Governing roles? Integrating philanthropic foundations with governance boards in German educational collaborative networks

Abstract

Educational collaborative networks (ECNs), as instruments for achieving educational goals through the integration of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), have become frequent elements of public education worldwide. Despite their contribution of additional resources to the education enterprise, the roles of philanthropic foundations in ECNs are particularly controversial. Research suggests that leaders of ECNs such as policy makers, administrators, and school principals design and coordinate governance structures to guide participants’ behaviour. However, the importance of governance design and coordination in ECNs for governing philanthropic roles is yet to be systematically analysed. This article centres on the relationship between the design and coordination of governance boards and role-related participation of philanthropic foundations. A mixed methods design is implemented based on secondary analysis of a German large-scale standardised survey and an in-depth case study conducted in a south German municipality. Results confirm that leaders of ECNs impact philanthropic engagement via the design and coordination of governance boards. Participation in ECNs can take on diverse roles of representing particular interests, pursuing innovation, or providing services and are explained by underlying governance-related mechanisms. Identified associations within governance boards and role-related participation of philanthropic foundations in ECNs offer valuable insights for leadership in education.

Keywords

Networked governance cross-sector collaboration role formation educational governance non-governmental organisations mixed methods

Introduction

Since the 1980s, policy makers, public administrators, and education scholars in countries including the USA, UK, Italy, and Germany have pursued and emphasised policies which foster autonomy and self-regulation in schools and school communities (Grimaldi and Serpieri, 2014; Lubienski, 2014). Within this reconfiguration of governance structures, educational collaborative networks (ECNs) have become a frequent approach of leadership in education (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017; Kolleck et al., 2020; Koranyi and Kolleck, 2018; Malin and Hackmann, 2019; Peurach, 2016; Townsend, 2015). ECNs aim to ‘achieve educational goals at the community level, and [are] base[d]…on collaborative efforts between schools and multiple agents’ including non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017: 1041).¹ Democratically legitimised representatives expect NGOs to contribute to the education enterprise through additional financial resources, knowledge transfer, and social capital (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017; Ferris et al., 2007; Yemini, 2018). From this rather utilitarian perspective, NGOs participate in ECNs as grant-makers, experts, and relationship builders. Recently, attention has been drawn to the extent to which NGOs gain influence on the production of public education services (Ball, 2008, 2012, 2016; Eyal and Yarm, 2018; Ferris et al., 2007; Kolleck, 2016; Lubienski et al., 2016; Sagie et al., 2016; Thümler 2011; Yemini, 2018). As a result, the integration of philanthropic foundations in networks has been shown to be particularly problematic (Ball and Junemann, 2012; Lubienski et al., 2016; Reich, 2018). The establishment of networks can open the door to specific interest representation and agenda setting that may influence national education systems (Ball, 2008, 2016; Kolleck, 2016). Well-connected and financially strong philanthropic actors may thus control educational networks, which were originally established through democratic policy processes (Ball and Junemann, 2012).

The integration of NGOs in ECNs particularly challenges leaders in education,² and requires comprehensive knowledge and sound management of various professional cultures and interests (Edwards et al., 2010). The main efforts of networked leadership are directed towards building ‘a new means of interaction between professionals and a new focus based on interdisciplinary collaboration’ (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017: 1053). In comparison to managerial leadership approaches which build on hierarchical relationships and individual responsibility in organisations (Bush, 2011), networked leadership relates to practices of interconnecting professionals in non-hierarchical, self-organising, and community-oriented contexts (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017). Accordingly, collaborations between school leaders and NGOs are based on contractual agreements in managerial leadership (Sagie et al., 2016). The management of access to education is bound to on a – ideally democratically legitimized – formal authority. For example, head teachers, based on their hierarchically superior position within the organisational boundaries of the school, lead and may restrict access of extracurricular activities. In contrast, leaders of networks interact with NGOs in strongly interconnected and complex manners. Within non-hierarchical and self-organisational settings responsibilities are community-based and outcomes depend on negotiation.

Empirical studies in the public sector particularly contribute to the understanding of networked leadership practices. They point out the relevance of leaders’ design and coordination of network structures and processes that provide the framework to achieve specific outcomes (Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Mandell and Keast, 2009). This design and coordination work is also understood as metagovernance. Metagovernance as institutional design and network coordination activities of structures and processes by internal or external individuals or groups (Keast, 2016; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). In ECNs, metagovernance builds on networked governance as ‘a specific form of governance, as a mechanism of mobilizing political resources in situations where these resources are widely dispersed between public and private actors’ (Börzel, 1998: 255). Whilst research on leadership behaviours and practices in ECNs is expanding (Edwards et al., 2010; Feys and Devos, 2014; Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017; Kolleck et al., 2020; Malin and Hackmann, 2019; Peurach, 2016; Prado Tuma and Spillane, 2019; Townsend, 2015), Ball and colleagues (2012; 2017) point to the importance of understanding governance design, or ‘structural strategies’ (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017: 1052), as a key element for understanding cross-sectoral, philanthropy-related challenges. In the global context, these authors state that networked governance and the roles of NGOs (particularly those of philanthropic foundations) mutually interact. Philanthropic individuals and organisations use governance institutions to substantially influence education systems. Leadership of networks through metagovernance is a relatively new form of leadership. We assume it to be highly different from managerial forms of leading organisations through legally binding contractual relationships and democratically derived authority. Therefore, this research on role-related participation of philanthropic foundations in ECNs to identify implications for governance in educational networks is particularly timely.

When analysing governance design, governance boards (also referred to as assemblies or commissions) are important structural elements (Mandell and Keast, 2009). Their establishment unfolds opportunities for philanthropic participation in ECNs (Koranyi and Kolleck, 2017). As examples: ECN governance boards can mirror already existing lines of responsibility and regulation; other boards might provide authority to a newly defined range of agents; and still others welcome all individuals and organisations interested in participation. In line with Goodwin’s (2009: 682) emphasis on ‘effects of the structured terrain on which networks operate which shapes, constrains and enables the strategies of actors’, we assume that the combination of rules and competences (i.e. authorisations to shape action) in governance boards relates to the roles of philanthropic foundations in ECNs. However, ‘[m]uch of the literature on the conceptualisation and description of network governance is concerned with its structures rather than its hows and whys’ (Ball and Junemann, 2012: 5). This study aims at connecting those strands and providing new empirical information on underlying mechanisms of governance boards that are associated with philanthropic participation. We ask how the design and coordination of governance boards can explain distinct role-related participation of philanthropic foundations in ECNs.

To better understand relationships between governance boards and role-related participation, we build on concepts of governance theory (Ansell and Torfing, 2016; Bevir and Rhodes, 2006; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). Methodologically, this article applies an innovative approach by triangulating a quantitative and a qualitative data set. The aim is to investigate roles of philanthropic foundations within governance boards in German ECNs.

Germany provides an interesting context to explore consequences of networked governance (Gessler and Ashmawy, 2016). Triggered by alarmingly below average scores in maths, science, and reading in the 2001 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results, Germany witnessed widespread emergence of ECNs, so-called ‘Regional Educational Landscapes’ (German: regionale, kommunale or lokale Bildungslandschaften). These ECNs aim at optimising educational quality for children, adolescents, adults, families, and other groups in a geographically defined area (Kolleck et al., 2012). It establishes local networks of formal and non-formal community actors within the field of education, thereby facilitating broad NGO participation (Koranyi and Kolleck, 2017). Furthermore, Germany has experienced a tremendous increase in both the number and influence of foundations in recent years (Kolleck, 2016). Germany also has the largest philanthropic foundation sector in Europe and the second largest in the world, after the United States (Kolleck, 2017). Therefore, the analysis of philanthropic foundations in German ECNs is a promising field of study since findings are applicable to several regional contexts.

Conceptual framework: Networked governance and metagovernance

The term ‘governance’ has been strongly related to networks throughout the conceptualisation of this field of research (Rhodes, 1996). However, governance per se can be defined as the empirical manifestation of structures and processes for collective decision making to direct, coordinate, and allocate resources (Emerson et al., 2011; Provan and Kenis, 2008; Vangen et al., 2015). Complementing other forms of governance such as hierarchy or market, networked governance as a form relies on both horizontal and vertical ‘multi-dimensional patterns of interaction between different…actors’ (Sørensen and Torfing, 2005: 201). Coordination is primarily based on non-hierarchical negotiation (Provan et al., 2016). It involves three or more actors from diverse societal spheres who are interdependent through exchanges of social capital and material resources (Keast, 2016). Providing an ‘institutional framework of rules, norms, values and specialized forms of knowledge’ (Sørensen and Torfing, 2018: 304), governance theory in political science and public administration deals also with the relation between institutional network elements and actor behaviour (Börzel, 1998; Christopoulos, 2008; Keast, 2016). In studies applying the policy network approach, network structures are considered to be both dependent and independent variables (Knoke et al., 1996). Furthermore, in an actor-centred institutional approach, interdependent actors are confronted with formalised institutions that influence their behaviour based on opportunities and constraints (Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995). As for an example in education, Goodwin (2009) suggests that the structural context shapes, constrains, and enables the strategies of educational policy actors such as NGOs. Consequently, the design and coordination of governance shapes rules and norms with implications for NGO participation in education.

Transferred to studies on networked leadership in the public sector, aspects of leadership relate to metagovernance, defined as institutional design and network coordination activities of structures and processes by internal or external individuals or groups (Keast, 2016; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). In other words, networked leadership is concerned with the governance of governance (metagovernance) or how processes and structures can be conceptualised and regulated to effectively reach a collectively defined goal (for education see Wilkins, 2016). Regarding formal settings, metagovernance involves the selection and implementation of institutional forms and structural elements (Jessop, 2002). This involves establishing governance boards that institutionalise coordination and form actor constellations that can access the board (Hysing and Lundberg, 2016). Whilst metagovernance appears instrumental and rational, its nature is also political in terms of how leaders of networks serve and exclude interests through governance design (Wilkins and Gobby, forthcoming). For the analysis of the relationship between governance boards and philanthropic participation, the metagovernance of network structures may thus partly explain the emergence of certain roles of foundations in ECNs.

NGOs and their governance roles

NGOs can play a range of roles in ECNs with significant potential consequences for leaders in education (Lubienski and Perry, 2019; Malin and Hackmann, 2019; Prado Tuma and Spillane, 2019; Yemini, 2018). With reference to philanthropists and their foundations, Ball and colleagues (2012; 2017) identify role changes in the context of networked governance. As networks reorganise coordination mechanisms, governments and educational administrators are appearing to lose their leadership monopoly (Ball, 2016). Due to their participatory culture, networks increase access for NGOs (Ball and Junemann, 2012). Focusing on wealthy individuals and corporate philanthropy, a shift in the range of activities (originally: donations, representation, infrastructure, service delivery and programmes) occurs. For ‘new’ philanthropy, giving relates to measurable outcomes and includes direct self-managed intervention in the education (policy) field (Ball and Junemann, 2012). Based on strategic operations, philanthropy advocates for favoured solutions and projects: ‘[t]his assemblage articulates, advocates, tests and trials alternative visions of social and education policy and social services delivery based on a diverse but related set of principles that include mutualism, voluntarism, social enterprise and for-profit contracting-out’ (Ball and Junemann, 2012: 73). Through this, interest representation becomes a primary role of new philanthropy in networked governance.

Regarding the philanthropic role spectrum in general, advocacy, or representation of particular interests, encompasses diverse strategies and tactics. These include direct contact with policy makers, strategic funding, resource publication, and capacity building (Ball and Junemann, 2012; Ferris et al., 2007). In a relation-building or intermediary role philanthropic foundations work as boundary spanners ‘moving between fields and roles’ (Ball and Junemann, 2012: 87), connecting various organisations and transferring information and ideas from one field to another (Adloff et al., 2007). Moreover, a main role relates to financial sponsorship and support for projects and programs (Kolleck and Brix, 2017). In education, philanthropic foundations direct additional financial and human resources to schools and develop new methods and contents for school development and teaching (Eyal and Yarm, 2018). Philanthropic foundations also operate their own projects and provide beneficial services to educational institutions such as scholarships or additional professionals to support disadvantaged students (Thümler, 2017). Furthermore, foundations’ involvement aligns with innovative approaches (Kolleck, 2017). Based on their independence from both profit-seeking and governmental accountability, they use their flexibility to develop new approaches or provide funding to test and implement educational innovations (Yemini, 2018).

Methods

To empirically analyse the relationship between the design and coordination of governance boards and philanthropic role-related participation, we implemented an embedded mixed method approach using qualitative data to support quantitative survey data (Creswell, 2012). We analysed data from a German-wide quantitative survey on philanthropic roles in combination with a case study in an ECN to provide in-depth material on governance board structures and role-related participation of philanthropic foundations.

Quantitative study

Sample

For our quantitative study, we drew on the large-scale standardised Stifterverband’s ZiviZ survey (Civil Society in Figures). This is a comprehensive survey of German associations, foundations, and non-profit companies with limited liability. The population for random sampling was determined through publicly accessible directories (Directory of German Foundations 2014 of the Federal Association of German Foundations; including 21,424 foundations). In all, 824 foundations (from a total of 6334 total organisations) answered the survey (Priemer et al., 2017). Our secondary analysis of 2017 data focused on ‘foundations in education’. ‘In education’ was determined by three variables (Priemer and Mohr, 2018): (1) assignment to the field of education, (2) providing educational services, and/or (3) funding educational services or institutions. This filter produced a sample size of 463 foundations (online: 184; paper-based: 279).

Measures

To determine philanthropic role-related participation, we included two measurements from the ZiviZ survey. The variable participation in networks was encapsulated in the question: ‘how often is your organisation in contact with municipal politics or administration in networks?’ As municipalities often initiate and sponsor ECNs in German education, presence in municipal networks indicates philanthropic participation in ECNs (Koranyi and Kolleck, 2017). Frequency was measured on a three-tiered scale (no, some, and often).

The variable role characterisations of foundations was assessed with the question: ‘how would you describe the role characterisation of your organisation?’ Foundations were asked to rate each of the following roles on a three-tiered scale ranging from total disagreement to total agreement: (1) grant-maker provides financial resources to organisations, projects, and programs (e.g. Robertson Foundation funding in the United States); (2) service provider operates projects and programs (e.g. operational project implementation by the Robert Bosch Foundation in Germany); (3) innovator develops new approaches to existing (social or public) problems and catalyses the implementation of new ideas (e.g. Bertelsmann Foundation activities in Germany); (4) representative of interests engages (indirectly or directly) in the political process to influence public policy outcomes (e.g. Education Trust policy engagement in the United States); (5) relationship builder builds reciprocal relationships and mediates community social spheres (e.g. the New Schools Network in the United Kingdom).

Analysis

We first applied descriptive statistics using cross-table calculations. Chi-square tests of independence were used to assess relationships with regard to significant differences within the distribution of frequencies (Bryman, 2012). Additionally, we calculated adjusted residuals for post-hoc testing of the contribution size to the chi-square value. We also tested the statistical strength of relationships through Pearson’s correlation coefficients (Bryman, 2012).

Qualitative case study

Case

To investigate the design and coordination of governance boards, we conducted a single case study in a ECNs, based on different data sources: documents and interview data (Yin, 2014). A south German municipality with circa 230,000 inhabitants was selected due to its ongoing experience (since 2006) participating in major ECN policy programs. For contextual information and to identify governance boards and relevant philanthropic foundations, we performed an in-depth document analysis of relevant ECN program descriptions, information material, and evaluations. Documents were collected through both offline and online research on relevant ECN policy programs. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with chairpersons of seven identified philanthropic foundations between March and July 2017 (see Table 1). Interviews followed a narrative approach and used open-ended questions (e.g. how were you involved/developed your professional routines/do you perceive structures in the ECN?). Interviews lasted about 50 minutes and were recorded and transcribed.

Table 1.

Overview of interviewed philanthropic foundations.

#	Type	Mission
S1	Public	Nature; education for sustainable development
S2	Booster club	Children and youth
S3	Corporate	Poverty and social disadvantage
S4	Private	Social disadvantage
S5	Public	Youth services
S6	Private	Integration and inclusion
S7	Community	Education and youth empowerment

Analysis

For analysis of both data types, we utilised a deductive-inductive content analysis. In addition to pre-configured codes, we added more codes during the process of analysis. Based on the quantitative analysis, we first structured the data according to the categories governance boards and role-related participation. In a second step, we openly coded the data within these categories, inductively adding sub-categories for emerging aspects. We followed an ‘axial coding’ process with specific linked sub-categories to explain a central category (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Finally, we analysed the relationship between sub-categories of governance boards and characterised roles, first by foundation and then horizontally to identify mechanisms that explain interactions between those sub-categories.

Results

In the following, we provide an integrated discussion of results on metagovernance via governance boards in ECNs (primarily based on qualitative case study analysis) and quantitative as well as qualitative outcomes on philanthropic roles. Based on the assumption that the design and coordination of governance boards relates to the roles of philanthropic foundation in ECNs, we first present results on the former, and then centre on the latter.

Metagovernance via governance boards

The qualitative case study shows that metagovernance (i.e. the design and coordination of governance structures and processes) can be investigated as a set of governance boards that differ in competences (i.e. authorisations to shape action) and participation (see Table 2). Educational conferences and advisory boards are open-access debate platforms for all regional actors interested in and willing to participate in coordination. Network participants further build on regular thematic meetings to exchange experiences and information on specific topics (e.g. migration or sustainable development). However, the steering committee is the lead organisation and can decide on thematic and operational developments and coordination of thematic meetings is far from self-governance. The steering committee provides structure for regular, consensus-based planning and (high-level) decision-making. Steering committees determine tasks for administrative bureaus, implement strategies, pool regional actors, distribute information, and organise activities. Finally, leaders in education assume program leadership roles to conceptualise governance structures and select participating regions. They decide on resource distribution and provide multiple forms of support.

Table 2.

Governance boards, competences and participation in ECN case study.

Governance board	Competences	Participation
Program leadership	Program conceptualisation (long-term goals and priorities, content, structures, rules, etc.) Region selection General resource distribution Monitoring activities	General: Policy makers and educational administrators No philanthropic participation
Steering committee	Formulation of regional visions Strategic decision-making Vision operationalisation Regular planning and structural design Operative decision-making Regional resource distribution	General: State authorities Philanthropic participation
Advisory board	Formulation of regional visions Discussion platform Steering committee consultation Formulation of recommendations and initiative development	General: Wide range of actors Philanthropic participation
Educational conferences	Provision of information Discussion platform	General: Wide range of actors Philanthropic participation
Thematic meetings	Experiences and information exchange Platform for regionally specific profiles	General: Any education-related actor Philanthropic participation
Separate meetings of philanthropic foundations	Strategic development of collective philanthropic activities Collective opinion formation	Only philanthropic participation

Governance boards represent those types evident in the ECN case study. These board structures are congruent with a previous German-wide analysis (Koranyi and Kolleck, 2017). Competences are assigned to governance boards with reference to network statutes or program conditions. Philanthropic participation is related to activities identified in the case study.

A previous German-wide analysis of NGO participation in ECNs demonstrated that NGOs can engage in advisory boards, educational conferences, and thematic meetings (Koranyi and Kolleck, 2017), but are rarely represented in more powerful boards such as steering committees. The present case study paints a different picture to these previous findings (see Table 2, last column): First, municipal representatives approached a group of three philanthropic foundations as the program application required support from (at least) one local foundation. Local politicians and educational administrators invited foundations to join the steering committee, thematic meetings, educational conferences, and the advisory board. Following this, philanthropic foundations established a separate set of regular meetings (3–4 times per year) and formed a non-binding association. This newly established structure grew to 10 active foundations by 2014 and enabled collective engagement (e.g. funding a language development project in 2011).

Distinct role-related participation of philanthropic foundations

Our quantitative analysis indicates that networked governance is associated with distinct role-related participation. Table 3 reports frequencies, chi-square and adjusted residuals of role characterisations as a function of network participation . In general, role characterisations are more distinct in cases of more frequent participation. Adjusted to sample size, the residuals suggest post-hoc that these significant results are explained by stronger disagreement with the particular role by non-participating and stronger agreement by participating philanthropic foundations (except for the relationship-builder role). This is also confirmed by Pearson’s correlation coefficients, which range from weak to medium (0.25–0.43; see Table 4). Correlations between network participation and roles are significant, except for the grant-maker role. A further correlation exists between network participation and representative of interest (r = 0.43; p < .001). Medium correlations with the representative of interest also occur with service provider (r = 0.42; p < .001) and relationship builder (r = 0.43; p < .001).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics (frequencies, χ² and adjusted residuals) of foundations’ role-related participation based on ZiviZ survey.

	No network participation			Some network participation			Regular network participation
	n	%	Adj. Res.	n	%	Adj. Res.	n	%	Adj. Res.
Grant-maker
Disagree	15	34.1	−1.5	21	47.7	1.6	8	18.2	−.1
Neither agree nor disagree	8	38.1	−.6	9	42.9	.6	4	19.0	.1
Agree	152	46.5	1.6	114	34.9	−1.7	61	18.7	.0
Service provider
Disagree	103	58.5	6.2	55	31.3	−2.4	18	10.2	−4.7
Neither agree nor disagree	7	16.7	−3.7	21	50.0	1.8	14	33.3	2.4
Agree	29	27.6	−3.9	44	41.9	1.2	32	30.5	3.3
Innovator
Disagree	96	58.5	5.9	52	31.7	−2.0	16	9.8	−4.8
Neither agree nor disagree	18	29.0	−2.4	29	46.8	1.3	15	24.2	.9
Agree	21	23.3	−4.4	36	40.0	.7	33	36.7	4.6
Representative of interests
Disagree	111	57.5	6.8	61	31.6	−2.5	21	10.9	−5.3
Neither agree nor disagree	13	28.9	−2.0	21	46.7	1.4	11	24.4	.7
Agree	9	12.0	−6.1	34	45.3	1.7	32	42.7	5.5
Relationship-builder
Disagree	106	53.8	5.0	62	31.5	−3.0	29	14.7	−2.6
Neither agree nor disagree	10	23.3	−2.8	21	48.8	1.6	12	27.9	1.6
Agree	17	25.0	−3.4	33	48.5	2.1	18	26.5	1.7

Adj. Res.: adjusted residual.

χ² test: Grant-maker: n = 392; χ ² (4) = 3.53, p < .474; Service provider: n = 323; χ ² (4) = 44.61, p < .001; Innovator: n = 316; χ ² (4) = 44.67, p < .001; Representative of interests: n = 312; χ ² (4) = 59.77, p < .001; Relationship-builder: n = 308; χ ² (4) = 25.51, p < .001.

Adjusted residuals with a high contribution size (> +/−3.0) to the chi-square value are printed in bold.

Table 4.

Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and correlation matrix (Pearson’s) of network participation and role characterisations based on ZiviZ survey.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1 Network participation	1.75	0.75
2 Grant-maker	2.73	0.63	−0.05
3 Service provider	1.78	0.90	0.32***	−0.25***
4 Innovator	1.77	0.86	0.36***	−0.03	0.22***
5 Representative of interests	1.62	0.84	0.43***	−0.15**	0.42***	0.32***
6 Relationship-builder	1.57	0.83	0.25***	−0.05	0.27***	0.23***	0.43***

**p < .01; ***p < .001.

To show what underlying mechanisms can explain the characterisation of philanthropic foundations’ roles in ECNs, the following results combine quantitative and qualitative analyses of role-related participation. Furthermore, results are related to the design and coordination of governance boards found in the qualitative study (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Governance-related mechanisms and examples of role-related participation of foundations based on case study.

	Grant-maker	Service provider	Innovator	Representative of interests	Relationship-builder
Governance boards	Steering committee and non-binding association	Thematical meetings	Steering committee and advisory board	Steering committee and advisory board	Thematic meetings
Mechanism	Through forming an association, philanthropic foundations establish new funding systems	Additional relations to new clients help to foster operational role	Engagement as experts enables appearance as innovators	More knowledge about municipal structures develops competences and enables direct personal contact	Central position within thematic meetings enables mediating activities
Examples from the case study	Improvement of individual funding strategies with additional informationShowcasing funding impactCollective project funding	Use of meetings as a platform to contact educational actors	Participation in the conceptualisation of new developments/projects	Access to relevant communication channels and personal contactsFunding of collectively favoured projects	Request by other stakeholders to mediate between municipality and educational institutions

Only governance boards in which philanthropic foundations participate are included. Mechanisms describe means through which governance facilitates role-related participation.

Grant-maker

The quantitative analysis shows no significant difference for philanthropic foundations in ECNs (χ ² (4) = 3.53, p < .474; see Table 3). Thus, the grant-making role remains a common but unaffected role. However, the qualitative results indicate that there are changes in grant-making. Sharing technical knowledge and information on applicants within their non-binding association allows philanthropic foundations to improve funding strategies, with particular benefit for small foundations. Next, stimulated by steering committee participation, foundations make collective decisions on funding prospective projects. As a chairperson stated: ‘we considered what projects are relevant for us…So, we can fund them for longer and more sustainably, to realise the full implementation of projects’ (S6, 233–235). Thirdly, in the steering committee, administrators gave foundations room to showcase their funding impact to the municipality. Aiming at co-funding by public funds, foundations manage to reframe a successful project so that it lies within a municipality’s responsibility.

Service provider

We found significant differences between philanthropic foundations in and outside of ECNs regarding the role of a service provider (χ ² (4) = 44.61, p < .001; see Table 3). Nevertheless, this role is less evident in the case study analysis. Still, foundations engage in thematic meetings to intensify their social networks, thereby building collaborative relations to provide services and acquire projects. A chairperson concluded that ‘participation in the Regional Educational Landscape has provided us with a lot of information. It also facilitated collaboration with schools, especially regarding afternoon schooling’ (S6, 157–162).

Innovator

In line with significant results regarding the innovator role (χ ² (4) = 44.67, p < .001; see Table 3), philanthropic foundations reported that municipality representatives invite them to contribute to projects through participation in the steering committee and advisory board. Foundations confirm their role as innovators through the provision of expertise on standard practice and technical knowledge: ‘as foundations, we already have an overview, because through our grants we know many institutions that do good or less good things’ (S2, 168–171). But despite strong integration in the ECN, chairpersons reported barriers caused by a lack of transparency and communication: ‘politicians and administrators know exactly that this is our focus. Thus, this is really frustrating…that although we have expertise, we are not able to participate in the discussion on funding criteria’ (S3, 486–489)

Representative of interest

Congruent with significant quantitative findings (χ ² (4) = 59.77, p < .001; see Table 3), philanthropic foundations reported gaining increased knowledge of municipal structures and competences through participation in the steering committee and advisory board. Personal contact with municipal representatives facilitated knowledge on ‘how a municipality works and, thus, [allowed foundations to] address our concerns more precisely’ (S6, 154–156). Thus, foundations may access relevant communication channels in urban politics. They learn to ‘present foundations better and to secure some more influence to be asked more often for their opinion’ (S5, 680–683). However, they contest political decision-making influence and frame their activities as lobbying for ‘certain projects or certain thematic focuses…that means emphasising what is important to us’ (S6, 470–474). Interviewees describe their main motivation to engage in regional discourse on education as change creation. Further motives are articulated in terms of the scope to ‘gain a better profile’ for topics and projects, and to ‘use opportunities to critique common practices’. The latter describes becoming a critical friend to the municipality in the discussion of possible steps and developments, where foundations feel ‘respected, involved, and able to communicate on a level playing field’ (S1, 77–79).

Relationship-builder

In line with a small effect size within the quantitative analysis (χ ² (4) = 25.51, p < .001; see Table 3), the case study indicates that this role has limited relevance. Still, some foundations have the strategic aim to establish relations between various stakeholders. These activities underwrite support for thematic meetings between similar interested actors. Furthermore, philanthropic foundations become designated contacts for less powerful or more dependent actors because of their ECNs profile. As a chairperson with extensive involvement in the steering committee explains: ‘other institutions would come to us and ask us to make this statement because they did not dare to speak up themselves’ (S3, 352–255).

Discussion

This study explored the role-related participation of philanthropic foundations in ECNs to identify implications for (meta-)governance in educational networks. Leadership in ECNs through metagovernance is different from managerial approaches that are commonly used in schools. This work aimed to expand the understanding of NGO integration for networked leadership practices in education. The empirical analysis provides evidence of a functional diversification of German philanthropic foundations. The quantitative results show a slight correlation between network participation and the characterisation of philanthropic roles. The qualitative case study can explain underlying governance board-related mechanisms. Regarding resources contribution to network partners emphasised in other studies (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017; Ferris et al., 2007; Yemini, 2018), the grant-maker role shows non-significant quantitative results and thus no stronger engagement in ECNs. Still, the qualitative case study reveals changes in funding practices due to information sharing and collective philanthropic activities. Furthermore, whilst quantitative analysis indicates a distinct service provider role, interviewed chairpersons were less service-oriented. Further, the case study results of mechanisms underlying expertise development explain a distinct innovator role of philanthropic foundations in ECNs. Correspondingly, aspects identified in previous research are reinforced in both analyses; including added NGO expertise (Eyal and Yarm, 2018), flexibility and adjustability to address contextual challenges (Yemini et al., 2018), and innovative approaches (Kolleck, 2017).

Regarding the extension of influence on decision-making in ECNs we did not find a strong relationship builder role. This result is in contrast to Ball and colleagues (2012; 2017) and might be explained by type of philanthropy considered in this study. While Ball and colleagues (2012; 2017) focus on ‘new’ philanthropy related to corporations and wealthy individuals in global policy networks, philanthropic engagement in this study is investigated in the context of local level ECNs. Still, in line with previous research on advocacy (Ball, 2016; Ferris et al., 2007; Kappauf and Kolleck, 2018a; Lubienski et al., 2016), the qualitative analysis reveals that philanthropic foundations represent their interests at the local level within steering committees and advisory boards. This confirms that philanthropic foundations tend to engage and represent their interests in local public and political discourse given the opportunity to participate in ECNs.

Addressing the main research question, our analyses demonstrate that the design and coordination of governance boards – metagoverned by leaders of networks – impacts philanthropic involvement. In our case study, municipal educational administrators invited philanthropic foundations to engage in the steering committee, thematic meetings, educational conferences, and advisory boards. Relating back to the ‘power agents have by virtue of their privileged position within a pattern of structured relations’ (Goodwin, 2009: 680), participation in the steering committee was particularly crucial for foundations to develop influence and roles such as representatives of interest or innovators. The central governance structure of steering committees enables mechanisms such as accessing communication channels and resources, building contacts and expertise, and altering operational practices. In line with conceptual considerations, leaders of ECNs can metagovern who participates in which structures, and the competences and resources certain actors acquire.

Despite the exciting results, the present study also encounters limitations. For our quantitative analysis we conducted a secondary analysis on data collected in the ZiviZ sur-vey. This survey originally focused on selected aspects, such as the frequency of network participation. However, information about relationship structures and interaction processes was not available. To get a deeper insight into this primarily limited information, we collected further qualitative data and included supplementary information on the basis of a case study design. We used this mixed methods approach to avoid pitfalls associated with the generalisability of case study research (Yin, 2014). But our own qualitative data is limited to the statements of seven chairpersons in a single congregation. We cannot exclude the possibility that the results of the qualitative investigation are partly only valid for the specific region under study. Therefore, future studies should work on validation of the results in other regions of Germany or the world.

This study provides new knowledge for leaders in education, such as policy makers, educational administrators, school principals, and community leaders, who work in highly connected contexts. The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of structural strategies of metagovernance for NGO integration in ECNs. It shows that governance board establishment mobilises philanthropy in multiple ways. To cope with role diversification in their ECN, leaders in education should consider limiting foundations’ access to steering committees or – following a strongly participatory approach – giving up steering committees in exchange for educational conferences and thematic meetings. Alternatively, central coordination in steering committees must be bound to democratically legitimised actors (i.e. political representatives).

As leaders in education are held accountable for ECN output, we must consider power imbalances between participating groups (e.g. philanthropic foundations becoming advocates while other stakeholders are not able to articulate their interests). Leaders therefore find themselves in a dilemma: On the one hand, strong relations with philanthropic actors in networked governance create tensions with democratic principles of interest representation in public education; on the other hand, a highly restrictive metagovernance to protect from NGO advocacy reduces flexibility and interpersonal trust, an important component of collaboration (Kappauf and Kolleck, 2018b). This might negatively impact innovation and expert input by philanthropic foundations. In line with Wilkins and Gobby (forthcoming), this shows the politicised nature of governance by leaders of networks as it can both serve and exclude different interests in the education enterprise. As a practical implication, one approach to face this dilemma would be the explicit delineation of roles in the process of ECN establishment, which would publicly define how philanthropic foundations can orient themselves in their ECN activities.

Conclusion

We conclude that there are significant differences between managerial leadership in schools and leadership through metagovernance in networked contexts regarding the integration of NGOs into the education enterprise. The present article has shown that the metagovernance of ECNs is a critical factor for networked leadership to influence and shape NGO involvement. For central actors in ECNs, such as educational administrations, school administrations, influential school principals and teachers, the following options for action can be derived from our findings:

Design of governance boards: The core aspects of metagovernance include the design of participant constellations and authorisations to shape action in governance structures. The findings suggest that the design of governance boards allows philanthropic foundations to involve by particular roles (see Table 5). Particularly, leaders of ECNs must pay attention to the design of central governance structures (i.e. steering committees) that provide privileged positions to network participants.

Coordination in governance boards: Another critical aspect of metagovernance is the specification of coordination routines. This refers to formal details (e.g. frequency of board meetings), but also general rules of coordination such as the process of agenda setting or the choice of a thematic focus with implications to resource allocation. Accordingly, leaders of ECNs should monitor interactions in governance boards.

Negotiation with NGOs in and outside of networked governance: Furthermore, leaders in education must monitor and involve in ongoing negotiations in and outside of ECNs. In this study, we were able to show how philanthropic foundations form a separate group with politicians and educational administrations and thus expand their advocacy strategies in order to gain influence and legitimacy.

This article presents new findings on the topic of networked leadership with the aim of contributing to the knowledge in governance research in education. Further studies could build on the findings and, for example, further supplement comparisons between leadership through the metagovernance of networks and other forms of leadership. Since previous research suggests that NGO participation ‘may reduce the government’s supervision of and responsibility over public education and increase student inequality’ (Sagie et al., 2016: 472), the transfer of responsibility for aspects of education to philanthropic foundations in practice requires further studies on the legitimacy of philanthropic action in education and its effects on aspects such as social inequality.

Further studies are also needed on the dilemma between restrictive-regulatory and participatory governmental responsibility in networks. To resolve this dilemma, we need to critically study how and on what political and ethical basis leaders in education decide about participation of NGOs. Such research could provide education managers with further insights into how they systematically develop their leadership skills in metagovernance.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers and Julia Lohmann for their valuable feedback, as well as all interview partners for participating in this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We are grateful to the ZiviZ-Survey team and the Stifterverband, in person of Jana Priemer, for data access permission.

ORCID iDs

Franz Koranyi

Nina Kolleck

Notes

References

Adloff

Schwertmann

Sprengel

Strachwitz

(2007) Visions and roles of foundations in Germany. In: Anheier

Daly

(eds) The Politics of Foundations: A Comparative Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 172–185.

Ansell

Torfing

(2016) Introduction: theories of governance. In: Ansell

Torfing

(eds) Handbook on Theories of Governance: Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–17.

Ball

(2008) New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies 56(4): 747–765.

Ball

(2012) Global education inc: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London: Routledge.

Ball

(2016) Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy 31(5): 549–566.

Ball

Junemann

(2012) Networks, new governance and education. Bristol, Chicago, IL: Policy Press.

Ball

Junemann

Santori

(2017) Edu.net: Globalisation and education policy mobility. London: Routledge.

Bevir

Rhodes

RAW

(2006) Governance stories. London: Routledge.

Börzel

(1998) Organizing Babylon: On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration 76(2): 253–273.

10.

Bryman

(2012) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Bush

(2011) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. London: SAGE.

12.

Christopoulos

(2008) The governance of networks: Heuristic or formal analysis? A reply to Rachel Parker. Political Studies 56(2): 475–481.

13.

Corbin

Strauss

(2015) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

14.

Creswell

(2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

15.

Crosby

Bryson

(2010) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 211–230.

16.

Díaz-Gibson

Zaragoza

Daly

Mayayo

Romaní

(2017) Networked leadership in educational collaborative networks. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(6): 1040–1059.

17.

Edwards

Lunt

Stamou

(2010) Inter-professional work and expertise: New roles at the boundaries of schools. British Educational Research Journal 36(1): 27–45.

18.

Emerson

Nabatchi

Balogh

(2011) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 1–29.

19.

Eyal

Yarm

(2018) Schools in cross-sector alliances: what do schools seek in partnerships? Educational Administration Quarterly 54(4): 648–688.

20.

Ferris

Hentschke

Harmssen

(2007) Philanthropic strategies for school reform. Educational Policy 22(5): 705–730.

21.

Feys

Devos

(2014) What comes out of incentivized collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(5): 738–754.

22.

Gessler

Ashmawy

(2016) The effect of political decentralization on school leadership in German vocational schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(2): 184–204.

23.

Goodwin

(2009) Which networks matter in education governance? A reply to Ball’s ‘New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education’. Political Studies 57(3): 680–687.

24.

Grimaldi

Serpieri

(2014) Italian education beyond hierarchy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4_suppl): 119–138.

25.

Hysing

Lundberg

(2016) Making governance networks more democratic: lessons from the Swedish governmental commissions. Critical Policy Studies 10(1): 21–38.

26.

Jessop

(2002) The Future of Welfare State. Cambridge: Polity Press.

27.

Kappauf

Kolleck

(2018a) Macht und Partizipation in einem multiprofessionellen Bildungsverbund [Power and participation in multiprofessional educational networks]. Die Deutsche Schule 110(3): 199–212.

28.

Kappauf

Kolleck

(2018b) Vertrauen im Bildungsverbund: Skizze einer Theorie zu Dimensionen interpersonalen Vertrauens [Trust in education networks: Outlining a theory of dimensions of interpersonal trust]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 21(5): 1–18.

29.

Keast

(2016) Network governance. In: Ansell

Torfing

(eds) Handbook on Theories of Governance. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 442–453.

30.

Knoke

Urban Pappi

Broadbent

Tsujinaka

, et al. (1996) Comparing policy networks: Labor politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Kolleck

(2016) Uncovering influence through social network analysis: The role of schools in education for sustainable development. Journal of Education Policy 31(3): 308–329.

32.

Kolleck

(2017) How (German) foundations shape the concept of education: Towards an understanding of their use of discourses. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38(2): 249–261.

33.

Kolleck

(2019) The power of third sector organizations in public education. Journal of Educational Administration 57(4): 411–425.

34.

Kolleck

Brix

(2017) Rollen und Advocacy von Stiftungen in Bildungslandschaften [Roles and advocacy of foundations in educational landscapes]. In: Olk

Schmachtel-Maxfield

(eds) Educational Governance in kommunalen Bildungslandschaften: Empirische Befunde und kritische Reflexionen. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa, pp. 251–273.

35.

Kolleck

De Haan

Fischbach

(2012) Qualitätssicherung in der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung: Netzwerke, Kommunen und Qualitätsentwicklung im Kontext der UN-Dekade „Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung“ [Quality assurance within Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Networks, local authorities and quality development in the context of UN-decade of ESD]. In: BMBF (ed.) Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung – Beiträge der Bildungsforschung. Berlin, pp. 115–142.

36.

Kolleck

Rieck

Yemini

(2020) Goals aligned: Predictors of common goal identification in educational cross-sectoral collaboration initiatives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 48(5): 916–934.

37.

Koranyi

Kolleck

(2017) The role of out-of-school organizations in German regionalization programs: A qualitative content analysis of opportunities for participation. Journal for Educational Research Online 9(3): 141–166.

38.

Koranyi

Kolleck

(2018) Roles of local foundations in German community-based initiatives: Devolving criticism of philanthropy to the local? Education Policy Analysis Archives 26: 139.

39.

Lubienski

(2014) Re-making the middle: Dis-intermediation in international context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(3): 423–440.

40.

Lubienski

Brewer

La Londe

(2016) Orchestrating policy ideas: Philanthropies and think tanks in US education policy advocacy networks. The Australian Educational Researcher 43(1): 55–73.

41.

Lubienski

Perry

(2019) The third sector and innovation: competitive strategies, incentives, and impediments to change. Journal of Educational Administration 57(4): 329–344.

42.

Malin

Hackmann

(2019) Integrative leadership and cross-sector reforms: high school career academy implementation in an urban district. Educational Administration Quarterly 55(2): 189–224.

43.

Mayntz

Scharpf

(1995) Der Ansatz des akteurszentrierten Institutionalismus [The actor-centred institutional approach]. In: Mayntz

Scharpf

(eds) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung: Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 39–72.

44.

Mandell

Keast

(2009) A new look at leadership in collaborative networks: Process catalysts. In: Raffel

Leisink

Middlebrooks

(eds) Public sector leadership: International challenges and perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 163–178.

45.

Peurach

(2016) Innovating at the nexus of impact and improvement: leading educational improvement networks. Educational Researcher 45(7): 421–429.

46.

Prado Tuma

Spillane

(2019) Novice school principals constructing their role vis-à-vis external stakeholders: (Not) attempting to be ‘all things to all people’. Educational Administration Quarterly 55(5): 812–840.

47.

Priemer

Krimmer

Labigne

(2017) ZiviZ-Survey 2017: Vielfalt verstehen, Zusammenhalt stärken [Understanding diversity, fostering cohesion]. Berlin: Stifterverband.

48.

Priemer

Mohr

(2018) ZiviZ-Survey 2017: Vereine, Stiftungen und Co: Die neuen Bildungsakteure? [Associations, foundations and more: The new educational actors?]. Berlin: Stifterverband.

49.

Provan

Fish

Sydow

(2016) Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management 33(3): 479–516.

50.

Provan

Kenis

(2008) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2): 229–252.

51.

Reich

(2018) Just giving: Why philanthropy is failing democracy and how it can do better. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

52.

Rhodes

RAW

(1996) The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies 44(4): 652–667.

53.

Saltman

(2010) The gift of education: Public education and venture philanthropy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

54.

Sagie

Yemini

Bauer

(2016) School-NGO interaction: case studies of Israel and Germany. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36(7/8): 469–490.

55.

Sørensen

Torfing

(2005) Network governance and post-liberal democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis 27(2): 197–237.

56.

Sørensen

Torfing

(2009) Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration 87(2): 234–258.

57.

Sørensen

Torfing

(2018) The democratizing impact of governance networks: from pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership. Public Administration 96(2): 302–317.

58.

Thümler

(2011) Foundations, schools and the state. Public Management Review 13(8): 1095–1116.

59.

Thümler

(2017) Philanthropy in Practice: Pragmatism and the Impact of Philanthropic Action. New York, NY: Routledge.

60.

Townsend

(2015) Leading school networks: Hybrid leadership in action? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(5): 719–737.

61.

Vangen

Hayes

Cornforth

(2015) Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Management Review 17(9): 1237–1260.

62.

Wilkins

(2016) Modernising School Governance: Corporate Planning and Expert Handling in State Education. London: Routledge.

63.

Wilkins

Gobby

(forthcoming) Governance and educational leadership: Studies in education policy and politics. In: Courtney

Gunter

Niesche

Trujillo

(eds) Understanding Educational Leadership: Critical Perspectives and Approaches. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–26.

64.

Yemini

(2018) Conceptualizing the role of nonprofit intermediaries in pursuing entrepreneurship within schools in Israel. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(6): 980–996.

65.

Yemini

Cegla

Sagie

(2018) A comparative case-study of school-LEA-NGO interactions across different socio-economic strata in Israel. Journal of Education Policy 33(2): 243–261.

66.

Yin

(2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.