The study describes and analyzes teachers’ micropolitics to serve two purposes: to understand how teachers make sense with the way change is led and to interpret if the way they make sense can influence the change process. This empirical study revealed the following: Teachers felt that their professional development was affected because of change tasks; the way they made sense as such would predictably determine the change process; teachers’ micropolitics was always played out in inseparable interaction with leadership; and the forms of teachers’ micropolitics and teachers’ seniority were surprisingly correlational.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchinsteinB. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micro-politics of teacher collaboration.Teacher College Record,104(3), 421–455.
2.
BalletK., & KelchtermansG. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialization.Teaching and Teacher Education,18, 105–120.
3.
BlaseJ. (1987). Dimensions of effective leadership.American Educational Research Journal,24(4), 589–610.
4.
BlaseJ. (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflicts, and cooperation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
BlaseJ. (2005). The micropolitics of educational change. In HargreavesA. (Ed.), Extending educational change (pp. 264–277). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
6.
ClementM., & VandenbergheR. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture?Teaching and Teacher Education,16, 81–101.
7.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sense-making: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy.Educational Policy,19, 476–509.
8.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation.American Educational Research Journal,43(3), 343–379.
9.
CorbinJ., & StraussA. (1990). The basics of qualitative research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
FlessaJ. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership.Pedagogy Journal of Education,84, 331–349.
11.
GubaE. G., & LincolnY. S. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry.Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
12.
HopkinsD. (2001). School improvement for real: Educational change and development.London: RoutledgeFalmer.
13.
HoyleE. (1999). The two faces of micropolitics.School Leadership and Management,19(2), 3213–3223.
14.
KelchtermansG. (1993). Getting the story, understanding the lives: From career stories to teachers’ professional development.Teaching and Teacher Education,9(5/6), 443–456.
15.
KelchtermansG. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy.Teaching and Teacher Education,21, 995–1006.
16.
KelchtermansG. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions: A review.Zeitschrift für Pädagogik,52(2), 220–237.
17.
KelchtermansG. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: The case of the policy on quality control in Flanders.Journal of Education Policy,22(4), 471–491.
18.
LindleJ. C. (1999). What can the study of micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming school?School Leadership and Management,19(2), 171–178.
19.
MawhinneyH. B. (1999). Reappraisal: The problems and prospects of studying the micropolitics of leadership in reforming schools.School Leadership and Management,19(2), 159–170.
20.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macroperspectives and micro realities.Educational Researcher,19(9), 11–16.
21.
MertensD. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Ministry of Education and Training. (2010a). Thông tú [Circular]. Hanoi: Author.
23.
Ministry of Education and Training. (2010b). Công nhận trúò'ng trung học có sȯ’, trúò'ng trung học phô’ thông và trúò'ng phô’ thông có nhieu câ'p học oạt chuâ'n quô'c gia [Rules about secondary schools of national standard]. Hanoi: Author.
24.
OjaS. N. (1989). Teachers: Ages and stages of adult development. In HollyM. L., & McLoughlinC. (Eds.), Perspective on teachers’ professional development.London: The Falmer.
25.
PajaresM. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research,62(3), 307–332.
26.
PillayV. (2004). Towards a broader understanding of the micropolitics of educational change.Perspectives in Education,22(4), 129–138.
27.
SealeC. (1999). Quality in qualitative research.Qualitative Inquiry,5(4), 465–478.
28.
SwanbornP. J. (1996). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research.Quality and Quantity,30, 19–35.
29.
TranK. (2011). Nhii'ng vâ'n óé có ba̓n cu̓a khoa học qua̓n lí giáo dục [Basic themes in the science of educational management]. Hanoi: University of Pedagogy.
30.
WallaceM. (2001). Sharing leadership of schools through team work: A justifiable risk?Educational Management and Administration,29(2), 153–167.
31.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
YuklG. (1994). Leadership in organizations.Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
