By embedding the school as an organization within the context of school networks, existing structures are disrupted (“structural liquefaction,” Altrichter and Langer, 2008) and expanded through new rules and resources. Expanded in the sense that there is (limited) change, stabilization, and/or replacement of structures, leading to a facilitation of work and a successful development process. In other words, all involved actors manage, through mutual coordination, to reflexively get a handle on their structures and reshape them in such a way that they achieve the desired effect (Altrichter and Langer, 2008). A school network, i.e., a network between schools and potentially other actors relevant to the educational task, can be understood as a specific form of social network. Like other social networks, it is based on the relationships of the involved individuals and aims to regulate coordination needs and optimize coordination processes to better deliver certain pedagogical and organizational services (e.g., the external representation of an individual school) (Wald and Jansen, 2007; Sydow, 2010). Complex tasks (e.g., initiated by education policy) can be solved more effectively and economically in this way. The special quality of task processing within the network is assumed to be achieved through trust, sustainable social relationships, coordinated behavioral expectations (rules), better quality and access to resources, the interaction of different competencies as well as the provision of alternative courses of action.

To be capable of action, actors possess knowledge: both discursively accessible, explicit knowledge and practical knowledge, which is not directly accessible through language but is instead embedded in the routines and self-evident practices of everyday life. This knowledge is the result of familial and professional socialization processes (within teacher education but also through the school as a workplace) (Paseka, 2023).

An additional actor in the field of agency, from whom a significant contribution to the success of school development processes is expected, is School Development Consulting (SDC). The task of school development consultants is to support individual schools in their organizational, professional, and instructional development in such a way that not only is school quality (in the sense of the quality framework for schools) improved, but also the school’s capacity for self-regulation is strengthened (Altrichter et al., 2021; BMBWF, 2024). In Upper Austria, SDC is institutionally anchored within the University of Education Upper Austria (BMBWF, 2024). This institutional positioning creates additionally an interface between practice and research and, thereby, opens a perspective for developing SDC within networks in the sense of Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs), understood as long-term collaborations which work toward educational improvement and sustainable transformation (Farrell et al., 2021). According to Adenstedt (2016), SDC refers to forms of work and collaboration between individual schools and external educators who are not part of the school’s teaching staff. These external educators use targeted, professional approaches to provide school-specific solutions to problems or to enhance the problem-solving skills of the teaching staff. The approaches vary in terms of content-related aspects (goals, topics) and organizational aspects (duration, content sequencing, target group, etc.) To achieve this, they offer specific services such as alternative courses of action, tailored solutions, broadening the school’s perspective by providing an external viewpoint, breaking routines, process facilitation, creating or increasing acceptance, and imparting new knowledge (Dedering, 2024). SDC can be positioned on a continuum between the two poles of expert/specialist consulting and process consulting, or conceptually distinguished between instruction-centered SDC and organization-centered SDC (Figure 1) (Dedering et al., 2022; Goecke, 2018). A clear separation between the two types presented is not always possible.

To clarify the significance of the concept of consulting, it is important to reflect on the different implications and effects of terms that often appear together, such as “consulting” and “guidance,” from a language-analytical perspective (Krainz, 2025). This analysis makes it possible to more clearly differentiate the objectives and effects of consulting and guidance and to integrate them more consciously into the context of school development. While consulting, through its intervention-oriented nature, carries the potential for change—encouraging the questioning of existing structures and the exploration of new possibilities—guidance is more adaptation-oriented and aims at stabilization and support within existing frameworks (Krainz, 2025).

Goecke (2018) classifies SDC as a “professional form of consulting” that should be regarded as “organizational consulting.” His theoretical approach to SDC is based on organizational consulting as a social system (Dedering et al., 2013; Goecke, 2018), which focuses on three different system levels: the client system, the consultant system, and the consulting system (Goecke, 2018).

From the perspective of the client system, the following three elements are particularly relevant: (1) the organizational and structural prerequisites (e.g., type of school, size, stage of development, or prerequisites in the form of motivational attitudes toward counseling), (2) the expectations of the consulting (either clearly formulated and described or very vague), and (3) the perception of the consulting (intentions, goals, and strategies of the consulting that are received and influence one’s own actions, which in turn lead to interactions with the consultant’s actions) (Goecke, 2018).

From the perspective of the consultant system, the following three elements, which determine the actions of the consultants, are particularly relevant: (1) knowledge and competencies (scientific knowledge of the counselors, knowledge based on their profession and experience in previous consulting processes; personal, communicative, content-related, and methodological competencies), (2) strategies and concepts (the counselors’ concept for their own professional actions), and (3) second-order observations (observing changes that occur in connection with the consulting) (Goecke, 2018).

The consulting system encompasses all interventions and interactions between the client and consultant systems within the framework of the consulting process, from the initial contact and the creation of a consulting contract to consulting interventions and final reports (Goecke, 2018).

In the joint actions of the actors, structures can be changed, reshaped, or reimagined and implemented. What is crucial is the ability of the participants to reflexively intervene in the flow of actions, question routines, and act differently than expected (Altrichter and Langer, 2008; Paseka, 2023). Networking plays a central role in this process: it creates space for exchange, joint reflection, trust, sustainable social relationships, coordinated behavioral expectations, better quality and access to information, the interaction of different competencies, and the generation of knowledge. Adapting the content learned in the school network to the context of the individual school (“recontextualization,” Fend, 2008) is the responsibility of the respective school itself. This adaptation from the network level to the level of the individual school is a critical point that must be considered in school development work (Holtappels, 2019). This is where SDC comes into play, effectively supporting this process with the help of specific strategies by creating a framework in which actors can make their goals and actions visible, drive a collective learning process, and thereby achieve quality improvement. School development consultants support this process with their subject-matter and process knowledge, creating a certain distance from the school.

To systematically analyze and discuss the specific contribution of SDC within a concrete network, it is necessary to identify which aspects promote or hinder school development in general and within networks.

Gräsel (2010) distinguishes four dimensions of characteristics that either promote or hinder school development: first, the innovation itself; second, the teachers; third, the individual school; and fourth, the environment and its support for the transfer. If innovation is perceived as a benefit or a facilitation of work, it is more likely to be adopted. If teachers feel competent with the innovation and are able to individually modify it, the likelihood of adoption increases (Gräsel, 2010). Within the individual school, the support of the school leadership (Gräsel et al., 2006) and collaboration among the teaching staff are two key factors for successful school development (Gräsel, 2010). If the environment is relatively stable and there are not too many other innovations, this can facilitate the implementation of the innovation (Gräsel, 2010). The school leadership plays a central role in shaping the school development process: it initiates and supports processes but can also hinder them (Rolff, 2018b). If processes are enforced against the will of the teaching staff by leveraging hierarchy, resistance may arise (Terhart, 2016). Additional hindering factors for school development include a lack of scientific authorities for practice, a shortage of change agents, and the absence of economic incentives for change, as the school system is not subject to economic competition (Gräsel, 2010). Traditional values and attitudes also influence the adoption of innovations (Gräsel, 2010). Of particular interest for the present discussion context is the fact that school development is particularly successful when schools collaborate with other schools (Rolff, 2018a). In the context of school networks, numerous forms of cooperation occur, which also include potential external partners such as NGOs, cultural institutions, environmental protection associations, sports clubs etc. If universities are also part of a school network, their expertise in scientific research and findings can be utilized within Research Practice Partnerships (RPPs) (Penuel et al., 2021). For school network work to be perceived as successful by participants, mutual trust and supportive school leadership that fosters acceptance of the network within the teaching staff are particularly relevant (Fussnagel and Gräsel, 2012). It is the responsibility of the school leadership to ensure that their school is actively engaged in the school network (Brown, 2019). The importance of regular school network meetings has been empirically substantiated (Gurvich, 2019). The experiences of other schools facing similar challenges can be particularly relevant for school practice and thus beneficial for a school network (Buhren and Rolff, 2012). School networks can be considered as instruments of school development when they not only initiate individual learning processes for the participating actors but also transfer the learning process from the network level to the level of the individual school. A transfer strategy can facilitate this (Manitius and Berkemeyer, 2015), for example, through SDC. The advantages include, among other things, providing the individual school with more resources (Buhren and Rolff, 2012). Additionally, support through expert consulting can provide input, mediate impartially, incorporate the latest research findings, and offer a new perspective by reevaluating work and achievements (Buhren and Rolff, 2012). Findings on the connection between school networks and the role of SDC by Kamarianakis and Webs (2019) indicate that school development consultants contribute in three central ways: First, they facilitate the transfer between individual schools and networks by collaboratively developing and demonstrating practical ways to use network content to support and implement the development goals of individual schools. Second, they encourage the establishment and expansion of sustainable structures within schools to support the transfer and implementation of network content (e.g., through collaborative work on embedding concepts in the school program or institutionalizing teams). Third, they assist schools in selecting topics for (internal) teacher training, considering the schools’ development goals.

The subject of the following presented study is the school network “Shaping Society by Fostering Democracy in Schools” (SSDS) in Upper Austria. The network aims to promote democratic quality development in individual schools and serves as a support system for participating schools by providing additional resources, particularly additional support through SDC.

The school network was established in 2020 and aims to “contribute to the development of a democratic school culture and the establishment of sustainable regional educational partnerships [..]” (Fahrenwald, 2024). The development of this network is overseen by the University of Education Upper Austria and funded by the foundation “Bildung Tomorrow¹” in Vienna. The core idea is to connect schools that are committed to democratic school development and to facilitate continuous and professional exchange among them. The schools participating in the network integrate the “Service-Learning” approach into their teaching and collaborate with either external or internal partners as part of project work. The goal is to enable students to experience democratic participation and societal engagement while also opening schools to the broader community. Currently, 10 schools are part of the network: two primary schools, four middle schools, three general secondary schools, and one vocational secondary school. Admission to the network primarily occurs through self-identification and application by the school or through targeted invitations from the network. Many of the schools already have years of experience with (socially engaged) project work and are now systematically aligning their project work with democratic education principles through Service-Learning.

From the outset, participating schools receive guidance and support in their school development processes related to the implementation of Service-Learning from a team of school development consultants from the University of Education Upper Austria, consisting of a tandem of two consultants per school. Additionally, the schools benefit from continuous scientific monitoring and research, relevant professional development opportunities, the training of multipliers, and annual networking meetings. Support is also provided by the NGO “füruns. Zentrum für Zivilgesellschaft,”² which facilitates connections between schools and external partners from civil society. Furthermore, the Austrian network’s international exchange with the Service-Learning network in Berlin³ and the Erasmus+ project “Service-Learning for Democracy in Europe⁴” (SLEAD) (Fahrenwald, 2024) provides additional inspiration.

The SSDS school network functions as a support system for school quality development on two levels: At the individual school level, on-site support is provided by school development consultants as part of SDC. At the network level, schools collaborate to advance shared school development processes, with a focus on trust-based cooperation, mutual exchange, and the joint use of resources (Table 1).

The empirical study was preceded by a literature review on school development through networking and SDC (Froschauer, 2025). It shows that a network-based organization of school development, supported by SDC, could promote the realization of research-established conditions for successful school development in three dimensions: A professionally organized school network with clear objectives and coordinated process design supports school improvement when consulting is closely aligned and, where necessary, assumes network management to prevent interference and leverage synergies. Networks create exchange, trust, and synergies for innovation; school development consultants ensure transfer between the individual school and the network, foster sustainable structures, and align professional development with development goals, thereby generating continuity, professionalization, and additional support. Networks offer training and best-practice exchange, while consulting identifies suitable examples, provides support to the needs of the individual school and ensures that school and network processes do not hinder one another but instead interconnect and reinforce each other.

To empirically differentiate the dimensions identified in the review, and given the exploratory nature of the study, a qualitative research design was chosen. This approach aims to gather detailed information about the school development process of individual schools within the network and the support elements perceived during this process, acknowledging the limited research to date on SDC within the context of school networks.

This study presented here follows a qualitative descriptive-exploratory approach, based on guided expert interviews (Helfferich, 2019). The interview guide was based on challenges and success factors for school development in general, as well as for school development within networks, as described in the literature to allow participants to report as freely as possible in order to obtain experience-near descriptions of concrete events and actions in the school development process, in line with the research question. It served as a thematic frame with a focus on situational episodes rather than mere attitudes. Opinions and memories were elicited in line with the topic by first using open entry questions from the guide and subsequently applying systematic deepening and clarification techniques. Specifically, for example, following the open question about the perception of the SSDS school network, episode questions were used by asking about concrete events, impulses, processes, and conditions regarding the school development process. Paraphrasing, interim summaries, and follow-up questions were used to refine meanings. Contrast questions were used to make situations and conditions visible (e.g., “Were there perhaps critical points and/or stressful situations within the consulting process?”). Through this way of conducting the interviews—from the general to the specific—not only perceptions were gathered, but also living experiences and causal relationships could be reconstructed.

As part of the study, actors/stakeholders most involved in the school development and consulting processes at the individual schools and in the establishment of the school network were interviewed (N = 14). The sample included six schools (two elementary schools, two lower track schools, and two higher track schools), three teams of two school development consultants each, and the project coordinator of the school network. At each school, either the principal or the project-leading teacher participated; in one case, both actors participated together (Table 2).

The relationships established between the interviewer and the interviewees during school network meetings fostered a trusting conversational atmosphere and enabled open and nuanced insights.

For the analysis, the structured qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker (2022) was chosen, as it allows for a systematic yet flexible analysis of extensive interview data. The category system was developed based on supportive and hindering conditions for facilitating school development processes within a school network. To ensure intersubjective traceability, Table 3 provides a list of the category system, including coding rules and exemplary anchor examples. The three main categories “School-Internal Factors,” “School-External Factors,” and “Network-Related Factors” were developed based on existing research on success factors for school development processes and school networks. In the first coding round, they were established as deductive main categories with corresponding subcategories in MaxQDA. Within the subcategory “School Development Consulting”, relevant text passages were inductively divided into subcategories. For the main category “Network-Related Factors”, the subcategory “Opening of School Development Consulting” was added inductively. This allowed the analysis to be both theory- and data-driven. During the course of the analysis, iterative adjustments to the categories were made (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2024).

Based on the accounts of the respondents, it can be noted that SDC within the SSDS school network is perceived as a mediating, trust-building, professionally supportive, transfer-promoting, structuring, and network-stabilizing entity. It connects the level of individual schools with the network level as well as the involved actors, thereby creating the foundation for school development processes. A particularly significant contribution of SDC in the context of the SSDS school network seems to lie in ensuring that the ideas developed within the network do not remain abstract but become effective within the specific contexts of individual schools.

To achieve this, SDC provides resources: on the one hand, school development consultants create a trusting framework that enables school actors to structurally implement the Service-Learning approach. In this context, the practical relevance and the well-founded expertise of the school development consultants prove to be particularly important. In the present study, the consultants are exclusively school-affiliated, with some additionally working as teachers, which further deepens their expertise and understanding of school processes.

A central aspect that stands out in the work of SDC within the SSDS school network is the emphasis on expert/specialist consulting as opposed to general process consulting. The consultants see their strength primarily in providing content-related and practically oriented support for teaching development. This is also highlighted by the statements of one school development consultant:

This statement highlights that SDC within the school network is particularly effective in providing expert/specialist consulting and practical support to teachers. In contrast to process consulting, which focuses on the problem-solving competence of the client system, the emphasis here is on the further development of teaching concepts and the promotion of innovative pedagogical approaches. The consultants contribute not only theoretical knowledge but also their own practical experiences, which increases the acceptance and effectiveness of their guidance among school actors.

The significance of expert/specialist consulting in the context of the SSDS school network stands in tension with existing scientific findings that primarily describe SDC as long-term process support in the field of organizational development. Studies such as those by Dedering et al. (2013), Adenstedt (2016), and Hofbauer and Bernhard (2023) emphasize that school development consultants often act as process experts who assist schools with comprehensive and complex tasks related to school development. In particular, the study by Hofbauer and Bernhard (2023) shows that the vast majority of surveyed school development consultants perceive themselves as process experts.

A key difference that must be considered in the present study is the specific context of a school network. The findings of this study suggest that within the SSDS school network, expert/specialist consulting focused on the implementation of the Service-Learning approach is perceived by both the consultants and school actors as particularly effective and appropriate. This may be partly because schools involved in a school network often already have some prior experience with school development and innovations, and the implementation of the Service-Learning approach is guided by quality criteria that provide structure. In this case, the consultants can specifically address the unique needs of the actors and provide practical and scientifically grounded support:

The studies by Dedering et al. (2013) and Adenstedt (2016) refer to SDC in a broader context, which often involves fundamental and structural changes within individual schools. In such contexts, which are frequently characterized by profound organizational transformations, process consulting appears to play a central role in enabling long-term and sustainable changes. However, the results of the present study indicate that within a school network, where exchange and collaboration between schools on a specific topic (Service-Learning) are the primary focus, expert/specialist consulting can gain greater importance.

The results of the present study indicate that in a school network based on trust, stable relationships, collaboration, as well as exchange and networking between schools, professional consultation as a form of guidance on equal footing can gain relevance. The respondents emphasized that SDC specifically supports the translation of the network’s abstract ideas into concrete measures tailored to the context of individual schools. In this process, no pressure was exerted by SDC. Instead, the SSDS school network and SDC were perceived as a source of guidance and as an opportunity to make the work of individual schools visible, recognized, and appreciated.

A school principal described the role of the SDC in the following words:

This statement illustrates that SDC, for him, represents a supportive and pleasant process, comparable to a visit to the hairdresser or a relaxed coffee break, where one can sit back and receive positive impulses. In this context, the consulting is perceived as a pleasant asset made accessible through membership in the network. It provides scientifically grounded insights and structured professional advice in manageable portions, which is appreciated by the participants.

At the same time, a tension becomes apparent between the trusting collaboration in the spirit of the network idea and the objectives of SDC, which aim to improve school quality and break established routines. It is interesting that even the school development consultants themselves expressed critical views about the consulting process within the Service-Learning school network:

It seems that the consulting did not always achieve the necessary depth to initiate the desired change processes, while simultaneously attempting to foster collaboration in the spirit of the network. This issue becomes particularly evident in the statement of a consultant who, after the microphone was turned off, even described the consulting as “pseudo-consulting.” Overall, it becomes clear that SDC within the SSDS school network faces the contradiction of, on the one hand, initiating whole-school change processes, and on the other hand, creating offerings that are “easy to digest” in the spirit of the network idea (cooperation, trust, exchange) to promote acceptance and prevent schools from leaving the network. The critical feedback from the consultants should therefore be taken as an opportunity to consciously reflect on the specific characteristics of consulting within networks and to further develop the consulting approach in such a way that the interaction of both support systems (SDC and school networks) can be better aligned.

To better understand the contributions of SDC within the SSDS school network, its role was analyzed and divided into four professional functions (see Figure 2) that SDC fulfills in this context. These functions highlight the significant importance of SDC for school development, both at the individual school level and the network level, particularly regarding sustainability. The following sections provide a detailed explanation of these functions and examine their relevance to the interaction between the two support systems in the context of school development.

The evaluation shows that staff turnover, particularly in key positions such as school leadership or project management, represents one of the greatest challenges for the continuity of school development processes:

The Continuity Function of SDC therefore plays a crucial role in ensuring the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of school development processes in the context of a school network. Its aim is to secure the stability and sustainability of these processes, particularly during times of staff turnover. By preserving and transferring knowledge and experience, it ensures that development processes are not disrupted by personnel changes. The results of the study suggest that school development consultants should develop targeted measures to promote continuity within school networks. This includes strategies for the handover and transfer of goals and knowledge during staff changes, to facilitate the integration of new actors and ensure the school’s continued participation in the network.

The Transfer Function of SDC involves the dissemination of knowledge, experience and best practices between the network level and the individual school level, as well as within the school itself. A key aspect of this function is recontextualization (Fend, 2008): content and approaches are adapted to the specific contexts of individual schools and sustainably implemented. This ensures that the ideas developed within the network do not remain abstract but become effective in practice. In this context, a school principal describes:

The Coordination Function is a specific task of SDC within networks. It involves the organizational design and structuring of network activities, for example, through the planning and implementation of network meetings in collaboration with the network coordination team. SDC ensures that activities within the network are carried out in a structured manner and that processes are aligned. This function is essential for promoting collaboration among the various actors in the network and creating clear guidance. The coordination function requires school development consultants to go beyond traditional consulting roles and take on new tasks specifically tailored to working within school networks. This includes not only the organizational planning of network meetings but also active participation in team meetings with other school development consultants within the network:

In the SSDS school network, school development consultants become central actors who coordinate and promote collaboration between schools and potentially other stakeholders relevant to the educational mission. This requires regular exchange and alignment among the school development consultants. The coordination function thus necessitates an evolution of the SDC role, focusing more on collaborative and organizational work within school networks. Network meetings and team sessions provide an important platform to fulfill this function and to ensure the sustainability of network activities. The willingness of SDC to embrace these new tasks is crucial for securing the long-term effectiveness and efficiency of school networks.

The Expertise and Legitimacy Function of SDC positions them at the intersection of practice and research. SDC acts as a mediator and actively shapes the collaboration between these two areas. They promote the participation of schools and support the joint development of practice-relevant solutions based on scientific findings. The expertise and legitimacy function of SDC involves not only the transfer of knowledge but also the creation of trust, acceptance, and legitimacy for change processes.

This statement of a project-leading teacher makes clear that the school leadership, which was previously not known for initiating innovative processes, was motivated by the connection to research to actively support the development process.