Micropolitics Assignment

Secondary School Senior Leadership Teams’ use of micropolitical strategies in managing educational change?

Abstract

The concept and practice of teacher leadership has gained momentum in the past twenty five years. Teachers are assuming additional leadership functions at both the instructional and organisational levels of practice. Empirical literature reveals numerous small-scale, qualitative studies that use a micropolitical framework, that describe dimensions of teacher leadership practice, specifically highlighting issues of power, influence, authority, coercion and moral leadership. Historically research has illuminated the strategies used by Head Teachers, however, this proposed research project takes the view that school decision making is not an individualistic process, it is a team effort that involves a number of colleagues and suggests that far less is known about how the Senior Leadership Teams (S.L.T.’s) use micropolitical strategies to manage educational change and reform. The ultimate purpose of this research will attempt to recognise those strategies used by large secondary schools’ leadership teams, an approach which is intended to be achieved through questionnaires, observations and interviews. It will inform and improve school leadership by recognising strategies used in the successful management of implementing educational change, adding to the small, yet growing base of empirical research within the field of micropolitics.

Introduction

The context and justification of the study

This assignment will illuminate the background context and justification of a proposed doctoral research study and identify how the main issues and problems of the investigation have arisen. It will briefly highlight the historical development of the terminology of micropolitics whilst acknowledging the leading theorists within this field of research.

It could be claimed that micropolitical behaviour within schools has been with us since the creation of formal authority within these institutions, although no formal statement has been indicative of this time scale it could be as long ago as the creation of our founding educational institutions. Indeed, Smith & Gallagher (2008) claim ‘that schools maybe the most politicized institution in our society’ (p.1). However, interpretation of these types of political behaviours did not permeate through into published research until the late 1960’s, and it wasn’t until the mid-1980’s that micropolitics had been specifically highlighted as a relatively baron field of educational research.

However, over the past thirty years, micropolitical studies of schools have identified conflict dynamics over policy and practice, organisational control by administrators, teacher resistance, ideological or normative influences, and teachers’ political orientation towards students (Ball, 1987; Blase, 1991; Sparkes, 1990).

The aspiration of this study is to examine micropolitics in large secondary schools. Because the focus of this work is on micropolitical behaviour in organisations and the nature of that, the benefit of looking through the micropolitical lens, allows the reader to make sense of the contextual setting, in this research to a particular school(s). Given the variety and complexity of educational environments, there seems value in having a data source for researchers whose purposes may be different from the author’s own.

Currently, much of the published research has focussed specifically on the Head teacher and the strategies they use to influence/ coerce staff (Blase, 1987; Blase, 1993; Blase & Blase, 1996; Blumberg & Greenfield, 1986; Bredeson, 1986; Crow & Weindling, 2010; Hoy & Leverette, 1986; Johnston & Venable, 1986). From an extensive, worldwide search, the author has only found a small handful of research that specifically focuses its attention on Senior Leadership Teams, with only Wallace & Hall (1994), Chrispeels & Martin (2002) and Cranston & Ehrich (2005) of particular relevance.

Due to this lack of research within the micropolitical field of school leadership teams in this country, the intention of this research will bring a much needed British contextual perspective on the micropolitical strategies used by secondary school S.L.T.’s. Secondly, a comprehensive comparative of both the positive and negative uses of micropolitical strategies used to make managerial decisions has yet to be published in one British study, as previous research has focussed on either the negative (Blase, 1990) or positive (Greenfield, 1991) aspects of school micropolitics and have, in general, been contextually based in the United States.

For this study the author will uniquely situate his case study research within three large Secondary schools, whereas previous research has focussed on single institutions, (Anderson 1991; Ball & Bowe 1991; Corbett 1991; Greenfield, 1991) making the rich contextualised case studies difficult to apply to other similar establishments. After having carefully read the works of previous authors, especially those of Yin (1993, 1994) and Eisenhardt (1989), it was decided to combine several approaches of case study research and merge them into a research strategy that is referred to as the Multi-Site Case Study. This approach also allows for comparisons of similarities between S.L.T. decision making processes, which has not been research in any depth previously, and will attempt to illuminate trends across situational differences between each of the schools.

Ball (1987) emphasises that what happens in schools cannot be totally understood without accounting for the environment in which schools operate (p.247). With an explicit interest in the context of the research, case studies are able to prove a means by which a broader range of data can be collated which might achieve the aims outlined by Ball (1987). Furthermore, Cohen et al (2007) state that case studies are ‘a step to action’ (p.256) allowing direct interpretation of data to be utilised in staff self-development and within institutional feedback. However, Cohen et al (2007) also note that case studies can be problematic for direct comparison between schools due to their unique staffing and cultural contexts. They can be prone to observer bias and subjectivity, whilst being difficult to organise. However, as micropolitical behaviour is so contextually situated, the author believes a mixed method case study to be the most appropriate approach.

Their (the schools) commonality is based within their staffing structures of employing a faculty system of line management. This structure will allow the author to validate his research through a manageable timescale to administer face-to-face interviews, questionnaires and informal observations, whilst finding time to obtain rich data through analysing the data gathered and re-interviewing subjects to clarify points raised and to explore some of the issues at a deeper level. The author hopes to obtain access to the schools’ Senior Leadership Teams, as well as their immediate subordinate staffs whom they line manage to ascertain how decisions are made, what information influences those decisions, how they are disseminated to subordinate staff and how S.L.T.’s deal with resistance toward those decisions.

The authors’ role and knowledge of the context

Currently a member of the Middle Management Team of an 11-19 secondary grammar school situated in a large northern city in England, I have thirteen years teaching experience across three secondary schools, ten of these are in my current institution. During this tenure I have served as a teacher governor, through a very turbulent period in the schools’ history. My knowledge, enthusiasm and understanding of micropolitical decision making processes has developed through discussions with my own Head teacher and other teaching staff at the school and observations of these decisional outcomes.

After undertaking an intensive period of research into the decision making processes of school leaders and leadership teams, I discovered seminal research on micropolitics by Hoyle (1986) and Ball (1987), which in turn, led to American contextual researcher Blase (1991) and more recently the work of Cranston & Ehrich (2005), plus a number of other researchers with a handful of studies each between them. Below (Table 1) highlights the prominent authors within this field, their concepts, preferred methodology, sampling, data collection procedures and country of context.

Interestingly, Ball (1987) had highlighted four leadership styles (interpersonal, managerial, authoritarian, and adversarial; p.87) and how those preferred styles led to a generalisation of ways in which micropolitical decisions were handled based on their preferred leadership style. What had not been recognised and fully documented is a list of decisional processes that have to be undertaken by Senior Leadership Teams in ensuring educational change is implemented in the most seamless manner. It also fails to illuminate other factors that have to be taken into account (subject specialism, experience, qualifications) when making these decisions and the emotional attachments that leaders adjoin to these processes.

In the next chapter, I attempt to make sense of the theoretical diversity that characterises the field and note that despite the proliferation of theories, heuristics, and models that research traditions of rationalism, culturalism and structuralism continue to inform and, arguably, constrain research in the field.

Micropolitics in an educational context: the research topic

The dominant theory for Educational Administration over the last five decades is believed to have been Social Systems Theory (Getzels & Guba, 1957; Getzels, 1958, 1963). Besides criticisms of practitioners, some researchers have questioned the utility of Social Systems Theory (Ball, 1987; Hoyle, 1986). In the place of this theory, a number of competing frameworks have arisen. The micropolitical perspective arose as a challenge to traditional-rational theories of organisations that highlight clear shared values and goals. These traditional theories often do not account for everyday lived experiences of those inside the organisation. Micropolitical theories instead spotlight individual differences, goal diversity, conflict, use of informal power, and the negotiated and interpretive nature of organisations (Ball, 1987; Blase, 1987, 1991; Hall & Spencer-Hall, 1982). However, when Scribner et al (2003) comment on the field of micropolitical research, it appears to them to have complementary or even conflicting approaches and as yet, no ‘holy grail’ (p.10) of a single disciplinary paradigm. They claim that interplay between the theoretical streams of micropolitics, political culture and neoinstitutionalism has created a ‘messy centre’ (Lichbach, 1997) that emerged through the decline of the behaviouralist movement. Interestingly, they (Scribner et al, 2003) believe that this is a healthy and productive position for the field of educational politics, rather than one of chaos or confusion. In contrast to system perspectives, conflict theories focus on the emergence and persistence of conflict in social systems (Ritzer, 1996). Although increasing in influence, its acceptance has been mixed. A perceived lack of theoretical and methodological rigour and advocacy orientation could explain in part this response.

From a theoretical perspective, the micropolitics of education in 2011 is an eclectic, messy and scattered field, wrestling with the fundamentals of focus and scope. Some see the importance and need to develop empirically grounded, systematic explanations of political phenomena in our field; others do not (Johnson, 1999).

Very few have attempted a conclusive definition of micropolitics, due to its complex nature as an organisational phenomenon. An early attempt of a definition (Hoyle, 1982) claimed that micropolitics were “those strategies by which individuals and groups in organizational contexts seek to use their resources of power and influence to further interests” (p.88). My preferred definition, albeit long, comes from a prominent researcher within the field of study, Blase, who states:

Micropolitics refers to the use of formal and informal power by individuals and groups to achieve their goals in organisations. In large part, political actions result from perceived differences between individuals and groups, coupled with the motivation to use power to influence and/or protect. Although such actions are consciously motivated, may have political “significance” in a given situation. Both cooperative and conflictive actions and processes are part of the realm of micropolitics. Moreover, macro- and micropolitical factors frequently interact.

(Blase, 1991, p.11).

Debate still continues on the most practical definition of micropolitics. Some definitions are criticised for their dominant attention to conflict and their consequent inability to explain cooperation (Benveniste, 1989). Other critiques suggest that ethics and morality receive short shrift in political frameworks that overemphasise power relationships (Bolman & Deal, 1991). What it ultimately highlights though, is the messiness and complexity of micropolitics in the day to day organisation of our schools, and its need for further clarification.

As with similar fields of study, there is a need for academics to resist the onset of theoretical ossification and inflexibility and embrace theoretical discovery and creativity. New concepts can make the invisible, in some frameworks, visible. They challenge our thinking and work against the formation of group-think. However, acceptance or rejection of any framework must not come at the cost of rigorous methodology and theoretical understanding.

Why micropolitics? Its significance to the wider academic community

Given the fundamental role played by education in society, how do we know whether preparation programs for our schools’ leadership teams have equipped them adequately for the daily emotional labour and micropolitical decision making processes required, to effect educational change or maintain the status quo? This study will use a micropolitical approach to uncover how S.L.T.’s ‘learn’ to be political and how they utilise their knowledge, the strategies that have been observed as having a positive outcomes and the factors that determine those decisional processes.

Micropolitical research, building on the politics of education and teacher work life research that preceded it, represents a significant lens through which to view school life. I believe its importance is equal to that of bureaucratic, open systems and human relation perspectives, the popularity of which have been long standing within the school management literature. However, none of these perspectives alone is sufficient to understand school life.

It could be argued that traditional organisation theories of schooling lack grounding in the real life day-to-day realities of school life. Descriptions tend to be overly rational and possibly too controllable, something that cannot be said for any school. Conversely, political theories tend to be rich in description of the everyday life of schools, but offer little in terms of practical advice on how to survive politically and create a collegial school environment.

It is my belief that school leaders and their leadership teams, must be constantly aware of who benefits and who suffers in the constant barrage of logistical and educational decisions (Dahl, 1982; Strike et al. 1988). The current arrangement for S.L.T. training, for example the NPQH for potential Head teachers, tends to emphasise the steps of school operations rather than the dilemmas of practice (Thomson, 1989; Bridges & Hallinger, 1992). Until the study of school micropolitics is incorporated into Senior Leadership preparation, novice members of these teams will continue to find conflict between what they are taught and what they experience.

There is a noticeable lack of empirical research focussing on the teamwork between senior school managers, their preferred leadership styles and the strategies those managers use to repel challenges to educational change from subordinate staff. This study would go some way into readdressing the balance of research that highlights leadership from senior staff and not just head teachers. It will try to illuminate decision making processes that arise through challenge from subordinate staff to educational change. I hope to highlight common processes or themes from interviews, questionnaires and informal observations (triangulation); although these responses will heavily contextualise, similarities between comparable situations will be illuminated, for the benefit of other school leaders and interested parties, such as the National College of School Leadership (NCSL).

The purpose and the aims of the research

The aspiration of this research is to understand micropolitical activity within secondary schools. This is intended to be achieved through examining schools in similar situations with apparently similar approaches to explore the part that micropolitics plays in negotiating those strategies. The hope is that this would then provide a basis on which to understand micropolitics and could offer learning opportunities for others who hold senior leadership positions in other schools. I hope to highlight how the holding of a Senior Leadership position allows a perceived use of power and authority to influence/persuade subordinate staff to collaborate for positive change as well as repelling challenges to the implementation of new practices. I hope to add this research to the limited base of empirical knowledge of micropolitical behaviours of Senior Leadership Teams within the British educational system. Finally, this research aspires to enlighten teaching and research colleagues of the lack of formal guidance given to staff in senior positions in developing these micropolitics ‘skills’. Where, when, why and how do they develop? Is it through processes of trial and error or is it through personal advice from line managers on their way up through the hierarchal British education system?

Research questions & sub questions

• How does micropolitics manifest itself in Secondary School Senior Leadership Teams?

• How do S.L.T.’s utilise micropolitics to encourage positive staff collaboration or confront subordinate staff challenge to educational changes in practice?

• When, where, how and why do senior leaders develop micropolitical competencies?

Conclusion

This assignment has made the case that there is a need for a greater depth of understanding in how micropolitics determine school decision making in the context of the British secondary education system. This, it is argued can best be understood through a case study approach to this research. The complexity of the contexts of study will, it is proposed here, be examined using a mixture of methods. This will allow for a form of methodological triangulation, enabling multiple perspectives on the same context. By using three schools it will be possible to recognise similarities and define differences that may be contextual but may also link into the preferred leadership styles of the members of the respective S.L.T.’s and how they interact on a daily basis. This proposed study aspires to go beyond a simplistic notion that micropolitics is a negative tool for change and will, instead, search for a balanced perspective of its benefits in the decision making processes of school leadership. Finally, it is hoped that this research will add to the substantial empirical research base on micropolitics through the study of Senior Leadership Teams, an area which seems to have been relatively underrepresented in the existing literature.

References

Anderson, G.L. (1991). Cognitive politics of principals and teachers, In J. Blase, (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

Ball, S. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. New York: Methuen.

Ball, S. & Bowe, R. (1991). Micropolitics of Radical Change, In J. Blase (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

Benveniste, G. (1989). Book review – The micropolitics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organisation, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 326-328.

Blase, J. (1987). Socialization as Humanization: One Side of Becoming a Teacher, Sociology of Education, 59 (2), 100-112.

Blase, J. (1990). Some Negative Effects of Principal’s Control-Orientated and Protective Political Behaviour, American Educational Research Journal, 27 (4), 727-753.

Blase, J. (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: The teachers’ perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.

Blase, J. & Blase, J. (1996). Facilitative School Leadership and Teacher Empowerment: Teacher’s Perspectives. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 117-145.

Blumberg, A. & Greenfield, W.D. (1986). The Effective Principal: Perspectives on school leadership (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1991). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Bredeson, P.V. (1986). Principally speaking: An analysis of the interpersonal communications of school principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, San Francisco.

Bridges, E.M. & Hallinger, P. (1992). Problem-based Learning for Administrators, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon ERIC Clearinghouse on Management.

Chrispeels, J.H. & Martin,K.J. (2002). Four School Leadership Teams Define Their Roles Within Organizational and Political Structures to Improve Student Learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(3), 327-365.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th Ed.). New York, Routledge.

Corbett, H.D. (1991). Community influence and school micropolitics, In J. Blase, (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

Cranston, N. & Ehrich, L. (2005). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Senior Management Teams in Schools. I.S.E.A., 33(1), 79-91.

Crow, G.M. & Weindling, D. (2010). Learning to be political: New English Headteachers’ Roles. Educational Policy, 24, 137-158.

Dahl, R.A. (1982). Dilemmas of Pluralistic Democracy: autonomy vs control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Getzels, J.W. (1958). Administration as a Social Process, In A.W. Halpin (ed), Administration Theory in Education, New York, Macmillan.

Getzels, J.W. (1963). Conflict and Role Behaviour in the Educational Setting, In W.W. Charters, Jr. & N.L. Gage (eds.), Readings in the Social Psychology of Education, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

Getzels, J.W. & Guba, E.G. (1957). Social Behaviour and the Administrative Process, School Review, Winter, pp.423-441.

Greenfield, W.D. (1991). The Micropolitics of Leadership in Urban Elementary School, In J. Blase, (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

Hall, P., & Spencer-Hall, D.A. (1982). The social conditions of negotiated order. Urban Life, 11(3), 328-349.

Hoy, W.K. & Leverette, B. (1986). Leadership of principals, personal characteristics of teachers, and the professional zone of acceptance of elementary teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, San Francisco.

Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of Educational Organizations, Educational Management and Administration, 10, 87-98.

Hoyle, E. (1986). The politics of school management. London, Hodder and Stoughton.

Johnson, B.L. Jr. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the educational policy. Educational Policy, 13(1), 23-36.

Johnston, G.S. & Venables, B.P. (1986). A study of teacher loyalty to the principal: Rule administration and hierarchical influence of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(4), 4-27.

Lichbach, M.I. (1997). Social theory and comparative politics. In M.I. Lichbach & A.S Zuckerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, ad structure (pp.239-276). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ritzer, G. (1996). Modern sociological theory (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scribner, J.D., Aleman, E. & Maxcy, B. (2003). Emergence of the Politics of Educational Field: Making Sense of the Messy Center. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 10-40.

Smith, J.K. & Gallagher, D.J. (2008). An Essay on the Politics of Schooling and Educational Research. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 8, 284-301.

Sparkes, A.C. (1990). Power, domination and resistance in the process of teacher-initiated innovation. Research Papers in Education, 5(2), 153-178.

Strike, K.A., Haller, E.J. & Soltis, J.F. (1988). The Ethics of School Administration, New York: Teachers College Press.

Thomson, S.D. (1989). Commentary in J. Hannaway & R. Crowson (Eds.). The Politics of Reforming School Administration, Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Wallace, M. & Hall, V. (1994). Inside the SMT: Teamwork in Secondary School Management. London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

References: Anderson, G.L. (1991). Cognitive politics of principals and teachers, In J. Blase, (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press. Ball, S. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. New York: Methuen. Ball, S. & Bowe, R. (1991). Micropolitics of Radical Change, In J. Blase (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press. Benveniste, G. (1989). Book review – The micropolitics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organisation, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 326-328. Blase, J. (1987). Socialization as Humanization: One Side of Becoming a Teacher, Sociology of Education, 59 (2), 100-112. Blase, J. (1990). Some Negative Effects of Principal’s Control-Orientated and Protective Political Behaviour, American Educational Research Journal, 27 (4), 727-753. Blase, J. (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press. Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: The teachers’ perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163. Blase, J. & Blase, J. (1996). Facilitative School Leadership and Teacher Empowerment: Teacher’s Perspectives. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 117-145. Blumberg, A. & Greenfield, W.D. (1986). The Effective Principal: Perspectives on school leadership (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1991). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Bredeson, P.V. (1986). Principally speaking: An analysis of the interpersonal communications of school principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, San Francisco. Bridges, E.M. & Hallinger, P. (1992). Problem-based Learning for Administrators, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon ERIC Clearinghouse on Management. Chrispeels, J.H. & Martin,K.J. (2002). Four School Leadership Teams Define Their Roles Within Organizational and Political Structures to Improve Student Learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(3), 327-365. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th Ed.). New York, Routledge. Corbett, H.D. (1991). Community influence and school micropolitics, In J. Blase, (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press. Cranston, N. & Ehrich, L. (2005). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Senior Management Teams in Schools. I.S.E.A., 33(1), 79-91. Crow, G.M. & Weindling, D. (2010). Learning to be political: New English Headteachers’ Roles. Educational Policy, 24, 137-158. Dahl, R.A. (1982). Dilemmas of Pluralistic Democracy: autonomy vs control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Getzels, J.W. (1958). Administration as a Social Process, In A.W. Halpin (ed), Administration Theory in Education, New York, Macmillan. Getzels, J.W. (1963). Conflict and Role Behaviour in the Educational Setting, In W.W. Charters, Jr. & N.L. Gage (eds.), Readings in the Social Psychology of Education, Boston, Allyn & Bacon. Getzels, J.W. & Guba, E.G. (1957). Social Behaviour and the Administrative Process, School Review, Winter, pp.423-441. Greenfield, W.D. (1991). The Micropolitics of Leadership in Urban Elementary School, In J. Blase, (1991). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press. Hall, P., & Spencer-Hall, D.A. (1982). The social conditions of negotiated order. Urban Life, 11(3), 328-349. Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of Educational Organizations, Educational Management and Administration, 10, 87-98. Hoyle, E. (1986). The politics of school management. London, Hodder and Stoughton. Johnson, B.L. Jr. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the educational policy. Educational Policy, 13(1), 23-36. Johnston, G.S. & Venables, B.P. (1986). A study of teacher loyalty to the principal: Rule administration and hierarchical influence of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(4), 4-27. Lichbach, M.I. (1997). Social theory and comparative politics. In M.I. Lichbach & A.S Zuckerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, ad structure (pp.239-276). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ritzer, G. (1996). Modern sociological theory (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Scribner, J.D., Aleman, E. & Maxcy, B. (2003). Emergence of the Politics of Educational Field: Making Sense of the Messy Center. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 10-40. Smith, J.K. & Gallagher, D.J. (2008). An Essay on the Politics of Schooling and Educational Research. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 8, 284-301. Sparkes, A.C. (1990). Power, domination and resistance in the process of teacher-initiated innovation. Research Papers in Education, 5(2), 153-178. Strike, K.A., Haller, E.J. & Soltis, J.F. (1988). The Ethics of School Administration, New York: Teachers College Press. Thomson, S.D. (1989). Commentary in J. Hannaway & R. Crowson (Eds.). The Politics of Reforming School Administration, Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Wallace, M. & Hall, V. (1994). Inside the SMT: Teamwork in Secondary School Management. London, Paul Chapman Publishing. Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.