Leading change of practice: a study of challenges and possibilities from the position of preschool management

ABSTRACT

This article explores the conditions required for preschool managers to support change through research aimed at developing educational practice. It examines factors that enable and constrain support of change and the arrangements that can be identified in relation to these factors. The results suggest that arrangements that support a more technical and accountable form of practice constrain managers’ capacity to support research aiming to change practice. However, the findings also show thatmanagers do have possibilities to support such research. One key factor is whether the research is in line with their goals and efforts. Another is whether they have trust in the researchers and the educators implementing the change. The results also indicate that one way for leaders to enable change is by creating meaningful spaces for sharing experiences and developing practices. This involves the reframing of leadership practices into a more democratic and collaborative approach, and implies that cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements are needed to support such approach. Hence, for research projects aimed at changing educational practice, it is necessary to identify the specific arrangements connected to that practice. This is especially important in times when practice-based research is promoted as a way to attain educational goals.

KEYWORDS:

• Practice architectures
• change of practice
• leadership
• early childhood education
• communicative spaces

Introduction

This article uses results from research in a preschool setting to explore possibilities and challenges for preschool management in supporting the transformation of practice through action research. It takes its point of departure from the steering towards practice-based research that exists in the Swedish context as a means for attaining educational goals. In relation to this, the enhancing and transformation of educators’ practices and the conditions in which they operate are singled out. Policy documents, for example, point out that the research should be based on educators’ need for knowledge to help them in improving their own practices (Swedish Ministry of Education and Research 2017, 2018). This implies that educators are requested to actively participate in research projects aimed at changing educational practices. However, another crucial level for achieving change of practices is the active participation and involvement of formal leadership. As others have pointed out, educational leaders are the key to successful developmental work and sustaining of change in educational practice (Woodrow and Busch 2008; Wilkinson et al. 2010; Aubrey, Godfrey, and Harris 2012; Kemmis et al. 2014; Aas, Vennebo, and Halvorsen 2020; Sønsthagen and Glosvik 2020). However, in order to meet such requests, it is necessary to identify the terms and conditions that affect the possibilities for educational leaders to work with change of practice (Kemmis and Grootenboer 2008; Kemmis et al. 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2018; Nehez and Blossing 2020). The article therefore asks two questions: what enables and constrains preschool managers’ possibilities to support change of practice, and what arrangements can be identified in relation to these enablers and constraints? These questions are explored through the framework of practice architectures, which will be presented next.

Practice architecture as a theoretical and analytical framework

The point of departure of practice architectures is that practices are the driving force of educational reproduction as well as change (Kemmis et al. 2014; Kemmis and Edwards-Groves 2018). Based on Schatzki’s theory of site ontologies, Kemmis et al. (2014) argue that practice itself is the site in which semantic, physical space-time, and social spaces exist and overlap. Practice does not merely pass ‘through’ a place; it engages with it and is itself a social site that organizes what happens. From this point of view, the practice is defined as a site in which certain kinds of meaning are possible (‘sayings’), certain kinds of things are done (‘doings’), and certain kinds of relationships occur (‘relatings’). This suggests that the site is comprehensible through the practices of spoken language and discourse, of the activities and work that are part of what happens, and of the relationships that locate them as part of the site. A changing of practices thus involves a reframing of the sayings, doings, and relatings that exist in a community of practices in educational settings (Kemmis et al. 2014).

However, changing practices requires also changing the arrangements that make them possible. In order to develop and change practices, it is therefore necessary to identify the terms and conditions that affect these arrangements (Kemmis and Grootenboer 2008; Kemmis et al. 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2018; Henning, Ingrid, and Rönnerman 2019). Kemmis et al. (2014) describe these arrangements as practice architectures; that is, cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political conditions that help to explore and understand the ways educational practice is enabled and constrained. The cultural-discursive conditions shape the language used between those who participate, setting limits on what is possible to say and talk about in the specific context. One example of this is when concepts of children’s participation are used as a starting point for a common language and understanding of the pedagogical work. This, in turn, affects and is affected by the material-economic conditions, which means that the work is organized on the basis of both the current discursive understanding and the possibilities and limitations that exist due to such things as budget, physical resources, time, and access to staff and competence. All this affects and is affected by the social-political conditions; that is, how those who participate in the joint work relate to each other. Examples include how staff and the management relate to each other via the trust that exists between them. Here, power and solidarity are important in relation to how they are expressed and exercised in relationships.

Previous research on leading change of practices

Previous research on educational leaders’ possibilities to support change of educational practices shows that there are several enabling and challenging conditions related to sayings, doings, and relatings. The transformation of sayings depends on changes in the cultural-discursive arrangements that support the practices (Kemmis et al. 2014). Research shows that these arrangements can be changed by the enabling of new shared language; for example, through curriculum reforms, by engagement with professional readings, and through dialogic meetings. The engagement of educational leaders is important in relation to these enablers (Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2015; Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017), and research has identified several conditions regarding what managers can do to support new practices related to sayings. One is to shift the staff meetings from transmission of information to professional learning in a collaborative dialogic space. Another is to reconceptualise leadership to promoting shared responsibility by focusing on a collective professional learning amongst the staff. If it is to be possible for leaders to enable such change, it is important that this change is supported and encouraged by the local site-based cultural-discursive arrangements (Wilkinson et al. 2010; Rönnerman and Olin 2013; Kemmis et al. 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2015; Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017).

Previous research has also identified conditions regarding the transformation of doings, which are related to the changing of material-economic arrangements (Kemmis et al. 2014). Enabling and constraining conditions include how time is allocated and how the physical space is organized. Educational leaders play a crucial role, as it is they who have the mandate to, for example, free up meeting space and time for professional learning and to embed this in annual plans. They also have the mandate to initiate communicative spaces by structuring the voices and changing patterns of discussions. In this way, they can create an environment that supports professional dialogues and the sharing of responsibility for learning (Wilkinson et al. 2010; Rönnerman and Olin 2014; Kemmis et al. 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2015). The organization of the physical space; for example, how everyone is seated for communication, how many people are present (size), and where the gathering is situated (place) has also been identified as crucial for the accomplishment of a communicative space (Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017).

Results from previous studies show that practices can be transformed by critical shifts in relatings between staff, and between staff and their leaders, by the changing of the social-political arrangements that support the practices (Kemmis et al. 2014). These arrangements are expressed in how power and solidarity are exercised in relationships, through communication; for example, how the meeting content is determined, how groups are named and shaped, and in relation to policy decisions and meeting agendas (Rönnerman and Olin 2014). Here, the support and encouragement of educational leaders has been found to be crucial, as they can rebalance hierarchies towards shared responsibility (Kemmis et al. 2014). Relational trust between educational leaders and their staff is a significant enabling condition in this. For example, it is important for leaders to trust their staff to act as professionals who share a joint commitment to the changing of practice (Rönnerman and Olin 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2015; Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017; Forssten Seiser 2020). However, the nature and characteristics of trust can be complex and multifaceted as they appear in the interpersonal, intersubjective, interactional, intellectual, and pragmatic realms (Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017). Here, also, power relations and how these are dealt with are in play. For example, Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves (2017) found that power was visible in the participating middle-leaders’ experiences of practice, as all participants had roles at specific ‘levels’ in the organization.

The study

The results presented here emanate from a three-year (2017–2019) action research project aimed at developing practices in a preschool setting with a large linguistic diversity among the children and parents. The preschool is based in a medium-sized city, Malmö, in the south of Sweden, and receives non-Swedish-speaking children between the ages of three and five years. It was established in the 1990s as part of a planned process of children arriving in Sweden, receiving support to promote integration, and moving on to regular preschool groups. When the research began, the educators and preschool management expressed a need to review the organization in terms of pedagogical practices, and they agreed to work in a participatory way to explore the strengths and challenges of their daily work.

The research was implemented as a collaborative action project, since the educators, management, and researchers worked in close collaboration within the frame of action-reflection cycles: planning, action, observation, and reflection (McNiff 2002; Sigurdardottir and Puroila 2020). In the planning phase, the participants engaged in critical reflection to review their current practices. Since one aspect of a practice seeks an answer to the question, ‘What are you doing?’ (Salamon et al. 2016), the strengths and challenges in relation to this question were explored. One of the challenges identified was that although intercultural education was considered an asset and a goal, the structural support for its achievement was weak. This was visible in how the children were generally talked about, as the focus was often on deficits in language skills and the children being traumatized and in need of special support (Åkerblom and Harju 2019). Another challenge was related to the outdoor space. The preschool occupied most of the ground floor of an apartment block, and because the outdoor space was shared between preschool and residents, any changes to it needed to be negotiated with the real estate manager. The preschool manager had discussed a potential reorganization of the yard with this manager, but no agreement could be reached. Activities related to language practice and the restructuring of the preschool yard were based on the identified challenges and were implemented in the action phase. The concept of ‘translanguaging’ and aesthetic activities focusing on the children’s agency were introduced to help the educators conceptualise and verbalise their professional approach to languaging practice (Harju and Annika 2020), and the researchers together with the educators and children became involved in a process of redesigning the outdoor space of the preschool (Nordén and Avery 2020).

In the observation phase, which involved analysing and synthesizing the results of the actions, the activities were reflected on in dialogues between researchers, educators, and management. One challenge identified here was that while the educators and researchers in collaboration actively worked with the restructured language practice and in the reorganizing of the preschool yard, the practices of the preschool management were more parallel to than in line with this work. The management were rhetorically supportive, but not practically committed in the sense of including the work in their everyday managing of the preschool. The project was thus, especially during the first year of the research, implemented by the educators and researchers in parallel to the everyday practices of the management. Because of this, questions were raised about how to engage the management to ensure that the results of the research could be implemented in the long term. There was a fear that it would be difficult to maintain the achieved results without their support and active engagement. Since the involvement and active support of leaders is a key factor for thorough and long-term change in educational practice (Kemmis 2009; Kemmis et al. 2014; Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017), it was decided that the researchers would have separate reflexive dialogues with the preschool management. Plans were therefore made for a new action, embodied in reflexive dialogues involving discussion of their practices in relation to the work in the project. The results of the present article are based on these dialogues.

Reflexive dialogues with preschool management and ethical considerations

The material consisted of six transcribed audio recordings from the reflexive dialogues between the lead researcher and the preschool management. The dialogues took part in the last two years of the project. The management team comprised one principal with the main responsibility for several preschools in the area where the participating preschool was situated, the assistant preschool manager, and a förste förskollärare (advanced skills preschool teacher). When the dialogues started, these participants had already been informed about the aim of the project, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their ability to cease participation whenever they wished.

Since the project was based on action research principles, the aim of the reflexive dialogues was to create a space where the researcher and management could freely and openly together explore challenges and possibilities relating to the actions carried out at the preschool. The dialogues were in themselves a practice that gave the participants possibilities to reflect on the management practice as well as the practice in the research. The goal was to facilitate change through shared exploration and analysis, rather than the researcher being the one telling others what to do. As noted by Sigurdardottir and Puroila (2020), this required the dialogues to be based on an atmosphere of respect for each other’s competences, critical self-reflectivity from all participants, and ethical sensitivity.

The dialogues were analysed by the researcher who participated in them. The management was invited to participate in the analytical process, but declined due to a heavy work load. The first step of the analysis focused on identifying the reasons for the management’s peripheral involvement in the first year of the research. Two major challenges were identified, both strongly connected to material and economic arrangements. The first of these was referred to in the dialogues as ‘the reality’, and included daily operational work such as staffing, budget, management of unforeseen events, and other aspects of everyday line work. Another major challenge was that the management team were new to their positions due to a reorganization of the preschool organisation in the city. Their focus, at least in the first year of the research, was therefore to try to get a grip on their roles and the administrative tasks. The identified challenges suggest that the operational work tended to be prioritized, which in turn put constraints on the management’s possibility to focus on the transformative work in the research.

However, the analysis of the dialogues showed that despite these constraints, during the research process the management started to become actively involved in the actions implemented in the research. The second step of the analysis therefore focused on turning points; that is, what was it that made them interested in getting involved? The analysis also focused on the role of the reflexive dialogues, specifically in terms of how these dialogues supported the active engagement of the management. In order to anonymise the participants and avoid the identification of who said what, the quotations have been marked with randomly selected letters.

Educators’ change of practice leading to management involvement in the research

One crucial turning point for the management’s engagement in the research was the changed practice of the educators’ due to the restructured daily activities related to language practice and children’s active participation (Harju and Annika 2020). In the dialogues, the managers reflected on how the activities were facilitating the children’s active engagement and participation, and how this had led to the educators letting the children take their own initiatives. In a conversation about the implemented activities, one of them talked about the changes:

Yes, but I also think they [the educators] talk more about this [children’s participation], so they let the children take more space, both in relation to holding a gathering, but also if there is someone who wants to say something … the children themselves can say in the middle of a reading session, ‘Can we make theatre out of this?’ So they [educators] capture it, and then they make theatre out of it.

The manager quoted above had observed a change in the educators’ work based not only on how they talked about the children, but also on how they performed the pedagogical work. The research had introduced concepts and perspectives that gave the educators new ways of understanding and theorising about language and children’s agency (Harju and Annika 2020). These concepts and perspectives then led to the changing of doings in a way that increased both the children’s agency and the educators’ self-esteem, which was noticed by the management:

H: Through this project, I can see that even those [educators] who’ve worked in this setting for many years have gained more self-esteem. They’ve become strengthened in themselves as well, and through that we have stronger educators. So even if they’ve done these things before, they’re doing it in a different way; they’ve put into words why they do it, how they do it, and what results it gives.

I: They’ve got the words to describe it.

H: And it’s so wonderful to hear.

From the perspective of the management, the research not only offered the educators new perspectives on the children’s participation, but also helped them to develop a professional language that gave them the words to describe their doings, which in turn increased their self-esteem. As the management started to notice these changes, their own interest in the project increased. This interest was also related to the action of redesigning the outdoor space of the preschool. The action involved educators from all the sections of the preschool, as well as the children, who were involved through a ‘child council’ which contributed suggestions from the children in each section (Nordén and Avery 2020). Despite initially not having shown any interest in the redesigning of the outdoor space, the real estate manager began to become helpful and actively engaged in changes related to the yard:

It was probably because you came with an outside view, and all of a sudden our landlord, who hadn’t really listened before, was listening. Because all of a sudden he came to the meetings and got involved a bit, and the staff here felt that they were seen from the outside. That you saw them in this, in what they wanted.

The sudden active engagement of the real estate manager made the preschool management realize that the research had relevance for their work, as the research was in accordance with what they wanted to achieve regarding the pedagogical work and the outdoor space. The management had also observed that the research had relevance for the relations between the educators from different sections, as they all benefitted from the research. This led to a more positive approach to the actions implemented by the researchers and educators, and to the growth of trust in the work done by the researchers and educators, which is a crucial enabling condition for the possibility to change practices (Kemmis et al. 2014; Rönnerman and Olin 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2015; Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017).

Overall, therefore, it seems that the management’s active participation was led by their observations of how the research transformed the educators’ way of talking about their work, the way in which they did their work, and the relations at the preschool. The transformation was in line with their goals and ideas, and so the turning point came when they could see how the research benefitted their own work at the preschool. Another turning point was when they started to have trust in the educators’ and researchers’ work; that is, when they identified all participants as professionals who shared a joint commitment to changing practice (Rönnerman and Olin 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2015; Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017). This made them look at the research not as something parallel to their work, but as a process that they wanted to include in their own work. This is when the management started to use the dialogues to reflect on their own practice, which will be discussed next.

Reflexive dialogues of management practice

The reflexive dialogues between the researcher and the management aimed at offering a trusting space based on what Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer (2015) call mutually meaningful spaces; that is, spaces where people meet to gain an understanding of their practice in an environment that enables them to contribute their opinions and perspectives. It soon became clear that the management appreciated the space offered by the research:

Meetings like this are just as important as having them continuously, and having them without the educators, not because … they also have a lot to share, but here it’s like another level on how we can support each other at management level, and also get together all the different parts that we’ve started.

As illustrated by the quotation above, the management appreciated these dialogues as their own shared space to reflect within, separately from the educators. This gave them time to come together and reflect on their practice and the work implemented in the research. During the process, they started to reflect on how to integrate the concept of mutually meaningful space into their own practice. One idea was to change the structure of the preschool meetings:

There should be a little less information and a little more pedagogical focus. For many things, they [educators] can read information via email, so you don’t have to spend this precious time for that [information].

In the quotation above, one of the managers suggests changing the meeting structures to contain less information and more discussions focusing on content, which is in line with a changing of the shared language at the preschool. The focus on content was related to disseminations of the results from the research, but also to other educational topics at the preschool. One idea that came up in the dialogues was to divide the educators from the different sections into cross-groups:

B: But I think if we could work on some kind of cross-groups … maybe one person from each section, who spend an hour with the förste förskollärare, for example … just to further strengthen this cooperation and shared ownership [of the knowledge developed]

E: Then swap sections, they [the educators] swap sections for a day.

F: Then they learn from each other.

The idea of cross-groups with educators from each section was based on a discussion of how to create shared and long-term ownership of the changed practice and knowledge developed in the research. When discussing cross-groups as shared learning spaces, the management also reflected on structuring of voices and changing of patterns of discussion so that the educators’ voices would be heard: ‘They [educators] probably have to be involved in that thinking, and they’ll need to start telling us “We think this way and this, how can we do this?”.’

The reflexive dialogues thus had an effect on the management’s thinking about their meeting structures and content, and there was an intention from their side to create a mutually meaningful space at the preschool. However, the intentions ended up not being easy to implement due to issues connected to the ‘reality’. This particularly concerned the assistant preschool manager, who had the main responsibility for solving problems with staffing and unforeseen events on a daily basis. For example, high rates of sick leave meant that the preschool was constantly short of staff. This ‘reality’, combined with a fragmented schedule including administrative tasks such as meetings, documentation, and writing of reports, made it difficult to focus on the intended new practice. Nevertheless, the experiences from the reflexive dialogues implemented by the research had an effect on the management’s reflections on their own practice, which led to their intention to create mutually meaningful spaces at the preschool. Their own experience was that such spaces could help them and the educators to direct the attention of the meeting to discussions of pedagogical content, rather than technical-administrative issues:

And then I also feel that then you [the researchers] have been there when we may have... we’ve probably come back again faster. Because you lose it [the focus], it’s not just that one ball, it’s like 10 more.

In the quotation above, one of the managers pinpoints that the dialogues made it possible for them as a team to focus on the work implemented in the research. The dialogues thus helped the management to get ‘back on track’ in their everyday work, which to a large extent involved administrative tasks that normally made it ‘difficult to focus among 100 things’.

Overall, the results showed that administrative and technical arrangements could place constraints on management’s possibilities to actively support transformation of pedagogical practice. However, even if ‘reality’ and administrative tasks are typical challenges faced by line management, and tend to be prioritized (Sønsthagen and Glosvik 2020), the results suggest that mutually meaningful spaces have the potential to offer ways to integrate new ways of working and thinking into the everyday work in preschool settings. The management’s reflections on shifting the meetings from information to discussion of educational content, and the promotion of collective professional learning aiming at ‘saying’ and ‘doing’ things differently, are in line with the reframing of semantic space as well as physical space-time. They are also in line with the changing of social space due to a new way of structuring of voices and sharing the responsibility of educational practice. All in all, the intentions are one step in the direction of changing management practice to new ways of saying, doing, and relating.

Discussion

Based on the results from an action research project, this article has explored the possibilities and challenges for preschool management to support transformation of educational practice. The work was guided by the theoretical and analytical framework of practice architectures, which pinpoints the importance of the identification of the arrangements that enable and constrain change of practices (Kemmis et al. 2014; Kemmis and Edwards-Groves 2018). The results suggest that one challenge for preschool managers’ possibilities to actively support change of practice is the material and economic arrangements attached to their work. For example, in the first year of this research, the solving of problems related to the ‘reality’ tended to be prioritized, suggesting that the arrangements supported a more technical and administrative form of practice. This, in turn, worked as a constraint on the management’s possibilities to integrate the practice-changing work in the research into their own practice. The results are in line with existing claims within educational research that accountability and performativity have entered formal leadership practice; a development that tends to turn formal leadership practice toward a focus on the achievement of external goals, rather than educational content (Wilkinson et al. 2010; Kemmis et al. 2014; Forssten Seiser 2020).

However, despite the constraints related to material and economic arrangements, the results show that educational leaders can still be actively involved and supportive in changing of practice. As Wilkinson et al. (2010) argue, leading change does not always need to be implemented on a grand scale. On the contrary, new structures can be manifested through small, creative, and repeated actions. Educational leaders thus have the possibilities to support and facilitate change of practice at a local level. In the research project, there were several turning points which led to the active engagement of the management. One occurred when the management realised that the research was within the frame of their own goals and efforts at the preschool, and another occurred when they started to have trust in the work of the educators and researchers. This was related to their observations of the changed practice at the preschool and the increased self-esteem of the educators. As others have pointed out, managers’ trust in educators’ professional work is a crucial enabling condition for the possibility to change practices (Kemmis et al. 2014; Rönnerman and Olin 2014; Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer 2015; Rönnerman, Grootenboer, and Edwards-Groves 2017), which also concerns researchers. The results show that trust in the researchers’ intentions and work is a key aspect of managers’ willingness to support and be a part of research aimed at transforming practice.

The changing of practices needs new arrangements connected to new ideas, resources, activities, and relations (Kemmis et al. 2014), which can be difficult to achieve in everyday line work. However, in this project, the action research itself supported the management in their intentions to change practice. One example is the reflexive dialogues offered by the research. The management appreciated these dialogues because they helped them get ‘back on track’ to discussion of educational content. The dialogues also affected their thinking about the structure of the workplace meetings; their intention was to change these meetings into spaces where all participants could meet to share experiences and develop practices. This kind of space is in line with what Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, and Grootenboer (2015) call communicative spaces, which are socially established arrangements that enable people to participate in the transformation of semantic and social spaces as well as physical space-time. Educational leaders are an important factor in relation to the creation of such spaces, as they have the power to set the frame for who meets whom, how often they meet, what topics are addressed, and how interactions are conducted (Forssten Seiser 2020). However, as the results show, it is not an easy task for educational leaders to change their practice in such a way if the arrangements do not support it. The democratic and collaborative approach that comes with this practice is a move away from viewing formal leadership as a technical and accountable practice (Kemmis et al. 2014), and as such it marks a shift in the sayings, doings, and relatings of leadership (Wilkinson et al. 2010). This implies that for preschool management to reframe the conditions of their practice into a more democratic and collaborative approach, the cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements that support this must be in place.

Conclusion

The results of this analysis show the possibilities for action research to be involved in transformation of educational practice. It is clear that action research can offer communicative spaces where managers, educators, and researchers meet to reflect on and discuss new kinds of language, activities, and relations. Spaces such as these have the potential to offer room and methods to integrate new ways of working and thinking into the everyday work in preschool settings. This kind of cooperation between research and preschools/schools is encouraged within the Swedish educational context, where practice-based research is highlighted as a means for the attainment of educational goals (Swedish Ministry of Education and Research 2017, 2018). In relation to this, the enhancing and transformation of educators’ practices and the conditions in which they operate are singled out. For example, policy documents point out that the research should be based on educators’ need for knowledge that will help them to improve their own practices (Swedish Ministry of Education and Research 2017, 2018). This approach implies that the formal leadership is requested to actively participate in research projects aimed at developing the educational practice that they are responsible for. However, as has been shown, arrangements can put constraints on willingness and possibilities to participate in action research aimed at transforming educational practice. The active involvement of management is thus dependent on the cultural-discursive, material-economic, and socio-political arrangements that are connected to their practice. This in turn means that for each collaboration with research that aims at changing educational practice, it is necessary to identify and understand the specific arrangements connected to the management practice, and then use the results of this analysis to decide on the possible collaboration in changing of practice.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Karin Rönnerman for valuable comments on an earlier version of this article. I am also grateful to the local preschool managers who participated in the work on which the analysis was based.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Institute for Educational Research.