# Abstract --- ### Specific Application How central office administrators learn to use research as a part of district improvement efforts. ### Source for This Method Honig, M. I., Venkateswaran, N., & McNeil, P. (2017). Research Use as Learning: The Case of Fundamental Change in School District Central Offices. *American Educational Research Journal*, 54(5), 938–971. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217712466 ### URE Questions Addressed - How do central office administrators engage with research when they intend to use it to shift their practice, especially when the research fundamentally challenges the status quo? - To what extent does this engagement with research result in a shift in their practice? - What conditions support the use of research for significant shifts in practice? ### Definition of Case and Unit(s) of Analysis The case describes the outcomes and conditions in six school districts that aimed to use research that fundamentally challenged their central office status quo. The proposition that research use is a learning process was explored by observing how central office leaders tried to use research about their own practice to shift their daily work as opposed to using research about school improvement to guide their agendas for schools or other decisions. ### Evidentiary Sources Used to Investigate the Case - *Observations:* formal meetings and shadowing of central office staff. In each observation, study team members took verbatim notes of formal and informal conversations. Low-inference descriptions of practitioners’ nonverbal behaviors such as entering and exiting meetings important to understanding participants’ engagement with research were also captured. There were 499.25 hours of observations total. Guidance for conducting these observations is provided in the [attached file][1]. - *Semi-structured interviews:* used to probe the core sample members on their definitions of research and research use, understanding of the research-based ideas, their rationales for using or not using particular ideas, and their own reports of their practice and influences on their performance. 10 coaches from the intermediary organizations were also interviewed to probe their perceptions of their and central office staff members’ work and conditions they believed mediated central office change. Investigation involved 124 interviews total. - *Documents:* documents were collected related to practitioners’ research use, including forms of the research they referenced, organizational charts, and discussion protocols and meeting agendas. Particular attention was given to documents used during meetings with intermediary staff since many fit the definition of a learning tool per our conceptual framework. Over 300 documents were collected. ### Participants in the Case Researchers identified a core sample of 23 central office administrators across the six districts, which included the superintendent, the head of teaching and learning, staff of the teaching and learning unit, and principal supervisors. ### Key Constructs and/or Themes of Interest Sociocultural learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991; Wenger, 1998) was the conceptual framework that was used in this exploration of research use as a learning process. The theory allowed researchers to move beyond viewing research use as an either-or binary and helped them locate practitioners on a trajectory leading to progressively deeper use of research. This theory also identified conditions typically supportive of such shifts, which informed site selection. ### Analytic and Reporting Approach(es) Researchers analyzed data collaboratively using NVIVO8 qualitative data analysis software in several phases: - Data was sorted into low-inference categories (e.g. “‘outcomes’’ of central office change processes, topics of research that central office staff aimed to use.) - Researchers went back into data by code and refined their analysis using higher-inference categories from the conceptual framework. - Various displays were created to triangulate data around research questions. Any examples of practice that could only be supported with interview data were eliminated. - Examples of research use by person and type of research used were arrayed to identify any shifts over time which could represent growth. - To identify conditions that mediated research use, researchers looked for any differences in particular conditions that matched the patterns. ### Complementary Methods/Studies For similar observation-based methodology see: Honig, M.I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. *Educational Administration Quarterly*, 48(4), 733-744. Honig, M. & Rainey, L. (2014). Central office leadership in professional learning communities: The practice beneath the policy. *Teachers College Record*, 116(4), 1-48. ### Author Contact For more information please contact: Meredith Honig District Leadership Design Lab, College of Education, University of Washington mihonig@uw.edu, 206-616-0679 Lydia Rainey District Leadership Design Lab, College of Education, University of Washington lydiar@uw.edu, 206-543-1118 [1]: https://osf.io/34txg/