Instrumental Rationality of Digital Platforms in Practices of School Principals

Abstract

The study presented here aimed to understand and analyse the perceptions of school principals in Portugal regarding the effects of digital platforms on their professional daily lives. Data collection was carried out through a Focus Group with 31 school clusters principals from public education in the Northern Region of mainland Portugal. A qualitative research approach and a critical perspective were adopted in the data analysis, based on the content analysis of the produced discourses. The study’s results illustrate the effects of the digitalisation processes of school management on the professional and personal lives of school principals, particularly: increased workload and bureaucracy, emotional and psychological distress, and the constant effort required for adaptation and training.

Keywords

• educational administration
• school directors
• digital platforms
• digitalisation and platformisation in education

References

1. Afonso, A. (2021). Novos caminhos para a sociologia: Tecnologias em educação e accountability digital [New paths for sociology: technologies in education and digital accountability]. Educação & Sociedade, 42, e250099, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/ES.250099
2. Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.004
3. Akram, M. & Khan, A. M. (2020). Exploring e-leadership of principals: Increasing school effectiveness by learning management system. Journal of Education & Social Sciences. 8(1): 15-30. DOI: 10.20547/jess0812008102
4. Araújo, E., & Vilaça, M. (2016). Sociedade conectada: Tecnologia, cidadania e infoinclusão [Connected society: technology, citizenship and info-inclusion]. In M. Vilaça & E. Araújo (Orgs.), Tecnologia, sociedade e educação na era digital (pp. 17–40). Unigranrio.
5. Avidov-Ungar, O., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Blau, I. (2020). Typology of digital leadership roles tasked with integrating new technologies into teaching: Insights from metaphor. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1809035
6. Bardin, L. (2008). Análise de conteúdo [Content analysis]. Edições 70.
7. Beck, U. (2017). A metamorfose do mundo: Como as alterações climáticas estão a transformar a sociedade [The metamorphosis of the world: how climate change is transforming society]. Edições 70.
8. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1994). Investigação qualitativa em educação: Uma introdução à teoria e aos métodos [Qualitative research in education: an introduction to theory and methods]. Porto Editora.

9. Canclini, N. G. (2019). Ciudadanos reemplazados por algoritmos [Citizens replaced by algorithms]. Bielefeld University Press.
10. Carvalho, M. J. (2009a). Explorando a racionalidade instrumental nas decisões da organização escolar [Exploring instrumental rationality in school organisation decisions]. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 22(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.21814/rpe.13968
11. Carvalho, M. J. (2009b). Paulo Freire: A construção da escola democrática a partir da decisão [Paulo Freire: building a democratic school through decision-making]. Revista Brasileira de Políticas e Administração da Educação, 25(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.21573/vol25n32009.19659
12. Carvalho, M. J., & Loureiro, A. (2021). As plataformas informáticas na organização escolar: Modernização ou democratização? [IT platforms in school organisation: modernisation or democratisation?] Revista Exitus, 11(1), e020147. https://doi.org/10.24065/2237-9460.2015v1n1ID1555
13. Catalão, A., & Pires, C. (2020). As plataformas informáticas como instrumentos de regulação da organização e gestão escolar [IT platforms as tools for regulating school organisation and management]. Revista Portuguesa de Investigação Educacional, (special), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.34632/investigacaoeducacional.2020.8502
14. Clutterbuck, J. (2023). The role of platforms in diffracting education professionalities. Tertium Comparationis. 29(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.31244/tc.2023.01.04
15. Dussel, I., & Cardona, M. G. (2021). Whatsapp groups and the construction of new forms of citizenship in schools. Educação & Sociedade, 42, e250099. https://doi.org/10.1590/ES.251642
16. Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Román-Graván, P., Reyes-Rebollo, M. M., & Montenegro-Rueda, M. (2021). Impact of educational technology on teacher stress and anxiety: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020548
17. Folgado, C., & Carvalho, M. J. (2024). A ideologia invisível da tecnologia digital na escola: O confronto de racionalidades [The invisible ideology of digital technology at school: the clash of rationalities]. Revista Conhecimento Online, 16(1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.25112/rco.v1.3628
18. From, J., & Pettersson, F. (2022). In need of development, learning and research? On the possibilities of a common point of departure for digital and educational development. Journal of Digital Social Research, 4(2), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v4i2.110
19. Giddens, A. (2012). Sociologia [Sogiology] (6th ed.). Penso.
20. Gorur, R., & Dey, J. (2021). Making the user friendly: The ontological politics of digital data platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1727544
21. Gregg, M. (2018). Counterproductive: Time management in the knowledge economy. Duke University Press. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835-854. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00025-0
22. Jandrić, P., Mackenzie, A. & Knox. J. (2023). Postdigital Research: Genealogies, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Springer.
23. Korunovska, J., & Spiekermann, S. (2019). The effects of information and communication technology use on human energy and fatigue: a review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01970.
24. Jena, R. K. (2015). Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning environment: An empirical study among Indian academician. Computers in Human Behaviour, 51(B), 1116–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.020 Johansson, E., & Seiser, A. F. (2024). Principals’ professional learning as praxis-oriented change: Leading digitalisation in preschool education. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1416955
25. Jones, C. (2015). Networked learning: An educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01934-5
26. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K.Y., & Kim, N. H. (2016). The effects of secondary teachers’ technostress on the intention to use technology in South Korea. Computers & Education, 95, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.004
27. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.
28. Lévy, P. (2010). Cibercultura [Cyberculture] (3rd ed.). Editora 34.
29. Lima, L. (2012). Elementos de hiperburocratização da administração educacional [Elements of hyper-bureaucratisation in educational administration]. In C. Lucena & J. Silva Júnior (Orgs.), Trabalho e educação no século XXI: Experiências internacionais (pp. 129–158). Xamã.
30. Lima, L. (2021). Máquinas de administrar a educação: Dominação digital e burocracia aumentada [Education administration machines: digital domination and augmented bureaucracy]. Educação & Sociedade, 42, e250099, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1590/ES.249276
31. McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. WW Norton. Moos, G., & Ford, H. (2020). How accountable are digital platforms? In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), A research agenda for digital politics (pp. 97–109). Edward Elgar.
32. Öz, Ö. & Arastaman, G. (2022). School principals' opinions on data-based school management: A case study. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 9(3), 132-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.22.58.9.3 Id: 1015871
33. Panahi, B. (2023). Techno-stress in organization. In K. Bozkus (Ed.), Organizational behavior: Negative aspects. Intech-Open. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1001063
34. Sá, C., Saraiva, L., Marinho, P., Rocha, A., & Fontaínhas, I. (2023). Avaliação do impacto da pandemia covid-19 nas aprendizagens na comunidade educativa do Alto Minho [Assessing the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on learning in the Alto Minho educational community]. Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo.
35. Selwyn, N. (2022). Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Polity Press.
36. Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., Johnson, N. (2016). Toward a digital sociology of school. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. Mcmillan Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies (pp. 143–158). Policy Press.
37. Shah, M. (2014). Impact of Management Information systems (MIS) on school administration: What the literature says. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116, 2799 – 2804. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.659
38. Simon, H. (1989). A razão nas coisas humanas [Reason in human affairs]. Gradiva.
39. Srnicek, N. (2018). Capitalismo de plataformas [Platform capitalism]. Cajanegra.
40. Sterrett, W., & Richardson, J. W. (2019). The change-ready leadership of technology-savvy superintendents. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 227–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0160
41. Tamir, E., Etgar, R., & Peled, D. (2020). Decision-making processes using WhatsApp. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 5(1), 100–137. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2020.1.4
42. Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
43. Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19. Education International Research.