166 Summary 1. Introduction When innovations are initiated, schools often find that many challenges and innovations do not turn out as intended (Boyd, 2021; Den Brok, 2018; Fullan, 2008; Vanlommel, 2021; Verbiest, 2021; Wubbels & Van Tartwijk, 2018). These innovations can be initiated on a national level, but they can also happen on regional or local levels, as innovations within schools. Innovations can focus on substantive elements of educational practice, such as curriculum change; they can focus on the procedures and standards for realizing good education; or they can focus on improving organizational processes. The parliamentary investigation by the Dijsselbloem committee (2008) reported a number of problems with certain nation-wide innovations. Teachers and school principals often experienced insufficient autonomy and therefore felt little or not at all involved in the innovations (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, 2008; Van Eck & Bollen, 2014). When professionals such as teachers perceive low degrees of influence and autonomy in relation to shaping the content and implementation of national policies in schools, such as certain innovations, they can feel alienated from a policy (Tummers, 2012; Tummers et al., 2013). In the case of more local innovations, in schools, comparable dynamics of experiencing insufficient autonomy take place. In this dissertation, we analyze whether and how school principals and teachers shape and lead local innovation processes in schools. Interest in teachers and school principals playing a role in innovations as professionals is increasing (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2018; Leithwood et al., 2020; Onderwijsraad, 2018). In the Netherlands, this interest in their professionalism is reflected in the ‘Knowledge agenda’,18 focusing on the school as a professional organization (e.g., Ros, 2022; Van Tartwijk, 2022) and a new initiative called ‘Developmental force’19 that connects educational practice and research to innovate education (Rijksoverheid, 2022). Recently, additional financial resources have been invested in the professional development of school principals and teachers (Rijksoverheid, 2022; VO-raad, 2022). In both educational practice and literature, the focus is still mainly on teachers’ collaboration (Admiraal et al., 2021; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017; Schildkamp et al., 2016). Inorganizational literature, however, scholars havegonebeyond this and introduced the notion of collaborative innovation. Collaborative innovation is characterized by a multi-actor approach to innovation. A specific feature of collaborative innovation is 18 ‘Kennisagenda’ of the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO). 19 ‘Ontwikkelkracht’ of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and Nationaal Groeifonds.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw