challenging orthodoxy in school leadership studies: knowers, knowing and knowledge?

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]On: 07 October 2014, At: 10:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

School Leadership & Management:Formerly School OrganisationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Challenging Orthodoxy in SchoolLeadership Studies: Knowers, knowingand knowledge?Helen Gunter a & Peter Ribbins aa School of Education , University of Birmingham , Edgbaston,Birmingham, B15 2TT, UKPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Helen Gunter & Peter Ribbins (2003) Challenging Orthodoxy in School LeadershipStudies: Knowers, knowing and knowledge?, School Leadership & Management: Formerly SchoolOrganisation, 23:2, 129-147, DOI: 10.1080/1363243032000091922

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000091922

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1363243032000091922

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000091922

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

School Leadership & Management,Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 129–147, May 2003

Challenging Orthodoxy inSchool Leadership Studies:knowers, knowing and knowledge?Helen GUNTER & Peter RIBBINSSchool of Education, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT,UK

ABSTRACT The field of leadership in general and school leadership in particular is a placewhere knowers engage in knowing and produce knowledge. This article challenges the who,what and why regarding the accepted knowers, knowing and knowledge, and opens uppossibilities for alternative approaches that are currently being worked for. This is done with thepresentation of six inter-connected typologies of knowledge production: Provinces, Practices,Processes, Producers, Positions and Perspectives. It is argued that these six ‘Ps’ enable thosewithin and outside of the field to generate descriptions and understandings of the interplaybetween researching, theorising and practising in educational settings. This has the potential todemocratise knowledge production not only through being inclusive in who does the knowledgework, but also by working to recognise the structures that enhance or inhibit the agency of theknowledge worker. We are deeply embedded within these political processes and as such we areinvolved in a dynamic field where through praxis we can secure what we do and can producealternatives to what we do. It is concluded that our agency to make choices within our practiceas researchers, theorists and practitioners, is exercised within a complex setting of organisational,cultural and social structures.

Introduction

The field of school leadership [1] has within it positions around who the knowersare, what knowing means, and what knowledge there is that can be characterised ascanonical orthodoxy. This means that there are attempts at different times withvaried levels of success to identify, settle and legitimise a position regarding theknowledge claims underpinning working practices and who is to be regarded asknowing what there is to be known. It seems that with regard to school leadershipcurrently, in the UK and in a number of other countries as well, the knowers areheadteachers (Bell & Rowley 2002), knowing is doing the job of headship by leadingthe school, and a knowledge of transformational leadership is central to beingeffective as headteacher in leading the school as an improving organisation (DfEE1998; Hopkins 2001). Even from this perspective, others are regarded as ableto support this process and so practitioners are defined in relation to headteachers,

ISSN 1363-2434 printed/ISSN 1364-2626 online/03/020129-19 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1363243032000091922

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

130 H. Gunter & P. Ribbins

and those outside of schools such as the National College for School Leadershipaccept and therefore reinforce these existing power structures regarding knowingabout effective practice (DfEE 1999).

The challenge in this article to this orthodoxy may seem ambitious but it isessential. It centres around a recognition of knowers, knowing and knowledge thatis more pluralistic than official accounts normally allow for, and as such is, it iscontended, more authentic for field members as a whole. The approach taken is todevelop ways that make it possible to describe and understand those who produceknowledge, what they produce, why they produce it and where they produce it. Thearticle has sought to do this through six typologies: Producers, Positions, Provinces,Practices, Processes and Perspectives. Taken together these typologies have two keypurposes. First, to enable activity surrounding research, theory, policy and practiceto be scoped. Second, to open to scrutiny the choices made along with orientationstowards these choices.

Knowers, Knowing and Knowledge

Knowers means those who claim to know and/or are recognised, by themselves andothers, as knowers about educational leadership. Any review of field outputs willshow that the main knowers have tended to be identified as the headteachers. Localand national policy makers have used headteachers as the means by which policygoals can be delivered. Thus, for example, Woodhead, writing as Her Majesty’sChief Inspector for Schools (HMCI), has stated categorically, ‘it is the leadershipprovided by the head teacher which is the central factor in raising standards of pupilachievement …’ (1996: 10). Similarly, as Excellence in School stresses, ‘The vision forlearning set in this White Paper will demand the highest qualities of leadership andmanagement from head teachers. The quality of the heads can make a differencebetween the success or failure of schools. Good school heads can transform a school;poor heads can block progress and achievement’ (DfEE 1997). Against the back-drop of the expression of such views from senior policy makes, it is not surprisingthat in a recent review of the impact of educational policy making on headship Belland Rowley (2002) find that, ‘Great emphasis (has been) placed on the centralityof the role of the head in managing the school, almost to the exclusion of allother significant factors. Head teachers carried, almost alone, the responsibility forschool failure’ (p. 196). Given all this, it is not surprising to find that growingnumbers of researchers (often acting as knowledge entrepreneurs) have also focusedon headteachers as the organisational leaders.

In contrast, it is argued in this article that other field members and thecontribution they make to leading and managing schools should not be ignored.Neither should they be defined primarily, let alone exclusively, through theirascribed status as followers. Rather, recognition should be given to a more produc-tive approach to teachers, pupils, parents and wider communities. Knowing meanshow and why we know about educational leading and leadership through theinterrelationship between theory and practice, encapsulated by the concept of praxis.In this way, educational leadership is located in educational settings, has a focus on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Challenging Orthodoxy in School Leadership Studies 131

educational matters, and is itself inherently educational. An educational leader isnormally a role incumbent, educational leading is the specifics of what is done inrole, and educational leadership is a relationship between those who engage inorganisational arrangements and learning processes. Educational leaders may ormay not engage in educational leading and leadership, and those who are notprescribed as leaders through role incumbency may de facto be doing so, and may bedirectly involved in educational leadership.

Knowledge means the knowledge claims that have been created, established andchallenged over time. Central to describing and understanding power in educationalleadership are the social sciences. It can be argued that the particular knowledgeclaims that have tended to dominate the field over the last 30 years or so have tendedto focus on delivering and measuring the impact of headship as generic leadershipderived from a combination of theories and methods drawn largely from businessmanagement and popular psychology. All too often this has led to a privileging of theinstrumental and the evaluative as against other forms of knowing. While it is notclaimed that nothing of value has come from such an approach, the project here isnevertheless very different. It is about depicting, revealing and enabling the import-ance of evaluation and theorising that is critical and humanistic and, as such, is closeto practice whilst also drawing as necessary on historical, sociological and philosoph-ical approaches. As such it will draw upon the wider intellectual heritage of the fieldof studies in educational leadership and that of educational studies more generallyto provide a framework through which it can be charted who the knowers are andwho they could be, what knowing is about and what it could be about, and whatcounts as knowledge and what could count as knowledge. For this purpose, sixtypologies that facilitate the production of maps are proposed (Gunter & Ribbins2002a, 2003).

The focus through which knowers, knowing and knowledge in the field isexplored considers headteachers but goes beyond them to include teachers asleaders, doing leading and engaging in leadership. Currently the field is becomingincreasingly busy with the idea and practice of distributed leadership, where agrowing range of labels such as ‘distributed’ (Gronn 2000: 317; Spillane et al. 2001),

TABLE I. Knowers, knowing and knowledge in the field of school leadership

Producers the people and their roles (e.g. practitioner, researcher) who are knowers throughusing and producing what is known.

Positions the places (e.g. training sessions) where knowing is revealed because knowers useand produce what is known

Provinces claims to the truth or knowledge regarding how power is conceptualised andengaged with

Practices the practice of knowing in real time, real life contexts of leaders, leading andleadership

Processes the research processes (e.g. observations and interviews) used to generate andlegitimate what is knowledge, knowing, and knowers.

Perspectives Descriptions and understandings we reveal and create as processes and products(e.g. teaching, disciplines, books) through the inter play between producers,positions, provinces, practices, and processes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


‘shared’ (Moos & Dempster 1998: 108), ‘dispersed’ or ‘dense’ (Sergiovanni 2001:112–116), ‘distributed cognition’ (Lakomski 2002: 1) and the like have been used.It is both officially endorsed as good practice (Hopkins 2001) and has been widelypromoted (Caldwell & Spinks 1988). Within this setting the realities of teacherleadership are increasingly seen as being about organisational matters regardingworking with other teachers (e.g. as mentors), doing developmental work (e.g. newschemes of work), and improving pedagogy through new models of effective teach-ing. In this way work can be distributed to teachers who can nevertheless retain theirfollower status in regard to traditional hierarchies and power relationships. However,whilst distributed leadership tends to be seen as normatively a good thing, it has alsobeen contested (Robinson 2001; Wallace 2001; Gronn 2000, 2003; Gunter 2002c;Lakomski 2002). This is so for a number of reasons, but most notably because of thecomplexities of who does the distribution, who is in receipt of distribution, and whatdoes it look like within the realities of site based performance management. Withinthe research literature there is another tradition in relation to the division of labourin which the emphasis is not so much on doing ‘democratic things’ by enablingorganisationally skilled teachers to participate in decisions and work that tradition-ally was deemed not to be in their remit, but on ‘democratic processes’ wherebyworking life is underpinned by the disposition to create opportunities for more toparticipate by virtue of their humanity and shared professionality (Bottery 1992;Smyth & Shacklock 1998). It is the variety of intellectual resources being used onthis part of the territory that provides a promising focus to explore knowledgeproduction. Consequently, the explanation of the six typologies can be simul-taneously serious and playful in regard to leaders, leading and leadership. Beforeturning to this, given its importance to the approach here, something needs to besaid about what is meant by ‘types’ and ‘typologies’.

This is an issue that has been considered at some length elsewhere (Gunter &Ribbins, 2003). In doing so, consideration has been given to how these terms havebeen defined, their role in social life and academic work, the forms they have takenespecially in social research, and how they have been used. In both mathematics andin the social sciences there seem to be two main kinds of definition—in the former,and following the work of Russell, there is the ‘simple’ and the ‘ramified’, in thelatter there is the ‘tight’ and the ‘loose’. An example of a tight definition is thatwhich is contained in the New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993) and this holds that atypology is ‘a system of groupings … usually called types, the members of which areidentified by postulating specified attributes that are mutually exclusive and collectivelyexhaustive, groupings set up to aid demonstration or inquiry by establishing a limitedrelationship among phenomena’ (p. 89, our italics). An example of a loose definitionis that advanced by Mitchell (1979) which claims that, ‘A typology is no more thana classification. A classification may be ad hoc … where the categories are neitherexhaustive nor mutually exclusive’ (p. 232, our italics). Given that it is argued laterthat the typologies here are meant to have a heuristic rather than a tightly definedformal purposes and that they are intended to aid thinking rather than to close thisoff, the reader will not be surprised to find that our approach owes much more toMitchell and those who share his views, than to the author of the item in Britannica

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


and those who take the views expressed in this. However that may be, the articlenow turns to the first and perhaps the most important of our many typologies, thatwhich identifies six knowledge provinces.

Knowledge Provinces

Six knowledge provinces have been identified, as illustrated in Table II.Extensive and detailed reading of field outputs combined with an engagement

in field activities (Ribbins 1997, 2003a; Bush et al. 1999; EMA 1999, Gunter 2001a,b) led to the development of the knowledge provinces (Gunter & Ribbins 2002a, b,c, 2003; Ribbins & Gunter 2002). What makes a knowledge province distinctive is‘what is being asserted as constituting the truth underpinning the intention behindany leadership activity’ (Gunter & Ribbins 2002c: 4). Hence the humanistic prov-ince is concerned with the subjective construction of experiences through an agent’slocation in the world, and how the agent engages with structures that seek to shapeand determine action. This is in contrast with the instrumental province whereobjective structures in the form of abstracted good practice is identified andpackaged for the agent in order to change their practice. Consequently, the assump-tions regarding knowledge production underpinning the humanistic province arebased on the subjective agency of the individual to know the world, in contrast to theinstrumental province where the objectivity of known ways of working are presentedto the agent.

There is a continuum underpinning the placing of the provinces in Table II,and this symbolises praxis or the interplay between theory and practice. All sixprovinces are places where theory and practice are central to field activity but theemphasis and disclosure of purpose does vary. For example, those to the left of thecontinuum put more emphasis on understanding doing, while those to the right are

TABLE II. Knowledge provinces in the field of school leadership

Conceptual Descriptive Humanistic Critical Evaluative Instrumental

Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned to Concerned to Concernedwith issues of with with reveal and measure the withontology and providing a gathering and emancipate impact of providingepistemology, factual report, theorising practitioners leadership leaders andand with often in some from the from injustice and its others withconceptual detail, of one experiences and effectiveness effectiveclarification. or more and oppression of at micro, strategies and

aspects of, biographies of established meso, and tactics toor factors, those who are power macro levels deliverrelating to leaders and structures. of interaction. organisationalleaders, managers and and systemleading and those who are level goals.leadership. managed and

led.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


more concerned with particular types of doing. The conceptual province requires usto problematise doing and to think through fundamental issues that shape doing inthe interplay between agency and structure. The humanistic province requires us tounderstand how the agent within a structure theorises within and about practice.The instrumental province requires us to accept structures and to act on the basisof prescribed good practice.

Knowledge Practice

The framework of knowledge provinces based on a continuum of praxis can beoperationalised in relation to distributed leadership and current work on teachers asleaders. Table III shows how this can be charted by using the knowledge claimsunderpinning the provinces to interrogate research.

By using the typology of knowledge provinces to produce a scholarly literaturereview it is possible to show where attention is located and where more work needsto be done. For example, the emphasis in the literature is on the effectiveness andinstrumental (Stoll & Fink 1996; Leithwood et al. 1999) provinces, and while thereis a tradition of critical, conceptual and humanistic work (Hodgkinson, 1991;Greenfield & Ribbins 1993; Grace 1995; Thrupp, 1999) this is not given anythinglike as much recognition in knowledge claims regarding direct relevance to action.It can be argued that there is a need for more work on educational leadershipdrawing on the philosophical and historical approaches that underpin the concep-tual, descriptive, humanistic and critical provinces.

Much of what is done by educational leaders, doing educational leading andleadership, goes unrecognised and unrecorded amidst the melee of everyday activity(Gunter & Ribbins 2002a). Whether we know what we do, why, when and how, iscentral to knowledge production through how we learn to accept and reject ways ofbeing and doing in the world. Using the typology of knowledge provinces enablesthe practice aspect of praxis to be fore grounded, and what is current and could bepossible can be open to scrutiny. The knower as practitioner across all educationalsites and within networks can use Table III to review inside and outside of actionwhat is being done, and what might be done, and why. The intimate location withintheories and within the practice of theorising means that practice can be based onreflection and reflexivity regarding the exercise of power. This enables disconnectedactivities to be patterned, and raises questions about the possibilities of pragmatismand expediency within enduring habits that frame what seems to be the right thingto do in the circumstances. For example, if a decision is made about a teachermentoring another teacher this can be described and understood as a range oftruths. The conceptual knowledge province asks us to think about the moraldilemmas in how the choices are made regarding the decision to delegate this work,while the critical province asks us to think through whether the decision of who isregarded as being organisationally skilled and personally suited to this type of workmaintains or challenges class, age, ethnic and gender identities. This is in contrastwith work in the evaluative province that can be charted to show the emphasis on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE III. Teacher leadership as praxis


What is power What patterns How are Who or what What are the What are theand how does it of leadership teachers enables conditions in key featureswork within exist within experiencing teachers to which teacher of teacherorganisations? different leadership in lead? leadership can leadership?

institutions their happen?What is it to and different professional How is the How canlead when kinds of practice? critical How might teachers beleading is not in institution? analysis of we measure trained inyour formal job How have teacher the impact of these keydescription? What are the role leadership teacher features?

characteristics incumbents informed by leadershipWhere does of leaders at themselves a theory of on the How canleadership different experienced power? organisation? teacheroriginate from levels within leadership at leadership beand what are institutions in different Does teacher How might transferredthe moral terms of age, stages in leadership we measure into theimplications of gender, their careers? maintain the impact of culture andthis? ethnicity, existing leadership on practice of

experience, How are power different schools?What are the etc? professional relations levels of therights and duties identities (classified by organisationsof those who What do those developed gender, class, (eg, the wholeengage in who are not and shaped ethnicity, age school,leadership and leaders but through etc) or seek to subjectthose who are who do leadership restructure departmentsformally leading and experiences? them? within aleaders? engage in school, in

leadership Does teacher classrooms,do? leadership and on

enhance or individuallimit the pupils).involvementof students,parents andthe widercommunityin leadership?

the emphasis on identifying how teacher leadership delivers an effective and ineffec-tive subject department.

Knowledge Processes

So far the article has focused on knowledge claims as provinces and practices basedon assumptions regarding what constitutes the truth. Different weights are given tofacts and values, and the interplay between them, and it has been argued that praxis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE IV. Researching teacher leadership


Use of Use of case Use of case Use of Use of surveys Use ofjudgement, studies of studies of theoretically and multi-level publishedscholarship, individuals and individuals informed case modelling to accounts ofdialogue, groups within and gathers studies of measure effective waysthinking, and settings through qualitative organisations outcomes of working towriting to observation, data through and/or through devise andengage with ethnographic, biography, individuals. quantitative promoteissues of documentary, observation, Gathers data. particularethics and and statistical and qualitative data ways ofpower. Can data. interviews. through Potential use of working fordraw on biographies and randomised individuals,empirical interviews, and controlled trials groups andstudies based statistical data to examine the organisations.on either through impact ofquantitative surveys. effectiveand/or practices.qualitativeapproachesto datacollection andanalysis.

is the best way of approaching the differentiated balance given across the provincesto the theory of practice and the theorising of practice. This requires a much deeperanalysis by connecting the truths of the knowledge provinces with the processes bywhich the truths are generated. A way of doing this is shown in Table IV thatjuxtaposes the six knowledge provinces with the methods by which teacher leader-ship is currently being researched

Understanding the processes by which knowledge is produced is more than anissue of which method is used, and needs to take into account the use andproduction of knowledge within practice. The privileging of the effectiveness andinstrumental knowledge provinces is underpinned by claims regarding the truth asthe outcome of objective quantitative methods. The policy drive to produce evi-dence regarding ‘what works’ in every day practice in ways that can be measuredmeans that the far right hand side of the spectrum is shaping what can be known andshould be known about teacher leadership and the place of teachers within it. Theinterrelationship between the discourses in support of randomised controlled trialsand the procedures of EPPI-Centre systematic reviews of the literature is intendedto create a proceduralised approach to practice where the teacher is a secularconsumer of knowledge by having access to computerised data bases containingwhat is known about what works, and so will be able to make the right decisionsregarding teaching and learning (Ribbins & Gunter 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


It can be argued that teachers as users of knowledge are knowledgeable, andtheir engagement with research findings is complex because through listening,talking, thinking, they draw upon their knowing and produce new insights into thatknowing. Furthermore, this type of knowing is not necessarily reducible to keywordsthat enable it to be logged and easily accessed from a database. It is knowing basedon the interplay between agency and structure, where what is known is revealedthrough practice: the choices made, what is accepted and what is discounted, whatis stored and what is forgotten. Ways of knowing located in the conceptual,descriptive, humanistic and critical provinces support this dynamic approach topraxis but are in danger of being marginalised as supposedly lacking rigour andvalidity. This is because knowledge production which draws on these knowledgeprovinces is not just about abstracted knowledge in a book, paper or databasebut enables us to focus on who the knower is and what they do as conceptuallyinformed practice, where intellectual work can and cannot be witnessed, wherepractice is and is not immediate, where context does and does not shape outcomes(Gunter 2001a).

Knowledge Producers

While acknowledgement has been given to knowers within the field, so far notsufficient attention has been given to who they are and might be. Officially thosewho generate what is regarded as relevant knowledge about leaders, leading andleadership are primarily those who do it, and in particular, those who are head-teachers in schools (Teacher Training Agency 1998). Others in schools are posi-tioned as those who follow or are privileged to have work and organisationalopportunities distributed to them (Hopkins 2001). Yet others who practice ineducational organisations (LEAs, universities) or non-educational institutions (busi-ness) are either legitimated through their collaboration with the preferred model ofeducational leadership (perhaps with guru status) or are excluded as irrelevant.Attempts are often made by those working outside of schools to challenge thischaracterisation by claiming school based practitioner knowledge through havingqualified and practised as a teacher and leader in a school. However, such claims areseen as having a short life span as time is said to distance what is regarded asauthentic knowing, and parity of esteem is not normally given to leadership practicewithin an educational institution that is not a school. It must also be acknowledgedthat drawing on a past identity serves to undermine claims to know through beinga professional researcher in a university, and in particular, how research andintellectual work with practitioners is vital to creativity within teaching and learningacross educational sites.

A vital point is that those who are the life-blood of the school—pupils, parentsand wider community—are usually characterised as followers of the vision andmission, or are given status as consumer stakeholders without any connection withthe praxis of educational leadership (Rudduck et al. 1996; Fielding 1999a; Ranson2000). This is reinforced by studies of knowledge producers that focus on being aparticular type of knowledge producer such as Fitz’s (1999) identification of ‘the‘academic’, the ‘practitioner’ and the ‘entrepreneur”(p. 314), in which there is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE V. Knower identities and teacher leadership

Knower identities Illustrative questions

Learners How do students engage with teacher leadership in learning processes?Citizens How does the taxpayer recognise teacher leadership as being worthy of

public funding?Researchers How are studies about teacher leadership designed, conducted, and

reported upon?Parents How is formal learning in the classroom supported by informal learning

in everyday life?Governors How are arrangements structured and cultured to support opportunities

for and the practice of teacher leadership?Politicians How is teacher leadership challenged and debated through dialogue and

the use of evidence?School workforce How is professionality about doing and developing leadership within

educational relationships?Unions How are the interests of teachers defended and protected as educational

leaders?Business groups How is the relationship between teacher leadership with the develop-

ment of an educated workforce understood?Religious and community How are beliefs about teacher leadership recognised as beinggroups integral to the development of social cohesion?Media How is teacher leadership given space and positive recognition in

accounts of educational incidents and changes?

different emphasis within activity on research, teaching, and management. Thisprivileges a particular type of knower and lacks equity because it is based on astratification of, rather than a differentiation of, knowers. The latter is less aboutwho is automatically deferred to as being in the know because they are an organisa-tional role incumbent, and more about how recognition might be given to the variedways in which different networks that connect with teaching and learning do haveknowledge within leadership relationships. This generates an interlocking typologyof knower identities that allows for clarity but should not be used as a means ofstereotyping categories of people based on narrow assumptions about what we dothrough knowledge and knowing. This typology is shown in Table V.

Table V enables us to see how we might locate ourselves at different times andin different ways within particular identities or hybrids of those identities. No doubtseveral will be occupied at a time, and as such there will be ongoing tensionsregarding what this entails when the meaning and practice of teacher leadership iscontested. For example, differentiation in the school workforce might be consideredand how organisational roles of Head, Middle Managers, Teachers, Administrators,Technicians, Learning Support etc. generate meaning regarding teacher leadership.In addition to this we might take a member of the Learning Support Staff who worksto support learning in the classroom, who is also a parent, and a governor, and thepotential contradictions in how they engage with teacher leadership can be acknowl-edged. Finally, on this point, the issue should also be raised about how recognition

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


is given to leadership by other roles in school, such as learner leadership, and howthis could be in tension with role incumbents such as teachers. In order to developthis typology further there is a need to be able to see how individuals and groups (ofmultiple identities) cluster or position around issues that matter to them.

Knowledge Positions

Some possible positions that knowers can take up on issues of educational leadershipare shown in Table VI. It is recognised that these positions are active ones, andparticipation of all is assumed rather than operating according to the binary ofinclusion-exclusion. For example, a parent, a teacher, a student, a journalist are allinvolved in teacher leadership even if they do not recognise it as such or call it that.In making this claim we are aware that we are promoting a particular way ofconceptualising leadership, and as such are demonstrating our position as re-searchers in taking up a position as intellectual workers.

The emphasis in Table VI is on doing the knowledge work rather than being alearner, citizen, trainer, consultant, expert or intellectual. However, it can be thecase that knowers do seek to explain what they do by titling (or typing) the self orare titled (typed) by others in this way. It is possible to inhabit all the positionswithin educational practice at once and/or over time.

In asking questions of the growing popularity of teacher leadership there is aneed to ask where those arguing for or against it locate their work and for whatpurpose:

• Learning: how do we work with teachers to enable our own and their learningto develop in a reciprocal relationship?

• Citizenship: how do we ensure that teacher leadership is committed to thetheory and practice of developing democratic citizenship?

• Training: how do we ensure the school workforce practises within the organ-isation and culture of distributed leadership?

• Consultancy: how do we develop the understanding and skills to work withinthe organisation and culture of localised distributed leadership?

• Expertise: how do we present the evidence about the efficiency and effective-ness of the organisation and culture of distributed leadership?

• Intellectual work: how do we engage in a critical dialogue about the organisa-tional and cultural purposes of distributed leadership?

The positions that are becoming very crowded are those of training and consultancy,which draw upon the claims of the instrumental and evaluative knowledgeprovinces. There is a need to recognise that there are other positions trainingteachers to enable organisational leadership to be effectively implemented. Whilethere is evidence of work on teacher leadership that interrelates with modes ofcognition (Eraut, 1999) learning (Fielding 1999b), citizenship (MacBeath 1998),expertise (Smyth 1995), and intellectual work (Smyth et al. 1998), these positionsare not crowded, and are actively avoided by many knowledge workers. In many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE VI. Positions in knowledge production

IntellectualLearning Citizenship Training Consultancy Expertise work

Ideology Can have an Association No explicit Association Association Explicitimplicit with an association with with a particular with a particular associationand/or ideological a particular belief and value belief and value with aexplicit commitment ideology. system that may system that may particularassociation to democratic Presentation of or may not be or may not be belief andwith an practice, work and the explicit. explicit. value system.ideology. values, and self as Presentation of Provides ProvidesPresentation ideals. politically the self as evidence and evidence andof learning Presentation neutral. politically argument to argument toand self as of democracy neutral. promote promotepolitically and self as particular intellectualneutral and/or politically solutions and engagementcommitted. committed a course of and practical

and values action. action aroundorientated. Presentation fundamental

of the self as questions andneutral. issues about

society.Presentationof the self aspoliticallycommitted.

Pedagogy To develop To develop To facilitate To enable To inform To influencethe theory the theory and others in their others in their others in their the thinkingand practice practice of work. To help work. To work. To of others inof learning democratic support provide describe, their workand the citizenship description and opportunities analyse, and lives. Toidentity of and the the acceptance for description, explain, and describe,being a identity of of new ways of analysis, and critically analyse, andlearner. To being a working in the evaluation of evaluate the criticallyuse the citizen. To micro situation. the micro micro situation evaluateskills of use the skills situation. To in order to issues ofdescription, of description, support critique support power in theanalysis and analysis and and theorising improvement interplaycritique to critique to about how and between thesupport own support own practice might effectiveness. micro andand other’s and other’s be improved. macrounderstanding understanding situation. Toof the of citizenship produce newmicro and in the micro theories tomacro and macro explain andcontext. context. promote

change.

Research Use of Use of Use of Use of Use and Use andresearch to evidence and technically technically production of production ofsupport ideas to predictive predictive empirical data empirical datalearning and support organisational organisational from a range of combinedto develop a democratic and/or personal and/or personal methodologies with insightslearner debate, needs analysis needs analysis and methods. and argumentidentity based decision- to construct to identify Increased based onon making and training organisational emphasis on the judgementresponsibility the exercise of processes and priorities, evidence to and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


for own and responsible learning planning, inform and discretion.other’s choices. outcomes. production and direct practice.learning evaluation.throughresearchpractice andnetworks.

Theory Use of theory Use of May claim not Use of Development Mediationand the theories of to use theory. effectiveness and use of betweendevelopment democratic Possibilities indicators and models of theorisingof theorising practice, and exist for close frameworks for abstracted from practiceas a skill and the to practice personal and ‘good’ or and theoriesgenerator of development theorising. organisational effective developednew theories. of theorising improvement. practice by from within

as a Possibilities applying to the socialprerequisite exist for close organisational sciences.for to practice and workdemocratic theorising. context.participation.

ways this brings us full circle to acknowledge the importance of challenging knowl-edge production because if some positions are in the ascendancy and others indecline there is a need to ask why this is the case and what the implications are forknowers, knowing and knowledge.

Knowledge Perspectives

Membership of the field of educational leadership is multi-site and as such takes asits inspiration the original characterisation of educational administration by Baron(1969) which is ‘viewed in the widest sense, as all that makes possible the educativeprocess, the administration of education embraces the activities of Parliament at oneend of the scale and the activities of any home with children or students at the other’(p. 6). Inter-connectivity across these sites from home to school to HEI to agency toWhitehall to Parliament can be through single or multiple identities as a parent,taxpayer, voter and LEA officer, and/or it can be through formal networks whichbring together people in pressure groups, as a governing body, as a researchpartnership. In this sense the field is an arena of activity rather than a subjectdiscipline. A field can draw on a range of disciplines, and enables praxis to belegitimised through the complex interplay of differentiated agents located in differ-ent sites and networks. The field has traditionally drawn on various disciplinesincluding philosophy and history, but it has been the social sciences, includingeconomics, politics and psychology, but most especially sociology, that have domi-nated perspectives on knowledge and knowing [2]. These perspectives are powerfulpolitical constructs, and how we use them makes statements about our approach toknowledge provinces, practices, processes, producers, and positions. Hence a book,an article, a thesis, are not objectified outcomes of a systematic procedure, but are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


deeply embedded within a complex knowledge production process. When we areteaching children, participating in a leadership team meeting in a school, facilitatinga training session or thinking through the meaning of a planned intervention inpractice, we are drawing on these perspectives, consciously or unconsciously, and weare endemically located in the theory and practice of power. As such we are creatingand recreating the meaning of school leadership that is being contested by the selfand others. By juxtaposing provinces, practices, processes, producers and positionswe can recognise and enquire into praxis, and as such we can work for theproductive interplay of theorising and practising.

Engaging with Knowers, Knowing and Knowledge

Investigating the production of knowledge is central to field activity, so that we notonly use and produce knowledge but also know what we know and why. As jointauthors in writing the article and as collaborators in developing the ideas we havecome together with different yet compatible professional biographies to generateways in which we might describe and understand knowledge production within thefield. Doing this has intrinsic value because by seeking to develop the underlyingconceptualisation of knowledge within the field we are engaged in the type ofintellectual work that it vital to field development. In this way we are drawing on theclaims located in the conceptual knowledge province, the processes we are engagedin are consistent with this and are based on scholarship, and so our identity is thatof researchers. The position we have taken is that of intellectual work where we havepresented our commitment to an inclusive approach to knowers, knowing andknowledge with a view to making a contribution to the field regarding its ongoingdevelopment and our place as knowledge workers within it.

While as a process it may seem distant to what a teacher does in a classroom ona Monday morning with a Year 9 class, such analyses of knowledge production arecentral to how we understand being and doing in the world, and how the interplaybetween agency and structure are revealed through practice. We have identified thatwe have an academic-practitioner habitus (Gunter 2002a; Gunter & Ribbins 2002c)where in our work we are disposed to ask questions about the knowledge claimswhich shape practice, and we are not alone in this, and other field members in othersites may or may not be given the opportunities to reveal this. We are mindful thatperformativity within the education system can structure practice in such a way thatintellectual work is stifled as irrelevant and avoided as too risky. However, disputa-tion and dialogue are not exotic activities or tiresome political denouncements butenable issues of who the knowers are, what knowing means, and what knowledge isor could be to be open to recognition, challenge and development. The field ofeducational studies is rich with examples of how knowledge claims are madedistinctive and how boundaries are challenged, and within the field of leadershipstudies we are working within a tradition of charting knowers, knowing and knowl-edge (Baron & Taylor 1969; Hughes et al. 1985; Ball 1995; Bush et al. 1999; Fitz1999; Gunter 2001a).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


We have begun to use this developing work on knowers, knowing and knowl-edge in ways that can be characterised through the metaphor of mappers, mappingand maps (see Gunter & Ribbins 2002c). By identifying a field as a terrain (this wasalluded to earlier by referring to a field as an arena) then we are able to productivelyengage field members as mappers or those who through praxis are knowers and candevelop their knowing. Mappers do mapping through and about praxis and so whatthey regard as practice is produced and known about through intellectual work thatis or is not captured and archived in the memory or more public locations such asan assignment or paper. Maps are what are produced as the truth regarding praxisand this can be through informal description of what has or could happen over a cupof coffee through to a formally published handbook of school leadership research.We have already identified ourselves as mappers in using our typologies, we havedone mapping through reading, dialogue and writing, and we have produced formalmaps by publishing descriptions and analyses of the field (see Gunter 2003; Ribbins2003b). In doing this we have not only examined what is but also we have presentedour intellectual work as mediating between our reading of the present as againstwhat the field might become. The trends in the field towards particular preferredmodels of leadership have been noted, which it is argued are not necessarilyeducational leadership, and also noted is the need to give field members as knowl-edge producers access to the range of knowledge provinces, practices, processes,positions and perspectives that they need to have and should have as members of aprofessionalising community and as a member of a developing democratic culture.Our approach is to work for as inclusive approach to educational and educativeleadership as possible and we continue to work for a balance between the complexityof knowers, knowing and knowledge and the construction of a framework that ismeaningful and useful without being too elaborate [3].

The six typologies are meant to have a heuristic purpose through whichknowledge production can be both understood and undertaken. While the ESRCseminar series asked us to focus on leadership in schools the typologies we haveproduced are appropriate for the description and analysis of knowledge productionacross organisational sites. Perhaps a dangerous opportunity lies in how the typolo-gies are read and used. An invitation is extended to others to read, use, challengeand develop, but we must also be aware of how the typologies can help us tounderstand the how and why they are used. Our engagement with them is contex-tual and conditional, and we must be mindful of how our own agency and thestructures we inhabit shape how we read and use such typologies. As such thecategories within the typologies are meant to illuminate rather than stifle, and toopen up rather than create barriers. The typologies are meant to aid thought ratherthan replace it. In this way the knower as mapper needs to reveal their approach toknowing or mapping, and to be explicit about the impact this has on the structuredknowledge or the maps. A mapper of teacher leadership who draws on instrumentalapproaches to the typologies, who positions themselves on the training terrain inorder to do mapping, will produce a different type of map compared with those whobegin with different knowledge provinces. Neither is necessarily right or wrong they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


are just different, but it is incumbent on the knowledge worker to make explicit whothey are as knowers, where they begin and arrive with knowing, and what this meansfor knowledge. In this way our challenge to the orthodoxy of the field is not only inrecognising the variety of knowledge claims it can make regarding school leadership,but also to make transparent the production of these knowledge claims. This is notabout attempting to make linear ‘growth’ in knowledge by ‘building’ on what hasgone before, but is about enabling knowers to know and have a fuller rather thanempty account of what is and what might be known.

NOTES

[1] Although this article focuses on school leadership in England and Wales, the argument itpresents is relevant to leadership in general wherever this takes place.

[2] Over time the relative merits of a number of terms including for example discipline, formof knowledge, subject, field of knowledge have been canvassed as possible labels for thestudy of educational leadership and management (see Ribbins 1993, Gunter & Ribbins2002a).

[3] The dangers of well-intentioned over-elaboration in engaging in the kind of mappingexercise in which we were involved can perhaps be illustrated by reference to Bloom’s(1956) famous taxonomy of educational objectives, with its four key principles, six cognitivelevels and so on (for a brief yet helpful discussion of its influence and limitations, see DeLandsheere 1997).

REFERENCES

Ball SJ (1995) Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies,British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255–71.

Baron G (1969) The study of educational administration in England in Baron G & Taylor W(eds) Educational Administration and the Social Sciences, London: Athlone Press.

Baron G & Taylor W (eds) (1969) Educational Administration and the Social Sciences, London:The Athlone Press.

Bell L & Rowley A (2002) The impact of educational policy on headship in the primary schoolin England, 1994–2001, The Journal of Educational Administration, 40(3), 195–211.

Bloom B (1956) (ed.) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the classification of educational goals.Handbook 1: cognitive domain, New York: McKay.

Bottery M (1992) The Ethics of Educational Management, London: Cassell.Bush T, Bell L, Bolam R, Glatter R & Ribbins P (eds) (1999) Educational Management:

redefining theory, policy and practice, London: Paul Chapman.Caldwell B & Spinks J (1988) The Self Managing School, Lewes: Falmer Press.De Landsheere V (1997) Taxonomy of educational objectives, in Keeves J (ed.) Educational

Research, Methodology, and Measurement: an international handbook, Oxford: Pergamon,pp. 803–813.

DfEE (1997) Excellence in Schools, London: HMSO (White Paper).DfEE (1998) Teachers: meeting the challenge of change, London: DfEE.DfEE (1999) National College for School Leadership: a prospectus, London DfEE.Educational Management and Administration (1999) Special edition: Redefining educa-

tional management and leadership 27(3).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


Eraut M (1999) Headteachers’ knowledge, practice and mode of cognition, in Bush T, Bell L,Bolam R, Glatter R & Ribbins P (eds) (1999) Educational Management: redefining theory,policy and practice, London: Paul Chapman, pp. 114–127.

Fielding M (1999a) Target setting, policy pathology and student perspectives: learning to labourin new times, Cambridge Journal of Education 29(2), 277–287.

Fielding M (1999b) Radical collegiality: affirming teaching as an inclusive professional practice,Australian Educational Researcher, 26(2), 1–34.

Fitz J (1999) Reflections on the field of educational management studies, Educational Administra-tion and Management, 27(3), 313–321.

Grace G (1995) School Leadership: beyond education management, London: Falmer.Greenfield T & Ribbins P (eds) (1993) Greenfield on Educational Administration: towards a

humane science, London: Routledge.Gronn P (2000) Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership, Educational Manage-

ment and Administration, 28(3), 317–338.Gronn P (2003) Distributing and intensifying school leadership, in Bennett N & Anderson L

(eds) Rethinking Educational Leadership: challenging the conventions, London: Paul ChapmanPublishing.

Gunter H (2001a) Leaders and Leadership in Education, London: Paul Chapman.Gunter H (2001b) Critical approaches to leadership in education, Journal of Educational Enquiry,

2(1), 94–108.Gunter H (2002a) Purposes and positions in the field of education management: putting

Bourdieu to work, Educational Management and Administration, 30(1), 3–22.Gunter H (2002b) Rethinking education: beyond Jurassic management. Inaugural lecture, Adjunct

Professor of Educational Management, Unitec, Mount Albert, Auckland, New Zealand, 9July.

Gunter H (2002c) Teachers as educational leaders, in Brundrett M, Burton N & Smith R (eds)Leadership in Education, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Gunter H (2003) Comparing and contrasting the perspectives: an evaluative review of the bookin Bennett N & Anderson L (eds) Rethinking Educational Leadership: challenging the conven-tions, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Gunter H & Ribbins P (2002a) Leadership studies in education: towards a map of the field,Educational Management and Administration, 30(4), 387–416.

Gunter H & Ribbins P (2002b) Locating leadership. Paper presented to the annual conferenceof the British Educational Leadership and Management Society, University of Aston,September.

Gunter H & Ribbins P (2002c) Challenging Orthodoxy in School Leadership Studies: old maps fornew directions? Keynote given at the first of an ESRC funded seminar series on Challengingthe Orthodoxy of School Leadership: Towards a New Theoretical Perspective, WarwickUniversity, November.

Gunter H & Ribbins P (2003) The Field of Educational Leadership: studying maps andmapping studies British Journal of Educational Studies (In press).

Hodgkinson C (1991) Educational Leadership: the moral art, New York: SUNY Press.Hopkins D (2001) ‘Think Tank’ Report to Governing Council, Nottingham: National College for

School Leadership.Hughes M, Ribbins P & Thomas H (ed.) (1985) Managing Education: the system and the

institution, Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Lakomski G (2002) Distributed leadership: an idea whose time has come? Keynote paper given at the

National Conference of the British Educational Leadership, Management and AdministrationSociety, Aston University, September.

Leithwood K, Jantzi D & Steinbach R (1999) Changing Leadership for Changing Times,Buckingham: OUP.

MacBeath J (ed.) (1998) Effective School Leadership: responding to change, London: Paul ChapmanPublishing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


Mitchell G (1979) A New Dictionary of Sociology, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Moos L & Dempster N (1998) Some comparative learnings from the study, in MacBeath J (ed.)

(1998) Effective School Leadership: responding to change, London: Paul Chapman.New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993) Micropaedia, Volume 12, 15th Edition.Ranson S (2000) Recognizing the pedagogy of voice in a learning community, Educational

Management and Administration, 28(3), 263–279.Ribbins P (1993) Conversations with a condottiere of administrative value, The Journal of

Educational Administration and Foundations, 8(1), 13–28.Ribbins P (ed.) (1997) Leaders and Leadership in the School, College and University, London:

Cassell.Ribbins P (2003a) Preparing for leadership: in search of wisdom in Bennett N & Crawford M

(eds) Effective Educational Leadership, London: Paul Chapman (forthcoming)Ribbins P (2003b) Biography and the study of school leader careers: towards a humanistic

approach, in Brundrett M, Burton N & Smith R (eds) Leadership in Education, London: PaulChapman.

Ribbins P & Best R (1985) Pastoral care: theory, practice and the growth of research, in LangP & Marland M (eds) New Directions in Pastoral Care, Oxford: Blackwell.

Ribbins P & Gunter H (2002) Mapping leadership studies in education: towards a typology ofknowledge domains, Educational Management and Administration, 30(4), 359–386.

Ribbins P & Gunter H (2003) Leadership studies in education: maps for EPPI reviews? inAnderson L & Bennett N (eds) Evidence Informed Policy and Practice in Educational Leadership,London: Paul Chapman (forthcoming).

Robinson V (2001) Embedding leadership in task performance in Wong K & Evers C (eds)Leadership for Quality Schooling, London: Routledge Falmer.

Rudduck J, Chaplain R & Wallace G (1996) School Improvement, What Can Pupils Tell Us?London: David Fulton Publishers.

Sergiovanni T (2001) Leadership, What’s in it for Schools? London: Routledge Falmer.Smyth J (ed.) (1995) Critical Discourses on Teacher Development, London: Cassell.Smyth J & Shacklock G (1998) Re-Making Teaching: ideology, policy and practice, London:

Routledge.Smyth J, McInerney P, Hattam R & Lawson M (1998) Teacher learning: the way out of the

school restructuring miasma, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(2), 95–109.Spillane J, Halverson R & Kaplan C (2001) Investigating school leadership practice: a

distributed perspective, Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.Stoll L & Fink D (1996) Changing Our Schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement,

Buckingham: Open University Press.Teacher Training Agency (1998) National Standards for Headteachers, London: Teacher Train-

ing Agency.Thrupp M (1999) Schools Make a Difference, Let’s be Realistic! Buckingham: Open University

Press.Wallace M (2001) Sharing leadership of schools through teamwork: a justifiable risk? Educational

Management and Administration, 29(2), 153–167.Woodhead C (1996) The Annual Report of HMCIS, Standards and Quality in Education 1994/95,

London: HMSO.

Notes on Authors

Peter Ribbins is Visiting Professor at Leicester University and Emeritus Professor at BirminghamUniversity where he was Dean of Education and Continuing Studies. He has published exten-sively on leadership in education in many countries. He is Chair of BELMAS and was untilrecently Editor of Educational Management and Administration. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4


Helen Gunter is Reader in Educational Leadership and Management in the School of Education,University of Birmingham. Helen is co-organiser of the ESRC seminar series: Challenging theOrthodoxy of School Leadership, and has published widely on knowledge production within the fieldof educational leadership. E-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

challenging orthodoxy in school leadership studies: knowers, knowing and knowledge?

Documents