Aim: To contribute to the conceptual development of international educational leadership (EL) research by an empirical analysis of three major schools of thought in educational leadership (instructional, transformational and distributed leadership). How do these approaches explain three core issues in educational leadership, compared with EL research grounded in non-affirmative theory of education?  

Educational leadership (EL) has been an object of study for several decades, with different points of departure and different areas of focus being dominant at different times (Wang, 2018). Research within the field is currently on the one hand lively, but on the other rather scattered into subthemes with a multitude of perspectives and approaches applied, without these subfields necessarily engaging in constructive and critical dialogue (e.g. Eacott, 2016; Wang, 2018). In addition, there is still no generally accepted view of how to structure the field. For instance, according to Evans (2022) the field can be divided into mainstream educational leadership research on the one hand, and critical perspectives on the other. The critical perspectives can further be divided into normative social justice oriented critical research, and positions that take a critical perspective on leadership research itself. The main message of the latter is that that the field of educational leadership comes across as severely undertheorized, much like the field of leadership studies in general. According to Evans (2022) research on educational leadership is even more theoretically underdeveloped than leadership studies in general. In addition, educational leadership researchers seldom refer to the broader field of leadership research, and theoretical or critical developments therein. This claim puts research on educational leadership in a rather unflattering light, as some of the leadership theories or models used in EL research, such as transformational leadership, are already heavily criticized within leadership studies (e.g. van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Eacott (2016), in a similar vein, criticizes mainstream educational leadership research for being theoretically underdeveloped and stuck in a technocratic and linear “what works” approach, failing to provide rigor and robustness in research. Research in educational leadership comes across as a rather isolated sub-field of educational research, not connected to or on par with the development in leadership research in general (Evans, 2022).    

On the one hand, educational leadership research appears lively and dynamic, while on the other hand, it appears in need of more robust conceptual and theoretical foundations. Rather than indicating that research on EL would be all “bad”, we take it to mean that EL research would benefit from theoretical development able of overcoming some of the identified challenges in the field. The aim of this paper is to approach some of the perceived limitations regarding theoretical foundations in educational leadership research. Our approach is to explore if and how a pedagogical approach to theorizing educational leadership has potential to serve as a foundational point of departure, a metatheory, for theorizing educational leadership research (Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017; Elo & Uljens, 2023; Uljens & Elo, 2024). Given the variety of pedagogical and educational theories, by pedagogical theory we mainly refer to the Nordic-German Bildung centered tradition and corresponding theory of pedagogical activity (Benner, 2015, 2023). We argue that a pedagogical approach helps us to gain a reflected position regarding the object of educational leadership which is teaching. Such an approach also is beneficial for us when we try to understand schooling from a societal perspective. Finally, pedagogical theory allows us to be reflected regarding the pedagogical dimensions of educational leadership.

This study empirically reviews three internationally influential approaches to educational leadership research from the past decades. Selection of data The selected approaches to be analyzed are: instructional leadership research (IL) (e.g. Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger et.al., 2020) transformational leadership research (TL) (e.g. Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005, 2013; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) distributed leadership research (DL). (e.g. Gronn, 2002; Spillane, 2005; Spillane et.al., 2023) While it is true that a variety models represent each approach, they appear as three established and distinct approaches in the international research literature. Each approach is studied through a number of highly influential and paradigmatic examples. The requirement was that the selected studies should have high face validity. They were to be considered as strong representatives of the tradition they stemmed from or represented. No specific meta-analytic selection techniques or procedures were applied in the selection. The studies selected had to be published in peer-reviewed journals or the like. The focus of analysis The above three schools of thought were investigated as to how they deal with three questions crucial for any theory or model of educational leadership. The three foci of the analysis were: How does the approach conceptually explain pedagogical influence? How does the approach conceptually explain the relation between education and other fields of societal practice? How does the approach conceptually explain educational leadership as a multilevel phenomenon? Method of analysis The empirical method of analysis applied was explorative but immanent text-analysis of significant contributions to instructional leadership, transformational leadership and distributed leadership, guided by the three research questions. In a second step, the results received were contrasted with how non-affirmative education conceptually deals with each of the three questions.

The challenges identified appear differently in all three theories. IL and TL mainly rest on a leader-centered and linear view of leadership influence, studying correlations between leader behaviors and outcomes, often assuming causality, without explaining how this influence works, or the end object of leadership, namely teaching, studying and learning. DL assumes that reciprocal pedagogical influence occurs but refrains from theorizing this influence. The theories struggle to deal with the societal role of education, ignoring the question or assuming success in standardized evaluations as the taken for granted aim. IL and TL study leader behaviors within the school, failing to handle educational leadership systemically. In turn, DL research often studies the distribution of leadership more horizontally than vertically, although acknowledging a multilevel and multiactor approach. As NAT explains pedagogical leadership influence as relational and processual, NAT qualitatively differs from the linear approach of IL and TL. By doing so, NAT points out that these approaches only point at influencing as a core issue, yet without capacity to theoretically explain the notion. While NAT provides the means for IL, TL and DL to problematize the societal role of education, IL´s and TL´s foundational assumptions of leadership influence are ontologically incompatible with NAT. However, the paper argues, adopting an ontological point of departure in education, NAT may contribute to strengthening DL research, as both DL and NAT rest on a processual view of leadership influence. NAT can provide DL with an explanation of the pedagogical influence that DL assumes but is unable to explain. NAT can also provide a foundation to problematize the role of education in society. As DL and NAT share the view of leadership as a phenomenon distributed over several levels of leadership, NAT provides a coherent language to talk about pedagogical leadership influence within and across various levels.

Benner, D. (2015) Allgemeine Pädagogik (8th ed.). Beltz Juventa.  Benner, D. (2023) On affirmativity and non-affirmativity in the context of theories of education and Bildung. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (p. 21–59). Springer.  Eacott, S. (2016) Beyond leadership. Towards a ´relational´ way of thinking. In Lakomski, G., Eacott, S. & Evers, C. W. (Eds.), Questioning Leadership. New directions for educational organisations, (p. 17-30), Routledge Elo, J. & Uljens, M. (2023) Theorising pedagogical dimensions of higher education leadership—a non-affirmative approach. Higher Education 85, 1281–1298  Evans, L. (2022) Is leadership a myth? A ‘new wave’ critical leadership-focused research agenda for recontouring the landscape of educational leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 13, 423–451  Hallinger, P. (2005) Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4(3) 221-239. Hallinger, P., Gümüş, S. & Bellibaş, M.S. (2020) ’Are principals instructional leaders yet?’ A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122:1629–1650. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.  van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013) A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60. Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005) Review of Transformational School Leadership Research 1996-2005, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199. Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2013) Transformational leadership, In B. Davies (Ed.) The Essentials of School Leadership, 37-52, SAGE. Spillane, J. P. (2005) Distributed Leadership, The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150. Spillane, J.P., Morelb, R.P. & Al-Fadalac, A. (2023) Framing educational leadership as a multilevel distributed practice: a systemwide perspective, In: Tierney, R.J., Rizvi, F., Erkican, K. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 4. Elsevier. Uljens, M. & Elo, J. (2024) Grounding Higher Education Leadership in Non-affirmative Education theory, In J. Elo & M. Uljens (Eds.) Multilevel Pedagogical Leadership in Higher Education – A Non-affirmative Approach (p. 1-44). Springer. Wang, Y. (2018) The Panorama of the Last Decade’s Theoretical Groundings of Educational Leadership Research: A Concept Co-Occurrence Network Analysis, Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(3), 327–365.