Search results

Scholarship in educational administration is considered from the perspective of a former journal editor. It is proposed that the development of scholarly skills is missing from advanced preparation in educational administration. Yet the skills of enquiry, analysis and writing are essential in any profession and critical to thought and development in professional fields. The import of writing and scholarship for a field of practice like the administration of education is treated, along with reasons for the current state of affairs.

Given widespread digital transformations in all sorts of organizations, it is increasingly difficult to ignore the role of digital technologies in institutional change. In this essay, we characterize existing scholarship in terms of whether it emphasizes how digital technologies are either “triggers” or “carriers” of institutional change. As triggers, digital technologies serve as catalysts that afford novel structuring as they are enacted in practice. As carriers, digital technologies can shape those practices in ways that are consistent with the structuring of other fields. We propose a view of institutionally embedded affordances, where digital technologies are both triggers and carriers that afford institutional change. We conclude with a reflection on how digital technologies are implicated in the convergence of previously distinct industrial fields.

The purpose of this paper is to expand the competence-led structuring and understanding of sustainability education by analysing the practices of professional individuals who have completed university education geared to the development of sustainability change-makers.

The research scope was initially on examining professional practices following the boundary work theory. Social practice theory was used as a methodological approach in conducting and analysing thematic interviews with 19 sustainability-focused master’s programme alumni. The interviews were analysed against the theoretical framework while also noting findings that fell outside of this framework.

A framework for understanding materials, competences and meanings of practices connected to the professional field of sustainability was introduced. The framework suggests that in the practices of sustainability-educated professionals, meanings emerge as a top priority and are conveyed using position-based materials and various complexes of competency.

The authors suggest that boundary theory informs well the emergence of the professional field of sustainability, and the utilisation of a practice theory furthers the understanding of sustainability professionalism and its education.

The authors’ suggest that practice theory could thus provide deeper insights on how sustainability science alumni use their education after graduation, how they practice their profession and in return offer applicable reflections to sustainability education.

Research using practice theory in reflection on sustainability education and the professional practice of sustainability has not been widely conducted and in the authors’ opinion brings value to the education and practice of sustainability and to the research of sustainability education.

Based on journal articles that focused on epistemological issues in the field (e.g. the field's nature, purposes, borders, knowledge base, uniqueness, etc.), this paper seeks to outline the intellectual discussions in the field of educational administration (EA) since the foundation of its major journals and suggest some lessons for the state of the field at the present time.

The review is based on all papers, scholarly, historical or empirical, that observed philosophical, epistemological and methodological issues and concerns in this field. The papers were analyzed and coded by their purposes, arguments, epistemological questions, criticism, findings and insights.

The major concluding epistemological message of this historical account is of “recycling,” i.e. the field is typically embedded with debates over similar ideas, assumptions, and insights about EA as a field of study throughout the last five decades. Therefore, it is a time for radical changes in the understanding of the field's intellectual missions and boundaries.

The historical overview is likely both to acquaint one with the historical scholarly streams, trends and debates in knowledge development of EA as a field of study, and help international field members understand and mould their professional identity.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the background for, the design of, and the implementation of Lesson Study in a teacher education program in Norway. Lesson Study was chosen as an intervention in an attempt to shift pre-service teachers’ focus from themselves to their pupils, attempting to strengthen their possibilities to learn more about the consequences of their instructional decisions for their pupils.

The study used a time-lagged experiment where one group of second year pre-service teachers took part in their three-week field practice as usual (business-as-usual-condition), and one group, the following year, took part in Lesson Study cycles during their three-week field practice period. The students were recruited from four subject areas in both conditions: Math, Physical Education, Science, and English.

The use of Lesson Study created more collaborative inquiry among the pre-service teachers. At its best, the pre-service teachers formulated research questions, took active part in observations, and used data (pupils’ work, interviews and observations) to inform their choices about how to create improved learning for their pupils.

The study is a small scale study due to the need to test before upscaling.

The paper includes a description of how Lesson Study was implemented in a Teacher Education Department, and this can be valuable information for others who are attempting the same.

This paper fulfills an identified need to learn more about pre-service teachers\ learning and lesson study in teacher education.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the case that innovation in the theory and practice of educational administration/leadership is very unlikely to occur within the existing doxa of our times. By innovation is meant a novel conceptual or practical change in the field of practice. By doxa is meant the unquestioned rules of the game and the linkage between the agencies and organs of government and foundations supporting research in the field. An approach toward thinking outside of the prevailing doxa is presented and explained as one possible antidote to the current dominant model.

The paper is a conceptual/logical analysis of the reasons why the current paradigm dominant in the study and the practice of educational administration/leadership is inadequate. The paradigm has not predicted anything currently unknown or understood yet its continued dominance in the field will not lead to any new discoveries or innovation but only continued verification of what is already known.

The major findings are that the boundaries of behavioral empiricism and social science methods impose an orthodoxy of approach in examining matters of administrative and leadership practice. Subsequently, it not only limits but also prohibits any new breakthroughs in understanding or predicting novel thinking about administration and leadership in educational institutions. Breaking out of this conceptual and theoretical box will be difficult as it is embraced by an interlocking apparatus of agencies and institutions and enshrined in most research journals in the field.

It is unlikely that true new discoveries in understanding educational leadership will occur without a restoration of the full range of human emotions and motivations which inspire and sustain leaders. New visions of leadership are required which will lead to what Lakatos has called a progressive research program in which prediction is enhanced and novel aspects of leadership emerge. These are not likely to occur given the tradition of inquiry currently in use. To use Lakatos’ term, the current research program is de-generative or regressive and lags behind the actual practice of school leadership. Thus, the authors perpetuate the theory-practice gap.

The continued employment of social science protocols anchored in behavioral empiricism and the scientific method are unlikely to lead to any new breakthroughs in the practice of educational administration/leadership. The lens of behavioral empiricism prohibits a complete understanding of the practice of leadership where that practice becomes “subjective” and/or essentially artistic in nature. Practice, therefore, is anchored only in what is considered “rational” and the non-rational aspects marginalized or eliminated.

Researchers working in the dominant social science perspectives using hard behavioral empirical traditions embodied in the usual perspective regarding the scientific method will continue to miss or marginalize the emotional and intuitive side of leadership, aspects which are hard to quantify and assess. Leaders not only act but they feel as well. Without emotion in leadership it is extremely hard to build trust in an organization. The moral responsibilities of leaders are also anchored in emotion and values held by the leader. These elements continue to be understated or marginalized in check list approaches to preparation and licensure.

The originality of the paper synthesizes the parallel perspectives of William Foster, Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Imre Lakatos as it pertains to explaining why the current theory of knowledge is not likely to lead to any new breakthroughs in the practice of educational administration/leadership. One different approach to thinking of leadership as connoisseurship is presented as a potential perspective from the arts as a way of viewing leadership as a form of performance in which emotion and intuition are recognized aspects of practice.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how critical management studies' (CMS) awkward relationship with the world of practice may have allowed it to become a dominated field in academia, which features a nearly exclusive focus on research for theory's sake, a lack of interest or discomfort with practical applications, and a devaluing of non‐academic pursuits. Despite research on oppression, resistance, and emancipation, CMS scholars do not tend to focus on the field's own domination or to ensure that its emancipatory agenda offers any practical impact.

The paper loosely draws on Bourdieu's notions of habitus and symbolic violence to make sense of his experience of attempting to fit in the CMS community as a scholar interested in practical applications of CMS insights.

The paper argues that CMS is uniquely positioned to help organization studies become a phronetic science, both practical and capable of addressing questions of power and values, essential to management practice.

The estrangement between theory and practice in CMS is symptomatic of the same phenomenon in the broader organization studies community.

The paper addresses not only how CMS can become a more phronetic science but also the benefits of phronetic research for the broader organization studies.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

This conceptual, multi-voiced paper aims to collectively explore and theorize family entrepreneuring, which is a research stream dedicated to investigating the emergence and becoming of entrepreneurial phenomena in business families and family firms.

Because of the novelty of this research stream, the authors asked 20 scholars in entrepreneurship and family business to reflect on topics, methods and issues that should be addressed to move this field forward.

Authors highlight key challenges and point to new research directions for understanding family entrepreneuring in relation to issues such as agency, processualism and context.

This study offers a compilation of multiple perspectives and leverage recent developments in the fields of entrepreneurship and family business to advance research on family entrepreneuring.