Scott Eacott (University of New South Wales, Australia) and Gus Riveros (Western University, Canada)
What is the problem? How does the chapter support your thinking about the problem?
In this chapter, we discuss the relations between theory and method. We challenge the assumption that theory operates independently of methods and examine some of its consequences. We argue that the artificial distinction between methods and theory relies on a misunderstanding about the role and importance of the generative principles of research in the articulation of a study. By focusing on methods and privileging the technical aspects of the study, researchers risk leaving the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions in their studies unexamined. As a consequence, crucial questions about the ideological, historical, political, and organizational underpinnings of research are avoided, which perpetuates the dominance of instrumentalist perspectives in education leadership research. We call for an integrative approach that sees the question of methods as intimately connected to the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the researcher.
What are other ways to think about this? Where can I go next to follow these up?
Towards a proliferation of paradigms
The pervasiveness of instrumentalist perspectives in leadership research could be understood in the context of some historical developments in the field of education leadership. The following sources offer a useful introduction to some of the tensions, debates, continuities, and overlaps in this field.
Gunter, H. M. (2016). An intellectual history of school leadership practice and research. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Oplatka, I. (2010). The legacy of educational administration: A historical analysis of an academic field. Peter Lang
‘What works’ rhetoric and research in educational leadership
The ‘what works’ rhetoric has been extremely influential in education policy and practice. In this analysis, Gert Biesta, identifies anti-democratic assumptions behind evidence-based models and argues that decision making in education must be informed by deliberation and contestation.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence‐based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational theory, 57(1), 1-22
The effects on professional practice of this understanding of research methods
Some implications of functionalism and instrumentalism in education leadership research are explored by other authors in this volume, for example:
Chapter 10. Using theory in educational leadership, management and administration research Pat Thomson and Amanda Heffernan.
Chapter 13. A historical deconstruction of leadership style Fenwick W. English
and Lisa Catherine Ehrich
Chapter 21. Performativity, managerialism and educational leadership. Tanya Fitzgerald and David Hall
What needs to change to mitigate these issues?
In this chapter, we propose three criteria to avoid falling into the , 2) to develop a social epistemology for the field and, 3) to evaluate the research in the basis of coherence. Further reading into these ideas could include:
Eacott, S. (2017). A social epistemology for educational administration and leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 49(3), 196-214
Niesche, R., & Gowlett, C. (2019). Critical perspectives in educational leadership: a new ‘theory turn’? Journal of Educational Administration and History, 50(3), 145-158.
