Which Standards to Follow? The Plurality of Conventions of French Principals Within the School Organization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is interesting, and perhaps more suitable to a philosophical or sociological journal. It claims to focus on a  consideration of 'principals' interpretations and cognitions in various situations,' aligns itself with 'interactionist sociology and ethnomethodology,' and 'embraces the dualistic opposition .....[ between the neoliberal policy press of governments and the moral agency of principals]. In reality, much of the text engages in a lengthy consideration of moral dilemmas faced by principals, without establishing the meso contexts, other than through a few quotations, which they influence within the larger national contexts and conditions which apply. This is framed with a rather opaque, extended discussion of different kinds of 'worth' and 'conventions' postulated by the authors. Three or four quotations drawn from interviews with 14 principals who attended a professional development program, and about whom readers know very little, does not adequately reflect the methodological claims made. So, in summary, whilst this article has a philosophical turn, the authors need to restructure so that they avoins straying too far from justifying their early claims and adding to knowledge of leadership in schools. The canvas on which they write is too broad and loses focus. A Table distinguishing the differences between the countries to which they refer might help, but more than that is needed.

Author Response

We established the meso context and reframed our analysis in relation to the expectations and outcomes of the ISSPP research program, demonstrating how the conventions could be situated within broader contexts. We enhanced the accessibility and visibility of the conventions and categories for the reader. Our methodology has been clarified, and we have strengthened the connection between our analysis and the latest knowledge on school leadership. Additionally, we have narrowed the scope to focus more on leadership issues rather than social theory. A comprehensive table of conventions has been created, accompanied by examples that are referenced throughout the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A critical theory stance in the French case of school principalship does not have much to contribute. The field is in its infancy.

I do not understand the reference to the ISSPP, as this research project has no French study. I suggest adopting one theoretical perspective that is epistemologically coherent (positivist rather than critical). The authors can improve their paper, and there is a real need to publish on this topic about France

Author Response

We have positioned this French study within the broader ISSPP context by adopting a more coherent, comprehensive, and comparative theoretical approach.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. General comments:

The manuscript explores the diverse conventions and moral engagements of French school principals, offering a valuable contribution to educational leadership studies. The theoretical foundation is strong, drawing on pragmatic sociology and theories of conventions. However, the manuscript requires substantial improvement in structure, clarity, and methodological transparency.

The abstract is dense and lacks a clear presentation of research objectives and methods. The introduction effectively contrasts normative managerialism with critical perspectives but should clearly state the research questions. The theoretical sections are rich but overly complex, with limited connections to practical examples of French principals’ experiences.

The methods section lacks transparency. Critical details about sampling, ethical considerations, interview design, and data analysis are missing. The conclusion effectively summarizes the focus on moral agency but should explicitly state the study's contributions, limitations, and implications.

 

2. Major comments:

• The objectives of the study are not clearly stated in the abstract or the introduction. I recommend stating the study’s main aim and the research questions guiding the investigation.
• The introduction should more clearly differentiate between the literature review and the study’s objectives. The final paragraphs should explicitly state the research problem, objectives, and significance of the study.
• Ensure that the theoretical framework is clearly connected to the practical examples in each section, particularly in "The French Principal Tested Accountability." The connection between theory and practice should be explicit.
• Use clear subheadings to separate theoretical concepts from practical examples (e.g., Tests of Authority). This will improve readability and clarity.
• Ensure that each practical example of French principals is directly connected to the theoretical concepts (e.g., tests, conventions, moral agency) to avoid a purely descriptive narrative.
• Revise the conclusion to explicitly state the main contributions of the study, acknowledge its limitations, and suggest directions for future research. Clarify the implications for educational policy and leadership practice.
• The methods section lacks a clear description of the sampling procedure for the interviews. It is important to specify how the 15 principals were selected and whether any sampling criteria were used.
• The description of the interviews should include details on how the interview questions were developed, how they align with the theoretical framework, and how the data were analyzed (coding, categorization, etc.).
• Clarify whether the interviews were conducted by a single researcher or a team and how the researchers' roles may have influenced the interactions.
• Provide details on the coding process, including whether software (e.g., NVivo, MAXQDA) was used, whether any inter-coder reliability checks were performed, and how the theoretical framework guided the categorization of data.
• The ethical procedures for the interviews should be briefly mentioned in the methods section.

3. Minor comments:

• Ensure that the spelling of "Leadership" is corrected in the keywords section.
• Provide a clearer connection between the ISSPP and Nordic studies and the specific focus on French school principals.
• Ensure that all referenced studies are correctly cited and listed in the reference section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The language of the manuscript is generally clear but can be further refined for better readability.

Author Response

We have refined the abstract and clarified the objectives and research questions in the introduction. The theoretical sections have been streamlined, and a methodological section has been added to outline the procedures employed and the ethical considerations observed. We have also emphasized the limitations and implications of the study.

 

The introduction has been distinctly separated from the presentation of the relevant literature. Additionally, we have enhanced the connection between the theoretical framework and practical examples.

 

The sub-headings have been revised for improved clarity, and the conclusion has been reworked to highlight the study's contributions and limitations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a much improved text. However, its authority still suffers from the limitations of i) a misunderstanding that Northern Europe research findings about effective leadership differ from those of scholars in other southern european and american contexts. They do not; ii) as is acknowledged in the 'limitations' section of the text, the use of a 'conventions' conceptual framework leads to an over-simplification and inappropriate generalisation of the interpretation of the interview data ( use of ideal types. If the authors were able to attend to these two points, then this text would be worth revising and resubmitting. 

Author Response

Reviews

Comments

First Review This is a much improved text. However, its authority still suffers from the limitations of i) a misunderstanding that Northern Europe research findings about effective leadership differ from those of scholars in other southern european and american contexts. They do not; ii) as is acknowledged in the 'limitations' section of the text, the use of a 'conventions' conceptual framework leads to an over-simplification and inappropriate generalisation of the interpretation of the interview data ( use of ideal types. If the authors were able to attend to these two points, then this text would be worth revising and resubmitting.

We have outlined the limitations on pages 5 and 14-15. The framework has been tested in a comparative book published by the author and several colleagues, using case studies from various countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland, England, New Zealand, the USA, Hong Kong, mainland China), but it still requires further empirical development. The French case represents an initial attempt here.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. General comments:

The revised manuscript shows improvement in structure and clarity. The abstract presents the study’s focus and methodology more directly. The introduction now separates literature review from the statement of objectives, which are more clearly articulated. A methods section has been added and outlines key procedural and ethical aspects. Subheadings are clearer, and the conclusion highlights the study’s contributions and limitations.

The connection between theory and data is more consistent. The theoretical framework remains dense in places and could be made more accessible. The presentation of empirical examples is improved but can be more clearly linked to key concepts.

2. Major comments:

• The added methodology section adequately addresses previous concerns about sampling. It explains purposive sampling based on relevant criteria, and outlines access procedures and ethical safeguards. Minor clarifications could enhance transparency (e.g., on coding validation).
• The link between theory and data is clearer, but each vignette should be briefly introduced and followed by a comment clarifying the convention it illustrates.
• Emphasising the distinctiveness of the French context in contrast to other international cases would reinforce its relevance.

3. Minor comments:

• The ethical procedures are now addressed. If applicable, state whether approval was obtained from an institutional review board or equivalent.

Author Response

Second Review General comments: Major comments: The added methodology section adequately addresses previous concerns about sampling. It explains purposive sampling based on relevant criteria, and outlines access procedures and ethical safeguards. Minor clarifications could enhance transparency (e.g., on coding validation). The link between theory and data is clearer, but each vignette should be briefly introduced and followed by a comment clarifying the convention it illustrates. Emphasising the distinctiveness of the French context in contrast to other international cases would reinforce its relevance. Minor comments: The ethical procedures are now addressed. If applicable, state whether approval was obtained from an institutional review board or equivalent.

A breakdown of the main categories and sub-categories used in the corpus and their percentage distribution is presented in the appendix and indicated in the methodology section         Changes have been made accordingly.   This clarification has been included in the limitations section.       We do not have this kind of procedure in France.