| After a decade of large-scale educational reform there is now a growing interest in grass-roots self-initiated change (Datnow et al., 2002; Hargreaves, 2009; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Shirley, 2009). Yet, self-initiated change (SIC) remains largely undertheorized in the literature of educational change. Even the advocates of self-initiated change do not clearly specify the underlying mechanisms and the multi-dimensional processes by which SIC occurs.;Utilizing a qualitative case study approach and a conceptual framework that draws from incremental institutional change theory and the literature on social movements within institutions, this study explored the following research questions: What mechanisms do the change agents of SIC employ, How do they implement these mechanisms and why do they employ these mechanisms? What are the characteristics of the processes of SIC? What is the pacing and sequencing of the change? How does SIC unfold over time, and why?;In answering these three initial questions a fourth research question emerged that summates the other three: What implications does an investigation of self-initiated change in one school have for understanding existing theories of self-initiated and imposed educational change?;Findings from this study revealed that self-initiated change involved a recombination that embodied the ideal of "change without pain" by balancing change and stability (Abrahamson, 2004). The process of self-initiated change turned out to be slow-moving (Pierson, 2004; Thelen & Mahoney, 2010). Mindful juxtaposition (Huy, 2001) and a dialectical perspective (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2009) were required to address the multiple and contradictory dimensions of change. Based on these analyses, I propose ways of conceptualizing SIC as: "change without pain"; "slow-moving change"; and "dialectical/ cyclical change."... |
