Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 135–159 | Cite as

Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning

  • Caitlin C. Farrell
  • Cynthia E. Coburn
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Globally, school systems are pressed to engage in large-scale school improvement. In the United States and other countries, school district central offices and other local governing agencies often engage with external organizations and individuals to support such educational change efforts. However, initiatives with external partners are not always productive. We draw on the idea of absorptive capacity to present a conceptual framework for understanding when and under what conditions partnerships are likely to foster district learning and support change efforts. We contend that prior knowledge, communication pathways, strategic knowledge leadership, and resources to partner are preconditions for a district central office’s absorptive capacity, and we identify the features of the external partner that likely matter for productive partnering. We argue that the relationship between district absorptive capacity and features of the partner is mediated by the nature of the interactions between district and partner, with likely consequences for organizational learning outcomes. For researchers, this framework serves as a tool for understanding how a district central office can learn from an external partner for educational improvement efforts. For school district leaders and external partners, this framework provides a structure for thinking strategically about when and under what conditions a partnership is likely to be productive.

Keywords

Absorptive capacity District central office District capacity External partner Partnership Organizational theory School system Organizational learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank William Penuel, Anna-Ruth Allen, Paul Cobb, and colleagues at University of California, Berkeley, University of Colorado, Boulder, and Northwestern University for their very helpful feedback. Support for this manuscript was provided by the William T. Grant Foundation, Grant #180922.

References

  1. Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asen, R. (2013). Deliberation and trust. Argumentation and Advocacy, 50, 2–17.Google Scholar
  3. Bickel, W. E., & Hattrup, R. A. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borman, G., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005). The national randomized field trial of Success for All: Second-year outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 673–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray, L. E., & Russell, J. L. (2016). Going off script: Structure and agency in individualized education program meeting. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 367–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brookhart, S. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1992). School-university collaboration and perceived professional rewards. Journal of Research in Education, 2(1), 68–76.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bulkley, K. E., & Burch, P. (2011). The changing nature of private engagement in public education: For-profit and nonprofit organizations and educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 236–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burch, P. E. (2002). Constraints and opportunities in changing policy environments: Intermediary organizations’ response to complex district context. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 111–126). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burch, P. E. (2009). Hidden markets. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Burch, P. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Leading from the middle: Mid-level district staff and instructional improvement. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.Google Scholar
  13. Burch, P. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2005). How subjects matter in district office practice: Instructionally relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (2001). Attachment, decay, and social network. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 619–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chrispeels, J. (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  16. Cobb, P. A., Jackson, K., Smith, T., Sorum, M., & Henrick, E. (2013). Design research with educational systems: Investigating and supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In W. R. Penuel, B. J. Fishman, A. R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (Vol. 112, pp. 320–349). New York, NY: National Society of the Study of Education Yearbook.Google Scholar
  17. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2012). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 99–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coburn, C. E., Bae, S., & Turner, E. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What is the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–86). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  21. Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen, M. D. (1994). Organizational routines are stored in procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(1), 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Corcoran, T. B., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Corcoran, T., & Lawrence, N. (2003). Changing district culture and capacity: The impact of the Merck Institute for Science Education Partnership. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  27. Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2012). Exploring the space between: Social networks, trust, and urban school district leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 493–530.Google Scholar
  29. Datnow, A., & Honig, M. I. (2008). Introduction to the special issue, Scaling up teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 323–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Desimone, L. (2000). Making comprehensive school reform work. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.Google Scholar
  31. Donovan, M. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2003). Learning and instruction: A SERP research agenda. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  32. Donovan, M. S., Snow, C. E., & Daro, P. (2013). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In B. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (Vol. 112, pp. 400–425). New York, NY: National Society of the Study of Education Yearbook.Google Scholar
  33. Donovan, M. S., Wigdor, A. K., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Strategic education research partnership. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  34. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.Google Scholar
  35. Earl, L. M., & Cousins, J. B. (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies of evaluation use and organizational learning. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  36. Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups, and organizations. SKOPE monograph 9. Oxford: SKOPE Research Centre.Google Scholar
  37. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Stewart, T. J. (2012). Organizational learning in schools under sanction. Education Research International, 2012, 1–10.Google Scholar
  40. Firestone, W. A. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation Policy and Analysis, 11(2), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Firestone, W. A., & Fisler, J. L. (2002). Politics, community, and leadership in a school-university partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 449–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Freedman, R., & Salmon, D. (2001). The dialectic nature of research collaborations: The relational literacy curriculum. In T. Ravid & M. G. Handler (Eds.), The many faces of school-university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships. Englewood, CO: Teachers Ideas Press.Google Scholar
  43. Fullan, M. (1980). The role of human agents internal to school districts in knowledge utilization. Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  44. Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). Leading in tough times: New lessons for districtwide reform. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42–46.Google Scholar
  46. Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., & Szulanski, G. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporation. Management Science, 40(1), 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gifford, B. R. (1986). The evolution of the school-university partnership for educational renewal. Education and Urban Society, 19(1), 77–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within the multi-national corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hannaway, J. (1989). Managers managing: The workings of an administrative system. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hannaway, J. (1993). Political pressure and decentralization in institutional organizations: The case of school districts. Sociology of Education, 66(3), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hargadon, A. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 498–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hassel, B., & Steiner, L. (2012). Guide to working with external partners: Partnerships to improve teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.Google Scholar
  54. Hatch, T. (2001). Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of Education, 109(4), 407–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hightower, A. M., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (2003). School districts and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  56. Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Honig, M. I. (2004a). District central office-community partnerships: From contracts to collaboration to control. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 59–90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Honig, M. I. (2004b). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Honig, M. 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(4), 627–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Honig, M. I. (2009). “External” organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous school initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 394–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Honig, M. I., Copland, M. A., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. A., & Newton, M. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide learning improvement. Seattle, Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  62. Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. S. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Honig, M. I., Venkateswaran, N., McNeil, P., & Myers-Twitchell, J. (2014). Leaders’ use of research for fundamental change in school district central offices: Processes and challenges. In K. S. Finnigan & A. J. Daly (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Horn, I., Kane, B. D., & Wilson, J. (2015). Making sense of student performance data: Data use logics and mathematics teachers’ learning opportunities. American Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 208–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hubbard, L. (2010). Research to practice: The case of Boston Public Schools, Education Matters and the Boston Plan for Excellence. In C. E. Coburn & M. K. Stein (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 55–72). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  66. Ikemoto, G. S., & Honig, M. I. (2010). Tools to deepen practitioners’ engagement with research: The case of the Institute for Learning. In C. E. Coburn & M. K. Stein (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 93–108). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  67. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Keating, P. J., & Clark, R. W. (1988). Accent on leadership: The Puget Sound Educational Consortium. In K. A. Sirotnik & J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases and concerns (pp. 148–166). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  69. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kronley, R. A., & Handley, C. (2003). Reforming relationships: School districts, external organizations, and systemic change. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.Google Scholar
  71. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1139–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Le Floch, K. C., Boyle, A., & Therriault, S. B. (2008). State systems of support under NCLB: Design components and quality considerations. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  75. Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schhols, 6(1), 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practices among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. López-Turley, R. N., & Stevens, C. (2015). Lessons from a school district-university research partnership: The Houston Education Research Consortium. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 6S–15S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., et al. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districs partnered with the Institute for Learning. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  82. Massell, D., & Goertz, M. E. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43–60). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  83. McEvily, B., Peronne, V., & Zaheer, S. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  85. McMillen, J. C., Lenze, S. L., Hawley, K. M., & Osborne, V. A. (2009). Revisiting practice-based research networks as a platform for mental health services research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 36, 308–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., & Strang, D. (1987). Centralization, fragmentation, and school district complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(2), 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  88. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  90. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Chorpita, B. F., Hoagwood, K., Landsverk, J., & Weisz, J. R. (2009). Cultural exchange and the implementation of evidence-based practices: Two case studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 602–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  95. Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2006). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rentner, D. S. (2013). Year 3 of implementing the Common Core State Standards: An overview of states’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  99. Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49, 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rosenquist, B. A., Hendrick, E. C., & Smith, T. (2015). Research-practice partnerships to support the development of high quality mathematics for all students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20, 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3–4), 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Russell, J. L., Knutson, K., & Crowley, K. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Schlecty, P. C., & Whitford, B. L. (1988). Shared problems and shared vision: Organic collaboration. In K. A. Sirotnik & J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  105. Shenkar, O., & Li, J. (1999). Knowledge search in international cooperative ventures. Organization Science, 10(2), 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sherer, J. Z., & Spillane, J. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 611–657.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, J., & Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Understanding the different faces of partnering: A typology of public-private partnerships. School Leadership & Management, 26(3), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Stock, G. N., Greis, N. P., & Fischer, W. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity and new product development. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(1), 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Learning, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  114. Supovitz, J. 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(3), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Supovitz, J. A., & Weathers, J. (2004). Dashboard lights: Monitoring implementation of district instructional reform strategies. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  116. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools (pp. 1–74). Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.Google Scholar
  118. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  122. Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: Realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 698–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  126. Wentworth, L., Carranza, R., & Stipek, D. (2016). A university and district partnership closes the research-to-classroom gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 66–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado - BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options