Educational leadership research has in general focused on organizational conditions and expectations for managing and leading activities (Leithwood et al. 1994; Spillane and Healey 2010; Møller 2006), in parallel curriculum theories have offered insights into substantial societal problems that must be addressed in school and society (Hopmann 1999; Westbury 2000). In this study, we link curriculum theory both to discursive institutionalism and educational leadership policy and research.  By including discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2012) within a framework of curriculum theory, it is possible to distinguish between different forms of discourses and their functions in forming and conveying ideas. Thus, we explore educational leadership policy using a reflexive approach to reforms as intertwined with public discourses and research.

A transnational perspective on leadership confirms the applicability of reforms across geographical territories, relating to wider societal and cultural contexts. A basic policy supposition is that when society changes rapidly in its communication and migration patterns, a principal also needs to go beyond their own school and exercise leadership in a wider system (European Commission 2012). This enables transforming schools in a more powerful way. A policy focus on increased knowledge outcomes requires a common transnational policy of standards-based curriculum. Especially in recent policy discourse of learning leadership, it is emphasized that the principal should provoke and challenge their school system from within, to improve knowledge results (OECD 2013).

Following an institutional-discursive approach, we argue that the ways in which social and educational questions become intertwined in actual reforms are dependent on cognitive and normative ideas in the public sphere. Thus, reforms to education leadership are related to coordinative and communicative discourses beyond the individual reform, while solutions to curriculum and leadership problems are anchored in educational policies and practices. Against this background, we argue that a deeper understanding of the meaning of educational leadership discourse and the conditions under which such a discourse is conducted is crucial.  While educational leadership research has so far focused on the organizational conditions and expectations for managing and leading activities, curriculum theories have offered insights into societal and substantive problems to be dealt with in school and in society. We suggest taking both fields into consideration in future policies and practices; however, not without a reflexivity of how reform and research are intertwined.