The Practice Architectures of Middle Leading

During August our blog posts concentrated on the practice of Middle Leading. Now we will zoom out from the practice itself and talk about the conditions under which the practice of Middle Leading occur. We will use the theory of Practice Architectures to be able to show how a practice is prefigured by certain arrangements (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008). But within this theory these arrangements do not determine the practice, but rather they enable and constrain the practice. Within the theory of Practice Architectures there are three kinds of arrangements:

·       the characteristic cultural-discursive arrangements of the practice. These exist in the medium of language in the dimension of semantic space and orient to the distinctiveness of language and discourses used in and about middle leading practices. Cultural-discursive arrangements enable and constrain the ‘sayings’ characteristic of the practice; for example, determining what it is relevant to say, or – especially – what language or specialist discourse is appropriate for describing, interpreting, justifying middle leading  practice;

·       the characteristic material-economic arrangements of the practice. They exist in the medium of activity and work in the dimension of physical space-time and orient to the characteristic kinds of activities or work that is done in the course middle leading practices. Material-economic arrangements enable and constrain the ‘doings’ characteristic or typical middle leading practice; for example, in the physical set-ups of staff meetings or professional development days and in the particular activity systems in an organization; and,

·       the characteristic social-political arrangements of the practice. These exist in the medium of power and solidarity in the dimension of social space and orient to the characteristic patterns of relationships between people and between people and non-human objects that occur in middle leading practices. Social-political arrangements enable and constrain the ‘relatings’ characteristic of the practice; for example the relationship between the principal and the middle leader, or between middle leaders and teachers in collegial groups. (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008). In our next post we will continue to delve deeper in these dimensions and give example of how they work in middle leading practices.

Kemmis, S. & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating Praxis in Practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp.37-62). Rotterdam: Sense.