Search results

The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the phenomenon of leadership at the intersection of aesthetics, identity and self within a dynamic, fluid and interactive compositional mixture which is part of a leader’s continuous process of invention and reinvention.

The methodology of this paper is a conceptual analysis and presentation involving some of the extant literature in the field of aesthetics, identity and leadership, including Harold Bloom’s theory of poetry that provides an entrance point to understand the problem of identity. The authors argue that a person, such as a leader, has multiple identities and interactions with others which lead to the co-construction of the self. To demonstrate this argument, the authors explore a case study of the life of the opera diva, Maria Callas.

An exploratory conceptual model demonstrating the relationship between identity and self, and insights and Bloom’s theory are applied to illuminate the case study of Maria Callas’ life. A key finding of the analysis is that identity is linked to performance and co-constructed in relation to others.

The paper concludes by discussing two implications for developing school leadership performance: the need for an aesthetic perspective of leadership and the need to provide a range of teaching approaches to teach leadership.

There have been few, if any, significant breakthroughs in understanding more about leadership from the traditional methods of social science. It is argued that until and unless researchers move towards working in aesthetic traditions there is not likely to be new understandings of it.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the case that innovation in the theory and practice of educational administration/leadership is very unlikely to occur within the existing doxa of our times. By innovation is meant a novel conceptual or practical change in the field of practice. By doxa is meant the unquestioned rules of the game and the linkage between the agencies and organs of government and foundations supporting research in the field. An approach toward thinking outside of the prevailing doxa is presented and explained as one possible antidote to the current dominant model.

The paper is a conceptual/logical analysis of the reasons why the current paradigm dominant in the study and the practice of educational administration/leadership is inadequate. The paradigm has not predicted anything currently unknown or understood yet its continued dominance in the field will not lead to any new discoveries or innovation but only continued verification of what is already known.

The major findings are that the boundaries of behavioral empiricism and social science methods impose an orthodoxy of approach in examining matters of administrative and leadership practice. Subsequently, it not only limits but also prohibits any new breakthroughs in understanding or predicting novel thinking about administration and leadership in educational institutions. Breaking out of this conceptual and theoretical box will be difficult as it is embraced by an interlocking apparatus of agencies and institutions and enshrined in most research journals in the field.

It is unlikely that true new discoveries in understanding educational leadership will occur without a restoration of the full range of human emotions and motivations which inspire and sustain leaders. New visions of leadership are required which will lead to what Lakatos has called a progressive research program in which prediction is enhanced and novel aspects of leadership emerge. These are not likely to occur given the tradition of inquiry currently in use. To use Lakatos’ term, the current research program is de-generative or regressive and lags behind the actual practice of school leadership. Thus, the authors perpetuate the theory-practice gap.

The continued employment of social science protocols anchored in behavioral empiricism and the scientific method are unlikely to lead to any new breakthroughs in the practice of educational administration/leadership. The lens of behavioral empiricism prohibits a complete understanding of the practice of leadership where that practice becomes “subjective” and/or essentially artistic in nature. Practice, therefore, is anchored only in what is considered “rational” and the non-rational aspects marginalized or eliminated.

Researchers working in the dominant social science perspectives using hard behavioral empirical traditions embodied in the usual perspective regarding the scientific method will continue to miss or marginalize the emotional and intuitive side of leadership, aspects which are hard to quantify and assess. Leaders not only act but they feel as well. Without emotion in leadership it is extremely hard to build trust in an organization. The moral responsibilities of leaders are also anchored in emotion and values held by the leader. These elements continue to be understated or marginalized in check list approaches to preparation and licensure.

The originality of the paper synthesizes the parallel perspectives of William Foster, Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Imre Lakatos as it pertains to explaining why the current theory of knowledge is not likely to lead to any new breakthroughs in the practice of educational administration/leadership. One different approach to thinking of leadership as connoisseurship is presented as a potential perspective from the arts as a way of viewing leadership as a form of performance in which emotion and intuition are recognized aspects of practice.

The purpose of this paper is to de‐construct the traditional bifurcation of logic and emotion in the preparation of educational leaders which, following regnant business planning and management models anchored in economics, focuses almost exclusively on social science methodology and the tenets of normative decision theory in formal university based‐preparation programmes in the UK and the USA. This dominant approach has many drawbacks and does not reflect how educational leaders actually engage in decision making.

The paper is a conceptual/logical analysis of the apparent weaknesses in traditional preparatory curricula as well as a report of preliminary qualitative research derived from a non‐probability, convenience sample of 13 interviews in the UK and the USA of middle‐level managers in institutions of higher education.

The major findings lie in the development of an initial schematic that challenges the dominant binary in considered decisions in educational leadership. The binary regarding the separation of logic and emotion simply does not exist as emotion is always a factor in decision making. The schematic proposes a way to make emotion an inclusive part of considering decision making.

Traditional notions of effective decision making should be revised to include how decision makers come to understand the role their own emotions play in rendering educational decisions on the job, and university providers should begin to revamp courses and curricula which more accurately portray them.

The originality of the paper is in the analysis of decision making which suggests that the role of emotion is in fact, logical and rational, as opposed to non‐rational in educational decision‐making contexts. The value of this position is that it restores to decision‐making preparation a more “real world” perspective which is often not present when so‐called non‐rational variables are factored out in problem‐solving training in university preparation programmes.

This book provides a deeper understanding of what it means to promote social justice and equity work in schools and communities around the world. Throughout this book, narratives describe how authors continue to reshape the agenda for educational reform. They remind us of the significance meaningful relationships play in promoting and sustaining reform efforts that address the injustices vulnerable populations face in school communities. Their voices represent the need for engaging with obstacles and barriers and a resistant world through a web of relationships, an intersubjective reality (see Ayers, 1996). As authors engaged in thinking about addressing injustices, they describe how their thoughts transformed into actions moving beyond, breaking through institutional structures, attempting to rebuild and make sense of their own situations (see Dewey, 1938).

“Rational planning models” emerged in the early 1970's as a means by which to plan more effectively and efficiently in educational organizations. One of the most well known and widely distributed of these models was developed by Phi Delta Kappa, the educational fraternity. This paper describes a field study conducted in five Vermont schools that were “early users” of the Phi Delta Kappa material. The outcomes reveal many discrepancies between the theory and the reality of planning in public schools. In addition to the Vermont research, other research is cited that supports many of the findings and relates them to planning in schools in general. The article concludes by linking the study outcomes to recent works by other authors on the emerging concepts of loosely coupled systems, garbage can organizations, and organized anarchies and implications these concepts hold for alternative approaches to planning in educational settings.