School principals’ agency within a plurality of diverse fields (Hebrew)

In today’s market-based neo-liberal era, the educational system has become intricate
and complex – especially in light of the ever-increasing presence of non-educational players
and other external influences. As a result, educational systems are surrounded by a large
number of players, organizations, and social structures - that shape both local and systemic
educational processes, and impact managerial, teaching, and learning practices (Rigby et al.,
2016; Ståhlkrantz & Rapp, 2020). When examining the literature on educational leadership
over the past two decades, significant changes and renewal can be seen in the attitudes,
characteristics, and roles of school principals. On the one hand, they benefit from a certain
degree of autonomy, as they frequently encounter opportunities for exercising their judgement
in determining the school agenda, and for introducing initiatives and innovation (Keddie &
Holloway, 2020). Yet at the same time, they find themselves in a more complex and
challenging position than in the past, as they are increasingly subjected to the demands and
interference of “outsiders” (Courtney, 2021; Mizrahi-Shtelman, 2019). As such, it seems that
both the internal school environment and the external one greatly impact the dual role of
principals (Benoliel & Somech, 2018); combined, these have led to the redefining and
reprocessing of the principals’ role, as they struggle to maintain their right to maneuver, create,
and develop resources (Ball, 2017; Gewirtz & Ball, 2000; Schechter et al., 2018).
In addition to the neo-liberal context addressed in this study, Bourdieu’s approach also
offers a theoretical basis for examining the social structure in which the school framework
exists, as well as the meaningful role and place of the school principal within this setting. Core
concepts of Bourdieu’s theory, such as strategy, habitus, and field (Bourdieu, 1969, 1972/1977,
1987/1990), enable the examination of the recursive relationships between the individual’s
agency (habitus) and the structure (field) within a broader social context. The field enables
research of the leadership context – in this case, the school – as a structured social space with
its own characteristics and power relationships, that are also connected to additional fields,
such as politics and the economy (Lingard et al., 2003). Habitus, with an emphasis on the
power component (both symbolic and material), is closely related to the field (Christensen,
2023). As such, habitus enables us to examine the leaders’ chosen strategies and their
II
individual personalities – not only in terms of traits, characteristics, and personal impact, but
also in terms of social structures and the leaders’ impact on them.
In the field of education, the term agency refers to actions of change, resistance, and
autonomy. When referring to agency in relation to structure, this term also indicates rigidity,
constraints, and compliance (Fu & Clarke, 2019). The concept of agency-based leadership
enables the investigation of reciprocal relationships between the goals and actions of both the
individuals and their social and physical environments (Koskela & Kärkkäinen, 2021).
Agency-based leadership can also be described as reflective and intuitive actions and
responses, based on thought, judgment, flexibility, rebellion, and creativity (McNay, 2016).
Using Bourdieu’s terminology, agency is subjected to the influence of others, due to their being
part of certain social fields that are abundant with contradicting forces. In such cases, their
tendencies and habitus have a great impact on shaping their encounters with other stakeholders
(Rawolle, 2010). In other words, the principals’ chosen strategies and actions for managing a
given arena reflect their personal habitus (Anderson, 2016). In this manner, the school
principals engage agency based on their strategies and emotional baggage. On the one hand,
these could facilitate their navigation and acclimatization within the educational field; yet on
the other hand, they may in fact hinder such navigation and acclimatization if there are gaps
between themselves and other players within the educational field.
The term principals’ agency (Charteris & Smardon, 2018; Chen-Levi et al., 2022;
Cohen et al., 2020; Donaldson & Woulfin, 2018; Oolbekkink-Marchand et al., 2017) that is
addressed in this study, refers to the principals’ ability to initiate and implement change in the
school – i.e., their ability to navigate within the given social, political, and organizational
space, as a means for bringing about change for the school communities (Chen-Levi et al.,
2022). The term could be defined as the ability of leaders to initiate goal-oriented actions that
imply autonomy, freedom, and choice. The basis of this type of agency is the principals’
understanding of how to foster and allocate developmental processes, and where intervention
tactics are needed for preserving this momentum of change (Travis, 2008). Principals’ agency
could, for example, promote a culture of more in-depth learning in schools (Umpstead et al.,
III
2024), and is related to the principals’ courage and desire to differ from the norm (Richardson
et al., 2021).
Principals’ agency also includes ongoing negotiations between the school’s needs and
how they respond to given rules, guidelines, and policies to which they are subjected (Grooms
& Childs, 2021). Such agency revolves around practices, skills, actions, and initiatives. It
entails strategy, culture, relationships, administration, operations, and complex decision
making – even in relation to the changing (and often conflicting) demands of the stakeholders
(Netolicky, 2020). As such, the constraints and demands dictated from above, combined with
a range of institutional characteristics, impact the scope of the principals’ agency, limiting it
even. Building relationships also has a strong impact on agency and empowerment (Baker,
2024). In turn, these ties assist principals when dealing with a plurality of internal and external
fields and demands. As such, the principals’ perceived degree of power and authority may be
in line with their engagement with agency (Ragnarsdóttir, 2023). For example, principals who
perceive themselves as having little power and authority are like to exhibit less agency.
In this study, the concept of agency was perceived as extending beyond the traditional
boundaries. With individualistic theories, principals’ agency goes against a given structure,
undermining it even, with the individual serving as the driving (and often sole) force behind
the decision-making processes. With institutional theories, actions are anchored in the given
structure (Damşa et al., 2021). In this study, combining between Bourdieu’s terminology and
the concept of agency enhances the subjective positioning of principals’ agency (Hooshyar et
al., 2023), while overcoming traditional attitudes and allowing multi-dimensional agency.
With such agency, reciprocal relationships can develop between the educational leadership and
the school’s personal or group spaces – internal or external. Moreover, perceiving principals’
agency as a mechanism of habitus and field increases awareness among principals as to the
origin of their agency. In turn, this encourages them to deal in informed thinking and conscious
choice in relation to their leadership practices.
This study proposes a renewed theoretical outlook that adds to the existing terminology
regarding principals’ agency, by addressing aspects that extend beyond the realm of
leadership/managerial strategies and practices. Employing Bourdieu’s concepts - mainly
IV
habitus and field – combined with the principals’ agency, it may be more applicable to discuss
agentic leadership among school principals, to enable the identifying of action mechanisms
and practices of agency that are comprised of deeper layers. These include components of
personality, structure, environment, and context, which are anchored in habitus and in field
and that are impacted by the essence, strength, and appearance of this leadership. Adopting
this proposed analytical prism enables a deeper understanding of the ability to nurture and
develop agentic leadership in schools, as the key to significant changes and quality educational
leadership.
The aim of this research, therefore, was to examine and interpret the leadership
perceptions and practices of school principals in a multi-arena environment. More
specifically, the following three research questions were defined:
1. What are the perceptions of school principals in a multi-arena environment regarding
their agency?
2. What are the formal and informal action patterns of the principals’ agency in the multiarena
environment?
3. Which relationships develop as part of the practices exercised by the principals as
agents in a multi-arena environment?
The study employed a qualitative approach. When examining human intent, the
explanations that individuals provide for their given actions, and how they perceive their roles,
it is important to implement methods and strategies that enable the participants to express their
inner selves. These include data collection through semi-structured interviews (Scott &
Morrison, 2007). As such, this study, which places the school-principals’ agency at the core of
the discourse, is well suited to the qualitative research methodology, that does not restrict the
individual to the external social structures in which they engage.
The research population in this study included innovative, ground-breaking school
principals. Data were gathered during 2020-2021. First, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 90 principals – both male and female; next, five small focus groups were
conducted with 11 additional principals, resulting in the participation of 101 principals in total.
Most participants were recruited via the “Network for Generating Innovation in Israeli
V
Education” platform, at the Research and Development Division, Ministry of Education. An
emphasis was placed on diversity among participants, including seniority, education, gender,
educational branch, type of institution, and geographical region. Data regarding the schools
that they manage were also gathered, including type (elementary, junior high, high school, or
secondary) and size (number of students). Due to the Covid-19 restrictions, the interviews and
focus groups were conducted via the Zoom platform.
Data analysis was conducted using the interpretive approach (Morehouse, 2012), and
content analysis was performed using the grounded theory (Gibton, 2001; Glaser & Strauss,
1967, 2017).
As mentioned, the literature addresses agency in relation to the navigation capabilities,
independence, and choice of players in a given arena. Yet using Bourdieu’s prism to observe
the individual-habitus-field relationships, and based on the findings seen in this study, it is
clear that agency is comprised of deeper layers, which provide it with essence rather than
simply with ability – thereby expanding on the theoretical concept of agency.
It seems that principal agency is a complex action scheme, based on educational,
personal, cultural, and moral baggage - that are embedded in the principals’ personality and
that encompass their role of school principal. In other words, at the methodological level, by
completing the final stage of the grounded theory methodology, which combines both theory
and findings (the etic category), an interpretive prism of the researched reality was achieved.
The core category that emerged in the study identifies agency as an interpretive space
that is subjectively shaped by the principals – based on anchors in their perceptions,
personalities, lives, experiences, and actions, and translated into agentic leadership
within and outside the school. This core category is based on the four types of agencies that
are presented in the study: A narrative agency that includes a space of identities; a disrupting
agency, that includes a space of autonomy; agency as a relationship, that includes a space of
connections; and agency as an influence, that includes a space of motion. While each type of
agency can exist independently, the findings of this study indicate that the different types “seep
into” one another, under the principals’ main type of agency. As they are anchored in
perceptions and in the spaces of practices, they naturally become intertwined with one another,
VI
forming a multi-dimensional and holistic tapestry that is expressed through unique and
meaningful agentic leadership.
The principals’ agency was found to be embedded in creative, determined, and novel
action mechanisms - in relation to the various arenas and to themselves. The principals
exhibited proactive leadership at the school, municipal, and regional levels – based on
educational leaders who act as independent agents within much larger systems (Fullan, 2023).
These principals can be perceived as change agents of policies at the local level, while
accepting or rejecting change, guidelines, and policies that are dictated by the government and
by the Ministry of Education.
When applied correctly, resistance can serve as a tool for enhancing the implementation
of processes and change (Walk, 2023); agentic leadership may therefore perceive resistance as
an asset, a catalyst for implementing change and for decreasing challenges in the process. In
this manner, the principals’ agentic leadership also creates secondary change in the core values
of dictated policies, and the de facto reality that is reflected in the significant changes that they
lead (Bialik et al., 2018). The school principals who took part in this study were found to
generate agency in a harmonious manner, intertwined in their high-quality leadership; as such
this was usually accepted by their colleagues, partners, and subordinates (LePelley, 2020).
They are able to blur the limitations and constraints from within and outside the school, and
are adept at working with the flow of the changes within the educational system – riding the
wave of political instability that is typical of Israel in recent years, and even perceiving these
changes as an opportunity for significant progress and innovation.
A holistic, caring, involved, and even sensitive perception emerged following the
analysis – one that does not compromise on the “how.” In fact, the opposite was seen, as this
paves new paths and builds the foundation for change. The principals’ ability to leverage
opportunities for the benefit of innovation, development, and progress indicates power within
their agency. Indeed, the concept of principals’ agency offers a unique outlook, one that
recognizes how the principals preserve the “momentum forward” from within the challenges
and complexities (Harris, 2020, p. 322).
VII
Moreover, principals who, as part of their agentic leadership, lead a fresh and optimistic
educational agenda, also conduct more meaningful and sustainable processes. In the
Discussion chapter of this study, I also propose the addressing of agentic leadership as a
praxis. As such, the leaders are guided by the goal of acting for the benefit of themselves – yet
also for the good of the entire community, with the aim of ensuring a sustainable future in
general (Kemmis, 2012), and for the school community, in particular. Indeed, in this study, the
principals perceived education not only as a means for preparing the young students for real
life, but also as a means for creating meaning – here and now – for the students, the educational
teams, and the external yet impacting circles.
In the Discussion chapter, I refer to Bourdieu’s terminology as a theory, in relation
to the literature on agency as a practice and to the mechanisms that are created by
combining them as a praxis – as embedded in the agentic leadership term proposed in
the current study. At the basis of the concept of praxis lies the assumption whereby actions -
which lead to practices that in turn impact and change reality - comprise a combination of both
social theory, with critical characteristics, and meaningful doing in the field, that also includes
reflective observation and thinking (Budd, 2003; Freire, 1968; Freire et al., 2018; Kemmis,
2010).
In the Findings chapter, in the section on the principals’ perceptions and practices,
numerous testimonials can be seen regarding the existence of a flow. On the one hand, the
inward feedback that is given to the principals and that impact and shape their educationalmanagerial
perceptions and agenda; and on the other hand, the outward impact of their actions
on the framework, structure, and environment within which they operate. As such, an agentic
leadership mechanism can be seen, where the principals update their narrative that then
reshapes their leadership practices – in line with the rationale of the praxis.
Finally, examining the agentic leadership as a praxis enabled that translating of the
emerging research insights into an applicable model. This proposed model could be used to
assist principals in developing their educational praxis, providing them with practical tools for
supporting and enhancing their professional development processes. Using this model, high
internal understanding and awareness could be achieved as to the principals’ self and the power
VIII
that stems from reflective principals’ agency. Doing so could enable meaningful and impactful
educational activities – at the personal-professional level for the principals, and at the
collective level for all those who enter the gates of the school. The model also enables
processes that lead to a heightened understanding of perceptions and practices, as part of the
development and empowerment of the principals’ agentic leadership. As such, this model
could serve as a key for significant processes of change and quality educational leadership –
for future school principals who are currently in training, for current principals, and for middlemanagement
leaders.