Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-3
Networking in education: From concept to action – An analytical view on the Educational Territories of Priority Intervention (TEIP) in Northern Portugal
This article presents an analysis of school principals’ perspectives on networking concerning schools and school clusters from areas of social vulnerability (Educational Territories of Priority Intervention (TEIP)) in Northern Portugal. The meanings, purpose, benefits and difficulties of networking in education are examined, based on interviews with school principals. The concept of networking has a theoretical, conceptual and methodological organising function. The data show that networking, partnership and collaboration are used similarly when considering the work inside the school and between schools, as well as with the outside community. Networking is viewed as crucial for the school, and benefits are underlined both for the school and for students and teachers. The culture of isolation and individualism in teachers’ work is a challenge schools face. Although there is a wide recognition of the value of networking in education, there is an equally wide and diverse perspective on it as well as on strategies to implement it.
AbrantesP.MaurittiR.RoldãoC. (2011). Efeitos TEIP: Avaliação de impactos escolares e sociais em sete territórios educativos de intervenção prioritária (Relatório do projeto) [TEIP effects: Evaluation of school and social impacts on seven educational territories of priority intervention (Project report)]. Direção Geral de Inovação e Desenvolvimento Curricular (DGIDC), Lisbon, Portugal: Ministério da Educação.
2.
AinscowM.MuijsD.WestM. (2006). Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in challenging circumstances. Improving Schools, 9, 192–202.
3.
AraújoH.SousaF.CostaI.LoureiroA.PortelaJ. (2013). Building local networking in education? Decision-makers’ discourses on school achievement and dropout in Portugal. In Boufoy-BastikBéatrice (Ed.). Cultures of education policy: International issues of policy-outcome relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 155–185). Estrasburgo: Analytics.
4.
AtkinsL.WallaceS. (2012). Qualitative research in education. London, England: SAGE.
5.
BarbieriH. (2003). Os TEIP, o projeto educativo e a emergência de ‘perfis de território’ [TEIP, the educational project and the emergence of ‘territory profiles’]. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 20, 43–75.
6.
BénabouR.KramarzbF.ProstC. (2009). The French zones d’éducation prioritaire: Much ado about nothing?Economics of Education Review, 28, 345–356.
7.
BernsteinB. (1970). Education cannot compensate for society. New Society, 26, 344–347.
8.
CarmichaelP.FoxA.McCormickR.ProcterR.HonourL. (2006). Teacher’s networks in and out of schools. Research Papers in Education, 21, 217–234.
9.
ChapmanC.HadfieldM. (2010a). Realising the potential of school-based networks. Educational Research, 52, 309–323.
10.
ChapmanC.HadfieldM. (2010b), Supporting the middle tier to engage with school-based networks: Change strategies for influencing and cohering. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 221–240.
11.
ChapmanC.LindsayG.MuijsD.HarrisA.ArneckE.GoodallJ. (2010). Governance, leadership and management in federations of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 21, 53–74.
12.
CheckJ.SchuttR. K. (2012). Research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
CorreiaJ. A.CarameloJ. (2012). Les figures du local dans les politiques d’éducation prioritaire au Portugal. [Local implementations in priority education policies in Portugal] Revue Française de Pédagogie, 178, 41–52.
14.
HadfieldM.ChapmanC. (2009). Leading school-based networks. London, England: Routledge.
15.
HadfieldM.JoplingM.NodenC.O’LearyD.ScottA. (2006). What does the existing knowledge base tell us about the impact of networking and collaboration? A review of network-based innovations in education in the UK. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.
16.
HaynesG.LynchS. (2013). Local partnerships: Blowing in the wind of national policy changes. British Educational Research Journal, 39, 425–446.
17.
KatzS.EarlL.Ben JaafarS. (2009). Building and connecting learning communities: The power of networks for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
LimaJ. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 97–122.
20.
LimaJ. (2003). Trained for isolation: The impact of departmental cultures on student teachers’ views and practices of collaboration. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 29, 197–217.
21.
LimaJ. (2007). Redes na educação: Questões políticas e conceptuais. [Networks in education: political and conceptual issues] Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 20(2), 151–181.
22.
LimaJ. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal Educational Change, 11, 1–21.
23.
LimaJ. (2015). A ação educativa em rede: obstáculos e recomendações. [Networked educational action: obstacles and recommendations]. Educação, Sociedade e Culturas, 44, 9–29.
24.
MifsudD. (2015). The setting-up of multi-site school collaboratives: The benefits of this organizational reform in terms of networking opportunities and their effects. Improving Schools, 18, 236–249.
25.
MuijsD. (2008). Widening opportunities? A case study of school-to-school collaboration in a rural district. Improving Schools, 11, 61–73.
26.
PowerS. (2008). How should we respond to the continuing failure of compensatory education?Orbis scholae, 2(2), 19–37.
27.
SealeC. (2004). Coding & analysing data. In SealeC. (Ed.), Researching society and culture (pp. 305–321). London, England: SAGE.
28.
SeddonT. (2014). Making educational spaces through boundary work: Territorialisation and ‘boundarying’. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 12, 10–31.
29.
SousaS. B.DorofteiA.AraújoH. (2013). Networks in education: An analysis of selected discourses. Interchange, 44, 311–331.
