Defying Logic? Exploring the Multiple Network Pathways for Principals’ Institutional Logics

Abstract

Purpose: The increasing complexity of principals’ roles, including focusing both on learning outcomes and equity issues, requires having the flexibility to view novel problems through multiple lenses. In this article, we draw on institutional theory and social network research to understand the factors enabling and constraining the cognitive repertoire principals draw on when solving problems. Methods: The data come from a field simulation of how 52 principals respond to and seek advice for two problem scenarios. Along with principals’ personal and school characteristics, we examine how the characteristics of principals’ professional networks are related to their problem-solving and reliance on institutional logics. Findings: Some imprecision in the model estimates notwithstanding, in this exploratory study intended to illuminate potential patterns for study in future research. We find evidence that principals draw on four institutional logics when solving problems: democratic and family logics, bureaucratic logics, professional logics, and market logics. Principals’ reliance on these institutional logics appears to be related to the closeness of the colleagues in their advice networks as well as the nature of the problem they are solving. Implications: One key contribution is to research is to reveal the subtlety of the social sensemaking involved in interpreting and taking action in institutional environments. The results also highlight which network characteristics might help principals respond more flexibly to new and complex problems in institutional contexts, such as racial equity.

Keywords

institutional logics social network analysis principals problem-solving principal networks

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barley

S. R.

Tolbert

P. S. S.

(1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106

Battilana

Casciaro

(2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0891

Bidwell

(2006). Varieties of institutional theory: Traditions and prospects for educational research. In Meyer

H.-D.

Rowan

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 33–50). State University of New York Press.

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(1993). Everyday epistemology in school leadership: Patterns and prospects. In Hallinger

Leithwood

Murphy

(Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 21–33). Teachers College Press.

Branch

G. F.

Hanushek

E. A.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2013). School leaders matter. Education Next, 13(1), 62–69.

Brewer

D. J.

(1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools. Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(93)90062-L

Bridwell-Mitchell

E. N.

(2013). The rationalizing logics of public school reform: How cultural institutions matter for classroom instruction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 173–196.

Bridwell-Mitchell

E. N

. (2018). Chapter 9: Too legit to quit: Institutional perspectives on the study of school organizations. In M. Connolly, D. E. Spicer, C. James, & S. D. Kruse (Eds.), SAGE international handbook on school organization (pp. 139–155). SAGE Publications.

Bridwell-Mitchell

E. N.

Lant

T. K.

(2014). Be careful what you wish for: The effects of issue interpretation on social choices in professional networks. Organization Science, 25(2), 401–419. https://doi-org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1287/orsc.2013.0840

10.

Bridwell-Mitchell

E. N.

Sherer

D. G.

(2017). Institutional complexity and policy Implementation: How underlying logics drive teacher interpretations of reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 223–247. https://doi-org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.3102/0162373716677567

11.

Burt

R. S.

(2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787

12.

Chubb

J. E.

Moe

T. M.

(1999). Politics, markets and America's schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12(3), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569910120306

13.

Coburn

C. E.

(2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003343

14.

Coburn

C. E.

Mata

W. S.

Choi

(2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from a study of mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040713501147

15.

Coburn

C. E.

Russell

J. L.

(2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708321829

16.

Cross

Borgatti

Parker

(2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(01)00041-7

17.

Daly

A. J.

Finnigan

K. S.

(2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9102-5

18.

Davies

(2006). Exploratory research. In Jupp

(Ed.), The SAGE dictionary of social research methods (pp. 111). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020116

19.

Deephouse

(1996). Does isomoprhism legitimate. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039. https://doi.org/10.2307/256722

20.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

21.

Finnigan

K. S.

Daly

A. J.

Che

(2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325668

22.

Frank

K. A.

Zhao

(2004). Subgroups as mesolevel entities in the social organization of schools. In Hedges

L. V.

Schneider

(Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 279–318). Russell Sage Foundation.

23.

Friedland

Alford

(1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contraditions. In Powell

Dimaggio

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.

24.

Gelman

Stern

(2006). The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician, 60(4), 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313006X152649

25.

Grissom

J. A.

Loeb

(2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211402663

26.

Heck

(1992). Principals instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164525

27.

Hite

J. M.

Williams

E. J.

Baugh

S. C.

(2005). Multiple networks of public school administrators: An analysis of network content and structure. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(2), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312042000329086

28.

Ibarra

(1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/258823

29.

Ishimaru

A. M.

Galloway

M. K.

(2021). Hearts and minds first: Institutional logics in pursuit of educational equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(3), 470–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20947459

30.

Ishimaru

A. M.

Takahashi

(2017). Disrupting racialized institutional scripts: Toward parent–teacher transformative agency for educational justice. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1324660

31.

Jabbar

(2015). Competitive networks and school leaders’ perceptions: The formation of an education marketplace in post-Katrina New Orleans. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1093–1131. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215604046

32.

Jennings

J. L.

(2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710375688

33.

Johnson

B. L.

Jr. Fauske

J. R.

(2000). Principals and the political economy of environmental enactment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X00362002

34.

Kruse

S. D.

Rodela

K. C.

Huggins

K. S.

(2018). A regional network of superintendents confronting equity: Public and private messy messages. Journal of School Leadership, 28(1), 82–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461802800104

35.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

36.

Lawrence

B. S.

(2006). Organizational reference groups: A missing perspective on social context. Organization Science, 17, 80–100. https://doi-org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1287/orsc.1050.0173

37.

Leithwood

Hallinger

Murphy

(1993). Conclusion: The expertise of educational leaders. In Hallinger

Leithwood

Murphy

(Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 268–280). Teachers College Press.

38.

Leithwood

Steinbach

(1995). Chapter 5: Processes used by expert and typical principals to solve problems in groups. In K. Leithwood & R. Steinbach (Eds.), Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders (pp. 93–118). State University of of New York Press.

39.

Lewis

A. E.

Diamond

J. B.

(2015). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives in good schools. Oxford University Press.

40.

Lounsbury

Glynn

M. A.

(2001). Cultural entreprenuership: Stories of legitimacy and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Managemnt Jounral, 22(6), 545–564. https://doi-org.radford.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/smj.188

41.

Maas

C. J.

Hox

J. J.

(2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86

42.

Magidson

Vermunt

J. K.

(2004). Latent class models. In Kaplan

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 175–198). Sage Publications.

43.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

44.

Meyer

Rowan

(1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

45.

Meyer

J. W.

(1977). The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/226506

46.

Mintrop

Zumpe

(2019). Solving real-life problems of practice and education leaders’ school improvement mind-set. American Journal of Education, 125(3), 295–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/702733

47.

Penuel

W. R.

Frank

K. A.

Sun

Kim

C. M.

Singleton

(2013). The organization as a filter of institutional diffusion. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500105

48.

Rabe-Hesketh

Skrondal

(2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (2nd ed.). Stata Press.

49.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications.

50.

Ray

(2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335

51.

Rigby

J. G.

(2014). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 610–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13509379

52.

Rigby

J. G.

(2016). Principals’ conceptions of instructional leadership and their informal social networks: An exploration of the mechanisms of the mesolevel. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 433–464. https://doi.org/10.1086/685851

53.

Rodela

K. C.

Rodriguez-Mojica

(2020). Equity leadership informed by community cultural wealth: Counterstories of Latinx school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(2), 289–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19847513

54.

Roegman

Allen

Hatch

(2017). The elusiveness of equity: Evolution of instructional rounds in a superintendents network. American Journal of Education, 124(1), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1086/693957

55.

Russell

J. L.

(2011). From child’s garden to academic press: The role of shifting institutional logics in redefining kindergarten education. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 236–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210372135

56.

Scott

R. W

. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. SAGE.

57.

Scott

W. R.

(1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In Powell

W. W.

DiMaggio

P. J.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). The University of Chicago Press.

58.

Sleegers

Wassink

van Veen

Imants

(2009). School leaders’ problem framing: A sense-making approach to problem-solving processes of beginning school leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760902737162

59.

Snow

C. C.

Thomas

J. B.

(1994). Field research methods in strategic management: Contributions to theory building and testing. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00626.x

60.

Spillane

J. P.

Anderson

(2014). The architecture of anticipation and novices’ emerging understandings of the principal position: Occupational sense making at the intersection of individual, organization, and institution. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600705

61.

Spillane

J. P.

Shirrell

Sweet

T. M.

(2017). The elephant in the schoolhouse: The role of propinquity in school staff interactions about teaching. Sociology of Education, 90(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717696151

62.

Spillane

J. P.

White

K. W.

Stephan

J. L.

(2009). School principal expertise: Putting expert-aspiring principal differences in problem solving processes to the test. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(2), 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760902737188

63.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

(2008). Institutional logics. In Greenwood

Oliver

Suddaby

Sahlin-Andersson

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Sage.

64.

Trujillo

Renee

(2015). Irrational exuberance for market-based reform: How federal turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700102

65.

Woulfin

S. L.

Weiner

(2019). Triggering change: An investigation of the logics of turnaround leadership. Education and Urban Society, 51(2), 222–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517714865

66.

Zucker

L. G.

(1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094862

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB