Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 439–464 | Cite as

Artifacts as authoritative actors in educational reform

Routines, institutional pressures, and legitimacy in student data systems
  • Virginie März
  • Geert Kelchtermans
  • Karen Vermeir
Article

Abstract

Educational reforms are often translated in and implemented through artifacts. Although research has frequently treated artifacts as merely functional, more recent work acknowledges the complex relationship between material artifacts and human/organizational behavior. This article aims at disentangling this relationship in order to deepen our understanding of the role of artifacts within processes of educational change. In particular, we study the implementation of a data-transfer instrument developed to stimulate care continuity between primary and secondary schools. In order to understand an artifact’s authority and to unravel its role in processes of innovation, we turned to organizational routines and neo-institutional theory. Drawing on data from an artifact analysis and semi-structured interviews, this article reports how this artifact not only transfers data, but also changed the discursive interactions (routines) in the school team around care. From an institutional perspective, implementing the artifact can be viewed as an answer to institutional forces that are pressurizing organizations to conform to particular ideas of what care and care continuity should ideally look like. The use of the artifact contributed to the schools’ organizational legitimacy by serving their symbolic needs and it enabled them to position themselves towards stakeholders, parents and other schools as a truly legitimate school.

Keywords

Educational change Primary–secondary transition Artifact Organizational routines Neo-institutional theory Case studies 

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., Jacobs, J., Schramm, S., & Splittgerber, F. (2000). School transitions: Beginning of the end or a new beginning? International Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Struggling with workload. Primary teachers' experience of intensification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1150–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardon, T., & Josserand, E. (2009). Why do we play the games? Exploring institutional and political motivations. Education + Training, 51, 460–475.Google Scholar
  4. Benner, A. (2011). The transition to high school: Current knowledge, future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 299–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36, 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chedzoy, S., & Burden, R. (2005). Making the move: Assessing student attitudes to primary–secondary school transfer. Research in Education, 74(1), 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coburn, C. E. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7, 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evangelou, M., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2008). What makes a successful transition from primary to secondary school? Project report. London: The Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
  12. Feeney, C., & Best, G. F. (1991). Transition of integrated students and students with special needs from primary to secondary school. Australasian Journal of Special Journal, 21, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Fenwick, T. (2011). Reading educational reform with actor network theory: Fluid spaces, otherings, and ambivalences. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 114–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics. The case of the policy on quality control in Flanders. Journal of Education Policy, 22, 471–491.  Google Scholar
  18. Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. März, V., Kelchtermans, G., & Dumay, X. (2016). Stability and change of mentoring practices in a capricious policy environment: Opening the “black box of institutionalization”. American Journal of Education, 122, 303–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. März, V., Kelchtermans, G., Vanhoof, S., & Onghena, P. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McLellan, R., & Galton, M. (2015). The impact of primarysecondary transition on students’ well-being. [Final report to Nuffield Foundation]. Cambridge: University of Cambridge- Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Ministry of the Flemish Community, Education Department. (2008). Education in Flanders. A Broad View of the Flemish Educational Landscape, http://www.flanders.be/en/publications/detail/education-in-flanders-a-broad-view-of-the-flemish-educational-landscape.
  25. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ogawa, R., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT/IT: Toward conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Annals of the Academy of Management, 2, 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oser, F. K. (1994). Moral perspectives on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 57–127.Google Scholar
  29. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1484–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Qualter, P., Whiteley, H. E., Hutchinson, J. M., & Pope, D. J. (2007). Supporting the development of emotional intelligence competencies to ease the transition from primary to high school. Educational Psychology in Practice: Theory, Research and Practice in Educational Psychology, 23, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramduny-Ellis, D., Dix, A., Rayson, P., Onditi, V., Sommerville, I., & Ransom, J. (2005). Artefacts as designed, artefacts as used: Resources for uncovering activity dynamics. Cognition, Technology & Work, 7, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. (2009). The discipline of ranking: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations. Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Sirsch, U. (2003). The impeding transition from primary to secondary school: Challenge or threat? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 5, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118, 113–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.Google Scholar
  43. Symonds, J. (2015). Understanding school transition: What happens to children and how to help them. London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Tondeur, J., De Bruyne, E., Van Den Driessche, M., McKenney, S., & Zandvliet, D. (2015). The physical placement of classroom technology and its influences on educational practices. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45, 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vermeir, K., Kelchtermans, G. & März, V. (2017). Implementing artifacts. An interactive frame analysis of innovative educational practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18, 832–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27, 1639–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Groupe Interdisciplinaire de Recherche sur la Socialisationl’Education et la Formation (Girsef)- Université Catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Center for Educational Innovation and the Development of Teacher and SchoolKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations