{"title":"Defying Logic? Exploring the Multiple Network Pathways for Principals’ Institutional Logics","authors":"E. Bridwell-Mitchell, Maxwell M. Yurkofsky","doi":"10.1177/0013161X231156874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The increasing complexity of principals’ roles, including focusing both on learning outcomes and equity issues, requires having the flexibility to view novel problems through multiple lenses. In this article, we draw on institutional theory and social network research to understand the factors enabling and constraining the cognitive repertoire principals draw on when solving problems. Methods: The data come from a field simulation of how 52 principals respond to and seek advice for two problem scenarios. Along with principals’ personal and school characteristics, we examine how the characteristics of principals’ professional networks are related to their problem-solving and reliance on institutional logics. Findings: Some imprecision in the model estimates notwithstanding, in this exploratory study intended to illuminate potential patterns for study in future research. We find evidence that principals draw on four institutional logics when solving problems: democratic and family logics, bureaucratic logics, professional logics, and market logics. Principals’ reliance on these institutional logics appears to be related to the closeness of the colleagues in their advice networks as well as the nature of the problem they are solving. Implications: One key contribution is to research is to reveal the subtlety of the social sensemaking involved in interpreting and taking action in institutional environments. The results also highlight which network characteristics might help principals respond more flexibly to new and complex problems in institutional contexts, such as racial equity.","PeriodicalId":48091,"journal":{"name":"Educational Administration Quarterly","volume":"59 1","pages":"306 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Administration Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231156874","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The increasing complexity of principals’ roles, including focusing both on learning outcomes and equity issues, requires having the flexibility to view novel problems through multiple lenses. In this article, we draw on institutional theory and social network research to understand the factors enabling and constraining the cognitive repertoire principals draw on when solving problems. Methods: The data come from a field simulation of how 52 principals respond to and seek advice for two problem scenarios. Along with principals’ personal and school characteristics, we examine how the characteristics of principals’ professional networks are related to their problem-solving and reliance on institutional logics. Findings: Some imprecision in the model estimates notwithstanding, in this exploratory study intended to illuminate potential patterns for study in future research. We find evidence that principals draw on four institutional logics when solving problems: democratic and family logics, bureaucratic logics, professional logics, and market logics. Principals’ reliance on these institutional logics appears to be related to the closeness of the colleagues in their advice networks as well as the nature of the problem they are solving. Implications: One key contribution is to research is to reveal the subtlety of the social sensemaking involved in interpreting and taking action in institutional environments. The results also highlight which network characteristics might help principals respond more flexibly to new and complex problems in institutional contexts, such as racial equity.
期刊介绍:
Educational Administration Quarterly presents prominent empirical and conceptual articles focused on timely and critical leadership and policy issues of educational organizations. As an editorial team, we embrace traditional and emergent research paradigms, methods, and issues. We particularly promote the publication of rigorous and relevant scholarly work that enhances linkages among and utility for educational policy, practice, and research arenas.