Scope, Position and Sequence

  • Chris Dolan
Part of the Educational Leadership Theory book series (ELT)


This book seeks to contribute to the field of critical leadership studies by invoking paradox as an intervention in the constitutive politics of school principals. It proposes that, in neoliberal times, the subjectivity of principals is better understood in its paradoxy than in the austere and essentialist accounts of school leadership that currently prevail. In Paradox and the School Leader, I am concerned with the ‘soul’ of the principal, conceived, after Foucault (1977), as a product of various forms of power exercised around, on and within the principal subject. Fifteen paradoxes derived from theoretical and empirical analysis are used to provide insights into the competing forces that haunt and contradict simplistic positivist accounts of contemporary school leadership and to reveal the presence of a political struggle for the soul of the principal in this neoliberal era.


  1. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class the selected works of Stephen J. Ball. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (2012). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text (R. Miller, Trans.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  5. Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bray, Z. (2008). Ethnographic approaches. In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective (pp. 296–315). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colie, R. L. (1966). Paradoxia Epidemica: The Renaissance tradition of paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collinson, D. (2011). Critical leadership studies. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 181–194). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1984). On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 340–372). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Gale, T. (2001). Critical policy sociology: Historiography, archaeology and genealogy as methods of policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen, M. P. (2016). Non-normative critique: Foucault and pragmatic sociology as tactical re-politicization. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(1), 127–145.Google Scholar
  16. Heffernan, A. (2018). The principal and school improvement: Theorising discourse, policy, and practice. Singapore, Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keats, J. (2010). Bright star: The complete poems and selected letters. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  18. Khoja-Moolji, S. (2014). Constructionist and poststructuralist theories. In M. Coleman, L. Ganong, & G. Golson (Eds.), The social history of the American family: An encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Niesche, R. (2018). Critical perspectives in educational leadership: A new ‘theory turn’? Journal of Educational Administration and History, 50(3), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ozga, J. (1987). Studying education policy through the lives of the policy-makers: An attempt to close the macro-micro gap. In L. Barton & S. Walker (Eds.), Changing policies, changing teachers: New directions for schooling (pp. 138–150). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. paradoxy. (2019). Merriam Webster online dictionary. Retrieved from
  24. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Popkewitz, T. (1999). Introduction: Critical traditions, modernisms, and the ‘posts’. In T. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 1–13). New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., & Langley, A. (2017). Foreword: Paradox in organizational theory. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomson, P. (2001). How principals lose ‘face’: A disciplinary tale of educational administration and modern managerialism. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 22(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
  31. van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2017). Critical management studies and paradox. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Woermann, M. (2016). Bridging complexity and post-structuralism. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Dolan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations