Educational constellations: a systematic review of macro-networks in education

Educational constellations: a systematic review of macro-networks in education Beatriz Barrero-Fern andez, Javier Mula-Falc on and Jes us Domingo Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain Abstract Purpose –Nowadays, networks are the basic core of social organization and interaction; consequently, networking has become an indispensable requirement in today’s societies. In education, the development of different types of collaborative networks has been observed, leading, in recent years, to the creation of educational macro-networks that generate links between schools and different types of institutions. Therefore, this study consists of a systematic review to examine the most relevant findings on this type of educational macro-networks. The authors’objectives were: to examine the main characteristics of this type of networks; to analyze the consequences they cause; and to determine which aspects contribute to or hinder their construction and development. Design/methodology/approach –A bibliographic search was carried out in Web of Science,SCOPUS and Education Resources Information Center, which yielded a total of 29 studies that were analyzed thematically using Nvivo software. Findings –Among the most noteworthy results are: the wide variety of existing structures; the benefits they generate in terms of learning outcomes, educational equity and the reduction of inequalities; and the influence exerted by the type of leadership and policies in the development of this macro-networks. Finally, future lines of research and policy implications for practice are highlighted. Originality/value –In this society, networks have become the basic core of an organization and the new form of social interaction. As a result, networks have begun to play a fundamental role in today’s societies, even permeating various spheres such as education. In this context, it is essential to analyse this type of relationship in the field of education in order to truly understand its implications in this sector as well as its development and structure. Keywords Systematic review, Educational equity, Educational learning, Educational networks Paper type Literature review 1. Introduction Globalization, interconnection and technological progress, among other aspects, have contributed to the development of a network society (Castells, 2010). In this society, networks have become the basic core of an organization and the new form of social interaction. As a result, networks have begun to play a fundamental role in today’s societies (Azor ın, 2017), even permeating various spheres such as education. However, regardless of the changes generated in societies, the main objective of any educational institution is always to achieve academic improvement. Such improvement should enhance the way in which teaching staff impact student learning and, indirectly, lead to a fairer society with greater values. To this end, a series of innovative changes have Macronetworks in education 259 © Beatriz Barrero-Fern andez, Javier Mula-Falc on and Jes us Domingo. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Funding: This work is part of the project with reference number PID2020-117020GB-100, funded by the Agencia Estatal de Investigaci on of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and project P20_00311, funded by the Plan PAIDI of the Junta de Andaluc ıa. It is also supported by the University Teaching Staff Programme, implemented by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport of the Spanish Government [grant number FPU19/00942]. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-354X.htm Received 5 September 2022 Revised 15 November 2022 Accepted 17 December 2022 International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 37 No. 1, 2023 pp. 259-277 Emerald Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/IJEM-09-2022-0339 contributed to the use of collaborative networks and teamwork as the main tools for shaping educational improvement (Ainscow, 2016;Armstrong et al., 2021). In this regard, the key appears to lie in increasing the social and professional capital of each school around a shared community project for learning (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2020). UNESCO, in its latest report Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education (2021)arguesfortheneedtoco-createasocialcontract that provides answers to today’s global challenges. A contract with transformative potential that generates a union around collective efforts to forge sustainable and peaceful futures for all, based on social, economic and environmental justice (p. 6). Among the proposals for pedagogical renewal on how teachers’transformative work should be, principles such as cooperation, collaboration and teamwork stand out: Pedagogies based on participatory and cooperative approaches are developed not only through collaborative learning that takes place within the classroom, but through cooperative learning across classrooms and university learning communities. Some of the complex challenges faced by teachers cannot be solved individually, but can be addressed through networks of schools, partnerships with universities or professional communities supported by specialised educational agencies (p. 87). This, coupled with the myriad benefits described in the literature on networking (European Commission, 2018), has resulted in a growing demand for the promotion of networking in education (Ainscow et al., 2020;Armstrong et al., 2021). As a result, a significant body of research has been generated on this topic in recent years (Griffiths et al., 2021;Vangrieken et al., 2015;Lomos et al., 2011). In this context, the need arises to analyze and systematize the most relevant works on this type of networking and its impact on school improvement. Of the various forms of educational collaboration developed over the years (Stoll and Louis, 2007;Brouwer et al., 2012;Flecha, 2015), in this study we focus on a new form of such collaboration. The latter is characterized by educational networks with relational structures between teachers and different institutions beyond the schools themselves (Robinson et al., 2020), which have an impact on improving learning and innovation in schools. We have named these networks “Educational Constellations”. 2. Networking and education A network can be defined as a set of elements (nodes) - interconnected people, systems, or organizations –that somehow relate to each other, exchange knowledge to support each other, increasing their learning (Borgatti and Halgin, 2011;Kools and Stoll, 2016). In the educational field, there has been a growing demand to promote this type of dynamic relationship between teachers, schools and other educational sectors to transform teaching practices, promote student development, improve learning, enhance the exchange of resources, or contribute to educational equity (Ainscow et al., 2020;Armstrong et al., 2021; Ruiz-Rom an et al., 2019;Rinc on-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016). One example is the network created by Ainscow et al. (2007) (ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Program Phase I Network ’Understanding and Developing Inclusive Practices in Schools) [1]. Fortunately, this innovative current of collaboration has undergone a certain evolution. In its beginnings, this type of network contributed to teachers’mutual support and help, giving rise to shared, consensual, committed and supportive learning, becoming an impulse for innovation and continuous teacher training (Vangrieken et al., 2015). In this sense, the formative power of the use of social networks as a way of pedagogical updating (Marcelo and Marcelo, 2021), obtaining information and resources (Rehm and Notten, 2016), or generating spaces of affinity and collaboration (Carpenter et al., 2020) is sufficiently documented. Professional collaboration in schools has been evolving since the proposal of Professional Learning Communities (Stoll and Louis, 2007) or Communities of Practice (Brouwer et al., 2012; Wenger, 1998). These are based on the joint learning of teachers and institutions and creating a common commitment to professional performance around a shared purpose. This model of IJEM 37,1 260 promotion and professional development enables the creation of an environment that supports teachers’learning, encourages dialogue, group work, reflection and improved learning for all and among all (Hargreaves and O’Connor, 2020;Bolivar, 2021). This new interactive professionalism aims to improve “together”the professional performance, the effectiveness of teaching and teaching practices. In short, this aims to build and promote joint spaces for reflection, self-revision of professional practices and co-responsible decision-making in order to address common challenges and purposes that enhance professional development and improve student learning. There have even been specific initiatives, as in the case of Learning Communities in Spain, whose main purpose was to achieve social and cultural transformation through the connection with their environment, dialogic learning and educational participation of the entire educational community (Flecha, 2015). The current objective is to create Communities of Professional Practice extended to the community and professional and interinstitutional interrelation networks. Unfortunately, these proposals were neither sufficiently widespread in the educational system nor could they fully comply with their mission due to the individualistic nature of each experience, which limits collaboration solely and exclusively to its institution, restricting, as Bolivar (2021) states, its ability to “self-supply.” As numerous studies show, more and more schools are deciding to share experiences, practices and challenges to provide an adequate response to the demands and uncertainties of today’s global and interconnected society to better respond to new educational demands (Hargreaves and O’Connor, 2020;Azor ınet al., 2020). “Fortunately, around the world we now have positive examples of school-to-school collaborations with a profound impact on improving practice”(Hargreaves and Fullan, 2014, p. 167). Robinson et al. (2020) define this new form of collaboration as an educational network with relational structures between different institutions beyond the schools themselves. We understand thesenetworksas“Educational Constellations,”that is, macro-networks that generate links between schools and different types of institutions as an essential tool for educational improvement. All types of centers (private, public), educational levels (primary, secondary and university) or institutions (local, national and international) are connected by invisible ties that sustain the link, giving rise to a network of schools and synergies (Azor ın and Muijis, 2017). In the recent literature, numerous studies describe networks that go beyond those generated between educational centers. In this case, we speak of a crossing of borders that allows the generation of broader networks between educational institutions and various elements of the context (Blankstein and Noguera, 2016;D ıaz-Gibson et al., 2017). To a certain extent, this is an incipient type of network that not only places the focus on schools but also on external elements, thus contributing to generating “extended education”“beyond the school gates”(Cummings et al., 2011;Bolivar, 2021). The benefits of these constellations are innumerable. According to the European Commission (2018), they can help in horizontal decision making; the creation of links between stakeholders and mediation between educational levels; the resolution of complex problems; the acceleration of innovations; the professional development of teachers; the exchange of knowledge and the dissemination of practice. Such are the benefits that in recent years a significant body of research has been generated on this topic, including systematic reviews. In this regard, the meta-analysis by Lomos et al. (2011) explores the effect of professional learning communities on student performance. Griffiths et al.’s(2021)review analyses the association between conceptions of collaboration and difficulties in effective collaboration. And finally, the review by Vangrieken et al.(2015)examines the types of teacher collaboration, the consequences it generates and the elements that hinder or facilitate collaboration. However, despite these existing reviews, none have focused on analyzing such “Educational Constellations”in relation to school improvement. Macronetworks in education 261 Thus, the need arises for a systematic review of the literature to collect and systematize the most relevant findings on this type of work and joint learning in educational macro-networks and their impact on school improvement. To this end, the following research questions will be answered: RQ1. What are the main characteristics of studies in this field of research (geographical and temporal distribution, methodological approaches, instruments and contexts)? RQ2. What are the characteristics of networks that promote educational improvement (school improvement)? RQ3. What kind of consequences/improvements are associated with school networks? RQ4. What aspects contribute to the construction and development of this type of network? To answer these questions, a systematic review of the recent literature was carried out to identify studies of interest, which were then subjected to a thematic analysis of their content (Braun and Clarke, 2006). 3. Methodology To address the research questions posed, the present work constituted a Systematic Literature Review. The main objective of this type of review is to obtain a general overview of a given field of study, which in turn allows conclusions to be drawn based on scientific evidence that will promote the theoretical and practical development of the field in question (Gough et al., 2012;Harari et al., 2020). Specifically, of the 14 different types of Systematic Literature Review described by Grant and Booth (2009), the Systematic Review will be used. This is the most commonly used type of review and its main objective is to seek, evaluate and summarize the most significant findings in a given field of research, regardless of the method used (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed). However, for the success of this type of study, the use of methodologies characterized by a high level of transparency and replicability is paramount. Therefore, this review used the PRISMA methodology, specifically the ReSiste-CHS framework (Codina, 2018). This consists of an adaptation of PRISMA proposed by Booth et al. (2012) and Grant and Booth (2009). The main feature of this framework is the systematization of the review through a process consisting of four phases: (1) selection of databases and specification of search equations, (2) formulation of inclusion/exclusion criteria, (3) selection of results and (4) analysis and synthesis of results. Likewise, the principles proposed by Alexander (2020) were followed to strengthen and optimize the review process. The aim is to obtain the highest degree of quality through the greatest possible systematization and completeness of the research process, including the search, evaluation and synthesis of results (Grant and Booth, 2009;Booth et al., 2012). Moreover, as stated by Moher et al. (2009), this systematization helps to reduce both bias in the selection of studies and minimizes the subjectivity of the review process. Therefore, the present work constitutes a Systematic Review of the international literature on macro-networks or “Educational Constellations”. The entire review and analysis process employed will be detailed below. 3.1 Selection of databases and specification of search equations Three different databases were selected for this review. The WoS and Scopus databases were chosen for the following reasons: (1) the efficiency of their analytical techniques, (2) the quality of the studies indexed due peer review processes and (3) their importance worldwide. The ERIC database was selected because of its notability in education. In these databases, keywords were used that were obtained after an exploratory review of the literature. Finally, different synonyms of the concept of the educational network were used and combined with the concept of school improvement. The resulting search equation was: (“school IJEM 37,1 262 network*”OR “learning network*”) AND (school improvement). In addition, a search was also carried out using the terms (“networked learning communities”) AND (school improvement). 3.2 Formulation of the inclusion/exclusion criteria To comply with quality standards and obtain a manageable data set appropriate for our study topic, a series of inclusion/exclusion criteria were established based on the works of Booth et al. (2012) and Alexander (2020). Initially, we established inclusion criteria specific to the databases used: (1) studies published in article format; (2) studies in the Spanish, English and Portuguese languages; and (3) studies published in the last decade (2021). This last criterion was intended to obtain the most recent research on this topic of study. The choice of languages was based on the proposals of Ferreira et al. (2011), that is, to use the languages mastered by the researchers. As Stern and Kleijnen (2020) explain, including only English, despite this being one of the most common languages in science, may not contribute to providing a truly global picture of the object of study. Likewise, exclusion criteria were also applied, including (5) non-consideration of review articles. Subsequently, criteria based on the degree of adequacy with the subject matter, purpose, or research questions were used. Therefore, studies that (6) did not deal directly with educational networks were eliminated. 3.3 Selection of the results After entering the search equation in the different databases and applying the inclusion/ exclusion criteria (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), 131 documents were obtained. These documents were subjected to three processes. First, duplicates were eliminated (n536). Second, a reading of titles and abstracts wascarried outin which criterion 6was applied,i.e. eliminating alldocuments that did not deal with learning communities/networks (n554). Third, the remaining 41 papers were read in full, according to criterion 6. Finally, 29 papers were selected for this systematic review. Figure 1 shows the search process and selection of the studies. This search and selection process, as well as the subsequent process of analysis and synthesis of results, was carried out by two researchers to provide the research with the maximum degree of solidity, objectivity and coherence possible (Creswell, 1998). To this end, consensus processes were developed based on the discussion of each of the decisions made in the study. 3.4 Analysis and synthesis of the results Once the 29 documents had been selected, the results were analyzed and systematized. First, the main characteristics of the studies were analyzed. To facilitate this analysis, information such as authors’names, date of publication, the purpose of the research, methodology, instruments and sample characteristics were collected in tables and systematized. Second, with the help of the qualitative analysis software Nvivo 12, a thematic analysis of the results was conducted (Braun and Clarke, 2006). This analysis followed the principles of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), which made it possible to identify emerging themes after reading and analyzing the various studies. To this end, three phases were followed. First, two researchers carried out a complete, independent and critical reading of the 29 selected documents, generating their own emerging themes. Then, a process of sharing, reflection and debate was carried out with the aim of reaching a consensus on the final common emerging themes. Next, once the themes had been selected and specified, the text was peer-coded according to the agreed themes. This process was carried out independently by the researchers in order to saturate the information (Sarthou, 2016). Finally, a third researcher supervised the entire process to provide a double-checking method (Creswell, 1998). Macronetworks in education 263 3.5 Limitations In general terms, this study has two major limitations. First, the decisions taken throughout the research to achieve scientific rigor may have led to the non-consideration of relevant studies. In this sense, we refer to the possible bias generated by the selected databases and filters. In relation to the filters, special mention should be made of the languages considered. Although this decision has been taken with the aim of including as much scientific production as possible, it may be biased as it does not offer a truly global image of the subject studied. Second, it was impossible to access certain documents. Therefore, it is recommended that these limitations be considered for future research. 3.6 Main characteristics of the selected studies 3.6.1 Temporal evolution of the studies. In the last decade (2011/2021) and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria mentioned previously, we identified a total of 29 articles on networks and learning communities. In this decade, growth in the number of publications has been observed in the last five-year period (2017–2021), which accounts for 79.31% (n523) of the total production. The years 2020 and 2021 are particularly notable in this period, with 7 and 6 studies respectively. 3.6.2 Geographical distribution of the studies. Concerning the geographical distribution of the studies, it is evident that there are articles from all the world continents. However, there is Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart IJEM 37,1 264 also a clear predominance of European output (n516) compared with other areas. The United Kingdom (n57) has the highest number of studies, followed by Spain, Chile and the USA, with three studies each. There are also two other countries with two studies each (Netherlands and New Zealand) and eight countries with only one study (Belgium, Australia, Kenya, Ukraine, India, Greece, Malta, Pakistan and China). 3.6.3 Research designs and samples. Finally, focusing on the research designs, we have classified the studies into qualitative, quantitative, or mixed approaches. Thus, 58.6% (n517) of the studies use a qualitative approach, 27.6% (n58) of the studies use a mixed design and only 13.8% (n54) use a quantitative approach. Therefore, there is a clear predominance of the qualitative approach over the other approaches. Therefore, this review indicates that qualitative methodology is the most widely used in studying networks. Within the qualitative approach, there is a notable presence of case studies in which different research instruments are used as the main tool for triangulating information. In this regard, we can find a combination of semi-structured interviews, observations and documentary analysis (Mifsud, 2015;Peurach et al., 2016;Glazer and Peurach, 2012; Anderson et al., 2019;Azor ın and Muijs, 2018); of observations, semi-structured interviews and reflective diaries (Kouvara et al., 2019); or of interviews, focus groups and reflective reports (Zahedi et al., 2021). Likewise, some studies only use interviews (Liu, 2021;Brown and Flood, 2020a,b;Prenger et al., 2020;Gonz alez et al., 2020;Kilpatrick and Fraser, 2018). Regarding the quantitative approach, only different types of surveys are observed. Finally, articles using the mixed method predominantly include case studies in which questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and observations are combined (Raza et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2021;Hern andez and Navarro, 2018;Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020;Coenen et al., 2021), or in which both student achievement level data and interviews are used (EddySpicer, 2017;Chapman and Muijs, 2013). Regarding the samples of the studies, these are mainly composed of school principals, teachers, heads of educational administration, or leaders of the analyzed networks. However, some studies have a sample of different documents, including both schools and legislative norms. 4. Thematic analysis results In this section, the two emerging themes resulting from the thematic analysis of the 29 studies will be analyzed. 4.1 Types of networks and consequences The first emerging theme is the type of existing network. To facilitate their analysis, the networks found among the documents in this review were organized into four major groups: networks according to their structure, the resources used, their size, and, finally, their purpose. First, concerning network structure, these are classified according to the skeleton or scaffolding of which they are composed. In this regard, the literature describes two fundamental types: vertical and horizontal networks (Azor ın and Mujis, 2017). Vertical networks refer to those composed of institutions of different ranks or categories. In this group, numerous studies analyze networks composed of schools of different educational levels. For example, there are networks between primary and secondary schools (Mifsud, 2015;Kilpatrick and Fraser, 2018;Hern andez and Navarro, 2018;Sinnema et al., 2021;PinoYancovic and Luis Ahumada, 2020), of early childhood, primary and secondary education (Gonz alez et al., 2020) or even primary schools and universities (Azor ın, 2021). In addition to these, the vertical structure also encompasses those networks composed of schools, the educational administration and the local community, relationships that contribute towards an extended education (Azor ın, 2021). In this regard, the studies of Raza et al. (2021) and Macronetworks in education 265 Liu (2021) describe networkscomposed of schools and various elements of the community such as social educators, families, or educational policy managers. In this case, according to PinoYanccovic et al. (2020), this type of network between schools and other public services makes it possible both to address complex socio-educational issues and to produce more significant and lasting improvements. Horizontal networks encompass those composed of institutions of an equivalent educational level, whether primary (Anderson et al., 2019;Kouvara et al., 2019; Kouvara et al., 2019;Zahedi et al., 2021;Azor ın and Muijs, 2018) or secondary (Brown and Flood, 2020a,b;Prenger et al., 2020;Peurach et al., 2016;Tyshkevych and Obidniy, 2018). Finally, it is important to mention that there are networks characterized by a bidirectional structure, i.e. that simultaneously contain vertical and horizontal relationships. This is the case, for example, in the studies by Liu (2021) and Azor ın and Mujis (2017), which describe networks between schools of different educational levels, the educational administration and different elements of the local community. Second, in the group of networks classified according to the resources used, the most notable are those that exchange intellectual and material resources. Concerning intellectual elements, this consists of the exchange of experiences, practices, or ideas (Eddy-Spicer, 2017; Hern andez and Navarro, 2018;Azor ın and Muijs, 2018). In this group, the exchange carried out among teaching staff is the most predominant (Kilpatrick and Fraser, 2018;PinoYancovic and Ahumada, 2020). In terms of material resources, Hargreaves et al. (2018) emphasize sharing physical materials, spaces and digital elements. Third, according to their size, there are networks composed of a wide variety of institutions. While on the one hand, there is a core of research focused on analyzing networks composed of fewer than ten institutions (Zahedi et al., 2021;Eddy-Spicer, 2017;Kouvara et al., 2019;Peurach et al., 2016;Raza et al., 2021;Sinnema et al.,2021;Liu, 2021;Piot and Kelchtermans, 2015); on the other hand, some studies analyze networks composed of fewer than 50 institutions (Anderson et al., 2019;Hern andez and Navarro, 2018;Chapman and Muijs, 2013;Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020) and more than 50 (Gonz alez et al., 2020). Likewise, a study analyzing a much larger network composed of 1,375 different institutions is also observed (Pino-Yanccovic et al., 2020). However, the studies in this review highlight that those large networks can lead to the isolation of some of the associated institutions. Along these lines, the study by Mifsud (2015) — which analyzes a network composed of numerous secondary schools and some elementary schools —shows how the primary schools were isolated within the network. Finally, the literature analyzed underlines two fundamental purposes regarding the creation of networks: (1) to improve school outcomes (Eddy-Spicer, 2017;Liu, 2021;Azor ınandMuijs, 2018); and (2) to increase educational equity and decrease inequalities (Azonr ın, 2021; Hargreaves et al., 2018). Regarding the first of these, the study by Eddy-Spicer (2017) and PinoYanccovic et al. (2020) highlight networks with a horizontal structure with different levels of performance according to the type of community that contributes most to the improvement of school outcomes. However, concerning the second of these, i.e. the improvement of educational equity, numerous studies point out that networks for the exchange of material resources are the most conducive to achieving this objective (Azor  ın and Muijs, 2017;Azor ın, 2021). Despite all this, in general terms, all of the articles in this review agree that the exchange of experiences among teachers is the element that most contributes to the achievement of whatever objectives are set out by the network, whether academic (motivation, performance, improvement of the teaching-learning process, etc.) or social (inclusion, equity, attention to diversity, etc.) (Kouvara et al., 2019;Hern andez and Navarro, 2018)seeFigure 2. It is also important to highlight that the studies in the present review describe a series of benefits in other sectors of the educational community that go beyond those previously described in the student body. In this regard, reference is made to a series of positive outcomes of networking —regardless of the type of structure —concerning the development of the teaching staff and the community. IJEM 37,1 266 Concerning teachers, networks favor problem-solving, exchanging ideas, experiences and effective practices (Mifsud, 2015;Azor ın, 2021), which increases the quality of teaching and the opportunity for training and educational innovation (Azor ın, 2021). In this sense, networking allows for collaboration to solve and promote improvement plans from innovation or the so-called transformation cycle for all design, development and involvement in innovations and improvements (Hern andez and Navarro, 2018;Anderson et al., 2019). Therefore, networks represent an opportunity for empowerment and leadership capabilities (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020;Pino-Yanccovic et al., 2020;Coenen et al., 2021). Networking also leads to an increase in teacher satisfaction, a greater capacity for reflection and learning (Brown and Flood, 2020a,b), a greater acquisition of knowledge and skills (Prenger et al., 2020) and a change in attitude due to collective motivation processes that increase confidence and a sense of belonging (Hern andez and Monta~ no, 2018). In short, networking entails professional and personal growth for its participants (Anderson et al., 2019;Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020;Coenen et al., 2021), which has an influence on the teachers’professional identity (Kilpatrick and Fraser, 2018). Regarding the benefits for the community, at a general level, networks allow the development of plans and programs that are more adapted to the context and characteristics of the school (Liu, 2021), making each school more accountable (Hern andez and Navarro, 2018) and more aware of its pedagogical practices and those of the rest of the schools in the network (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020). 4.2 Aspects that favor or hinder networking The second emerging theme refers to the aspects that favor or hinder networking (see Table 1). Regarding the aspects that favor this type of work, it seems that creating a context with shared values and cultures is essential (Liu, 2021;Azor  ın, 2021) and this context should include the stakeholders, favoring the maintenance and creation of the network. Furthermore, within this Figure 2. Types of macronetworks described in the literature Macronetworks in education 267 * Coenen, L., Schelfhout, W. and Hondeghem, A. (2021), “Networked professional learning communities as means to Flemish secondary school leaders’professional learning and well-being”,Education Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 509, doi: 10.3390/educsci11090509. Coke, P. (2005), “Practicing what we preach: an argument for cooperative learning opportunities for elementary and secondary educators”,Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 392-398. Creswell, J. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Cummings, C., Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2011), Beyond the School Gates. Can Full Service and Extended Schools Overcome Disadvantage?, Routledge, New York. D ıaz-Gibson, J., Civ ıs, M., Daly, A.J., Long as, J. and Riera, J. (2017), “Networked leadership in educational collaborative networks”,Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1040-1059. * Eddy-Spicer, D. (2017), “Mediated diffusion: translating professional practice across schools in a highstakes system”,Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 18, pp. 235-256, doi: 10.1007/s10833-017-9296-x. * Ehren, M., Godfrey, D. (2017), “External accountability of collaborative arrangements; a case study of a Multi Academy Trust in England”,Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, Vol. 29, pp. 339-362, doi: 10.1007/s11092-017-9267-z. Elmore, F. (2010), Mejorando la escuela desde la sala de clases, Fundaci on Chile,  Area de Educaci on, Santiago de Chile. European Commission (2018), “Networks for learning and development across school education”, Guiding Principles for Policy Development on the Use of Networks in School Education Systems, ET2020 Working Group Schools, Brussels. Ferreira, I., Urr utia, G. and Alonso-Coello, P. (2011), “Revisiones sistem aticas y metaan alisis: bases conceptuales e interpretaci on”,REC Publications, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 788-696, doi: 10.1016/j.recesp. 2011.03.029. Feys, E. and Devos, G. (2014), “What comes out of incentivized collaboration: a qualitative analysis of eight Flemish school networks”,Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 738-754, doi: 10.1177/1741143214535738. Flecha, R. (2015), “Comunidades de aprendizaje: sue~ nos posibles para todas las ni~ nas y los ni~ nos”, Aula de innovaci on educativa, Vol. 241, pp. 12-16. Fullan, M. (2015), “Leadership from the middle”,Education Canada, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 22-26. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, New York. * Glazer, J. and Peurach, D. (2012), “School improvement networks as a strategy for large-scale education reform: the role of educational environments”,Educational Policy, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 676-710, doi: 10.1177/0895904811429283. * Gonz alez, A., Ehren, M. and Montecinos, C. (2020), “Leading mandated network formation in Chile’s new public education system”,School Leadership and Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 435-443. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2020.1783649. Gough, D. and Oliver, S. (2012), An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, SAGE Publications, London. Grant, M. and Booth, A. (2009), “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies”,Health Information and Libraries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 91-108, doi: 10.1111/j. 1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Griffiths, A., Alsip, J., Hart, S., Round, R. and Brady, J. (2021), “Together we can do so much: a systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools”,Canadian Journal of School Psycology, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 59-85, doi: 10.1177/0829573520915368. Harari, M., Parola, H. and Hartwell, C. (2020), “Literature searches in systematic reviews and metaanalyses: a review, evaluation, and recommendations”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 118, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103377. IJEM 37,1 274 Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2014), Capital profesional. Transformar la ense~ nanza en cada escuela, Morata, Madrid. Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2020), “Professional capital after the pandemic: revisiting and revising classic understandings of teachers’work”,Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vols 3/4 No. 5, pp. 327-336, doi: 10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0039. Hargreaves, A. and O’Connor, M. (2020), Profesionalismo colaborativo. Cuando ense~ nar juntos supone el aprendizaje de todos, Morata, Madrid. Hargreaves, A. and Shirley, D. (2020), “Leading from the middle: its nature, origins and importance”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 92-114. * Hargreaves, A., Parsley, D. and Coz, E. (2015), “Designing rural school improvement networks: aspirations and actualities”,Peabody Journal if Education, Vol. 90, pp. 306-321, doi: 10.1080/ 0161956X.2015.1022391. Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Wangia, S., Bacon, C. and D’Angelo, M. (2018), Leading from the Middle: Spreading Learning, well-Being and Identity across, CODE Consortium, Toronto, ON. Harris, A. (2014), Distributed Leadership Matters: Perspectives, Practicalities and Potential, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks. Harris, A., Jones, M. and Huffman, J. (2017), Teachers Leading Educational Reform: The Power of Professional Learning Communities, Routledge, London. *Hern  andez, E. and Navarro, M. (2018), “Redes educativas locales para la mejora escolar”,Revista Electr onica de Investigaci on Educativa, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 29-42, doi: 10.24320/redie.2018.20.3.1669. * Kilpatrick, S. and Fraser, S. (2018), “Using the STEM framework collegially for mentoring, peer learning and planning”,Professional Development in Education, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 614-626, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2018.1463925. Kools, M. and Stoll, L. (2016), What Makes a School a Learning Organisation?, OECD, Paris. * Kouvara, T., Karasoula, S., Karachristos, C., Stavropoulos, E. and Verykios, V. (2019), “Technology and school unit improvement: researching, reconsidering and reconstructing the school context through a multi-thematic digital storytelling project”,Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 49, doi: 10.3390/ socsci8020049. Leithwood, K., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2020), “Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited”,School Leadership and Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 5-22. * Liu, J. (2021), “Building education groups as school collaboration for education improvement: a case study of stakeholder interactions in District A of Chengdu”,Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 22, pp. 427-439, doi: 10.1007/s12564-021-09682-0. Lomos, C., Hofman, R. and Bosker, R. (2011), “Professional communities and student achievement –a meta-analysis”,School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 22, pp. 121-148, doi: 10.1080/ 09243453.2010.550467. Lucena, C., Mula-Falc on, J., Domingo, J. and Cruz-Gonz alez, C. (2021), “Fighting windmills: a female principal’s story during COVID-19”,School Leadership and Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 552-562, doi: 10.1080/13632434.2021.1974826. Marcelo, C. and Marcelo, P. (2021), “Influencers educativos en Twitter. An alisis de hashtags y estructura relacional”,Comunicar, Vol. 68, pp. 73-83, doi: 10.3916/C68-2021-06. * Mifsud, D. (2015), “The setting-up of multi-site school collaboratives: the benefits of this organizational reform in terms of networking opportunities and their effects”,Improving Schools, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 236-249, doi: 10.1177/1365480215591253. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”,PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6 No. 7, doi: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000097. Muijs, D. (2015), “Improving schools through collaboration: a mixed methods study of school-to-school partnerships in the primary sector”,Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 563-586. Macronetworks in education 275 * Peurach, D., Lenhoff, S. and Glazer, J. (2016), “Large-scale high school reform through school improvement networks: exploring possibilities for ’developmental evaluation’”,Teachers College Record, Vol. 18 No. 13, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1177/016146811611801306. * Pino-Yanccovic, M., Gonzalez, C., Ahumada, L. and Gonzalez, A. (2020), “Promoting collaboration in a competitive context: school improvement networks in Chile”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 208-236, doi: 10.1108/JEA-11-2018-0213. * Pino-Yancovic, M. and Ahumada, L. (2020), “Collaborative inquiry networks: the challenge to promote network leadership capacities in Chile”,School Leadership and Management, Vol. 40 Nos 2-3, pp. 221-241, doi: 10.1080/13632434.2020.1716325. * Piot, L. and Kelchtermans, G. (2015), “The micropolitics of distributed leadership: four case studies of school federations”,Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 632-649, doi: 10.1177/1741143214559224. * Prenger, R., Poortman, C.L. and Handelzalts, A. (2020), “Professional learning networks: from teacher learning to school improvement?”,Journal of Educational Change,Vol.22,pp.13-52,doi:10.1007/ s10833-020-09383-2. * Raza, M., Gilani, N. and Waheed, A. (2021), “School leaders’perspectives on successful leadership: a mixed methods case study of a private school network in Pakistan”,Leadership in Education, Vol. 6, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.656491. Rehm, M. and Notten, A. (2016), “Twitter as an informal learnig space for teachers! The role of social capital in Twitter conversations among teachers”,Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 60, pp. 215-223, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.015. Rinc on, S. (2019), “Las redes escolares como entornos de aprendizaje para los l ıderes educativos”,in Weinstein, E.J. and Mu~ noz, G. (Eds), C omo Cultivar El Liderazgo Educativo. Trece Miradas, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, pp. 355-388. Rinc on-Gallardo, S. and Fullan, M. (2016), “Essential features of effective networks in education”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-22. Robinson, G., Gallagher, T., Duffy, G. and McAneney, H. (2020), “At the boundaries: school networks in divided societies”,Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 183-197, doi: 10.1108/JPCC-11-2019-0033. Ruiz-Rom an, C., Molina, L. and Alcaide, R. (2019), “We have a common goal’: support networks for the educational and social development of children in disadvantaged areas”,British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 46, pp. 1658-1676. Sarthou, N. (2016), “Key points of discussion in scientific research evaluation: peer review, bibliometrics and relevance”,Journal of Social Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 76-86. * Sinnema, C., Liou, Y., Daly, A., Cann, R. and Rodway, J. (2021), “When seekers reap rewards and providers pay a price: the role of relationships and discussion in improving practice in a community of learning”,Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 107, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021. 103474. Stern, C. and Kleijnen, J. (2020), “Language bias in systematic reviews: you only get out what you put in”,JBI Evidence Synthesis, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 1818-1819, doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00361. Stoll, L. and Louis, K.S. (2007), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas, Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead and New York. Timperley, H., Ell, F., Fevre, D. and Twyford, C. (2020), Leading Professional Learning: Practical Strategies for Impact in Schools, ACER Press, Camberwell. Tyshkevych, O. and Obidniy, A. (2018), “The main approashes for increasing the efficiency of the rural school network”,International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7 No. 32, pp. 686-691, doi: 10.14419/ijet.v7i3.2.14614. UNESCO (2021), “Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education”, available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381560/PDF/381560spa.pdf.multi. IJEM 37,1 276 Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E. and Kyndt, E. (2015), “Teacher collaboration: a systematic review”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 15, pp. 17-40, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002. Verdasca, J. (2020), “Contributos para o desenvolvimento de um sistema de auto e multirregulaç~ ao educativa”,Revista Portuguesa de Investigaç~ ao Educacional, Special, pp. 111-143. Wenger, E. (1998), “Communities of practice: learning as a social system”,Systems Thinker, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 2-3. * Zahedi, S., Bryant, C., Iyer, A. and Jaffer, R. (2021), “Professional learning communities at a primary and secondary school network in India”,Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 22, pp. 291-303, doi: 10.1007/s12564-020-09665-7. About the authors Beatriz Barrero-Fern andez is Associate Professor at the University of Granada. Her main line of research focuses on the construction of professional identity, educational leadership and professional, institutional and family counseling. She is a member of FORCE research group and RILME Research Network. Javier Mula-Falc on is a teacher and researcher at the University of Granada. His main line of research focuses on the construction of professional identity, educational leadership and higher education. He is a member of the FYDAD research group. Javier Mula-Falc on is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Jes us Domingo is Doctor in Philosophy and Educational Sciences and University Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Granada (Spain). He specializes in (auto)biographical-narrative methodology and the areas of curricular, professional, institutional and family counselling, curricular innovation and development, attention to diversity and processes of educational and social vulnerability. He is a member of FORCE research group and RILME Research Network. For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Macronetworks in education 277