Redesigning Leadership Communication and Collaboration: A Practice-theoretical Perspective on Cross-Level Cooperation in School System Development

LeadCom is part of a nationwide competence network and focuses on leadership communication and collaboration in the context of digital transformation. In a research-practice partnership, scholars from FAU collaborate with practitioners to explore how evaluation data on school and teaching quality can be jointly discussed and utilized for school development. The scientific inquiry investigates the orientations and logics guiding leadership actors operating at the interface between schools, supervisory authorities, and evaluation systems. In the context of output-oriented reforms after 2001, external evaluation was introduced to provide evidence for guiding school development. However, this newly established role risks being perceived as superior, potentially creating asymmetries among governance actors within the education system (Diedrich, 2020). Notably, 20 years after its introduction, the effectiveness of evidence-based governance remains scientifically unsubstantiated (Preuß et al., 2015; Malin et al., 2020). Across Germany's federal states, evaluation practices have been revised and, in some cases, discontinued. Initially regarded as a response to the "crisis of school supervision," evaluation itself is now considered an actor in crisis (Preuß et al., 2015; Heinrich, 2015). Meanwhile, school networks have emerged alongside the state system, developing their own feedback routines (Backhaus et al., 2009). Within LeadCom, evaluation practices are being redesigned, particularly the feedback process for evaluation data in one federal state. Researchers act as facilitators, supporting the redesign of feedback conversations for school evaluation while studying stakeholder collaboration across different governance levels. The project offers a dual perspective on leadership orientations by (1) fostering cross-level cooperation in workshops and (2) co-developing cross-level communication and cooperation strategies within a new feedback format. The goal of the workshops is to develop prototypes for a new discussion format in which actors from school practice and school administration collaboratively discuss evaluation results and apply them to school development. From a governance analysis perspective (Altrichter et al., 2007; Abs et al., 2015), the project provides a suitable context for closely examining actor coordination within the multi-level system. The analysis focuses on guiding orientations, actor and organizational logics, as well as the dynamics of power and influence within workshop settings. A practice-theoretical research approach is employed to investigate how negotiations among actors unfold. Concepts such as “Leading from the Middle” (Fullan, 2015), ”Distributed Digital Leadership”,”Collaborative Professionalism” (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018), and ”Transversality” underscore the need for sophisticated cooperation among governance actors. The new feedback format aims to foster shared responsibility in the sense of distributed leadership. The interpretation of in-situ documentation using the documentary method (Bohnsack et al., 2007; Zala-Mezö et al., 2021) investigates how governance is enacted at steering interfaces and in the handling of evaluation data. It also examines the guiding orientations shaping actor collaboration. The documentary method is grounded in praxeological sociology of knowledge (Bohnsack, 2017, 2024), revealing underlying structures and patterns of social action and orientations beyond participants' explicit perspectives. In 2024, we observed, facilitated, and recorded meetings and workshops. Our research focuses on individual and collective sense-making during negotiation and decision-making processes, which we examine through the analysis of communication and interactions in design workshops involving 20 participants from diverse groups: (a) school principals, (b) teachers, (c) personnel responsible for extracurricular student supervision in full-time schools, (d) school supervisors, (e) administrative system consultants, and (f) external evaluators. Laloux's (2015) descriptions of organizational paradigms (hierarchical, mechanistic, participative, purpose-driven) are used as an interpretive framework. The data reveals that participants perceive project work as an open, co-constructive, and creative environment, positively evaluated as an opportunity for collaborative engagement. However, on the conjunctive level, hierarchical and departmental structures persist and dominate the project structure at critical leverage points. Hierarchical dynamics are often addressed through experiences and metaphors as defense or confrontation. On both communicative and performative levels, efforts are made to disrupt entrenched routines and establish participatory practices. Participants frequently reflect on their experiences and highlight successful strategies. Although these processes seek to challenge hierarchical structures, the solutions and compromises reached often still reference the existing hierarchy. Despite partial incongruities, hierarchical orientation remains the dominant framework for actors engaged in school system development. Abs, H. J., et al. (Hrsg.). (2015). Governance im Bildungssystem. Springer VS. Altrichter, H., et al. (2007). Governance im Bildungsbereich Erträge, Desiderate und Potenziale der Forschung Springer. Backhaus, A., et al. (2009). „Blick über den Zaun“. Schulen lernen von Schulen. Schulverbund Blick über den Zaun Bohnsack, R. (2007). Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis (2. Aufl.). Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Budrich. Bohnsack, R. et al. (2024). Konstituierende Rahmung und professionelle Praxis. Budrich. Diedrich, M. (2020). Die veränderte Rolle der intermediären Akteure. In. Klein, E. D., & Bremm, N. Unterstützung – Kooperation – Kontrolle (S. 263–285). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Fullan, M. (2015). Leadership from the middle. A system strategy. Canadian Education Association (CEA), 55(4), 22–26. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative Professionalism: When Teaching Together Means Learning for All. Corwin Press. Heinrich, M. (2015). Zur Ambivalenz der Idee evidenzbasierter Schulentwicklung. Das Beispiel „Schulinspektion“—Fortschrittlicher Rückschritt oder Innovation? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik Laloux, F. (2015). Reinventing Organizations. Ein Leitfaden zur Gestaltung sinnstiftender Formen der Zusammenarbeit. Vahlen. Malin, J. R., Brown, et al. (2020). World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education. What can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7 (1), 1–14. Preuß, B., et al. (2015). Einführung der Schulinspektion: Struktur und Wandel regionaler Governance im Schulsystem. In Abs, H.J. et al. (Hrsg.), Governance im Bildungssystem (S. 117–141). Springer. Zala-Mezö, E., et al. (Hrsg.). (2021). Die Dokumentarische Methode in der Schulentwicklungsforschung. Waxmann.