Principals’ perspectives on managing systematic quality work in a decentralised and market-oriented adult education system Open Access

Sweden is noteworthy for having one of the most market-oriented education systems in the world (Dahlstedt and Fejes, 2019). In Swedish Municipal Adult Education (MAE), over half of the country’s students study not with municipally employed teachers, but with one of several private external education providers (SNAE, 2024). Even though primary and secondary education are also municipal responsibilities, the way MAE is organised differs considerably from the rest of the Swedish school system. Because the municipality maintains overarching responsibility for MAE, regardless of how it is organised, the use of external education providers can create certain challenges for principals when it comes to the enactment of systematic quality work (SQW) – as the leadership sometimes need to be carried out remotely (SSI, 2025; Mufic, 2024) ^[1]. Since Sweden has only one national principal training program for all school forms, questions arise about how well it prepares principals to lead adult education (Portfelt, 2021). The MAE principal role is marked by high organisational complexity, significant demands and accountability, compounded by a notable turnover rate. Data indicate that 57–90% of MAE principals either change jobs or leave the profession within three years (SSI, 2019), though the reasons for this turnover remain unclear.

Subsequently, there is a need for research that focuses on the specific context of MAE principals – sometimes referred to as “fragmentised” (Andersson et al., 2023) – not least as the organisation of adult education varies a great deal between Sweden’s 290 municipalities (Bjursell et al., 2015). Because of the variance in prerequisites local MAE faces, along with an increase in students’ dropouts and low goal attainment, the equity and quality in MAE have been put into question (SSI, 2019; Ministry of Education, 2018, p. 71, 2019, p. 06). In these reports and policy documents, the principals’ accountability and responsibility for the “lack of quality” in MAE have been stressed as an “implementation failure” (Mufic and Fejes, 2022).

In Sweden, principals are responsible for quality assurance in the form of SQW in MAE (SNAE, 2025). This includes assuring the quality of education both as it is provided in the municipality’s own direction and by external providers. The purpose of systematic quality work is to “make quality and equity visible” (SNAE, 2025), by planning, following up, analysing, documenting and developing education. Recent initiatives from the SNAE have targeted MAE principals and their responsibility for SQW in adult education. In 2020, the SNAE launched the Network for adult education with a focus on systematic quality work and newly arrived students (Högberg, 2020), whereby different universities across Sweden organise regular meetings where MAE principals, municipal quality managers and representatives from higher education institutions meet to improve the SQW in MAE and, by extension, contribute to increased quality and equity within adult education. Not much is yet known about how principals handle the SQW in relation to the diverse prerequisites and organisational structures that MAE entails (Bjursell, 2016; Mufic, 2023).

This study, therefore, aims to examine how SQW policy is enacted in MAE principals’ discourse during SNAE network meetings. The study takes its point of departure from the following question: How do principals enact SQW policy through the network meetings?

This setting provides an opportunity to critically analyse policy enactment as principals from different municipalities meet, discuss the similarities and differences between their organisations, and share their experiences. By exploring how MAE principals navigate competing demands in the setting of network meetings, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of educational leadership in the market-oriented, decentralised and fragmentised MAE system. These preconditions mean that adult education in the Swedish context serves as an empirical case of international interest (Fejes et al., 2018).

The impact of principal’s leadership has been connected to several positive outcomes for schools such as students goal attainment and learning (Hirsh et al., 2023; Leithwood et al., 2020). The way that principals need to adapt their leadership depending on the local context has not yet received the same attention (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2022; Leithwood, 2021). When “synthesised” results lack “ecological validity”, it can hinder the effective utilisation of research findings in local contexts (Hirsh et al., 2023, p. 2). Thus, the way that contextual factors shape successful leadership should be highlighted in more detail (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2022).

The few studies that have been conducted on principals in MAE have focused on how marketisation affects principals’ behaviours and perceptions of education (Bjursell, 2016; Fejes et al., 2016). Andersson and Muhrman (2024) have shown that local educational discourses push MAE principals to focus on the formal and organisational aspects of quality, rather than the actual process in the classroom. The way that principals is held responsible and accountable for “the lack of quality” in MAE has also been explored in previous policy studies (Mufic, 2023; Mufic and Fejes, 2022).

International research has highlighted the States “quality steering” of schools, through goals and standards formulated in policy (Adolfsson and Håkansson, 2021). Even though the national goals are the same, local SQW systems are organised in various ways (Ball et al., 2011; Håkansson, 2019) – thus highlighting the local principal’s agency when it comes to data gathering and analysis (Prøitz et al., 2019). But even though several studies have been conducted on the way that principals manage SQW and how different levels in the chain of command interact in this process (Mufic, 2024; Adolfsson and Håkansson, 2021) – less is known about how SQW is enacted in the specific context of MAE.

One such opportunity for principals to learn about SQW and exchange experiences is through organised networks. Previous studies on principals’ learning in networks have primarily focused on the topic from a school improvement perspective (Gonzales et al., 2024; Roegman et al., 2018) and a school leadership effectiveness perspective (Banoğlu et al., 2025). Thus, the many benefits of networking for principals have been highlighted, such as facilitating professional interaction (Roegman et al., 2018), the translation of policies into practice and improving leadership capacity. However, not much is known of the intersection of principals in networks as well as their interactions in such settings (Banoğlu et al., 2025; Gonzales et al., 2024).

Despite the crucial role of educational leadership in student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2020), equity (Poekert et al., 2020) and teacher retention (Nguyen et al., 2023), little is known about MAE principals and their complex responsibilities (Portfelt, 2021). This study contributes to a deeper understanding of educational leadership in MAE by examining how principals navigate competing demands while enacting SQW policy. In doing so, it also addresses a key issue in previous research – the contextualisation and the interaction of principals in a network setting.

Although Sweden has a long history of adult education, MAE was only introduced in 1968. Because it offers individuals the opportunity to complete secondary school, train for a new career or prepare to enter higher education, it has often been described as a “second chance” (Bjursell et al., 2015). It has three main objectives: to be compensatory, to meet the needs of the labour market and to educate democratic citizens. MAE is part of the national education system and is regulated by both the Education Act (SFS, 2010:800) and Ordinance on Adult Education (SFS, 2011:1108). MAE has its own curriculum and is offered at three different educational levels: basic (the equivalent of primary school), upper secondary level (equivalent to upper secondary school), the Swedish for Immigrants programme (SFI) and adult special education. MAE is free of charge and students are entitled to study loans for living and maintenance costs.

One key difference between MAE and primary or upper secondary education is that the local authority (i.e. the municipality) holds overall responsibility for the education, regardless of how it is organised and delivered. The municipality also has significant autonomy in organising MAE and can choose to run it entirely by itself, procure services from external education providers or combine these approaches. The fragmented and market-oriented adult education sector, along with the decentralised nature of Swedish education in general means that the economic and geographical conditions of individual municipalities lead to variations in local educational markets. This variation is not a negative phenomenon per se, but it can make it difficult for municipalities to live up to national policy demands on quality and equity (Mufic, 2023; Bergh, 2015).

Several audits (SSI, 2019, 2021, 2025) as well as Swedish Government Official Reports (Ministry of Education, 2018, p. 71, 2019, p. 06) have pointed out this lack of equity and quality in MAE and demands that principals take their responsibility to implement specific policies to improve it. One of the most frequent policy demands on MAE when it comes to quality concerns the implementation of flexibility, prevention of students’ dropouts and improvement of evaluations and reviews (Mufic, 2023; Mufic and Fejes, 2022). These were also the policies that were most frequently discussed during the network meetings. In this study, SQW encompasses the various policies discussed by network participants, with the issues framed as “quality concerns” that have been identified as reasons for the perceived lack of quality in MAE. Policy formulations on flexibility in MAE stipulate that:

Legislation also stipulates how long students can be absent from a course before it is considered a dropout. At the same time, principals are increasingly encouraged to investigate the underlying reasons why students choose to discontinue their studies (SSI, 2021).

Evaluation and review in policy are closely linked to systematic quality work and concern principals’ daily educational leadership:

The interpretation of these policies is discussed by the principals during the network meetings, where their different prerequisites for enacting them are highlighted. Hence, depending on factors such as geographical location, economic resources, population and the organisation of MAE, the principals encounter various opportunities and challenges in meeting policy requirements.

Even though there are demands on MAE principals in Sweden to “implement” certain policies to improve the quality (Mufic and Fejes, 2022; SSI, 2019), the connection between education policy and practice is far from a linear process of implementation according to Ball et al. (2011). The interpretation and translation of policies into local practices is a complex and, at times, messy process of “policy enactment.” Actors, in this case, principals, operate within contextual constraints and exercise discretion in this process. Their interpretation of a policy plays a crucial role in determining how it is translated into practice (Ball et al., 2011). There has been a tendency to consider all policy actors equal, thus neglecting aspects of power and the different positions actors can have in a school context depending on age, profession and experience. Actors might interpretate and translate policies differently, depending on their position (Skerritt et al., 2023).

Interpretation can be understood as “meaning making” – or the process by which educational actors make sense of policy texts and mandates and how they decode them in relation to the specific contexts in which they work as well as their previous experience (Maguire et al., 2013). Interpretations are also expressed in actors’ discussions and meetings (in this specific case, network meetings). In this article, interpretation is exemplified by the way that the principals in the observed network meetings come to an agreement about how to interpret the concept of flexibility, which in turn affects the way flexibility is enacted in their respective MAE departments.

Translation refers to the enactment of interpretations – how these interpretations are operationalised and often result in concrete actions, such as the production of artefacts (Ball et al., 2011). Examples from this study include procedural guidelines (such as protocols for observing lessons), routines (such as contacting students and gathering dropout statistics) and the management of everyday practices within educational institutions (such as workplace meetings). Previous research has highlighted that the role of translators should not be underestimated (Skerritt et al., 2023), as they act as “policy activists” in schools (Ball et al., 2011, p. 59) and play a formative role in the policy process. The acts of interpreting and translating policies are closely intertwined, shaping practices, structures, roles and relationships within schools, which in turn influence the distribution of responsibilities and resources.

At the local (mirco) level, policy actors – in this specific case MAE principals – play a central role in the complex process of policy enactment. Principals do not work in isolation but are influenced by broader societal norms, organisational cultures and traditions that shape how they are likely to interpret and translate the policies affecting them (Ball et al., 2011). These contexts can either facilitate or complicate policy enactment. In the latter case, the outcomes are often “messy”, with policies in conflict or only partially implemented. In previous research, various aspects of how principals interpret and translate policy depending on their context have been explored in different ways (Holmqvist et al., 2024; Lundqvist and Westerlund, 2024; Ball et al., 2011). However, how principals navigate the fragmented and market-oriented MAE system remains largely uncharted. As the interaction between context and policy engagement is often overlooked (Molla and Gale, 2019), there is still no clear understanding of why principals in this specific micro-context act as they do. This article therefore sheds light on how principals interpret and enact SQW policy. In doing so, it addresses a key issue identified in prior research – that policy implementations in MAE have often “failed” or fallen short of expectations (Mufic, 2023; Mufic and Fejes, 2022).

The empirical material consists of observations from nine network meetings arranged by SNAE between 2022 and 2023. Twelve principals from six different municipalities attended the meetings. The focus of the meetings was to discuss SQW and newly arrived students. The network was managed and organised by two representatives from the nearby university. The meetings took place online, except for one session that allowed participants to meet in person, providing them with enhanced networking opportunities. Each meeting lasted for three hours, including short breaks, and varied in structure. Sometimes, a guest lecturer was invited, while at other times, organisers from SNAE discussed recent policy changes. Participants had varying amounts of time to discuss different issues amongst themselves and to ask questions about various policies and organisational matters.

The observations were non-participatory; the researcher took notes during the meetings but acted solely as a passive observer. One of the advantages of this approach was that it provided insight into how network meetings are conducted in situ (Wellington, 2015). Thus, the empirical material offered first-hand data on contextual, verbal and non-verbal communication (Clark et al., 2009). Had the principals been interviewed, they would have shared their interpretations and translations of information for the researcher. However, by opting for observation, the enactment of policy was documented without the influence of predetermined questions, allowing it to unfold naturally as participants engaged in conversation. Nevertheless, the presence of an observer can influence participants’ behaviour, potentially affecting the authenticity of the data. Furthermore, given the considerable time and resources required for observational studies, only one network could be observed, limiting the generalisability of the findings beyond the specific contexts studied. Despite this limitation, the study’s contribution lies in its micro-level perspective and school-specific focus.

The researcher was able to record what was said almost verbatim through written observation notes. After each meeting, the researcher reviewed and edited the notes, adding observations, initial reflections and preliminary analyses. The observation notes comprise approximately 250 pages. The observational data were analysed thematically, following the approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2022) and guided by the aim of the article. The first phase involved familiarisation with the data, during which the observational notes were read multiple times to identify patterns related to policy translation, interpretation and contextual factors. In the second step, initial codes were generated, categorising instances of how principals negotiated SQW policy, responded to external pressures and navigated institutional constraints. The third phase, searching for themes, involved identifying broader thematic patterns, particularly in relation to the interplay between policy mandates and local adaptations.

During the network meetings, the principals frequently discussed various challenges related to SQW, such as meeting the policy demands for flexibility, preventing student dropouts and evaluating and reviewing data. In the fourth phase, reviewing themes, the identified themes were refined to ensure coherence and clear distinctions between categories, even though some overlap existed – for example, student dropouts, which is one type of data frequently evaluated and reviewed. The fifth step, defining and naming themes, involved conceptualising the themes most frequently discussed by the principals in relation to SQW, namely the concept of flexibility, student dropouts, and evaluation and review. Finally, in the sixth phase, producing the report, the findings were synthesised to highlight how principals mediate national quality frameworks during network meetings. The framework provides a nuanced understanding of how principals enact SQW policy, highlighting tensions between national frameworks and local enactments.

This study adheres to the ethical principles outlined by the Swedish Research Council (2024) concerning good research practice. These principles encompass key methodological considerations, including informing participants, obtaining consent, ensuring confidentiality and handling data responsibly. As a result, all data in this study have been treated confidentially, with measures implemented to prevent the identification of individual respondents. For instance, respondents’ identities and the names of the municipalities have been anonymised to preserve confidentiality. The participants were informed of the study’s purpose and provided their written consent to take part. Since no sensitive personal data were collected, an ethics application was not required.

Discussions on SQW in MAE focused on flexibility, dropouts and evaluation, with principals sharing different interpretations and translations of policy during the network meetings.

The network participants frequently discussed the flexibility of the adult education system. Much of their discussion focused on how to interpret the policies that demanded flexibility in MAE.

Julia interprets flexibility as continuous intake, the educational practice of admitting students continually throughout the year. Many principals find this difficult to implement, and some have restricted their intake to four times a year. The question to be addressed is to determine how many intakes per year are necessary to be reviewed as flexible by the SSI. Julia is also looking for a shared understanding of these concepts and suggests that many people confuse flexibility with availability. Later, she moves from policy interpretation to translation when she suggests that principals should be talking more about the opportunities the MAE system offers to do things differently. Julia describes the SSI as both an authority and a policy translator with the power to constrain the model she has adopted for implementing flexibility through their inspections, thereby highlighting the power dynamics within policy work in MAE.

Alice, who works in a different municipality, faces similar challenges to Julia, as she also struggles to interpret what is required for MAE to be deemed sufficiently flexible according to policy.

Although Alice appears to interpret the policy on flexibility as being about availability, she still questions whether there is more they should be doing. Thus, translating policy into practice appears challenging due to the ambiguity surrounding the concept of flexibility. During the first meeting, several participants sought to interpret the concept of flexibility through their questions and comments, exploring its meaning and how it could be translated and enacted within their MAE organisations.

While the participants sought a common understanding of how to interpret flexibility, they also voiced concerns about the need for greater clarity regarding its scope. They questioned whether their MAE organisations were “too flexible.” This critique was particularly evident in discussions about the relationship between flexibility and quality – specifically, how an emphasis on flexibility, interpreted as continuous intake in MAE, might affect the quality of education.

Although the principals’ interpretation of flexibility is influenced by both SSI inspections and governmental mandates, translating it into practice presents challenges. Several other principals agreed with Elliot and shared how their MAE unit bends over backwards to achieve a form of flexibility that meets the students’ needs. Hence, several of the participants were hesitant about the most effective way the policy of flexibility should be implemented in their organisations. Elliot highlighted the difference between how flexibility is interpreted there compared to MAE. He noted that secondary schools would never subject themselves to continuous intake as it “is not entirely easy to manage” flexibility in MAE (Elliot, First meeting). This underscores the challenge of translating specific policies into local practice while ensuring the desired outcomes, resulting in a “messy” enactment.

Dropout rates in MAE were a recurring topic in network meetings, engaging principals in discussions about causes and potential solutions.

Principals focused on two main issues: gathering and analysing dropout statistics and improving retention. While all agreed on the importance of data collection, many questioned its reliability, noting that statistics depend on what and how data is measured.

Janet describes how introducing framework times for SFI – a policy not yet formalised – caused conflicts with external agencies. Her actions reflect a form of policy translation, in which new routines clarify accountability for students who leave MAE. Martin and Elliot (Third meeting) shared Janet’s view that not all dropouts are negative, as some leave for jobs or parental leave. However, principals agreed that most cases were classified as “unknown” or “unreported,” making retention efforts difficult. Smaller municipalities often called students for clarification, but this was resource-intensive, and larger municipalities struggled to track students. Locating those studying elsewhere posed additional challenges, highlighting how local conditions shape dropout prevention efforts.

To address dropout risks, some principals shifted admissions from study and career advisors to free up time for student interactions, though remote learners remained difficult to reach (e.g. Janet, Third meeting). As more municipalities adopted digital applications and online courses, concerns grew over maintaining a personal connection.

Elliot’s statement reflects institutional disparities, as this specific MAE lacks the structured systems available in other educational sectors. His remark – “It takes a lot to be a teacher in MAE” – suggests that educators bear the burden of policy enactment with limited structural support. The tension between flexibility and quality highlights a broader power struggle, where policy directives often conflict with practical realities.

In such discussions, the SSI was frequently referenced as an authority, hence policy translator. Two principals noted that inspections had prompted their municipalities to revise reporting practices (e.g. Fiona and Rupert, Third meeting). Fiona described increased reporting to the head of education, underscoring how external oversight influences local policy enactment. However, some participants noted a lack of superintendent involvement in dropout prevention:

The recognition that younger students, particularly those recently out of high school, struggle with the transition to a more independent learning environment reflects an on-the-ground interpretation that differs from official policy priorities. By documenting these findings in annual reports, Rupert attempts to translate local insights into institutional knowledge. However, his uncertainty about how thoroughly the superintendent reviews these reports raises concerns about whether local interpretations successfully influence broader policy adjustments. Additionally, the SSI’s focus on gender rather than age in dropout statistics highlights how national policy priorities shape local practices, sometimes at the expense of other pressing concerns. The institutional shift from structured guidance to self-directed learning is a contextual barrier that is not fully addressed in existing policy frameworks.

Principals also discussed challenges in using evaluation and review within SQW to identify successes and align improvements with national goals.

Alice’s emphasis on continuity and the need for a gradual approach to organisational change contrasts with the often-rapid policy shifts in MAE, which usually have short implementation deadlines. The participants also exchanged tips, effectively translating policy into programmes, tools and reporting methods for evaluation and review. Janet (Third meeting) recommended an appendix to an SSI report on MAE dropouts, listing quality criteria for assessing dropout risk, which she had found “incredibly useful” for self-assessment. Rupert (Fourth meeting) highlighted an SNAE report, Asking Questions and Seeking Answers, which his unit used to inform systematic quality work, particularly for evidence-based strategies. These exchanges illustrate collective efforts to translate national mandates at the local level.

Various software systems for reviewing quality indicators were discussed, raising questions about which data should be included to benefit both the educational unit and local policymakers. The principals were critical of the simplistic creation and evaluation of data in these reports. This critique highlights their struggle to balance compliance with meaningful quality assurance, revealing tensions between their autonomy and the constraints of standardised reporting. For the principals, the key was ensuring that the right data was input into the system to generate meaningful insights.

Some principals sought self-assessment methods to improve their organisations while meeting SSI’s external review requirements. Henry (Fourth meeting) introduced a software program providing teachers with reflection tools. Discussions in the fifth meeting also centred on evaluation and collegial learning, with principals emphasising regular meetings as crucial for staff engagement in evaluation processes.

During the ninth meeting, Quentin shared that his organisation held annual review meetings with teachers but was uncertain about how they analysed results. He questioned how to determine whether review analyses were correct. Elliot explained how his organisation structured analysis by integrating various data sources, including conversations and surveys. Despite these efforts, they sometimes struggled with the systematic quality work cycle. In such cases, they collected additional quantitative and qualitative data, which then required structured documentation for decision-making. This reflects the challenge of interpreting what constitutes “correct” analysis and highlights differing approaches to quality evaluation. Elliot’s organisation prioritised multiple data sources for a more evidence-based approach, actively translating policy requirements into practical measures.

Principals also highlighted difficulties in capturing “everyday work” tasks, which were not reflected in official statistics (Janet, Third meeting). Fiona addressed this by using classroom observations.

Fiona’s statement underscores the fragmented and locally dependent nature of systematic observation. Rupert’s offer to share his classroom observation template exemplifies how practitioners create and circulate their own policy translations to address local challenges. The network meetings also served as a space for participants to calibrate their MAE units against others, particularly regarding the introduction of a new national quality system at the end of 2022. One participant expressed enthusiasm:

Jane and Elaine, from a municipality that had already implemented the new system, shared insights in the eighth meeting on structuring quality work around required goals, sub-goals and indicators. They also pointed out gaps in the system’s data collection. To address these gaps, they conducted annual course surveys, gathering student feedback on safety, study environment and harassment prevention. They also developed additional indicators beyond those in the national system. Twice a year, unit managers interviewed students about their school experience, while five times a year, surveys were sent to staff covering student adaptation, support and extra adjustments. The most challenging indicator to track was the number of students who had moved on to work or further studies one year after graduation. Due to a low response rate from postal surveys, they supplemented data collection with phone follow-ups six months after students left the MAE unit.

Throughout the network meetings, principals shared a common interpretation of their duty to evaluate and review MAE quality, primarily viewing it as a task of collecting useful data. However, the enactment of these policies varied depending on local factors, highlighting how principals navigate policy demands, interpret expectations and adapt national requirements to ensure that review and evaluation results are meaningful for their local organisations.

First, the article illustrates how MAE leaders interpret the policy on flexibility primarily as a question of admissions accessibility. Many network discussions centred on defining continuous intake and determining how many intakes MAE should offer each year. Some principals expressed frustration with this system, feeling that their MAE was almost “too flexible” and had to “bend over backwards” to accommodate students. They were dissatisfied that flexibility had been equated with “continuous intake” and criticised how this had been implemented in practice – a concern also noted in previous research (Mufic, 2024). Many principals shared examples of how excessive flexibility in MAE had led to a decline in quality. With limited resources, competing policies risk overshadowing potential synergies (Nehez, 2015). Effective coordination of mandatory directives is essential to ensure manageability and prevent continual disruptions (Hultman, 2018).

Second, the study demonstrates that principals primarily interpreted policies on dropouts as a statistical matter. Consequently, policy translation focused on the collection of meaningful data. However, what is considered meaningful at one level in the chain of command may not be perceived as such at another (Svedberg, 2016). Analysis of the principals’ statements suggests that the SSI plays a significant role in shaping how policy is enacted. The reverse appears less evident, indicating that local interpretations struggle to travel upwards through the chain of command. This aligns with previous research showing that principals operate within a “field of tensions”, navigating conflicting pressures (Lundqvist and Westerlund, 2024).

The third part of the analysis examined evaluation and review, highlighting how principals collectively translate national mandates through report exchanges and shared strategies. They criticised the oversimplification of data collection and assessment, reflecting tensions between compliance and meaningful quality assurance. Their critique also underscored gaps in data collection. However, policy enactment varied by local context, demonstrating how principals navigate policy demands, interpret expectations and adapt national requirements to ensure meaningful evaluation within their organisations. The findings support Braun et al.’s (2011, p. 591) conclusion that the unique professional outlooks and attitudes within specific schools influence the feasibility of certain policy responses.

Overall, the network for MAE principals appears to serve an important function, facilitating professional interaction (Roegman et al., 2018) and supporting the enactment of policies in practice. During the network meetings, it was widely agreed that policies designed for the entire Swedish school system had often been implemented to the detriment of MAE. Analysis of these discussions highlights persistent uncertainty surrounding policies on flexibility and SQW. Principals described these policies as vague and difficult to implement within the complexity of MAE (Mufic and Fejes, 2022; Portfelt, 2021).

However, a broad and generalised MAE policy can also provide valuable space for interpretation (Holmqvist et al., 2024). This was reflected in the study as participants described how they developed different routines and procedures for data collection and SQW, depending on their municipality’s size, economy and governance structure. Thus, less prescriptive, more perspective-oriented and broadly defined policies grant local actors greater flexibility to enact policies adapted to local contexts (Holmqvist et al., 2021). However, local enactment appears to be influenced by the SSI, which played a prominent role as a policy translator during the network meetings. Participants frequently referred to the SSI as an authority that sets the boundaries for policy interpretation and implementation. On the other hand, rigid understandings of policy concepts also risk exacerbating the “messiness” of everyday practice, as seen in the discussions on quality (Bergh, 2015) and flexibility (Mufic, 2024). In this regard, the network plays a crucial role by providing principals an opportunity to engage with one another and share their interpretations and translations in a supportive environment.

In sum, the findings clarify how principals navigate competing demands within a market-oriented and decentralised education system, highlighting their role in balancing policy compliance with local adaptation and contextual factors. Given these dynamics, Swedish adult education serves as a significant empirical case with international relevance (Fejes et al., 2018). By focusing on MAE principals, this study contributes to both research and practice by enhancing understanding of their role in managing and delivering adult education. Additionally, it offers insights into principals’ interactions within professional networks, addressing calls for further exploration in this area (Banoğlu et al., 2025; Gonzales et al., 2024). Future research could build on these findings by examining how network discussions influence local MAE practices, further clarifying their impact on policy enactment and institutional decision-making.