Search results

Criticisms of naturalistic coherentism are suggested that are not raised by its critics in the literature. The rejection of traditional foundationalism does not necessarily entail the acceptance of coherentism. Coherentism can be seen as another version of foundationalism. Most interestingly, Evers and Lakomski’s stance on “strong vs weak” naturalism seems to be vague. Then, in closing, it is suggested that a recent theory in epistemology termed “foundherentism” might provide some avenues for the further development of naturalistic coherentism, such as by emphasising empirical input in coherentism and adopting a weak version of naturalism.

Offers a critical commentary on the Evers and Lakomski research programme as summarized in their article, “Theory in educational administration: naturalistic directions”. The origins of their naturalistic epistemology are reviewed and some of its limitations for understanding social action considered, especially the limitations it imposes on understanding social behaviour at the level of meaning. Brief attention is given to their coherence criteria, particularly to the manner in which these should be appropriately employed in theory choice. Concludes with a short consideration of the general problem of developing theory in educational administration and the appropriate role for modern science.

In this chapter, we present a critical assessment of contemporary organization theory variously described as either multiperspectival or fragmented. We argue that analytic philosophy as one of the major tools used for theorizing about organizations has had a major influence on the development of organization theory and largely explains the current state of affairs. At its core, we argue, is a fundamental methodological fissure in analytic philosophy itself: the distinction between descriptive and revisionary methods. The principal focus of descriptive analysis in organization theory is how agents use everyday language in organizational contexts, often by invoking language games. In contrast, revisionary approaches, concerned about the privileging of theories embedded in everyday language, as well as the complexity and ambiguity of ordinary-language use, aim for explicit theory evaluation and greater clarity by recasting ordinary language in formal systems, such as scientific, especially empiricist, theories, characteristic of the mainstream of theorizing about organizations from the 1940s onward. For a number of theoretical and epistemological reasons logical empiricism or positivism is no longer a widely held view either in the philosophy of science or in the organization theory. We examine some critical issues regarding logical empiricist epistemological foundations and propose a methodological naturalistic framework that supports the ongoing growth of knowledge in organization theory, naturalistic coherentism. In developing this new conception of science we thus opt for a revisionary methodology, but one that is beholden to neither the traditional logical empiricist/positivist conception of (organization) science nor the relativism and conservatism of postmodernist theory, widely considered to be the successor of positivist organization theory.

Provides an overview of a rather large research program, developed over the last 15 years, that seeks to offer a new perspective on the nature of theory and practice in educational administration. The core ideas of the program, together with a considerable amount of detail, can be found in three books by Evers and Lakomski. However, because these volumes stand in a developmental sequence, there is merit in presenting in a brief compass an account of our overall strategy, especially in relation to the nature of administrative theory, and some of the conclusions reached along the way. The discussion has two main parts. First, the central theoretical features of our program are outlined, indicating some earlier results flowing from their application to various debates in educational administration. Then, some examples are offered focused on the main concern of our most recent research – developing and applying this framework to a cluster of problems about administrative practice and the nature of practical knowledge.

Offers a reply to Trevor Maddock′s philosophical critique of the authors′ work. Contains a brief summary of the authors′ research programme, located within a perspective on philosophy of educational administration, a series of short responses to some minor criticisms and a number of more extended replies to major criticisms. Defends the authors′ view that a science is quite broad because the adjudication of competing scientific theories is conducted according to coherentist criteria. Also defends a naturalistic view of ethics, thus locating moral judgement on the same explanatory agenda as other judgements an administrator might make about decisions and choices concerning organizational life.

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.

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.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to argue that leadership, including distributed leadership, is a concept of folk psychology and is more productively viewed as an emergent self‐organising property of complex systems. It aims to argue the case on the basis that claims to (distributed) leadership outrun the theoretical and empirical resources distributed and other leadership theorists can offer to support them.

The paper employs contemporary scientific as well as traditional philosophical criteria in determining the knowledge claims made by distributed leadership theories. Of particular importance are the coherence theory of evidence that employs the super‐empirical virtues, especially coherence to establish the scientific virtue of theory, and the conception of leadership as part and parcel of folk psychology.

When considering the basis of claims to distributed leadership from a neuroscientific and empirical perspective, there is little basis in fact about the existence of (distributed) leadership as an ontological category. Talk of leadership is a conventional, commonsense label for vastly more complex and fine‐grained causal physiological and neuronal activities within certain social contexts. In this sense distributed leadership is a conception available for reduction.

The significance and originality of this paper lies in the fact that it proposes causal investigations of social phenomena such as leadership; demonstrates the importance and necessity of interdisciplinary research; and outlines exciting new research agendas that both question traditional taken‐for‐granted conceptions of social explanations and suggests directions of where solutions may be found in the future that are defensible by the best of current science.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the key individuals, associations and significant events contributing to the establishment and first 50 years of successful publication of the Journal of Educational Administration.

This paper is historical in design. Information relevant to its 50 years of publication has been obtained from the JEA's 172 Editorials and from minutes of Editorial Advisory Board and Management Committee meetings, supplemented by personal editorial memoranda.

Recognised as one of the leading generalist international journals in its field, the Journal of Educational Administration has until recently been edited in Australia. The most eminent international scholars in the field have published in the JEA throughout its lifetime. Esteemed scholars have also occupied positions on its Editorial Board. The JEA has enjoyed close and supportive associations with several prominent professional organisations including UCEA and CCEA.

This paper does not include detailed information about the content of the almost 1,000 articles published throughout its history. This is the subject of other specific research undertakings.

The JEA was the first generalist international journal in the field of educational administration. Its first volume appeared in 1963. It has reached the age of 50 years and hence this paper's report of such may provide a basis for similar studies of other journals as they achieve significant milestones.