Despite the importance of computerization to data use, little is known about the work of a central office when it comes to preparing for and implementing computer data systems. This study illuminates such work by drawing upon interviews and observations collected in three school districts over 11 months. We describe how central offices thought about, prepared for, and implemented computer data systems. We find that district efforts may be undermined by overly simplistic stances toward technology and planning. Accordingly, we discuss the ways in which central offices might rethink assumptions, strategies, and bureaucratic structures around data systems.
AllenP., StrathernM., & BaldwinJ. S. (2005). The evolutionary complexity of social economic systems: The inevitability of uncertainty and surprise. In McDanielR. R., & DriebeD. J. (Eds.), Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems (pp. 31–50). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
2.
AndersonR. E., & DexterS. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect.Education Administration Quarterly,41(1), 49–82.
3.
BarleyS. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks.Administrative Science Quarterly,35, 61–103.
4.
BolmanL. G., & DealT. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
BoskC. L. (2003). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Booher JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system.American Educational Research Journal,42(2), 231–268.
BrownJ. S., & DuguidP. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.Organization Science,2(1), 40–57.
9.
BrunnerC., FascaC., HeinzeJ., HoneyM., LightD., MandinachE. B., & WexlerD. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Network study.Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk,10(3), 241–267.
10.
BurchP., & HayesT. (2009). The role of private firms in data-based decision making. In KowalskiT. J., & LasleyT. J.II (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 54–71). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
BurtR. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas.American Journal of Sociology,110(2), 349–399.
12.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development.Organization Science,13(4), 442–455.
13.
ChoV., & WaymanJ. C. (2014). Districts’ efforts for data use and computer data systems: The role of sensemaking in system use and implementation.Teachers College Record,116(2). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstract.asp?ContentId=17349.
14.
CoburnC. E., & TurnerE. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis.Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective,9(4), 173–206. doi: 10.1080/15366367.2011.626729.
15.
CoplandM. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,25(4), 375–395.
16.
DalyA. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement.Teachers College Record,114(11), 1–39.
17.
DatnowA., ParkV., & WohlstetterP. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students.Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
18.
DavenportT. H., & PrusakL. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
19.
DavidsonE. J., & ChismarW. G. (2007). The interaction of institutionally triggered and technology-triggered social structure change: An investigation of computerized physician order entry.MIS Quarterly,31(4), 739–758.
20.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.Academy of Management Review,14(4), 532–550.
21.
EisenhardtK. M. (1990). Speed and strategic choice: How managers accelerate decision making.California Management Review,32(3), 39.
22.
EisenhardtK. M., & ZbarackiM. J. (1992). Strategic decision making.Strategic Management Journal,13(S2), 17–37. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250130904.
23.
EmersonR. M., FretzR. I., & ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
ErlandsonD. A., HarrisE. L., SkipperB. L., & AllenS. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Farley-RippleE. N., & ChoV. (in press). Depth of use: How district decision-makers did and did not engage with evidence. In BowersA. J., ShohoA. R., & BarnettB. G. (Eds.), Using data in schools to inform leadership and decision making.Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
26.
HalversonR., GriggJ., PritchettR., & ThomasC. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school.Journal of School Leadership,17, 159–194.
27.
HalversonR., & SmithA. (2009). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools.Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,26(2), 49–54.
28.
HamiltonL. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool.Review of Research in Education,27, 25–68.
29.
HamiltonL., HalversonR., JacksonS. S., MandinachE., SupovitzJ. A., & WaymanJ. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (Practice guide No. NCEE 2009-4067). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortaPdetail?accno=ED506645.
30.
HonigM. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in educational policy implementation.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,28(4), 357–383. doi: 10.3102/01623737028004357.
31.
HonigM. I., & VenkateswaranN. (2012). School-central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem.American Journal of Education,118(2), 199–222.
32.
JonesM. R., & KarstonH. (2008). Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research.MIS Quarterly,32(1), 127–157.
33.
LachatM. A., & SmithS. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools.Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk,10(3), 333–349.
LeonardiP. M. (2009a). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities.Communication Theory,19, 278–310.
36.
LeonardiP. M. (2009b). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality.Human Communication Research,35, 407–441.
37.
LeonardiP. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? In LeonardiP. M., NardiB. A., & KallinikosJ. (Eds.), Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (pp. 25–48). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2129878.
38.
MarchJ. G. (1991). How decisions happen in organizations.Human-Computer Interaction,6, 95–117.
39.
McDanielR. R., & DriebeD. J. (2001). Complexity science and health care management.Advances in Health Care Management,2, 11–36.
40.
McDonaldJ. P., MohrN., DichterA., & McDonaldE. C. (2007). The power of protocols: An educator's guide to better practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
41.
McLeodS., & RichardsonJ. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage.Journal of School Leadership,21(March), 216–240.
42.
MeansB., PadillaC., DeBargerA., & BakiaM. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
43.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.
45.
MorganG. (1986). Images of organization.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
NonakaI., UmemotoK., & SasakiK. (1998). Three tales of knowledge-creating companies. In Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing, and Measuring Knowledge (pp. 146–172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
OrlikowskiW. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective.Information Systems Research,7(1), 63–92.
48.
OrlikowskiW. J., & BarleyS. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?MIS Quarterly,25(2), 145–165.
49.
OrlikowskiW. J., & IaconoC. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact.Information Systems Research,12(2), 121–135.
50.
PfefferJ. (1997). New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects (First Printing). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
PfefferJ., & SuttonR. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, & total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
52.
PinchT. J., & WeibeE. B. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other.Social Studies of Science,14, 399–441.
53.
RivkinJ. W., & SiggelkowN. (2002). Organizational sticking points on NK landscapes.Complexity,7(5), 31–4/5.
54.
ScottW. R., & DavisG. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
SpillaneJ. P., PariseL. M., & ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core.American Educational Research Journal,48(3), 586–619.
57.
TuckerA. L., & EdmondsonA. C. (2003). Why hospitals don't learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change.California Management Review,45(2), 55–72.
58.
TuckerB. (2010). Putting data into practice: Lessons from New York City.Washington, DC: Education Sector.
59.
WaymanJ. C., & ChoV. (2008). Preparing educators to effectively use student data systems. In Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 89–104). New York, NY: Routledge.
60.
WaymanJ. C., ChoV., & RichardsM. P. (2010). Student data systems and then-use for educational improvement. In PetersonP. L., BakerE., & McGrawB. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 8, pp. 14–20). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
61.
WaymanJ. C., ChoV., & ShawS. M. (2009). First-year results from an efficacy study of the Acuity data system.Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
62.
WaymanJ. C., JimersonJ. B., & ChoV. (2012). Organizational considerations in establishing the Data-Informed District.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,23(2), 159–178.
63.
WaymanJ. C., & StringfieldS. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement.American Journal of Education,112(August), 549–571.
64.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.Administrative Science Quarterly,21(1), 1–19.
65.
WeickK. E. (1993). The collapse of sense making in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.Administrative Science Quarterly,12(38), 628–652.
66.
WeissR. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.New York, NY: Free Press.
67.
WohlstetterP., DatnowA., & ParkV. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,19(3), 239–259.
68.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
