Networking and Collaboration What is the Evidence? Daniel Muijs University of Manchester Daniel Muijs University of Manchester Definitions Network = at least two organisations working together for a common purpose for at least some of the time. Collaboration = joint activities between actors from different organisations within the network. Networking in education Networking and collaboration have become increasingly popular in education Large number of programmes in the UK and internationally recently Networking has also gained popularity in the private sector due to increased competition and need for innovation Why network Many glib statements supporting collaboration, but these are often more ideological than empirically based This presentation: What is the theoretical justification? What is the empirical evidence? Theories of networking Theoretical groundings for networking can be classified as: Constructivist organisational theory Social Capital theory New Social Movements Durkheimian network theory Constructivist organisational theory Organisations are sense-making systems creating shared perceptions and interpretations of reality Create own reality, which risks becoming myopic Need for collaboration, which is also hard Need sufficient cognitive distance Need to be similar enough for dialogue Social Capital Networking allows organisations to harness capital held by other actors Networking improves the flow of information in an organisation and plugs structural holes Networks can influence their environment more Is social capital an individual or collective good? New Social Movements More fluid than traditional social movements Complex, heterogeneous and transient Build their own identity Voluntaristic Durkheimian network theory Networks can help combat anomie resulting from a lack of strong ties, and the regulation and integration that they bring Key importance of moral purpose Goals and activities Networking is not just about improving performance Three main goals: Raising achievement Broadening opportunities and reach Building capacity (human and material resources) Goals and activities Activities can be aimed at Short term Medium term Long term GoalsActivities Short termMedium termLong term Raising Achievement Partner school shares system to target D/C borderline pupils School leaders support each other by sharing data and openly discussing approaches to school development. Leaders are available for support when necessary Schools develop joint accountability systems, collegial leadership approaches and sustained support networks that draw in any new leaders in the network Theories, goals and activities Theories can be linked to goals and activities Variety of other dimensions include: Voluntarism v coercion Equality or domination Network density External involvement Benefits These theories point to benefits from networking, but what is the evidence? We will look at three areas: Raising achievement Broadening opportunities and reach Building Capacity (Human and Material resources) Can networking and collaboration Raise Achievement? Evidence from qualitative studies: CUREE (2005): systematic review Positive impact on pupils in 9 out of 14 studies Positive impact on teachers in 11 out of 14 Evidence of impact from a range of programmes (e.g. Chapman & Allen, 2004; Ainscow et al, forthcoming, Muijs et al, forthcoming) Evidence from quantitative studies Evidence from Curee (2005) systematic review Impact on specific groups of pupils, such as those with special needs Overall impact not clear Patchy impact of Networked Learning Communities (Hadfield, 2006) Can networking and collaboration Raise Achievement? Evidence from quantitative studies Some evidence that collaboration with other agencies can narrow achievement gaps (Cummings et al, 2008; Van Veen et al, 1998) Some evidence that specific forms of collaboration may raise achievement (Muijs, 2008) Stronger school paired with weaker schools, but not others Can networking and collaboration Raise Achievement? Little strong causal evidence But: evidence of specific forms of collaboration having specific impacts Need for more quantitative studies Can networking and collaboration Raise Achievement? Co-construct improvement around individual school needs Networking can foster knowledge creation (Katz & Earl, 2007) Can generate new knowledge (Ainscow & West, 2006) Reinventing the wheel? Can networking and collaboration Help Build School Capacity? Evidence that collaboration can help break isolation of schools (Harris, 2005; Datnow et al, 2003) Pooled resources lead to greater CPD opportunities and allow external support to be bought in (Muijs, 2008) Sharing of good practice, though actual extent of this varies (Imitation!) Can networking and collaboration Help Build School Capacity? Can networking and collaboration help Build School Capacity? Overall, there is qualitative evidence of potential for capacity building, though it is not always realised Can networking and collaboration Help Broaden Opportunities and Reach? Pooled resources allow broader curriculum provision (Muijs, 2008) Collaboration with other agencies allows greater resources to address community and social needs (Cummings et al, 2008) Does this reduce focus on core goals? Research from Outside Education Business Research: Collaboration can increase longevity of companies (Boddy et al, 2000) Collaboration can improve competitive position (Tsai, 2001) Collaboration, in particular direct ties, foster innovation (patents) (Ahuja, 2000) Collaboration can, however, lead to complacency towards new competitors (Ritter & Gemundsen, 2006) Strong evidence of benefits, but some dangers Research From Outside Education Health Collaboration can improve and broaden provision (Currie et al, 2004) Collaboration can lead to more support for vulnerable people (Barr et al, 2006) Collaboration can lead to bureaucracy and misunderstanding (Berardi et al, 2007) The impact of networking Evidence that networking Can broaden provision Can lead to better use of resources Can lead to better provision for specific groups Can lead to improved results in specific cases Can plug skills gaps More study is needed, though When does collaboration work? Trust Needs careful development Step by step Facilitated by prior relationships (Muijs et al, 2006) Facilitated by clear contractual arrangements Noteboom, 1996; Lindsay et al, 2005) These must not be too detailed (Dad & Teng When does collaboration work? Clear focus and goals Can help facilitate and iron out issues (Shapiro, 1987; Sydow, 2000; Muijs, 2008) Strong external support Specific project at outset (Ainscow & West, 2005) Shared ownership of goals When does collaboration work? Leadership Need active senior management support Firm directive skills at start Network itself needs clear management structure New emerging roles Readjustment of head perspectives Can aid distributed leadership, and is aided by it (Harris et al, 2005; Muijs, 2006; Fullan, 2004; Crawford, 2004) When does collaboration fail? No time provided for collaborative activities Lack of shared perspectives and understanding Collaboration for the sake of it No clear wins for all partners Lack of internal capacity in schools Lack of clear goals Ending collaboration Not all collaboration needs to be permanent Networks can loose their use and function But: breaking up is hard to do (Sedaka, 1962) Feelings of partners Loss of skills Should I collaborate? Collaboration is not the only route External initiatives have been successful (Stringfield et al, 2000) Building on external variation and strengths (Reynolds, 2007) Greater variation within than between schools Not mutually exclusive though Implications for Practice Collaboration has many potential benefits But: choose when to collaborate carefully, and with whom But: Impact on student outcomes is as yet unclear Prepare for collaboration Choose network partners that can complement Implications for Practice Fully commit to collaboration Clear, shared goals Set up clear structure KNOW YOURSELF! (Horgan-Wallace, 2005) Implications for SESI Lack of quantitative studies Need for empirical stance in area of strong rhetoric May require reframing units of analysis, and consequently rethinking of research methods Thanks for listening!: ?