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…
Abstract
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.
Details
Keywords
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…
Abstract
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.
Colin W. Evers and Gabriele Lakomski
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…
Abstract
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.
Details
Keywords
Colin W. Evers and Gabriele Lakomski
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…
Abstract
Purpose
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.
Design/methodology/approach
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
Findings
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.
Originality/value
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.
Details
Keywords
Gabriele Lakomski and Colin W. Evers
In this chapter, we present a critical assessment of contemporary organization theory variously described as either multiperspectival or fragmented. We argue that analytic…
Abstract
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.
Details
Keywords
Gabriele Lakomski and Colin W. Evers
Considers Willower’s theory of inquiry and his stance on science and epistemology which is derived from Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy. Argues that Willower’s naturalism, following…
Abstract
Considers Willower’s theory of inquiry and his stance on science and epistemology which is derived from Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy. Argues that Willower’s naturalism, following Dewey’s understanding, remains incomplete because Dewey did not have at his disposal the required causal neurobiological detail of human learning and cognition. Such detail has recently become available, and Dewey’s biological metaphors are now being cashed out in relation to the causal mechanisms of inquiry, with interesting consequences for Willower’s theory of inquiry. Concludes the article by exploring the notion of reflective inquiry in relation to human cognition, research methodology and organizational cognition.
Details
Keywords
Colin W. Evers and Gabriele Lakomski
Offers a reply to Trevor Maddock′s philosophical critique of theauthors′ work. Contains a brief summary of the authors′ researchprogramme, located within a perspective on…
Abstract
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.
Details
Keywords
Gabriele Lakomski and Colin W. Evers
The purpose of this paper is to argue that emotion has a central role to play in rational decision making based on recent research in the neuroanatomy of emotion. As a result…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to argue that emotion has a central role to play in rational decision making based on recent research in the neuroanatomy of emotion. As a result, traditional rational decision‐making theories, including Herbert Simon's modified model of satisficing that sharply demarcates emotions and values from rationality and rational decision making, need substantial revision. The paper concludes by outlining some central features of a theory of emotional decisions that is biologically more realistic than the traditional rationalist‐cognitive model.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper employs contemporary scientific as well as traditional philosophical criteria in its argumentation. Methodologically, it can be described as an example of applying naturalistic philosophy to a central issue of human thought and experience, and how humans are able to value things at all on the basis of their neuroanatomy.
Findings
The paper presents some initial features of a new theory of emotional decisions that is biologically more realistic than the traditional rationalist‐cognitive model.
Originality/value
The significance and originality of this paper lies in the fact that it proposes causal investigations of the real bases for rational decision making as a central human feature which runs counter to conventional wisdom and has far reaching implications for education, to name just one discipline; it demonstrates the importance and necessity of interdisciplinary research; and it outlines an exciting new research agenda that promises to be more productive in terms of understanding and hence planning for, the way in which humans make decisions.
Details
Keywords
Offers a critical commentary on the Evers and Lakomski research programme as summarized in their article, “Theory in educational administration: naturalistic directions”. The…
Abstract
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.