leadership

JOURNAL OF

SCHOOL

LEADERSHIP

EDITORIAL POLICY The Journal of School Leadership invites the submission of manusc-ripts that contribute to the exchange of ideas and scholarship about schools and leadership. All theoretical and methodological approaches are welcome. We do not advocate or practice a bias toward any mode of inquiry (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative, empirical vs. conceptual, discipline-based vs. interdisciplinary) and instead operate from the assumption that all careful and methodologically sound research has the potential to contribute to our understanding of schoolleadership. We strongly encourage authors to consider both the local and the global implications of their work. The journal's goal is to clearly communicate with a diverse audience. including school- and university-based educators. The journal embraces a broad conception of school leadership and welcomes manuscripts that reflect the diversity of ways in which this term is understood. The journal is interested not only in manuscripts that focus on administrative leadership in schools and school districts but also in manuscripts that inquire about teacher, student, parent, and community leadership. Additionally, the journal is interested in manuscripts that explore the relationship between leadership and • teaching, curriculum, and instruction • student learning, development, and achievement • whole-school renewal and change • equity, justice, spirituality, and other moral and ethical issues • social and cultural contexts of schooling • individual and institutional accountability • diversity with respect to race, class, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and learning styles • law, finance, and personnel issues in education • educational policy and politics • the pre-service preparation and in-service professional development of educational leaders • international and comparative dynamics and issues • globalization • libraries and information technology The Journal of School Leadership is included in the following indexing and abstracting services: • Academic Abstracts • Current Index to Journals in Education • Educational Administration Abstracts • Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY-POLICY STATEMENT For copying rights to the articles within thls joumal, beyond those permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the e.S. Copyright Law, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, or by email [email protected]. JOURNAL OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP (ISSN I052-684263)-Published bimonthIyJanuary. ~1arch. May. July, September, and November, one volume per year, by Rowman & littlefield. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706. Postage paid at Blue Ridge Summit. PA 17214. POSnlASTER: Please send address change to Journal of School Leadership. Subscription Processing Center, 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706. Call toll-free: 800-273-2223 E-mail: journals@ro ....-man.com

For back issues. please contact [oumalsctrowrnan.com Subscriptions: • Annual individual rate $95. S205 per year for institutions. • von-IS.

subscnpuons. add S60 per year for postage.

• Single copy price S40 domestidS48 international.

Copyright {, 2016 by Rowrnan & Littlefield. All Rights Reserved. All Row-man& Littlefield journals are printed on acid-free paper.

VINCENT CHO VIRGINIA SNODGRASS

RANGEL

The Dynamic Roots of School Leaders' Twitter Use A Structurational Technology Use

Perspective

on

ABSTRACT: Some postulate that social media tools, such as Twitter, might be used to support educator professional learning, Drawing upon interviews and tweets from 17 school administrators, this study examined the factors and Consequences of administrators' Twitter use, It finds that administrators' understandings and uses of TWitter changed over time, subject to Influences such as Interactions with colleagues, one's sense of online visibi'ity, and ab'II~les to develop workarounds for Twitter's limitations. The diScusSion explores Issues relating to the future of educators' social media use, as well as how to theorize about the implementation and adoption of technologies in education, KEY WORDS: Principals,

Social Media, Structuration Theory, Technology

Much of the charm associated with Web 2.0 (e.g., blogs, wikis, social media) derive from hopes around its capacity to distribute information. Today,people can consume, create, and share online content, from almost anYWhereand with almost anyone. For instance, arguments that Web 2.0 might be used to support professionalleaming have become increasingly commonplace (Gunawardena et al., 2009; Hung, 2002; Johnson, 2001). Among such claims, there has been strong enthusiasm for how Twitter may serve as a tool for connecting educators (Burden, 2010; Carpenter & Krotka, 2014; Richardson & Mancabelli, 2011). Such connections could Address correspondence to Vincent Cha, PhD, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Campion Hall 220, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. E-mail: chov@ bc.edu

Journal of School Leadership Volume 26-September

2016

837

838

VINCENT CHO ANO VIRGINIA SNODGRASS RANGEL

especially benefit school administrators, since they may struggle with professional isolation (Barkley & Becker, 2013; Dussault & Thibodeau, 1997; Cho, 2016) . If one were to take such claims at face value, then one would imagine technology to be an instant driver of educational change. Open the box (literally or figuratively) and yesterday's problems get solved. Unfortunately, it is a misconception to assume that technologies are in the driver's seat of change (Markus & Robey, 1998; Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001). Technologies do not unilaterally lead to changes in schooling, and educational leaders who overestimate the power of technology could be setting their initiatives up for failure (Brooks, 2011; Cho & Wayman, 2015). Rather, an alternative way to conceptualize about technology would take into account the values, narratives, and relationships that may shape technology adoption and implementation (Ertmer, 2005; Leonardi, 2009b; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Educational scholars, however, have rarely studied the social conditions that may influence technology use. Thus, the case of school administrators on Twitter provides a useful opportunity to begin addressing this gap in several ways. On the one hand, school leaders' technology uses have been largely ignored in current scholarship (McLeod & Richardson, 2011). This is despite the increasing importance of technologies to schools and to society as a whole. On the other hand, platforms like Twitter are public. They put both the school and the user in the limelight, sometimes with social and legal consequences (Peck & Mullen, 2008). Given the high visibility of school administrator work, leaders might especially feel the pinch to fit audience expectations (Tooms, Lugg, & Bogotch, 2010). Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to examine the factors shaping administrators' uses of Twitter, including the consequences of those uses. The following three research questions guide that inquiry. 1. What conditions influence administrators' sensemaking about Twitter? 2. How does sensemaking influence administrators' uses of Twitter? 3. What consequences does Twitter use have for administrators' home and work lives?

LITERATURE REVIEW In this section, we first provide some background about Twitter. Second, we show how everyday assumptions about technology have been overly deterministic, and thus limited. Third, we explain how two concepts from structuration theory help to address such limitations. Finally, we describe

839

the ways in which slnH'lllratioll tlu-ory approach to conceptualizing about Twitter.

may provide an alternative

BACKGROUND ABOUT TWITTER

Although several scholars have described Twitter's various features and unique tenus (Barkley & Becker, 2013; boyd, Golder, & Lotan, 2010; Cho, Ro, & Littenberg-Tobias, 2013), some readers might benefit from a brief synopsis of its characteristics. First, relative to other Web 2.0 technologies (e.g., Facebook), Twitter is open: Use of Twitter is public, and users do not need to be "friends" in order to follow each other. Second, messages on Twitter are known as tweets. Tweets are short, public messages that are limited to only 140 characters. Other Twitter conventions currently encroach upon the 140-character limit (e.g., hyperlinks to other media). Third, users create hashtags by including the "#" symbol before a word or phrase (e.g., #edtech, #StarTrek, #AERA2015). Hashtags serve as search terms or subject markers, allowing anyone who searches for or who monitors Twitter for the hashtag to see the message. In general, tweeting to a hashtag is one way to connect with others around an interest area-even to "strangers" or people who are not associates or followers. For example, Carpenter and Krutka (2014) describe how educators can hold "Twitter chats" via the common use of particular hashtags. BEYOND TECHNOLOGICAL

DETERMINISM

In everyday life, it is hard not to think of technologies as "just tools"objects guaranteed to ease burdens or improve productivity (Leonardi, 2012; Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001). This kind of thinking, however, is also technologically deterministic. Technological determinism presumes that the meaning, uses, and effects of a technology are intrinsic to the tool itself (Markus & Robey, 1998). From this perspective, the work of getting people to use a tool becomes about two issues: design and training. For example, Koehler and Mishra (2009) emphasize the importance of design when they assert that "technologies have their own propensities, potentials, affordances, and constraints that make them more suitable for certain tasks than others" (p. 61). The problem with a simple emphasis on design, however, is that agency receives insufficient attention. For example, it becomes the design of a bench's base and seat that creates the act of sitting on (Gibson, 1977). Indeed, emphasizing the designs of tools makes it appear as if baskets cause the fetching of provisions, or that hammers impose the hitting of a nail (Latour, 2004). Consequently, in the context of education, the logic

840

VINCENT CHO AND VIRGINIA SNODGRASS RANGEL

becomes that schooling might be revolutionized, if only educators were given the right tools. Similarly, technologically deterministic approaches to teacher training can miss the mark by overemphasizing the mechanics of using a technology. Trainings may be reduced to quick overviews on logging in or simply emailing out PowerPoint slides about how to navigate software (Cho & Wayman, 2014), rather than shaping the social systems in which technology use is embedded (Day & Lloyd, 2007; Kennewell, 2001; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Future scholarship may benefit from alternative ways to conceptualize about technology: Although technologies may offer schools many possibilities, no particular practices are guaranteed as a result of their adoption. As Leonardi (2012) points out, one can have a perfect hammer but still use it as a paperweight. Although many hopes might be placed on Web 2.0 or other technologies to revolutionize education (Burden, 20I0; Cuban, 2001; Richardson & Mancabelli, 2011), it is necessary to adopt a more dynamic understanding of how tools potentially drive behavior. STRUCTURATION THEORY Stmcturation theory can connect social and material conditions, agents' sensemaking, and technology use. According to this perspective, change processes are iterative: stmctures (e.g., technologies, social norms) influence the decision-making and actions of agents, which may subsequently re-shape the stmctures (Sewell, 1992). For education researchers, structuration helps conceptualize about factors that may influence a technology's potential uses, and how subsequent use can re-shape other stmctures. In particular, the concepts of interpretive jlexibili ty and structure help to anchor our analysis. Interpretive Flexibility Interpretive flexibility posits that different social groups have different values, expectations, and beliefs about the world (Leonardi, 2009a; Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001; Pinch & Weibe, 1984). These in tum shape what people see as important or even socially acceptable about a particular technology. In other words, although designers may intend for certain uses of their technologies, interpretive flexibility suggests that the reality and possibilities of a technology derive from users' frames of understanding. Agents might start with the same technology or starting point, but differences in sensemaking have repercussions on actions and behaviors. For example, Cho and Wayman (2014) highlight how interpretive flexibility around the notion of student performance data led to different logics about

841 what was worthwhile or even possible with the systems at hand. In the case of 1\vitter, t.he conventional wisdom would suggest that if 1\vitter is designed for information sharing and socializing (Diiick, 2011; Kwak, Lee, Park, & Moon, 2010), t.hen t.hose are benefits educat.ors will derive from its use (Cho, 2016; Friesen & Lowe, 2012; Visser, Evering, & Barrett, 2014). Interpretive flexibility invit.es researchers t.o look beyond designers' intents, t.oward agents' somet.imes unexpected views about a technology. For example, what if 1\vitter were also about t.he desire to gain followers or t.o impress others? Different perspectives might lead to different behaviors. Differences in perspective are not a function of technologies, but rather of the values, expectations, and beliefs brought to the table by users. Structure

According to structuration theory, structures are rules and resources that inform what people see, think, and do (Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Giddens, 1984;Jones & Karston, 2008; Sewell, 1992). Structures can include social norms, institutions, or policies-all of which might shape the logics regarding how and why a technology might be used. Thus, structurational views abandon the assumption that structures such as technologies simply Or directly drive changes in work or behavior (Markus & Robey, 1998). Instead, people can be understood as constantly processing information about their technological and social worlds (O'Day, 2002; Rivkin & Siggelkow, 2002). These interpretive processes lead to perceptions about the degrees to which particular actions are possible, difficult, beneficial, or appropriate (Jones & Karston, 2008; Orlikowski, 2000). In turn, these perceptions may lead to novel uses of technology, including adherence to systems that might otherwise be considered inefficient (Leonardi, 2009b; Wayman, Cho, & Johnston, 2007). Over time, such activities may become institutionalized as new structures. Although some new structures might relate directly to technology use, others might be social in nature. For example, changes in technology may spillover into new divisions of labor, attitudes about work, and trust or distrust among workers (Barley, 1990; Orlikowski, 1996). Work-related uses of email may interfere with peace at home (Barley, Meyerson, & Grodal, 2010). Figure I helps to demonstrate this view by tracing out the relationships between structures, sensemaking, and technology use. First, people draw Upon information about structures at a given time (Tl), perceiving either possibility or constraint. These perceptions inform decisions regarding how to incorporate a technology into practice (Barley, 1990;Orlikowski, 1996). Certain features might be used, while others might be rejected. Certain

842


Agent,'

Structure'TI

0000 00 Social & technological conditions

scnsemaking

Perceived possibilities & constraints

Technology-Inprac(lce

Enactment rejection, & adaptation

Struclurc'rl

New social & technological routines

Figure 1. Changes in structure over time. Agents' sensemaking about structures informs their activities, leading in turn to the production tures, some of which may be social in nature.

of altered or even new struc-

patterns of social interaction might be reinforced, while others might be extinguished. People might create workarounds in order to better achieve their goals. These adaptations to technology use or to social activities may help to compensate for perceived limitations or constraints of previous structures. At the end of this process, the ensemble of structures over time (1'2) may include new or reproduced structures relating to the technology, as well as spillover into other social interactions at work or home. THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

AB a conceptual model, structuration orients the researcher toward three related sets of issues: administrators' sensemaking about Twitter, their actual use of Twitter, and the consequences of that use on administrators' relationships and interactions. The first set of issues, sensemaking about Twitter, relates to how administrators come to terms with what Twitter is about. In other words, what factors shape school leaders' sense of Twitter's possibilities and limitations? For example, although there is much talk on Twitter's value as a tool for professionalleaming (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014; Forte, Humphreys, & Park, 2012), such arguments have not taken into account how norms, local politics, or being openly visible to the public eye might influence one's sensemaking. The second involves school leaders' uses of Twitter. If people draw upon perceptions about social and material conditions in their decisions about use, then this sensemaking should be evident in administrators' decisions to enact, reject, or adapt their practices involving Twitter. On the one hand, Twitter's 14G-character limit might afford quick communication, but might also be perceived as limiting. Thus, users might create workarounds for their technologies (Barley, 1990; Orlikowski,

,..,'('f/Oo! L('l/(ll'rs'

'1'llJiffm' Use

843

1996;Watson-Manheim & Belanger, 2007). On the other hand, Twitter's publicnature might also have a panoptic effect. Online environments can increase one's sense of surveillance, thus leading to activities such as selfcensorship or bids to create positive impressions (Marwick & boyd, 2010; Orlikowski, 1996). Some tweets (e.g., reflection about educational trends or policies) might be safer than others (e.g., complaints about teacher unions,pictures from nightclubs). Finally,the third set of issues involves the consequences of Twitter on relationships with others. As users adjust to a new technology, new routines and ways of interacting with others may also emerge (Barley, 1990; Markus & Robey, 1998). For example, if the argument is that Twitter might enhance educational practices, then how might administrator activities look different because of Twitter? Similarly, if Twitter is accessible from almost anywhere at any time, then how does such access have consequences for one's home life?

METHODS This study draws primarily upon interview data to explore administrators' uses of Twitter. Data collection took place between April and October 2012. • DATACOLLECTION Participanls Sampling procedures were aimed to capture a broad range of administrators using Twitter professionally. In April 2012, three hashtags known to be used professionally by school administrators (i.e., #cpchat, #edchat, and #edadmin) were searched during one week. In order to find users from various time zones and who had different usage patterns, searches were conducted morning, afternoon, and night. The sample was limited to users whose profile pages (a) identified them as campus-level administrators (e.g., principal, assistant principal, headmaster) and (b) contained at least 100 posted tweets until that point, ensuring that participants were administrators with at least some familiarity with Twitter. Searches stopped when the list of campus administrators totaled 30. Subsequently, participants were approached via email.Twitter, or both on a rolling basis at the rate of approximately two per week. Recruitment closed when a sense of saturation (minimal and diminishing returns on

844 Table 1.

VINCENT CHO AND VIRGINIA SNODGRASS RANGEL Participant Pseudonyms,

Roles, Years of Experience,

Pseudonym

Role

Alan Brad

Principal

5

Principal Principal Principal Principal

2 17

Carla Clyde

Diane Domenic Earl George

Hank Jeffrey Kenny Mario Norman Patty Shelly Toby Will

Assistant Principal Assistant Principal Assistant Principal Principal Principal Assistant Principal Principal Principal Principal

Experience

5

11 5 2

11 12 14 3 3 13

and School Context

Context Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public

Director Assistant Principal

5 4 4

Public Private

Assistant Principal

13

Public

Public

additional data collection) (Corbin & Strauss, 2007; Eisenhardt, 1989)had been achieved in the interviews. At final count, 23 administrators were contacted about this study, and 17 agreed to participate in it. Participants were assigned pseudonyms and represented a range of perspectives (see Table 1). Participants were located throughout the United States and Canada, ranging from British Columbia to Florida, from both public and private school settings. In addition to their time as teachers, participants averaged eight years of expenence as administrators. Ten participants were school principals, six were assistant principals, and one was a program director in a private school. Four participants were female. Interviews Interviews took place between May and August 2012. Interviews explored administrators' experiences on 1\vitter and were conducted via telephone and followed a semi-structured protocol. Each interview lasted approximately 30-40 minutes. Before data collection began, the interview protocol was piloted with two principals who offered feedback regarding the wording and nature of the protocol. Lines of inquiry explored a variety of issues, including: Twitter's purpose; perspectives regarding online reputation; offline interactions with Twitter users; and the line between home and work.

,"'c}uJOIIAuuler.'" Twitter

Use

845

Tweets Nearly 1460 tweets (n ~ 1455) from the participating administrators were collected over the course of 15 days in October. During their interviews, participants were told only that their tweets would be collected at some time in the fall. An email-based program called Twinbox was used to automate the process of searching and aggregating users' tweets. DATAANALYSIS Analyses were aimed at examining the factors shaping administrators' uses of Twitter and focused primarily on interview data The coding of interviews began with a list of a priori codes, which were then refined as the study progressed (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Appendix A lists the interview codes used in this study, along with example quotations. Research Question I related to administrators' sensemaking. This was addressed using the interview codes: impressions of Twitter, learning about Twitter, and environment around Twitter. Research Question 2 related to administrators' uses of Twitter. This was addressed using the interview codes: managing information, uses of Twitter features, uses of non-Twitter technologies, and managing impressions. Tweets also helped to triangulate findings from the interview data. Specifically, the tweet code use of hyperlink helped to provide a descriptive sense of the extent to which administrators attempted to share infonnation that would otherwise surpass Twitter's character limit.' Finally, Research Question 3 related to the consequences of Twitter use on administrators' home and work lives. This was addressed using the interview codes: home and work boundaries, talking to others about Twitter, and offline relationships. STUDY LIMITATIONS Sampling procedures were aimed at school administrators who used Twitter for professional learning. Accordingly, findings are not necessarily generalizable to the universe of possible Twitter users or uses. Further, interview data serve as the foundation to this study. Participants were asked to recall their impressions about Twitter, how they learned about Twitter, and their opinions about online reputation. Responses on such issues are dependent upon participants' memories and attributions. Accordingly, the findings of this study should be interpreted less in terms of historical fact, and more in terms of participants' sensemaking about the factors shaping their activities now.

846


RESULTS Below, we report about the factors shaping administrators' uses of Twitter, and the consequences of that use, First, we describe how social structures helped shape administrators' sensemaking about Twitter. Second, we describe how administrators' sensemaking about social and material conditions influenced their Twitter practices, Third, we describe the consequences that Twitter had on administrators' work lives, SENSEMAKING: WHAT IS TWITTER "ABOUT?" Our first research question related to the conditions influencing school leaders' sensemaking about Twitter, Structuration theory would maintain that Twitter is interpretively flexible and that social structures (e.g. norms, narratives, and beliefs) help shape how people interpret what a technology such as Twitter is "about" Below, we first explore how school leaders indeed found Twitter to be interpretively fIexible, and then we describe some of the social structures that they felt influenced their understandings of Twitter and about appropriate Twitter use, On the one hand, face-to-face interactions with others around Twitter led administrators to see value in Twitter, On the other hand, administrators also were circumspect regarding their visibility online. Twitter's Interpretive Flexibility Contrary to what a deterministic view of technology might suggest, Twitter's purpose was not frxed, predetermined, or obvious to school leaders, Rather, in line with the notion of interpretive flexibility, administrators frequently described wrestling trying to figure out what Twitter was about For example, Mario described how Twitter's many potential uses tended to "blur" its nature, Similarly, Norman stated, "Twitter really is whatever you want it to be, You can customize it to do whatever you want it to do." He listed a variety of potential interests that ranged from education, to sports, religion, and politics, Indeed, administrators described how their ideas about Twitter had changed over time, For example, Shelly recalled, "I had never heard of Twitter, I was like, 'Twitter? Who would care about what I had for dinner?' I thought it was stupid," Similarly, Alan admitted, "I had no idea, I thought what most people probably think of Twitter, They think it's a way to follow famous people, which it is, If you just want to follow Justin Bieber you can," Echoing these sentiments, Will reported being pleasantly surprised that Twitter also could be used professionally, He stated, "My

,.... '('/wol/"erult'rs'

Tnviner lJ:.w

847

misconception was 'Jeez, I don't care what some celebrity eats for breakfast and when they walk their dog.' Obviously, some of that is on Twitter but there is a whole professional level to it." Over time, administrators came to see Twitter use as renewing their professional vigor and commitment to work. For example, Shelley described Twitter as the "best thing that ever happened to me professionally." Jeffrey stated that Twitter put "life back into the job." For some, this sense of excitement came from the opportunity to share their unique perspectives. As Carla put it, "[Twitter] makes you feel like What you have to say is valuable." Similarly, Diane described relishing the chance to "have a voice and to talk about what I'm learning as an educator." Others felt reinvigorated simply from consuming information via Twitter. For example, Hank explained that he had always considered himself a "reflective practitioner" and a "lifetime learner," and that Twitter renewed his opportunities to "reflect on what I'm doing and why I'm doing it." Similarly, Earl described how refreshing it was to use Twitter on Saturday mornings: It'slike a little jolt of caffeine-a littlejolt of inspiration.It's almost like having an on-the-spot, immediate conversation with someone to pump me up and get me excited to learn something new or to do something new.

In-person Interactions Involving Twitter An important social condition influencing administrators' sensemaking about and evolving understanding of Twitter involved their in-person interactions with friends and colleagues. These interactions exposed administrators to new narratives and logics around Twitter, opening up a sense of possibility regarding its use for professional learning. Some of these interactions took place in formal settings, such as at conferences or professional development events. For example, George reported attending a district-level "boot camp" about Twitter, while Norman and Hank both had learned about Twitter at regional administrator conferences. Describing his own experience of learning about Twitter, Will recounted learning at a conference about the importance of reflecting and sharing ideas online. Otherwise, he asked, "When do you really write professionally? When do you sharpen your skills as a writer? And model that for your teachers?" On this note, Hank reported how a conference experience had totally reversed his opinion of social media as a "sewer of social interaction." In his words, conference presenters opened his eyes to how researchers and "real thinkers in education" were "really embracing this space for learning and engagement in communication."

848


Other positive in-person interactions took place with people such as a district superintendent, other school members, friends, and chance acquaintances.

For example, administrators

described

receiving a "push,"

or a "challenge" to experiment with Twitter's professional uses. Occasionally, this encouragement included live demonstrations of how to use Twitter for professional learning. For instance, Brad's technology director "dragged" him on to '!\vitter by demonstrating how to connect in "true relationship" with other administrators. From there, he was "totally hooked." Similarly, Shelley described how a colleague at another school worked to convince her that Twitter was not "stupid." Knowing that Shelley was working on a 1:1 iPad initiative, this colleague tweeted, "What are the good hashtags to follow to learn about iPads in education?" Within moments, Shelley was feeling "amazed" that one could "throw out questions" and receive "real-time responses" and offers of assistance with her initiative. Visibility Online

Not all of the structures influencing administrators' understanding and use of'!\vitter were positive. For example, their sense making about Twitter also was influenced by apprehension toward their increased sense of visibility from being online. The overall sense was that being an administrator raised the stakes on issues involving online reputation. As Shelley explained, "If you're going to be an administrator, you're going to be Googled. You're going to be dissected." Thus, Patty and Diane used words such as feeling constantly "watched" and "paranoid" about their online reputations. Similarly, Hank reported how "nervous" he was when trying to decide what profile picture to use, whether to use his real name, and whether being online would "infringe on my privacy." likewise, other administrators described their colleagues as "afraid" or "intimidated" by being online. The narrative shared among administrators was that a single misstep could "be used against you," "bite you," or "come back to haunt you." To some extent, these perspectives were reinforced by administrators' experiences at work. For example, Domenic's superintendent told him blankly, "I'll fire your ass if you get into trouble [on Twitter]." Similarly, Carla recalled being told by a superintendent, "I would never hire this guy [a conference speaker] as my principal. All he does all day is hang out on Twitter," Echoing this, Brad, Shelley, and Domenic admitted that online reputations recently had swayed their opinions about potential job candidates. Finally, Earl provided the most salient story for how online visibility might have drawbacks, remembering how one of his blog posts about "revolutionizing education" had been interpreted locally as "bashing unions." Despite his hope to foster a "professional, intellectual conversation" in a

Sdwo/ Lmden;'11milter

Use

849

'public forum," he was directed by his superintendent to remove the post. The entire experience left him feeling "gun shy" about his visibility online. TWiTTER-iN-PRACTICE Our second research question related to administrators' uses of Twitter. Rather than focus simply on what Twitter was about, this question calls attention to the interpretive processes shaping administrators' decisions to enact, reject, or adapt Twitter. Contrary to technologically deterministic views, we did not find that Twitter's material characteristics (i.e. features and affordances as designed) directly or uniformly determined behavior. In accord with structuration theory, how leaders used Twitter was informed by their interpretations of both social and material conditions. Specifically, in making decisions about use, leaders balanced (a) what they wanted out of the technology overall with (b) what they perceived as possible or not Possible in TWitter. The results of this balancing process were not simply enactments of Twitter features. Instead, school leaders did what they could with Twitter, and took additional steps to work around with what they saw as Twitter's limitations. Leaders also responded to misgivings about being visible online by engaging in impression management. We describe these workaround routines and impression management activities below. Workarounds Administrators' workaround processes were evidenced in two ways. First, administrators created routines to handle Twitter's overload of information. Second, administrators worked around the limitations they saw in tweeting. Information reduction. Working around the overtoad. At first glance, Twitter's main feature is its information stream. School leaders enjoyed having access to a constant, rapid flow of information. Hank described Twitter as "a flowing river, a flowing stream of conversations and dialogues," and Patty reported enjoying being able to 'tune in" to assorted users simultaneously. New information was constant and easily accessed. As George lauded, "[Twitter] is all the time, 24/7, 365." One is able to "jump on" and "jump off' at will. However, this onslaught of tweets also created information overload. Feeling constrained in their abilities to digest it all, administrators took three steps to reduce the information facing them. First, leaders became selective in terms of which users and hashtags they followed. They noticed if a user or hashtag seemed to be "sparnmed" or "blasting" out with too

850


many tweets, and they stopped following the user or monitoring the hashtag, As Norman put it, "It'sjust too much to filter through." Similarly,

Earl compared the process to pruning a plant, "I snip a little branch over here and let another one grow in another direction." Second, leaders used third-party technologies to organize their information streams. As Kenny put it, "I try to be organized in all aspects, otherwise you go crazy." For example, 1\veetDeck and HootSuite allowed leaders to divide their streams into different columns on a screen, such as one column per hashtag of interest. As Alan reported, from there the user can just "sit back and follow the streams." Will reported monitoring 13 such columns simultaneously. In addition to hashtags, Carla reported grouping particular users into a "tailored list," and then assigning the list to a column. Another third-party application was Flipboard, which converts Twitter feeds into a magazine-like format. In Brad's words, "You often see the picture and the first paragraph of an article It's not scary. It's like flipping through a magazine. You can turn the pages on the iPad."

Third, leaders adapted by simply giving up on processing it all. For example, Brad described how "liberating" it felt to have permission to ignore information. "I follow thousands of people. Nobody expects that you're going to read all of that stuff." Similarly, Hank underlined the convenience of being able to "plug in" at his leisure. "You're in and you're out ... it's just an ongoing stream and you have to be comfortable with that idea." The ability to ignore information seemed to keep Twitter use from feeling like a chore. For example, several administrators distinguished 'I\vitter from email, which they felt pressured and "forced" to check regularly. As Brad put it, "You've got to answer those emails when you come back from vacation. You've got a big pile of email you have got to go through." In contrast, tweets could be ignored or missed without repercussions.

Media Repertoire. Working around the limits of tweets. One would assume that tweets would be the mainstay sharing information, and administrators certainly made use of the function. Most participants tweeted at least several times a day. The median total of tweets for the two weeks of data collection was 52 (interquartile range, 36-136). Taking a closer look, however, tweets were also limiting. In Clyde's words, "With 140 characters, you can only expand on ideas and thoughts so much." In accord with structuration theory, administrators compensated for lack of depth by turning toward the ecology of technologies beyond Twitter, Administrators' media repertoire included tweeting hyperlinks to blogs and articles, as well as using video chats. Indeed, our analysis of tweets reveals that they were more likely to serve as stepping stones

851

to blogs or othe-r wvbsitr-s than they were to serve as direct communication with othe-r users, Approximately, three-quarters of study participants (76%; n ~ I;J) reported keeping a blog, and 61% of tweets (n ~ 883) contained a hyperlink to outside websites or blogs." In effect, the bulk of information shared among administrators was not on Twitter itself. Rather, leaders described Twitter as the "first line of connection," "foundation," and "conduit to sharing with the world." For example, Carla described how Twitter worked "hand-in-hand" with blogging. She explained, "When I write a blog post, I tweet it. And then it gets picked up by other people. Before you know it, hundreds of thousands of people might be exposed to it." Indeed, one of Carla's recent posts had reached Over10,000 viewers. Thus, school leaders saw blogging as a way to express themselves in ways that were supported by, but not possible on, Twitter. As Clyde put it, Twitter did not provide enough space to be a "reflective practitioner." He elaborated, "My blog is the place where I create, reflect, and share ... the blog is a place for going deeper." These sentiments were echoed by others. For example, Will considered blogging to be a "great" and "powerful" way for school leaders to "write professionally" about their expenences, values, and craft. Echoing this, others described blogging as a way to "test out ideas" and to "ask questions." In Hank's words, "[My blog] is about me being reflective. If someone wants to share, comment, and challenge, or Whatever, that's even better."

On a final note, school leaders also worked around the confines of Twitter, turning toward video chat technologies instead. Nearly a third of Participants (n ~ 5) reported using services such as Skype or Google Hangout to better connect with educators they had met via Twitter. For example, Domenic reported using video chat to create a joint professional development session serving nearly 30 teachers from his school and ill another state. Similarly, Jeffrey described how he and colleagues from Twitter had begun a book club. Although none had ever met in person, they conversed about professional literature using video chats. Similarly, Will reported holding monthly video chats with other leaders. These conversations proved so enriching that although the group had "never met personally" and "never shook hoods physically," they had decided to co-author a book about leadership together. TWitteras Panopticon Previous passages reported school leaders' misgivings about increased visibility online. Reminiscent of Foucault's (1977) panopticon, concerns about the potential for constant surveillance led administrators to

852


actively shape their online reputations. As Hank stated, "You have a digital footprint whether you want one or not ... You can either shape it for your advantage or you can do nothing." Similarly, Shelley asserted that although some people worry about having a negative online reputation, "it's just as important to have positive information out there. I'm proud of my digital footprint." Further, Will felt that managing impressions was important not only for his sake, but for the sake of his school. Speaking about his personal technology use, he stated, "I do have a responsibility to the school. 24/7, I'm an educator and a role model. I really take that seriously. " In practice, school leaders' impression management took shape in three ways. First, administrators reproduced the norms of their regular workplaces. In Kenny's words, "Twitter is professional. You want to keep it professional." Thus, he recommended creating alternative Twitter accounts for hobbies and personal interests. As Diane stated, "It's no different from what we do on a day-to-day basis. People are going to judge us no matter what." Similarly, Hank described conducting himself as if he were "speaking in front of a thousand parents and kids in our gymnasium." Second, administrators created what might be called rules of thumb for self-censorship. For example, Diane compared being careful online to being careful about one's clothing, speech, and friends. Although in Patty's case self-censorship involved using her maiden name for her profile, school leaders generally spoke about the importance of maintaining a sense of audience. For example, Clyde admonished, "Control the information." Similarly, Toby advised, "Don't put anything on there that you wouldn't be comfortable showing to board members." Other example imagined audiences included, "six o'clock news" and one's "mother or grandmother." Indeed, only George stated that it was acceptable to post about controversial issues (i.e., politics and religion) on Twitter; however, he also added that he was careful not to do so while at work. Third, administrators sought the consent of their superiors to be using social media. Superintendents' opinions seemed to range from "skeptical" to "very supportive," with many described as novices to technologies like Twitter. For example, Brad stated that at first, his superiors "weren't sure what to think." He had to spend time showing them "really good, concrete ideas" about instruction that he had gained via Twitter. Similarly, Alan described how other district leaders had learned to use Twitter because of him, and that the current directive was to just "be responsible." Hank went so far as to seek approval for particular posts from his superiors. He explained, "They appreciated that I carne to them and they basically said 'If there's anything that we ever find that's questionable, we will tell you.'''

853 SPILLOVER INTO ACTIVITIES

AT HOME AND WORK

Our third research question related to the consequences of Twitter use on administrators' home and work lives, Whereas the everyday assumption is that technologies simply do the things they are designed to do, structuration theory suggests that as people adjust their activities to accommodate a new technology, these adjustments may spill over into a user's other routines, In accord with structuration theory, we found that school leaders' Twitter use was not simply about individual leaders and their computers, Rather, using Twitter spilled over into new structures at home and at work New Structures at Home Spillover into routines at home evidenced in two related ways, Twitter use allowed for work life to encroach on time at home, which could lead to some tensions at home among family members, Encroachment on Home and Family Time, Administrators reported that they frequently used Twitter at home, when running errands, or during lunchtime and on weekends, Indeed, Norman described how Twitter even accompanied him on vacation, "I tweeted recently from the pool, on the beach on Cape Cod from my couch and in the morning when I woke " up," Whereas some leaders reported that their work day was "too busy " to accommodate Twitter use, others used Twitter at home because they Wanted to appear on task while at work Indeed, some described Twitter as an enjoyable way to bring work home, In this way, Twitter use spilled over into new structures at ho:ne, For example, Carla stated, "I do about two hours of work at home at night anYWays,That's the way the job is. [Twitter] is not working at all. It's more like play. It's the last thing I do before going to bed," For George, Twitter use served as "professional reading." He explained, "I'm not really into reading all these leadership books or curriculum." For Will, Twitter use replaced time watching TV. He stated, "Instead of TV, I'm going to read. I made that choice." Nonetheless, administrators admitted that their attention was sometimes stretched between family and Twitter. For example, Toby described how he might "multi-task" home duties with Twitter use, "I'm making my son breakfast, changing my daughter's diaper, and getting my dog out." Indeed, the common picture of home life was one where family members were in the same room, but not necessarily present to each other. For example, both Jeffrey and Norman described routinely using Twitter while the family watched Tv. In Norman's words, "Youcan do [Twitter] on your couch ... Although you may not be 100 percent committed or invested

854


in your family [laughter), at least you're there with them." Similarly, Will described "family time" thusly, "My wife is a teacher. After dinner she might be correcting papers, and I'll be sitting on the couch with my laptop, reading articles." Tensions at Home. Although school leaders engaged in these activities, they were also wrestling to negotiate the ways in which their professional uses of Twitter were spilling over into their home lives. About a third of study participants described Twitter in terms of an addiction. For example, Brad chuckled that he was a "complete addict," and Shelley called herself a "learning addict." In Mario's words, "[Twitter) can get addicting, where you are constantly trying to find new information and connect with new people." Domenic mused that it was "funny" and "weird" that something "related to your job" could "become addictive." He described how Twitter use both involved "instant gratification," as well as constantly

"waiting for

somebody to reply" or "waiting for somebody to make a comment." Moreover, about two-thirds of study participants indicated that their Twitter use had resulted in friction with their spouses. When asked to comment about the line between home and work life, leaders commonly redirected the conversation with a joke. For example, Earl offered, "I'll give you my spouse's phone number," and Norman laughed, "That's a better question for my wife." Others elaborated that their spouses saw them as distracted from home life. For example, Toby admitted that his Twitter use "drives my wife nuts," and that she sometimes must ask "Are you done yet?" Similarly, Patty reported that her husband sometimes asks, "Really? Are you on Twitter again?" Others described the atmosphere at home in terms of "friction" and "resentment," as well as how spouses had to make direct requests that administrators "get off' or "tum off' their devices. Responding to these tensions, leaders described making personal efforts to constrain their Twitter use. Those efforts included attempts to be more "cognizant" and "finn" with themselves about managing their time on Twitter. New Structures at Work Sparked by their Twitter experiences, school leaders also created new structures among coworkers and other professionals. Tu.itiercanqelism. At work, school leaders engaged in what they called "Twittervangelism." In other words, they attempted to get coworkers to also use Twitter professionally. For example, Kenny stated, "I'm a budding Twittervangelist, I am trying to get everyone to join." Similarly, Earl stated, "I've been outspoken at my school about the use of Twitter and how fabulous I think it is."

855 Twittervangelism

was

1101

simply about

word-or-mouth

advocacy.

Rather, about one-third of administralors institutionalized formal school time (i.e., staff nll'plings, profexsional development) to promote Twitter. Others championed Twitter at professional conferences and workshops. For example, Patty explained, "I call myself a Twittervangelist, because I want to tell others about Twitter. I have presented at conferences and other schools about it. I try to get everybody I meet [onto Twitter]." Further, Will reported teaching workshops and even a college course about '!\vitter.In his words, "My role is just to spread the word ... [and to demonstrateJ the power of Twitter for meeting other professionals." Similarly, Clydereported that in addition to conducting local workshops, he had also served as keynote speaker at a technology conference. The effects of Twittervangelism varied. Only a few administrators reported greater successes with individuals or small groups, rather than entire faculties. And yet, when teachers were active on Twitter, this seemed to have an energizing effect on routines throughout the schoolhouse. For example, Will described how it was "so cool" that the "Twitter experience" changed interactions with "people in your building-people you see daily." He described how he might be walking down the hall and be told, "Th~ks for that article last night. I really appreciate that you shared that with me." Overhearing the exchange, other teachers would also ask for copies. Similarly, Diane reported how sharing educational resources and Twl,:;:r adoption could be mutually supportive. "[Teachers] were getting into e different chats out there for the different grade levels. And they were telling me, 'I found this on Twitter. I found this here and I found that there.' It just kept growing and expanding." What's more, Domenic described how bringing teachers onto Twitter changed conversations at his school about stUdent engagement. He reported having "great responses" to an article he tweeted to his school's AP Government students, even though some students "don't want to talk in class." Engaging with Other Professionals. Twitter use also spilled over into new routines with colleagues offline. Nearly all participants (n = 14) reported meeting other administrators face to face after having frrst developed a connection via Twitter. In leaders' own words, these meetings (e.g., dinners, school visits, conference presentations, "tweetups'") were "more fun," "really cool," and an "amazing experience."

In some ways, these get-togethers may have served as ways to work around the perceived limitations in Twitter or in administrators' regular work lives. For example, Diane explained that although one might learn via Twitter "who they are, where they work, and what they do in education," meeting in person provided a way to "really get to know a person." Similarly, Mario liked how face-to-face meetings offered an increased

856


sense of connection. He emphasized how "neat" it was to "put a face to the name" and "just sit down" to talk over coffee. Other leaders described new routines and social structures from such meetings. For example, Hank asserted that Twitter "created a bridge" for him to access other "social circles" in the "local schooling industry." This included regularly having dinner with other "educators, superintendents, and principals" from Twitter. Similarly, Clyde used such meetings for "encouragement" and "validation" around challenges faced at work. For Jeffrey, face-to-face meetings gave him a "different perspective" that was impossible due to politics in his district: You're too close to [other who you are talking about. ing well. [In my district,] private. But with a person

administrators I. They know teachers. They know Let's say I have a staff member who is not performI can't trust that that information is going to stay outside the district, they don't know the situation.

In these ways, leaders' use of Twitter led to new structures for engaging with other professionals.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates how structuration theory may help illuminate educators' technology use. In particular, our findings have portrayed technology use as a constant interplay among people, perceptions, context, and the materials at hand. In practice, what became of Twitter was the result of what sense people made of it in their own social contexts. Furthermore, Twitter use was not simply about isolated individuals plugging away at their devices. Administrators' uses of Twitter also spilled over into new ways of interacting with people at home, at school, and professionally. Although this study focused on school administrators on Twitter, we believe that it may provide a useful conceptual model for studies about other educational job roles and technologies. We also believe that the approach adopted here can help district and school leaders plan more effectively for the adoption and implementation of new technologies. In what follows, we describe two ways in which this study contributes to current knowledge, future research, and practice. VISIBILITY, REPUTATION, AND TECHNOLOGY USE Others have argued that social factors (e.g., values, beliefs, relationships) may playa role in teachers' uses of technology (Day & Lloyd, 2007; Ertmer,

,....'dlluJI

[,,'lld,'r,