Productive Conversations from a Feminist Perspective

  • Dawn Wallin
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Educational Leadership Theory book series (ELT)

Abstract

This chapter is written as a response to the ideas put forward in Scott Eacott’s text, Educational leadership relationally written from a feminist perspective. The response is centered on five main ideas that are discussed in the book: (1) that the relational approach provides a new way of thinking about educational administration; (2) that there exist tensions in current approaches to research due to the embodied and embedded nature of the researcher vis-à-vis the research object; (3) that there is much value in historicizing temporal trajectories and the socio-spatial contexts of research; (4) that interpretive description has the most to offer the study of the legitimation of social organizing; and; (5) that there does not exist enough attention to language and discourse within current educational administrative research. The paper concludes with suggestions for further intra-disciplinary dialogue that could deepen the sophistication of the relational approach over time.

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

References

  1. Asher, N. (2010). How does post-colonial, feminist academic lead? A perspective from the US South. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, V. (2012). Declining performativity: Butler, Whitehead and ecologies of concern. Theory Culture & Society, 29(2), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackmore, J. (2004). Restructuring educational leadership in changing contexts: A local/global account of restructuring in Australia. Journal of Educational Change, 5(3), 267–288.Google Scholar
  4. Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2005). Performing and re-forming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring and organisational change. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buber, M. (1981[1923]). I and thou: The dialogic principle. New York, NY: Dutton [Originally published as Ich und du: Das dialogische prinzip (Germany: Darmstadt)].Google Scholar
  7. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eacott, S. (2015). Educational leadership relationally: A theory and methodology for educational leadership, management and administration. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald, T. (2010). Spaces in between: Indigenous women leaders speak back to dominant discourses and practices in educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(1), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grande, S. (2008). Red pedagogy. In L. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 233–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Gunter, H. (2001). Critical approaches to leadership in education. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 94–108.Google Scholar
  12. Laroche, E. (2007). Metis and feminist: Ethical reflections on feminism, human rights and decolonization. In J. A. Green (Ed.), Making space for Indigenous feminism (pp. 53–71). Halifax, NS: Fernwood.Google Scholar
  13. Lather, P. (1991). Deconstructing/Deconstructive inquiry: The politics of knowing and being known. Educational Theory, 41(2), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mathieu, N. (1999). Bourdieu ou le pouvoir auto-hypnotique de la domination masculine [Bourdieu, or self-hypnotic power of male domination]. Les Temps Modernes, 604, 286–324.Google Scholar
  15. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2007[1848]). The communist manifesto. London, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Samier, E. (2013). Where have the disruptions gone? Educational Administration’s theoretical capacity for analyzing or formenting disruption. International Journal for Leadership in Education, 16(2), 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. St. Denis, V. (2007). Feminism for everybody: Aboriginal women, feminism and diversity. In J. A. Green (Ed.), Making space for Indigenous feminism (pp. 33–52). Halifax, NS: Fernwood.Google Scholar
  18. St. Denis, V. (2011). Rethinking cultural theory in Aboriginal education. In M. Cannon & L. Sunseri (Eds.), Racism, colonialism and Indigeneity in Canada: A reader (pp. 177–187). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, D. (2001). Radical feminism today. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). TRC final report. Available at http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=890.
  21. Wallace, J., & Wallin, D. (2015). “The voice inside herself”: Transforming academic identities. Gender and Education, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wallace, J., Wallin, D., Anderson, H., & Viczko, M. (2014). The first female academics in programs of educational administration in Canada: Riding waves of opportunity. McGill Journal of Education, 49(2), 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wallin, D. (in press). Moths to the flame tend to get burned: Life on the liminal. In D. Wallin & J. Wallace (Eds.), Feminism in Canadian education: Three steps forward, two steps back. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wilkinson, J., & Eacott, S. (2013). ‘Outsiders within’? Deconstructing the educational administration scholar. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(2), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Young, B. (1994). An other perspective on the knowledge base in Canadian educational administration. Canadian Journal of Education, 19(4), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawn Wallin
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations