Session Information
26 SES 12 B, Topics on Educational Leadership: Adaptive Leadership, Health and Wellbeing, and Middle Leaders
Paper Session
Contribution
The idea that educational systems and schools must be adaptive in order to keep pace with the changing social and cultural realities is certainly not new. Yet, the particularly disruptive characteristics of the present disorienting age (Wergin, 2019), in which everything is in flux or in what some complexity theorists have called a 'continuous disequilibrium' (Uhl‐Bien & Marion, 2009), have made adaptivity an imperative for organizations and social systems. Informed by developments in complexity theory and adaptive learning theories (Heifetz, 1994), primarily in the fields of organizational leadership (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2009), 'adaptivity' has gradually gained currency in educational discourse and has become a conceptual lens for thinking about school transformation (Hung et al, 2014), school improvement (Harris, 2005), learning processes and pedagogy (Schwartz et al, 2005). There is a growing understanding that 'adaptivity' must be accounted for so that schools remain effective and relevant for students in the present knowledge society and global economy. Notions such as the 'adaptive school' (Gramston and Wellman, 2016; Kershner and McQuillan, 2016), adaptive learning (Wergin, 2019), adaptive expertise (Schwartz et al, 2005), adaptive teacher expertise (Anthony, Hunter, and Hunter, 2015), and adaptive leadership (Harris, 2005; Linsky and Lawrence, 2011) are becoming more central in attempts by educational thinkers, policy makers and teacher educators to envisage how to transform schools for the 21st century. At its core, adaptability discourse is essentially about the attempt to bridge the gap or tension between innovation (creativity) and effectiveness (stability). It is the possibility of holding the two competing skills together that characterizes adaptive organization or complex adaptive systems and individuals. Together with 21st century skills discourse, policy papers are now centering on adaptivity as one of the core attributes of future-oriented education, which effectively responds to the complexities and dilemmas characterizing a volatile, complex and ambiguous world (OECD, 2018).
Parallel to the above discourse, in the past few years the notion of social justice has been proliferating in educational leadership discourse and has gained international recognition (Author, 2021; Bogotch & Sheilds, 2014; Gümüş, Arar & Oplatka, 2021). The increased attention to social justice issues can itself be considered as a kind of adaptive endeavor to changing social circumstances: Given changing school demographics, heightening achievements gaps, and student immigration and mobility, school leaders are facing pressing issues of individual and group marginalization and discrimination. While multiple meanings of social justice are found in the literature, “a common understanding among many leadership scholars is that social justice focuses on the experiences of marginalized groups and inequities in educational opportunities and outcomes” (Furman, 2012, p. 194). Social justice leadership, then, is primarily about confronting and possibly eradicating the discrimination and oppression of marginalized individuals or groups largely on the basis of color, race, disability, gender, and ethnic-cultural background. Leadership scholars are calling schools to become more inclusive and attend to the diverse needs of individuals and groups who have been discriminated and marginalized (e.g., Theoharis & Scanlon, 2020) and call for the preparation of social justice educational leaders (e.g., Diem & Carpenter, 2012; Jean-Marie et al, 2009).
The aim of the present paper is to explore possible connections between the discourse on 'adaptivity' and the discourse on social justice educational leadership. Despite their different ends, it is my impression that both discourses share basic principles and that the dialogue between the two discourses may promote important insights for each discourse. I shall discuss the connecting links (principles) between the two discourses and briefly discuss the implications of connecting the two discourses for social justice educational leadership discourse.
Method
This study engages in theoretical analysis; it invovles literary analysis and critical assessment of two central discourses in the field of educational leadership: the discourse on adaptive leadership and its implications on the field of educational leadership and school organizartion. This discourse highlights the movement from heroic-transformational to collaborative leadership types as well as the discourse on complex-systems from which the notions of adaptive leadership and more specifically adaptive space derive. The second discourse is the discourse on social justice educational leadership, a broad and still growing field of study and theoretical examination which focuses on a wide range of issues and dimensions, including diversity, inclusion and equity in educational contexts. The above literary analysis of both discourses paves the way for a comparative analysis leading to the development of synthetic theoretical insights and practical implications.
Expected Outcomes
Following critical literary analysis of the two discourses (adaptive leadership and social justice leadership), the paper arrives at several conclusions. The first is that these two notions of leadership share four basic characteristics; they are disruptive, collaborative, dilemmatic, emergent-contextual. While these shared principles of both types of leadership provide bridges, so to speak, to connect the two leadership discourses, the specific meaning of each principle in each discourse diverges in interesting ways. It is the differences in the meanings of each principle for each discourse that allows to engage in fruitful dialogue between them and facilitates reciprocal development. While certainly not underestimating the different (some would say contradictory) motivational ends underlying each leadership discourse (i.e., effectiveness and equity) the dialogue between them is not only possible but has the potential for mutual benefits. Whereas the contribution of social justice leadership to adaptive leadership discourse is more evident, it is possible also to consider the contribution of the latter to the former in two central aspects: the understanding of leadership as practice, and the adaptive transformation of organizational structures. The paper considers Wenger's (1998) notion of communities of practice as a one possible example of how the above four principles can be applied in educational practice in a way that incorporates insights from both discourses.
References
Anthony, G., Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (2015). Prospective teachers development of adaptive expertise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 108–117. Bogotch, I. & Sheilds, C. M. (Eds.) (2014). International handbook of educational leadership and social (in) justice. Springer. Diem, S., & Carpenter, B. W. (2012). Social justice and leadership preparation: Developing a transformative curriculum. Planning and changing, 43, 96-112. Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191–229. Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2016). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Rowman & Littlefield. Gümüş, S., Arar, K., & Oplatka, I. (2021). Review of international research on school leadership for social justice, equity and diversity. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 53(1), 81-99. Harris, E. L. (2005). Key Strategies to Improve Schools: How to Apply Them Contextually. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Belknap Press Hung, D., Lim, K. Y., & Lee, S. S. (Eds.). (2014). Adaptivity as a transformative disposition: For learning in the 21st century. Springer Science & Business Media. Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. S. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing 21st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of research on leadership education, 4(1), 1-31. Kershner, B., & McQuillan, P. J. (2016). Complex adaptive schools: Educational leadership and school change. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 13(1), 4–29. Linsky, M., & Lawrence, J. (2011). Adaptive challenges for school leadership. In H. O’Sullivan & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Leading and managing schools (pp. 3–15). Sage. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Directorate for Education and Skills-OECD. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary (pp. 1–51). Information Age Publishing Theoharis, G., & Scanlan, M. K. (Eds.). (2021). Leadership for increasingly diverse schools. New York, NY: Routledge. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 631-650. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press Wergin, J. F. (2019). Deep Learning in a Disorienting World. Cambridge University Press
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 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.