Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/   Manuscript received: 18/10/2015 
Facebook: /EPAAA  Revisions received: 5/2/2017 
Twitter: @epaa_aape  Accepted: 14/2/2017 

SPECIAL ISSUE    

CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF 
EDUCATION POLICY & DISCOURSE                                                                                                          

 

education policy analysis 
archives 
A peer-reviewed, independent,  
open access, multilingual journal  
 
 
 
 
 
  

 Arizona State University 

 

Volume 25 Number 29         March 27, 2017 ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 

The Discursive Construction of Superintendent 
Statesmanship on Twitter 

Todd M. Hurst 
University of Kentucky 

United States  
 
Citation: Hurst, T. M. (2017). The discursive construction of superintendent statesmanship on 
Twitter. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(29). This article is in the second in a two-part Special 
Issue, Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Education Policy and Discourse, guest edited by Jessica Nina 
Lester, Chad Lochmiller, and Rachael Gabriel. 
 
Abstract: The modern school superintendent fulfills a unique role in the U.S. public education 
system. He or she is structurally empowered as the de facto head of the local educational system, 
thereby granted with a certain amount of trust and authority regarding educational issues. At the 
same time, the superintendent is, in most cases, an employee of a politically appointed school 
board. While norms have traditionally encouraged superintendents to use caution with respect to 
political discourse (Boyd, 1974), social media has created a new platform upon which they can 
reach a broad range of stakeholders regarding many issues, including politics. This study seeks to 
better understand the emerging practice of political discourse by superintendents on Twitter. 
Employing discursive psychology principles (Potter & Wetherell, 1992), I will analyze the 
political tweets of superintendents and position current practice s in relation to established role 
conceptualizations of the position. Findings include that superintendents utilize Twitter as a tool 
to establish their positions as political insiders and as advocates for students.  

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/


Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 2 

 
Keywords: superintendency; politics; Twitter; social media; discursive psychology 
 
La construcción discursiva de la política del superintendente en Twitter 
Resumen: El director de la escuela moderna desempeña un papel único en el sistema de 
educación pública de Estados Unidos. Él o ella está facultado estructuralmente como jefe de 
hecho, el sistema de educación local, así concedida con una cierta cantidad de confianza y 
autoridad en temas educativos. Al mismo tiempo, el superintendente suele ser un empleado de 
una junta escolar de designación política. Aunque las normas que tradicionalmente han animado 
a los superintendentes tener precaución con respecto a la expresión política (Boyd, 1974), las 
redes sociales han creado una nueva plataforma en la que pueden lograr una amplia gama de 
partes interesadas sobre muchos temas, incluyendo la política. Este estudio busca entender 
mejor la práctica que emerge del discurso político de los supervisores en Twitter. El empleo de 
principios de la psicología discursiva (Potter y Wetherell, 1992) analizan l os tweets políticos de 
superintendentes y posicionarei prácticas actuales con respecto a la conceptualización de los 
roles establecidos de la posición. Los resultados incluyen los superintendentes utilizan Twitter 
como una herramienta para establecer sus posiciones como actores políticos y promotores de 
los estudiantes. 
Palabras-clave: Superintendencia; política; Twitter; las redes sociales; psicología discursiva 
 
A construção discursiva do superintendente política no Twitter  
Resumo: O superintendente escolar moderno cumpre um papel único no sistema de educação 
pública dos EUA. Ele ou ela é estruturalmente habilitada como chefe de fato do sistema 
educacional local, concedido assim com uma certa quantidade de confiança e autoridade em 
relação a questões educacionais. Ao mesmo tempo, o superintendente é geralmente um 
empregado de um conselho escolar politicamente nomeado. Embora as normas tenham 
tradicionalmente encorajado os superintendentes a usarem de cautela em relação ao discurso 
político (Boyd, 1974), as mídias sociais criaram uma nova plataforma sobre a qual eles podem 
alcançar uma ampla gama de interessados em muitos assuntos, incluindo a política. Este estudo 
busca compreender melhor a prática emergente do discurso político dos superintendentes no 
Twitter. Empregando princípios de psicologia discursiva (Potter & Wetherell, 1992), analisarei 
os tweets políticos dos superintendentes e posicionarei as práticas atuais em relação às 
conceitualizações de papéis estabelecidas da posição. Os resultados incluem que os 
superintendentes utilizam o Twitter como uma ferramenta para estabelecer suas posições como 
insiders políticos e como advogados para os alunos. 
Palavras-chave: Superintendência; política; Twitter, as redes sociais; psicologia discursiva  

Introduction 

 Technology has significantly changed the way public figures interact with and influence the 
public at large. For politicians and other public officials, social media may be either an opportunity 
or a liability. On the one hand, it allows for easy communication with potential constituents and the 
development of networks of supporters and colleagues to share ideas. This is nowhere more 
apparent than the role Twitter plays in modern electoral politics, particularly in the 2016 presidential 
election. However, at the same time the permanent nature of shared information, the lack of ability 
to target intended audiences, and potential out-of-context interpretations has the potential for 
detrimental results.  



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  3 
 
 For school superintendents, navigating online engagement with constituents has the 
potential to be even trickier. Superintendents work in politically charged environments, frequently 
buffeted by the desires and demands of elected officials, special interest groups, board members, and 
other community stakeholders (Björk & Keedy, 2001; Kowalski, 2006). The idea of school officials 
acknowledging and participating in overt political actions has not always been widely accepted. For 
much of the 20th-century political engagement by school leaders was antithetical to the ideals of 
public education (Kowalski, 2006). Such sentiments find their origin in the apolitical shift of 
education in the early 1900s as schools and school officials sought a separation from the locally 
controlled political machines which frequently held sway over districts and used the school as a tool 
for granting political favors (Reese & Lindle, 2014). 
 The modern superintendent does not have the luxury of ignoring the politics inherent in the 
position. Shifting cultural norms and an increasing politicization of the educational system have 
forced superintendents to become active political players. Everything from the content standards to 
public school financing is fodder for political dialogue playing out at the local, state, and even 
national level. In response, superintendents must develop coalitions among broad stakeholders 
within their communities regarding policies and political topics inside and outside of the 
schoolhouse. As Marvin Edward’s (2006) has noted, due to the  modern landscape of educational 
politics, superintendents are “no longer able to choose whether or not to get involved in the political 
arena, (they) must asses the politics of their districts and determine how to best work within it” (p. 
138).  
 Cox and McLeod (2014) argue that, like politics, social media is no longer an optional 
practice for school superintendents. The social media platform Twitter has firmly established a 
presence within the realm of educational leadership over the course of the last decade. Many 
scholars have explored the power of social media as a tool for developing professional learning 
networks and collaborative communities (Cho, 2013; Couros, Jarrett, McLeod, & Lehmann, 2012; 
Sauers & Richardson, 2015). In a recent study of school superintendents, Roth (2016) found that 
approximately 17% of current superintendents across the United States had a Twitter account in 
which they identify themselves as a superintendent. This number will only continue to grow as the 
platform reaches more participants and more tech-savvy superintendents enter the field. 

This study seeks to better understand the dynamic between superintendents’ roles as political 
leaders and their use of social media as a professional learning network and communications 
platform. In particular, this study seeks to better understand how school superintendents interact 
with and discuss policy and macro-political issues on Twitter. The importance of such a study lies in 
the realization that as methods for communicating with the public evolves, the practices and 
methods for engagement by school superintendents must also evolve. As such, this study is guided 
by the following research question: What discursive strategies are school superintendents employing 
when using discussing political issues on Twitter and how does that inform their roles as political 
leaders?  To answer this question, I will employ discourse analysis as a theoretical and 
methodological framework to analyze the macro-political tweets of superintendents.  

Conceptualizations of the Superintendency 

The evolution of the role and function of the superintendency mirrors the historical 
evolution found in the development of the public school system. As schools have moved from small 
autonomous institutions to political flashpoints in state and national conversation, the requisite skills 
and functions for superintendents have had to evolve. In the following section, I will address the 
varied and contested roles of the superintendency as they have been outlined by scholars in the field.  



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 4 

 
Without question, the role of superintendent has become increasingly complex as ardent 

political debates have shaped the nature of its work (Björk & Kowalski, 2005; Callahan, 1966; 
Kowalski, 2006). Primary to my understanding of the nature of the superintendency is Callahan’s 
(1966) conceptualizations of the role of the school superintendent. In analyzing the position 
between 1850 and mid-1960s, Callahan identified four conceptualizations of the position of 
superintendent that evolved in a normative fashion, wherein superintendents focused on the roles 
required by the demands of the day. Callahan’s conceptualizations were: (1) teacher-scholar (1850 to 
early 1900s), (2) organizational manager (early 1900s to 1930), (3) educational statesman (1930 to 
mid-1950s), and  (4) applied social scientist (mid-1950s to mid-1960s). While all four conceptions of 
the superintendency are essential for effective practice, the importance of each has varied greatly 
over time and individual superintendents may excel in one or more conceptualizations (Kowalski & 
Björk, 2005).  

Kowalski has noted that as American society transitioned from a manufacturing to an 
information-based society, the expectations of the superintendency took on one of a communicator 
as well (Kowalski, 2005). The conception of the school superintendent as a communicator is framed 
within two conditions: “the need to restructure school cultures and the need to access and use 
information in a timely manner to solve problems of practice” (Kowalski & Björk, 2005, p. 86). 
Most scholars in the field have come to accept such conceptualizations as normative constructions, 
wherein superintendents, in practice, perform a variety of roles but focus on particular roles 
demanded by the day (Björk & Gurley, 2005; Brunner, Grogan, Björk, 2002).  

Politics and the Superintendency 

The first superintendents were employed in the 1830s in Buffalo, NY, and Lousiville, KY 
(Kowalski, 2005; Sharp & Walter, 2004). However, these leaders held nowhere near the autonomy or 
power of their modern brethren. In fact, Kowalski (2005) has noted that their roles may be best 
considered as a clerk to the board, rather than an autonomous leader. This may have been a 
purposeful construction as early political machinery feared the power and influence that might 
consolidate under the leadership of superintendents if left unchecked. In response, the 
superintendents came to be seen as the key instructional leaders and left matters of policy and 
politics to the school board – a relationship that was codified by the Committee of Fifteen report in 
1895 (National Educational Association, 1895).  

The intervening 120 years have brought many changes to American education and the role 
of the superintendent. Shifts in organizational management, such as the rise of Taylorism and 
scientific management principles in the early 1900s, brought larger societal discussions to bear on 
the management of public schools. More recently, the performance of our educational systems have 
become a frequent topic within the political realm. Perhaps, most notably, the publication of A 
Nation at Risk (Gardner et al., 1983) called attention to the outcomes of the country’s educational 
system and encouraged wide-spread reforms in order to better position America in the future. In 
effect, the report politicized the nation’s educational systems, bringing lawmakers and educators to 
common topics and setting in motion a conversation about schools that continues today.   
 Long before the publication of A Nation at Risk, however, the position of superintendent 
was already becoming increasingly political. Boyd (1974) noted that “nonpolitical” ideology of many 
educational leaders was ultimately detrimental to their abilities to fulfill their duties and, perhaps, led 
to high rates of attrition. In fact, he recommended the development new training “designed to 
increase political sensitivity and foster the acquisition of skills and attitudes needed for successful 
conflict management” (Boyd, 1974, p. 4).  



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  5 
 

For Callahan (1966), this political role came was categorized under the role of educational 
statesman. The term statesman was applied to this role because of the growing importance of the 
superintendent as a linchpin between the school and the community. Quoting Ernest Melby, 
Callahan states, “The concept of administration… recognizes the centrality of the community in 
strengthening the democratic process. It conceives of education as a process of creative living and of 
administration as creative leadership. It sees the entire community as an educational resource…” (p. 
215).  
 While Callahan envisaged the educational statesman as a politically savvy leader, forming 
coalitions to influence policy and practice in and around the school, Björk and Gurley (2005) have 
argued convincingly that the descriptor “statesman” in itself is misguided. They make the case that 
Callahan’s appropriation of the term “statesman” was simply a misnomer. They reached this 
conclusion by analyzing the historical application of the term.  
 The traditional definition of statesman has been rather narrow: “Statesman: A skilled, 
experienced, and respected political leader” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). Björk and Gurley (2005) 
looked beyond the dictionary definition, however, and specifically analyzed how Plato and 
Alexander Hamilton applied the term at two distinct points in history. From the Platonic perspective 
in Politicus, a statesman is a highly skilled and educated individual who governs benevolently for the 
betterment of individuals and the commonwealth.  Hamilton, on the other hand, conceived of the 
statesman as elevated from the public and engaged in the process of influencing and working with 
other elite decision-makers. Both perspectives distinguished the statesman as a political agent 
working on behalf of others, separated from his constituents by position, authority and capacity but, 
nevertheless, acting on behalf of his constituency at all times. Noting that neither of these definitions 
accurately reflect the role of the superintendency, many scholars have come to the reject the term 
statesman altogether, instead embracing other terms, such as political strategist (Boyd, 1974; 
Brunner, Grogan & Björk, 2001) or democratic leader (Björk & Gurley, 2005). 

It is important to delineate the type of politics in which superintendents engage. Much of the 
existing literature on the politics of the superintendency focuses explicitly on micropolitics (Björk & 
Gurley, 2005; Blase & Blase, 2002; Lindle, 1994; Marshall & Scribner, 1991; Willower, 1991). While a 
clear definition for micropolitics does not exist, it may be characterized by more localized, person-
to-person politics that dominates the everyday life within organizations. Macropolitics, on the other 
hand, refers to larger cultural narratives. Surprisingly, little has been written on the prominence or 
practice of macropolitical engagement by superintendents.  

This paucity may be a result of the historical taboos associated with the combination of 
education and politics. In addition, most states have superintendents’ associations, which provide an 
avenue for school leaders to engage in macropolitical conversations within a closed group. The 
rationale for being cautious on this front is easily recognizeable. Most superintendents serve as 
employees of politically elected boards, placing them very much in a political position in which their 
opinions, if not accepted by all, might jeopardize their effectiveness. Furthermore, superintendents 
serve broad groups of stakeholders with divergent opinions and beliefs. To engage openly in 
political discourse would risk alienating some constituents and undermining the superintendent’s 
ability to garner buy-in for his or her goals. Finally, discussing political topics or issues as an 
employee of the school district places the superintendent in a very risky position with the school 
board, which has the ability to limit the political speech of employees in certain situations (Ohio 
School Boards Association, 2016).  

Therefore, it is not surprising that in a 2010 survey of superintendents, only 5% indicated 
that they participate in overt political actions (Kowalski, McCord, Peterson, Young, & Ellerson, 
2011). Yet, superintendents do engage in macropolitical discourse. Counter to Boyd’s (1974) finding 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 6 

 
that school superintendents prefer a “nonpolitical role,” (p. 1) many superintendents are actively 
engaged in political activities, including local convenings, radio interviews, testimonies before 
legislatures, and more and more frequently, online through blogs and social media.   

 

Image Management 

 Nestor-Baker and Hoy (2001) studied the tacit knowledge that reputationally successful 
superintendents appear to possess. One defining ability of successful superintendents was with 
respect to image management. The authors state, “reputationally successful superintendents appear 
to use numerous avenues to strengthen their roles and their images” (p. 107). In short, 
superintendents are to not rock the boat, be a pillar of virtue within the community, and care deeply 
for the students he or she serves. 

This finding posits that superintendents see themselves assuming and filling a role within the 
community. Much like Goffman’s (1959) role theory, superintendents assume the clothing of the 
position upon taking office and must strive to fulfill the role that the various stakeholders expect. In 
one account within Nestor-Baker and Hoy’s (2001) study, a participant stated: “You don’t go into a 
bar, you don’t drink in the district. You always have to be a role model. You have to be careful 
about wearing your blue jeans. Sometimes I get tired of it” (p. 108). This comment underlies the 
inherent tension when an individual must fulfill the culturally expected role, even though it may 
clash with the individual’s own sense of identity.  

Twitter 

One way in which superintendents are engaging in political discourse and shaping their 
public images is through the social media platform, Twitter. Twitter has come to play an increasingly 
powerful role in modern life. What started as as a simple messaging platform in 2006, has now 
become a pervasive tool that provides a unique insight into social, cultural and political movements 
across the world. Its ubiquity in modern culture speaks to how much it has changed the way modern 
individuals interact with and receive information. Currently, Twitter has 316 million active users, 
sending 500 million tweets a day (Twitter,  2016). The core component of the service is the 
capability of users to create a tweet, which consists of a short message, limited to 140 characters or 
less. The initial concept of the tweet was intended to answer the question “What are you doing?” 
The very construction of this question begs the user to share person information. In 2009, 
responding to the realization that Twitter usage had moved beyond short updates about personal 
details to include larger, societal narratives, Twitter made the decision to change the prompt for a 
tweet to “What’s happening?” (Twitter, 2009).   

Once created, users can share a tweet, making their message available to any other user who 
chooses to follow him/her or search for similar messages on Twitter. While limited to 140 
characters, tweets have the capacity to do quite a bit. For instance, users have the ability to embed 
hyperlinks to take readers to websites of interest. Nearly any website one visits has the ability to 
mechanize the sharing of hyperlinks through a tweet button, which frequently auto-populates text 
and links to share on the Twitter.  

Hashtags (#) are another important component of Twitter. Hashtags have been used in 
online environments since the late-1990s in Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels and other online 
sharing tools, such as Flickr (Bruns & Burgess, 2011). In 2007, technologist Chris Messina began 
advocating for the use of hashtags on Twitter as a strategy to develop informal networks and to 
categorize the always flowing stream of information that occurs on Twitter (Messina, 2007). Today, 
hashtags are a ubiquitous technology icon that are used inside and outside Twitter for everything 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  7 
 
from marketing to social activism. In many professional communities, including education, hashtags 
have become a mechanism for creating conversations within professional learning networks with 
respect to specific topics. It is easy for individuals to engage in larger discussions regarding standards 
or professional practice simply by following or tweeting hashtags like #commoncore or #edchat.  

Users may also interact with one another on Twitter by indicating a message intended for a 
single person or organization. This is accomplished through the inclusion of the @ symbol and the 
specified Twitter handle. These tweets are still open and public for all to see (unless the sender’s 
account is private), however the @ symbol makes known for all that the message was specifically 
intended for that recipient. Furthermore, the intended recipient of the tweet will receive notification 
that they were mentioned in a Tweet. Such a structure has the ability to create open conversations 
between individuals or groups around common topics.  

Finally, users have the capacity to retweet something shared by another user. Frequently 
preceded by RT, though not always, a retweet allows a user to share another user’s tweet to his/her 
own followers, thereby spreading the initial message to a broader audience. Retweeting is a core 
component of Twitter and the amount of retweets is readily visible at the bottom of every tweet.  

The four resources for composing a tweet outlined above shows that users may be able to 
accomplish complicated and varied tasks in the limited space of 140 characters. This linguistic 
freedom has allowed for interesting, and surprisingly complex discursive interactions. Twitter has 
enabled individuals to develop new ways of interacting with culture and shifted the manner in which 
colleagues and peers communicate across technology. Because of this complex dynamic, Twitter has 
become a topic of great interest to scholars from numerous fields, including computer sciences, 
biology, psychology to education.  

Twitter Research  

 Twitter is now more than a decade old and scholars have begun to recognize its 
importance on society and have developed varied methods to analyze its usage. Broad studies of 
Twitter activity have primarily focused on social network analysis methods to better un derstand 
the development of networks among individuals (Gruzd, Wellman, & Takhteyev, 2011; Wang, 
Sauers, & Richardson, 2016). While useful from a meta perspective, such analyses do not 
provide insight into the content of specific tweets.   

Other scholars have sought to better understand linguistic practices using more finite 
quantitative measures.  For instance, Cunha et al. (2014) analyzed hashtag usage among men and 
women in order to better understand gendered discursive practices on Twitter.  Danescu-Niculescu-
Mizil, Gamon and Dumais (2011) employed a probabilistic framework to study the nature of 
conversations between individuals on Twitter, finding that individuals adopted stylistic 
accommodations among social groups on the platform. Perhaps the fastest growing methodology 
used to analyze twitter form a discursive perspective is sentiment analysis. Eichstadt et al. (2015) 
employed sentiment analysis to tie linguistic practices to elevated likelihood of atherosclerotic heart 
disease.  
 Qualtitative approaches to Twitter analysis are significantly more difficult due to the sheer 
volume of tweets. Ybarra, boyd, Korchmaros and Oppenheim (2012) and Marwick and boyd (2011) 
have used surveys to overcome such barriers and gather user feedback regarding Twitter usage. 
While such methods provide unique data, the methodology disconnects the findings from in situ 
discursive practices and may not provide a clear understanding language use on Twitter.  

There is a relatively small sample of scholars employing discourse analysis techniques to 
better understand the discursive practices of individuals on Twitter. Page (2012) employed content 
analysis, using tenets of critical discourse analysis to analyze the use of the @ symbol in tweets. Such 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 8 

 
linguistic structures that are unique to computer mediated discourse requires purposeful and distinct 
approaches to analysis that expand upon the frameworks traditionally employed by discourse 
analysts (Giles, Stommel, Paulus, Lester, & Reed, 2016). The barriers in place for scholars, including 
technological barriers to gathering data and volume barriers in terms of how many tweets there are, 
make any meaningful examination of Twitter usage through deep discourse analysis very difficult.  

 

School Leadership and Social Media 
 

Recently, scholars of school leadership have begun to embrace social media as an 
important topic to explore as it relates to school leadership practices.  In particular, researchers 
have sought to better understand how the use of tools like Twitter may be impacting the 
practice of school leadership. Many have focused primarily on interconnectivity of Twitter as a 
tool for developing new and expanded professional learning networks (Carpenter & Krutka, 
2014; Cho, 2013; Couros et al., 2012; Sauers & Richardson, 2015).  

Cho (2013) conducted interviews and content analysis in an attempt to better understand the 
practices of school leaders on Twitter.  His findings indicated that school leaders discussed various 
topics on Twitter, including technology, announcements, personal promotion, and educational 
policies. This finding was confirmed by Sauers and Richardson (2015), who concluded that Twitter 
is a platform that is providing educators new ways to “communicate, learn and grow” (p. 141). 

In a study of school superintendents’ use of social media, Cox and McLeod (2014) found 
that Twitter can be a powerful tool in developing a two-way communication channel with 
community stakeholders and colleagues. It provides an opportunity to not only share important 
professional information, but also professional practices across communities. Likewise, Roth (2016) 
found that superintendents utilize Twitter as a means of forming a PLN and sharing information. In 
addition, Roth found that Twitter has a particular ability to provide a level of transparency to the 
profession, allowing superintendents to “communicate a vision for purposeful change, advocate for 
funding and policy, and model effective technology” (p. V).  

One particularly interesting finding from Cho’s (2013) study is that school leaders are very 
much aware of the dangers involved in discussing political topics on Twitter. One participant shared 
his rule of “don’t put anything out there that you wouldn’t be comfortable showing to board 
members” (p. 28). Another participant noted that there is definitely politics and faith interspersed 
within his Twitter account that he uses in relation to his role as a school leader. His rationale was 
“Who I am is what people get” (p. 29). This indicates school leaders are not stepping into the world 
of social media blindly. There is at least some awareness of the potential consequences and, perhaps, 
some strategy to its usage. As more school leaders begin to use Twitter, however, a dialogue 
regarding expectations and, ultimately, comfort must occur with regard to what and when to share 
political information.   

Methodology 

Discourse analysis has come to be a blanket term used to describe any methodological 
examination of the way language constructs and is constructed by the social world. This broad 
appropriation of the term is due largely to the fact that variant forms of discourse analysis have 
emerged simultaneously in a number of different fields. Psychology, sociology, linguistics, 
anthropology, literary studies, philosophy, media and communication studies have all claimed some 
form of discourse analysis; all of which grounded their approach in varying philosophical and 
theoretical perspectives (Potter & Wetherell, 1992). For this reason, critical to using discourse 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  9 
 
analysis as an analytical method is the ability to define the historical perspective and academic 
tradition that one adopts.  

For the purposes of this study, I have chosen to adopt the discourse analysis perspective that 
has arisen over the last half-century in the field of social psychology - discursive psychology. This 
approach brought together many traditions from the social and psychological sciences and gave 
birth to a variant of discourse analysis known as discursive psychology. In the following sections I 
will identify the academic tradition and key components of discursive psychology. I will then outline 
how the methodology has been applied in previous studies that are relevant to my study.  

Discursive Psychology 

Discursive psychology is a distinct approach to discourse analysis that is grounded in the 
field and practice of social psychology. Pioneered by Derek Edwards, Jonathan Potter and Margaret 
Wetherell, discursive psychology emerged as a critique of many of the precepts of cognitive 
psychology, which viewed language either as a reflection of global societal realities or inner mental 
processes (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1992). In contrast, discursive psychology 
takes a social constructionist stance, which questions the reality of inner cognitive functions and 
challenges the stability of global realities. Discursive psychology views language use as purposeful 
constructions oriented towards social action (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002).    

Wood and Kroger (2000) identify three aspects that distinguish a methodological approach 
that uses discursive psychology. For them, the discourse analyst places: “(a) an emphasis on talk as 
action, (b) an emphasis on talk as the event of interest, and (c) an emphasis on variability” (p. 18). 
An emphasis on talk as action is, in many ways, unique to discursive psychology and discourse 
analysis broadly. For the discourse analyst, a distinction lies between “talk as words, and talk as what 
people are doing with words” (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 5).  In other words, talk does not exist 
outside of purpose; all language is purposeful and constructive.  

The methodological roots of discourse analysis may be found in conversation analysis. 
Conversation analysis is an ethnomethodological approach to discourse that examines everyday talk 
in social interaction (Augoustinos, Walker & Donaghue, 2014; Sacks, 1992). As an approach, 
conversation analysis focuses heavily on the organization of talk, such as turn-taking patterns and 
conversational repairs, that individuals use to navigate social interaction (Woofitt, 2014). However, 
such a mechanistic approach has led to a rather limited perspective on language. Conversation 
analysts constrain their analyses to the talks and text at hand and do not concern themselves with 
larger societal discourses or semiotic imagery.   

While discourse analysis draws heavily on the foundational understanding and 
methodological approaches of conversation analysis, discourse analysis diverged from conversation 
analysis in two important ways. First, discourse analysis incorporated many of the continental 
approaches to discourse presented by Michel Foucault (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). This led to an 
awareness and consideration of broader discourses in society that may be drawn upon and used for 
specific purposes. This awareness directly impacted the second divergence of discourse analysis; 
namely a focus on rhetorical organization as a strategy to counter alternative positions or arguments 
(Billig, 1991). Conversational analysis, instead, views language as sequentially organized, prioritizing 
the structure and nature of language over purpose. 

Philosophical Roots of Discourse Analysis 

Discourse analysis is unique as a methodology in that theory and method are inexorably 
intertwined. For this reason, Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) have referred to discourse analysis as a 
“complete package,” noting that “it is not to be used as a method of analysis detached from its 
theoretical and methodological foundations” (pp. 3-4). Furthermore, Potter (2011) has noted, “this 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 10 

 
is not just a method; it is a broad approach to social life that combines meta-theoretical assumptions, 
theoretical ideas, analytic orientations and bodies of work” (p. 188). Therefore, it is necessary to 
unpack key philosophical perspectives related to discourse analysis.  

Social constructionism is a theoretical orientation to taken-for-granted knowledge (Burr, 
2003). While it is nearly impossible to provide a universal definition for social constructionism, Burr 
(2003) has provided some key premises that are common to all social constructionist perspectives.  
First, social constructionists take a critical stance to taken-for-granted knowledge. This premise 
stands in opposition to other positivist or empirical traditions and encourages practitioners to be 
critical of observational reality. To the social constructionist, truth and reality do not exist 
independently, but instead are socially constructed by individuals and society. Of particular 
importance to the discourse analyst is the proposition that the construction or reality is 
accomplished through language. As Burr (2003) has noted, “knowledge of our world… is not 
derived from the nature of the world as it really is,” instead, “it is through the daily interactions 
between people in the course of social life that our versions of knowledge become fabricated” (p. 4) 

Another key premise of social constructionism is that truth is historically and culturally 
specific. Therefore, the categories and truths that individuals associate with society are flexible and 
dependent upon one’s place. As Burr (2003) has noted, the notion of childhood is highly dependent 
upon what century one lives in. In much the same way, what society considers as right and wrong 
can shift dramatically across communities and time. As such, the actions societies accept are 
sustained through individual constructions of the world. 

Like social constructionism, poststructuralism is a complex philosophical prospect that is the 
subject of much debate regarding core tenets and application. Nevertheless, an overview of key 
poststructuralist ideas is helpful to better understanding the discourse analysts perspective.  

Built largely on the writings of Barthes, Foucault and Derrida, poststructuralism views the 
world as a flexible construct built on related realities. With respect to language, poststructuralism 
places emphasis on the every day nature of language (parole) rather than on linguistic structures 
(langue) (Potter and Wetherell, 1992). This position is a direct reaction to Saussurian structuralist 
position, which theorized language as a fixed medium with constant meaning and relation (Jorgensen 
& Phillips, 2002).  

Poststructural theory is also particularly concerned with power dynamics and the role that 
language plays in constituting and sustaining power. Michel Foucault conceptualized power as 
productive force that was sustained through its connection to knowledge. Jorgensen and Phillips 
(2002) provide the example of crime, wherein “it is hard to imagine the modern prison system 
without criminology” (p. 14). In this example, the prison system is the basis of power but utterly 
impotent without knowledge of the concepts related to criminology. It is this linking of power to 
knowledge, and the reliance of discursive processes to create knowledge, that has been of great 
importance to discourse analysts. Therefore, within most discourse analysis questions, the realization 
that talk and text does something, begs the question also of how the discourse might also support or 
undermine traditional power structures.  

It is necessary to define my use of the term discourse. I have adopted Potter and Wetherell’s 
(1992) “open” definition of discourse to include all forms of “spoken interaction and written texts 
of all kinds” (p. 7). Such an approach does not necessitate a two-way communicative structure. This 
is important when discussing discourse as it relates to social media as a singular, uni-directional 
statement qualifies as discourse. Furthermore, every textual element of that statement (i.e. hashtags 
or @ statements) is discursive in nature.  



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  11 
 
Validity 

 It is important to attend to how one, as an analyst, warrants claims in discourse analysis. 
Potter (1996) noted four possible ways the discursive psychology analysts might warrant claims: 1) 
attending to participant orientations; 2) attending to deviant cases; 3) coherence and 4) reader 
evaluation. This study will warrant claims through attending to deviant cases and reader evaluation.  
 This study is at its core a study of deviant cases. The discussion of political topics by 
superintendents is abnormal according to our institutional expectations and the roles associated with 
practice. Therefore, those tweets that do address policy and/or politics challenge our assumptions of 
the field and deviate from normal superintendent discourse. 
 In addition, I have sought to warrant claims throughout by attending to reader evaluation. 
Reader evaluation “both results form and is encouraged by the greater transparency of discourse-
analytic work” (Wood and Kroger, 2000, p. 168). As such I have sought to clearly articulate the 
analytic process inherent to this study and to be reflective throughout regarding my own internal 
biases and understandings of the texts at hand. A first step in such an approach is to clarify the 
perspective I bring to the research through a positionality statement.  

Positionality 

 Alcoff (2006) has posited the concept of positionality as a means to clearly identify the 
perspectival influences that act upon the research at hand. While Alcoff has traditionally applied this 
concept to gender studies from a critical feminist lens, any study appropriating a social constructivist 
lens, particularly one utilizing discourse analysis as a methodological framework, may benefit from 
clearly articulating the researcher’s positionality. Therefore, I will attempt to expound upon my own 
positionality as it relates to the study at hand. 
 I come to this research with a social constructionist positionality. I adhere to Burr’s (2003) 
four premises embraced by social constructionists: employ critical approach to taken for granted 
knowledge, knowledge is historical and culturally specific, there is a link between knowledge and 
social processes, and there is a link between knowledge and social action. The historical and cultural 
specificity is primary to my philosophical grounding in this study. Through this lens, the I positions 
my understanding of social reality as situated in historicity. Therefore, there is no enduring reality 
and all social understandings are contingent (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002).  
 In addition, for the last eight years I have worked in what may be described as an educational 
policy subsystem (Thurber, 1996). In this position I have worked closely with public school 
superintendents around school design and innovation processes, while at the same time working 
with policy makers and governmental institutions to support such initiatives. This background has 
influence my perception of the superintendency; I have come to know many superintendents as 
passionate educators seeking the best opportunities for their students. Yet the political nature of 
their role requires caution and political astuteness as they work with political organizations and 
discuss policy issues broadly.  

Population 

An initial database of superintendents was constructed by adding participants from the 
Twitter hashtag, #suptchat, and following an already developed, public list of superintendents 
constructed by Kevin Case (@KevinCase253)1. Kevin Case’s Twitter List of superintendents 
consisted of 814 superintendents when the initial data set was pulled. I used the software, TwExlist 
(Docteur Tweety, 2015) to export all members of the list to an excel database, which included 

                                                 
1 The public list is available at: https://twitter.com/KevinCase253/lists/superintendentstofollow 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 12 

 
information about each account. From this list, I conducted an initial scan of participants for the 
purposes of narrowing down my sample.   

 Previous studies of Twitter have given great thought to the criteria used to qualify 
participants for analysis. For instance, Veletsianos (2012) developed the following criteria for 
participant inclusion in his study of higher education scholars’ use of Twitter. Users must:  
   

•  have a public Twitter profile, 
•  have a Twitter network with more than 2,000 followers, 
•  have an active presence on Twitter, and  
•  have a K-12 school title in his or her Twitter profile.  

 
Other studies have changed particular criteria. Sauers and Richardson (2015) included a requirement 
that participants have tweeted more than once per week, while Cho (2013) included only participants 
that had more than 100 tweets in their history.   

I have purposefully chosen not to include such a criterion for this study. The rationale for 
this decision is based largely upon theoretical considerations. From a discourse analysis perspective, 
the unit of study is the discourse, not the individual constructing the discourse. As such, a single 
tweet from a superintendent adds to the larger body of discourse. Furthermore, in some ways, from 
an analytical perspective, that single tweet may be more illuminating than a random tweet from an 
account with 5,000 other examples. The act of the single tweet was purposive and unique; therefore, 
it is a punctuation that indicates something worth analyzing.  

That is not to say that there were not any criteria for inclusion, however. I set forth two 
criteria that were critical to the analysis. First, all participants must have been users of Twitter within 
the entirety of data range for analysis and the users must have self-identified as superintendents 
within their profile. I removed all superintendents who had not created a Twitter account before the 
initial date in my analysis range (August 1, 2014). Next I analyzed all of the biographies that the 
participants had provided for their Twitter profile. I made the decision to only include those 
superintendents who explicitly stated their role as superintendent within their profile in this dataset. 
The rationale for this decision was that this required a clear, explicit statement of their role and 
affirmed their position outside of their inclusion in the initial list. This left me with a total database 
of 570 superintendents.  

Analysis proceeded in four steps. First, a random number generator was used to reorder the 
catalog of 570 superintendents. After this was complete, I utilized Nvivo for Mac (QSR 
International Pty Ltd., 2016) and the web browser extension, NCapture for Nvivo, to capture all 
tweets and retweets for the first 10 identified superintendents. This process automatically populated 
an Nvivo database where I limited samples to those that were shared between August 1, 2014 and 
June 30, 2015. After three rounds of this process a total dataset of 16,658 tweets were included in 
the dataset. I decided at this point that more than 15,000 tweets should provide a clear indication of 
practice. 

The second stage of analysis was a broad scan of all tweets, coding those that were political 
in nature. For the purposes of this study, I have defined political as any tweet that referenced: 
politicians, legislation, educational policy, non-educational policy, and politically sensitive topics (e.g. 
Supreme Court rulings). This coding process identified 1,619 tweets as political in nature.  

Step three of the analysis process included reading closely only those tweets that had 
previously been coded as political. After several close readings of all tweets, meta-themes began to 
emerge. It became clear that there were two broad categories of tweets within the dataset: those that 
were constructed by the individual and those that were shared content (re-tweets and link sharing). 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  13 
 
Therefore, a second round of coding was conducted in Nvivo in which all tweets were categorized 
as either “Updates/Conversations” or “Retweet/Sharing.”  

For the purposes of this study, I have decided to focus only on those tweets coded as 
“Updates/Conversations,” as the subject at hand individually constructs them. At this point I 
conducted another deep reading of all tweets coded looking for new themes. Step four of the 
analysis was the final round of coding, wherein political tweets that were coded as 
‘Updates/Conversations’ in round three were further coded as ‘Representations of Engagement’ and 
‘Political Activism.’  

 

Findings 

 Through my analysis, I found two consistent themes that emerged and characterized the 
political dialogue that emerged on Twitter: Representations of Engagement and Activism. It is 
important to note that while all of the data presented is publicly available, I have made a conscious 
decision to de-identify the tweets. This decision was made out of respect for the fact that political 
engagement is traditionally a complex role for the superintendency. I have not de-identified 
individuals mentioned in the tweets, however, as they are disconnected from the tweet construction 
itself and are important for the analysis process.   

Representations of Engagement 

 Representations of engagement consists of tweets that actively construct an image of the 
superintendent communicating about sophisticated political topics and as player in the political 
system. This finding is very much related to the concept of image management and conforms with 
the findings of Nestor-Baker and Hoy (2001). Superintendents are carefully constructing their 
images as political insiders so as to fulfill their rolls as political strategist.  

At its core, Twitter was developed as a tool to share updates with a wide audience. It is for 
this reason that users are prompted with the question, “What’s happening” in the composition box 
for every tweet. For many superintendents included in this study, this provided them with an 
opportunity to share their engagement in political matters. The samples provided below are a small 
subset, but display common discursive practices constructed in this way. 
 

Relationships within Politics. Crane (2012) used discourse analysis as a means to examine how 
individuals utilized the construction of group membership to convey expertise. Building trust and 
respect by leveraging relationships and group participation is nothing new. When analyzing the 
dataset for this study, one of the most common features across all participants was the use of 
relationships. In some cases this was done by the superintendent showing that they are within the 
same room/group as powerful and important people. In other cases, it is through constructing 
informal dialogues with politicians, which indicates that there is a relationship in place. Such actions 
serve to place the superintendent within a privileged group, and thereby conveying some form of 
expertise to him or her. Example 1 does this in a particular way. 
 
 Example 1:  

 
1. Gov. Raimondo meeting with RI superintendents asking for input on search for new education 

commissioner. #NextinEd 
 

 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 14 

 
 The phrase, “asking for input” positions the superintendents involved in the meeting as 
political advisors. As school leaders, they possess information and expertise that the Governor 
should listen to in the process of choosing a new education commissioner for the state. This 
positions the superintendent as the holder of privileged knowledge (Crane, 2012), and thereby 
reinforces his or her insider status. It may be presumed that the governor addressed other topics in 
the meeting as well, but the only topic explicitly tweeted about was the fact that the governor had 
approached them for input.  
 Another construction found within example one can be seen across the entire dataset. The 
political actor mentioned in the tweet is given a position of primary importance by being the first 
item mentioned. Examples one through five prominently display this construction.  
 
 Examples 2-4:  

 
2. Illinois Gov. Rauner talking with suburban superintendents about education in Illinois. [photo]2 
 
3. Sen. Wiger and Rep. Loon at AMSD. Thanks for supporting education! [photo] 
 
4. Thank you, Governor Dayton, for speaking at AMSD. We appreciate your support of Minnesota 
students! [photo] 
 
5. Thank you Mr. Speaker for talking with us at the White Bear Chamber event! [photo]  

 

 
 In front-loading the tweet with the political actor, the superintendents have placed the 
importance of the communication on the individual addressed. Perhaps more importantly, in none 
of these cases is the actual Twitter handle of the political actors actually used.  This is a surprising, 
but frequent occurrence within the dataset. It would be expected that if the superintendent was 
intending to communicate directly with the individual mentioned, he or she would include the 
intended recipient’s Twitter handle. This would ensure that the recipient would receive notification 
of the Tweet. Therefore, creating a tweet directed towards an individual without a handle is a curious 
construction. It is entirely possible that Twitter handles have been omitted because the subject in 
question was not a Twitter user, which seems to be the case in some of the examples above. For 
others, though, the political figure does have an account but it is simply not used.  
 Another task accomplished by listing names rather than handles is clarity. Stating the 
political actor’s entire name allows the superintendent to be absolutely clear about whom he or she 
is talking about very clearly. Therefore, it is the act of reaching out and acknowledging the political 
actor that is given primacy rather than the actual act.   
 Examples two and five also overtly include dialogic references. The phrase “talking with” is 
purposeful in both of these tweets. The inclusion of “with” places the superintendent as a co-creator 
of the talk. The political figure was not simply talking to, but engaging in conversation about critical 
issues that confront schools. Such a construction characterizes the superintendent as a political 
insider who has an avenue to discuss educational issues with policy makers.  
 The use of the word “thanks” or “thank you” was a common construction across the 
dataset. In the existing literature regarding social media and discourse analysis, there seems to be 

                                                 
2 Tweets that include photos have been indicated with the tag [photo]. All such indications will include the 
photo in the appendix alongside the tweet.  



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  15 
 
very little attention paid to this particular type of construction. Morrow (2006) identified the 
prevalence of “thanks messages” as they relate to advice seeking on internet message boards, 
however I believe that the “thanks” in this context are doing something different. For instance, 
again, there is no direct link to the political actors’ Twitter accounts, which means the “thanks” may 
not be intended to actually be seen. Instead, these “thanks messages” may do more to show a 
transactional relationship. For instance, by placing the superintendent in a position to say “thanks,” 
he or she must be the recipient of some benefit from the act of the political figure. This further 
establishes the idea of a relationship between the superintendent and the political figure, whether it 
is based in reality or not. 
 Another anomaly that is present in examples two through five is the inclusion of photos 
depicting the superintendent physically at an event with the political actor(s). This semiotic 
representation is incredibly powerful to convey the insider status of the superintendent. He or she is 
not simply a school official with an opinion, but an active participant within the political world.  
 There are certainly exemptions to the constructions presented above. There are times when 
superintendents do rely on Twitter handles within their tweets. Two obvious exceptions to this are 
examples six and seven.  
 
 Examples 6-7:  

 
6. Great meeting today @VaSecofHealth, @yostfordelegate, and our @PulaskiCoSchool partners, 
discussing early childhood education. 
 
7. Happy birthday @GovernorVA from the great #SWVA… 

 

 
 In example six, the superintendent in question names two elected officials by Twitter handle 
alone. Interestingly, both of these accounts include the officials’ roles within the handle; one does 
not include the individual’s name at all while the other acknowledges that the delegate’s last name is 
likely Yost. By using the Twitter handle, it may be assumed that the superintendent intended for the 
individuals to see the tweet. This example is purely an acknowledgement and thankful 
communication. As such, it may be more of an act of coalition building and relationship 
development than anything else.  
 Example seven was a particularly unique construction that stood out during data analysis as 
distinct from any other construction. In this tweet the superintendent addresses the Governor’s 
twitter handle, indicating a direct comment that he is sending to the addressee. In this case, however, 
it is highly likely that the Governor actually has a social media account manager who maintains his 
account, therefore, while ostensibly a direct comment to the person in question, it is likely known 
that in reality it will not reach it’s intended recipient. In addition, the superintendent’s wishing of a 
“Happy birthday” indicates a close connection between the two. Looking through the existing data 
for this superintendent’s Twitter activity, there are no other instances of him wishing individuals 
happy birthday. Finally, the conclusion of this statement, “from the great #SWVA…” is a reference 
to a regional branding of Southwest Virginia. It is interesting that the superintendent does not 
reference his school district in particular, but a geographical region. Given that schools are far less 
likely to adhere to regionalistic ideologies, but regionalism is incredibly important to political 
machinery, one may conclude that this tweet is driven from political motivations. Finally, ending the 
tweet with an ellipses is a unique construction that has no parallel within the dataset; particularly 
after a hashtag, which is frequently used as a tweet conclusion. The ellipses may indicate that the 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 16 

 
conversation is not over, giving further credence to the idea that this particular superintendent has 
an established relationship with the Governor, whether actual or not.  
  

Example 8: 

 
8. Get well soon @GovernorVA, I’m sure the hospital stay is driving you nuts! 

 

 
 The sentiment expressed in example seven is recreated by the same superintendent in 
example eight. In this case, the superintendent once again wishes good things for the Governor, but 
follows it up with a personal statement that indicates a strong relationship. For parents and followers 
of this superintendent, the reality that may be drawn from these tweets is that the superintendent has 
a very strong relationship with the Governor of the state, which may influence their perceptions and 
indicate that he is a political player with strong ties with the political system.  
 Example nine is an extension of the kind of close connection displayed in examples seven 
and eight. In this example, the superintendent thanks a Representative for a kindness paid to him 
recently:  
 
 Example 9: 

 
9. Thank you @RepJohnKatko for taking the time out of your schedule to reach out when I was in DC 
yesterday to make sure I was in good shape.  

 

 
The superintendent not only thanks the Representative for “taking the time out of your schedule,” 
indicating that the Representative is a busy individual and his engagement was spontaneous and 
done because of their relationship. Furthermore, the rationale for reaching out is “to make sure I 
was in good shape,” which indicates that there was no reason for the interaction other than simply 
as an act of kindness on the part of the Representative to the superintendent.  Once again, such a 
construction creates the perception that there is an established relationship between the 
superintendent and the Representative in question, which indicates that the superintendent is a 
respected figure, and potentially even a colleague, within political circles. 
 Whether it is participating in a meeting or discussing personal connections to elected 
officials, the tweets in examples one through nine show superintendents constructing images of their 
relationships with elected officials. Such constructions indicate that they are insiders within the 
political system and have some standing to either discuss, or possibly influence, the political process 
at large. For the community members, parents, students, and teachers seeing these interactions the 
relationships become the primary take away. 

 Engaged in the Process. Not all representations of engagement were necessarily 
indicative of relationships with particular political actors. In other cases, superintendents shared 
instances of their work on legislative or policy issues, demonstrating engagement in the political 
system as an influencer from the outside.  
 
 
 
 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  17 
 
 Examples 10-12: 

 
10. I attended a budget workshop today to determine how the Governor’s budget proposal will it affect 

PVSD. 
 

11. Just wrapped up @amsdmn Exec/Legislative Board meeting. Working with districts across metro to 
position our schools for success in future.  
 

12. Meeting with local supts today about Economic Dev, Legislative changes, budgets, and community 
partnerships. Future is bright in Wood Co.  

 

  
 In examples 10, 11 and 12, superintendents present reflective tweets in which they share 
activities from the day, though it is unknown whether 12 is in situ or anticipatory. In all three of 
these tweets, however, the superintendent is sharing personal involvement in policy or legislative 
issues.  In example 10, the author writes “I attended a budget workshop today to determine how the 
Governor’s budget proposal will it [sic] affect PVSD.” In this instance, the superintendent is sharing 
that he/she is proactive in learning how policy issues affect the district and will not simply listen to 
talking points provided by politicians, but will seek out professional development so that he/she can 
interpret the impact on his/her own. There is no further information provided as to whether it will 
affect the district positively or negatively, only that the superintendent is now equipped to make that 
decision. The omission of the conclusion is curious in this instance, leading the author to the 
conclusion that the tweet was constructed to further support the superintendent’s role as a content 
expert rather than making any particular judgment regarding the budget proposal itself.  
 In examples 11 and 12, the superintendents share that they are working within a group of 
other superintendents3 to discuss legislative issues. In neither of these tweets are any examples 
provided or actions to be taken given. Instead, the fact that they are engaged in the process is the 
subject of the tweet. In essence, updating their followers that they are engaged participants in the 
legislative process.  
 It is worth noting that examples 10-12 are all forward looking. Example 10 is about how the 
proposal “will affect” PVSD, example 11 looks to “success in the future,” and 12 notes that the 
“Future is bright.” Such constructions may be rhetorical in nature. They allow for the 
superintendent to focus on the possibilities that lie ahead rather than the problems that exist current; 
a common rhetorical construction within politics.  

Example 13 combines elements of examples 10-12 and example one above. 
 
 Example 13: 

 
13. Mtg w/ legislators in Salem today with @KimStrelchun. TY to legislators Riley, Gallegos & McLain 

for listening today. [photo] 
 

 
 On the one hand, the superintendent shares that he/she is engaged in the political process to 
affect change. In this case the superintendent notes that he/she and a colleague are meeting with 
“legislators” at the state capital. Following this, he thanks three specific legislators for “listening” 

                                                 
3 The AMSDMN is the Association of Metropolitan School Districts of Minnesota. 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 18 

 
today. The use of the term listening to describe what others were doing indicates that they 
themselves were there to share their opinion and/or complain about current issues. Where this 
example diverges from the other three in this set is that it does not indicate that solutions were 
actively being sought, only that things were being shared. Furthermore, like above, the non-use of 
Twitter handles indicates that the tweet may not be constructed for the audience ostensibly 
addressed in the tweet. This is further reinforced by the fact that a twitter hand is used to address 
the superintendent’s colleague “@KimStrelchun.”  
 The direct thank you to the individuals without the use of Twitter handles is particularly 
curious.  One possible explanation may be that the individuals in question do not participate on 
Twitter. However, if that is the case, why would superintendents thank an individual on a platform 
that they know they are likely to never see. Perhaps the answer may lie in the fact that someone 
connected to the individuals will see the tweet and convey the thanks, but that seems to rely on 
chance far too much. I posit, instead, that the thank you really provided an opportunity for the 
superintendent to share his/her engagement with the elected officials and to further reinforce that 
they were “listening” to him/her; a reality that further indicates that the superintendent is a political 
actor engaged in the process.  
 The 13 tweets provided above display a range of activities wherein superintendents use 
Twitter to construct images of themselves as engaged within the political structure. Whether that be 
as a colleague or friend to political actors or an engaged professional providing feedback on policy, 
the superintendent is politically engaged as a core element of his/her job.  

Activism 

 The above tweets demonstrate that superintendents are engaged in the political process, but 
do not go so far as advocating for and promoting particular legislative and/or policy choices. As was 
noted above, historically superintendents have exercised caution with respect to their over political 
nature. Instead, as Boyd (1974) noted, school superintendents prefer to rely on nonpolitical 
resources to accomplish their goals. While many leadership standards encourage superintendents to 
understand and engage in political dialogue for the benefit of their school (National Policy Board for 
Educational Administration, 2011; The Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015), the need for 
caution still exists. The advent of associations and various school-oriented interest groups have 
become their political voice, allowing superintendents to maintain their standing within their local 
context without alienating members of the board or their community.  

The next group of examples focuses almost entirely on school superintendents challenging 
the traditional paradigm and publically engaging in discourse about political issues. In general, these 
tweets may be characterized as advocacy, in that they are explicitly in support or in opposition to 
particular ideas being discussed in the policy or political realm. The difference between 
Representations of Engagement and Activism are important. On the one hand, discussing 
engagement in the process indicates that the individual is a political player, further developing 
his/her role as a leader within the community. Activism for issues, however, ties purpose to action. 
It identifies the issues with which one associates and speaks to where the superintendent places 
importance in the political dialogue.  

 Policy Topics. Examples 14 and 15, superintendents use various discursive strategies to 
discuss policy issues that they hold important.  
 
 
 
 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  19 
 

Examples 14-15: 

 
14. Critical thinking, problem-solving, reading & writing skills emphasized by #CommonCore will help 

prepare students for the SAT #CA4CommonCore 
 

15. Early reports are NDSA Smarter Balanced Assessments have been working flawlessly…. 
#AprilFoolsday2015 #smile everyone #Keepperspective 

 

 
 Example 14 is one tweet among a series shared by a single superintendent. The content of all 
of the tweets included sharing either examples from within the school or facts and details about 
Common Core. It must be noted that at the time of these tweets, Common Core was a highly 
politicized educational policy issue. Many parents and community members were polarized on the 
subject because of political narratives that had come to characterize the standards debate. For this 
particular superintendent, Twitter was a mechanism for sharing the positive aspects of Common 
Core, not through outright political campaigning, but by making the standards human-focused and 
showing how they benefit students. 
 Not every superintendent advocates positively for policy topics. Some use Twitter as a 
means of criticizing policies.  In example 15, a superintendent references the highly politicized 
Smarter Balanced Assessment, which was closely linked to the development of Common Core 
Standards. Rather than posit a cogent argument for his/her dislike of the test, however, the 
superintendent uses hashtags as a means of comic relief. Using the hashtag, #AprilFoolsday2015 
allowed the superintendent to criticize the role-out of the Smarter Balanced assessment; an act 
which not only defines his/her stance on the subject of the test, but also deflects potential criticism 
that may come to the district from parents and students regarding the testing process.  
  Examples 16 and 17 are both tweets about public policy issues that directly position the 
superintendents within a political camp.  
 
 Examples 16-17: 

 
16. Bad public policy is cured by an engaged citizenry. Are you holding your Rep & Senator accountable for 

this? http://t.co/DTHDZ9Uga4 
 

17. Glad to hear that #SCOTUS is providing the right of marriage to ALL. I have many happy friends 
great day to be an American! 

 

 
 In example 16, the superintendent links to a news article regarding a charter school not being 
held accountable for poor performance. The language that is used to describe how to solve such 
problems is rhetorical in nature. The superintendent states, “Bad public policy is cured by and 
engaged citizenry,” which might indicate that the policy environment is sick or malfunctioning when 
issues such as those outlined in the article arise. It is the role of the citizenry to get involved in such 
issues and hold politicians “accountable.” The use of the word “accountable” indicates that the 
superintendent is suggesting voting repercussions because of the article, not just complaints or 
discussions. As such, the superintendent is suggesting to his/her followers appropriate voting 
measures and acting as a political advisor on educational issues.  

http://t.co/DTHDZ9Uga4


Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 20 

 
 Example 17 touches on a larger social issue directly influenced by the Supreme Court 
decision to allow same sex marriage. It is noteworthy that the superintendent does not frame this 
tweet as a pro-same sex marriage tweet, but as a pro “marriage to ALL.” In doing this, the 
superintendent clearly takes a stand on a potentially divisive political issue, but does so in a way that 
will not overtly offend constituents who may disagree with him/her. Such a construction is political 
by nature and shows a sophistication regarding political topics and navigating community biases, 
while at the same time having the courage to advocate for causes that matter to him/her.  
 One of the most frequent policy topics that superintendents share/discuss on Twitter relates 
to finances and educational spending.  
  

Examples 18-19: 

 
18. K-12 spending in VA is at pre-recession levels. Delay is denial. If you want a 21st Century Workforce, 

it’s time to invest in our future now 
 

19. State Funding - The Rest of the Story http://t.co/4nBB8yrY9e 
 

 
 In example 18, the superintendent makes the case that K-12 spending in Virginia is not at an 
adequate level.  His/her reference for adequate is interesting, however, indicating that current 
spending is at “pre-recession levels.” Given the superintendent’s construction, it is assumed that this 
is a bad thing, but an interpretation could be posited in which this statement indicates spending is 
returning to pre-recession levels, which may indicate a recovery. In addition, the superintendent 
states, “Delay is denial,” ruling out any potential alternative interpretation. Finally, the 
superintendent makes the leap that funding schools at higher levels will lead to a “21st Century 
Workforce,” for which there is no evidence provided.  In essence, this tweet is an example of a 
superintendent advocating for more funding for schools, justifying his position through a data point 
and linking it to student success and economic benefit.  
 Example 19 includes a link to the superintendents’ school blog, where he proceeds to 
explain the complexity of school funding and where that money goes in schools. The language in 
this tweet does a couple of important things, first it harkens back for many to the famous radio 
program host, Paul Harvey. The Rest of the Story was a radio show hosted by Harvey and consisted of 
short stories that provided compelling backstories in an attempt to further illuminate the subject. In 
referencing this, the superintendent is, in a folksy way, setting the stage to explain the complexity 
and nuance of school finance. 
 Another construction found in example 19, which was certainly present across the dataset, 
but not a common practice, was the use of a personal blog to provide insight on complex political 
topics. Rather than try to address the whole of school finance issues within the limit of 140 
characters, the superintendent instead used the platform provided by Twitter to direct followers 
back to his webpage where he could dedicate the necessary time and space to the subject at hand.  
 In the six examples provided above, the superintendents used sophisticated political rhetoric 
and devices to advocate for causes and issues that were important to them. Those causes may be 
directly related to outcomes within the school district, but as in the case of example 17, there are 
instances where the topics are broader social issues that impact everyone across the community.  

 On Behalf of Students. Overall within the dataset, mentions of students (including the 
words kids, kid, children, child) occur far less within tweets that have been coded as political as 
their occurrence in the data set broadly. For instance, the word student(s) is referen ced 150 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  21 
 
(9.3% of all tweets) times within the tweets labeled as political, whereas it is referenced 4,090 
(24.5% of all tweets) in the complete dataset. The use of the term student(s) in those tweets 
coded as political are interesting from a discourse perspective though.  
 The following six tweets have all been selected because they are representative of tweets that 
mention students and are political in nature.  
  

Examples 20-21: 

 
20. Terrific MSBA advocates for education meeting with Rep. Kline. Thanks for supporting Minnesota 

students! http://t.co/WvQqhX8kIU 
 

21. Budget in Enosburg passes by huge voice vote from the floor! Great job supporting students voters of 
Enosburg!!!! FNESU# 

 

 
 The first thing that is apparent among many of these tweets is that the use of the term 
“student” may be viewed as a rhetorical construction known as synechdoche. Deborah Stone (2002) 
noted that synechdoches are symbolic representations wherein a part is used to represent the whole. 
Such linguistic devices are import in “political life because we often make policies based on 
examples believed to be representative of a larger universe” (p. 138). In examples 20 and 21, the 
word “students” accomplishes this task. In both cases, it is posited that voters and politicians are 
“supporting students.” In actuality, the tasks they are accomplishing support the school as a whole, 
but students are the more visible part and, frankly, the more persuasive from a rhetorical 
perspective.  
 Another important use of the student(s) among the political data set is to position the 
superintendent as the protector and benefactor of children. 
  

Examples 22-23: 

 
22. Testifying on behalf of all Vermont students! Let’s govern and make decisions for Students not 

for VT adults at the expense of kids 
 

23. Looking forward to defending students and teachers tonight at a public forum in Lyncourt 
regarding testing and evaluation for schools.  

 

 
 In both examples 22 and 23, the superintendent clearly places him/herself in a position of 
working on behalf of students. In example 22, the superintendent writes, “Testifying on behalf of all 
Vermont students!” Such a sentiment in essence positions the superintendent as the protector of 
kids. The superintendent goes on to write, “make decisions for Students not for VT adults,” which 
is an expression found frequently across the dataset. In essence, this construction posits that 
students are overlooked because they do not have a voice in the political system. As a result, it is all 
the more important that the superintendent function as their voice and works on students’ behalf 
for a fair system.  
 Example 23 is a slightly different take on a similar construction. Rather than positioning 
him/herself as a protector of students alone, this superintendent claims to be “defending students 
and teachers.” It is worth noting the use of “defending” conjures images of battle, which is another 

http://t.co/WvQqhX8kIU


Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 22 

 
rhetorical strategy used to position one’s position against another’s. Regardless, this tweet conforms 
to the ideological positioning of the previous tweet in that it positions the superintendent as the 
defender of students and teachers, working on their behalf within a system set up against them.  
 Finally, students are often positioned as the reason why superintendents do their job and 
make the difficulties of the political system worthwhile.  
  
 Example 24: 

 
24. As @NYGovCuomo and @syracusedotcom beat me up I am reminded by a student why I 

chose this job… [photo] 
 

 
 In example 24, the superintendent notes that he/she has suffered in a recent discussion with 
the Governor and the local newspaper. This tweet shares a photo, which may be seen in the 
appendix, in which a student writes a nice comment about the superintendent. This tweet is complex 
and does many things. First, as identified in the first section of this analysis, the inclusion of the 
Governor’s twitter account and the newspaper positions the superintendent as an insider within the 
political system. By noting that these two “beat me up” calls forth battle imagery, as stated earlier, 
which rhetorically places the educational system in competition with the political system. In this 
battle, the superintendent is the representative of the school and acts on behalf of student. It is the 
note left by the student that provides refocusing and encouragement to continue the battle for this 
superintendent.  
 In addition, it is interesting to note that the superintendent does use the Governor’s and 
newspaper’s actual Twitter handle, indicating that he purposefully wanted them to see the tweet. The 
tweet is then finished with an ellipses, which may indicate that the conversation is not over. In many 
ways, this entire construction could be interpreted as a political positioning with the intention of 
telling the Governor and newspaper that the superintendent is the defender of kids and the battle is 
not over.  

Discussion and Conclusion 

 The importance in the examples provided above lies not in what the tweets say, but in what 
they do. That is, each of the tweets construct specific relationships between the superintendents in 
question and the political landscape that exists outside of the school. For the first 13 examples, 
coded as Representations of Engagement, the discourse within the tweets positioned the 
superintendent as a political figure who either works closely with or has close relationships with 
other political figures. In the final 11 tweets, coded as Activism, the discourse within the tweets 
positioned the superintendents as either holding strong political opinions that constituents should 
listen to or as defenders of students from the political system.  
 In both cases, superintendents are defining their roles as political in nature and are using 
Twitter as a medium for sharing with a broad audience, despite the potential risks inherent in 
discussing politics with their constituents. In order to accomplish this, superintendents have 
employed discursive techniques, such as synecdoche and rhetorical allusions in order to create a 
positive narrative.  
 This analysis has led me to form a hypothesis that social media is enabling the establishment 
of an evolving role within the superintendency. Callahan (1966) viewed the role of Educational 
Statesman as an important component of the superintendency. He characterized this role as one 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  23 
 
which required individuals to be politically savvy and capable of developing coalitions to better the 
educational opportunities for students. The term statesman, however, has proved problematic. Many 
scholars have noted that the term itself calls to mind an elevated individual, highly involved in the 
governing elite, working diligently to better the lives of their constituents (Björk & Gurley, 2005). 
Superintendents, however, work closely with their constituents and have historically sought to 
distance themselves from the world of politics (Boyd, 1974). Therfore, Björk and Gurley (2005) and 
Brunner et al. (2002) have convincingly argued that a term like political strategist more aptly suits the 
political involvement of superintendents as it is much more strategic in nature and heavily reliant 
upon micropolitics rather than macropolitics.  

This study has indicated, however, that superintendents are utilizing Twitter as a means to 
construct an image of themselves as political insiders and advocates. The representations of 
engagement showed superintendents constructing images of themselves on Twitter wherein they 
had access to a broad range of politicians. They used mechanisms, such as dialogic representation 
and personal well-wishes to develop representative connections with the politicians who represent 
their community. Likewise, the examples of activism showed how superintendents publicly stood up 
for and fought on behalf of their students.  

Therefore, I believe that superintendents are fulfilling elements of the role of “statesman” 
on-line in the 21st century. Through careful and strategic image management, superintendents are 
beginning to utilize Twitter as a platform for constructing their political identity. The political 
activity of superintendents on Twitter construct images of superintendents as benevolent 
benefactors engaged in the political system, either directly or indirectly, for the betterment of 
students. This action conforms to both the Platonic and Hamiltonian conception of statesman, and 
warrants further examination.   

Limitations 

The study at hand examines the tweets of a relatively small sample of school superintendents 
on Twitter. The intent was not to define practice, but to examine emerging discursive practices. For 
instance, Brunner, Grogan, and Björk (2001) and Grogan (2000) have argued that the there is a need 
for a reconceptualization of the superintendency from a feminist, post-modernist perspective. 
Likewise, examining discursive practices on Twitter would benefit from such a critical lens and likely 
illuminate new findings.  

Discourse analysis as a methodology is grounded in a personal philosophical positioning. As 

such, others may interpret discursive practices or implications differently than I. Therefore, I 

welcome various perspectives on the subject at hand in order to more fully understand the nature of 

political dialogue by superintendents on Twitter. I believe as social media becomes more ubiquitous 

and superintendents turn to it as a tool for communicating with parents, teachers, students and 

community members, it will continue to be important to fully understand how their usage constructs 

their identities and roles as modern school superintendents.  

References 

Alcoff, L. M. (2005). The metaphysics of gender and sexual difference. Feminist interventions in 
ethics and politics: Feminist ethics and social theory, 17. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/0195137345.003.0006 

Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Donaghue, N. (2014). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 24 

 
Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 
Björk, L. G., & Gurley, D. K. (2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political 

strategist. The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development , (pp. 163-185). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Björk, L. G., & Keedy, J. (2001). Politics and the superintendency in the USA: Restructuring in -
service education. Journal of In-Service Education, 27(2), 275-302. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580100200172 

Björk, L. G., & Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and 
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research. 
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 6-44. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02381002  

Boyd, W. L. (1974). The School Superintendent: Educational Statesman or Political Strategist? 
Administrator's Notebook, 22(9), 1-4. 

Brunner, C. C. (2002). A proposition for the reconception of the superintendency: 
Reconsidering traditional and nontraditional discourse. Educational Administration 
Quarterly, 38(3), 402-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02383005  

Brunner, C. C., Grogan, M., & Björk, L. G. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the 
superintendency: Historical and current foundations of the position. Yearbook of the 
National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 211-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
7984.2002.tb00010.x  

Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. E. (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics.  Paper 
presented at the Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research 
(ECPR) General Conference 2011. 

Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. New York, NY: Psychology Press. 
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: An hist orical analysis. (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410)  
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the 

field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414-434. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925701 

Couros, A., & Jarrett, K. (2012). Twitter. In S. McLeod & C. Lehmann (Eds.), What school leaders 
need to know about digital technologies and social media (pp. 147-152). San Fransisco, CA: 
Jossey-Bass.  

Cox, D., & McLeod, S. (2014). Social media marketing and communications strategies for school 
superintendents. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6), 850-868. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2012-0117 

Crane, L. (2012). Trust me, I'm an expert: Identity construction and knowledge sharing. Journal 
of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 448-460. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211238760 

Cunha, E., Magno, G., Gonçalves, M. A., Cambraia, C., & Almeida, V. (2014). He votes or she 
votes? Female and male discursive strategies in Twitter politica l hashtags. PLoS ONE, 
9(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087041  

Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Gamon, M., & Dumais, S. (2011, March). Mark my words!: 
linguistic style accommodation in social media. In Proceedings of the 20th international 
conference on World wide web (pp. 745-754). ACM. 

Docteur Tweety. (2015). TwExList. Retrieved from http://www.docteur -tweety.com/twexlist/ 
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage. 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  25 
 
Edwards, M. E. (2006). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and responsibilities in the 

21st century. New York, NY: iUniverse, Inc. 
Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Kern, M. L., Park, G., Labarthe, D. R., Merchant, R. M., . . . 

Sap, M. (2015). Psychological language on twitter predicts c ounty-level heart disease 
mortality. Psychological science, 26(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557867 

Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W., Campbell, A., & Crosby, E. A. (1983).  A nation at risk: 
The imperative for educational reform. United States Department of Education. 

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday Dell 
Publishing Group, Inc.  

Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from 
feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117-142. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X00361005 

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. 
American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409378 

Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871  

Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintende nt position. In L. G. Björk 
& T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development  
(pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Kowalski, T. J. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases: Thousand Oaks, CA: 
SAGE. 

Kowalski, T. J., & Björk, L. G. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent: 
Implications for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73-96. 

Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, P. I., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The 
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD: R&L Education. 

Lindle, J. C. (1994). Surviving school micropolitics: Strategies for administrators: Lancaster, PA: 
Technomic.  

Marshall, C., & Scribner, J. D. (1991). " It's All Political": Inquiry into the Micropolitics of 
Education. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 347-355. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124591023004001  

Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter u sers, context 
collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 

Messina, C. (2007, October 22). Groups for Twitter; or a proposal for Twitter tag c hannels. 
[Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://factoryjoe/. com/blog/2007/10/22/twitter-
hashtags-for-emergency-coordination-and-disaster-relief. 

Morrow, P. R. (2006). Telling about problems and giving advice in an Internet discussion forum: 
Some discourse features. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 531-
548.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061876 

National Educational Association (US). Committee of Fifteen on Elementary Education. 
(1895). Report of the Committee of Fifteen on Elementary Education, with the reports of the sub -
committees: on the training of teachers; on the correlation of studies in elementary education; on the 
organization of city school systems (Vol. 5). National Educational Association. 

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2011). Educational leadership program 
recognition standards: District level. Retrieved from 
http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=tFmaPVlwMMo%3D&tabid=676  



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 26 

 
Nestor-Baker, N. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendents: Its 

nature, meaning, and content. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 86-129. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969253 

Ohio School Boards Association. (2016). Regulating political activities of school employees [Press 
release]. Retrieved from 
http://www.ohioschoolboards.org/sites/default/files/OSBAFir stAmendmentFactSheet.
pdf 

Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of 
hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181-201. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441  

Potter, J. (2011). Discursive psychology and the study of naturally occurring talk. In D. 
Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (pp. 187-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1992). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour : 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2016). NVivo for Mac: NVivo qualitative data analysis software. 
Reese, K. L., & Lindle, J. C. (2014). Forecasting future directions for political activism in school 

leadership. In J. C. Lindle (Ed.), Political contexts of educational leadership: ISLLC standard six. 
New York, NY: Routledge. 

Roth, M. Q. (2016). Superintendent use of Twitter: Learning, leading and leveraging through social media . 
(Doctor of Education dissertation), University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania. Retrieved 
from Proquest. (10241847)  

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions by 
Emanuel A. Schegloff: Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 

Sauers, N. J., & Richardson, J. W. (2015). Leading by following: An analysis of how K -12 school 
leaders use Twitter. NASSP Bulletin, 99(2), 127-146. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515583869  

Sharp, W. L., & Walter, J. K. (2004). The school superintendent: The profession and the person: Lanham, 
MD: R&L Education. 

Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Revised ed.). New York, N.Y.: 
W. W. Norton & Company. 

The Council of Chief State School Officers. (2015). Educational leadership standards: ISLLC 2015. 
Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers R etrieved from 
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_20
08.pdf.  

Twitter. (2009). What's happening? Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2009/whats-
happening 

Twitter. (2015). About Company. Retrieved from https://about.twitter.com/company  
Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter. Journal 

of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00449.x 

Wang, Y. (2016). Getting Personal! Twitter communication between school districts, 
superintendents, and the public. Journal of School Leadership, 26(5), 865-889. 

Wang, Y., Sauers, N., & Richardson, J. (2016). A social network approach to examine K -12 
educational leaders' influence on information diffusion on Twitter. Journal of School 
Leadership, 26(4), 495-522. 

Willower, D. J. (1991). Micropolitics and the Sociology of School Organizations. Education and 
Urban Society, 23(4), 442-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124591023004006 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  27 
 
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and 

text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction : 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208765 
 Ybarra, M. L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. K. (2012). Defining and 

measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization . Journal of 
Adolescent Health, 51(1), 53-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031  

  



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 28 

 

Appendix 

 

 

1. Gov. Raimondo meeting with RI superintendents asking for input on 
search for new education commissioner. #NextinEd 

 

2. Illinois Gov. Rauner talking with suburban superintendents about 
education in Illinois.  

 

 

 
 

 

3. Sen. Wiger and Rep. Loon at AMSD. Thanks for supporting education! 
  

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  29 
 

 

 

4. Thank you, Governor Dayton, for speaking at AMSD. We appreciate 
your support of Minnesota students! 

 

 
 

5. Thank you Mr. Speaker for talking with us at the White Bear Chamber 
event! 

 
 

6. Great meeting today @VaSecofHealth, @yostfordelegate, and our 
@PulaskiCoSchool partners, discussing early childhood education. 

 

7. Happy birthday @GovernorVA from the great #SWVA… 
 

8. Get well soon @GovernorVA, I’m sure the hospital stay is driving you 
nuts! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 30 

 

 

 

9. Thank you to Rep. Fischer, Rep. Daudt, and Sen. Wiger for addressing 
the White Bear area Chamber of Commerce.  

 

 
 

 

10. I attended a budget workshop today to determine how the Governor’s 
budget proposal will it affect PVSD. 

 

 
 

11. Just wrapped up @amsdmn Exec/Legislative Board meeting. Working 
with districts across metro to position our schools for success in future.  

 

12. Meeting with local supts today about Economic Dev, Legislative 
changes, budgets, and community partnerships. Future is bright in 

Wood Co.  

 

 

 

 

 

 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  31 
 

 

 

 

13. Mtg w/ legislators in Salem today with @KimStrelchun. TY to 
legislators Riley, Gallegos & McLain for listening today.  

 

 
 

14. Critical thinking, problem-solving, reading & writing skills emphasized 
by #CommonCore will help prepare students for the SAT 

#CA4CommonCore 

 

15. Early reports are NDSA Smarter Balanced Assessments have been 
working flawlessly…. #AprilFoolsday2015 #smile everyone 

#Keepperspective 

 

16. Bad public policy is cured by an engaged citizenry. Are you holding 
your Rep & Senator accountable for this? http://t.co/DTHDZ9Uga4 

 

17. Glad to hear that #SCOTUS is providing the right of 
marriage to ALL. I have many happy friends great day to be 

an American! 

 

18. K-12 spending in VA is at pre-recession levels. Delay is 
denial. If you want a 21st Century Workforce, it’s time to 

invest in our future now 

 

19. State Funding - The Rest of the Story 
http://t.co/4nBB8yrY9e 

 

20. Terrific MSBA advocates for education meeting with Rep. Kline. 
Thanks for supporting Minnesota students! http://t.co/WvQqhX8kIU 

 

21. Budget in Enosburg passes by huge voice vote from the floor! Great job 
supporting students voters of Enosburg!!!! FNESU# 

 

22. Testifying on behalf of all Vermont students! Let’s govern and make 
decisions for Students not for VT adult s at the expense of kids 

 

http://t.co/DTHDZ9Uga4
http://t.co/WvQqhX8kIU


Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 32 

 
 

  

 

 

23. Looking forward to defending students and teachers tonight at a public 
forum in Lyncourt regarding testing and evaluation for schools.  

 

24. As @NYGovCuomo and @syracusedotcom beat me up I am reminded 
by a student why I chose this job… 

 

 
 

 



The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  33 
 

About the Author 

Todd M. Hurst  
University of Kentucky 
todd.hurst@uky.edu  
Todd M. Hurst is a doctoral candidate in Educational Sciences at the University of Kentucky in 
the School Technology Leadership program. His research interests include the intersection of 
technology, school leadership and politics. 
 

About the Guest Editors 
 
Jessica Nina Lester 
Indiana University 
jnlester@indiana.edu 
Jessica Nina Lester is an Assistant Professor of Inquiry Methodology in the School of Education 
at Indiana University. She teaches research methods courses, with a particular focus on 
discourse analysis approaches and conversation analysis. She focuses much of her research on 
the study and development of qualitative methodologies and methods, and situates her 
substantive research at the intersection of discourse studies and disability studies.   
  
Chad R. Lochmiller 
Indiana University 
clochmil@indiana.edu 
Chad R. Lochmiller is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in the 
School of Education at Indiana University and a faculty affiliate of the Center for Evaluation & 
Education Policy. He teaches graduate and certification courses to students in the Educational 
Leadership Program. His research examines education policy issues broadly related to human 
resource management, instructional supervision, and school finance.  
 
Rachael Gabriel 
University of Connecticut 
rachael.gabriel@uconn.edu  
Rachael Gabriel is an Assistant Professor of Literacy Education at the University of Connecticut, 
and is an associate of the Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA), and the Center on 
Postsecondary Education and Disability (CPED). Her research interests include: teacher 
preparation, development and evaluation, as well as literacy instruction, interventions, and related 
policies. Rachael's current projects investigate supports for adolescent literacy, disciplinary literacy, 
state policies related to reading instruction and tools for teacher evaluation. 
 
  

mailto:todd.hurst@uky.edu
mailto:clochmil@indiana.edu
mailto:clochmil@indiana.edu
mailto:rachael.gabriel@uconn.edu


Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 34 

 
 

SPECIAL ISSUE    
CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF EDUCATION 

POLICY & DISCOURSE 

 

education policy analysis archives 
Volume 25 Number 29       March 27, 2017 ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is 
attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non-
commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More 
details of this Creative Commons license are available at 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the 
author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School 
of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de 
Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO 
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), 
SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). 

Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to 
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu   
 

Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter 
feed @epaa_aape. 

 

http://www.doaj.org/
mailto:Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu
https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE


The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  35 
 

education policy analysis archives 

editorial board  

Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) 
Consulting Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 

Associate Editors: David Carlson, Margarita Jimenez-Silva, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg,   
Scott Marley, Jeanne M. Powers, Iveta Silova, Maria Teresa Tatto (Arizona State University) 

Cristina Alfaro San Diego State 
University 

Ronald Glass  University of 
California, Santa Cruz 

R. Anthony Rolle University of  
Houston 

Gary Anderson New York  
       University  

Jacob P. K. Gross  University of 
Louisville 

A. G. Rud Washington State 
University  

Michael W. Apple University of 
Wisconsin, Madison  

Eric M. Haas WestEd Patricia Sánchez University of 
University of Texas, San Antonio 

Jeff Bale OISE, University of 
Toronto, Canada 

 Julian Vasquez Heilig California 
State University, Sacramento 

Janelle Scott  University of 
California, Berkeley  

Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University 
of North Carolina Greensboro 

Jack Schneider College of the Holy 
Cross 

David C. Berliner  Arizona 
State University  

Aimee Howley  Ohio University  Noah Sobe  Loyola University 

Henry Braun Boston College  Steve Klees  University of Maryland  Nelly P. Stromquist  University of 
Maryland 

Casey Cobb  University of 
Connecticut  

Jaekyung Lee  
SUNY Buffalo  

Benjamin Superfine University of  
Illinois, Chicago 

Arnold Danzig  San Jose State 
University  

Jessica Nina Lester 
Indiana University 

Adai Tefera Virginia  
Commonwealth University 

Linda Darling-Hammond  
Stanford University  

Amanda E. Lewis  University of 
 Illinois, Chicago      

Tina Trujillo    University of  
California, Berkeley 

Elizabeth H. DeBray University of 
Georgia 

Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana 
University 

Federico R. Waitoller University of 
Illinois, Chicago 

Chad d'Entremont  Rennie Center 
for Education Research & Policy 

Christopher Lubienski  University 
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 

 Larisa Warhol  
 University of Connecticut 

John Diamond University of 
Wisconsin, Madison 

Sarah Lubienski  University of  
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 

John Weathers University of  
Colorado, Colorado Springs 

Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker 
Institute 

William J. Mathis University of 
Colorado, Boulder 

Kevin Welner University of  
Colorado, Boulder 

Michael J. Dumas University of 
California, Berkeley 

Michele S. Moses University of 
Colorado, Boulder 

Terrence G. Wiley  Center  
 for Applied Linguistics 

Kathy Escamilla  University of 
Colorado, Boulder 

Julianne Moss  Deakin  
University, Australia  

John Willinsky   
 Stanford University  

Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams 
State College 

Sharon Nichols  University of Texas, 
San Antonio  

Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of 
South Florida 

Rachael Gabriel 
University of Connecticut 

Eric Parsons University of  
Missouri-Columbia 

Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate 
University 

Amy Garrett Dikkers University 
of North Carolina, Wilmington 

Susan L. Robertson  Bristol 
University, UK 

Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate 
University 

Gene V Glass  Arizona 
State University  

Gloria M. Rodriguez 
University of California, Davis 

 



Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 25 No. 29      SPECIAL ISSUE 36 

 

archivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
consejo editorial 

 Editor Consultor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores Asociados: Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Jason Beech, 

(Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Ezequiel Gomez Caride, 
(Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), José Luis Ramírez, 

(Universidad de Sonora) 
 

Claudio Almonacid 
Universidad Metropolitana de 
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile 

Juan Carlos González Faraco 
Universidad de Huelva, España 

Miriam Rodríguez Vargas 
Universidad Autónoma de 
Tamaulipas, México 

Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega 
Universidad Autónoma de la 
Ciudad de México 

María Clemente Linuesa 
Universidad de Salamanca, España 

José Gregorio Rodríguez 
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 
Colombia 

Xavier Besalú Costa  
Universitat de Girona, España 

Jaume Martínez Bonafé 
 Universitat de València, España 

Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de 
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad 
y la Educación, UNAM, México 

Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad 
Autónoma de Barcelona, España   

 

Alejandro Márquez Jiménez 
Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la 
Universidad y la Educación, 
UNAM, México 

José Luis San Fabián Maroto  
Universidad de Oviedo,  
España 
 

Antonio Bolívar Boitia 
Universidad de Granada, España 

María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, 
Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, 
México 

Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad 
de la Coruña, España 

José Joaquín Brunner Universidad 
Diego Portales, Chile  

Miguel Pereyra Universidad de 
Granada, España 

Yengny Marisol Silva Laya 
Universidad Iberoamericana, 
México 

Damián Canales Sánchez 
Instituto Nacional para la 
Evaluación de la Educación, 
México  
 

Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional 
de San Martín, Argentina 

Juan Carlos Tedesco Universidad 
Nacional de San Martín, Argentina 
 

Gabriela de la Cruz Flores 
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de 
México 

Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves 
Instituto para la Investigación 
Educativa y el Desarrollo 
Pedagógico (IDEP) 

Ernesto Treviño Ronzón 
Universidad Veracruzana, México 

Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes 
Universidad Iberoamericana, 
México 

José Luis Ramírez Romero 
Universidad Autónoma de Sonora, 
México 

Ernesto Treviño Villarreal 
Universidad Diego Portales 
Santiago, Chile 

Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, 
México 
 

Paula Razquin Universidad de San 
Andrés, Argentina 

Antoni Verger Planells 
Universidad Autónoma de 
Barcelona, España 

Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad 
Iberoamericana, México 

José Ignacio Rivas Flores 
Universidad de Málaga, España 

Catalina Wainerman  
Universidad de San Andrés, 
Argentina 

Ana María García de Fanelli  
Centro de Estudios de Estado y 
Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, 
Argentina 

 Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco 
Universidad de Colima, México 
 

 

 

javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1617')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/816')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804')
javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264')


The Discursive Contruction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter  37 
 

arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
conselho editorial 

Editor Consultor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores Associados: Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), 

Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) 
 

Almerindo Afonso 

Universidade do Minho  

Portugal 

 

Alexandre Fernandez Vaz  

Universidade Federal de Santa 

Catarina, Brasil 

José Augusto Pacheco 

Universidade do Minho, Portugal 

Rosanna Maria Barros Sá  

Universidade do Algarve 

Portugal 

 

Regina Célia Linhares Hostins 

Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, 

 Brasil 

Jane Paiva 

Universidade do Estado do Rio de 

Janeiro, Brasil 

Maria Helena Bonilla  

Universidade Federal da Bahia  

Brasil 

 

Alfredo Macedo Gomes  

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco 

Brasil 

Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira  

Universidade do Estado de Mato 

Grosso, Brasil 

Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer  

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande 

do Sul, Brasil 

 

Jefferson Mainardes  

Universidade Estadual de Ponta 

Grossa, Brasil 

Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva 

Universidade Federal do Mato 

Grosso do Sul, Brasil 

Alice Casimiro Lopes  

Universidade do Estado do Rio de 

Janeiro, Brasil 

Jader Janer Moreira Lopes  

Universidade Federal Fluminense e 

Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, 

Brasil 

António Teodoro  

Universidade Lusófona 

Portugal 

Suzana Feldens Schwertner 

Centro Universitário Univates  

Brasil 

 

 Debora Nunes 

 Universidade Federal do Rio Grande 

do Norte, Brasil 

Lílian do Valle 

Universidade do Estado do Rio de 

Janeiro, Brasil 

Flávia Miller Naethe Motta 

Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de 

Janeiro, Brasil 

 

Alda Junqueira Marin 

 Pontifícia Universidade Católica de 

São Paulo, Brasil 

Alfredo Veiga-Neto 

 Universidade Federal do Rio Grande 

do Sul, Brasil 

 Dalila Andrade Oliveira 

Universidade Federal de Minas 

Gerais, Brasil