Advertisement

Advancing the Intellectual Development of the Field

Chapter
  • 876 Downloads
Part of the Educational Leadership Theory book series (ELT)

Abstract

How and why human beings go about thinking, doing, and talking within and for activity is as old as time and remains core to research conceptualizations and fieldwork designs underpinned by a range of ontological and epistemological positions. The field of educational administration is no exception, and where primary research draws on discipline-located knowledge production from within the social sciences and humanities, where descriptions, meanings, and explanation have been enabled through sociology, history, political studies, economics, philosophy, etc., to name just a few. However, that the field is in difficulty is recognized, with many millions of words already invested in scoping the intellectual limitations of field projects and outputs. Scott Eacott has entered this situation through presenting and positioning relationality as a theory and methodology and a specific contribution. In this particular think piece, I examine the importance of Eacott’s contribution where I confront and consider the contribution of socially critical research.

Keywords

Eacott Knowledge production Educational administration Educational leadership Intellectual fields 

References

  1. Addison, B. (2009). A feel for the game—a Bourdieuian analysis of principal leadership: A study of Queensland secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(4), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple, M. W. (2006). Interrupting the right: On doing critical educational work in conservative times. In G. Ladson-Billings & W. F. Tate (Eds.), Education research in the public interest (pp. 27–45). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anyon, J., Dumas, M. J., Linville, D., Nolan, K., Pérez, M., Tuck, E., et al. (2009). Theory and educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., Hoskins, K., & Perryman, J. (2012). How schools do policy, policy enactments in secondary schools. Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, G. (1969). The study of educational administration in England. In G. Baron & W. Taylor (Eds.), Educational administration and the social sciences (pp. 3–17). London, England: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blackmore, J. (1999). Troubling women. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2007). Performing and reforming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring, and organizational change. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (2003). Firing back: Against the tyranny of the market 2. London, England: Verso.Google Scholar
  9. Breckman, W. (2014). Intellectual history and the interdisciplinary ideal. In D. M. McMahon & S. Moyn (Eds.), Rethinking modern European intellectual history (pp. 275–293). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1988). The self managing school. Lewes, England: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  11. Courtney, S. J. (2015). Mapping school types in England. Oxford Review of Education, 41(6), 799–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Courtney, S. J. (2017). The courtier’s empire: A case study of providers and provision. In H. M. Gunter, D. Hall, & M. W. Apple (Eds.), Corporate elites and the reform of public education (pp. 171–190). Bristol, England: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Courtney, S. J., McGinity, R., & Gunter, H. M. (Eds.). (2017). Educational leadership: Theorising professional practice in neoliberal times. Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies, W. (2016). The age of post-truth politics. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/opinion/campaign-stops/the-age-of-post-truth-politics.html?_r=0. Accessed October 17, 2016.
  16. Deacon, M. (2016). Michael Gove’s guide to Britain’s greatest enemy… the experts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/michael-goves-guide-to-britains-greatest-enemy-the-experts/. Accessed October 17, 2016.
  17. Eacott, S. (2015). Educational leadership relationally: A theory and methodology for educational leadership, management and administration. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, R. (1999). The pedagogic principal. Edmonton, Canada: Qual Institute Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gandin, L. A., & Apple, M. W. (2003). Educating the state, democratizing knowledge: The citizen school project in Porte Alegre, Brazil. In: M. W. Apple, P. Aasen, M. Kim Cho, L. A. Gandin, A. Oliver, Y.-K. Sung, et al. (Eds.), The state and the politics of knowledge (pp. 193–219). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  20. Gove, M. (2013). I refuse to surrender to the Marxist teachers hell-bent on destroying our schools: Education Secretary berates ‘the new enemies of promise’ for opposing his plans. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2298146/I-refuse-surrender-Marxist-teachers-hell-bent-destroying-schools-Education-Secretary-berates-new-enemies-promise-opposing-plans.html. Accessed October 17, 2016.
  21. Greenfield, T. B., & Ribbins, P. (Eds.). (1993). Greenfield on educational administration. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Gronn, P. (2009). Hybrid leadership. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 17–40). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Gunter, H. M. (1997). Rethinking education: The consequences of Jurassic management. London, England: Cassell.Google Scholar
  24. Gunter, H. M. (1999). An intellectual history of the field of education management from 1960. An unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Keele University, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Gunter, H. M. (2001). Leaders and leadership in education. London, England: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  26. Gunter, H. M. (Ed.). (2011). The state and education policy: The academies programme. London, England: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Gunter, H. M. (2012). Leadership and the reform of education. Bristol, England: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gunter, H. M. (2013). On not researching school leadership: The contribution of S.J. Ball. London Review of Education, 11(3), 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gunter, H. M. (2014). Educational leadership and Hannah Arendt. Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Gunter, H. M. (2016a). An intellectual history of school leadership practice and research. London, England: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gunter, H. M. (2016b). Grammar schools and Downton Abbey politics. http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2016/09/grammar-schools-and-downton-abbey-politics/.
  32. Gunter, H. M., & Courtney, S. J. (2016). A mimicry of the public school: Grammar schools never went away, but they should have. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-mimicry-of-the-public-school-grammar-schools-never-went-away-but-they-should-have/.
  33. Gunter, H. M., Hall, D., & Bragg, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: A study in knowledge production. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), 556–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gunter, H. M., & Mills, C. (2017). Consultants and consultancy: The case of education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoy, W. K., Miskel, C. G., & Tarter, C. J. (2013). Educational administration, theory, research and practice (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Jackson, B., & Marsden, D. (1962). Education and the working class. London, England: Routledge and Keegen Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  37. Kettle, M. (2013). Thatcher’s funeral: An exercise in Downton Abbey politics. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/17/thatcher-funeral-downton-abbey-politics-bluff. Accessed October 17, 2016.
  38. Luke, T. W. (2016). What is ‘critical’? Critical Policy Studies, 10(1), 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success. Zero to Three, March 2012, 11–18.Google Scholar
  40. Ribbins, P. (Ed.). (1997). Leaders and leadership in the school, college and university. London, England: Cassell.Google Scholar
  41. Smyth, J. (2006). Educational leadership that fosters ‘student voice’. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomson, P. (2005). Bringing Bourdieu to policy sociology: Codification, misrecognition and exchange value in the UK context. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thrupp, M., & Willmott, R. (2003). Education management in managerialist times. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Todd, S. (2014). The people. The rise and fall of the working class 1910–2010. London, England: John Murray.Google Scholar
  45. Wrigley, T., Thomson, P., & Lingard, B. (Eds.). (2012). Changing schools, alternative ways to make a world of difference. Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ManchesterManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations