View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Social Continuum of Educational Leadership: Exploring the Offline and Online Social Networks of Elementary Principals

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Social Continuum of Educational Leadership: Exploring the Offline and Online Social Networks of Elementary Principals
Language: English
Authors: Rehm, Martin, Daly, Alan, Bjorklund, Peter, Liou, Yi-Hwa, del Fresno, Miguel
Source: Elementary School Journal. Sep 2021 122(1):112-135.
Availability: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 24
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Social Networks, Elementary Schools, Principals, Faculty Development, School Districts, Instructional Leadership, Educational Policy, Urban Schools, Public Schools, Access to Education, Computer Mediated Communication, Social Media, Access to Information, Case Studies, Information Sources, Educational Resources, Administrator Attitudes
DOI: 10.1086/715478
ISSN: 0013-5984
Abstract: Educational leadership is a widely discussed topic in educational science. However, although the study of social networks in (informal) educational settings is gaining interest in recent years, the intersection between leadership and online social networks has received limited attention. This article investigates the informal sets of networks in both social media and face-to-face spaces in which elementary principals engage in the access, use, and diffusion of information. We undertook an exploratory case study in an urban midsize public school district in the United States and collected online and face-to-face network data from a districtwide leadership team of 97 leaders. Our results shed some light on the underlying information exchange patterns and identify commonalities and differences that are useful to consider for practitioners and policy makers who would like to foster the (informal) professional development of educators, and particularly elementary principals, who often do not have access to more formalized forms of professional development or just-in-time access to resources.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1307965
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHs7CTa1rkb4Qj1etZvJ7sqAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHe5zT7TfmkgTdZOfgIBEICBmksqdtZIyyMPo-CMmHk6pHmxI1zn636ZOYEfC7IRJxyWj_wb2KDb4YN0SlYTN2cXV_3gwT5vixiy3gAPuC_ds8D_R-oQrkdyvb8_LVDZRkHCwUJYfCSe-9Z3oeu86CnbkJExj13oQZ3cHBjcHeX7406tvw52GlnpXIuP6USPxbDlZEk65GSA4AUVHrwPFFeqXMUGbQxhEZpkbTo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0152373473;esj01sep.21;2021Sep13.03:55;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0152373473-1">The Social Continuum of Educational Leadership: Exploring the Offline and Online Social Networks of Elementary Principals </title> <p>Educational leadership is a widely discussed topic in educational science. However, although the study of social networks in (informal) educational settings is gaining interest in recent years, the intersection between leadership and online social networks has received limited attention. This article investigates the informal sets of networks in both social media and face-to-face spaces in which elementary principals engage in the access, use, and diffusion of information. We undertook an exploratory case study in an urban midsize public school district in the United States and collected online and face-to-face network data from a districtwide leadership team of 97 leaders. Our results shed some light on the underlying information exchange patterns and identify commonalities and differences that are useful to consider for practitioners and policy makers who would like to foster the (informal) professional development of educators, and particularly elementary principals, who often do not have access to more formalized forms of professional development or just-in-time access to resources.</p> <p>Schools across the globe are facing a growing set of challenges that include concerns around academic performance. This is a defining time for educators and leaders to attend to the educational needs of students in face of ongoing and developing challenges. Better understanding how educational leaders engage with one another in developing community and accessing timely and context-connected information is an important line of investigation during these challenging times. One of most widely used and simplest strategies is engaging communities through communication and collaboration, which involves accessing just-in-time information (e.g., news, ideas, approaches) and the exchange of information, knowledge, and strategies regarding the best practices from schools and communities (Reimers & Schleicher, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref1">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research communities have started to use social networks to investigate patterns of these types of relations among educators in education. However, there is a growing but limited body of work that examines social networks of educational leaders (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]; del Fresno et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref4">85</reflink>]), and even lesser work that takes into account leaders' face-to-face interactions together with their online interactivity. Although networks have been gaining interest in recent years, the intersection between leadership and social networks (both online and offline) has received limited attention (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]). Most leadership research, both theoretical and empirical, focuses on the relationships between the characteristics or traits of leaders, as well as their leadership style and its impact on various outcomes (e.g., Cross et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref6">18</reflink>]; Jehn, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref7">43</reflink>]; Owens & Sutton, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref8">56</reflink>]). Although offering valuable insights, this dominant view of leadership behaviors and attributes underestimates the impact of social networks in both online and offline spaces (Rehm et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref9">67</reflink>]). We argue that the social processes of leaders involve the interplay between and the continuum of leaders' online and offline activities. These activities are connected from people to information to data to events and even places (Wellman, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref10">88</reflink>]) and constitute multiple interdependent relationships that form a vast aggregate social network (Rehm, Cornelissen, Notten, et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref11">66</reflink>]). In addressing the research gap, this study investigates leaders' offline and online social networks, with a particular focus on elementary school principals.</p> <p>The role of the school is taking on increasing importance in communities, and as such principals themselves are even more important (Valli et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref12">84</reflink>]; Wahlstrom & Louis, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref13">86</reflink>]), as leaders take on a central role in addressing many of the challenges facing schools. For example, research on educational leaders indicates that site principals who occupy central and influential positions in the leadership network tend to be more efficacious about their leadership practice (Rehm, Cornelissen, Daly, & García, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref14">65</reflink>]). Similarly, another study indicates the importance of the central role of elementary school principals in the districtwide leadership network in accessing and exchanging advice around reform implementation (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). It is therefore important to better understand how contemporary school leaders, especially elementary school principals, access information, knowledge, and local contextual expertise in improving a host of outcomes (DeMatthews, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]; Spillane et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref17">78</reflink>]). Elementary school leaders often engage to a large extent with their teachers in creating multiple learning communities where instructional practices are shared, used, and improved, which increases the opportunity for them to wield leadership influence over the teachers. In this regard, being resourceful, instrumental, and collaborative would be key for elementary school leaders to shape learning communities, requiring accessing timely information and contextual expertise (Fullan, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]; Giles, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref19">35</reflink>]). Strong elementary school leadership is associated with a host of positive outcomes, including higher levels of trust in colleagues and principal (Bryk & Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref21">82</reflink>]), a sense of professional community (Hord & Sommers, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref22">42</reflink>]), distributed leadership (Spillane et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref23">78</reflink>]), shared decision-making (Marks & Printy, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>]), and stronger relations with broader school communities (DeMatthews, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]; Valli et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref26">84</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite various positive features of successful elementary school principals, a common thread that cuts across studies in this space, especially in elementary schools (e.g., Bottery, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]; Briggs & Coleman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]; Bush et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]; Hodgkinson, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref30">40</reflink>]), is the role of interpersonal relationships and the social processes in which principals go about shaping their personal and professional networks for improved outcomes (Francera & Bliss, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]; Heck & Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]). Social processes of leaders have increasingly been suggested as an important mechanism that drives leadership (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]), as social relations allow leaders to gain access to resources and information necessary to achieve individual and collective outcomes (e.g., Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]; Duguid, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]; Hislop, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref36">39</reflink>]; Panahi et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref37">57</reflink>]). Such a social network perspective brings to the fore the dependencies of actors within a social system and offers insights into the affordances and constraints related to the flow of relational resources (e.g., expertise, knowledge). This perspective shifts the focus away from individual attributes toward an examination of the ties between individuals, thereby placing leadership directly in the role of a social undertaking (Cornelissen et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-2">Structural Social Capital and Networks</hd> <p>Social capital has been promoted as a valuable theoretical construct to better understand how social networks develop and evolve over time (Bush, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref39">11</reflink>]; Dubos, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]; Phua et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref41">60</reflink>]; Rehm, Cornelissen, & Daly, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref42">64</reflink>]; Rehm, Cornelissen, Daly, & García, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref43">65</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref44">85</reflink>]). Here, we build upon the definition of Tsai and Ghoshal ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref45">81</reflink>], p. 464), who consider social capital to be "relational resources embedded in the cross-cutting personal ties" that "are useful for the personal development of individuals." Building upon this definition, Nahapiet and Ghoshal ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]) distinguish between three dimensions of social capital, namely a structural, a cognitive, and a relational dimension. The structural dimension is concerned with the social interactions between individuals within a particular setting, such as a social networking site (SNS), whereas the cognitive dimension deals with the question of whether participating actors share a common understanding and terminology, which improves the potential of exchanging ideas and information. Finally, the relational dimension describes issues such as motivations and common values among individuals. In the context of this article, we focus on the structural dimension of social capital and use social network analysis (SNA) to measure and assess its relevance for the observed off- and online data (Moolenaar et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref47">52</reflink>]; Rienties et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref48">71</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref49">85</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, whether, and to what extent, resources are transferred within social networks may depend on the quantity and quality of ties an individual has. Some scholars have argued that content (e.g., what resources flow between actors) determines the purpose of the network, which in turn affects a network's structure (Rehm, Cornelissen, & Daly, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref50">64</reflink>]; Rehm, Cornelissen, Daly, & García, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref51">65</reflink>]). For example, an individual's communication network at work may differ from their friendship network outside of work. Although both networks facilitate the flow of information and resources, the overall structure of the networks may look quite different. Considering social networks among educational leaders, studies have shown that ties across systems—for example, school districts—have contributed to a better transfer of tacit, nonroutine, or complex knowledge, which in turn may be associated with better outcomes (Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref52">85</reflink>]). Similarly, other research has shown that "boundary crossing" (Akkerman & Bakker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>], p. 133) can indeed benefit individuals by enabling them to expand their horizon and look outside of their "narrow daily existence" and go beyond (Williams, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref54">89</reflink>], p. 600). This refers to instances where an elementary school principal might turn to colleagues from another school district or type of school who share a topical interest or already have been able to acquire relevant practical experience in a certain area. Similarly, a principal might turn to social media to gather information or share experiences with colleagues that they otherwise would not have immediate access to (Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref55">83</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref56">85</reflink>]). In understanding a network space, we need to understand the importance of local and boundary-crossing relationships.</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-3">Social Network Analysis in Principal Leadership</hd> <p>Over the last decade, researchers in education have increasingly used SNA to investigate complex social and organizational behaviors of leaders such as instructional practice (Supovitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref57">79</reflink>]) and leadership (del Fresno García et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref58">23</reflink>]; Rigby, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref59">72</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref60">85</reflink>]), distributed leadership (Spillane et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref61">78</reflink>]), districtwide leadership practice (Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref62">85</reflink>]), and so forth. Many of these studies have examined informal network position of leaders and its relationships with self-concept (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]), perceived organizational climate (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref64">20</reflink>]), peer influence (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]), and peer trust (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>A principal's position in a social network structure has been shown to be consequential, as network position may provide better access and monitoring of resources such as tools and practices (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref67">20</reflink>]; Rehm, Cornelissen, Notten, et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref68">66</reflink>]). For example, Casciaro ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref69">14</reflink>]) noted that occupying central positions within an organization can create a vortex. Although this centralized social system would allow principals to share resources more easily, it would also contribute to them getting more resources from others, who are trying to get or stay in contact (Krackhardt, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref70">47</reflink>]). The underlying social network concept of a vortex or hub is an individual's network centrality. Centrality is defined in terms of the relative number of connections that an individual has to others in the network (Wasserman & Faust, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref71">87</reflink>]). The more connections, or ties, a leader has to other actors in the network, the more centrally the leader is positioned in the network. This in turn can positively affect their influence over the network, as they have access to multiple resources (Borgatti, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>]) and can potentially create new ties between otherwise disconnected individuals (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]). Consequently, based on their position and the opportunities this entails, an educational leader may be considered a key influencer or opinion leader (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The previous paragraphs argue for the importance of principal leadership in social networks and for their role to possibly shape and affect the social structure of these networks. The role of educational leadership has become increasingly important in the process of educational improvement and change and is often touted as critical in the work of networked improvement communities (Penuel et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref75">58</reflink>]; Pitts & Spillane, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref76">61</reflink>]). Although other aspects of the educational endeavor have been examined in the network community space, there continues to be a dearth of work that examines the role of the principal, particularly in terms of accessing and leveraging virtual and face-to-face networks around high-quality practices/tools/approaches (e.g., Cho & Jimerson, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref77">15</reflink>]). Given the changing workplace of education, principals, particularly at elementary schools, need to continuously adapt and update their knowledge and skills to meet the challenges of their everyday work (Finsterwald et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref78">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>To achieve this goal, many scholars have argued that educational leaders cannot depend on formal, often short-term, interventions (Bidwell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>]). Instead, to face the complex educational challenges of today, high-quality, sustained, and relevant principal professional development is required (Fox & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref80">30</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref81">85</reflink>]). In this context, informal learning networks have been suggested as a viable option to contribute to this development (e.g., Richter et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref82">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>Informal networks provide leaders with an opportunity to continuously share and update their practice (e.g., Hopkins, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref83">41</reflink>]), offer greater flexibility than formal scenarios (e.g., Froehlich et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref84">32</reflink>]), and provide a context that is not detached from their working environments (Eraut, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref85">28</reflink>]). Research pertaining to the promotion of informal learning opportunities for school leaders suggests the important role of an integrated, learning-oriented school environment in which leaders feel confident about the use of informal learning strategies in their professional development: such activities as participating in personal and/or professional networks and communities, reading blogs and tweets, and accessing other online resources (Rodriguez-Gomez et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref86">74</reflink>]). Although important to leaders' learning, these types of activities are the least used by principals. More specifically, elementary school principals are found to be more apt to utilize informal "online" learning activities, as opposed to informal face-to-face, than secondary school principals (Rodriguez-Gomez et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref87">74</reflink>]). Given the important role of informal online learning networks in principals' professional development, an increasing number of studies have begun to look into this space (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref88">20</reflink>]; Greenhow et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref89">37</reflink>]; Karimi & Hosseini Zade, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref90">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-4">Social Media and Flow of Relational Resources</hd> <p>The rise of social media has led to a panoply of online communication spaces or sites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, wherein individuals can engage in informal learning with others (e.g., Owen et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref91">55</reflink>]). Furthermore, a growing number of studies have shown that educational professionals use social media, such as Twitter, to access and share information that helps them and others to face their everyday challenges (Risser, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref92">73</reflink>]). Being embedded in their immediate (work) environments, media constitute social opportunity spaces (Rehm, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref93">63</reflink>]; Rehm, Cornelissen, Daly, & García, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref94">65</reflink>]; Rehm & Notten, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref95">68</reflink>]), enabling individuals to engage in discussions with a wide variety of other individuals and stimulate a process of critical reflection. Consequently, principals can benefit from participating in social media to help them (and their colleagues) in their efforts to engage in high-quality practice. Moreover, accessing these social media networks provides a record of the flow of practices/tools/approaches that can be traced, examined, and quantified.</p> <p>Social media are online technology platforms focusing on synchronous and asynchronous human interactions with a local and global reach unprecedented in human history (e.g., Perrin, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref96">59</reflink>]). Moreover, some authors have suggested that they constitute a combination of personal spaces that are socially connected (McPherson et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref97">50</reflink>]), supporting social interactions and contributing to a complex interplay of communication, social practices, and technology infrastructure. Consequently, Daly and colleagues have referred to the spaces as depicting a social continuum, reflecting a "complex labyrinth of networks of connections that link people who share information, ideas, resources, perceptions, beliefs, myths, rumors, etc. in a real-time, immense, networked communication system" (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref98">20</reflink>], p. 12). This system is not bound by time and place. Instead, it can span across off- and online spaces. For example, an individual might regularly discuss a certain issue with a work colleague during a coffee break. The content of this chat might then be shared online by the same individual, for example, via Twitter, as an input for an online exchange on educational innovation. Alternatively, one elementary school principal might have found an interesting resource online, for example, how to successfully incorporate Zoom meetings during a COVID-19-related lockdown, that they then talk about during the next staff meeting. Similarly, a principal might lack a relevant colleague in their immediate, offline network that they can ask for advice, for example, on how to foster a change process, and might therefore turn to online spaces where they can access a plurality of (different) opinions and experiences on a shared interest or topic (Mynatt et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]). Consequently, in examining this social continuum of interactions, (mixed) SNA (Knoke & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref100">46</reflink>]; Rehm, Cornelissen, & Daly, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref101">64</reflink>]) provides a valuable theoretical framework and robust set of methods for examining how seemingly autonomous individuals and organizations are, in fact, embedded in social relations and interactions that have consequences for individual and collective behaviors in both online and offline spaces. In this sense, sociological and communication network analysis examines individuals not as "social islands" but as sets of collective (e.g., individuals, institutions, companies, intermediary actors) and intentional agents of action and influence. The constellation of ties that surround actors can occur in both offline and online contexts, as part of the same social continuum. Furthermore, by using SNA to capture, describe, and assess underlying communication processes, it becomes possible to make the invisible visible (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref102">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The unique aspect of this work is the opportunity to better understand the informal sets of networks in both online and face-to-face spaces in which elementary principals engage in the access, use, and diffusion of practices/tools/approaches. Moreover, previous research has suggested that there are links between the two realms that might have an impact on the quality of (e.g., Mesch & Talmud, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref103">51</reflink>]) and commitment to connections (e.g., Rabby, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref104">62</reflink>]). However, current research has been largely focused on Facebook (e.g., Sibona & Walczak, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref105">77</reflink>]; Tang et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref106">80</reflink>]). The interplay between virtual and physical spaces, particularly in a professional (educational) setting, remains largely neglected in recent literature (e.g., Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref107">2</reflink>]; Chung, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref108">16</reflink>]). Even more so, we have only limited knowledge in each space individually and almost no empirical base in examining the intersection between these critical spaces between elementary principals. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of how these spaces are connected in the context of a social continuum.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Social continuum—the interconnection between face-to-face and online networks.</p> <p>This knowledge is both timely and critical given the important role of school leadership and the overall emphasis on networks, both virtual and face-to-face, and their potential relationship to school and district change. In undertaking this important line of inquiry, the work is guided by the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <p>• 1.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the overall structure of the offline and online networks of elementary school principals?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Who are the key players in the space, and what roles do they play?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Considering the role of elementary principals:</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• a.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do the online and offline networks compare?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• b.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there an overlap between online and offline networks, and what type of users are bridging the two realms?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152373473-5">Method</hd> <p>This work takes an exploratory case study approach (e.g., Yin, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref109">90</reflink>]) to investigating complex social behaviors of educational leaders that remain understudied but consequential to the development of capital assets and capacity for leadership practices. We present a case study about webs of interactions among a districtwide leadership team of 104 leaders that involve two types of data: offline and online network data. The leadership team comprises all central office administrators (i.e., superintendent, director, supervisor, coordinator, etc.) and secondary and elementary school principals.</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-6">Context and Demographics</hd> <p>This study takes place in an urban midsize public school district in the United States that serves more than 76,000 PK–12 students from a variety of backgrounds. The district is one of the most diverse school systems across the nation in terms of race and ethnicity, students' socioeconomic status, and language learning ability. Approximately 20% of the students were enrolled in bilingual and English-language learning programs; 28% of students are African American, 27% Hispanic, 27% Asian, and 17% White; and almost 45% of students enrolled in free and reduced-price lunch. This district reflects a typical public PK–12 school district that serves diverse student populations in the United States. We selected this district as a case study because it has had a long history of creating a sense of community that involves students, their families, and its broader communities to address diverse needs of learners. Exploring the networks of connections among leaders in this district would assist us in not only understanding their collective efforts but also informing leadership practice in other similar settings.</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-7">Sample Demographics</hd> <p>Of the 104 educational leaders, 97 completed the survey (a 93% response rate). Table 1 provides some descriptive statistics about these 97 leaders on the survey results. These 97 educational leaders held positions in the central/district office (36%), were elementary school principals (41%), or were high school principals (23%). Seventy-three percent of participants identified as female, 26% as male, and 1% declined to state. Three-quarters of the sample identified as either White (44%) or Black (31%), 12% identified as Latina/o, 6% declined to state their racial identity, 5% identified as Asian, and 1% identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Educators in this sample had on average 20.8 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.1) of experience as educators and 12.3 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.2) of experience as administrators. The average participant had worked in this district for 11.8 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 8.7), been in their current position for 4.2 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.4), and been at their current site an average of 3.6 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.6).</p> <p>Table 1. Sample Demographics (<emph>N</emph> = 97)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td valign="bottom">Variable</td><td valign="bottom">Percent/Years</td><td valign="bottom"><italic>SD</italic></td><td valign="bottom">Min</td><td valign="bottom">Max</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom">Gender:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Male</td><td valign="bottom">26%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Female</td><td valign="bottom">73%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Decline to state</td><td valign="bottom">1%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Ethno-racial group:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> White</td><td valign="bottom">44%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Black</td><td valign="bottom">31%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Latina/o</td><td valign="bottom">12%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Asian</td><td valign="bottom">5%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander</td><td valign="bottom">1%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Decline to state</td><td valign="bottom">6%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Role:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrator</td><td valign="bottom">36%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principal</td><td valign="bottom">41%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principal</td><td valign="bottom">23%</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Experience in education:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Years as an educator</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">20.8</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">5.1</td><td valign="bottom">8</td><td valign="bottom">30</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Years as an administrator</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">12.3</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">5.2</td><td valign="bottom">4</td><td valign="bottom">28</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Years in district</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">11.8</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">8.7</td><td valign="bottom">0</td><td valign="bottom">30</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Years in position</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">4.2</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">4.4</td><td valign="bottom">0</td><td valign="bottom">24</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Years at site</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">3.6</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">3.6</td><td valign="bottom">0</td><td valign="bottom">20</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-8">Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152373473-9">Offline Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p>The offline network data were collected through a social network survey at one time-point in February/March 2020, while at the same time we were capturing online Twitter data from the same leaders. The survey invited site and central office leaders to assess a series of social relationships with their administrative colleagues including advice, collaboration, energy, and close relationships. Based on earlier work, we developed network questions that captured both instrumental and expressive relationships of leaders (Cornelissen et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref110">17</reflink>]; Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref111">21</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref112">85</reflink>]). Instrumental ties are those that reflect work-related tasks, whereas expressive relations are associated with affective relationships. We focus on instrumental relations in this study, that is, advice and collaboration, as an initial effort to explore the diffusion of work-related knowledge and expertise across the network.</p> <p>For advice network relation, we asked the leaders to assess the frequency of interaction with other leaders, "How often do you go to each administrator for advice on how to strengthen your leadership practice?" on a 4-point frequency scale, with 1 indicating "few times a year" and 4 indicating "daily" interaction. On the same frequency scale, the leaders were asked to assess the frequency of interaction with other leaders with whom they actively collaborate about improving learning outcomes of students. As this study focuses on a leadership team within a finite district network, a bounded approach is more suitable and reliable to collect network data. This approach, coupled with high response rate, provides a more complete picture of the leader networks, hence more valid outcomes (Scott, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref113">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>In describing properties of the offline networks, we calculated the following network metrics: average degree, in-degree, out-degree, betweenness, in-demand, and active. Overall degree is the total number of ties—including incoming (in-degree) or outgoing (out-degree)—for each node in the network (Seidman, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref114">76</reflink>]). A leader's in-degree refers to the number of nominations that leader receives from others, representing the leader's popularity or influence, whereas a leader's out-degree is calculated by the number of nominations that leaders make, thus representing that leader's activity. Betweenness is the number of times a leader connects otherwise disconnected pairs of actors. To explore the interactions between the three role groups in these networks, we created two variables: in-demand and active. The in-demand variable is the sum of in-degree in the advice and the collaboration networks, and the active variable is the sum of out-degree in the advice and collaboration networks. For example, if an elementary school principal had an in-degree of seven in the advice network and an in-degree of four in the collaboration network then they would have an in-demand score of 11. A higher score in the in-demand variable indicates that an individual is highly sought after for both advice and collaboration. A higher score in the active variable indicates that an individual seeks out more peers for advice and collaboration than participants with a lower score.</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-10">Online Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p>In addition, our sample includes social networks from Twitter data ranging from July 14, 2018, until March 30, 2020, from these same district central office administrators and elementary and secondary school principals. We tracked the professional Twitter profiles of all active district leaders (65.01% of survey respondents) to visualize the network and identify key players. Overall, we collected close to 10,000 tweets. We then built a directed, unweighted one-mode network based on all collected tweets, mentions (e.g., @user), and replies to (e.g., RTuser) matrices.</p> <p>To analyze the data, we employed a multimethods approach. First, we identified underlying communication patterns (Bruns & Stieglitz, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref115">8</reflink>]). More specifically, we computed the in-, out-, and overall degree centrality metrics of all users (Grabowicz et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref116">36</reflink>]). These metrics provide an indication of how often an individual has been contacted or has contacted others, respectively. We also determined underlying community structures (De Nooy et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref117">25</reflink>]). Within the identified communities, we then focused on individuals with prominent roles (high centrality) in the network (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref118">10</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref119">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, to evaluate whether online and offline networks might be overlapping and who might be fostering an exchange between these two networks, we combined our survey and Twitter data and determined school leaders that were in both data sets. Using the determined metrics from the previous analyses, we then ran a range of inferential statistics, to potentially identify commonalities and differences between key users. For the purpose of conducting all applicable analyses, we used the statistical software package R, as well as the dedicated social network analyses software UCINET (survey data) and Gephi (network visualization).</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152373473-12">Findings from Offline Data</hd> <p>Table 2 shows the average in-demand score for each role group. Panel 1 shows the in-demand averages for yearly to daily interactions. Our in-demand variables were not normally distributed; as such we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis test,which showed a significant difference between role groups (χ<sups>2</sups> = 30.10, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> <.001) for yearly to daily in-demand scores, with elementary principals averaging a lower in-demand score than their central office and high school principal peers.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref120">2</reflink>] Panel 2 shows the average in-demand scores for the weekly to daily interactions. It seems that high school principals have the lowest average in-demand here, but this may be a bit misleading, as a closer look at the data indicates that one elementary school principal was the most in-demand actor in the network and as such skewed the average. Panel 3 shows the results when this participant is removed, and we see a consistent pattern that there is a significant difference between the groups (χ<sups>2</sups> = 34.92, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and that elementary school principals are, in general, less sought after for advice and collaboration than their peers.</p> <p>Table 2. Average In-Demand by Role</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td valign="bottom">Role</td><td valign="bottom">Mean</td><td valign="bottom"><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom">Panel 1: Yearly to daily interactions:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">59.53</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">19.14</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">38.70</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">11.78</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">44.96</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">11.65</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Panel 2: Weekly to daily interactions:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">7.29</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">4.79</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">2.16</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">3.15</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">2.00</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">1.90</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Panel 3: Weekly to daily interactions after removing the outlier:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">***</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">7.29</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">4.79</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">1.74</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">1.54</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">2.00</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">1.90</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>1 *** <emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>Table 3 shows the results for our active variable. Panel 1 shows the average active scores for each group in yearly to daily interactions. Our active variable was similarly not normally distributed, and so we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis test, which showed that there was a significant difference between the groups (χ<sups>2</sups> = 8.41, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> <.05) and that elementary administrators were the least active relative to their peers. Finally, Panel 2 shows the average weekly to daily active measures, and once again there was a significant difference between the groups (χ<sups>2</sups> = 25.50, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and elementary administrators have the lowest activity relative to their peers. Despite making up the largest percentage of our sample (41%) in terms of role, elementary administrators seem to be less sought after and to seek their peers less often than central office staff and high school principals. As such, they appear to be an underutilized resource in the network.</p> <p>Table 3. Average Activity by Role</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td valign="bottom">Role</td><td valign="bottom">Mean</td><td valign="bottom"><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom">Panel 1: Yearly to daily interactions:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">82.21</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">73.29</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">38.52</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">34.71</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">46.23</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">44.19</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Panel 2: Weekly to daily interactions:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">***</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">8.32</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">6.23</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">2.25</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">2.78</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">3.15</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">2.89</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <ulist> <item>2 ** <emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> <item>3 *** <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152373473-13">Findings from Online Data</hd> <p>Figure 2 shows the giant component of the overall network, which constitutes the largest connected part of the Twitter network. Moreover, this figure also clearly shows the presence of a range of different communities (as depicted by different shaded nodes and edges) that were present in the data. More specifically, the left- and right-hand-side communities (Fig. 2) are the largest communities. This suggests that although there are links between communities, as highlighted by the links (edges) between, for example, the left- and right-hand-side communities, some users might be interacting more frequently within their community as compared with members from other communities.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Giant component based on overall degree. Dots = nodes that represent individual Twitter users; lines = edges that indicate relationships (e.g., mentions, replies) between nodes; shading of nodes = modularity community detection algorithm.</p> <p>Figures 3–5 provide the sociograms for the top 1% of users based on in- and out-degree, as well as betweenness, respectively. We decided to focus on the top 1% for these particular visualizations because of visibility and, more importantly, based on the notion that only a (very) small minority of participants are central to the network in which they are operating (Cornelissen et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref121">17</reflink>]; Cross et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref122">19</reflink>]). As can be seen, although the main communities (e.g., the left- and right-hand-side communities) largely remain relevant, individual users took on different central roles within the network. More specifically, although userA is central to the in-degree network (Fig. 3), this account's central position is less pronounced in the out-degree network (Fig. 4). However, accounts like userB are able to attain central positions across the different types of networks. An overview of the network metrics for the Twitter data is provided in Table 4.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Top 1% of users based on in-degree. Dots = nodes that represent individual Twitter users; lines = edges that indicate relationships (e.g., mentions, replies) between nodes; shading of nodes = modularity community detection algorithm; size of labels = in-degree.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Top 1% of users based on out-degree. Dots = nodes that represent individual Twitter users; lines = edges that indicate relationships (e.g., mentions, replies) between nodes; shading of nodes = modularity community detection algorithm; size of labels = out-degree.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Top 1% of users based on betweenness centrality. Dots = nodes that represent individual Twitter users; lines = edges that indicate relationships (e.g., mentions, replies) between nodes; shading of nodes = modularity community detection algorithm; size of labels = betweenness centrality.</p> <p>Table 4. Overall Network Metrics Twitter</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Overall Degree</td><td valign="bottom">In-Degree</td><td valign="bottom">Out-Degree</td><td valign="bottom">Betweenness</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom">Mean</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">17.06</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">8.53</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">8.53</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">5,478.39</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"><italic>SD</italic></td><td valign="bottom" char=".">186.06</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">103.96</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">147.78</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">108,420.65</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Min</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">1.00</td><td valign="bottom">0</td><td valign="bottom">0</td><td valign="bottom">0</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Max</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">7,946.00</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">6,645.00</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">7,865.00</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">4,327,788.34</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>We then also explored possible differences between the three groups of administrators based on their activity within the Twitter network. Table 5 provides the results of the descriptive as well as inferential statistics. The in-degree measure provides an indication about how often a leader has been mentioned or replied to by others. It is therefore similar to the in-demand variable introduced before in the context of the survey results. Similarly, the out-degree measure resembles the active variable from before, as it captures the number of times a leader has mentioned or replied to others. The overall degree is simply the sum of the two other degree measures.</p> <p>Table 5. Network Metrics (Twitter) by Role</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td valign="bottom">Role</td><td valign="bottom">Mean</td><td valign="bottom"><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom">Degree:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">495.50</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">344.85</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principals<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td valign="bottom" char=".">442.17</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">285.23</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">118.70</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">154.32</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">In-degree:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">466.25</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">328.37</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principals<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td valign="bottom" char=".">340.33</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">222.31</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">107.60</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">143.92</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Out-degree:<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Central office administrators</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">29.25</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">27.44</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Elementary school principal<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td valign="bottom" char=".">101.83</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">64.69</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Secondary school principals</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">11.10</td><td valign="bottom" char=".">11.79</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <ulist> <item>4 * <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> <item>5 *** <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>As can be seen from Table 5, using a Kruskal-Wallis test due to the nonparametric nature of the online data, there was a significant difference between the groups for all of the determined degree centrality measures (degree: χ<sups>2</sups> = 6.07, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> <.05; in-degree: χ<sups>2</sups> = 6.12, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> <.05; out-degree: χ<sups>2</sups> = 8.21, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> <.05). In addition, a closer look at the data suggested that the difference might be particularly pronounced between elementary and high school administrators. Hence, to statistically test for this observation, we also conducted Mann-Whitney tests. The results clearly support this argument and identified significant differences between the two groups for the overall (U = 52.00, <emph>p</emph> <.05) and in-degree (U = 52.00, <emph>p</emph> <.05) measures. Even more so, the observed difference was particularly pronounced for the out-degree measure (U = 54.5, <emph>p</emph> <.01). These findings are particularly interesting in light of the survey results about offline interactions. Although the result was not statistically significant, elementary administrators had a considerably higher in-degree than their colleagues from high school. In addition—and this in clear contrast to the survey results—elementary school administrators were among the most active in the Twitter network. In this context, scholars like Garavan and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref123">34</reflink>]) suggested that more experienced employees were less likely to be active during online communication activities. Hence, to test whether this might be an explanatory factor in the observed data structure, we tested for differences in years (<emph>a</emph>) as an educator, (<emph>b</emph>) as an administrator, (<emph>c</emph>) in the district, (<emph>d</emph>) in the current position, and (<emph>e</emph>) at the site they are currently working. Among all these possible control variables, only the difference in the current position (<emph>p</emph> <.1) showed a sign of statistical significance. This suggests that leaders who are relatively new to their current position might be more prone to actively seek social media platforms, like Twitter, to get information, insights, and support to help them grow and develop in the new position.</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-14">Combining Offline and Online Data</hd> <p>We then combined the two network data sets and determined the extent to which there might be an overlap between them. This resulted in a population of 67 leaders that could be subdivided into two subpopulations. The first subpopulation includes those leaders who were part of the survey and only used Twitter to actively communicate with others working in the district (<emph>N</emph> = 47, 70%, Fig. 6: right-hand-side nodes), and the other subpopulation includes those leaders who were part of the survey and used Twitter to also communicate with others, outside their district (<emph>N</emph> = 20, 30%, Fig. 6: center of the figure). More specifically, these leaders were connected with a wide variety of other Twitter users (Fig. 6: left-hand-side nodes) who were not part of the school district's administration team. Figure 6 provides a sociogram for an exemplary network where we combined the Twitter data with the survey data question of "Whom do you go to for advice?" Although this figure suggests that online (left-hand-side nodes) and offline (right-hand-side nodes) might indeed be two different realms, there are clear indications of overlap and bridging activities. This can be seen from the center of the figure, which represent leaders who were part of both the Twitter and the survey data sets.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Online-offline network: combining Twitter and survey data. Dots = nodes that represent individual Twitter users; lines = edges that indicate relationships (e.g., mentions, replies) between nodes; left = online Twitter data, right = offline survey data ("Whom do you go to for advice?"), center = both offline and online data (including connections to users outside the school district's administrative staff).</p> <p>Finally, we were interested in whether there might be observable differences within the group of leaders who were part of both data sets. In this context, we found two types of leaders that are represented by Figure 7. In Figure 7a, an exemplar elementary principal is actively using Twitter to bridge the gap between the online and offline realms. In contrast, the exemplar elementary principal in Figure 7b is using Twitter as an additional communication channel to share information and resources with others in their school district, not with others outside.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 7. Exemplary user combining online and offline networks. (a) Exemplary leader bridging online and offline realms. (b) Exemplary leader bonding within their school district. Dots = nodes that represent individual Twitter users; lines = edges that indicate relationships (e.g., mentions, replies) between nodes; right-hand-side nodes = online Twitter data, left-hand-side nodes = offline survey data ("Whom do you go to for advice?"), center = both online and offline data.</p> <hd id="AN0152373473-15">Discussion and Implications</hd> <p>This article set out to investigate the relevance and extent of the social continuum in educational leadership in general, with a focus on the leadership team of an entire district with a particular eye toward elementary principals. Our work reflects networks of connections that link people in points in time and real-time, immense, networked communication systems, both offline and online, focused on leaders in general and elementary principals specifically. For this purpose, we combined an innovative set of methods that captured, mapped, and analyzed these interactions as offline and online social networks, thus making the invisible visible. Furthermore, in this preliminary investigation of complex relationship structures, we focused on the networks that emerge online and offline, such as leadership practices. Next envisioned steps include the incorporation of more background characteristics, such as gender and tenure, into the analyses. Particularly in the context of gender, more work is required, as our data set seemed to lean toward female leaders. Although this seems consistent with the teaching population, as well as the population of elementary school leaders, as reflected in the US national demographic, schools generally seem more prone to be led by male administrators. Taking this into account will enable us to more closely monitor and assess the multidimensionality of the social continuum.</p> <p>First, we were interested in the overall structure of the offline and online networks of elementary school principals. In this context, we were able to identify general communication patterns and sets of communities that were central and active for the overall sharing and diffusion of information and experiences. In terms of key players in both online and offline spaces, those who hold central positions in their networks, our findings indicate two types of players: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>) actively pursued (e.g., high out-degree) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref125">2</reflink>) passively assigned (e.g., high in-degree). Our findings from the offline data indicated that elementary school principals were the least sought and less likely to reach out to their peers compared with secondary school leaders and central office administrative colleagues in the advice and collaboration networks. It seems that the elementary principals were generally marginalized in the offline networks. Their lack of connectivity in networks of relational resources (i.e., leadership advice and efforts for improving student learning) implies an untapped/underutilized human capital among the elementary school principals when it comes to offline interactivity. Interestingly, our findings from the online Twitter data indicate a contrasting pattern of roles among elementary and high school principals. That is, we found that in the online network space, elementary school principals are more active and more sought after than their secondary school colleagues, thus holding central positions and actively contributing to the information exchange on Twitter. Taken together, both online and offline patterns of interactions suggest that elementary school principals seem to invest less in their offline capital assets than in their online capital resources in this district. The differentiation in their network activity corroborates with an earlier study that suggests elementary school principals are more prone to the use of informal "online" learning opportunities (e.g., online blogs or tweets) than their secondary school counterparts (Rodriguez-Gomez et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref126">74</reflink>]), as they feel more competent in the use of technology and about their digital skills. This is also particularly interesting in light of the concept of "boundary crossing" (Akkerman & Bakker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref127">1</reflink>], p. 133). More specifically, elementary school principals appeared to be bound by their "narrow daily existence" (Williams, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref128">89</reflink>], p. 600) and consequently were more prone to turn to social media to gather information and share experiences with colleagues that they otherwise would not have immediate access to and contact with (Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref129">83</reflink>]; Van Waes et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref130">85</reflink>]). One possible explanation for this could be that perhaps the district in question has formalized goals to promote innovative online learning and instruction, which requires educators to engage with their colleagues in online communities. Hence, elementary school principals, compared with their secondary counterparts, might be more willing and pressed to build online ties, as their schools tend to be smaller and therefore might provide less opportunity to physically gather new information and experiences.</p> <p>In addition, as mounting research evidence has suggested the important role of opportunities for learning and creating networked communities in support of professional development (Penuel et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref131">58</reflink>]; Spillane et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref132">78</reflink>]), the difference in connectivity between central office, elementary, and high school leaders signals the need for the district to create a more coherent system in which communications between and across school levels are bridged, and resources for leadership and collaboration are shared, and more importantly capital assets accumulated from both face-to-face and online are connected and leveraged for learning and innovation. As our data indicate a certain degree of disproportional influence of elementary school principals in their online networks, for the district to create a coherent community of leaders, more efforts are needed to connect and share relational resources of elementary school principals with their administrative colleagues and to ensure the gap between leaders' online and offline connectivity can be bridged for better communication, learning, and community. A sense of community is more likely to developed when leaders' social footprints are connected, reinforced, and strengthened not only by more face-to-face interactions but also by more online connectivity (Kavanaugh et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref133">45</reflink>]). In so doing, leaders' capacity for their social continuum would be enhanced by being able to diffuse ideas, knowledge, leadership practices, or a behavior change beyond just their immediate geographical area but to anywhere in the world that virtual/social media can reach (Carpenter & Krutka, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref134">13</reflink>]). Little has been done in this social continuum area, which deserves a greater attention given the new norm of school change in work placement.</p> <p>Moreover, the potential of connecting virtual and social media to offline spaces points toward directions for development of human and social capital. There is a growing body of work in this area (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref135">20</reflink>]; Greenhow et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref136">37</reflink>]; Karimi & Hosseini Zade, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref137">44</reflink>]), and the early indicators suggest that these virtual activities play an equally important role to those that occur in spatially bounded offline space, maybe even more so during societal shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic, for the exchange of knowledge, resources, and development of community necessary for accumulating capital assets. In this sense, the secondary principals in our data are not acting as online players leading the networks, despite being about to graduate students into a more "virtually" focused social media world.</p> <p>Second, we wanted to know how online and offline networks compare. Based on our results, we can stipulate that both types of networks exhibit some similarities and overlaps. Corresponding to previous research in business leadership, only a small minority of participants is gravitating around the center of their applicable networks (Cross et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref138">19</reflink>]). Of these central leaders, we found two types of key players: leaders occupying both online and offline networks and leaders bridging the online and offline networks. On the one hand, we found school leaders who were part of both networks but apparently more focused on the offline network. When they were using online tools, such as Twitter, it was to stay in contact or share resources with colleagues from the overall school district. On the other hand, we discovered school leaders who were actively engaged in acting as a bridge between the on- and offline realms. In other words, although they used Twitter to communicate with their colleagues from within the district, they also ventured outside this geographical space and connected with people from across the country and beyond. This would allow them to look outside of their "narrow daily existence" (Williams, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref139">89</reflink>], p. 600) and gain access to a wider set of information and resources. These resources could then be shared with colleagues from the same district again, making the applicable leaders an important asset to update and possibly provide novel insights and information to the school district. Furthermore, although our current data do not allow us to make bold claims about this observation, we discovered that elementary school principals appear to be more likely to take on such a role, as compared with their colleagues holding other positions. Future research should expand on this, as it constitutes a very interesting notion that could have ample implications for practice.</p> <p>The practical implications of this are manifold. First, this study provides an innovative and unprecedented insight into how online and offline networks interact with each other. Consequently, we are able to shed some light on the underlying communication patterns and identify commonalities and differences that are useful to consider for practitioners and policy makers who would like to foster the (informal) professional development of educators, and particularly principals, who often do not have access to more formalized forms of professional development or just-in-time access to resources. Second, we have started to unravel the types of information that are actually being shared and diffused online. On the one hand, this can indicate what types of experiences and insights from within schools and districts might be interesting to others. On the other hand, it can also act as an indicator of what type of information might be lacking within schools and districts so that individuals might have to turn to online spaces to find applicable information and resources. Finally, we have found that despite their connections in virtual space these elementary principals were unused resources in the network. This is particularly important given that elementary principals comprise the majority of educational leadership in the district.</p> <ref id="AN0152373473-16"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref53" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Martin Rehm is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Education in Weingarten, Germany; Alan Daly is a professor in the Department of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego; Peter Bjorklund is a PhD candidate in the Department of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego; Yi-Hwa Liou is an associate professor at the National Taipei University of Education; Miguel del Fresno is an associate professor at the Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia, Madrid, Spain. Correspondence may be sent to Martin Rehm at martin.rehm@ymail.com.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref107" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> It should be noted that networks violate the independence assumption required for several statistical analyses. To address this issue, we ran a secondary analysis of these data with ANOVA tests in UCINET using permutation tests (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, [5]). These tests yielded the same results as our Kruskal-Wallis tests.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0152373473-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2012). The quality of online, offline, and mixed-mode friendships among users of a social networking site. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 6(3), Article 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref79" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bidwell, C. E. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and short-term change. Sociology of Education, 74, 100–114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref72" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bottery, M. (2004). The challenges of educational leadership. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref28" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Briggs, A., & Coleman, M. (2019). Research methodology in educational leadership and management. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref115" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bruns, A., & Stieglitz, S. (2013). Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: Metrics for tweeting activities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.756095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bush, C. L. (2018). Online social capital: Social networking sites' influence on civic and political engagement [Master's thesis], Old Dominion University. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/sociology_criminaljustice_etds/18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bush, T., Bell, L., & Middlewood, D. (2019). Principles of educational leadership and management. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20(4), 331–351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, V., & Jimerson, J. B. (2017). Managing digital identity on Twitter: The case of school administrators. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 45(5), 884–900.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chung, J. E. (2013). Social interaction in online support groups: Preference for online social interaction over offline social interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1408–1414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornelissen, F., Daly, A., Liou, Y.-H., Van Swet, J., Beijaard, D., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2015). Leveraging the relationship: Knowledge processes in school–university research networks of master's programmes. Research Papers in Education, 30(3), 366–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.919522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross, R., Ehrlich, K., Dawson, R., & Helferich, J. (2008). Managing collaboration: Improving team effectiveness through a network perspective. California Management Review, 50(4), 74–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross, R., Laseter, T., Parker, A., & Velasquez, G. (2006). Using social network analysis to improve communities of practice. California Management Review, 49(1), 32–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly, A., Liou, Y., del Fresno García, M., Rehm, M., & Bjorklund, P., Jr. (2019). Educational leadership in the Twitterverse: Social media, social networks and the new social continuum. Teacher College Record, 121(14), 1–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly, A., Liou, Y.-H., Tran, N. A., Cornelissen, F., & Park, V. (2014). The rise of neurotics: Social networks, leadership, and efficacy in district reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 233–278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly, A., Moolenaar, N. M., Bolivar, J. M., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers' social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 359–391.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> del Fresno García, M., Daly, A., & Segado Sánchez-Cabezudo, S. (2016). Identifying the new influences in the internet era: Social media and social network analysis. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 153, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.153.23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeMatthews, D. E. (2018). Community engaged leadership for social justice: A critical approach in urban schools. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dubos, R. (2017). Social capital: Theory and research. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duguid, P. (2005). "The art of knowing": Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. Information Society, 21(2), 109–118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finsterwald, M., Wagner, P., Schober, B., Lüftenegger, M., & Spiel, C. (2013). Fostering lifelong learning—Evaluation of a teacher education program for professional teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, A., & Wilson, E. (2015). Networking and the development of professionals: Beginning teachers building social capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francera, S., & Bliss, J. (2011). Instructional leadership influence on collective teacher efficacy to improve student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 349–370.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, S., Segers, M., & Gerken, M. (2014). Learning to stay employable. Career Development International, 19(5), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2013-0139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullan, M. (2016). Indelible leadership: Always leave them learning. Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R., O'Malley, G., & O'Donnell, D. (2010). Understanding participation in e-learning in organizations: A large-scale empirical study of employees. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00349.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giles, C. (2006). Transformational leadership in challenging urban elementary schools: A role for parent involvement? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 257–282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grabowicz, P. A., Ramasco, J. J., Goncalves, B., & Eguiluz, V. M. (2014). Entangling mobility and interactions in social media. Plos One, 9(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenhow, C., Galvin, S. M., & Staudt Willet, K. B. (2019). What should be the role of social media in education? Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 178–185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 17(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960210161230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopkins, D. (2000). Schooling for tomorrow: Innovation and networks. CERI/OECD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hord, S. M., & Sommers, W. A. (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice. Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karimi, M. N., & Hosseini Zade, S. S. (2019). Teachers' use of motivational strategies: Effects of a motivation-oriented professional development course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 194–204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak ties in networked communities. Information Society, 21(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240590925320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342–369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, M. R., Yen, D. C., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2014). Understanding the perceived community value of Facebook users. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPherson, M., Budge, K., & Lemon, N. (2015). New practices in doing academic development: Twitter as an informal learning space. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1029485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006). The quality of online and offline relationships: The role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. Information Society, 22(3), 137–148.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mynatt, E. D., O'Day, V. L., Adler, A., & Ito, M. (1998). Network communities: Something old, something new, something borrowed ... Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(1–2), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008688205872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owen, N., Fox, A., & Bird, T. (2016). The development of a small-scale survey instrument of UK teachers to study professional use (and non-use) of and attitudes to social media. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 39(2), 170–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1041491</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owens, D. A., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). Status contests in meetings: Negotiating the informal order. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2013). Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-11-2012-0364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers' professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage. Pew Research Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 115–122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pitts, V. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2009). Using social network methods to study school leadership. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 32(2), 185–207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and offline relationships. Communication Studies, 58(3), 315–337.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehm, M. (2018). Soziale Medien als Möglichkeitsräume für Informelles Lernen in der beruflichen Weiterentwicklung. In Netzwerk als neues Paradigma? (pp. 101–121). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehm, M., Cornelissen, F., & Daly, A. (2020). A metric to assess brokerage positions within social networking sites. Teachers College Record, 122(6), 1–32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehm, M., Cornelissen, F., Daly, A., & García, M. D. F. (2020). Drinking from the firehose: The structural and cognitive dimensions of sharing information on Twitter. American Journal of Education, 127(1), 77–105. https://doi.org/10.1086/711014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehm, M., Cornelissen, F., Notten, A., Daly, A., & Supovitz, J. (2020). Power to the people?! Twitter discussions on (educational) policy processes. In D. Fröhlich, M. Rehm, & B. Rienties (Eds.), Mixed methods approaches to social network analysis for learning and education (pp. 231–244). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehm, M., Moukarzel, S., Daly, A. J., & Fresno, M. (2021). Exploring online social networks of school leaders in times of COVID-19. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehm, M., & Notten, A. (2016). Twitter as an informal learning space for teachers!? The role of social capital in Twitter conversations among teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. OECD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers' uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on higher education teachers' beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rigby, J. G. (2016). Principals' conceptions of instructional leadership and their informal social networks: An exploration of the mechanisms of the mesolevel. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 433–464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risser, H. S. (2013). Virtual induction: A novice teacher's use of Twitter to form an informal mentoring network. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez-Gomez, D., Ion, G., Mercader, C., & López-Crespo, S. (2020). Factors promoting informal and formal learning strategies among school leaders. Studies in Continuing Education, 42(2), 240–255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidman, S. B. (1983). Network structure and minimum degree. Social Networks, 5(3), 269–287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sibona, C., & Walczak, S. (2011). Unfriending on Facebook: Friend request and online/offline behavior analysis. In 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, J.-H., Chen, M.-C., Yang, C.-Y., Chung, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-A. (2016). Personality traits, interpersonal relationships, online social support, and Facebook addiction. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 102–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/257085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tynjälä, P. (2012). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2014). Leadership in school-community partnerships. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 110–114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Waes, S., Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A., Heldens, H. H. P. F., Donche, V., Van Petegem, P., & Van den Bossche, P. (2016). The networked instructor: The quality of networks in different stages of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458–495.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wellman, B. (2001). Computer networks as social networks. Science, 293(5537), 2031–2034.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, D. (2006). On and off the 'net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Martin Rehm; Alan Daly; Peter Bjorklund; Yi-Hwa Liou and Miguel del Fresno</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref134"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1307965
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Social Continuum of Educational Leadership: Exploring the Offline and Online Social Networks of Elementary Principals
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rehm%2C+Martin%22">Rehm, Martin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daly%2C+Alan%22">Daly, Alan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bjorklund%2C+Peter%22">Bjorklund, Peter</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Liou%2C+Yi-Hwa%22">Liou, Yi-Hwa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22del+Fresno%2C+Miguel%22">del Fresno, Miguel</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Elementary+School+Journal%22"><i>Elementary School Journal</i></searchLink>. Sep 2021 122(1):112-135.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 24
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Networks%22">Social Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Schools%22">Elementary Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Principals%22">Principals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Leadership%22">Instructional Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Schools%22">Public Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Media%22">Social Media</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Information%22">Access to Information</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Sources%22">Information Sources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Resources%22">Educational Resources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1086/715478
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0013-5984
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Educational leadership is a widely discussed topic in educational science. However, although the study of social networks in (informal) educational settings is gaining interest in recent years, the intersection between leadership and online social networks has received limited attention. This article investigates the informal sets of networks in both social media and face-to-face spaces in which elementary principals engage in the access, use, and diffusion of information. We undertook an exploratory case study in an urban midsize public school district in the United States and collected online and face-to-face network data from a districtwide leadership team of 97 leaders. Our results shed some light on the underlying information exchange patterns and identify commonalities and differences that are useful to consider for practitioners and policy makers who would like to foster the (informal) professional development of educators, and particularly elementary principals, who often do not have access to more formalized forms of professional development or just-in-time access to resources.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1307965
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1307965
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1086/715478
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 112
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Social Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Principals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Districts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Media
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Information
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Sources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Resources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Social Continuum of Educational Leadership: Exploring the Offline and Online Social Networks of Elementary Principals
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rehm, Martin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daly, Alan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bjorklund, Peter
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Liou, Yi-Hwa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: del Fresno, Miguel
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0013-5984
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 122
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Elementary School Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1