Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Artifacts as authoritative actors in educational reform

Routines, institutional pressures, and legitimacy in student data systems

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The LEP’s gather all the school boards from a region as well as a wide range of organizations that find themselves confronted with inequality in education. The LEP ensures the right of enrollment, acts as an intermediary in case of conflicts, and co-operates in implementing a local policy on equal opportunities in education.

  2. The staff of a Center for Pupil Guidance (CPG) is made up of a number of permanent offices, such as a physician, psycho-pedagogical counselor, and social worker.

  3. The Educational Consultant Service ensures professional development support to schools. Schools can call upon them for educational and methodological advice.

  4. The Pupil Follow Up System is used in all grades of primary education to monitor pupils’ academic achievement over time. The test results from the various measurement occasions are calibrated on a common scale. Therefore, the progress of an individual pupil can be followed systematically during his or her school career.

  5. Freedom of education is a constitutional right in Belgium. The state authorities are not allowed to take preventive measures against the establishment of free schools. Under this constitution, the state is obliged to provide neutral education and governing bodies enjoy considerable autonomy. They are entirely free in choosing teaching methods and are allowed to base their education on a particular philosophy or educational approach. They can also determine their own curriculum and timetables as well as appoint their own staff (Ministry of the Flemish Community, Education Department 2008).

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Struggling with workload. Primary teachers' experience of intensification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1150–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardon, T., & Josserand, E. (2009). Why do we play the games? Exploring institutional and political motivations. Education + Training, 51, 460–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, A. (2011). The transition to high school: Current knowledge, future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 299–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36, 84–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chedzoy, S., & Burden, R. (2005). Making the move: Assessing student attitudes to primary–secondary school transfer. Research in Education, 74(1), 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7, 197–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T. (2011). Reading educational reform with actor network theory: Fluid spaces, otherings, and ambivalences. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 114–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.  

  • Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLellan, R., & Galton, M. (2015). The impact of primary–secondary transition on students’ well-being. [Final report to Nuffield Foundation]. Cambridge: University of Cambridge- Nuffield Foundation.

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oser, F. K. (1994). Moral perspectives on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 57–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. (2009). The discipline of ranking: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations. Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirsch, U. (2003). The impeding transition from primary to secondary school: Challenge or threat? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 5, 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118, 113–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symonds, J. (2015). Understanding school transition: What happens to children and how to help them. London-New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, K., Kelchtermans, G. & März, V. (2017). Implementing artifacts. An interactive frame analysis of innovative educational practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 116–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18, 832–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27, 1639–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Groupe Interdisciplinaire de Recherche sur la Socialisation, l’Education et la Formation (Girsef)- Université Catholique de Louvain, Place Cardinal Mercier 10, PO Box L3.05.01, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Virginie März

  2. Center for Educational Innovation and the Development of Teacher and School, KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, PO Box 3773, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Geert Kelchtermans & Karen Vermeir

Authors
  1. Virginie März
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geert Kelchtermans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Vermeir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geert Kelchtermans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

März, V., Kelchtermans, G. & Vermeir, K. Artifacts as authoritative actors in educational reform. J Educ Change 18, 439–464 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9309-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9309-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation