Honig, M.I. (2008), “District central offices as learning organizations: how sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 114 No. 4, pp. 627-664.
37. Honig, M.I. and Coburn, C. (2008), “Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: toward a policy research agenda”, Educational Policy, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 578-608.
38. Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003), “The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools”, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C. (Eds), Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools, Information Age Publishing, Washington, DC, pp. 181-207.
39. Hubbard, L., Mehan, H. and Stein, M. (2006), Reform as Learning, Routledge, New York, NY.
40. Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
41. Knapp, M.S. (2008), “How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed light on district instructional reform?”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 114 No. 4, pp. 521-539.
42. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), “What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-518.
43. Krackhardt, D. (2001), “Network conditions of organizational change”, paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
44. Landrum, T.J., Cook., B.G., Tankersley, M. and Fitzgerald, S. (2002), “Teacher perceptions of the trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility of information from different sources”, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42-48.
45. Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, pp. 319-340.
46. Lin, N. (2001), Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
47. Louis, K.S. (1999), “Making meaning of the relationship between research and policy: an epilogue”, Educational Policy, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 199-212.
48. March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
49. Marsh, J.A., Kerr, K.A., Ikemoto, G.S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R.W. and Barney, H. (2005), The Role of the District in Fostering Instructional Improvement: Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
50. McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. (2003), “Reforming districts: how districts support school reform”, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, Seattle, WA.
51. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
52. Mohrman, S., Tenkasi, R. and Mohrman, A. (2003), “The role of networks in fundamental organizational change”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 301-323.
53. Nelson, R. (1989), “The strength of strong ties: social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 377-401.
54. Nelson, S.R., Leffler, J.C. and Hansen, B.A. (2009), Toward a Research Agenda for Understanding and Improving Use of Research Evidence, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR.
55. Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Davies, H.T.O. (2003), “From knowing to doing: a framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda”, Evaluation, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 125-148.
56. Nutley, S.M., Walter, I. and Davies, H.T.O. (2007), Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services, The Policy Press, Bristol.
57. O'Day, J. (2002), “Complexity, accountability, and school improvement”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 293-329.
58. Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
59. Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Cheng, B.H. and Sabelli, N. (2011), “Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 331-337.
60. Putnam, R.D. (1993), Making Democracy Work, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
61. Putnam, R.D. (1995), “Bowling alone: America's declining social capital”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
62. Raider, H. and Krackhardt, D. (2001), “Intraorganizational networks”, in Baum, J.A.C. (Ed.), Companion to Organizations, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 58-74.
63. Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003), “Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 240-267.
64. Reagons, R. and Zuckerman, E. (2001), “Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of R&D teams”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 502-517.
65. Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
66. Scott, J. (2000), Social Network Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
67. Shkedi, A. (1998), “Teachers' attitudes towards research: a challenge for qualitative researchers”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 559-577.
68. Smylie, M.A., Wenzel, S.A. and Fendt, C.R. (2003), “The Chicago Annenberg challenge: lessons on leadership for school development”, in Murphy, J. and Datnow, A. (Eds), Leadership Lessons From Comprehensive School Reforms, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 135-158.
69. Song, S., Nerur, S. and Teng, J. (2007), “An exploratory study on the roles of network structure and knowledge processing orientation in the work unit knowledge management”, Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 8-26.
70. Spradley, J.P. (1980), Participant Observation, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
71. Stevens, J. (2002), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 4th ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
72. Stoll, L. and Louis, K.S. (2007), “Professional learning communities: elaborating new approaches”, in Stoll, L. and Louis, K.S. (Eds), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth, and Dilemmas, Open University Press, Berkshire, pp. 1-13.
73. Stuart, T.E. (1998), “Network positions and propensities to collaborate: an investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 668-698.
74. Stremmel, A. (2008), “The value of teacher research: nurturing professional and personal growth through inquiry”, Vol. 10, available at: http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/vp/ (accessed September 15, 2012).
75. Sunderman, G.L., Kim, J.S. and Orfield, G. (2005), NCLB Meets School Realities: Lessons from the Field, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
76. Tenkasi, R. and Chesmore, M. (2003), “Social networks and planned organizational change”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 281-300.
77. Togneri, W. and Anderson, S.E. (2003), Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts Can Do to Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools, Learning First Alliance, Washington, DC.
78. Tsai, W. (2000), “Social capital strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 925-939.
79. Tsai, W. (2001), “Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 996-1004.
80. Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
81. Tseng, V. (2012), “The use of research and evidence in policy and practice”, Social Policy Report, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
82. Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 35-67.
83. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1998), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
84. Weinbaum, E.H., Cole, R.P., Weiss, M.J. and Supovitz, J.A. (2008), “Going with the flow: communication and reform in high schools”, in Supovitz, J.A. and Weinbaum, E.H. (Eds), The Implementation Gap, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 68-102.
85. Weiss, C.H. (1980), “Knowledge creep and decision accretion”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 381-404.
86. Weiss, C.H. and Bucuvalas, M.J. (1980), Social Science Research and Decision-Making Social Science Research and Decision-Making, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
87. Weiss, C.H., Murphy-Graham, E. and Birkeland, S. (2005), “An alternative route to policy influence: how evaluation affect DARE”, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 12-30.
88. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
89. Zeuli, J.S. (1994), “How do teachers understand research when they read it?”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 39-55.
90. Borgatti, S. and Everett, M. (1999), “Models of core periphery structures”, Social Networks, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 375-395.
91. Borgatti, S. and Foster, P. (2003), “The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 991-1013.
92. Burt, R.S. (2000), “The network structure of social capital”, in Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-83.
93. Carley, K.M. and Hill, V. (2001), “Structural change and learning within organizations”, in Lomi, A. (Ed.), Dynamics of Organizational Societies: Models, Theories, and Methods, MIT Press/AAAI Press/Live Oak, Boston, MA, pp. 63-92.
94. Center on Education Policy (2007), What Now? Lessons From Michigan About Restructuring Schools and Next Steps Under NCLB, Author, Washington, DC.
95. Center on Education Policy (2008), Managing More Than A Thousand Remodeling Projects: School Restructuring in California, Author, Washington, DC.
96. Coburn, C.E. (2005), “The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: the case of reading instruction in California”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-52.
97. Coburn, C.E. and Russell, J.L. (2008), “District policy and teachers’ social networks”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 203-235.
98. Cross, R. and Parker, A. (2004), The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
99. Freeman, L.C. (1979), “Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification”, Social Networks, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 215-239.
100. Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
101. Granovetter, M. (1986), “The micro-structure of school desegregation”, in Prager, J. Longshore, D. and Seeman, M. (Eds), School Desegregation Research: New Directions in Situational Analysis, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 81-110.
102. Honig, M. (2004a), “The new middle management: intermediary organizations in education policy implementation”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 65-87.
103. Honig, M. (2004b), “Crafting coherence: how schools strategically manage multiple, external demands”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 16-30.
104. Horvat, E., Weininger, E. and Laureau, A. (2003), “From social ties to social capital: class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 319-351.
105. Hite, J., Williams, E., Hilton, S. and Baugh, S. (2006), “The role of administrator characteristics on perceptions of innovativeness among public school administrators”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 160-187.
106. Krackhardt, D. and Stern, R. (1988), “Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 123-140.
107. Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
108. Orfield, G., Kim, J., Sunderman, G. and Greer, B. (2004), No Child Left Behind: A Federal, State, and District Level Look At The First Year, Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
109. Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J. and Roney, C. (2006), National assessment of Title I: Interim Report, Volume I: Implementation of Title I, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, US Department of Education, Washington, DC.