The Practice Architectures of Middle Leading (cont.)

In the last three posts (11-13) we have talked about how middle leading practices are enabled or constrained by certain arrangements. In this post we want to be more explicit and give an example from a study carried out in preschools in Sweden (being published very soon) where 14 middle leaders led their colleagues in systematic quality work. The material-economic arrangements enabling this to happen are the most obvious as all personnel get two hours a month to participate in the communicative space organised by the middle leaders. In turn, the middle leaders get four hours a week, which enables them to plan, conduct and reflect on the meetings. However, there are some constraints as well. Some principals in the district complain about supporting this work and want to use the time for other purposes. But the district leader and the middle leaders have all been arguing to keep these communicative spaces as they found them important as a way to have time to come together in conversations to share and reflect over their work with the students. Observing these conversations it is obvious they are not without contradiction. The people who meet do not always think the same way about different activities, which is fine, but in a communicative space one goal is to reach unforced consensus. The point is not to thoughtlessly agree, but rather to argue and to listen to each other’s views. This is expressed well by Kemmis, Mc Taggart and Nixon (2014) in the following quote:

Communicative action is that kind of action we take when we engage one another in genuine, open dialogue or (better) conversation. Put more precisely—and this will serve as a definition of communicative action—people engage in communicative action when they make a conscious and deliberate effort to reach (a) intersubjective agreement about the ideas and language they use among participants as a basis for (b) mutual understanding of one another’s points of view in order to reach (c) unforced consensus about what to do in their particular situation. (p. 35)

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer

Rönnerman, K., Edwards-Groves, C., & Grootenboer, P. (2015 forthcoming). Opening up communicative spaces about quality in early childhood education through middle leadership practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Education Policies.