Search results

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.

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.

Using material from contemporary New Zealand experience as a case study, this paper presents a functional analysis of the organizational problems facing secondary schools, develops a typology of dilemmas posed as a result of these problems, and discusses the manner in which various educational agencies, including the central Department, Teachers' Organizations and the recent Educational Development Conference have attempted to persuade schools to resolve these dilemmas in particular ways. Comments are also made on the internal characteristics of schools which may influence their resolution of these dilemmas in different ways thus leading to a growing heterogeneity within the state educational system.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical reflection on ideas that have been published in the Journal of Educational Administration over the last 50 years that present perspectives on the nature of educational administration and its various aspects, that are alternatives to the mainstream systems‐scientific view of educational administration.

The paper employs a standard analytic philosophy methodology with a focus on argument structures found in epistemology. The approach is to argue that the content and structure of administrative theories is shaped significantly by background epistemologies that determine the nature and justification of administrative knowledge

Epistemologies for both the traditional systems‐science approach to educational administration and a range of alternatives are identified and specified, and the most characteristic features of these approaches that follow from their epistemologies are described. The paper permits inferences about theory choice, and what approach is best, based on a discussion of the merits of the different epistemologies.

The principal value of the paper is to classify and demonstrate the most general features of the arguments that have been behind the large‐scale theoretical differences in the field of educational administration.

By “political economy” I mean both the method of thought and the body of knowledge which refer to human economising behaviour. The body of knowledge includes both theory — theorems, laws, empirical generalisations, etc., and “facts” — history, description of institution, statistical data, etc. By “Christian theology” I mean both the method of thought and the body of knowledge which refer to the human religious understanding of Jesus of Nazareth. “Religious” here implies awareness of, or belief in, God. The body of knowledge may include pre‐Christian religion (such as that reported in the Old Testament), and the results of independent inquiry (such as natural theology) in so far as these are interpreted by, or “refracted” through what theologians call the “Christ event”.

An extract from a book manuscript highlighting the specific challenge which Greenfield posed to established thinking. Discusses how the study of education administration has been characterized by attempts to develop a theory which describes, explains and predicts administrative behaviour within the school context. Assesses the contribution of the “theory movement” and Kuhnian concepts; the movement of research towards finding a phenomological alternative to explain administrative behaviour; and the development of interpretive approaches which look towards subjects such as the humanities for a possible solution. In the light of this background discusses in depth the contribution made by T.B. Greenfield to the debate and considers the viability of an interpretive alternative.

This article, one of the keynote addresses at the joint ANZHES conference in December 2008, explores a concept that I call the Great Divide, by which I mean the cultural division between principals and teachers, and between principals and students. Drawing on visual imagery, historical reports, and cultural studies of American schools, I argue that the Great Divide is a historical construction of both administrative practices and representational culture that has led to misunderstandings of the complexity of the school principal’s middle managerial work in the school organisation.

Examines the alleged demise of science in terms of claimed difficulties including: the human limitations of scientists, that science seeks ultimate reality and universal truth, oversimplifies complexity, and accepts no standard external to itself. Also considers incommensurability, the theory ladeness issue, and the assumption of orderliness. Overall, there is little discussion of epistemological issues in the sense of exploring pros and cons, while the resurrection of positivism and its equation with science and “big tent” thinking that confers legitimacy on every interest group’s position regardless of its cogency, further degrades discourse. The naturalistic‐pragmatist perspective presented as an alternative sees scientific inquiry as an open, growing, fallible activity that has proven far superior to other methods of problem solving. Inquiry is also taken to be central to principled moral choice and to efforts aimed at improving people’s lives.