Search results

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 practice of theory borrowing from other research fields is common in interdisciplinary and applied research. Nevertheless, educational administration researchers seldom discuss this phenomenon and its complexities in depth.

This essay provides an overview of what has been written about the practice of theory borrowing.

After presenting the criticism on misusing theory borrowing, it outlines several recommendations to improve theory borrowing in education administration research by domesticating it through conceptual blending.

The purpose of this essay is to motivate educational administration scholars to reflect on the practice of theory borrowing. The guidelines offered here for promoting conceptual blending serve as a middle ground for mitigating a key problem of theory borrowing.

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the educational impact of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on South Korea, focusing on the global implementation of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). By analyzing how the system of reasoning embedded in the OECD and PISA has re-territorialized the education space of South Korea, this chapter problematizes present-day OECD educational policy as a new global education norm, and its way of making educational truths. This chapter specifically discusses the changes in South Korean education policy, national curriculum, and examination system in terms of reference reasoning, politics of knowledge, and regime of testing. The chapter further discusses that the impact of the OECD in a global space is not unidirectional; rather, it is a multi-directional phenomenon occurring in both individual country and the global governance that the OECD created.

The coming of Big Data is offered as a salve that will reduce global inequalities and grow national economies. The chapter pursues how notions of progress have traveled into schooling through technology and generate differences and exclusions in the past and present. The chapter explores how transnational school reforms during the colonial era were directed to adapting education to “the African,” which connected expertise in the U.S., UK, and Africa through a shared set of standards, principles, and values about what constituted civilization and development. In school reforms today, the “African” has disappeared today in favor of the “all”; however, residues of educational values and judgments that made up the African as a peculiar and pathological target of colonial schooling still haunt the present. The chapter argues that today’s transnational school reforms continue to presume target communities are passive, pathological objects whose transformation depends upon their learning to act rationally. Whereas in the past this was envisioned as individuals’ and communities’ assimilation through surveys and questionnaires, today rationality is managed through integration in systems and optimizing users’ choices through data mining and algorithms. The narrative of data as grounding rational thought and action is a seductive one that offers optimism to schooling; however, faith in the coming of technology impairs historical reflection and ethical reflexivity toward schooling’s values and judgments, and the differences and exclusions they generate.

Critical and justice-oriented approaches to leadership are incomplete without attention to racism and racialization. This study employed basic qualitative inquiry to examine racialized legitimation within student affairs leadership education through lenses of whiteness as property and legitimacy. Findings detail how leadership educators sought to gain and/or maintain legitimacy and the ways racialization is embedded in these processes through professional experiences, leadership knowledge, and identity. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

For nearly two decades, in the field of educational administration, Bates’s critical theory has been one of the most vigorous challenges to the value neutral approach of traditional theories. He has been a key voice claiming that such theories are ideological and mainly concerned with protecting vested interests and class divisions in society. Despite their theoretical endurance and practical implications, the main ideas advocated by Bates’s critical theory have not been examined seriously in the field. This paper analyses the main ideas of Bates’s critical social theory in three ways. First, the major intellectual influences that shaped Bates’s theory are examined. Second, those areas where Bates and Greenfield shared similar views yet took different approaches are considered. Finally, the main arguments that critics raised against Bates are examined and evaluated.

Basil Bernstein’s theoretical ideas have been called upon by far fewer higher education researchers than would be expected. We argue that the international higher education field of research is ripe for further application of Bernstein’s theoretical ideas. Through reference to our own and that of others, we illustrate five key affordances of Bernstein’s theoretical framework. First, it provides a unique approach that leads researchers to pose formerly unthinkable questions and encourages the development of new knowledge to address them. Second, Bernstein’s valuable concepts raise questions about the specific but inter-related macro- (societal), meso- (organisational) and micro- (individual) level processes involved in producing (in)equalities. Bernsteinian analysis can help to identify how inequalities emerge from and can be addressed at these levels. Third, we contend that the approach encourages empirical exploration of the ways in which education may be disruptive of the social order. Fourth, we suggest Bernstein’s concepts can be adapted to capture the complexity of intersecting inequalities in a way that allows the object of analysis to determine what inequalities are foregrounded. Finally, we argue that concepts help to orientate questions around inequality and social justice in a way that does not over-determine answers.

This chapter provides a critical and comprehensive review of the internationalisation literature. It starts with a brief discussion of the main factors and features that need to be considered when internationalising the educational administration and leadership field. This is followed by a critique of the internationalisation of education and the many challenges that hinder the achievement of proper internationalisation. The third section provides an overview of the internationalisation models and practices in different disciplines such as psychology, sociology and political science, which is followed by a discussion on the internationalisation of education organisations in different countries with some examples from Arab and non-Western countries. The final section presents a critical review of literature on internationalising the curriculum and how culture competency and knowledge acquisition are key factors in achieving effective internationalisation. The chapter concludes with an overview of the book collection and the main ideas and concepts discussed in each chapter.