Search results

This paper has a twofold purpose: (1) to demonstrate, largely with historical evidence, that, contrary to what some have argued, thinking about educational research articulated at the start of the twenty-first century was not really “new wine in new bottles” but, rather, a continuation of the so-called paradigm wars about, ultimately, unresolvable methodological and epistemological issues that occurred during the twentieth century; (2) to suggest a way members of the educational administration field might transcend, or at least circumvent, time-consuming and distracting battles about unresolvable methodological and epistemological issues in the future while keeping their focus on issues of practice.

This is a quasi-historical essay that uses influential literature during the historical periods focused on as evidence to support the essay's arguments.

The paper demonstrates that twentieth century philosophical disagreements about research methods and the role that educational research can play in policy and practice decision making were not resolved but, rather, were largely reenacted during the first decade of the twenty-first century, again without a resolution. The paper proposes a way that administrators, policymakers and researchers can manage this situation and still use research to make policy and practice decisions.

The paper suggests a new role for both school administrators and policymakers to play. If administrators/policymakers play this role successfully, all types of research can inform decision making about policy and practice, and researchers can concentrate on doing their research rather than engaging in unresolvable philosophical disputes.

Although a great deal has been written about the twentieth century's theory movement and paradigm wars and the twenty-first century's so-called science wars, the link between these phenomena has not been discussed in the literature. In addition, there have been few attempts to articulate an operational strategy for managing unresolvable philosophical disputes about research methods and the role that research can play in decision making. This paper tackles both matters.

Critiques the 15‐year research program of Colin W. Evers and Gabriele Lakomski. Significant contributions are highlighted and the significance of each of the highlighted contributions is discussed, since apparent problems with Evers and Lakomski’s substantive contributions to the field are also considered. In addition, critiques Evers and Lakomski’s discipline‐like way of working, which is oriented toward constructing the most inclusive and parsimonious theory that can be developed to make sense of educational administration practice. This disciplinary orientation is judged to be problematic, because, it is argued, educational administration is best conceptualized as a public policy field rather than as an academic discipline. The implications of the public policy field conceptualization are explored and this discussion is used further to highlight positive and problematic features of Evers and Lakomski’s research program.

Sabar holds the Joanne and Haime Constantiner Chair for Jewish Education at Tel Aviv University. Her fields of specialization are Jewish education, curriculum development and qualitative research methods and in particular its ethical aspects. Prof. Sabar is the recipient of the “Tel Aviv award” for research in Education for the year 2005.

This article describes what department directors and chiefs of staff reported when asked about the competencies they need to be effective in addressing on-the-job challenges. The study analyzed the generated data in two different ways to both understand what participants said in their own terms and to determine whether there is a fit between participants’ responses and facilitative leadership theory.

Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with five department directors and seven chiefs of staff in a US city that had a mayor-council form of government. Responses were analyzed in two ways. Initially, coding categories were developed inductively in an effort to employ what anthropologists characterize as an emic or insider perspective. Then the data were recoded from an etic perspective using the theory of facilitative leadership as a conceptual framework.

Although participants identified a wide variety of competencies, all participants emphasized the importance of working collaboratively with others, including the members of their teams, the elected official they worked with (and for) and constituents.

While most studies of facilitative leadership have focused on mayors and city managers, i.e. those at the top of the city administration hierarchy, this study’s focus is on middle managers who are not necessarily thought of as leaders but who must in fact, exercise leadership at least at times. Another relatively unique feature of this paper is its focus on a city that employs a mayor-council form of governance, a type of governance structure that has been underdiscussed in the literature to date.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

Extant research documents the importance of lean thinking for organizations, however, as prior research has largely focused on hard lean practices, but little is known about the effects or the significance of soft lean practices. This research attempts to address this issue by examining how soft lean practices enhance organizational lean readiness, and in turn increase the success of lean implementation.

This research adopts a single case study design in a small-medium enterprise livestock feed manufacturing organization, and investigates the period from late 2011 through the end of 2019 covering two attempts at lean implementation – an initial failed attempt followed by a successful introduction of lean within the case organization. The research analyzes interviews with 29 managers and employees from all organizational levels and departments within the case organization. Secondary data including organizational documents and performance measures and metrics were also incorporated into the research design.

Drawing on agency theory, the authors advance a principal-agent interaction perspective to conceptualize organizational lean readiness – specifically, the authors consider the “state or condition” of four agency factors (goal conflict, information asymmetry, risk aversion and length of relationship), and explore if these four agency factors can be utilized as proxies for organizational readiness for lean implementation. The authors identify the formation of a shared vision and identity within the organization as an effective mechanism through which soft lean practices enhance organizational lean readiness. Finally, the analysis offers an understanding of how the long-term success of lean implementation is improved by the introduction of soft lean practices as a prerequisite to create organizational readiness for the implementation of hard lean practices.

The study is unique in the sense that it empirically links agency theory and the role of soft lean practices in developing organizational lean readiness in a small-medium enterprise context by defining the ideal state of four agency factors as proxies for organizational readiness.