Session Information
Contribution
The ethnic diversity as well as minority / majority issues differs between South Africa and most of the European countries which makes any direct comparison difficult, but there are similar issues in the leadership of the changing learner compositions. Europe experience more ethnic diversity in the last few years as a result of immigration and therefore a change in learner composition. In South Africa the learner composition in the former white schools changes because of the political transformation in 1994. While the minority ethnic groups has always been minority groups in most of the European countries, in South Africa the conceptualisation of minority groups is complex as a result of the historical past. If the former racial classification of white, black, Coloured and Indian is taken as departure then it seems fairly simple - white, Indian and Coloured is minority - but the black group is also a diverse group of officially nine language groups; which creates multiple numerical ethnic minorities. The white minority government was replaced by a black majority government in 1994 with all the power issues included for school leaders.
The migration of black learners to former only white, Coloured and Indian schools is a one way migration, with limited migration to former black schools. The principals in all the case study schools are still white while the learner composition is now predominantly non- white (England) or black or “Coloured” learners in South Africa. In all the case study schools, the teacher composition is still predominantly white. Principals must lead in these new diverse circumstances with the principles of redress (especially in SA) and of equity, equal opportunity and social justice within a political correctness ambiance.
Diversity can hardly exist without identity. I will therefore use the social identity theory to analyse the principal’s perspectives on how they lead and deal with the change in their schools. According to this theory the group takes priority when a person act or makes decisions. The importance of belonging to the in-group or out-group is therefore important when the implications of the minority (white) and majority (black or non-white) are considered. This theory proposes that people identify and categorize themselves as individuals or as group; they are not categorized by outside political or social power, as was the case with legislated social separation and categorization before 1994 in South Africa. White principals (minority in SA) with predominantly black learners (majority in SA) are in a unique situation because in their schools the white teachers is still the majority and therefore have certain powers (decision making) which they do not have in the rest of the country, belonging to a distinct minority. They are islands with (restricted) power within a greater sea of powerlessness. Principals own individual identity (personal and professional) in the context of the school (organization) identity may demand a multiple or changing identity. In the UK case study the leaders are from the majority dominant group which makes their position different from the SA cases.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
ASHMORE, R. D., JUSSIM, L. and WILDER, D. 2001 Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict and Conflict Reduction, New York: Oxford Press. BILLIG, MICHAEL and TAJFEL, Henri 1973 ‘Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 27-52 BROWN, N. J. and ADAMS, D. 2003 ‘Despicability in the workplace: Effects of behavioral deviance and unlikeability on the evaluation of in-group and out-group members’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 241 3-26 GILLBORN, D. 2006 ‘Critical race theory and education: Racism and anti-racism in educational theory and praxis’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 11-/32 JACKSON, T. 2004 Management and Change in Africa. A Cross Cultural Perspective, London: Routledge JEHN, K. A., NORTHCRAFT, G. B. and NEALE, M. 1999 ‘Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 741-63 LUMBY, J. with COLEMAN, M. 2007 Leadership and Diversity, London: Sage NIEMANN, R. 2006 ‘Managing workforce diversity in South African schools’, South African Journal of Education, vol 26, no. 1, pp. 97-112 SACHDEV, I. and BOURIS, R. Y. 1985 ‘Social categorization and power differentials in group relations’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 15, pp. 415 – 434 TAJFEL, HENRI, and Turner, J. C. 1986 ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behavior’, in S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 33-47 WALKER, M. 2005 ‘Rainbow nation or new racism? Theorizing race and identity formation in South African higher education’, Race, Ethnicity and Education, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 129–146 ZÂRATE, M. A. and GARZA, A. A. 2002 ‘In-group distinctiveness and self-affirmation as dual components of prejudice reduction’, Self and Identity, vol. 1, pp. 235–249
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.