References
- Addi-Raccah, A. (2015). School principals’ role in the interplay between the superintendents and local education authorities. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(2), 287–306. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2012-0107
- Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1745621
- Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
- Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
- Barber, M. (2007). Instruction to deliver: Tony Blair, public services and the challenge of achieving targets. Politico.
- Benoliel, P. (2017). Managing school management team boundaries and school improvement: An investigation of the school leader role. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1053536
- Benoliel, P., & Schechter, C. (2017). Promoting the school learning processes: Principals as learning boundary spanners. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(7), 878–894. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2016-0023
- Bergh, A. (2015). Local quality work in an age of accountability – Between autonomy and control. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), 590–607. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1017612
- Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–45.
- Chatterji, M. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountability initiatives. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 345–386. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003345
- Coburn, C., & Turner, E. (2012). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 99–111.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/663272
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
- DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–39). University of Chicago Press.
- DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen‐Moran, M. (2005). Bridging or buffering? The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230510577290
- Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
- Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620
- Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
- Gillham, B. (2005). Research interviewing: The range of techniques. Open University Press.
- Grek, S., & Lawn, M. (2009). A short history of Europeanizing education. European Education, 41(1), 32–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934410102
- Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
- Henriksen, Ø. H. (2018). Making sense across levels in local school governance: Dialogue meetings between a superintendent and subordinated school leaders. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2(2–3), 119–133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2752
- Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluation three decades of reform and change in UK central government. Oxford University Press.
- Hult, A., Lundström, U., & Edström, C. (2016). Balancing managerial and professional demands: School principals as evaluation brokers. Education Inquiry, 7(3), 283–304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.29960
- Kim, J. (2018). School accountability and standard-based education reform: The recall of social efficiency movement and scientific management. International Journal of Educational Development, 60, 80–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.11.003
- Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
- Lingard, L., McDougall, A., Levstik, M., Chandok, N., Spafford, M. M., & Schryer, C. (2014). Using loose coupling theory to understand interprofessional collaborative practice on a transplantation team. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education, 3(3), 1–17 . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22230/jripe.2014v3n3a112
- Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T. S., & Skedsmo, G. (2019). School leadership in data use practices: Collegial and consensus-oriented. Educational Research, 61(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1561201
- Møller, J. (2009). Approaches to school leadership in Scandinavia. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620902808244
- Morley, L., & Rassool, N. (2000). School effectiveness: New managerialism, quality and the Japanization of education. Journal of Education Policy, 15(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/026809300285881
- National Agency for Education. (2015). Systematiskt kvalitetsarbete: för skolväsendet [Systematic quality work: For the school system] (2nd ed.).
- Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308154
- Prøitz, T. S., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2019). District administrators’ governing styles in the enactment of data-use practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(2), 244–265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1562097
- Rapp, S., Aktas, V., & Ståhlkrantz, K. (2020). Schoolboards’ expectations of the superintendent – A Swedish national survey. Educational Review, 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1837740
- Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis iteration. Ministry of Education. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/60180/BES-Leadership-Web-updated-foreword-2015.pdf
- Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational Leadership, 42(6), 67–74.
- Scott, W. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–442. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9067-z
- Scott, W. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Seashore Louis, K., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249853
- SFS 2010:800. Skollag [ Education Act].
- Shen, J., & Cooley, V. E. (2008). Critical issues in using data for decision‐making. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(3), 319–329. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701721839
- Shen, J., Ma, X., Cooley, V. E., & Burt, W. L. (2016). Mediating effects of school process on the relationship between principals’ data-informed decision-making and student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(4), 373–401. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.986208
- Shen, J., Gao, X., & Xia, J. (2017). School as a loosely coupled organization? An empirical examination using national SASS 2003–04 data. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 657–681. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216628533
- Sivesind, K., & Karseth, B. (2019). An officially endorsed national curriculum: Institutional boundaries and ideational concerns. Curriculum Perspectives, 39(2), 193–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00074-4
- SOU 2019:43. Med tillit följer bättre resultat – tillitsbaserad styrning och ledning i staten [With trust comes better results - trust-based governance and management in the state]. Ministry of Finance.
- Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678
- Spillane, J. P., & Burch, P. (2005). Policy, administration, and instructional practice: ‘Loose Coupling’ revisited. Institute for Policy Research Working Paper. Northwestern University.
- Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210385102
- Ståhlkrantz, K. (2022). Principal agency: Educational leadership at the intersection between past experiences and present environments. In N. Wahlström (Ed.), Equity, teaching practice and the curriculum: Exploring differences in access to knowledge (pp. 90–104). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003218067-7
- Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
- Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
- Sun, J., Przybylski, R., & Johnson, B. (2016). A review of research on teachers’ use of student data: From the perspective of school leadership. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9238-9
- Supovitz, J. A., & Weinbaum, E. H. (2008). The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools. Teachers College Press.
- Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. (2016). Kommungruppsindelning 2017. Omarbetning av Sveriges Kommuners och Landstings kommungruppsindelning [Municipal group division 2017. Rework of Sweden’s Municipalities and County Councils’ municipal group division].
- Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. https://www.vr.se/download/18.5639980c162791bbfe697882/1555334908942/Good-Research-Practice_VR_2017.pdf
- Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547
- Vallentin, S., & Thygesen, N. (2017). Trust and control in public sector reform: Complementarity and beyond. Journal of Trust Research, 7(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2017.1354766
- Waldow, F. (2014). From Taylor to Tyler to no child left behind: Legitimating educational standards. Prospects, 45(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9334-x
- Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
- Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.