School district central offices regularly engage with external partners in improvement efforts, but these partnerships are not always productive. Indeed, little is known about under what conditions partnerships are likely to lead to organizational learning outcomes. We conducted a longitudinal comparative case study of two departments in one urban school district central office, both working with the same external partner. Data included 131 interviews and 372 hours of observations as well as artifacts and social network data. While one department did not incorporate the partner’s ideas into policies and routines, the other demonstrated greater integration. We argue this difference is due to organizational conditions that foster absorptive capacity and to the nature of department–partner interactions.
AdlerP. S.KwonS. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 7–40.
2.
BakhtinM. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (McGheeV. W., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
BarleyS. R. (1990). Images of imagine: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1, 220–247.
4.
BickelW. E.HattrupR. A. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 35–62.
BrykA. S.RollowS. G.PinnellG. S. (1996). Urban school development: Literacy as a lever for change. Educational Policy, 10, 172–201.
7.
BurchP. E. (2009). Hidden markets. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
BurchP. E.SpillaneJ. P. (2005). How subjects matter in district office practice: Instructionally relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 51–76.
9.
BurtR. S. (1983). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.
10.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
BurtR. S. (2001). Attachment, decay, and social network. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 619–643.
12.
CobbP.JacksonK. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education & Development, 13(1), 6–33.
13.
CobbP.JacksonK.HenrickE.SmithT. M. (2018). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
14.
CoburnC. 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, 27, 23–52.
15.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343–379.
16.
CoburnC. E.BaeS.TurnerE. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364–399.
17.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.
18.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.
19.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
20.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. S. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 111–138.
21.
DatnowA.HonigM. I. (2008). Scaling up teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 323–327.
22.
DatnowA.ParkV. (2010). Success for all: Using tools to transport research-based practices to the classroom. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 77–91). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
DonovanM. S.WigdorA. K.SnowC. E. (2003). Strategic education research partnership. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
24.
DyerJ.SinghH. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660–679.
25.
Easterby-SmithM.CrossanM.NicoliniD. (2000). Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 783–796.
26.
EisenhartM. A.HoweK. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In LeCompteM. D.MillroyW. L.PreissleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643–680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27.
ElmoreR. F.BurneyD. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District 32, New York City. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
28.
ErautM.HirshW. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups and organizations. Oxford, England: Economic & Social Research Council Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance.
29.
FarrellC. C. (2015). Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: A comparison of educational organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 438–471.
30.
FarrellC. C.CoburnC. E. (2017). Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 135–159.
31.
FeldmanM. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–629.
32.
FeldmanM. S.MarchJ. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171–186.
33.
FeldmanM. S.PentlandB. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.
34.
FirestoneW. A.FislerJ. L. (2002). Politics, community, and leadership in a school-university partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 449–493.
35.
FreedmanR.SalmonD. (2001). The dialectic nature of research collaborations: The relational literacy curriculum. In RavidT.HandlerM. G. (Eds.), The many faces of school-university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
36.
FullanM.BertaniA.QuinnJ. (2004). New lessons for districtwide reform. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42–46.
37.
GhoshalS.KorineH.SzulanskiG. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Management Science, 40, 96–110.
38.
GioiaD.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.
39.
GlennanT. K.ResnickL. B. (2004). School districts as learning organizations: A strategy for scaling education reform. In GlennanT. K.Jr.BodillyS. J.GalegherJ.KerrK. A. (Eds.), Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives of leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions (pp. 517–564). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
40.
HannawayJ. (1989). Managers managing: The workings of an administrative system. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.
42.
HansenM. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, 232–248.
43.
HargadonA.SuttonR. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.
44.
HatchT. (2001). Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of Education, 109, 407–437.
45.
HedbergB. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In NystromP.StarbuckW. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46.
HillH. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289–318.
47.
HonigM. I. (2004a). District central office–community partnerships: From contracts to collaboration to control. In HoyW. K.MiskelC. G. (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 59–90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
48.
HonigM. I. (2004b). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in educational policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65–87.
49.
HonigM. 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, 114, 627–664.
50.
HonigM. I. (2009). “External” organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 3, 394–413.
51.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN.McNeilP. (2017). Research use as learning: The case of fundamental change in school district central offices. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 1–34.
52.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN.McNeilP.Myers-TwitchellJ. (2014). Leaders’ use of research for fundamental change in school district central offices: Processes and challenges. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 33–52). New York, NY: Springer.
53.
HubbardL. (2010). Research to practice: The case of Boston Public Schools, Education Matters and the Boston Plan for Excellence. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 55–72). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
54.
IkemotoG. S.HonigM. I. (2010). Tools to deepen practitioners’ engagement with research: The case of the Institute for Learning. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 93–108). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
55.
KazemiE. (2008). School development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning. In KrainerK.WoodT. (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education (pp. 209–230). Rotterdam Netherlands: Sense.
56.
KnappM. S. (2008). How can organizational and sociocultural kearning theories shed light on district instructional reform?American Journal of Education, 114, 521–539.
57.
LaneP. J.KokaB. R.PathakS. (2006). Reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review of rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31, 833–863.
58.
LaneP. J.SalkJ. E.LylesM. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1139–1161.
59.
LevittB.MarchJ. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
60.
MarshJ. A.KerrK. A.IkemotoG. S.DarilekH.SuttorpM.ZimmerR. W.BarneyH. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
61.
McLaughlinM. W.MitraD. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 301–323.
62.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
63.
MeyerJ. W.ScottW. R.StrangD. (1987). Centralization, fragmentation, and school district complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 186–201.
64.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
PeurachD. J.GlazerJ. L.LenhoffS. W. (2016). The developmental evaluation of school improvement networks. Educational Policy, 30, 606–648.
66.
PowellW. W.GrodalS. (2006). Networks of innovators. In FagerbergJ.MoweryD. C.NelsonR. R. (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 56–85). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
67.
ReagansR.McEvilyB. (2003). Network structures and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.
68.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.
69.
RigbyJ. G.Larbi-CherifA.RosenquistB. A.SharpeC. J.CobbP.SmithT. (2017). Administrator observation and feedback: Does it lead towards improvement in inquiry-oriented math instruction?Educational Administration Quarterly, 53, 475–516.
70.
RosenquistB. A.HenrickE. C.SmithT. M. (2015). Research-practice partnerships to support the development of high quality mathematics instruction for all students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20, 42–57.
71.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283–314.
72.
RussellJ. L.KnutsonK.CrowleyK. (2013). Informal learning organizations as part of an educational ecology: Lessons from collaboration across the formal-informal divide. Journal of Educational Change, 14, 259–281.
73.
SchwartzmanH. B. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
74.
ScottW. R.DavisG. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. London, England: Routledge.
75.
ShererJ. Z.SpillaneJ. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113, 611–657.
76.
SpillaneJ. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33–63.
77.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2010). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 586–619.
78.
SteinM. K.NelsonB. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 423–448.
79.
StockG. N.GreisN. P.FischerW. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity and new product development. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12, 77–91.
80.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
81.
SupovitzJ. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Learning, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
82.
SupovitzJ. A. (2008). Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 459–478.
83.
SupovitzJ. A.WeathersJ. M. (2004). Dashboard lights: Monitoring implementation of district instructional reform strategies. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
84.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
85.
TrujilloT.WoulfinS. (2014). Equity-oriented reform amid standards-based accountability: A qualitative comparative analysis of an intermediary’s instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 253–293.
86.
Van den BoschF. A. J.VolberdaH. W.de BoerM. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organization forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10, 551–568.
87.
VolberdaH. W.FossN. J.LylesM. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: Realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21, 931–951.
88.
WalshJ. P.UngsonG. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–91.
89.
WalterJ.LechnerC.KellermannsF. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60, 698–710.
90.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
91.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
92.
ZahraS. A.GeorgeG. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.
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.
