Reframing Teacher Education : Towards the Integration of Phenomenon-Based Curriculum Reform and Organizational Culture

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Reframing Teacher Education : Towards the Integration of Phenomenon-Based Curriculum Reform and Organizational Culture © 2022 Journal of Teacher Education and Educators Published version Naukkarinen, Aimo; Moilanen, Pentti; Tarnanen, Mirja Naukkarinen, A., Moilanen, P., & Tarnanen, M. (2022). Reframing Teacher Education : Towards the Integration of Phenomenon-Based Curriculum Reform and Organizational Culture. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 11(2), 165-186. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2145033 2022 165 Reframing Teacher Education: Towards the Integration of Phenomenon-Based Curriculum Reform and Organizational Culture ( Received on December 22, 2021 – Accepted on August 26, 2022 ) Aimo Naukkarinen1, Pentti Moilanen2 and Mirja Tarnanen3 Introduction In this article we report a case study of curriculum reform in the context of teacher education in Finland. We explore how democracy and participation were manifested in the process with respect to the use of power in decision-making, highlighting the challenges in promoting both a collaborative organizational culture and a phenomenonbased collaborative curriculum within a theoretical framework of reframing, micropolitics, and organizational culture. In educational institutions, leadership of curriculum change is complex and often unpredictable (Fasso, Knight, & Purnell, 2016). Higher education institutions can be viewed as loosely coupled (e.g., Weick, 1976) and characterized by multiple and con- 1 Corresponding author, University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND, [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-4168-3528 2 University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND, [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-8133-6547 3 University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND, [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-4585-4822 Abstract In this article, we report a case study of our experiences of a curriculum reform process based on the principles of phenomenon-based learning in higher education in the context of Finnish teacher education. We explore how democracy and participation were present in the decisionmaking process, highlighting the challenges of promoting the phenomenon-based approach and collaboration. First, we describe the reform’s rationale, then the theoretical framework, methodology and the reform process. Next, we reflect on our experiences through documentary and interview data. The change process included representative and participative democracy approaches as well as an aristocratic approach. An individualistic culture became more collaborative, while the content-based curriculum evolved into a more phenomenon-based approach. Using an autoethnographic approach, we discuss our understanding of how the local teacher education community’s response to the curriculum changes and the organizational culture overall became more positive. We conclude that organizational power structures, the autonomy of teacher educators, and collegial trust and support were crucial to the reform process. Key Words:Curriculum reform, teacher education, micropolitics, autoethnographic approach Journal of Teacher Education and Educators Volume 11, Number 2, 2022, 165-186 166 flicting sub-cultures (Dee & Heineman, 2016). Curriculum change is context-specific with unique processes. What works in one institution might not work in another (Dee & Heineman, 2016). Thus, power and micropolitics are important concepts for understanding curriculum change in these institutions. Personnel build coalitions, use strategies to prevent or enhance curriculum change and influence colleagues, and use their knowledge to persuade colleagues (Flessa, 2009). Higher education cultures also tend to be individualistic rather than collaborative and teachers value autonomy (Sahlberg, 2011). This may present a problem for deep curriculum change. The argumentation in curriculum change is likely to be subjective and political. The values and interests of different staff members may conflict, and they may interpret realities differently (Dee & Heineman, 2016). When curriculum change becomes a matter of personal and professional identity, defensive routines (Argyris & Schön, 1996) may guide the action of individuals and prohibit organizational learning, which is a precondition for deep curriculum change. Studies (Kezar, 2012) show that a top-down approach does not work in curriculum change. Broad changes can provoke resistance if the staff does not influence the process (Dee & Heineman, 2016). Therefore, there is a call for more democratic participation and collaboration among educational professionals (Law, Galton, & Wan, 2010). However, democratic participation can sometimes hinder curriculum change (see Ylimäki & Bruner, 2011). Moreover, a bottom-up approach to curriculum development can be problematic as its success depends on the existing power structure and the benevolence of official leaders (Kezar, 2012). One type of deep curriculum change is the abandonment of disciplinary or content-based curricula that typically dominate in universities. These curricula are based on the theories, concepts and thinking models of separate disciplines. Thus, crossdisciplinary studies seem to hold a minor position. Some attempts have been made to challenge traditional discipline-oriented thinking and change the pedagogy. In these cases, the study of separate disciplines may be based on certain interesting problems or phenomena. Students do not study the contents and methods of science per se; rather, they use them to try to solve an ill-structured problem (problem-based learning) or understand a complicated phenomenon (phenomenon-based learning) (e.g., Østergaard, Lieblein, Bredland, & Francis, 2010). In the field of medicine several universities have built problem-based curricula, but phenomenon-based curricula seem to be rare (see Bolander, Josephson, Mann, & Lonka, 2006). In the phenomenon-based teacher education curriculum, studies are organized around often complicated and ill-structured phenomena that are considered central to school realities. Therefore, studying involves the use of concepts and theories from several disciplines in order to deeply understand the phenomena (e.g., Moilanen, 2015). This study aims to shed light on democratic leadership and how to lead demo- Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen 167 cratic curriculum development in a productive way. We also aim to describe and interpret how phenomenon-based curriculum reform has challenged traditional disciplineoriented curriculum thinking. As curriculum change is context-specific, we approach the research topic ethnographically as ethnographic research is suited to studying the phenomena of power and conflict in curriculum development (see Ylimäki & Brunner, 2011). We first describe the research context, theoretical framework, and methodology of our study, as well as the rationale and origins of the reform. Then, we reflect on the curriculum process through documentary and interview data from the Department of Teacher Education (hereafter DTE) of the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Finally, we discuss our understanding of the ways power plays out in decision making in curriculum reform, draw conclusions, and discuss the limitations of the study. We highlight the challenges in promoting both a collaborative organizational culture and phenomenon-based collaborative curriculum and in enhancing understanding of the significance of integrating them. The research questions are: 1. How were micropolitical strategies used in the organizational culture reform of the department of teacher education? 2. How were micropolitical strategies used in the teacher education curriculum reform? Theoretical Framework Our central concepts are reframing, micropolitics, and organizational culture. Our shared interest in cultural research and organizational reasoning explains the choice of our theoretical framework and the research task, which emphasizes the integration of culture and curriculum. According to Thomas and Thomas (1932, p. 572), ‘[i]f men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences’. The socially constructed nature of an organization depends on communication among the people involved; thus, it mainly occurs through language (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Reframing is a vehicle for profoundly changing organizations. According to Wazlawick, Weakland, and Fisch (1979, p. 123), the conceptual or emotional frames of a situation are altered and placed in new frames that correspond to the ‘facts’ of that concrete situation as well as or even better than before, thereby altering the whole meaning of the situation. The promotion of the phenomenon-based approach was partly dependent on the nature of the Faculty of Education (hereafter FE) micropolitics. Micropolitics include the strategies and tactics used by individuals and groups in an organization (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002, p. 756). Blase (1991, p. 11) defines micropolitics as the use of formal and informal political power to protect or further one’s interests; any conscious Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 168 action, whether collaborative or conflictual, can be politically significant. The interaction between micro- and macropolitical factors is common, e.g., the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (National Board of Education, 2014) emphasizes phenomenon-based learning. We took micropolitical steps in the form of reframing in order to invite different viewpoints by negotiating meanings among staff, and we used political power and tactics to further the interest of integrating and developing the DTE (see Achinstein, 2002; Blase, 1991; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). We belonged to the DTE coordination team that strove for integrating organizational culture change and curriculum change (see Naukkarinen, 2004, 2010; Naukkarinen & Rautiainen 2020; Tarnanen & Kostiainen 2020), which during the reform process became the rationale and vision for the curriculum reform (Figure 1). Figure 1. Rationale for the curriculum reform We argue that university teaching is committed to social transformation, although marketization and other neoliberal trends tend to disturb that commitment (see González-Calvo & Arias-Carballal, 2017). Our theoretical framework is the vehicle for social transformation in organizational culture and curriculum design, helping us understand ‘how social and cultural contexts shape and are shaped’ by actions of the DTE and the FE staff (see Hughes & Noblit, 2017, p. 212). Regarding social transformation, we emphasize a central characteristic of Finnish education, the culture of trust that has played a supportive role throughout educational policy and practice (see Sahlberg, 2011). This culture of trust is evident also in our study. Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen 160 Figure 1. Rationale for the curriculum reform. Organizational culture How do we change our action ? Integration How do our curriculum and organizational culture meet? Phenomena, structures & contents How do we change our curriculum? 169 Research Approach and Context, Data and Methods This study takes an autoethnographic approach, making use of participant observation triangulated with interviews and ordinary informal conversations. Information is also gained from other documentary sources. Aligned with the autoethnographic approach, we do not try to provide undisputed truths or objective facts (see Ellis & Bochner, 2000). As Ellis (2007, p. 14) states, ‘doing autoethnography involves a back- and-forth movement between experiencing and examining a vulnerable self and observing and revealing the broader context of that experience’. In our study, we understand autoethnography as providing a critical engagement of the self when it has been socially constructed, reconstructed, and deconstructed (Hickey & Austin, 2007). As the primary participants in the process of writing a personal narrative of the reform, we aim to gain a deeper understanding by systematically analysing our personal experience (Ellis, 2004; Holman Jones, 2005) to illuminate the organizational culture processes at play in curriculum reform (see Boyle & Parry, 2007); together, the three elements of this approach – self (auto), culture (ethnos) and process (graphy) – are stronger than their individual parts (Ellis, 2004). Our approach is more analytic than evocative. We write traditionally in the first person, but we do not strive for artistic expressions. We aim at presenting a truthful description in the realist tradition (see Anderson, 2006). Our ethnographic approach can be characterized as analytic-interpretive: we want to make sense of the data by building a coherent picture of the culture we are part of. We also draw from hermeneutics to gain a deeper understanding of the hidden meanings in organizational culture (see Farrell, Bourgeois-Law, Regehr, & Ajjawi, 2015). The study was conducted in the DTE of the University of Jyväskylä. DTEs at Finnish universities have a high degree of autonomy in designing their curricula (however, universities follow some general outlines, e.g., pedagogical (60 ECTS), academic discipline and research studies, information and communication technology (ICT), and language studies). The University of Jyväskylä, located in Central Finland, was established in 1863 as Finland’s first Finnish-speaking teacher seminary. It is ranked as the fourth largest university in Finland according to the number of master’s degrees conferred. It has six faculties, four independent institutes, 14,500 students, of which about 1,000 are international students with over 100 nationalities, and 2,500 employees, of which 800 are researchers and 700 are teachers (University of Jyväskylä, 2021). At the time of conducting this research, the DTE had around 100 staff and the FE 200 staff. In Shanghai Ranking’s Global Ranking of Academic Subjects 2020, the University of Jyväskylä was ranked 40th in education (http://www.shanghairanking.com/ institution/university-of-jyvaskyla). The task of the coordinating team was to coordinate the timetables, meetings, working groups and contents. We brainstormed, disseminated information, and received and provided feedback (Figure 2). Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 170 Figure 2. Timeline for the curriculum reform process Team members had a twofold role as researchers and staff members. It was challenging to balance the roles of a trusted colleague and a critical researcher. As insiders/ outsiders, we did not need acceptance from the researched community; however, as full members of that community, we did have wide access to it. When conducting interviews, analysing data, and co-constructing the study, we increased our sensitivity to relationships of power, community language and discourses (see also Parker-Jenkins, 2018). During interviewing we played an active role in remembering and telling stories about past experiences. Thus, the interview narratives were co-constructed (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011). The main data are documentary data. Data (Table 1) include qualitative staff and student survey responses about the expectations and challenges related to the reform, group work outcomes, meeting memos, programmes, materials for and outcomes of staff development days and curriculum planning, field notes, and ethnographic interviews with key people at the DTE and the FE. Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen 160 Figure 2. Timeline for the curriculum reform process. Table 1 Data collected for the study and its use Data source Data analysis Main purpose of data Qualitative survey for staff Groupwork outcomes by staff Meeting memos Materials for staff development and curriculum planning Describing, classifying, interpreting, comparing, reflecting and writing as a cyclical process Identifying, describing, interpreting, and reflecting the case and the context Fieldnotes See above Describing and reflecting our experiences and observations Ethnographic interviews (n=4) Qualitative content analysis Meanings given and negotiated on the curriculum reform process and experiences of it Surveying different options 2012 •Preparatory working group represented by Faculty members •Meeting for the staff by FE •Forming a DTE coordination team to be in charge of the process Examining staffs and students’ views 2012-13 •Intranet •Meeting for the staff organized by students •Department’s and students’ working groups •DTE coordination team Working on educational phenomena 2013-14 •Phenomenon specific groups across faculty •Department meetings •DTE coordination team Final curriculum Feb 2014 •Writing curriculum text by working groups and DTE coordination team •Coordination of the script by the DTE coordination team 171 Table 1. Data collected for the study and its use We used content analysis to analyse the interview data and part of the survey data, searching for recurrent themes, and then discussed these themes. Next, we selected the most interesting, related themes, partially guided by our experiences of previous DTE curriculum construction processes. We searched for concepts that would make sense of our findings. The aim was to establish the kind of practical value that a theory can provide when constructed through personal experience (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Kohlbacher, 2005; Starr, 2010). Throughout this process, we used both inductive and adductive reasoning (Lipscomb, 2012). To fulfil trustworthiness criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), we ascertained credibility and dependability with researcher and data triangulation (Denzin, 1978) and rigorous analyses, transferability with thick description (Geertz, 1973), and confirmability with researcher triangulation, careful documentation of analysis, and colleague feedback. Findings We first present micropolitical strategies that we found in the DTE organizational culture reform (research question 1) and then we go through micropolitical strategies used in the DTE curriculum reform (research question 2). Micropolitical strategies in the organizational culture reform of the DTE The curriculum reform process began in 2012 as a routine procedure undertaken every fourth year (Figure 2). In 2012, the FE decided that the curricula of all FE units would be phenomenon-based. The FE council and the dean had the main responsibility for curriculum development in the FE. Both FE departments had their own curricula, but now the FE council Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 160 Figure 2. Timeline for the curriculum reform process. Table 1 Data collected for the study and its use Data source Data analysis Main purpose of data Qualitative survey for staff Groupwork outcomes by staff Meeting memos Materials for staff development and curriculum planning Describing, classifying, interpreting, comparing, reflecting and writing as a cyclical process Identifying, describing, interpreting, and reflecting the case and the context Fieldnotes See above Describing and reflecting our experiences and observations Ethnographic interviews (n=4) Qualitative content analysis Meanings given and negotiated on the curriculum reform process and experiences of it Surveying different options 2012 •Preparatory working group represented by Faculty members •Meeting for the staff by FE •Forming a DTE coordination team to be in charge of the process Examining staffs and students’ views 2012-13 •Intranet •Meeting for the staff organized by students •Department’s and students’ working groups •DTE coordination team Working on educational phenomena 2013-14 •Phenomenon specific groups across faculty •Department meetings •DTE coordination team Final curriculum Feb 2014 •Writing curriculum text by working groups and DTE coordination team •Coordination of the script by the DTE coordination team 172 demanded more curricular cooperation than before from them. Therefore, the departments coordinated the curriculum reform process. While in charge of the reform, the head of the DTE authorized the coordination team to organize and lead the DTE curriculum reform. The head’s support was important for the coordination team, which got a lot of authority in the curriculum process despite its vague position in the bureaucracy of the FE and the DTE. Filling the power vacuum Loose organizational structures can encourage political activity by producing ‘space’ (Blase, 1991, p. 3). In our reform, space meant the power vacuum in both the FE and the DTE: Because neither organization had a strong enough will to acquire power in the process, the proponents of phenomenon-based curricula in the DTE, led by our team, filled the power vacuum, and directed the process for both the FE and the DTE. At the DTE level, the process resembled Aristotelian aristocracy; a few staff guided the curriculum process, making decisions in the best interests of all (Cherry, 2009). Because the will to acquire power was weak, micropolitical struggles and ideological conflicts (see Achinstein, 2002) were not evident at the beginning. They emerged later in the reform process. From representative democracy to interdisciplinary working groups In the context of reform’s power dynamic, we began to organize how to further our views. We used formal and informal power to promote our interests through conscious action (see Blase, 1991), with the goal of replacing representative democracy with more flexible democracy forms when needed. In the DTE, the representative democracy approach gave way to promoting voluntary interdisciplinary working groups, which reduced the power of the cliques of traditional teacher education disciplines. Working group leaders were chosen on a voluntary basis, and staff members could choose which groups they attended. Traditionally, in the DTE, curricular reforms had not entailed the amount of negotiation found in the reform described here, but representative democracy led every expert group to inform the coordinators what it thought was essential for the curriculum. The 2005–2014 curriculum was based on four sub-fields of educational science (see Naukkarinen, 2010), a solution that guided the staff to select the planning area they felt best fits their expertise. Expert groups could work smoothly simply by tolerating each Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen As we don’t really have anyone in the faculty to be responsible for this kind of issue, it means that whoever takes the responsibility and sort of demagogically carries on his or her agenda will be strong in his or her case. (DTE staff member) 179 1996) contributed to organizational learning (Collinson, Cook, & Conley, 2006). In reforming the DTE organizational culture, we used formal and informal power to further our interests (Blase, 1991), e.g., to lessen the power of teacher educator cliques. To achieve this, we used the more flexible forms of democracy (aristocracy, participatory democracy, voluntary working groups), which roused feelings of ignorance and uncertainty, even threat and embarrassment. This led to the need to negotiate meanings collaboratively, which included bargaining and compromising. DTE staff ownership of the process was weaker in the early stages because of Aristotelian aristocracy based micropolitical manoeuvres (cf. Cherry, 2009; Fullan, 2003). DTE ownership grew stronger towards the end of the process once it was supported by participatory democracy and the staff understood the rationale behind the process, even if the rationale was not necessarily coherent (cf. Fullan, 2003). Our study deepens the understanding of democratic curriculum development. In striving for organizational learning (Collinson et al., 2006) through reframing (Watzlawick et al., 1979), social transformation is important. For us, when working toward transformation, it is essential to be aware of marketization and other neoliberal trends (see González-Calvo & Arias-Carballal, 2017). The reform process was an arena for fulfilling hopes for a better future. The lack of dominating authoritarian views, which partly characterizes the Finnish culture of trust, allowed a shared search for new solutions and might have reduced the number of defensive routines (Argyris & Schön, 1996). It was also important to achieve a cost-effective division of labour when planning the reform. Micropolitically, in reforming the teacher education curriculum we came across multifaceted pressures for change, and the major struggles that were encountered had to do with the structure of the curriculum. Leading democratic curriculum development and challenging traditional discipline-centred thinking appeared to be connected with diminishing the old power positions of the adherents of a content-based curriculum, strengthening voluntary team working to coordinate the process, and setting up a coordination group (i.e., aristocratic, top-down approach). The aristocratic approach (Cherry, 2009) also showed in the department head’s intervention in deciding on the MST dispute, which, in our view, was not a sign of distrust or undermining of collaboration. Rather, the intervention was negotiated with the MST staff after they were unable to resolve the problem among themselves; it was a question of replacing participatory democracy, since the process had to go on. Some hard feelings were caused as a result, but the FE-level schedule and the best interest of the staff as a whole were prioritized by the intervention. The issue of the place of research methodology studies in the curriculum was resolved through compromise. It was difficult for some staff to let go of the contentbased approach, causing a divisive micropolitical struggle. In the DTE, the understanding of phenomenon-based learning deepened through staff discussions leading, Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 180 finally, to what seemed to be a shared enterprise. Micropolitical struggles involving ideologies (see Achinstein, 2002) are not easy to overcome, but it seemed to be possible to do so by reframing the organizational culture and curriculum as above. Phenomenon-based learning emphasizes openness to student-centeredness, student autonomy, collaboration, research-orientation, sufficient learning time, extensive courses, de-fragmentation, and a multidisciplinary approach. In addition, in the DTE assessment procedures and negotiations with and between students had to change (Moilanen, 2015; Naukkarinen & Rautiainen, 2020). The staff had a positive attitude toward the phenomenon-based approach and staff group work. We learned about phenomenon-based teacher education by doing it and by exercising the power to promote it. Time-consuming collaborative bargaining was essential micropolitically. Figure 4. Factors that enable phenomenon-based learning The link between theory and practice can be strengthened by implementing a phenomenon-based curriculum in which students study from several viewpoints with the aid of various theories (Østergaard et al., 2010). Our staff has been preparing for the changing roles of the new pedagogical approach. Strengthening the theory-practice link also supports the integrated relationship between organizational culture and curriculum (Figure 1). A collaborative organizational culture enables the multidisciplinary use of expertise. This, in turn, enables building a curriculum for competences in collaborative multidisciplinary expertise. Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen 160 Figure 3. Factors that made the curriculum reform possible. Figure 4. Factors that enable phenomenon-based learning. Long-term dissatisfaction with the old curriculum Unhappiness with the organizational culture The nature of the micropolitical strategies used in the reform process Phenomenonbased learning Multidisciplinary approach Research orientation Defragmentation Collaboration Studentcenteredness Student autonomy Extensive courses Sufficient learning time 181 The limitations of our study relate to the authors’ central roles, choosing proreframing interviewees, and the insider/outsider dilemma. Some bias is likely to have occurred because the authors played central roles in the curriculum reform process and the interviewees chosen considered the reframing to be indispensable. Thus, the authentic, oppositional voices of the staff could not be heard directly (e.g., tensions emerging regarding different understandings and implementation of the phenomenonbased approach, the identity of teachers, and the resources of teaching). This is an ethical question: who is allowed to tell his or her story? To some extent, the insider/ outsider-dilemma (see Maydell, 2010) existed as we were both participants and researchers in the study; therefore, the boundary appeared to be porous. On the other hand, because of our central position, we could describe the central micropolitical elements that affected the process. The sharing of our experiences helped us analyse the experiences and the curriculum reform processes of the DTE and the FE. In terms of flattening hierarchies throughout an organization, teacher students could have been involved more intensively in the latter part of the process and in the study. Another ethical question relates to our vulnerability as faculty members (Wall, 2016). In that respect, we consider that we did not share our experiences in ways that could harm us as, during the process, we did not hide our reform agenda from our colleagues. Conclusions Our main conclusions are as follows. Firstly, challenging content-based pedagogy presupposes challenging the organizational power structures that support it. Secondly, the autonomy of teacher educators turned out to be essential for teacher education curriculum development because autonomy enabled them to promote their professional learning. The heads of the Finnish DTEs as well as Finnish school principals should support pedagogical initiatives that challenge content-based and conservative pedagogy and promote teachers’ professional learning (see Butler & Naukkarinen, 2017; Hopkins & Tarnanen, 2017; Naukkarinen, 2018; Pyhältö, Pietarinen, & Soini, 2015; Rautiainen, Nikkola, Räihä, Saukkonen, & Moilanen, 2010; Saukkonen, Moilanen, Mathew, & Rapley, 2017; Tarnanen & Kostiainen 2020). Thirdly, collegial trust and support seemed to be crucial for creating a social climate that helps individuals bear feelings of ignorance, uncertainty, threat, and embarrassment that are part of radical pedagogical innovations. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 182 References Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teacher College Record, 104(3), 421–455. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00168 Ahtola, A., & Niemi, P. (2014). Does it work in Finland? School psychological services within a successful system of basic education. School Psychology International, 35(2), 136–151. doi: 10.1177/0143034312469161 Allan, E., & Estler, S. (2005). Diversity, privilege, and us: Collaborative curriculum transformation among educational leadership faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 209–232. doi: 10.1007/s10755-005-1937-y Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(4), 373–395. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II. Theory, method and practice. New York: Addison-Wesley. Beach, D., & Bagley, C. (2013). Changing professional discourses in teacher education policy back towards a training paradigm. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 379–392. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2013.815162 Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality. 6th ed. London: Penguin Books. Blase, J. (1991). The micropolitical perspective. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools (pp. 1–18). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Bolander K., Josephson, A. Mann, S., & Lonka K. (2006). Teachers promoting expertise in medical education – Understanding the role of the core curriculum. Quality in Higher Education, 12, 41¬–55. Boyle, M., & Parry K. 2007. Telling the whole story: The case for organizational autoethnography. Culture and Organization, 13(3), 185–190. Butler, C., & Naukkarinen, A. (2017). Inclusion and democracy in England and Finland. In A. Raiker, & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland: Principles and culture (pp. 109–126). Routledge. Byman, R., Krokfors, L., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., & Kansanen, P. (2009). Educating inquiry-oriented teachers: Students’ attitudes and experiences towards research-based teacher education. Educational Research and Evaluation 15, 79–92. doi: 10.1080./13803610802591808 Caena, F. (2014). Comparative global perspectives on European teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 106–122. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2013.845165 Cherry, K. (2009). The problem of polity: Political participation and Aristotle’s best regime. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1406–1421. doi:10.1017/ S002238160999003X Collinson, V., Cook, T., & Conley, S. (2006). Organizational learning in schools and school systems: Improving learning, teaching, and leading. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 107–116. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071584. Dee, J., & Heineman, W. (2016). Understanding the organizational context of academic program development. New Directions for Institutional Research 168, 9–35. doi:10.1002/ir.20158 Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen 183 Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3–29. Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Art.10. url: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733–768). London: SAGE. Farrell, L., Bourgeois-Law, G., Regehr, G., & Ajjawi, R. (2015). Autoethnography: Introducing “I” into medical education research. Medical Education, 49, 974–982. Fasso, W., Knight, B., & Purnell, K. (2016). Distributed leadership of school curriculum change: An integrative approach. School Leadership & Management, 36(2), 204–220. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2016.1209177 Flessa, J. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 331–349. doi: 10.1080/01619560902973522 Fullan, M. (2003). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond. Buckingham: Open University Press. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, USA: Teachers College Press. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. González-Calvo, G., & Arias-Carballal, M. (2017). Effects from audit culture and neoliberalism on university teaching: An autoethnographic perspective. Ethnography and Education (online, July 4, 2017), doi: 10.1080/17457823.2017.1347885 Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way is a critical read for all educators for two reasons. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press (SAGE). Harinen, P., & Halme, J. (2012). Hyvä, paha koulu. Kouluhyvinvointia hakemassa. Helsinki: Unigrafia. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Aho, J., & Korhonen, H. (2015). Ope ei saa oppia. Opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittäminen. Jyväskylän yliopisto: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Hickey, A., & Austin, J. (2007). Pedagogies of self: Conscientising the personal to the social. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 3(1), 21–29. url: http:// www.apacall.org. Hinde, E. (2004). An examination of the effects of school culture on the process of change. Arizona West State University. Holman Jones, S. (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 763-791). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hopkins, N., & Tarnanen, M. (2017). Democracy and the curriculum: English and Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 184 Finnish perspectives. In A. Raiker, & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland: Principles and culture (pp. 69–80). London: Routledge. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Hughes, S., & Noblit, G. (2017). Meta-ethnography of autoethnographies: A worked example of the method using educational studies. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 211–227. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2016.1216322 Hökkä, P., & Eteläpelto, A. (2014). Seeking new perspectives on the development of teacher education: A study of the Finnish context. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 39–52. doi: 10.1177/002248711350422 Hökkä, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2010). Recent tensions and challenges in teacher education as manifested in curriculum discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 845–853. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.022 Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen K., Toom, A., & Kansanen, P. (2008). The appreciation and realisation of research-based teacher education: Finnish students’ experiences of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 1–16. doi: 10.1080./02619760701844993 Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). Micropolitical literacy: Reconstructing a neglected dimension in teacher development. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 755–767. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00069-7 Kezar, A. (2012). Bottom-up/top-down leadership: Contradiction or hidden phenomenon. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 725–760. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2012.11777264 Kohlbacher, F. (2005). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), Art. 21, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601211. Law, E., Galton, M., & Wan, S. (2012). Distributed curriculum leadership in action: A Hong Kong case study. Education Management, Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 286–303. doi: 10.1177/1741143209359714 Le Roux, C. (2017). Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 195–207. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2016.1140965 Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage. Lipscomp, M. (2012). Abductive reasoning and qualitative research. Nursing philosophy, 13(4), 244–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2011.00532.x Maydell, E. (2010). Methodological and analytical dilemmas in autoethnographic research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), Article M5. url: http://jrp.icaap.org/ index.php/jrp/article/view/223/190. Moilanen, P. (2015). A phenomenon-based curriculum for teacher education. In G. Pusztai, & T. Ceglédi (Eds.), Professional calling in higher education: Challenges of teacher education in the Carpathian Basin (pp. 12–18). Budapest: Partium Press. Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen 185 National Board of Education (2014). Core curriculum of basic education. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education. Naukkarinen, A. (2004). Osallistava opettajankoulutus. Henkilökunnan ja opiskelijoiden uskomusten sekä laitosorganisaation rakenteiden merkitys opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisessä. In S. Hämäläinen (Ed.), Opettajaprofession muutos ja opettajankoulutus (pp. 61–86). Jyväskylän yliopisto. Opettajankoulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 81. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press. Naukkarinen, A. (2010). From discrete to transformed? Developing inclusive primary school teacher education in a Finnish teacher education department. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(s1), 185–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 3802.2010.01168.x Naukkarinen, A. (2018). Opettajan vastuu inklusiivisen kasvatuksen toteuttamisessa. In S. Saukkonen, & P. Moilanen (Eds.), Vastuuseen kasvaminen ja kasvattaminen (pp. 117–134). Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia, 76. Turku: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Naukkarinen, A., & Rautiainen, M. (2020). Metamorfoosi: välähdyksiä koulutuksen muutoksesta. In M. Tarnanen, & E. Kostiainen (Eds.), Ilmiömäistä!: ilmiölähtöin- en lähestymistapa uudistamassa opettajuutta ja oppimista (pp. 85–98). Jyväskylän yliopisto. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202003032256 Niemi, H., & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2011). Teacher education in Finland. In M. Zuljan, & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), European dimensions of teacher education, similarities and differences. (pp. 33–51). Slovenia: University of Ljubljana & The National School of Leadership in Education. Parker-Jenkins, M. (2016). Problematising ethnography and case study: Reflections on using ethnographic techniques and researcher positioning. Ethnography and Education, 13(1), 18–33. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2016.1253028 Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J. &, Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency and learning – from adaption to active modification in the teacher community. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 21(7), 811–830. doi10.1080/13540602.2014.995483 Rautiainen, M., Nikkola, T., Räihä, P., Saukkonen, S., & Moilanen, P. (2010). From disorder to new order: The complexity of creating a new educational culture. In C. Nygaard, N. Courtney, & C. Holtham (Eds.), Teaching creativity – creativity in teaching (pp. 189–202). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Saukkonen, S., Moilanen, P., Mathew, D., & Rapley, E. (2017). Power, democracy and progressive schools. In. A. Raiker, & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland: principles and culture (pp. 81–92). London: Routledge. Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. url: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/jyvaskyla/reader. action?docID=10418988&ppg=89. Shanghai Ranking’s Global Ranking of Academic Subjects (2020). (http://www. shanghairanking.com/institution/university-of-jyvaskyla) Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 186 Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470. doi: 10.1080/03050060500317810 Skrtic, T. (1995). Special education and student disability as organizational pathologies: Toward a metatheory of school organization and change. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 190–232). New York: Teachers College Press. Starr, L. J. (2010). The use of autoethnography in educational research: Locating who we are in what we do. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3(1), 1–9. Tarnanen, M., & Kostiainen, E. (Eds.). (2020). Ilmiömäistä!: ilmiölähtöinen lähestymistapa uudistamassa opettajuutta ja oppimista. Jyväskylän yliopisto. https:// www.uuttaluova.fi/download/1273/. Thomas, W., & Thomas, D. (1932). The child in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. University of Jyväskylä. (2021). WE ARE JYU. https://www.jyu.fi/en/university/ introduction-and-key-figures Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., & Arffman, I. (2007). The Finnish success in PISA – And some reasons behind it. 2. PISA 2003. url: https://ktl.jyu.fi/julkaisut/julkaisuluettelo/julkaisut/2007/d084. Wall, S. (2016). Toward a moderate autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1177/1609406916674966 Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1979). Muutoksen avaimet. Translated by I. Malinen. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391875. Wilson, M. A. F. (2014). Radical democratic schooling on the ground: Pedagogical ideals and realities in a Sudbury school. Ethnography and Education, 10(2), 121– 136, doi: 10.1080/17457823.2014.959978 Ylimaki, R., & Bruner, C. (2011). Power and collaboration-consensus/conflict in curriculum leadership: Status quo or change? American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1258–1285. doi: 10.3102/0002831211409188 Østergaard, E., Lieblein, G., Bredland, T., & Francis, C. (2010). Students learning agroecology: Phenomenon-based education for responsible action. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 16, 23–37. url: http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13892240903533053. Aimo Naukkarinen, Pentti Moilanen and Mirja Tarnanen