26 SES 11 B JS, Social Justice and Innovative Educational Leadership Part 2
Joint Paper Session NW 07 and NW 26 continued from 26 SES 09 C JS
The search for a just society can be rooted to earlier discourse. It has been a “hot issue” in both Western and Eastern traditions. Many thinkers/philosophers have theorized about justice to meet the necessities of a just society.
As Mansfield (2013) defines Social Justice’ (SJ) is the responsibility of a society and its organizations to promote welfare for every members of the society. SJ has been on the agendas of educational researchers (Arar, 2015). In this sense, increased use of the terms ‘equity’ and ‘SJ’ in educational research reflects the aspiration to implement the belief that ‘all children can learn’ in the mission and vision statements of many schools and the idea that they should have access to socially just learning opportunities (Arar, Beycioglu & Oplatka, 2017; Slater, Potter, Torres & Briceno, 2014).
Research has revealed that SJ is culturally constructed and it is contributive to learn about leadership for SJ practices in different contexts (Beycioglu & Kondakçı, 2017; Berkovich, 2014; King & Robinson, 2017). Research also shows that schools and school leaders are significant in creating a just society (Oplatka & Arar, 2015), and that school leaders’ ability to introduce educational equality improves access and produces superior educational achievements (Arar, Beycioglu & Oplatka, 2017)
Thus, the current study presents the work conducted under the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN) project, a collaboration jointly sponsored by UCEA and the British Educational Leadership, Management, and Administration Society (BELMAS). This paper from Turkey aims to examine socially just leader practices through the country’s context. In this study we aim to describe a brief sense of SJ leadership and the extent of which social justice (SJ) leadership is practiced by principals in Turkish context when facing challenging circumstances and working to advocate for marginalized/disadvantageous children.
In accordance with the aim of the study, we seek to understand;
(1) How do Turkish school leaders make sense of SJ? (2) What do Turkish principals do to meet the needs of marginalized students in their schools? (3) What factors facilitate or hinder the work of school principals in meeting the needs of marginalized students?
It is assumed that this study may contribute to the understanding of SJ leadership and its practices in Turkish context and contribute to the literature abroad.
Methodology Instrument We will collect data through a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire consisting of 3 questions. This semi-structured form was developed by the researchers. As for validity and reliability, the interview form was presented to experts studying the field of Educational Administration in Turkey. The interviews were carried out with five principals and Educational Administration researchers prior to actual interviews to identify problems and take precautions for the study to be properly conducted. The participants were asked to analyze the items in the interview form and state their opinions concerning the clarity of the questions in the form. Specific comments from participants led to some alterations on the form to make the interview questions more comprehensible, plain, and precise. Interview transcripts will also double checked by the researchers so that there will no obvious mistakes during transcription. Participants Data will be gathered form ten participants working in Izmir, a city in the Aegean coast of Turkey. They were chosen based on recommendations from educational administration programme professors, from field experienced supervisors and teachers. The main criterion for inclusion was the participants’ commitment in creating a socially just school of an economically disadvantaged region and commitment in reducing inequalities.
Analysis and Expected Findings Thematic analysis will be used to explore participants’ opinions. The data will undergo four stages of analysis suggested by Marshall and Rossman (2012): ‘organizing the data’, ‘generating categories, themes and patterns’, ‘testing any emergent hypotheses and “searching for alternative explanations’ (Arar, Beycioglu & Oplatka, 2017). The analysis will identify central themes and the thematic framework will be guided by research questions. Thus, we expect that analysis of the findings from the interviews will reveal 3 main categories in line with the research questions: (1) Principals’ sense of SL; (2) SJ practices; (3) Facilitators and hindrances to SJ.
References Arar, K. (2015). Leadership for equity and social justice in Arab and Jewish schools in Israel: Leadership trajectories and pedagogical praxis. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 162-187. Arar, K., Beycioglu, K. & Oplatka, I. (2017). A cross-cultural analysis of educational leadership for social justice in Israel and Turkey: meanings, actions and contexts. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(2), 192-206. Beycioglu, K. & Kondakçı, Y. (2017). Understanding leadership practices in a sustainable school model: A case from Turkey. In R. Papa & A. Saiti (Eds). (pp.151-169). Building for a Sustainable Future in Education: Brick by Brick. Switzerland: Springer. Berkovich, I. (2014). A socio-logical framework of social justice leadership in education. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(3), 282-309. King, F. & Robinson, K. (2017). Making Sense of It All: Values, Relationships and a Way Forward. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership (REAL), 2(1), 128-138. Mansfield, K. C. (2013). ‘I love these girls - I was these girls’: Women leading for social justice in a single-sex public school. Journal of School Leadership, 23(4), 640-663. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2012). Designing Qualitative Research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications. Slater, C., Potter, I., Torres, N., & Briceno, F. (2014). Understanding social justice leadership: An international exploration of the perspective of two school leaders in Costa Rica and England. Management in Education, 28(3), 110-115.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.