Search results

In many countries concerns have been expressed about the merits of educational research. This paper reports on the outcomes of a review of reviews of such research in Australia and the UK. Taken at face value, the latest round of reviews are largely critical in the UK (where they have generated much debate) and mainly favourable in Australia (where they have not). In accounting for this difference the paper suggests that it might be explained in part as a function of how the reviews were conducted. In the UK reviews have tended to begin with the research and work forward to practice whereas in Australia they have been inclined to begin with practice and work back to the research. It is suggested that policy makers, practitioners and researchers in Australia and the UK have much to learn from each other's experience, as have those in other countries planning similar reviews.

Five questions about the careers service are asked—do we need it, what is its function, what is its role, how can its influence be extended, and where should it be located? Issues raised in the report, “The Management of Change in the Careers Service”, are also raised.

The purpose of this paper is to review English-language publications about school principalship in China published between 1998 and 2013 and to present an overview of the authorship, topics, methodologies and key findings of these publications.

The methodology includes an exhaustive review of journal articles and book chapters about Chinese school principalship published in the English language. In total, 39 articles and 17 book chapters are identified for the 1998-2013 period. Qualitative analysis is conducted to determine the basic patterns of authorship, topics, methods and key findings. The changes or continuities in these patterns during the study period are also discerned.

The paper identifies several continuous and discontinuous patterns in each of the review categories and provides a better understanding of on-going research into the practice of school principalship in China. The results also suggest areas that require deeper exploration.

This paper explores the landscape of school principalship in China as reflected in the international literature and indicates the ways that this landscape has changed or remained the same over the years. As such, the paper contributes to the thin knowledge base concerning school principalship in China and sheds light on the enduring local-global tension in the evolution of education systems.

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 Galbraith article gives us the opportunity to think out loud about the purposes and practices of field activity, and in responding this article argues that Galbraith is more concerned with the technical application of a method rather than investigating knowledge production. Using Bourdieu's theory of practice enables critical evaluation to be a social practice and the author positions herself as a knowledge worker concerned to describe and understand the interplay between agency and structure. Chaos theory enabled the author from the mid‐1990s to problematise systems theory as the preferred way of generating leadership and management prescriptions for educational professionals. This remains relevant today and it is argued that Galbraith's continued reliance on improving systems theory means that the opportunity is lost to examine the exercise of power within and surrounding complex organisations.

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.

Attempts to clarify and articulate the need to understand and search for indigenous perspectives of educational management. Notes that any understanding of an indigenous perspective requires a real understanding of the theoretical bases of the subject, and an understanding of the particular indigenous environment or setting. Argues that, in order to differentiate culture free and culture bound content in educational management, the core corpus of educational management theories, concepts and terminology have to be identified; the culture specific ways of knowing must be examined; and unique categories made identifiable. Uses the Malaysian experience as an example of the quest for an indigenous perspective of educational management.