Educational Leadership and Management: Fashion, Fad and the Consumption of Research
Author(s):
Jacky Lumby (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Network:
26. Educational Leadership
Format:
Paper

Session Information

26 SES 02 A, Educational Leadership - a Changing Discipline?

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-02
15:15-16:45
Room:
B029 Anfiteatro
Chair:
Lars Frode Frederiksen

Contribution

From the inception of the field of educational leadership and management in the latter half of the 20th century, a number of systematic reviews have considered the nature of relevant research and how it has contributed and might further contribute to supporting practice (Bridges, 1982; Murphy et al, 2007; Hallinger 2013). The large majority of reviews have been published in international journals rather than within Europe, and focus primarily on articles published in the US and the wider Anglophone world. Hallinger (2013) suggests that most are traditional literature reviews which use a bounded set of data to examine published research on conceptual, methodological or substantive issues in an exploratory or explanatory fashion. His analysis distinguishes the prevalence of exploratory research in the early period of the field until 1996 with all but two of explanatory reviews emerging since, indicating 'progression from exploratory to explanatory reviews that often occurs as knowledge accumulates in a field of inquiry over time.' (op cit, 2013: 6). He claims that reviews of research have a key role in establishing and forwarding knowledge in the field. Hallinger acknowledges that all reviews are value laden. The implication of his assessment of the maturing field and of the role of systematic reviews is a teleological orientation to research, based on a belief that as research increases in quantity, quality and synthesis, its support for practice will become increasingly secure.

 

 

This paper considers how a review of leadership and management research might respond to two conference questions:  Do the ways in which educational research has been used in practice and policy within Europe provide a good foundation for the future? Or do we need to develop different strategies? This paper aims to make a contribution to reviewing the field's history and the implications for future research by questioning the apparently rational, teleogical orientation to research and its assumptions of both a positive trajectory for research itself and for its consumption by practitioners and policymakers. The paper explores how we might understand the production and consumption of research using 'a long tradition of studying the creation, diffusion, application, adaptation, abandonment and rejection of ideas and practices' (Sturdy, 2004: 196) from other disciplines. Sturdy suggests six alternative 'contemporary perspectives—rational, psychodynamic, dramaturgical, political, cultural and institutional'. Adopting this model as a heuristic device, the paper takes as a starting point the questions:

 

  1. What patterns are discernible in research on leadership/management theory published in key European journals on educational leadership and management from 1970 onwards?
  2. Do any or all of Sturdy's perspectives offer value in understanding the production and consumption of research, such as to guide a critical understanding for future research in Europe?

 A key focus is the relationship between theories presented as an outcome of research and the adoption of related practice by practitioners and policymakers. Consequently the paper will also draw on a range of theory within the field of generic leadership and management on the diffusion, adoption and rejection of ideas by individuals and organisations (Mintzberg, 1979; Abrahamson, 1991; Fiol & O'Connor, 2003). Overall the paper will suggest that the construction of knowledge in the field of educational leadership and management may be hampered by a narrow teleological perspective which, unlike the generic field of leadership and management, is not mindful of the range of drivers and levers which underpin the relationship between production and consumption of research by practitioners in the field. It will suggest that greater sophistication in understanding this relationship will be necessary for research to be used more productively in Europe in the future.

Method

The primary method utilised is analysis of relevant literature. Two key European journals, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership and School Leadership and Management were searched for articles referring to theories of leadership, specifically variations of distributed or distributive, transformational, transactional, authentic, ethical, and collegial leadership or management. The resulting count of articles since the early 1970s suggests a distinctive pattern in both journals, with writing about theories of leadership or management emerging essentially from the mid-1980s onwards, new theories being added over time, the latest being an explosion of articles on distributed leadership since the 1990s. Analysis of articles prior to the mid-1980s searching by keywords suggests a different approach to offering research of value to practitioners, with an emphasis on understanding better the functions of managers/administrators. The graphic presentation of analysis provides an overview of research on educational leadership and management since the 1970s as perceived through publication in two leading European journals, and presents an a priori case that fashions or even fads are evident. Further evidence is provided by scrutiny of 38 reviews of research identified by Hallinger (2013) in his recent analysis of reviews of research. Much of the material contained in reviews is of US or other extra-European origin. However the reviews include reference to European material and provide an additional perspective on the nature of research in the field. The interpretation of analysis, seeking possible explanations for the distinctive pattern of the focus of researchers on educational leadership and management, is approached through the conceptual framework outlined in the general description of research questions, that is 'rational, psychodynamic, dramaturgical, political, cultural and institutional' (Sturdy, 2004: 196) explanations.

Expected Outcomes

The rational approach assumes that theory and suggestions for practice emerge in relation to demand from practitioners or as context or technology changes. A second assumption is that the introduction of new ideas is over an appropriate period of time to allow careful implementation, evaluation and adjustment. Analysis of the literature does not support this explanation, as competing theories emerge virtually simultaneously at a single point in history and follow on so fast that they do not appear to be a response to particular circumstances or carefully implemented and evaluated. Rather the pattern of emergence of ideas suggests what maybe 'the diffusion of technically inefficient administrative technologies' (Abrahamson 1991: 588) which nevertheless serve important symbolic and legitimation purposes, for example signalling innovativeness or commitment to equity. Consequently, psychodynamic and dramaturgical explanations appear more credible in terms of explaining the patterns of theory diffusion. The limitations of analysis are acknowledged, as data are limited to two European-based journals in English. Nevertheless the results, in line with the conference intentions, result in questions on whether the use of research to date in the field of educational leadership and management has in fact been productive in terms of offering ideas of value to practitioners, or on the contrary, has fuelled the rhetorical adoption of ill-defined theory or the use of theory to legitimate the status quo. In particular, the value of theory emanating from the UK which diffuses throughout Europe and latterly into Eastern Europe is questioned. No definitive answers can be offered in relation to these questions, but the analysis of data is presented as indicative of an urgent need to be more mindful about the diffusion and adoption of ideas in the area of the leadership or management of organisations.

References

Abrahamson, E. (1991) Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 3: pp. 586-612. Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state-of-the art, 1967-1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3),12-33. Fiol, C. M. & O'Connor, E.J. (2003) Waking up! Mindfulness in the Face of Bandwagons. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, No. 1: pp. 54-70. Mintzberg, H. (1979) The structuring of organizations. New York: Prentice-Hall. Murphy, J. (2004). Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 65-96. Hallinger, P. (2013) Reviewing Reviews of Research in Educational Leadership: An Empirical Assessment . Educational Administration Quarterly, online 0013161X13506594 Sturdy, A. (2004) The Adoption of Management Ideas and Practices: Theoretical Perspectives and Possibilities. Management Learning. Vol. 35(2): 155–179.

Author Information

Jacky Lumby (presenting / submitting)
University of Southampton
Southampton

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.