Search results

In recent years there have been increasing calls for the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and associated drugs to be recognized as a public health issue. In the domain of the competitive athlete and professional bodybuilder, recent decades have seen the diffusion of AAS from the hardcore gyms of the 1980s and 1990s to the mainstream exercise and fitness environments of the twenty-first century. Alongside the apparent increases in the use of these drugs, there is a growing evidence base in relation to harms – physical, psychological and (to some extent) social. But is this form of drug use a public health issue? What criteria should we use to make this judgement? What is the available evidence and has our understanding of the issue improved? By drawing on the authors' research in the United Kingdom and the wider international literature this chapter will explore these issues and attempt to answer the fundamental question – is the use of anabolic steroids a public health issue?

In this paper, which was presented at the joint annual conferences of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia and the Group for Research in Educational Administration and Theory held at the University of New England, Armidale, in September 1986, the author examines, from the perspective of the new philosophy of science, some of the arguments of two important critics of traditional views of science of administration; notably the arguments of Richard Bates and Thomas Greenfield. The author concludes that the new emerging views of science can sustain a science of administration that escapes their major criticisms.

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.

Suggests that it is reasonable to expect researchers in the field of educational administration to establish the relative value of the knowledge they propound. Draws on the branch of philosophy devoted to the study of the nature of knowledge; epistemology. Argues for new forms of awareness, criteria and processes to help with the growth of trustworthy knowledge. Concludes that there is a need for a post‐paradigm approach that celebrates coherence and multi‐perspectivism.

Traditional approaches to educational administration have generally reflected a managerial perspective which owed much to the principles of scientific management developed by F. W. Taylor. Technical concerns which have dwelt on “efficiency” and administration control have, however, ignored and masked the inequalities and ideologies around which organizations are structured. It is argued that critical theory may offer a means of exposing the forms of domination which repress human beings. For the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas critique is a powerful device to unmask unnecessary forms of domination which have been perpetuated by distorted communication. In contrast undistorted or ideal communication entails a pervasive democratic interaction which acknowledges that all participants have the capacity to take part in the making of meaningful decisions.

Among recent criticisms levelled against traditional administrative theory those raised by adherents to the Critical Theory perspective have gained considerable influence. This paper examines their claim that Habermasian Critical Theory in particular is in a better position to solve the theoretical and practical problems of educational administration. The focal points of discussion are Habermas's fundamental categories of “interests” and the “ideal speech situation” since their theoretical coherence is a minimum requirement for the theory's validity and practical applicability. It is concluded that Critical Theory, while being the most ambitious attempt to date to provide a new, post‐positivist framework for social and administrative studies, has insufficient epistemological resources to justify its claims. As a result, the theory is driven to rational a prioris which deprive it of empirical content and relevance. Since Critical Theory claims to have reunited theory with practice, lack of empirical content would seem to disqualify the claim and render questionable the theory's value for educational administration.