Dimensions of Power in Public-Private Partnerships

• In Event: Critical Educational Policy Analysis: Attending to Equitable Power Analysis in Scholar-Practitioner Knowledge Co-Creation

Abstract

Objectives: A central aspect of CPA is examining how power is distributed in policymaking and policy implementation efforts. Partnerships between district-level leaders and intermediary organizations (IOs)—organizations external to the public school system that offer professional learning and other capacity-building supports to schools and districts (Burch, 2009; Honig, 2004; Trujillo & Woulfin, 2014)—add complexity to district-level policymaking. Given their position as external to the public school system, IOs bring their own interests and ideologies to bear on policy and operate with a different set of organizational incentives, resources, and priorities than district leaders (Burch, 2006; Honig, 2004; Scott & Jabbar, 2014; Trujillo & Woulfin, 2014). Drawing from a larger study of district-level collaborations between district leaders and IOs focused on curriculum and instruction policy (e.g., see Comstock et al., 2023; Hill et al., 2021), this study examines how power manifests in such collaborations and shapes policy.
Theoretical Framework: This study is grounded in critical sensemaking theory, which centers power to explain how individuals construct coherence in response to change (Helms Mills, 2010; Schildt et al., 2020; Weick, 1995)—an especially suitable framework for this study given my aim to understand how individuals across varied organizational contexts collaborate to enact equity-focused policy. In this study, I examine two forms of power in sensemaking using Schildt and colleagues’ (2020) critical sensemaking framework: systemic power and episodic power. Systemic power refers to the subtle ways in which “taken-for-granted knowledge structures” shape action (p. 243). Episodic power, refers to more intentional efforts from particular actors to coerce others in the sensemaking process by actively dismissing or discrediting particular ideas or by questioning ideas to encourage more diverse responses.
Methods and Data: Using a multiple case study design (Yin, 2014) focused on three districts, I draw on interviews with 31 leaders as well as documents from their initiatives to understand the nature of these collaborative efforts and how power shaped action.
Results: Preliminary findings indicate that powerful actors in each partnership derived their influence from different sources—financial capital, positional authority, and perceived expertise. When IO leaders relied purely on financial capital (e.g., by being the grant-receiving organization) or positional authority (e.g., having close ties to the district superintendent) to garner influence without having relevant expertise, collaborations became acrimonious and left leaders feeling that the programs they enacted did not fully support equity for marginalized students. Having a strong district leader with a clear vision for the work allowed districts to benefit from IO expertise while still maintaining power in the partnership to shape policy in ways that aligned with district context and student needs.
Significance: The findings of this study extend theoretical understandings of power in sensemaking by offering a conceptual framework that theorizes types, location, and sources of power, as well as strategies policy actors use to wield and resist power. In doing so, I provide the field with a critical lens for understanding curriculum and instruction policy.

Author

• Meghan Comstock, University of Maryland