Skip to main content
Log in

Risk, error and accountability: improving the practice of school leaders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Educational Research for Policy and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper seeks to explore the notion of risk as an organisational logic within schools, the impact of contemporary accountability regimes on managing risk and then, in turn, to posit a systems-based process of risk management underpinned by a positive logic of risk. It moves through a number of steps beginning with the development of an understanding of risk, the risk society and the logic of risk derived from the seminal work of Douglas (1992, Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory, London: Sage), Beck (1992, Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage) and Giddens (1990, The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press). Second, the paper juxtaposes this understanding of risk with the rise of accountability imperatives and an “audit culture” [Strathern (1997) European Review, 5(3), 305–321] in public institutions, including schools. It then moves to consider how a systems-based approach to risk management, drawing on Reason’s (1990, Human Error. New York: Cambridge University Press) model of human error minimisation, could be usefully developed for schools. Such an approach would be built on a positive risk logic which maintains the flexibility, innovativeness and adaptability so necessary in education and avoids the more deleterious effects of many current forms of accountability and risk management which reflect avoidance, conformity and rigidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnett R. (2000).Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthes R. (1978). A lover’s discourse: fragments. Translated by Richard Hurley. New York, Hill and Wang

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2001). The cosmopolitan state: towards a realistic utopia. Eurozine May: http:www.eurozine.com/article/2001-12-05-beck-en.html.

  • Beck U. (1997).The reinvention of politics. Cambridge, Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J., Hil R., Watts R. (2003). Discovering risk: social research and policy making. New York, Peter Lang

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M. (1992). Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. London, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson R.V., Haggerty K.D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Toronto, University of Toronto Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M. (1980). Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. New York, Pantheon

    Google Scholar 

  • Gewirtz S. (1999). Efficiency at any cost: The post-welfarist education policy context. In: Symes C., Meadmore D (eds). The extra-ordinary school: parergonality and pedagogy. New York, Peter Lang, pp. 129–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A. (2000). Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our lives. New York, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G. (2002). Reckoning with risk: learning to live with uncertainty. London, Penguin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. C., Jones, DX.C., Pidgeon, B. A., Gibson, R., et al. (1992). Risk analysis, perception and management (pp. 135–201). Hertfordshire: The Royal Society.

  • Hoskin K. (1996). The ‘awful idea of accountability’: inscribing people into the measurement of objects. In: Munro R., Mouritsen J. (eds) Accountability: power, ethos and the technologies of managing . London, International Thomson Business Press, pp. 265–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A. (2001). Touchy subject: teachers touching children. Dunedin, Otago University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, R. et al. (2002). Addressing the educational needs of boys. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.

  • MCEEYTA (1999) National goals for schooling, http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/ policy_initiatives_reviews/ national_goals_for_schooling_in_the_twenty_first_century.htm.

  • McIntyre, M. E. (2000). Audit, education, and Goodhart’s Law: or, taking rigidity seriously, http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/papers/LHCE/dilnot-analysis.html, pp. 1–6.

  • McWilliam E. (2003). The vulnerable child as a pedagogical subject. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 19(2): 35–44

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam E. et al. (2005). Silly, soft and otherwise Suspect: doctoral education as risky business. Australian Journal of Education 49(2): 214–227

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam E., Jones A. (2005). An unprotected species? On teachers as risky subjects. British Journal of Educational Research 31(1): 109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam E., Singh P. (2004). Safety in numbers? Teacher collegiality in the risk-conscious school. Journal of Educational Enquiry 5(1): 22–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro E. (2005). Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem. Children and Youth Services Review 27(4): 375–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason J. (1990). Human error. New York, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason J. (2000). Human error: models and management. British Medical Journal 320(7230): 768–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson P.D. (2000). Audit culture and anthropology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6(4): 721–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore C., Wright S. (2001). Reply to Maguire. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7(4): 760–763

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart D.J., Knott A.E. (2002). Schools, courts and the law. Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest, NSW

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, M. (2000a). Abstraction and decontextualisation: an anthropological comment or: e for ethnography. Virtual Society? Get Real! conference.

  • Strathern M. (2001). Blowing hot and cold. Anthropology Today 17(1): 1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strathern M., (1997). ‘Improving ratings’ audit in the British university system. European Review 5(3): 305–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strathern M. (2000b). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26(3): 310–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson K. (1998). Moral panics. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (1994). Introduction: from social engineering to reflective action in organizational behaviour. In H. Tsoukas (Ed.), New thinking in organizational behaviour (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

  • Tsoukas H. (1997). The tyranny of light: the temptations and paradoxes of the information society. Futures 29, 827–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Swaaningen R. (1997). Critical criminology. London, Sage

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee-Anne Perry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perry, LA. Risk, error and accountability: improving the practice of school leaders. Educ Res Policy Prac 5, 149–164 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-006-9002-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-006-9002-x

Keywords

Navigation