School Leadership & Management

Formerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Taking a distributed perspective on leading

professional learning networks

Cecilia AzorínCeciliaAzorin, Alma Harris & Michelle Jones

To cite this article: Cecilia AzorínCeciliaAzorin, Alma Harris & Michelle Jones (2019): Taking
a distributed perspective on leading professional learning networks, School Leadership &
Management, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1647418

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1647418

Published online: 02 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 141

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1647418

Taking a distributed perspective on leading professional

learning networks
a b b
Cecilia Azorín , Alma Harris and Michelle Jones
a
Faculty of Education, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain; bSchool of Education, Swansea University,
Swansea, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Leadership is an essential contributor to effective professional Received 24 March 2019
networking within education. In the pursuit of school and Accepted 20 July 2019
system improvement, leaders at all levels are being
KEYWORDS
challenged to collaborate and network in order to secure the Leadership; distributed
best positive outcomes for students. Professional learning leadership; professional
networks are one of the main developments in many learning networks; collective
education systems in recent years. The article takes a action; education;
distributed perspective on leading professional learning educational research
networks. Firstly, the article explores the contribution that
leadership makes to effective networking and productive
collaboration; secondly, it considers the challenges of leading
collective action; and thirdly, it proposes that distributed
leadership could offer an important theoretical framing to
understand, in greater depth, the nature and impact of
professional collaboration, particularly but not exclusively, in
the form of networks. Consequently, the article argues that
distributed leadership offers a useful framework for future
empirical enquiry and analysis into the effective leadership
of professional learning networks. Finally, it proposes
that the knowledge base on networks and networking
should move away from largely normative descriptions, self-
report and over assertion to far more sophisticated data
collection and analytical processes that would generate more
rigorous and reliable evidence on the intentions, processes
and outcomes of professional learning networks.

Introduction
In the pursuit of school and system improvement, leaders at all levels are being
challenged to collaborate and network in order to secure the best positive out-
comes for students (Drysdale and Gurr 2017; Eckert 2018; Fullan and Quinn 2016;
Hargreaves, Boyle, and Harris 2014; Harris and Jones 2015; OECD 2018). One of
the most prevalent school improvement strategies in recent years has been pro-
fessional networking and collaboration, by teachers, across different schools and
school settings (Azorín 2019; Campbell 2017; Chapman et al. 2016; Harris and
Jones 2010; Malone 2017; Muijs, West, and Ainscow 2010).

CONTACT Cecilia Azorín cmaria.azorin@um.es @CeciliaAzorin

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

Interest in school-to-school collaboration has grown significantly in the last

decade (Chapman 2008; Sartory 2017) and networking within and between
schools is generally considered to be a potentially powerful strategy for
improving student outcomes (Chapman and Muijs 2014; Muijs 2015; West
2010). The relationship between leadership and professional collaboration is
also the focus of much recent scholarly enquiry (Azorín and Muijs 2018;
Datnow and Park 2018; DeWitt 2017; Jäppinen 2014; Schleifer, Rinheart, and
Yanisch 2017).
According to Rollins et al. (2017), professional collaboration is the latest wave
of educational reform and it has been argued that ‘collaboration is the new front
line of school improvement’ (Hargreaves and O’Connor 2018, 1). Indeed, some
writers add that cultural change occurs through collaborative networks
leading to educational improvement (Díaz-Gibson, Civís, and Guàrdia 2014)
and others recommend collaborative school leadership for managing a group
of schools (Middlewood, Abbott, and Robinson 2018). In short, school to
school networks have become an integral feature of many education systems
with significant expectations placed upon them (Harris, Jones, and Huffman
2017). Despite such popularity, however, the knowledge-based still remains rela-
tively limited on how school networks are most effectively led (Hadfield and
Chapman 2011).
The literature does confirm that network leadership entails the facilitation of
working together and coordinating common activities for school improvement
purposes. As Hargreaves (2018) states, the debate today is no longer about
whether collaboration is a good thing or not, but rather how to undertake it
with precise designs that promote inquiry, reflection, better practice and
increased commitment to change. Daly and Stoll (2018, 296) note that:
The ability to work well with others, tap into networks, and draw on collective intel-
ligence is of critical importance, as we move deeper into a knowledge society in
which collaboration, emotional intelligence, social skills, and connecting to an inter-
dependent social network are increasingly necessary, and are grounded in good
science.

This article discusses the contribution that leadership plays in effective colla-
borative working, particularly, though not exclusively, in the form of school to
school networks. The article argues that adopting a distributed perspective on
leadership practice within networks firstly, will afford a better understanding
of how networks operate. Secondly, it offers the possibility of going beyond
self-report as the main way of capturing the impact of networks, and other
forms of professional collaboration, to a more sophisticated methodological
and empirical approach. This paper includes a theoretical discussion on the
chosen topic, explores the knowledge base on professional collaboration in
relation to school and system improvement, and considers the literature on net-
working starting with definitions and evidence.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 3

Networks
Rauch (2013) explains that networks are broadly conceived as intermediate struc-
tures where interdependent processes occur in which new ways of learning and
cooperation between individuals and institutions are explored. Another, definition
of networks offered by Kools and Stoll (2016, 5), describe networking in education
as: ‘an extended group of people with similar interests or concerns who interact
and exchange knowledge for mutual assistance, support and to increase learning’.
Both definitions promote the importance of building collective capacity and
leading collective action. Walker and Riordan (2010, 51–61) note that:

Collective capacity refers to the ways people work together in schools to improve
student learning and lives. We hold that building this capacity hinges on the personal
and professional relationships formed within the school and the development of a
shared set of values and understandings that guide action. Leaders in both formal
and informal roles play a pivotal role in nurturing these relationships and the develop-
ment of shared values.

It has been argued that the last decade has seen the growth of networks and
networking within, between and across schools (Murray 2017). Yet other con-
temporary writing would suggest that the enthusiasm for professional collabor-
ation and networks far outstrips the evidence-base outlining the impact of this
collective activity (Harris and Jones 2017). Researching complex network inter-
actions inevitably offers inherent methodological challenges and problems. As
Cullen et al. (2014, 3) note:
Many researchers and practitioners are working hard to understand how collectives –
groups of people, teams, organizations, communities – may enhance their network per-
spective and build, manage, and leverage their network connections.

The proliferation of collaborative networks it could be argued, is taking place

without a clear and robust evidential base about the models that produce posi-
tive benefits and outcomes for learners. The research on school-to-school net-
works, and professional collaboration signals the importance of leadership as
the main driver of school effectiveness and improvement (Boylan 2018; Fullan
2015; Leithwood 2016). Yet relatively little attention has been paid to the articu-
lation of the leadership models, approaches and theories that underpin and
explain the power of this collaborative activity.
The following sections therefore: firstly, explore the contribution that leader-
ship makes to effective networking and professional collaboration; secondly,
considers the challenges of leading collective action; and thirdly, argues that dis-
tributed leadership could offer an important theoretical framework to under-
stand the nature and impact of professional collaboration, particularly but not
exclusively, in the form of networks. The article concludes by reflecting on and
discussing the implications of distributed leadership within the context of pro-
fessional learning networks.
4 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

Leading networks
There is now an established international literature on networking within,
between and beyond schools (e.g. Armstrong and Ainscow 2018; Azorín and
Muijs 2017; Chapman and Hadfield 2010; Ehren and Perryman 2018; Gilbert
2017; Glenn et al. 2017; Mitterlechner 2019; Spring et al. 2018; Van Den Beemt
et al. 2018; Vesterinen et al. 2017). This literature suggests that leadership is an
important and essential condition for effective networking to occur. The leader-
ship of networks is a key contributor to success. Two questions, however, remain
unanswered; firstly, what leadership theory would contribute to a better under-
standing of the practice of leadership within networks and, secondly, what type
of network leadership enhances professional collaboration with impact?
Currently, there is a great interest in ascertaining how to lead collaborative
work with impact (Harris and Jones 2019), how to develop network leadership
and how to move network research forward. Network leadership is often
assumed to be different from the leadership of single agencies or organisations
but there is relatively little empirical evidence to support this assumption (Leith-
wood and Ndifor 2016). According to Muijs et al. (2011, 159):
Despite the growth of networks and collaboration both in education and in the public
sector more generally, most of what we know about management derives from studies
of single organisations. This is clearly problematic in the light of observed differences in
the nature of networks. Leading networks requires an additional skill set, focused on
organising resources and partners, and, not least, their relationships, something
which head teachers have not traditionally had to do to this extent.

A great deal of the writing on leading networks tends to reflect largely

descriptive and normative accounts of the practice and moves between
different interpretations of collaborative, collective and shared leadership. Essen-
tially, network leadership is the coordination process of many people – from
different institutions and with diverse roles – working together for common alli-
ance purposes. Díaz-Gibson et al. (2017) describe network leadership as the type
of leadership developed in networked or highly interconnected contexts which
is focused on managing the diversity of skills and capacities of the collaborative.
Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) argue that distributed, shared, demo-
cratic and networked leadership denote that the work of school leadership
involves multiple leaders.
A quick scan of the research on network leadership reveals that some studies
have focused on the characteristics of effective school leadership (Leithwood
2018), network leadership challenges (Baker, Kan, and Teo 2011) and how
school cultures and wider networks enable teacher leadership to flourish
(Lovett 2018). Other research has stimulated reflection about how school
leaders build the collective capacity in schools for change and improvement
(Harris 2011), and how effective collaborative enquiry across teaching school alli-
ances impacts on teachers and students (Harris and Jones 2012).
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 5

While the evidence base on the leadership of networks and other collaborative
entities is certainly growing, some important questions remain: What kind of
leadership is needed in a network for it to flourish? How does collaborative leader-
ship really work in these interconnected environments? How is collective action
generated through networking? What are the core principles of leading collabora-
tive work in school networks? The next section explores the ways in which leader-
ship is understood within the body of empirical work on networking.

Network leadership
Various authors have written on the practice of leading networks (Busch and
Barkema 2018; Chapman and Muijs 2013; Daly 2010; Ruckdäschel 2015). This lit-
erature suggests that network leadership goes beyond the school gates and con-
centrates on the generation of the collective action (positive effects) of the
people involved.
O’Neill and Brinkerhoff (2018) propose that network leadership has the follow-
ing aspects: viewing organisations as systems, connected networks structure,
shared and/or rotated decision-making, in terms of assumptions about
people’s capacity, people are inherently capable and can be trusted to do the
right thing, and success comes from the diverse perspectives and skills of
many. Another key aspect is understanding the link between professional learn-
ing communities and teacher collective efficacy (Voelkel and Chrispeels 2017).
For example, Donohoo (2017) and Donohoo, Hattie, and Eells (2018) suggest
that collective efficacy, is based on the belief that through collective actions edu-
cators can positively influence students’ results and enhance their achievements.
Currently, professional learning networks and the impact of leadership in
effective collaboration for teacher, school and system improvement are being
studied. Brown and Poortman (2018) define professional learning networks as
any group of connected educators who collaborate to leverage this connectivity
in order to improve practices in and across schools and/or their school system.
More than a decade ago, Veuglers and O’Hair (2005, 2) explained the concept
of professional learning networks as based on the belief and evidence that ‘tea-
chers learn best by sharing ideas, planning collaboratively, critiquing each
other’s idea and experiences and reducing the isolation encountered in most
schools’.
The implications for leadership within networks have been recently discussed
by Trust, Carpenter, and Krutka (2018). They state that traditionally leaders in
education often experience professional isolation, but this changes with the
expansion possibilities of professional learning networks and social media,
which provide a wider array of people, spaces and tools that can be shared.
Godfrey and Brown (2019) recently use a ecosystems perspective to analyse
the interconnection that occur among the people and institutions that exist
within the ecosystem.
6 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

Networking strategies, challenges, features and conditions are also important

points for consideration academia. Meehan and Reinelt (2012) provide several
networking strategies related to leadership, such as: building social capital, cat-
alysing community engagement, changing hearts and minds, mobilising more
people to the cause, stimulating creativity and innovation, bringing projects to
scale, transforming systems, and fostering greater equity. Other studies
suggest that despite some challenges, networking can be learned and the pres-
ence of support systems for network leaders may enhance the effectiveness and
quality of participation for both individual schools and the network at large
(Evans 2010).
Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan (2016) have identified eight essential features of
effective networks in education, and one of them is using deliberate leader-
ship and skilled facilitation within flat power structures in which leadership
adopts a pivotal role. In terms of enhancing sustained school improvement,
Hubers and Poortman (2018) also state that there are six conditions that
support working in professional learning networks: focus, collaboration, indi-
vidual/group learning, reflective professional inquiry, leadership and boundary
crossing.
To summarise the literature on network leadership aligns with the idea of
system leadership that is associated with networking experiences, the creation
of spaces for collaboration, as well as the construction of learning communities
(Daly and Finnigan 2016; Townsend 2015). Boylan (2013, 57) states:
The increasing importance of educational collaborations and networks that blur organ-
izational boundaries requires conceptual developments in leadership theory. One
approach to both theorizing and promoting such phenomena is through the idea of
system leadership. Three different meanings of the term are identified: interschool lea-
dership; a systemic leadership orientation and identity; and leadership of the school
system as a whole.

Taking a system leadership perspective resonates with the leadership of net-

works, considered as a macro view of interrelations. Indeed, the work of Senge,
Hamilton, and Kania (2015) suggests that system leaders need to foster colla-
borative leadership, to build a shared understanding of complex problems,
and to promote reflection and more generative conversations.
At the micro level rather than the system level, however, a sound theoretical
explanation of the leadership practice within networks is missing. A system per-
spective only takes the discussion on leading networks so far. It is proposed
therefore that what is lacking is a clear theoretical frame for understanding
the practice of leadership within networks. The next section presents distributed
leadership as a much needed theoretical frame to examine the leadership prac-
tices within different types of networks. It includes the consideration of what dis-
tributed leadership is and what different researchers have exposed about
distributed leadership and networks.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 7

Distributed leadership
Distributed leadership is a topic which has gained a great deal of interest among
educators in recent years. A distributed perspective on school leadership and
management has attracted considerable attention from policy makers, prac-
titioners and researchers in many countries (Ahumada-Figueroa et al. 2017;
Diamond and Spillane 2016; Harris and DeFlaminis 2016; Klein et al. 2018). The
concept of distributed has made significant inroads into leadership theory and
practice (Harris 2013). Turning first to definitions, Ancona and Backman (2017,
1) define distributed leadership from the point of view of networking:

What is distributed leadership? It involves leadership practices that are more collabora-
tive, open and decentralized – designed to mesh more effectively with new forms of
work and new technologies. It is a kind of leadership that blends top-down, and
bottom-up decision making.

Distributed leadership encompasses leadership exercised by multiple leaders

who work collaboratively across organisational levels and boundaries. In their
seminal work, Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) suggest that distributed
leadership is formed by the interaction of leaders, teachers, and the situation, as
they influence instructional practice. Looking to the present and future of net-
works, the idea of distributed leadership is useful as it explains leadership prac-
tices in flatter organisational structures. In this respect, distributed leadership has
been described as a collaborative, collective and coordinated distribution of edu-
cational leadership and management (Spillane and Diamond 2007).
In terms of networks, Spillane and Timperley (2004, 17) affirm:
A distributed leadership perspective sees this context as part of the leadership activity,
both shaping it and being shaped by it. That said, the interactions within network lea-
dership communities create very complex contexts and it is easy to get diverted from
the central purpose of improving pupil learning when trying to manage all the inter-
actions and relationships among and within the schools. By keeping the spotlight on
how the networks activities impact directly on pupil learning some of these diversions
may be prevented.

Others such as Lynch (2012) highlight the reasons for the present emergence
of distributed leadership in the context of networking: distributed leadership fits
well with emerging of networking and changing workforce; organisations can no
longer control their workers through the bureaucratic structures of the past; dis-
tributed leadership includes a contemporary shift toward the weakening of tra-
ditional leadership forms, and as a result, the journey has given way to a network
culture.
The connection between distributed leadership and networking is reflected in
the work of Gronn (2000, 226), who envisioned distributed leadership as an
‘emergent property of a group or a network of interacting individuals’. Harris
(2008a, 177) similarly proposes that:
8 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

Distributed leadership is also assumed to enhance opportunities for the organization to

benefit from the capacities of more of its members, to permit members to capitalize on
the range of their individual strengths, and to develop among organizational members
a fuller appreciation of interdependence and how one’s behavior effects the organiz-
ation as a whole. Interest has also grown because of the expansion of different forms
of collaboration between and across schools.

The use of social network analysis to examine distributed leadership in prac-

tice within networks would also suggest that distributed leadership provides
an interesting theoretical perspective. Therefore this article now assesses
how far distributed leadership offers a useful theoretical lens on leadership
practices within professional learning networks. According to Angelle
(2010, 1):
The lines of traditional leadership roles and followers are blurred. The complexity and
size of school systems today are such that one leader cannot meet the demands of
daily tasks and problems. Thus, a singular leader-centric school cannot operate as
efficiently as one in which leadership roles are distributed. Those who study and
those who practice the art of leadership are embracing a re-thinking of leadership prac-
tice as a collective effort.

Collective effort and agency is at the heart of distributed leadership as this

model of leadership is primarily concerned with interactions and the dynamics
of leadership practice and not centralised power by formal leaders (Harris
2008b, 2014). Cullen et al. (2014) argue that leadership is a shared process,
which means increasing the collective capacity for leadership in the organisation
or community, to enable others to step up, adjust, and make decisions, and to
transform the leadership culture from reliance on command-and-control hierar-
chies to adaptation within agile, interdependent networks. Taking a distributed
view of networking, Harris (2004, 15) states that:
Distributed leadership results from the activity, that it is a product of a conjoint activity
such as network learning communities, study groups, inquiry partnerships, and not
simply another label for that activity.

From the point of view of leading networks, Imperial et al. (2016), suggests
that this brings together three interconnected types of leadership: collaborative
leadership, in which network members share leadership functions at different
points in time; distributed leadership, in which network processes provide local
opportunities for members to act proactively for the benefit of the network,
and architectural leadership, in which the structure of the network is intentionally
designed to allow network processes to occur. Heikka, Waninganayake, and
Hujala (2012, 38–39) reinforce that:

Distributed leadership relies on building relationships through the validation of pro-

fessional expertise and empowerment of people and diversity, and thereby creating
a culture of learning.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 9

There are several reasons, we propose, why distributed leadership provides an

alternative and powerful theoretical lens on networks and networking (Harris
2004, 2013) and why it offers greater methodological power to the empirical
exploration of professional learning networks.
First, distributed leadership theory originates from social psychology (Spillane
2006), it has a clear theory of action (Gronn 2000) and clear models of application
(Harris 2002; MacBeath 1998). Second, by using a distributed leadership frame it
is also possible to understand why certain networks function and others do not
(Harris and Spillane 2008). Thirdly, distributed leadership offers the potential of
more sophisticated empirical enquiry into networks and a much stronger meth-
odological design.
According to Harris (2008a), the conception of distributed leadership moves
beyond the single leader to understanding leadership as a dynamic organis-
ational entity process, where roles and tasks are performed through the inter-
action of multiple leaders (Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond 2001). Hence
distributed leadership theory adds a framework to interrogate network leader-
ship with the possibility of more reliable explanations of the success or failure
of professional learning networks.
Distributed leadership is fundamentally about building lateral capacity
between, within and across schools. Chapman and Harris (2004) suggest that dis-
tributed leadership, as applied to networks, draws in the various members of the
schools in the network and allocates real tasks to them; develops a shared com-
mitment to professional development at all levels, including headship, and
builds the capacity to identify and to exploit opportunities for external support.
Similarly, Brown and Flood (2019) conclude that such support should be
directed at ensuring those participating in professional learning networks can
engage in network learning activities; also, that this activity can be meaningfully
mobilised within schools. What is less well understood however are the actions
school leaders might engage in to provide this support. To summarise, many
researchers have argued that distributed leadership explains the forms of leader-
ship practice within networks. The reality is that professional learning networks
actively distribute leadership across traditional boundaries to release the poten-
tial of those within the network. According to Muijs et al. (2011, 162):
More generally, there is evidence that networks not only require additional leadership
roles and skills, but that they, by creating these, help to involve more school staff in lea-
dership, thus promoting both distributed leadership and increased leadership capacity
in the system.

There is also evidence that the work in school networks is more effective when
there is a horizontal type of leadership structure with a broad distribution of
power (Scanlan et al. 2016). In fact, when schools participate in this way of
working, a culture of collaboration and joint decision-making emerges that
makes the transfer of knowledge and inter-school experiences more permeable
10 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

Figure 1. Distributed leadership and networking connections. © Azorin, Harris and Jones, 2019
no reproduction without permission of the authors.

and possible (Ahumada-Figueroa et al. 2016). In an attempt to introduce a more

detailed conceptualisation of the connections between distributed leadership
and networks, next graphic shows how the concepts discussed in the manuscript
overlap and connect (Figure 1).
In this line of argument, Mowat (2019) states for a melding of distributed lea-
dership with systems (network) leadership, characterised by meaningful collab-
oration and partnerships from ‘within – to between – and beyond’ schools.
However, from a critique perspective, there is a reliance on distributed leadership
stressed throughout the paper, which, granted, is important, but at the same
time, someone has to coordinate and facilitate, and thus a leadership figure/
person is also much needed (Harris, Jones, and Huffman 2017).

Conclusion
Looking at distributed leadership and social network theory suggests that both
could offer a better and deeper understanding of networks, their processes and
their impact. Recently, Campbell (2016, 7) argued that:
Over a decade on, the future of innovation and improvement in education is not primar-
ily about a senior ‘guiding coalition’ (although political and official leaders are impor-
tant), but rather about an ecosystem of formal and informal leaders and learners
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 11

throughout the education system being enabled and equipped to learn together, to
share their knowledge, to de-privatize practices, to innovate and to co-create improve-
ments in professional knowledge, skills and practices with benefits for students’ well-
being, equity and learning.

Our core conclusion is that distributed leadership provides important theor-

etical and practical insights into the working of professional learning networks,
as complex eco-systems. Distributed leadership is mainly concerned with inter-
actions rather than actions, with capacity building rather than control, with
empowerment rather than coercion. Consequently, it is proposed that distribu-
ted leadership offers an appropriate and powerful framework for future empirical
enquiry into professional learning networks.
In summary, this article argues that taking a distributed leadership perspective
on networks and networking offers greater theoretical, practical and empirical
opportunity to those working and researching in this field. The article also pro-
poses that distributed leadership provides a frame or a lens through which to
interrogate and to understand professional learning networks and networking
more deeply and accurately.
It is concluded, therefore, that taking a distributed leadership perspective on
professional learning networks would help researchers to investigate more
thoroughly the contribution that different leadership practices make to suc-
cessful networks and networking. Finally, and most importantly, taking a dis-
tributed leadership perspective would move the knowledge base on
professional learning networks and networking away from largely normative
descriptions, self-report and over assertion to more sophisticated research
designs and analytical processes that would generate more rigorous and
reliable evidence on the intentions, processes and outcomes of professional
learning networks.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Cecilia Azorín http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8454-8927
Alma Harris http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5554-3470
Michelle Jones http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7098-8814

References
Ahumada-Figueroa, L., A. González, M. Pino-Yancovic, and O. Maureira. 2017. Liderazgo
Distribuido en Establecimientos Educacionales: Recurso Clave Para el Mejoramiento Escolar.
Informe Técnico N°7. Lideres Educativos. Valparaíso: Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora
Escolar.
12 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

Ahumada-Figueroa, L., M. Pino-Yancovic, A. González, and S. Galdames. 2016. Experiencias

Internacionales de Liderazgo Sistémico y Redes Escolares. Nota Ténica N° 4, Líderes
Educativos. Valparaíso: Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora Escolar.
Ancona, D., and E. Backman. 2017. Distributed Leadership. From Pyramids to Networks: The
Changing Leadership Landscape. Cambridge: Leadership Center.
Angelle, P. S. 2010. “An Organizational Perspective of Distributed Leadership: A Portrait of a
Middle School.” Research in Middle Level Education 33 (5): 1–16. doi:10.1080/19404476.
2010.11462068.
Armstrong, P. W., and M. Ainscow. 2018. “School-to-school Support Within a Competitive
Education System: Views From the Inside.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement
29 (4): 614–633. doi:10.1080/09243453.2018.1499534.
Azorín, C. 2019. “The Emergence of Professional Learning Networks in Spain.” Journal of
Professional Capital and Community 4 (1): 36–51. doi:10.1108/JPCC-03-2018-0012.
Azorín, C., and D. Muijs. 2017. “Networks and Collaboration in Spanish Education Policy.”
Educational Research 59 (3): 273–296. doi:10.1080/00131881.2017.1341817.
Azorín, C., and D. Muijs. 2018. “Redes de Colaboración en Educación. Evidencias Recogidas en
Escuelas de Southampton.” Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado
22 (2): 7–27. doi:10.30827/profesorado.v22i2.7845.
Baker, E., M. Kan, and S. T. T. Teo. 2011. “Developing a Collaborative Network Organization:
Leadership Challenges at Multiple Levels.” Journal of Organizational Change Management
24 (6): 853–875. doi:10.1108/09534811111175797.
Boylan, M. 2013. “Deeping System Leadership: Teachers Leading From Below.” Educational
Managament Administration & Leadership 44 (1): 57–72. doi:10.1177/1741143213501314.
Boylan, M. 2018. “Enabling Adaptive System Leadership: Teachers Leading Professional
Development.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46 (1): 86–106.
doi:10.1177/1741143216628531
Brown, C., and J. Flood. 2019. Formalise, Prioritise and Mobilise. How School Leaders Secure the
Benefits of Professional Learning Networks. Bingley: Emerald Professional Learning Networks
Series.
Brown, C., and C. L. Poortman. 2018. Networks for Learning, Effective Collaboration for Teacher,
School and System Improvement. New York: Routledge.
Busch, C., and H. G. Barkema. 2018. “Ecosystem Emergence and Transformational Network
Leadership.” Academy of Management Proceedings 28: 1. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.
16943abstract.
Campbell, C. 2016. “Collaborative Professionalism: Of, by and for Catholic School Leaders.”
Principal Connections 20 (1): 6–7.
Campbell, C. 2017. “Developing Teachers’ Professional Learning: Canadian Evidence and
Experiences in a World of Educational Improvement.” Canadian Journal of Education 40
(2): 1–33.
Chapman, C. 2008. “Towards a Framework for School-to-School Networking in Challenging
Circumstances.” Educational Research 50 (4): 403–420. doi:10.1080/00131880802499894.
Chapman, C., H. Chestnutt, N. Firel, S. Hall, and K. Lowden. 2016. “Professional Capital and
Collaborative Inquiry Networks for Educational Equity and Improvement?” Journal of
Professional Capital and Community 1 (3): 178–197. doi:10.1108/JPCC-03-2016-0007.
Chapman, C., and M. Hadfield. 2010. “Realising the Potential of School-Based-Networks.”
Educational Research 52 (3): 309–323. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.504066.
Chapman, C., and A. Harris. 2004. “Improving Schools in Difficult and Challenging Contexts:
Strategies for Improvement.” Journal of Education Research 46 (3): 219–228. doi:10.1080/
0013188042000277296.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 13

Chapman, C., and D. Muijs. 2013. “Collaborative School Turnaround: A Study of the Impact of
School Federations on Student Outcomes.” Leadership and Policy in Schools 12 (3): 200–226.
doi:10.1080/15700763.2013.831456.
Chapman, C., and D. Muijs. 2014. “Does School-to-School Collaboration Promote School
Improvement? A Study of the Impact of School Federations on Students Outcomes.”
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 25 (3): 351–393.
Cullen, K. L., P. Willburn, D. Chrobot-Mason, and C. Palus. 2014. Networks: How Collective
Leadership Really Works. London: Center for Creative Leadership.
Daly, A. J. 2010. Social Network Theory and Educational Change. Cambridge: Harvard Education
Press.
Daly, A. J., and K. S. Finnigan. 2016. Thinking and Acting Systemically: Improving School Districts
Under Pressure. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Daly, A. J., and L. Stoll. 2018. “Looking Back and Moving Forward. Where to Next for Networks
of Learning?” In Networks for Learning, Effective Collaboration for Teacher School and System
Improvement, edited by C. Brown and C. L. Poortman, 205–204. Abingdon: Routledge.
Datnow, A., and V. Park. 2018. Professional Collaboration with Purpose: Teacher Learning
Towards Equitable and Excellent Schools. New York: Routledge.
DeWitt, P. M. 2017. Collaborative Leadership: 6 Influences That Matter Most. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Díaz-Gibson, J., M. Civís, A. J. Daly, J. Longás, and J. Riera. 2017. “Networked Leadership in
Educational Collaborative Networks.” Educational Management Administration &
Leadership 45 (6): 1040–1059.
Díaz-Gibson, J., M. Civís, and J. Guàrdia. 2014. “Strengthening Education Through Collaborative
Networks: Leading the Cultural Change.” School Leadership & Managament 34 (2): 179–200.
doi:10.1080/13632434.2013.856296.
Diamond, J. B., and J. P. Spillane. 2016. “School Leadership and Management From a
Distributed Perspective. A 2016 Retrospective and Prospective.” Management in
Education 30 (4): 147–154. doi:10.1177/0892020616665938.
Donohoo, J. 2017. Collective Efficacy: How Educators’ Beliefs Impact Student Learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Donohoo, J., J. Hattie, and R. Eells. 2018. “The Power of Collective Efficacy.” Educational
Leadership 75 (6): 40–44.
Drysdale, L., and D. Gurr. 2017. “Leadership in Uncertain Times.” Journal of the Commonwealth
Council for Educational Administration & Management 45: 131–158.
Eckert, J. 2018. Leading Together: Teachers and Administrators Improving Student Outcomes.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Ehren, M., and J. Perryman. 2018. “Accountability of School Networks: who is Accountable to
Whom and for What?” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46 (6): 942–
959. doi:10.1177/1741143217717272.
Evans, M. P. 2010. “Internal Leadership Challenges of Network Participation. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, Theory and Practice 12 (2): 20–220. doi:10.1080/
13603120903288405
Fullan, M. 2015. “Leadership From the Middle.” Education Canada 55 (4): 22–26.
Fullan, M., and J. Quinn. 2016. “Coherence Making. How Leaders Cultivate the Pathway for
School and System Change with a Shared Process.” School Administrator 73, 30–34.
Gilbert, C. 2017. Optimism of the Will: The Development of Local Area-Based Education
Partnerships. London: Centre for Leadership in Learning.
Glenn, M., M. Roche, C. McDonagh, and B. Sullivan. 2017. Learning Communities in Educational
Partnerships: Action Research as Transformation. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
14 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

Godfrey, D., and C. Brown. 2019. An Ecosystem for Research-Engaged Schools: Reforming
Education Through Research. Oxon: Routledge.
Gronn, P. 2000. “Distributed Properties: A New Architecture for Leadership.” Educational
Management and Administration 28 (3): 317–338. doi:10.1177/0263211X000283006.
Hadfield, M., and C. Chapman. 2011. “Leading School-Based Networks and Collaborative
Learning: Working Together for Better Outcomes?” In International Handbook of
Leadership for Learning, edited by T. Townsend and J. MacBeath, 915–929. London: Springer.
Hargreaves, A. 2018. “Foreword.” In Networks for Learning, Effective Collaboration for Teacher
School and System Improvement, edited by C. Brown and C. L. Poortman, xxi–xxii.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Hargreaves, A., A. Boyle, and A. Harris. 2014. Uplifting Leadership: How Organizations, Teams,
and Communities Raise Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., and M. T. O’Connor. 2018. Collaborative Professionalism: When Teaching
Together Means Learning for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Harris, A. 2002. “Distributed Leadership: Leading or Misleading?” Keynote Address, Annual
Conference, BELMAS, Birmingham, Aston University.
Harris, A. 2004. “Distributed Leadership and School Improvement. Leading or Misleading?”
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 32 (1): 11–24. doi:10.1177/
1741143204039297.
Harris, A. 2008a. “Distributed Leadership: According to the Evidence.” Journal of Educational
Administration 46 (2): 172–188. doi:10.1108/09578230810863253.
Harris, A. 2008b. Distributed School Leadership: Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders. London:
Routledge.
Harris, A. 2011. “System Improvement Through Collective Capacity Building.” Journal of
Education Administration 49 (6): 624–636. doi:10.1108/09578231111174785.
Harris, A. 2013. “Distributed Leadership: Friend or Foe?” Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 41 (5): 545–554. doi:10.1177/1741143213497635.
Harris, A. 2014. Distributed Leadership Matters: Perspectives, Practicalities, and Potential.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Harris, A., and J. DeFlaminis. 2016. “Distributed Leadership in Practice, Evidence,
Misconceptions and Possibilities.” Management in Education 30 (4): 141–146. doi:10.1177/
0892020616656734.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2010. Professional Learning Communities in Action. London: Leannta
Press.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2012. Connecting Professional Learning: Leading Effective Collaborative
Enquiry Across Teaching School Alliances. West Midlands: National College for School
Leadership.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2015. “Transforming Education Systems: Comparative and Critical
Perspectives on School Leadership.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 35 (1): 311–318.
doi:10.1080/02188791.2015.1056590.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2017. “Professional Learning Communities: A Strategy for School and
System Improvement?” Wales Journal of Education 19 (1): 16–38.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2019. “Leading Professional Learning with Impact.” School Leadership &
Management 39 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/13632434.2018.1530892.
Harris, A., M. Jones, and J. Huffman. 2017. Teachers Leading Educational Reform: the Power of
Professional Learning Communities. London: Routledge Press.
Harris, A., and J. P. Spillane. 2008. “Distributed Leadership Through the Looking Glass.”
Management in Education 22 (1): 31–34. doi:10.1177/0892020607085623.
Heikka, J., M. Waninganayake, and E. Hujala. 2012. “Contextualizing Distributed Leadership
Within Early Childhood Education: Current Understanding, Research Evidence and Future
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 15

Challenges.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41 (1): 30–44. doi:10.

1177/1741143212462700.
Hubers, M. D., and C. L. Poortman. 2018. “Establishing Sustainable School Improvement
Through Professional Learning Networks.” In Networks for Learning. Effective Collaboration
for Teacher School and System Improvement, edited by C. Brown and C. L. Poortman, 194–
204. Abingdon: Routledge.
Imperial, M. T., S. Ospina, E. Johnston, R. O’Leary, J. Thomsen, P. Williams, and S. Johnson. 2016.
“Understanding Leadership in a World of Shared Problems: Advancing Network
Governance in Large Landscape Conservation.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
14 (3): 126–134. doi:10.1002/fee.1248.
Jäppinen, A. K. 2014. “Collaborative Educational Leadership: The Emergence of Human
Interactional Sense-Making Process as a Complex System.” Complicity: An International
Journal of Complexity and Education 11 (2): 65–85. doi:10.29173/cmplct22978.
Klein, E. J., M. Taylor, M. Munakata, K. Trabona, Z. Rahman, and J. McManus. 2018. “Navigating
Teacher Leaders’ Complex Relationships Using a Distributed Leadership Framework.”
Teacher Education Quarterly 45 (2): 89–112.
Kools, M., and L. Stoll. 2016. What Makes a School a Learning Organisation? Paris: OECD.
Leithwood, K. 2016. “Department-head Leadership for School Improvement.” Leadership and
Policy in Schools 15 (2): 117–140. doi:10.1080/15700763.2015.1044538.
Leithwood, K. 2018. “Characteristics of Effective Leadership Networks: A Replication and
Extension.” School Leadership & Management 39 (2), 175–197. doi:10.1080/13632434.2018.
1470503.
Leithwood, K., and V. Ndifor. 2016. “Characteristics of Effective Leadership Networks.” Journal
of Educational Administration 54 (4): 409–433. doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2015-0068.
Lovett, S. 2018. Advocacy for Teacher Leadership, Opportunity, Preparation, Support and
Pathways. Cham: Springer.
Lynch, M. 2012. A Guide to Effective School Leadership Theories. Oxon: Routledge.
MacBeath, J. 1998. Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change. London: Paul Chapman.
Malone, H. J. 2017. “Broadening Professional Communities Through Collaborative
Partnerships.” Journal of Professional Capital and Community 2 (4): 190–199.
Meehan, D., and C. Reinelt. 2012. Leadership & Networks. New Ways of Developing Leadership in
a Highly Connected World. Oakland, CA: Leadership Learning Community.
Middlewood, D., I. Abbott, and S. Robinson. 2018. Collaborative School Leadership: Managing a
Group of Schools. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Mitterlechner, M. 2019. Leading in Inter-Organizational Networks: Towards a Reflexive Practice.
Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mowat, J. G. 2019. “‘Closing the Gap’: Systems Leadership is no Leadership at all Without a
Moral Compass – A Scottish Perspective.” School Leadership & Management 39 (1): 48–75.
doi:10.1080/13632434.2018.1447457.
Muijs, D. 2015. “Improving Schools Through Collaboration: A Mixed Methods Study of School-
to-School Partnerships in the Primary Sector.” Oxford Review of Education 41 (5): 563–586.
doi:10.1080/03054985.2015.1047824.
Muijs, D., C. Chapman, M. Ainscow, and M. West. 2011. Networking and Collaboration in
Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Muijs, D., M. West, and M. Ainscow. 2010. “Why Network? Theoretical Perspectives on
Networking.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21 (1): 5–26. doi:10.1080/
09243450903569692.
Murray, J. 2017. “Complexity Leadership and Collective Action in the Age of Networks.” College
English 79 (5): 512–525.
16 C. AZORÍN ET AL.

O’Neill, C., and M. Brinkerhoff. 2018. Five Elements of Collective Leadership. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf
Press.
Organisation for Economic, Co-operation and Development. 2018. The Future of Education and
Skills Education 2030. Paris: OECD.
Rauch, F. 2013. “Regional Networks in Education: A Case Study of an Austrian Project.”
Cambridge Journal of Education 43 (3): 313–324. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.818102.
Rincón-Gallardo, S., and M. Fullan. 2016. “Essential Features of Effective Networks in
Education.” Journal of Professional Capital and Community 1 (1): 5–22. doi:10.1108/JPCC-
09-2015-0007.
Rollins, W., R. Egan, I. Zuchowski, M. Duncan, P. Chee, P. Muncey, N. Hill, and M. Higgins. 2017.
“Leading Through Collaboration: The National Field Education Network.” Advances in Social
Work and Welfare Education 19 (1): 48–61.
Ruckdäschel, S. 2015. Leadership of Networks and Performance: A Qualitative and Quantitative
Analysis. Passau: Springer Gabler.
Sartory, K. 2017. “Support for School-to-School Networks: How Networking Teachers Perceive
Support Activities of a Local Coordinating Agency.” British Journal of Educational Studies 65
(2): 143–165. doi:10.1080/00071005.2016.1184742.
Scanlan, M., M. Kim, M. B. Burns, and C. Vuilleumier. 2016. “Poco a Poco: Leadership Practices
Supporting Productive Communities of Practice in Schools Serving the New Mainstream.”
Educational Administration Quarterly 52 (521): 3–44. doi:10.1177/0013161X15615390.
Schleifer, D., C. Rinheart, and T. Yanisch. 2017. Teacher Collaboration in Perspective: a Guide to
Research. Accessed November 4, 2018. https://www.publicagenda.org/files/PublicAgenda_
TeacherCollaborationInPerspective_AGuideToResearch_2017.pdf
Senge, P., H. Hamilton, and J. Kania. 2015. “The Dawn of System Leadership.” Stanford Social
Innovation Review 13, (1): 27–33.
Spillane, J. P. 2006. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., and J. B. Diamond. 2007. Distributed Leadership in Practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Spillane, J. P., R. Halverson, and J. B. Diamond. 2001. “Investigating School Leadership Practice:
A Distributed Perspective.” Educational Researcher 30 (3): 23–28. doi:10.3102/
0013189X030003023.
Spillane, J. P., R. Halverson, and J. B. Diamond. 2004. “Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice:
A Distributed Perspective.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 36 (1): 3–34. doi:10.1080/
0022027032000106726.
Spillane, J. P., and H. Timperley. 2004. “Practice is the Heart of the Matter: Distributed
Leadership and Networked Learning Communities.” Accessed November 4, 2018. http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.519.7454&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Spring, J., J. E. Frankson, C. A. McCallum, and D. Price. 2018. The Business of Education, Networks
of Power and Wealth in America. New York: Routledge.
Townsend, A. 2015. “Leading School Networks: Hybrid Leadership in Action?” Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 43 (5): 719–737. doi:10.1177/1741143214543205.
Trust, T., J. P. Carpenter, and D. G. Krutka. 2018. “Leading by Learning: Exploring the
Professional Learning Networks of Instructional Leaders.” Educational Media International
55 (2): 137–152. doi:10.1080/09523987.2018.1484041.
Van Den Beemt, A., E. Ketelaar, I. Diepstraten, and M. De Laat. 2018. “Teachers’ Motives for
Learning in Networks: Costs, Rewards and Community Interest.” Educational Research 60
(1): 31–46. doi:10.1080/00131881.2018.1426391.
Vesterinen, O., M. Kangas, L. Krokfors, K. Kopisto, and L. Salo. 2017. “Inter-professional
Pedagogical Collaboration Between Teachers and their Out-of-School Partners.”
Educational Studies 43 (2): 231–242.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 17

Veuglers, W., and J. M. O’Hair. 2005. School-university Networks and Educational Change.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Voelkel, R. H., and J. H. Chrispeels. 2017. “Understanding the Link Between Professional
Learning Communities and Teacher Collective Efficacy.” School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 28 (4): 505–526. doi:10.1080/09243453.2017.1299015.
Walker, A., and G. Riordan. 2010. “Leading Collective Capacity in Culturally Diverse Schools.”
School Leadership and Management 30 (1): 51–63. doi:10.1080/13632430903509766.
West, M. 2010. “School-to-School Cooperation as a Strategy for Improving Student Outcomes
in Challenges Contexts.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21 (1): 93–112. doi:10.
1080/09243450903569767.