Abstract
Digital media and digital data processing have substantially influenced public institutions in recent years and changed their efficiency, effectiveness and organisational set-up (nature of organisations). Based on Fountain’s Technology Enactment Framework (TEF), this paper argues that, firstly, in a circular process, digital requirements transform the bureaucratic features of school organisation, and that the effects of digital technologies on the performance and efficiency of schools as bureaucratic organisations are ambivalent. We use interview data from a sample of 51% of the head teachers of vocational school centres in the jurisdiction of Bavaria in order to substantiate these assumptions by means of structured qualitative analysis. Email technology seems particularly significant from a quantitative perspective. Indications for the transformative nature of objective digital technologies with regard to the school bureaucracies can be found for all bureaucratic categories under consideration in this analysis, particularly for the feature ‘standardisation’. The examples presented here seem to highlight that gains in efficiency or reductions of losses in efficiency caused by digitalisation are mostly caused by the concrete use of digital technology within the respective school organisation.
Keywords
With the rise of the internet, and the increasing integration of technology into the core functions of public administration, a topic of academic debate is how technology and public administration interact, and what this means for the effectiveness and efficiency of public service delivery (Fountain 2001; 2005). Generally, digital technology has been recognised for its potential for interconnectivity, effectiveness and efficiency, as well as accountability (Yildiz 2007). The question of how digital technology and public administration interact, and what this means for their outcomes is also relevant for public schools. A qualitative study by Selwyn (2011a) on schools in the UK which adopted integrated systems early indicated that classical elements of bureaucratic government – including standardisation, hierarchy, the creation of traceable files, and the establishment of new rules at the school level – rather than support for teaching and learning may indeed be strengthened through the introduction of digital technology into school administration. Selwyn (2011a: 486) concludes that his analysis broadly confirms the notion that digital technologies are more likely to be enrolled into the existing bureaucratic and disciplinary concerns of schools and schooling, than they are to somehow undermine and redefine the nature of the school as organisation.
This line of argument contradicts a core assumption of Fountain (2001, 2005) which has received particular attention within the public administration debate (Bretschneider, 2003; Yildiz, 2007). Fountain (2001) postulates that technology is not only appropriated within the bureaucracy; it also transforms existing institutional arrangements and organisational forms at the same time as it is transformed by being integrated into public administration with its organisational forms, specifically bureaucratic features and networks. In addition, she argues that changes are negotiated by organisations rather than technologically determined and is, therefore, opposed to overly simplistic beliefs in technologically increased efficiency (Bretschneider, 2003).
In our analysis, we follow both Fountain (2001) and Selwyn (2011a) with regard to the argument of appropriation. We contend that, notwithstanding the efforts and tendencies of the last decades to de-bureaucratise these organisations and render them more effective, efficient and accountable (Wittmann, 2008), schools continue to exhibit the central features of bureaucratic organisations (Cusick, 1992; Hartley, 2016). Bureaucratic features still largely explain how external requirements, like digitalisation, are processed within schools. But in addition, and in line with the assumption by Fountain (2001, 2005), we argue that a redefinition of the nature of the bureaucratic features of school organisations has taken place and can be traced through our data. Requirements stemming from digitalisation are not only transformed by the bureaucratic characteristics of schools, such as creating additional specialisations and positions, or introducing new rules and procedures to respond to those requirements at an organisational level (Prokopiadou, 2011; Selwyn, 2011a). Rather, digital requirements also transform the bureaucratic features of the organisations themselves, like the meaning and workings of bureaucratic features, such as files or standardisation (see Wittmann and Dormann 2014). This will be the first thesis of this article.
Following Fountain (2001, 2005), we further assume that the effects of objective digital technologies on vocational schools as bureaucratic organisations can be suboptimal. While digital technology may improve some processes, the number of such processes may increase because of the introduction of digital technology. In addition, more processes may have to be dealt with within a shorter time span, and with less valid information. As Selwyn et al. (2015: 780) lay out using qualitative data from two Australian secondary schools, these schools are not unproblematically being ‘improved’ or rendered more ‘efficient’ through the use of digital data. Instead, it would seem that digital data in these schools–—as elsewhere in society—is often being used in ways that make power ever more ‘invisible’ and ‘taken-for-granted’.
These authors contend that the integration of digital technology within secondary schools may reinforce the dominant cultures in school administration and management by means of control and self-control. Hence, while integrating digital technology into school administration is mostly debated around its chances of improving schooling (e.g. Prokopiadou, 2011; Selwyn, 2011b), the second thesis of this paper is that the effects of digital technologies on the performance and efficiency of schools as bureaucratic organisations are ambivalent. Both positive and negative changes to the school might result from the integration of digital technology into school administration (Fountain, 2005). Following Fountain (2001, 2005), inefficiencies may result from both bureaucratisation and changes in the bureaucratic capacity of schools.
Carrying out our analysis, we presuppose that the extent of digital integration is likely to vary across countries and schools (e.g. Selwyn et al., 2015; Saiti and Prokopiadou, 2009). For example, for the administration of public schools, an early suggestion in Anglo-Saxon countries has been to implement digital technology as an integrated system, rather than as separate systems (Fulmer, 1995), thus laying the groundwork for data-driven decision-making (Selwyn et al., 2015). However, even where systematic policies and data regimes prevail, local enactment may be shaped by the rather unsophisticated local handling of digital technology, as Selwyn (2016) argues (see also Selwyn et al., 2015). Additionally, more or less elaborate political strategies for integrating digital technology into school administration may exist: for example, it is part of training programmes for school leaders in the UK (Newton, 2016). Due to German sensitivity toward the protection of personal data, manifested in the strong constitutional and legal foundation of digital self-determination (Hornung and Schnabel, 2009), we expect continuing constraints on the full integration of systems, the use of social and cloud technology in education, as well as personalisation.
We will proceed to describe our analysis framework in detail. Subsequently we will reanalyse the data from an existing interview study both quantitatively and qualitatively. The sample for the interview study on which this paper is based consists of head teachers of vocational school centres in the German state of Bavaria. The analysis presented here is supposed to substantiate the assumptions outlined above. We present examples to corroborate the theses and discuss implications for further research.
Digital technology and the school bureaucracy
We model our theoretical framework on Fountain (2001, 2005). Fountain’s approach, which she calls Technology Enactment Framework (TEF), allows us to conceptualise digital technology as not simply impacting upon the effectiveness and efficiency of the service delivery of schools as bureaucratic public organisations. Rather, we see it as a specific external demand which has the potential to change the bureaucratic set-up public schools themselves. This includes the ways in which office holders rely on administrative knowledge and information for their decision-making or the ability of the schools to adapt their processes to new demands. Fountain’s framework, while developed for public sector areas other than schooling, stands in contrast to approaches suggesting either technological determinism or incrementalism. It also somewhat contradicts certain approaches from organisational psychology which neglect the institutionalised character of public administration and of technological integration and propose more direct links between technology and effective administration (Fountain, 2001). The framework highlights the necessity of reflecting changes in the schools’ bureaucratic set-up explicitly. Both the effectiveness and efficiency of the schools – as regards their support capacity and support structure for teaching – and future digital and organisational pathways may depend on it.
In her framework, Fountain (2001, 2005) proposes that organisational forms, particularly the bureaucratic features which form the core legal institutions of public administration, mediate how objective information technologies are enacted in the public sector. Within this framework, ‘objective information technology’ refers to the ‘capacity and functionality of hardware, software, telecommunications, or digital devices’ (Fountain, 2001: 88). Following the Weberian approach (Weber, 1922/1980), Fountain (2001) understands public bureaucracies as being characterised by hierarchy, clear jurisdiction, standardisation, rules and files. ‘Enactment’ refers to how the objective technology’s capability and functionality is interpreted and used within the organisational forms. This depends on the institutionalised propensity to act out existing rules and organisational arrangements, as well as on individual sense making. Hence, the potential of existing hardware and software, telecommunication and end devices in state organisations will hardly become fully realised. Perceptions, design, implementation and use will be mediated by bureaucratic organisational features and vary across organisations. Following Fountain (2005), it can further be assumed that it is a distinct feature of digital technologies that it is not only their capacity and functionalities that are altered through bureaucratic processing. Rather, they alter and ‘skew’ these processes themselves, mainly because they concern communication, coordination and control within and across organisations and organisational levels on the one hand, and capacity on the other, which are core functions of the bureaucratic form of organisation (Weber, 1922/1980).
One major criticism of the TEF is that it lacks clearly testable hypotheses (Bretschneider, 2003) and while Fountain (2001) focuses on the US federal government, it is unclear whether the framework can be meaningfully applied internationally and to regional and local public bodies (for differing positions, see: Bretschneider, 2003; Grafton, 2003; for a summary of criticism of the TEF, see Yildiz, 2007). Fountain (2001) herself views the TEF as an exploratory approach to theory-building which, in its current state, also allows for the exploration of deduced assumptions. Using the TEF as a framework for our analysis, we conduct exploratory analysis, contending that it is generally possible to apply it to the digitalisation of German vocational schools. But we also assume that some adaptations for the state-level and local contexts of these organisations are necessary. For example, Fountain (2001) points to an increasing importance of ‘networks’ within public administration structures, which she characterises by aspects such as the access to knowledge and interoperability. However, she also cautions that networks ‘will be difficult to build and maintain because the formal institutions of the…government reward agency-centred activities’ (Fountain, 2001: 102). We assume, based on our longstanding experience researching and teaching in these organisations, that this is mostly the case with vocational school centres in Bavaria. We therefore focus on the bureaucratic aspects of the schools and do not systematically scrutinise the network aspect, despite bearing in mind that elements of the network aspect are likely to emerge in our analysis of the transformation of bureaucratic features. We thereby limit our analysis to the formal structural aspects of the schools’ institutional backgrounds, while neglecting other elements of the institutional arrangements of Fountain’s model, like additional cognitive and cultural factors. It must be mentioned though that no specialised positions for information technology (IT) administration exist within the vocational school centres. This implies that those in charge are usually laypeople, and that comprehensive strategic planning and design at the organisational level is likely to be rare. For this reason, we will restrict our perspective regarding enactment to the perception and use of technology and will not take account of design and implementation in our analysis.
Methodology
This study aims to explore how digital technology changes schools’ organisational forms, as well as their performance and efficiency (Fountain 2005). In particular, the question is how it affects the hierarchy, jurisdiction, standardisation, rules and files of the vocational school centres’ respective bureaucracies, and to what extent suboptimal performance can be traced. The data stems from a semi-structured interview study of vocational school centre head teachers. In Germany, the jurisdiction for education, including vocational education, rests with the federal sub-units, the Länder. This study was carried out in Bavaria. At the time the study was carried out, no centralised strategy for the establishment of integrated systems existed in Bavaria and nor had digital technology for school administration been part of the mandatory training for school administrators. The interview schedule was conceptualised on the basis of the central categories of Max Weber’s (1980/1922) theory of bureaucracy. The focus of the study was on how, generally, external demands for change were implemented within the bureaucratic organisation of the vocational school centres (see Cusick, 1992). One demand frequently mentioned by our interview partners was digitalisation. Differing from other external demands, however, a first analysis seemed to indicate that digital requirements are not only transformed by the bureaucratic features of the schools, but also transform the bureaucratic features of the organisations themselves, particularly the meaning and significance of bureaucratic features, such as files or standardisation. In this paper, we therefore examine this aspect in depth, using a reduced version of the TEF as our theoretical lens regarding the external requirements posed by digitalisation. Our framework of analysis is depicted in Figure 1 below.
Out of the population of Bavarian vocational school centre head teachers, we interviewed those who were available for a general interview within the time-frame for our research. In accordance with existing literature, it can be assumed that this group is of particular significance when determining how digital technology is applied in school administration (Prokopiadou, 2011). Performing the central leadership role for these complex school organisations, they possess an in-depth knowledge of the organisations and are located at the intersection to higher positions in the state’s educational bureaucracy. We were able to conduct phone interviews with head teachers of 25 of the 49 Bavarian vocational school centres; our participation rate thus amounts to 51% of the population. We consider this to be a very high response rate for a qualitative interview study and acceptable in terms of validity for a study intent on exploration and theory-building. The average duration of an interview was approximately 60 minutes; one interview had to be terminated early. No information is available to us as to what distinguishes head teachers who participated from those who didn’t. Besides lack of time, the fact that the interviews were conducted during the run-up to an election may have played a role. Specifically, this might have prevented some head teachers from commenting on government action. Table 1 provides an overview of the statistical data on the head teachers in the sample and their schools. Not all the head teachers provided information on their years of experience. All in all, the table shows that the sample consists of experienced to very experienced head teachers with leadership roles mostly in schools with 1000 and more students.
Statistical data on the sample of head teachers and their vocational school centres.
Notes: School year 2012/13. Experience in school leadership: totals are than 25 indicating missing values.
To evaluate the data for this paper, we carried out a structured interview analysis using Mayring (2008) as a methodological foundation. For the purpose of this paper, the sections were coded firstly in terms of the aspects of the bureaucracy they address, and, secondly, for references to the intersection between bureaucratic features and the enactment of technology. The bureaucratic characteristics were deduced theoretically from Weberian theory and correspond to the features of the bureaucracy in the TEF (Fountain, 2001, 2005). Table 2 provides an overview of the aspects subsumed under these categories.
Bureaucratic categories of analysis and subsumed aspects.
We use the following categories as regards the intersection of bureaucratic features and the enactment of technology, as indicated in Figure 1: The original perceptions of objective information technologies or their predecessors, influenced by the respective bureaucratic characteristics of the school organisation, as part of the enacted technologies (aspect [1] in Figure 1); The original use of these technologies, influenced by the bureaucratic characteristics of the school organisation (aspect [2]); Reported changes in the perceptions (aspect [3]) or in the use (aspect [4]) with the introduction of (new) digital technology, mediated by the respective bureaucratic characteristics of the school organisation; Ensuing improvement or deterioration in the reported performance or efficiency, hence the outcome of school administration (aspect [5]).
Under ‘perception’ we subsume the broader perspective the interview partners have of demands imposed by technology. By ‘use’ we mean the specific ways in which organisation members deal with technology. Hence, to ensure validity, categories were obtained deductively and based on theory, referring to the Weberian model of bureaucracy, as well as to the TEF, as outlined above. Reliability was pursued by means of clear definitions of the respective categories. The coding was carried out by two researchers. Only interview segments coded alike by the two coders were used for the purpose of the qualitative analysis. Since we did not systematically ask for the types of digital technology used, we do not use any theoretical coding for the kind of technology mentioned by the administrators. Instead, we follow an inductive approach by displaying our analysis based on the frequency of technologies mentioned by our interview partners.
The analysis basically consists of two steps. Firstly, we quantify statements concerning the interplay of objective information technologies and bureaucratic categories. We examine how many interview partners referred to digitalisation when asked about the bureaucratic transformation of external requirements within the past 20 years. This analysis was carried out separately for the different bureaucratic categories. It provides an indication of the subjective importance that the vocational school centre head teachers attribute to the relationship between digitalisation and bureaucracy, as scrutinised in this paper. Secondly, we carry out an in-depth analysis of selected, distinctive interview passages, in line with the aspects of the framework in Figure 1, to exemplify how the head teachers describe digitalisation-related transformations within the bureaucratic organisation of their schools, as well as changes in its performance and efficiency (see Mayring, 2008: 90). Overall, the purpose of the analysis is to scrutinise the main theses underlying this article in order to examine to what extent the interview partners’ statements substantiate our assumptions. Thus, verification of the theory is beyond the scope of this paper.
Aspects of the TEF to be analysed (modified from Fountain 2001: 11); numbers in brackets indicate categories as regard the intersection of bureaucratic features and the enactment of technology. Republished with permission of Brookings. From Fountain J (2001) Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Results
The results of the quantitative analysis are displayed in Table 3. They suggest that, specifically for the area of standardisation, but also for the areas of files and hierarchy, external changes in the form of objective information technologies are seen as relevant. In the area of rules, digitalisation seems somewhat less important from a quantitative perspective. Overall, the findings in the table indicate that changes driven by the demands of digitalisation are seen as highly relevant, particularly as these changes were mentioned by the head teachers without their having been directly asked about these specific external changes. The results show that these changes are related to all the features of school bureaucracy.
Number and percentages of head teachers who mentioned digital technology in relation to its transformation through specific features of bureaucracy.
N = 25 (100%)
Out of the 25 study participants, 15 mention email as a relevant information technology, of which four had observed an increase and acceleration in email traffic (In 26, 46; In 2, 30; In 21, 40 and In 22, 22; the figures in the parantheses indicate the number of the interview and the line of the argument). Eight head teachers point to the replacement of existing communication forms and media by email (In 5, 40; In 7, 209; In 11, 103; In 12, 108; In 15, 111; In 19, 92; In 22, 22 and In 23, 16). Implications ensue for all the bureaucratic categories. Other objective information technologies seem to affect the schools, mostly in the bureaucratic category of files. These include software programmes for supply teacher planning (In 23, 10); digital grade and reports management (In 2, 201; In 24, 146); electronic class-register (In 2, 239; In 12, 113; In 12, 201; In 23, 49; In 24, 146); school administration programmes (In 19, 164); digital outgoing mail log (In 10, 176); digital timetable (In 23, 111; In 24, 146); digital library (In 2, 219), as well as digital document management and scheduling (In 14, 132; In 18, 78; In 160).
Below, we quote and interpret distinctive passages from the interviews, describing developments with respect to the bureaucratic categories distinguished in this paper. We will select two quotes for each of the bureaucratic categories, the first of which refers to email as an objective information technology, while the second one concerns a variety of other technologies. With this procedure, we intend to do justice to the quantitative importance of email technology in our sample. From a theoretical perspective, email technology seems to concern aspects of communication, coordination and control, whereas hardware and software may rather address the capacity aspect of school organisation (Fountain 2005). However, our analyses also hint that technology usage overlaps, e.g. email can be used for the purpose of storage and retrieval of information, while particularly small and mobile hardware can be used for the purpose of transferring information. In the following analysis, squared brackets indicate the aspect of the framework of analysis addressed (see Figure 1 in the methodology section).
Hierarchy
Example 1
All in all, colleagues are better informed than before 2000, because a great deal of information can be found on the internet, and members of the employee council are better supplied with emails, as well as with information, and the exchange of information within the school is much quicker and smoother, also because of email despatch. Everything has become much more short-lived, and information from government, letters or notifications from the Bavarian Ministry of Culture, Science and Arts are coming in with a much higher frequency than was previously the case (In 22, 22).
Apart from information frequency, the first part of the quoted passage addresses information paths. It concerns the flow of information which traditionally forms part of the chain of command. As opposed to the years before 2000 [1], and due to email technology and the possibility of internet research, members of the employees’ council and colleagues are now better and more quickly supplied with information [3]. At the same time, since the existence of email technology, government notifications previously sent by regular mail are now despatched with a much higher frequency [3]. The performance and efficiency of the school administration is affected because the exchange of information has become quicker, smoother and more co-operative [5]. The extent to which consequences ensue with regard to the ability of the head teacher to distribute information [2, 4] is not discussed in the statement.
However, as regards the transformation of bureaucratic features analysed in this paper, an ambivalent interpretation stands to reason, since the interview excerpt suggests a change in the hierarchical role of the head teacher. On the one hand, the second part of the statement points to an increased involvement of the study participant in the hierarchically-imposed task completion [1, 3]. On the other, the discretion of the head teacher to hierarchically despatch or withhold information seems negatively affected. This has the potential consequence of limiting the head teacher’s abilities to sanction and/or exert influence. It also points to an aspect of the TEF (Fountain, 2001, 2005) not systematically scrutinised in this paper: improved access to information by people who had thus far mostly been informed through the chain of command implies that the network aspect of organisational forms has gained significance. However, this also affects the organisations’ bureaucratic features: an increase in the quantity of information from higher levels in the educational bureaucracy, accompanied by a decrease in participation by the head teacher in the information processes of lower or formerly dependent levels in the hierarchy changes the hierarchical position of the vocational school centre head teacher.
Another example of the hierarchy category concerns the exchange of data between hierarchical levels.
Example 2
Now we can equally access the Ministry of Culture’s database, just like the government. So, there is no longer this hierarchical order, one could say it is more like simple information circles going on (In 25, 38).
The preceding statement indicates that, with the introduction of databases with decentralised access on the part of the schools, a transformation of the bureaucratic feature of hierarchy takes place which improves the school’s efficiency [5]. The head teacher’s perception is that, in lieu of the hierarchical decree [1], feedback loops take hold [3], as expressed in the use of information from the Ministry of Culture’s databases [4], the access to which was formerly restricted to higher levels of the hierarchy.
The next statement relates to the bureaucratic category of jurisdiction and competency.
Jurisdiction and competency
Example 1
Where I have a few problems now is when I get umpteen emails and some things I get twice or three times. Hence, this thing with CC, which tempts people to mail all sorts of things – you just don’t have the time available to look through all of this. So, this is what I am training my secretaries to do and that is to look through everything that comes via email and to only pass on to me what’s important (In 16, 232).
This statement describes that, within his jurisdiction [1], this head teacher views himself as restricted [3] due to the number of incoming emails, as well as the multiplication of emails. As a consequence, he now delegates decisions to his secretaries which he used to take himself [4]. Thus, a change for the worse, which resulted from digital technology with regard to the efficiency of the school organisation, is countered by a shift in how tasks are distributed among functional positions [5]. It is worth mentioning that the tasks are delegated to lower positions in the hierarchy.
Example 2:
…that I have a certain knowledge in school administration,…where I say, a certain knowledge of the school administration programmes, WIN SD and WIN SV, must be on hand among colleagues; we have it openly in the staff room, so that teachers themselves can review it – they cannot change anything, but they can review it and then, for example in the case of class lists, print them, so that the administration, the secretaries are less burdened. It is inevitable that colleagues must do this (In 19, 163).
With the introduction of school administration programmes, the study participant describes a change in competency in the sense that teachers assume tasks formerly performed by the secretaries or by school administration staff. Due to the existence of such school administration programmes, tasks such as the compilation of class lists [2], now have to be carried out by the teachers themselves [4]. The teachers must, therefore, acquire knowledge and skills on school administration programmes. Gains in efficiency and performance for office and administrative staff within the local school administration are likely to ensue [5].
Furthermore, digitalisation affects the bureaucratic feature of standardisation.
Standardisation
Example 1
One must eventually try to carry out as many tasks as possible using the computer, for example, standard letters, so that you only have to change the name – this is actually the main way to proceed. Email traffic, so that the district offices are informed via email, etc. So, we have tried to get a grip on this so that it is a quick and smooth procedure (In 10, 75).
This statement is about the attainment of economics of scale via digitalisation. As implied in the last phrase of the quote, the requirement to distribute information to varying authorities [1] seems to be growing – whether or not the reason is digital technology cannot be assessed from the statement [3]. The response is to systematically introduce IT-generated standard letters and mass despatch via email [4] for issues previously operated at least partially without IT [2]. The aim is to prevent the declining efficiency of the school organisation [5].
Example 2
Yes, so, for example, the software update from Office 2003 to Office 2010, we prepared it accordingly, debated it with colleagues, when it would make sense, what kind of training it must be accompanied by until its introduction, and then afterwards the possibility of a workshop, to be able to ask additional questions which have piled up over time during work. That turned out to be a very positive thing (In 15, 191).
As outlined in this statement, in the context of digitalisation, standardisation concerns not only the school’s delivery of services and its outside performance, but the school organisation itself. In order to be successfully implemented at the same time – possibly due to the requirement of interoperability, which is also an aspect of networks in the TEF – the upgrade [3] of the standard software in use [1] requires a unified treatment of all the teachers [3] (Fountain, 2001, 2005). Hence, standardised training requirements are debated with the consequence of unified scheduling and training content [4]. At the same time, however, the school enables individualised questions which may occur during implementation after the training [4]. The standardised, albeit co-operatively developed and not hierarchically-imposed procedure, prevents problems during or in the aftermath of the software upgrade [5]. However, the quotation also exemplifies the changing nature of the bureaucratic feature of standardisation in the wake of digitalisation; it seems to be driven by the chosen standard software and the logic of renewal by the software producer. Due to the need for standardisation in bureaucratic organisations, they are increasingly likely to be subject to lock-in effects in the wake of digitalisation. In economic literature on technological change, ‘lock-in’ means the pre-determination of technology by technological choices made beforehand due to the high costs of change (e.g. Arthur, 1989).
The next statement relates to the bureaucratic category of rules.
Rules
Example 1
We then have it on our screen, and, for example, we can directly address, directly answer the individual institutions on the screen, the disadvantage of which is that the deadlines to work through requests, in my view, become shorter and shorter. So, I have, for example, I am just working on the emails from yesterday and the day before, there are deadlines in it. I must have completed it by Monday, and this would not have possibly happened before. Back then, I would have had the letter, I would have read it, then I would have processed it, then it would have taken four to five days to reply. That doesn’t happen anymore, it goes one after another (In 19, 92).1
This interview was carried out late afternoon on a Friday, implying that ‘Monday’ means directly after the weekend. The topics in this quote are the deadlines for the completion of email requests. In comparison to postal mail delivery with a turnaround of four to five days [1], deadlines become increasingly short because of the possibility of processing requests on the computer screen [3]. The use of technology has been changed: instead of processing by post taking four to five days [2], information gathering takes place online or in a digital manner and requests can be returned over the weekend [4]. Hence, deadlines for requests become increasingly short, and answers are delivered quicker and more directly. From the head teacher’s point of view, the consequences for the performance and efficiency of the school organisation seem positive as regards the possibility of directly addressing requests, but negative in terms of increasingly short deadlines [5].
Example 2
Whenever we get new colleagues, they receive a USB stick with our QM handbook, and then, principally, they can [learn] all the procedures with the support of these documents, from grade calculation to break supervision, documentation of work time and accounting for working hours, and all these things, up to simple forms ‘Request for permission for a class excursion’ or ‘Special leave’: no matter what procedures you take, it is all described, forms and documents are stored on it, and all the teachers can save a lot of work, if they use these materials (In 17, 44).
In the example above, the digital technology of USB sticks is being used to make existing rules and procedures [2] accessible to new teachers [4]; this changes the accessibility of existing rules and procedures by means of the additional rule and procedure of handing out USB sticks to all new teachers [1, 3]. This is likely to lead to improvements in these teachers’ workload [5].
Finally, digitalisation may affect the way files are kept within the schools.
Files
Example 1
Well yes, since all incoming mail passes over my desk, I would sometimes doubt whether one should store some emails with umpteen attachments. Yes, I mostly forward it in this sense, yes, but evidently today with the possibility of IT an incredible amount of rubbish is being produced, excessively so. So, that wasn’t the case 10 to 15 years ago, because when someone sent a letter back then, that was OK, but then he wouldn’t have attached a hundred more pages (In 12, 145).
This interview excerpt refers to written documentation issues. In the study, the participant’s perception was that letters sent as postal mail used to be leaner before the spread of email technology. They were accompanied by far fewer additional documents [1]. Meanwhile, the emails this head teacher has to process in his position are accompanied by a substantial number of often very large additional files [3]. The head teacher deals with this by forwarding documents as before [2]. Yet, the statement that ‘an incredible amount of rubbish is being produced’ points to restrictions in terms of efficiency [5]. Moreover, from the head teacher’s point of view, the bureaucratic feature of files itself – meaning the necessity to leave a written trail of issues and procedures – is in doubt, since he questions whether emails with many attachments should be stored at all [4].
Example 2
We have now scanned the letters from the Ministry of Culture (KMS) ourselves in our own database with a search function, so that we can react much quicker when we look for information, if I don’t have it in my head. If I have it in my head, legal norms, it makes things a lot easier (In 25, 164).
In lieu of individualised storage [1], digitalisation, in the form of scanning technology and databases, enables centralised storage and immediate access to lower levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy [3]. The quote points to a change in the bureaucratic feature of files in the sense that searching relevant documents, or even fragments thereof, via a search function [4] may replace the necessity for bureaucrats to read complete documents and remember their content as they used to [2]. In the light of the small amount of formal bureaucratic training German head teachers receive, this may also lead to gains in efficiency [5].
Discussion
In this paper, we pursue two theses regarding the relationship between digitalisation and bureaucracy in the vocational school centres. In our first thesis, we assume that while objective information technologies are being transformed by features of the school bureaucracy, digitalisation also has the distinctive feature of transforming the bureaucratic features of the schools themselves. Following Fountain (2005), these technologies may be transformative because they address capacity, particularly access to knowledge, as well as communication, coordination and control as central functions of bureaucratic organisation. Conclusively, email technology seems particularly significant. Indications for both bureaucratic transformations of digitalisation demands, and the transformative nature of objective digital technologies with regard to the school bureaucracies, can be found for all the bureaucratic categories under consideration in this analysis, particularly for the features of standardisation and files. The qualitative analysis underlines these results: With regard to hierarchy, the analyses highlight that, while fostering the integration of head teachers into tasks hierarchically imposed by the Ministry of Culture, digitally-driven changes within the vocational school centres may also enhance decentralised processes and activities by lower or previously dependent levels in the chain of command (cf. Wittmann 2008). This may indicate that hierarchical positions, like the position of head teacher could become more fragile. While this insight may not seem new, to our knowledge it has never been theoretically and empirically traced in studies of head teachers (for an opposite finding in the UK, see Selwyn 2011a). The proposition in our interviews that information may, in part, be accessed in circular rather than hierarchical processes also begs the question of whether it may be necessary to co-ordinate these loops. While they can also be conceptualised as a rather network-like structure in the sense of Fountain (2001, 2005) it would seem important to clarify whether coordination would be appropriate to ensure that information actually gets to where it needs to go. The bureaucratic feature of standardisation seems to have gained importance in the wake of digitalisation. This is highlighted by the fact that it is mentioned most frequently by the administrators in the sample when talking about the bureaucratic transformation of digital requirements. However, the specific change occurring with regard to this feature of bureaucracy seems to be that, rather than a simple transformation of digital technology by the bureaucracy, the digital technology itself is standardised and seems to ‘dictate’ further standardisation. Specifically, lock-in effects may increase standardisation. With increasingly pervasive digitalisation, such effects affect not only industry, but all aspects of society, including public bureaucracies like the vocational school centres. The bureaucratic feature of rules and procedures may be transformed due to improved digital accessibility of rules. This may also be a substantial change insofar as it enables a decrease in the amount of expertise required. In the case of the vocational school centres, this could be to the benefit of the vocational school centre head teachers as, in contrast to other public officials, they receive relatively little bureaucratic training. However, the effects may also disappear because of the large number of additional rules from higher levels in the bureaucratic chain. As far as files are concerned, digitally-related transformations may be most significant. On the one hand, because of the duplication of information, the reading and remembering of processes and issues may be replaced by their processing via search functions. This implies the possible consequence of technology-induced omissions and failures due to the inadequacies in the search functions and individual search strategies, as well as an inappropriate consideration of existing issues. It may also lead to incongruence between responsibility and the ability of the bureaucratic members of the school organisation to bear responsibility. On the other hand, one interview quoted above points to the fact that the storage of files, and hence the written trail and the bureaucratic feature of files itself, is possibly called into question.
Our second thesis concerns the resulting performance and efficiency of the school as a bureaucratic organisation. In this regard, in line with the thesis, the analyses point to ambivalent tendencies. Both increased bureaucratisation and better handling of processes are possible. The examples presented here seem to highlight that gains in efficiency, or reductions of losses in efficiency caused by digitalisation, are mostly due to the specific use of digital technology within the respective school organisation. This firstly indicates that not only the knowledge base of the head teachers, but also of those in charge of IT integration matters; these people have thus far mostly been laypeople. In this regard, but also concerning the first thesis, the fact that our study relies on self-reporting poses a limitation on our findings which would certainly warrant broader data collection, including observation and document collection. Secondly, indications for changes in the bureaucratic set-up beg the question of whether additional coordination may be necessary, e.g. to guarantee factual access to relevant knowledge and to preclude unwanted lock-in effects. It seems necessary therefore also to explore the network aspects of the TEF more systematically. Besides access to knowledge and interoperability, such analyses could include other aspects of networks in the TEF, like pooled resources, exchange and trust, as well as social capital (Fountain, 2001, 2005), and might also require a methodological approach more appropriate for the analysis of networks.
Consequences
The relationship between digitalisation and the bureaucratic organisation of the respective schools has barely been studied to date. The quantitative and qualitative analyses in this paper shed light on the transformation of bureaucracy through digital technology, but also on how gains or losses through digital technology are dependent on its use within the single school organisation. The analysis has been carried out on the basis of the Technological Enactment Framework (Fountain 2001; 2005), which had been developed for public organisations in general. As a consequence of our analysis, it seems necessary to work with the schools on an organisational level, to train the head teachers of vocational school centres accordingly as part of their mandatory initial training, and possibly emphasise best practice.
At the same time, the findings underline the assumption of a qualitative transformation of the bureaucratic features of the school organisation itself, including its communication, coordination and control set-up, as well as its capacity; from hierarchy to both a potential increase in circular communication; from pervasive written trails to the questioning of the necessity for files and their fragmented use, and, specifically, from bureaucratically-driven standardisation to externally-driven digitally-induced standardisation, including possible restrictions on future capacity. Whereas positive or negative educational outcomes may largely rest with the handling of digital technology within the specific school organisation, our analysis highlights that these issues deserve more conscious attention from both the head teachers and higher levels in educational administration.
Hence, the question arises as to which design changes in the socio-technological infrastructure could help mitigate the delineated tensions related to digitalisation and enhance its benefits. Vocational schools are under pressure to adapt their teaching and learning to the requirements of transforming vocations and the labour market (Gerholz and Dormann 2017). Therefore, safeguarding their capacity to change and to conduct outside communication with companies, rather than following digital ‘paper trails’ within the bureaucracy, is even more important for these schools than for general schools. Measures to be implemented at the organisational level may include training for head teachers to deal productively with the intersection between bureaucratic features and digital technologies in school administration, or the replacement of lay personnel with IT staff trained in digital school administration. However, changes at the higher levels of the educational bureaucracy also need to be discussed. Rules might be established to shield head teachers and staff from growing numbers of files and time pressure, and resources may be pooled to support lower level organisations with advice to diminish externally-driven standardisation, avoid lock-in effects and assure interoperability.
The inter-relationship between technology and school organisation may play out differently in different countries and jurisdictions, and the integration of digital technology is likely to be further advanced in other jurisdictions than in our sample. However, we believe that the questions raised in this paper will be relevant for other contexts both present and future, particularly in relation to the advent of cloud technology in educational administration. The consequences of these possibly fundamental changes have barely been debated thus far, specifically for schools, including vocational school centres, and may be relevant far beyond them.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.