Scott Eacott
The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
This book is dedicated to an analysis and synthesis of research on strategy and
school leadership, with the ultimate goal of suggesting a new research programme.
Each chapter takes up this challenge through different means, resulting in an
­overview of the construct of strategy within the practice of school leadership. It is
hoped that each of these chapters encourages students, practitioners and scholars
to continue to investigate this important topic and to undertake the methodological
challenges set out to advance our understanding of strategy and school leadership
in managerialist times.
Despite maintain a primarily scholarly focus – as such a focus is exceedingly
­important for the advancement of any domain of inquiry – it is also recognised that
many of the ideas discussed have profound practical significance for schools and
those who lead and manage them. The arguments in this book, particularly those in
the latter chapters seek to expand the horizons of scholarship and understanding on
the topic of strategy and school leadership. Although this should not be interpreted
as a prescriptive call for how further inquiry should be undertaken, it is but one
voice in the conversation.
The reviews, studies, analysis and proposed research programme of this book ­argue
that the strategies of school leaders are of considerable theoretical and ­practical
importance to schools, the governance of schooling and the behaviour and
performance of schools. While this book offers a blueprint for further inquiry, it
remains for the reader to accept the challenge. Doing so will enable important new
insights into strategy and school leadership.
SensePublishers
DIVS
Scott Eacott
ISBN 978-94-6091-655-7
School Leadership and Strategy in Managerialist Times
School Leadership and Strategy
in Managerialist Times
School Leadership
and Strategy in
Managerialist Times
Scott Eacott
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGY IN MANAGERIALIST TIMES
School Leadership and Strategy
in Managerialist Times
By
Scott Eacott
The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
SENSE PUBLISHERS
ROTTERDAM / BOSTON / TAIPEI
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-94-6091-655-7 (paperback)
ISBN 978-94-6091-656-4 (hardback)
ISBN 978-94-6091-657-1 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,
P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands
www.sensepublishers.com
This book has been reviewed by independent peer reviewers, who recommended publication.
Printed on acid-free paper
All rights reserved © 2011 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without
written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the
purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of
the work.
DEDICATION
This book would not have become a reality with the encouragement and support of
my family, in particular my wife, Amy. As always, my greatest debt is to her, for
which I extend to her many thanks. Although it would be amiss to not acknowledge
the support of my beautiful children Daniel and Madelyn, who have yet to
experience life without their father working on some research project that takes
more family time than is desirable. I am also grateful to the numerous colleagues
within the faculty of the University of Newcastle, Australia, who have stimulated
my thinking, in particular Jim Ladwig, Robert Parkes, Zsuzsanna Millei, Tom
Griffiths, Jim Albright and Eva Bendix Petersen.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
ix
Strategy and the principal: Setting the scene
1
Engaging with the literature: Where are we now?
9
What do we have here? Putting the literature to the test
39
Leadership preparation and school-based planning: The Trojan Horse
of the state
63
Lacking a shared vision: Practitioners and the literature on the topic of
strategy
83
Strategy as leadership: An alternate way of seeing
97
An alternate research programme: The leadership practices of
educational managers
109
New look strategic leaders or a new look at strategy? What to from here?
117
References
121
Index
137
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is a compilation of work that I have conducted over a number of years
beginning with my doctorate on strategic leadership and management in schools.
As such, some of the ideas I present have been previously published, usually
partially, in a series of articles in peer-reviewed journals. For that I would like to
acknowledge. An earlier version of chapter two appears in International Journal of
Leadership in Education. Parts of chapter three appear in International Journal of
Educational Management; chapter four in Journal of Educational Administration
and History and Leading and Managing; chapter five in Journal of School
Leadership; chapter six in International Journal of Leadership in Education; and
chapter seven in Issues in Educational Research. Although only taking parts, and
in some cases rather small sections, I am indebted to the anonymous reviewers who
have shaped my thinking by challenging me both theoretically and
methodologically as part of this ongoing intellectual puzzlement.
ix
CHAPTER 1
STRATEGY AND THE PRINCIPAL
Setting the scene
INTRODUCTION
In his introduction to a 2004 special issue of School Leadership and Management
24(1) on strategy and strategic leadership in schools, Brent Davies declares a shift
in thinking about strategy in education from the historically conservative
perspective of seeing strategy as a management function to that of a leadership
process. While the notion of a leadership ‘process’ is still problematic and arguably
evidence of an underlying mechanistic assumption of leadership, the intention of
the claim is clear. For him, this point in time represents a move away from the
early emphasis on school development planning built on legislative reforms such as
the Education Reform Act (1988) in the UK. However, as Ladwig (1998) so
adeptly reminds us ‘it is quite possible (and plausible) to see alternative stances
take up positions on the periphery of a field at the very same time as the core or
centre changes little’ (p. 35). To this point, I argue that the major source of critique
for the study and utility of strategy as an educational leadership concept is the
limited representation of what is strategy.
In this book, I argue that scholarship on strategy in education has failed to ask
the question ‘When and how does strategy exists?’. Discussion centred on this
existential question is beyond the current discourse on strategy in education, yet by
not understanding the existence of strategy it is impossible to know what it is to be
strategic. The somewhat uncritical adoption of the term strategy from the business
sector and the narrow definition applied to it within the literature of education
leadership has constructed a particular identity, with a specific associated stance
towards scholarship and practice (see Bell, 1998, 2002, 2004). As a consequence, I
further argue, current research on strategy in educational leadership limits its own
potential by attempting to provide micro-level description of leadership behaviours
and traits. In this light, there exists a need for scholarship to move beyond
modernistic thinking and embrace the complexity of ever shifting cultural, social,
historical and political relationships. However, if the initial agenda set forth by this
book is to be met, and if a wider audience of educational leadership researchers and
practitioners are to be persuaded by these insights, an alternate conceptualisation of
strategy is needed. My own ‘school leadership strategies’ research agenda
discussed in chapters six and seven is one such alternative.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
This book is meant primarily for students of educational leadership, management
and administration, particularly those who strive to understand the practice of
school leadership. It serves two purposes. The first is to take stock, assess, and
integrate the existing body of literature on strategic leadership and management in
education. The first half of the book is dedicated to this task. As we shall see,
scholarship on the topic has not produced a deep understanding of the underlying
assumptions of strategic practice. In discussing the evolution of the concept within
educational leadership, the design of research, and the results of studies, the aim of
this first half of the text is to help the reader navigate and make sense of this
profuse domain.
The second objective is to go well beyond what is already known and set forth a
new conceptualisation and methodological recommendations for the study of
strategy in education leadership. The discussion has a theoretical, predictive,
explanatory focus. Prescription will not be ignored, but it will be secondary.
Theoretically informed by the sociological work of Pierre Bourdieu, the second
half of the book represents an attempt to re-conceptualise the strategic role of
educational leaders as a social practice. Bourdieu has been previously used in the
scholarship of educational leadership (see Gunter, 2000, 2001, 2002; Gunter &
Forrester, 2010; Lingard & Christie, 2003; Lingard, Hayes, Mills, & Christie,
2003; Thomson, 2010; Wilkinson, 2010), and his concepts of capital (cultural,
social, intellectual and symbolic), habitus, fields, and strategies, have provided a
lens through which to investigate the individual possibilities and contextual
constraints within the work of educational leaders (Lingard, et al., 2003).
Following Grenfell (2010b), I shall adopt the convention of putting Bourdieu’s key
concepts in italics. This is done as a mental reminder that each of these comes with
a complex and sophisticated theory of practice and should not be simply taken and
substantiated as analytic metaphors. The book is intended to provide a new
platform for theory and research on the strategic role of school leaders,
consolidating what is already known, identifying the high priorities for what next
needs to be known, and proposing how scholars might fruitfully conduct their
inquiries.
THE EVOLUTION OF STRATEGY IN EDUCATION
One point of reference for the origin of strategy is Sun Tzu’s The Art of War
(c320BC). This work is taken to represent a timeless set of principles that can be
applied to any challenge, whether it is personal or organisational. Though written
in the context of warfare, its techniques for meeting challenges while minimising
conflict remain invaluable. Tzu delineates five factors that shape the skill of an
effective military commander, they are: 1) philosophy; 2) climate; 3) ground; 4)
leadership; and 5) military methods. Military philosophy was considered to be
commanding your people in a way that gives them a higher shared purpose (not
that dissimilar from contemporary leadership discourse). Climate required the
understanding of the weather conditions and the timing of the seasons. While
2
STRATEGY AND THE PRINCIPAL
contemporary leadership discourses engage rarely in discussions of the weather,
substantial attention is given to understanding the unique ‘culture’ or ‘climate’ of
an organisation. The ground refers to the physical terrain that needs to be passed.
Although a significant body of literature in educational leadership deals with
leading ‘change’, the somewhat ‘vacuous’ use of the term change (Gronn, 2008)
provides little more than a sociologically naïve (Carter, Clegg, & Kornberger,
2008) insight into changing human behaviour and organisational performance.
Tzu’s intended combination of climate and ground is not to dissimilar to
Bourdieu’s ‘feel for the game’ (Lamaison & Bourdieu, 1986) and the need to
understand the logic of practice within the boundaries of the social space, or the
field, in which events are occurring. The final dimension of Tzu’s strategy is to
understand your military methods, which shape your organisation, derive from
your philosophy and which you must master in order to achieve success. This
reflexivity, both Tzu and contemporary scholars (see Lingard, et al., 2003) see as
vital to productive leadership. However, arguably the touchstone feature of Tzu’s
work is the notion that all men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what
none can see is the strategy out of which great victory is evolved. Such a
proposition provides substantial links to social theorist, where leadership strategies
are either invisible (e.g. Foucault) or indirectly accessible (e.g. Bourdieu). This
heightens the need to understand what leaders know about strategy and how they
act strategically. The emphasis on this undercurrent of practice, the unique
contribution of this book, enables scholarship to make a lasting contribution to our
understanding of how leaders seek to shape the social space for the purpose of
improving student learning.
Etymologically, the modern word ‘strategy’ has its roots in the Greek word
strategos meaning ‘general’. Closely aligned though is the French word
stratagime, meaning to ‘trick, or especially to outwit an enemy’. Despite its
military roots, strategy is frequently considered part of a rhetoric and lexicon
borrowed from business and economics. In fact, strategy is now considered as a
‘field’ of inquiry (Boyd, Finkelstein, & Gove, 2005). The birth of this inquiry came
from the work of Hofer and Schendel (1978) in their re-christening of business
policy as strategic management. Since that time, the domain has grown
exponentially. The flagship journal Strategic Management Journal continues to
grow in stature and its content now influences the Academy of Management
Review, arguably the leading journal in the greater management discipline.
As an educational administrative concept, the term strategy first began to appear
in the literature in the 1980s. However, there was very little prior to 1988 (Fidler,
1989) when the United Kingdom passed the Education Reform Act, making it
mandatory for all schools to have a development plan. This legislative change in
the UK led to a voluminous literature for the scholar and practitioner on ‘how to’
create a development plan. Among the emerging literature strategy, under the guise
of strategic planning, became synonymous with school planning. A similar process
has occurred in many other countries, particularly Commonwealth, reflecting
colonial roots. As an international phenomenon, policy statements such as the
Education Reform Act have shaped our understanding of what it means to be
3
CHAPTER 1
strategic. That is, the field of education policy has shaped the ontological reality
from which it is focused. Principals have become embedded in discursive
mechanisms which seek to normalise a particular type of strategic educational
leader, one who conforms to policy expectations.
In the educational leadership literature and arguably reflecting policy’s use of
the term, the word ‘strategy’ has evolved so many meanings that it became debased
and overused (Beaver, 2000). A large proportion of work claiming to be ‘strategic’
in fact represents tactical areas and means to secure operational effectiveness
(Drejer, 2004). The planning and programming of the supplementary activities
appears to have emerged as ‘the whole’ of strategy (Bell, 1998; Mintzberg, 1994).
Practitioners, consultants and academics apply the term ‘strategic’ to almost every
management activity. Franklin (1998) observes:
The word strategy is bought out under the cover of darkness when writers and
speakers, theorists and managers are looking for a more impressive word than
‘important’. The idea of strategic objectives sounds much more impressive
than the idea of business objectives on their own. The idea of a business
policy sounds second-rate to the idea of a business strategy. The idea of
strategy and its common usage has reified the term so that no self-respecting
scholar or manager fails to engage in strategy to other apparently more
mundane issues. (p. 320)
There is a substantial body of critical literature on the use of strategy in education,
primarily based on the notion that schools as institutions are significantly different
to corporate organisations in a market-based economy and on the unquestioned
adoption of term from the corporate world into educational leadership (Bell, 1998,
2002; Forde, Hobby, & Lees, 2000; Griffiths, 1985; Kelly, 2005; Thomas, 2006).
Building on from Weick’s (1976) work on loosely-coupled organisations, schools
have been traditionally viewed as under-led and under-managed organisations
characterised by their core business of teaching and learning (Bain, 2000;
Dimmock, 2000; Dimmock & Walker, 2004). The traditional view of organisations
and strategy is to see the organisation as the machine that turns resources into
products, and strategy as the instrument for positioning the focal organisation in the
industry and marketplace (Lowendahl & Revang, 1998). Such a positioning
immediately requires an understanding of the macro- and micro-level actions of
individuals and organisations. Unfortunately the self-taught educational leader or
even the teaching of strategy within the academy and through consultants is
generally from a mechanistic perspective or what Levačić and Glover (1997, 1998)
term ‘technicist-rational’ approach. This means-ends reasoning is what the
German sociologist Max Weber termed zwek-rational, sometimes translated as
‘instrumental reasoning’. This approach presents strategy to school leaders as a
mechanistic pursuit towards the production of a plan. The underlying assumption
of strategy and the strategic leadership of schools is viewed as rational decision
making. The rationality paradigm is the basis of theories in planning, public policy
making, microeconomics, organisational learning and even contingency theory
(Scheerens, 1997). From this perspective, the leader’s task is to identify techno4
STRATEGY AND THE PRINCIPAL
economic opportunities and problems, systematically search for alternatives and
make choices that maximise the performance of the organisation. This perspective
forms the basis of the criteria from which school development plans in the UK are
assessed during inspection (Broadhead, Cuckle, Hodgson, & Dunford, 1996;
Cuckle & Broadhead, 2003; Cuckle, Broadhead, Hodgson, & Dunford, 1998;
Cuckle, Hodgson, & Broadhead, 1998).
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGY
In his opening chapter of Homo academicus Pierre Bourdieu distinguishes between
‘real’ individuals and those individuals who become known through social analysis
(empirical and epistemic individuals respectively). Working from this
conceptualisation, I argue that ‘strategy’ remains something that happens between
two or more people or organisations, but when constructing a lesson for the field
(e.g. through a manuscript), the effects of making objects out of ‘real’ people and
their interactions is clearly objectifying. The process of analysis hides that which it
seeks to uncover.
Much of the research on educational leadership finds its raison d´être in what
many believe to be the key mission of professional schools (e.g. education,
business, nursing), that is, to develop knowledge that can be translated into skills
that advance the practice of professionals (Kondrat, 1992; Simon, 1976; Van de
Ven & Johnson, 2006). This professionalisation of knowledge has been a barrier to
the effective linking of knowledge claims and action (Lagemann, 1997) in
education as a discipline and educational leadership specifically. Theory and
practice are construed as distinct kinds of knowledge. While complementary, they
possess different ontological (truth claims) and epistemological (ways of knowing)
perspectives for addressing problems of practice. In an attempt to address the
theory-practice nexus, many researchers have sought to produce work which will
help educational leaders in their daily activities. As Gunter (2010) argues, theory
only seems to matter if it can directly translate into particular decisions to be made
and implemented at 9:00am on a Monday morning. The preoccupation with the
‘real’ work of educational leaders, demonstrating ties to functionalism, positions
scholarship on strategy in education as a problem solving tool for managers in
educational institutions. In doing so, it does not emphasise the many subtle ways in
which cultural, social, historical and political forces, both individual and
organisational might influence practice.
Rather than derive a sophisticated conceptualisation of practice from social
theorists such as Bourdieu (1977, 1990, 1998) or Foucault (1977), the research
agenda of strategy in education has utilised a narrow and under-theorised view of
practice. It has limited itself to ‘what people do’, restricted to the bodily
movements of actors and the functional implications of such actions. This
sociologically naïve (Carter et al., 2008) and under-developed conceptualisation of
practice fails to engage with the discursive nature of social interactions. After all,
Sun Tzu, made this point some 3000 years ago. Such a positioning of strategy
requires a deeper sociological theoretical position than has traditionally been the
5
CHAPTER 1
case. As noted by Gunter (2010), in recent times there seems to be an emergence of
work that is more sociologically informed and in the context of a post Global
Financial Crisis world, the seduction of economic and managerialist assertions is
ripe for crushing. This book contributes to this emerging discourse.
AN OVERVIEW OF SUCCEEDING CHAPTERS
This book synthesises what is known about the strategic role of school leaders and
suggests new research directions. Although each chapter focuses on the topic from
a different perspective the result is a comprehensive, but not complete, overview of
strategy in education and a theoretically grounded re-conceptualisation. Where a
particular research contribution has been placed in the text is based on an
assessment of where it could provide the most meaning to readers. Therefore, this
text is not structured, but composed. As the author, I had considerable agency as to
the sequencing of chapters/content. In aiming for a synthesis of the strategic role of
school leaders, the adopted approach has the effect of creating a series of
overlapping research domains that build upon, as well as inform, previous chapters.
Somewhat of a ‘spiral curriculum’ (Bruner, 1960) in which any new information
that is presented is related back and linked to previous information presented. As
new frameworks and research directions are suggested, it is important to consider
them in relation to the underlying assumption of strategy proposed by Finkelstein
and Hambrick (1996), that the intersection of cognitive, social, and political
perspectives greatly informs strategic leadership and management.
The discussion of strategy and school leadership begins in chapters two with an
examination of the literature on the topic. This chapter presents a comprehensive
analysis of contemporary research on strategic leadership and management in
schools. Drawing upon research since 1980 on the strategy in education in
prominent educational leadership journals, leading contributions to research on
strategy in education are identified. This work is analysed through a variety of
methodological features (ontological, epistemological, and ethical/normative
assumptions, theory of ‘subject’, methods employed, and causality assumed). This
chapter has two goals: first, to gain an appreciation for what has been done in the
scholarship of strategy in education, and second, provide a literature base to inform
a conceptual framework for investigation. Careful attention is paid to
demonstrating how the theoretical lens of the strategic role in educational
institutions is explicitly linked with the chosen methods of the empirical work
informing this book.
Chapter three picks up on the work in chapter two through the construction and
testing of a model of strategic leadership and management in education. Using the
identified literature base as a data source, a five dimension model is argued for.
This model is then tested in a questionnaire based study of public school principals
in New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, to
highlight the flaws in our conceptualisation of strategy – much of which is based
on the logic of common sense – and secondly, to demonstrate an inherent weakness
in questionnaire based research to inquire about strategy as a practice. Bearing in
6
STRATEGY AND THE PRINCIPAL
mind the significance of social space to strategy, chapter four provides a contextual
statement of New South Wales schools at the time. Attention is paid to policy
moves and leadership preparation, including the professional standards movement.
Somewhat consistent with the nature of the findings in the previous chapter, policy
moves arguably contribute to a homogenising school leadership workforce and the
silence of alternate ways of being.
Chapter five provides an insight into how practising school leaders, or at least
principals, perceive their strategic role. In contrast with the literature developed
model, there is a broader scope to the role. To test this relationship, a logistic
regression analysis, or LOGIT, is undertaken. Not surprisingly, there is a lack of
coherence between how practitioners and the literature see the role. Although it is
also ironic that strategy, which is often argued for as a means of developing and
implementing a shared vision, lacks coherence.
Excluding the conclusion, the final two chapters do what is arguably the most
significant work of the book. Chapter six uses the narratives of school leaders and
the methodological arguments from the front end of the book to propose a more
sophisticated conceptualisation of strategy in school leadership. This challenging
prospect is then taken up in chapter seven with the proposal of an alternate research
programme. Although as noted before, this is not the only path, I argue that this
alternate does provide for a richer description and analytical engagement with
strategy in school leadership. A journey that I hope others will join me on.
In sum, this book is optimistic, portraying the strategies of school leaders as a
stream of research within educational leadership that will help provide a
fundamental understanding of how and why educational institutions behave the
way they do. It is clear that there is still very much more we need to know. This
challenge poses a great opportunity, for a better understanding of school leadership
practice. The more we know about the essence of strategies, the better we will
understand how and why schools undertake strategies and perform the way they
do.
7
CHAPTER TWO
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
Where are we now?
INTRODUCTION
The advancement of any scientific field of inquiry depends on the soundness of the
research methodologies employed by its members (Ketchen & Bergh, 2004).
Despite many educational leadership issues generating a great deal of scholarly
interest internationally over the years, reviewers have generally suggested it has
not been an area given to rigorous empirical investigation and knowledge
accumulation (Bridges, 1982; Erickson, 1967). Firestone and Robinson (2010)
however contend that things have improved considerably since the 1980s as the
field has become more theoretically complex, has drawn on a greater variety of
intellectual sources from the study of organisations, and has become more
methodologically diverse and sophisticated. Of course, such claims are highly
contested. For an interesting discussion of the nature of writing in educational
leadership I encourage a reading of Thrupp and Willmott’s (2003) Educational
management in managerialist times: beyond the textual apologist. In this work,
they critique what Gunter (1997) calls the ‘educational management industry’ to
argue that despite the apparent popularity of educational management literature,
this literature is harmful because of the ways it fails to challenge existing social
inequalities and the way it chimes with managerialist policies that will only further
intensify existing inequalities. This argument sits comfortably with this author due
to my critical disposition, but in an era where matters of social justice are granted
additional attention – both scholarly and politically – this is significant.
Gorard (2005) suggests that the difference between educational leadership
research and other educational research is the uniformity of methods used, mainly
small scale qualitative work with little transparency and no comparison groups.
Although this perspective reflects a somewhat bias approach to assessing the
quality of research – one that favours logical empiricism. He further adds that the
lack of inclusion in the Social Science Citation Index of the majority of educational
leadership and management journals is perhaps itself an indicator of the nonimpact of research in the field. This needs to be acknowledged in the context that
relatively few education/social science journals (in comparison to hard sciences)
have impact factor measured. Lumby, Foskett and Fidler (2005) add that there is a
dearth of literature which deals with the nature, adequacy and possibilities of
methodology specifically in relationship to educational leadership and
management. Despite a 2005 special issue of Educational Management
Administration and Leadership (the leading UK based journal in the field) on
‘Researching educational leadership and management’, edited by Lumby, Foskett
9
CHAPTER 2
and Fidler, very little, if any, attention is given to defining what is meant by the
term ‘methodology’. For the purpose of this book, I follow Prasad (1997), among
others, in conceptualising methodology as ‘an intricate set of ontological and
epistemological assumptions that a researcher brings to his or her work (p. 2). As
such, methodology is the bringing together of theory and research methods. This
has significant implications for research. This positions research as inquiry into
questions derived from an understanding of theory and the selection of the most
appropriate tool or technique (e.g. methods) to answer those questions. Evers
(2010) notes the rarity of discussion in relation to the philosophical issues of
educational leadership research yet the enormous influence that such matters have
over the way educational leadership is understood, theorised and practised.
As a domain of inquiry educational leadership is dominated by a pragmatic
empirical approach (Scheerens, 1997). The theoretical development of the field is
still at the ‘discovery orientation’ and not empirically oriented studies. Firestone
and Robinson (2010) contend that this may be the result of the lack of a small
number of identified common problems universally accepted within the field in
which a quantum of scholars is committed. While on one level this may be true,
one does have to wonder as to whether reducing the focus of research to a small
number of common problems is beneficial for the intellectual advancement of
knowledge on educational leadership. There will always be trends and
contemporarily popular debates, but should this stop research on the periphery?
The establishment of educational administration as a scholarly pursuit in the US
universities in the early 1900s sought to establish a science of educational
administration (Allison, 2001; Bates, 2010; Griffiths, 1985). This quest reached its
peak during the Theory movement of the mid 1900s. During the Theory
Movement, a good scientific theory of educational leadership was claimed to
possess the following properties:
1. A hypothetico-deductive structure of empirical claims, with more general
claims at the top of the structure and more particular derivable claims
descending downward from the top.
2. A procedure of justification based on empirical testability having two
components. If empirical claims derived from the theory are actually observed
to be the case, then the theory is confirmed. If they are refuted by empirical
evidence, then the theory is said to be disconfirmed. A theory is more justified
than its rivals if it has more confirmations and fewer, or no, disconfirmations.
3. All theoretical concepts should be operationally defined in terms of some
measurement procedure or instrument (Evers, 2010, p. 710).
These underlying assumptions of the Theory movement continue to exert an
influence in the accounts of educational leadership today. Bates (2010) however
notes that this is more of the case in the US than the Commonwealth and there has
long been agreement in the Commonwealth that the social sciences are a useful
source of theory and methodology for educational leadership (see Baron & Taylor,
1969; Greenfield, 1968; Walker, Crane, & Thomas, 1973). He goes on to argue
that it is hardly surprising that in 1974 when Thom Greenfield delivered his
address to the International Intervisitation Program in Bristol, that those from the
10
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
Commonwealth were largely supportive of his view while there was attack from
many of the US delegates (Bates, 2010). In contrast, Gunter (2010) argues that
along with Australia and New Zealand (Bates also notes Australia and New
Zealand in this light), North America has been an important powerhouse for
socially critical research and conceptualising practice as activism. She contends
that the number of people in England who would locate their work alongside this
tradition is limited to five at most, ten on a good day. This is significant as we
come to examine the origin of much of the work on strategy in the educational
leadership literature.
Although attempts continue to shore up what remains of the Theory movement –
for example Hoy and Miskel’s (2001) Educational administration: theory,
research and practice – since the 1990s the vision of educational administration
(of which the title has evolved from administration to management and now
leadership) has shifted from the search for a quantifiable scientific fact to the
qualitative study of school leadership, dedicated to a socially responsive practice
(Maxcy, 2001; Scheurich, 1997). Out of the US, led by people such as Donmoyer,
Scheurich, and their colleagues, a new post-positivist perspective has developed.
While Educational Administration Quarterly continues to publish work evident of
Theory movement thinking and some would argue has a bias towards such work,
the trend toward matters of race and gender, among others, under the umbrella of
social justice and equity is highly visible. Gunter (2010) notes that internationally
there seems to be a number of works in recent times that are building up an
important head of steam with regard to social justice issues and leadership studies.
Donmoyer (2001) argues that educational leadership is not well served when
academics think of it as an academic discipline like theoretical physics, or even
applied sociology or engineering. Drawing on the work of Toulmin (1972, 1993),
Donmoyer argues that educational administration should be thought of as a ‘public
policy field’ as opposed to a discipline. This poses a major struggle in the selection
of research methods and the links with theory. Educational administration in public
policy terms builds on Aristotle’s (1932) and more recently Schon’s (1983, 1991)
distinction between theoretical and practical problems. Theoretical problems are
about general truth, usually linked to disciplines, whereas practical problems are
about particular choices and actions. While in disciplines or sciences, overtime the
superiority of one theory over another is recognised and the members of the field
rally around the theory that is most useful in achieving the purpose of the field, in
public policy both values and facts must be taken into account when deciding on a
course of action (Donmoyer, 2001).
The theoretical evolution of a concept can be enhanced or constrained by
methodology. The alignment of theory with research method is pivotal to the
success of a project and the significance of its findings. Only by having an
understanding of the methodology applied in past scholarship of a topic can we
begin to understand the conceptual development of the topic under investigation. In
this chapter, a literature base on strategy in education is identified. This literature
base informs the methodological choices of the empirical work undertaken to
construct this monograph. In addition, scholarship which has informed the
11
CHAPTER 2
literature base is investigated and some frequently cited works reviewed. The
literature base is then analysed through a theoretical lens focusing on ontological
and epistemological assumptions, ethical/normative assumptions, theory of
‘subject’, methods employed and causality implied. From the analysis, a series of
methodological recommendations are proposed which serve to position the work of
this book in the broader field and more specifically, previous work on the strategic
role in educational institutions.
ESTABLISHING A CORPUS
To establish a literature base, the table of contents and abstracts of each issue of 14
different educational leadership and management journals was searched. Unlike
other fields such as strategic management, where regular studies by MacMillan
(1989, 1991; 1987) have identified 16 journals as offering appropriate, significant
or outstanding quality as forums for the publication of research, there is no such list
in educational leadership. Mayo, Zirkel and Finger (2006) contribute with their
paper entitled ‘Which journals educational leadership professors are choosing’,
however, the list contains both refereed and professional journals, and only those
from the US. They did however produce a list of the top seven journals read by
educational leadership professors. Richardson and McLeod (2009) explicitly enter
this discussion with their paper ‘Where should educational leadership authors
publish to get noticed by the top journals in the discipline?’, however their work is
limited to an analysis of citations in two journals (Educational Administration
Quarterly and Journal of School Leadership), on the basis that these are the top
two journals in the field, which understandably, is not universally accepted.
Through listing the most cited journals in both Educational Administration
Quarterly and Journal of School Leadership, they are able to produce a list of the
top 25 journals cited. It should be noted that Educational Administration Quarterly
was the highest ranking journal in both Mayo et al. and Richardson and McLeod.
An implicit contribution to this discussion from another American example is
that of Tschannen-Moran et al. (2000) who use publication in ten ‘prestigious
refereed journals’ as criteria for analysis of productive scholars in educational
administration. Their list was: Educational Administration Quarterly, Journal of
Educational Administration, Journal of School Leadership, Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Educational Policy, Journal of Education
Finance, Teachers College Record, American Journal of Education, Harvard
Education Review, and American Educational Research Journal. In addition to the
journals, Tschannen-Moran et al. include books published by ‘prominent
publishing houses in the field’, including Corwin Press, Harvard University Press,
Jossey-Bass, Teachers College Press, State University of New York Press, and the
University of Chicago Press.
The US is not the only contributor to this discussion. Recent policy
developments in Europe, New Zealand and Australia have started to rank the
quality of journals. The European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH)
seeks to list good research journals across 15 broad fields of the Humanities (of
12
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
which ‘Pedagogy and Educational Research’ is one). In producing the lists, the
publisher, The European Science Foundation recognises that: the ranking of
journals should not be used to assess the quality of individual papers, as quality
work can appear in any category of journal; the lists will need to be regularly
updated to keep track of the changing publication and research landscape; and that
many humanities disciplines still rely heavily on books, and indeed other formats.
That being said, they have produced a list of journals with rankings of ‘A’
(international publications with high visibility and influence among researchers in
various research domains in different countries and regularly cited all over the
world) considered to be the top 15%, ‘B’ (international publications with
significant visibility and influence in various research domains in different
countries) the next 40% and ‘C’ (European publications with a recognised
scholarly significance among researchers in the respective domain) the next 45%.
Two things to note in relation to this list: i) the categorisation of ‘C’ is not to
indicate a ‘low quality’ journal. The idea of the ERIH is the identification of
quality European journals and therefore ‘C’ reflects journals with more limited
circulation, often due to linguistics. If the journal is not deemed of quality, it is not
categorised; and ii) Educational Administration Quarterly is ranked a ‘B’ in the
ERIH, much lower than the US articles. This serves to highlight the contextual
nature of journal ranking systems.
As the empirical work of this book is based in Australia, two relatively recent
developments in journal ranking are drawn upon. The first is the ‘Journal Banding
study’ conducted by the Centre for the Study of Research Training and Impact
(SORTI) at the University of Newcastle, Australia, and the Australian Association
for Research in Education (AARE). In this study over 900 education journals are
identified (ERIH identified 666). The journals are broken into 26 different fields.
The most appropriate field for this work is ‘administration, leadership, educational
management and policy’. It consists of 49 journals. For each journal a QScore
(quality score) is calculated from three sources of information; survey responses,
the journal’s ISI score (if it had one) and whether the journal has an international
editorial board. While this project is criticized for its parochial sampling strategy
(drawing from an Australian based research association) and the subsequent
Australian-centric nature of the findings, as the empirical work conducted for this
monograph took place in Australia, it is an appropriate means for establishing the
boundaries of the search.
The second is the current Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) tier for
each journal. The ERA is the latest means for the Federal government to evaluate
the quality of research outputs (under the former Howard government, a similar
scheme was known as the Research Quality Framework). A similar scheme exists
in the UK under the banner of Research Assessment Exercise. Further discussion
and debate regarding the value of the ERA scheme is taking place in the Australian
academic community, especially given the recent announcement that the second
iteration will occur only two years after the first. In essence, university block
research funding will be based on research income and output, e.g. income from
competitive grants and outputs such as publications, creative works and patents.
13
CHAPTER 2
While tiers are allocated, they are not static, as noted by the ERIH panel as well.
Therefore, using ERA tiers to establish any historical trends in publications is
flawed. However, ‘A*’ journals represent the top 5% in the field, ‘A’ the next
15%, ‘B’ the next 30% and ‘C’ the final 50%. Currently, there remain a large
number of un-ranked publication outlets.
Drawing on the above information, Table 1 below was constructed. This took
places in two stages. The first was the recording of journals in the field using the
three journal ranking systems mentioned above (ERIH, ERA and the SORTI study
– primacy was given to the Australian lists), and the lists provided by Mayo et al.
and Richardson and McLeod. This produced a list of 50 journals. Secondly, a
numerical coding system was used to create a ranking within the list. Treating
sources separately, journals were ranked from one (the highest ranking in that
source) onwards, with the corresponding number assigned. Once this was
completed for each source, a total was calculated. The journals are entered in the
Table beginning with the highest ranking (that is the journal with the lowest total in
the coding exercise).
Table 1. List of ‘quality’ educational leadership journals
Journal title
Educational Administration Quarterly
Journal of Education Policy
Journal of Educational Administration
School Effectiveness and School Improvement
International Journal of Educational Management
Educational Policy
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Educational Management, Admin and Leadership
International Journal of Leadership in Education
School Leadership and Management
Journal of Educational Change
Journal of Educational Administration and History
Leading & Managing
International Studies in Educational Administration
SORTI
QScore
15.74
18.56
15.31
14.10
15.84
13.95
11.61
15.31
13.31
12.37
12.01
9.52
9.70
10.14
ERA
ERIH
A*
A*
C
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
Mayo
et al.
1
Richardson
& McLeod
1
7
17
5
20
4
25
B
This survey to establish the literature base is not exhaustive. In fact, any attempt
to comprehensively cover every piece of work written on a topic is impossible and
self-destructive. Rather, the search strategy of this chapter is meant to be
illustrative of the kinds of work relevant to the main arguments of the book. It is
focused on the general peer-reviewed scholarship of strategy in education
leadership. The choice of journals works with Oplatka (2009) and in particular,
Gunter’s (2002) notion that academic journals are an arena where dialogue about
knowledge production and the nature of the field takes place, as well as Immegart
(1990) and Thomas (2010) who see journals as reflecting and defining lines of
inquiry developed by those in the field.
14
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
Of the 14 journals listed in Table 1, five are published in the UK, four in the US,
two in Australia and the Netherlands, and one from Cyprus. Despite what may
seem like a parochial sampling strategy, the list does reflect an array of
international contribution, even if dominated by the UK and US. There is of course
the notable omission of contributions from Asia or the subcontinent (such as the
Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, India). The list is also limited
to publications in English, meaning that publications such as the Israeli l’yunim
Be’minhal U’re’irgun Hachinuch (Studies in Educational Administration and
Management) are not included.
Using the journals identified in Table 1, the table of contents and abstracts were
searched for any reference to the strategic role of the school leader. To set an initial
parameter around the sample, 1980 was chosen as the start date. This coincides
with Schendel and Hofer’s (1979) rechristening of ‘business policy’ as ‘strategy’.
The search was extended through until the end of 2010. Any article linking school
leadership and strategy (however theorized) was reviewed. This produced a total
list of 106. As can be seen in Figure 1, three journals standout as the dominant
outlets for work on the strategic role of educational leaders; School Leadership and
Management (SLM), International Journal of Educational Management (IJEM)
and Educational Management Administration and Leadership (EMAL), all
published in the UK. SLM has two special issues 24(1) and 18(4) focusing on
strategic leadership in schools; both were edited by Brent Davies (the 1998 issue
was co-edited by Linda Ellison). Of note is that Brent Davies edited a special issue
of International Studies of Educational Administration on strategy and strategic
leadership in education 38(1). However, if you remove the two special issues of
SLM, the most consistent forums have been IJEM and EMAL. However, the actual
percentage of articles identified as being about the strategic role of school leaders
is still only 3.71 and 2.10% of total articles respectively.
30
25
20
15
10
5
ISEA
L&M
JEAH
JEC
SLM
IJLE
EMAL
EEPA
EP
IJEM
SESI
JEA
JEP
EAQ
0
Figure 1. Number of ‘strategy’ articles published in journals
15
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2 shows how the representation of published works has changed over
time in the 14 previously identified journals. Due to the low and inconsistent
numbers, the time periods are broken into five year intervals. The data is presented
as a percentage of the total number of articles published in the respective journals.
It should be noted that even at the highest point, articles about the strategic role of
the school leader never constituted more than 2.61% of articles published. Despite
a spike in interest during the early-mid nineties, arguably reflecting the publication
delay and the Education Reform Act, 1988 policy move in the UK, interest has
tended to peak around special issues, rather than any sustained inquiry. For some
this may indicate that the very need for a book on strategy in education is minimal
and poorly aligned with the literature of the field. However, the argument of this
book is that as a field, we need to re-conceptualize what it means to be strategic. At
present, as will be demonstrated throughout this chapter, the under-theorized nature
of work on the strategic role in education has reduced the term to a mere faddish
adjectival leadership which is of little value to both scholars and practitioners alike
(Mulford, 2007). Much of the work in the field is limited to normative models of
practice or lists of behaviours and traits demonstrated by strategic leaders. In doing
so, this body of work commits what Mitroff (1974) refers to as a Type III error, it
may be interesting to some, but it fails to develop or contribute to the question of
what is strategy and/or strategic behaviour.
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure 2. Percentage of articles over time
The time period 1996-2000 represents a spike in interest in the topic. The
heightened output in the period 1988-2000 has previously been referred to as the
‘formative years’ of our understanding of strategy as an educational leadership
construct (Eacott, 2008a). A major contributing factor for this increase in interest
was legislative changes in England, most notably the Education Reform Act, 1988.
This act made it mandatory for schools to have a ‘school development plan’. This
16
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
legislation gives particular emphasis to rationally planned strategic choices (Law &
Glover, 2003). A number of works have investigated the impact of this legislation
on practice (Bunnell, 2005; Davies & Coates, 2005; Giles, 1995; Lumby, 1999;
McNarmara, O’Hara, & Ni Aingleis, 2002; Saker & Speed, 1996). As the majority
of works in the sample originated in the England, the impact of this legislation
cannot be overlooked. A relatively recent special issue of Educational
Management Administration and Leadership 36(2) was devoted to the legacy of
this legislation on the practice of educational leadership.
Before moving on to unpack the methodological features of the literature a final
point of interest, at least to this author, is ‘Who is writing about strategy in
education?’ Of the 106 works in the sample, a total of 130 individual authors are
represented. While some authors consistently work together (e.g. Davies & Ellison;
Cuckle & Broadhead, later including Hodgson; Levačić & Glover) it is of interest
to investigate the most frequently published authors. The majority of authors were
responsible for less than two articles (in most cases, one). The most published
authors in the sample are Brent Davies and Derek Glover, each named on seven
papers. Rosalind Levačić and myself are listed as authors on five, Petros
Pashiardis, Brian Caldwell, Pat Cuckle and Pat Broadhead each had four and Les
Bell and Yin Cheong Cheng had three. If this data is divided by the number of
authors on the paper, rather than counting co-authored the same as solo authored,
the results slightly shift (Eacott – 5; Davies – 4.5; Caldwell – 4, Pashiardis – 3.5,
Glover – 2.95, Les Bell – 2.5, Corrie Giles – 2, Nigel Bennett – 2, Levačić – 1.95).
The ten most frequently published authors are responsible for a total of 37 papers
in the sample, representing 34.91%. While the sample drew on a large number of
authors, from a variety of journals, the bulk of works on strategy and educational
leadership came from a relatively small set of academics, published in a small set
of journals.
SCHOLARSHIP INFORMING THE LITERATURE
Further to the aim of this chapter, this section seeks to identify scholarship that has
had an important influence on the topic of strategy and educational leadership. For
this analysis, the previously identified sample was subjected to an analysis of their
reference lists. The goal was to identify articles and books that were heavily cited.
Self-citations were deleted. Table 2 provides a list of articles (by lead author) most
frequently cited in the sample.
Wallace’s (1991) article Flexible planning: a key to the management of multiple
innovations tops the list with 10 citations, representing 9.43% of the sample. It is of
course to be noted that work can be cited for both positive and negative reasons,
and that it is also possible to cite work without actually using the work. It should
also be noted that work may be cited outside the sample that is under investigation.
However, in general, having deleted the self-citations, there was very little
reference to previous work on the topic with most authors either calling on
previous work they had completed or the broader literature of educational
leadership and the leadership and management of organisations in general. The
17
CHAPTER 2
fourth column in Table 2 lists the first and last year in which the work was cited.
For example, Wallace was first cited in 1993 and most recently cited in 2008, so
authors found his work useful throughout a fifteen year span. Very few articles
however were cited over such an extended period of time. From this data, I argue
that educational leadership scholars investigating the role of strategy in school
leadership make limited (if any) use of the work of other educational leadership
scholars on the topic (or limit their reference to their own work).
Table 3. Most cited journal articles in the sample
Cites
10
First Author
Wallace, M.
8
Hargreaves, D.
8
Kaplan, R.S.
6
Bell, L.
6
Glover, D.
5
Broadhead, P.
5
Lumby, J.
4
Boal, K.B.
4
Crandall, D.
4
Eacott, S.
4
Hutchinson, B.
4
Levačić, R.
4
Tsiakkiros, A.
Article title / year published
Flexible planning: a key to the
management of multiple innovations
(1991).
Self-managing schools and development
planning – chaos or control (1995).
Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy
(1996).
From symphony to jazz: the concept of
strategy in education (1998).
Towards a school development plan:
process and practice (1990).
Improving primary schools through
school development planning: building a
vision, exploring the reality (1996).
Strategic planning in further education:
the business of values (1999).
Strategic leadership research: moving on
(2000).
Strategic planning issues that bear on the
success of school improvement efforts
(1986).
Strategy in educational leadership: in
search of unity (2008c).
The effective reflective school: vision and
pipedreams in development planning
(1993).
Relationship between efficient resource
management and school effectiveness:
evidence from OFSTED secondary school
inspections (1998).
Strategic planning and education: the case
of Cyprus (2002).
Years
1993-2008
1996-2008
2003-2009
2000-2010
1993-2008
1998-2008
2001-2008
2004-2010
1994-2008
2010
1995-2008
2000-2008
2003-2008
While missing from the table, a decision made to prevent the table spreading over a
single page, the location of the article is worth a very brief mention. Of the 13
18
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
articles which make up the top 10 cited pieces, five are published in Educational
Management Administration and Leadership (or its earlier title), two in School
Leadership and Management (or its earlier title) and no other journal features more
than once.
A further observation is that only two of the top cited articles are from beyond
the actual sample of the study, Boal and Hooijberg (2000) and Kaplan and Norton
(1996). Although, the four citations to Boal and Hooijberg all come from the same
author (Brent Davies), so despite appearing in the list, the impact of this paper on
the discourse has been limited to a single author. The Kaplan and Norton paper, as
with the book in the next table, is discussing the balanced scorecard. This
conceptual instrument has become increasingly popular in the discourse of strategy
in education and has been drawn upon by authors from many countries.
In contrast to journal articles, books maintain a far greater share of citations.
Table 3 provides a listing of the books, with lead authors, that were most
frequently cited. What is interesting among the most frequently cited books is the
balance between discipline specific examples (e.g. Hargreaves & Hopkins,
MacGilchrist et al., Hargreaves et al.) and those from beyond educational
leadership (e.g. Mintzberg, Ansoff, Peters, Kaplan, Porter). Mintzberg’s (1994)
Rise and fall of strategic planning was the most cited book, with a citation period
extending from 1997 through to 2010. With the exception of Peters and Waterman
(1982) and Kaplan and Norton (2002), the books listed on Table 4 were first cited
in the 1990s and continued to be cited post 2000 (although Ansoff was only cited
from 1990-1997). Kaplan and Norton (2002) was the most recent edition to the list
with the title The strategy focused organization (of which Brent Davies’ 2006 book
The strategically focused school is remarkably similar). Kaplan and Norton, as
noted in the above discussion on journal articles, are best known for their work on
the ‘balanced scorecard’ which has been the focus of attention in works by Bell
(2003), Kettunen (2005) and more recently McDevitt et al. (2008).
Only Kaplan and Norton and David Hargreaves appear on both lists. In another
phenomenon, Brent Davies, who has his name attributed to the greatest number of
publications in the sample, is not cited as much as would be expected. Yes his coauthored book with Linda Ellison appears on the list, but for someone so influential
in bringing strategy into the educational leadership discourse (e.g. editing three
special issues, not to mention other books and book chapter – see Davies, 2006;
Davies & Davies, 2005; Davies & Davies, 2010; Davies & Ellison, 1997, 1999,
2003a, 2003b, 2003c) it is amazing to think that his work does not get more
attention. Before completely moving on, another occurrence in the citations is that
books such as Johnson and Scholes (1988) Exploring corporate strategy, which
was very popular in the early to mid nineties – they even contributed a chapter to
Preedy, Glatter and Wise’s (2003) edited collection – did not make the list.
Johnson and Scholes developed a three stage model of strategic management:
strategic analysis; strategic choice; and strategic implementation and change. This
model provided useful for school leaders, and academics, in the period
immediately following the Education Reform Act, 1988. This framework has been
adopted by many others authors, including Fidler (2002b) and Tsiakkiros and
19
CHAPTER 2
Pashiardis (2002). Davies (2004a) argues that this model of strategic management
is the orthodoxy in educational institutions. In many respects, it is an extended
version of Andrews’ (1971) Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, or
SWOT analysis. Although not cited enough to make the list, the collective works
of Johnson and Scholes do have 20 citations overall, it is just spread across
numerous published versions of their model. A final omission of interest is that of
Andrews (1971). Credited with developing the SWOT analysis, his idea is
frequently referred to, but the seemingly common-sense of the idea is now so
embedded in our discourse of strategy and the management of change we forget to
cite.
Table 3. Most cited books in the sample
Cites
20
First Author
Minzberg, H.
17
Hargreaves, D.
16
MacGilchrist,
B.
13
Hargreaves, D.
12
Fidler, B.
11
11
10
Ansoff, H.
Davies, B.
Hargreaves, A.
9
7
Peters, T.
Bolman, L.
7
7
Caldwell, B.
Fullan, M.
7
7
Kaplan, R.
Porter, M.
Reference
The rise and fall of strategic planning
(1994).
The empowered school: the management
and practice of development planning
(1991).
Planning matters: the impact of
development planning in primary schools
(1995).
Planning for school development – advice
to governors, headteachers and teachers
(1989).
Strategic
management
for
school
development (1996, 2002b).
Corporate strategy (1965).
School development planning (1992).
Changing teachers, changing times:
teachers’ work and culture in the
postmodern age (1994).
In search of excellence (1982).
Reframing organizations: artistry, choice
and leadership (1984).
Leading the self-managing school (1992).
Change forces: probing the depths of
educational reform (1993).
The strategy focused organization (2001).
Competitive advantage (1980).
Years
1996-2010
1996-2006
1996-2010
1993-2002
1996-2008
1990-2010
1998-2008
1996-2006
1986-1999
1999-2010
1996-2010
1996-2008
2003-2010
1994-2010
While it is acknowledged that the choice of a reference for those other than the
author, is of limited meaning, and work can be cited due to its importance or
quality as much as it can be for its lack of, because the most popular texts in this
list have a long citation span, their enduring value to the study of the strategic role
of the school leader cannot be overlooked. To appreciate these identified works,
20
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
four are very briefly reviewed. An overview of the key issues and central
arguments of each work is provided. Debates that emerge within and between the
works are also discussed. This is designed to assist in understanding the
methodological choices made in the literature base of this chapter.
In what is described as a definitive and revealing history, Henry Mintzberg
(1994) explores the apparent rise and fall of strategic planning in organisations. He
argues that strategy is a word that is defined differently to how it is practiced.
While frequently it is defined as a ‘plan’, in the reality of organisational life it
appears as a ‘pattern’ that blends intended responses with responses that emerge
out of the changing organisational environment. Central to this work is the
distinction between ‘planning’ and ‘strategic thinking’. For Mintzberg, planning is
about analysis and breaking down a goal or set of intentions into steps. In contrast,
strategic thinking is about synthesis and involves intuition and creativity. The
outcome of which is an integrated perspective of the enterprise. This work moves
strategy from being a task to that of an organisational or individual quality.
Mintzberg also outlines what he sees as the three fallacies of strategic planning.
Initially the very notion that prediction is possible, secondly that a strategist can be
detached from the subjects of their strategies, and finally that the strategy-making
process can be formalised. He argues that the goal of those who promote strategic
planning is to reduce the power of managers in the strategy making process (this is
a notion taken up again in Chapter 4).
Hargreaves and Hopkins’ (1991) The empowered school: the management and
practice of development planning is a compilation of reports and advice provided
by the authors as a direct result of a UK Department of Education and Science
funded project in 1989-1990. The intended audience is anyone involved in
development planning and it is structured as a practical guide for action. The book
is divided into five parts, each with a different focus. Part one provides a rationale
for school development planning in the post Education Reform Act, 1988
environment. Building from this, part two provides a step-by-step guide to the
process of development planning. Chapter three explores the relationship between
schools and local education authorities. Part four (which consists of only one
chapter) positions development planning in the literature on school effectiveness
and school improvement. This chapter represents the only one with an academic,
albeit very pragmatic, focus in the book. The final section is a resource file that
school leaders could use to help inform and structure staff meetings and discussion
on development planning. Unlike Mintzberg, who takes a critical yet accessible
perspective to strategic planning and strategy, Hargreaves and Hopkins book is
aimed at practitioners and adopts a practical as opposed to scholarly perspective.
Kaplan and Norton’s (2001) The strategy focused organization draws on over
ten years of research in over 200 companies that have implemented the ‘balanced
scorecard’. Through the use of over 20 case studies, they outline how the balanced
scorecard has improved the quality of operations in organisations. The balanced
scorecard which was introduced in an article in Harvard Business Review (1982),
uses the language of measurement to more clearly define the meaning of strategic
concepts like quality, customer satisfaction and growth. Bishop and Limerick
21
CHAPTER 2
(2006) provide an example case of a public school system (Queensland, Australia)
adopting the balanced scorecard or a close derivation of it in the management of
schools. Building on from Lingard et al. (2003) who state that schools now operate
in a neo-liberal capitalist society and seek to at least maintain market share and
earlier work by Kaplan and Norton (1996) citing the heightened need for the
balanced scorecard in not-for-profit organisation, Bishop and Limerick (2006)
conclude that such models have a place in education, but not all the answers.
Wallace’s (1991) Flexible planning: A key to the management of multiple
initiatives draws on exploratory work by the author following the Education
Reform Act, 1988 in England and Wales. The paper had two purposes: i) to put
forward a model of strategic planning that was consistent with the chaotic situation
that existed at the time; and ii) to suggest how this model may inform action. By
describing the experiences of a few case studies – although discussion of
methodology is scarce – Wallace concludes by suggesting that management
development and training (interesting for the choice of ‘training’ as opposed to
‘learning’, arguably suggesting an underlying assumption about the role) needs far
greater attention to strategic planning in a turbulent environment. A somewhat
interesting argument given the level of predictability required for planning yet the
acknowledgement of a turbulent environment.
The four selected works briefly reviewed provide an overview of the most cited
works in the sample. While Mintzberg challenges the very nature of strategic
planning, Hargreaves and Hopkins, and to a lesser extent Kaplan and Norton
provide a step-by-step guide to the process. This arguably represents the two
different audiences of research and literature on the strategic role of school leaders.
Mintzberg provides a thought provoking (albeit cynical) take on the role of
strategic planning that can, and has been, taken up by fellow scholars. In the case
of Wallace, published in the academic journal of the British Educational
Leadership and Management Society (BELMAS also publish Management in
Education – which despite recently becoming a peer-reviewed journal – is
primarily a more practical-oriented journal), the primary audience of peer-reviewed
papers is academics. The lack of discussion on methodology combined with data
from on a small number of cases is a limitation that as we will see continues to
plague research on strategy in education. The other examples serve practitioners
with a guide book for implementing strategic formulation processes. Mintzberg
considers the strategic planning movement to have done to organisational
hierarchies what Taylorism did for routinisation and systematisation of manual
labour in American industry. He contends that sometimes strategies must be left as
broad visions, not precisely articulated to enable adaptation to changing
environments and that strategic change requires not merely re-arranging the
established categories of the organisation, but through the invention of new
categories. While the very value of strategic processes in an educational setting are
raised and to some extent questioned, the perception of market ideology and the
interpretation of educational policy appear to have provided sufficient rationale for
a plethora of books on ‘how to do’ strategic management.
22
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
METHODOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE LITERATURE
As with Scheurich (1994), I contend that how we see (epistemology) and what we
see (ontology) are interwoven. Researchers design their studies to observe
strategy/the strategic role in a way that is consistent with their definition and theory
of strategy (Van de Ven, 1992) and although most authors fail to explicitly identify
and outline the core assumptions that underlie their work, ‘all researchers make
such assumptions’ (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996, p. 337). However, such a stance
challenges the positivist notion of the researcher conducting studies as an impartial,
detached, value-neutral subject, who seeks to uncover clearly discernable objects
or phenomenon. While positivism remains the dominant discourse in educational
leadership (Biesta & Miron, 2002), all research is premised upon a variety of
assumptions, which good researchers make transparent in their work (Mir &
Watson, 2000). In this section, I am specifically concerned with the ontological and
epistemological assumptions of scholarship on the strategic role of the educational
leader (see Figure 3). Grounding the analysis of literature on ontological and
epistemological assumptions allows for a critical engagement with ideas that will
provide for discussion and debate in the advancement of knowledge. It is
significantly important for the development of a construct and the field in general
that the underlying perspectives of works are uncovered as they assist others to
understand the author’s point of view and by implication, the complexity and
sophistication of the field’s collective research.
Elements of Underlying Research Assumptions
Ontology
(The nature of reality)
Ë Ì
Realism
Reality is real and knowable, and
able to be separated from the
actors within it.
Relativism
Reality if socially constructed and
ever changing. Actors have
different conceptions.
Epistemology
(The nature of knowledge and what constitutes good knowledge)
Ë Ì
Realism
Relativism
Paradigm
(The inquiry lens)
Ë Ì
Positivist
Critical
realist
Constructivist
Pragmatic
Critical
Theory
Post
Structuralist
Figure 3. Elements of research design
23
CHAPTER 2
Before delving into the ontological and epistemological assumptions of work I
want to contextualise this discussion. To do so, I want to highlight the distribution
of works that are empirical and conceptual, mindful that such a simplistic binary is
somewhat problematic. The type of manuscript (e.g. conceptual or empirical) is a
basic choice made by researchers. Of the 106 articles identified, 65 (61.32%) were
empirical and 41 (38.68%) were conceptual. In similar studies in the field of
strategy, Hambrick (1986) reviewing works from 1980 to 1985 found 46%
empirical, Schwenk and Dalton (1991) found 60%, and Finkelstein and Hambrick
(1996) found 75%. This trend would generally indicate that theory development
and theory testing were occurring simultaneously. Although this notion is
contentious due to the nature of the studies being undertaken and the considerable
conceptual overlap of the work. Whereas in scientific communities, theory is
developed, tested and then further theory developed, educational leadership as a
field remains the domain of loosely coupled studies with little systematic testing
and further development of theoretical propositions. Work by both Mulford (2007)
and Bates and Eacott (2008) found that Australian scholars fail to acknowledge the
contributions of each other to the field and continue to produce work that is both
fragmented and blinkered. In addition, a number of works are empirical, drawing
on case studies, but the nature of the discussion is essentially conceptual with the
occasional data drop to support what could be described as editorialising.
Nevertheless, if the article drew on any form of data collection, it was classified as
empirical. Table 4 displays the incidence of empirical/conceptual works over the
time frame of the surveyed sample. The data indicates that empirical work on the
strategic role of educational leaders spiked during the period of 1996-2000.
Table 4. Incidence of empirical / conceptual work over time
Type
Empirical
Conceptual
1980-85
2
0
1986-90
1
4
Time Period
1991-95 1996-00
7
25
9
10
2001-05
12
11
2006-10
18
7
Ontological Assumptions
To ask the question ‘what is strategy?’ is to ask an ontological question. What is
missing in the literature sample of this chapter is discussion grounded in the
tradition of ontological thought. Although it maintains strong ties with planning,
the practice and concept of strategy has many varied meanings in the educational
leadership literature. Fidler (1996) writes that despite being a commonly used term
since in the early 1990s, it is not clearly defined and appears to mean little more
than a general reference to the longer-term. Beaver (2000) argues that the word
‘strategy’ has evolved so many meanings that it has become debased and overused.
Franklin (1998) observes:
24
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
The word strategy is brought out under the cover of darkness when writers
and speakers, theorists and managers are looking for a more impressive word
than ‘important’. The idea of strategic objectives sounds much more
impressive than the idea of business objectives on their own. The idea of
business policy sounds second-rate to the idea of a business strategy. The
idea of strategy and its common usage has reified the term so that no selfrespecting scholar or manager fails to engage in strategy to other apparently
more mundane issues. (p. 313)
This lack of clarity devalues and misrepresents the construct and is damaging to
both theory and practice. Very few scholars in educational leadership explicitly
articulate their ontological assumptions. As a construct, strategy remains elusive
(Fidler, 2002b) and somewhat abstract (Ansoff, 1965). Quong et al. (1998)
describe it as one of the most frustrating, paradoxical and misunderstood concepts
in leadership literature. Frequently the term is used to describe a range of activities
(Davies, 2004b) but most often it is explicitly linked with planning (Bell, 1998,
2002). However, whereas in the sociological inspired analysis of human and
organisational activity (see Bates, 2006a) theoretical entities and practices are
labelled post hoc by researchers, in the case of strategy in education, the label of
‘strategic’ is most often applied a priori. This has significant ontological
implications.
While many articles in the sample are critical of the way in which strategy is
operationalised and/or practised in schools (see Bell, 2002) and some evidence of
ontological constructionism (see Daly & Finnigan, 2010; Inbar, 1991), the majority
of works are from an objectivist perspective. From this perspective, researchers
assume an external reality that is knowable and that individuals (e.g. strategists)
and subjects (strategy) are unique and identifiable. This is evidence of an
ontological realist perspective, where the underlying assumption is of an external
reality independent of our comprehension of it. The realist perspective serves as a
major undercurrent in leadership preparation programs across the world (see Bates
& Eacott, 2008; English, 2006; Lumby & English, 2009). Godfrey and Hill (1995)
suggest that a realist position offers the only way forward for a field such as
strategy. In research on strategy in education, as in most fields, it makes sense to
hold on to a notion of ontological realism, one where the existence of phenomena
themselves is taken for granted. For example, one does not need to argue that
people working together in educational institutions produce tangible objects such
as schoolwork. Problems arise when researchers extend this realism into the
epistemological realm and the assumption that the theories developed are mirrors
of reality.
A distinctive feature of the literature base of this chapter is how policy
documents/acts of legislation have shaped the ontological reality. Using the work
of Cuckle and colleagues (see Cuckle & Broadhead, 2003; Cuckle, Broadhead et
al., 1998; Cuckle, Hodgson et al., 1998) it is possible to argue that the Education
Reform Act, 1988 in the UK and subsequent moves at the Office for Standards in
Education (OfSTED) actually came to define what it was to be strategic and to plan
strategically. This phenomenon is explored empirically in Chapter 4. The defining
25
CHAPTER 2
of what is strategy/strategic by official documents enables the researcher to remove
strategy from an individual and a unique social space (both physical and temporal)
and conceptualise it as something that can be measured and taught/learnt.
The alternate to realism is relativism. Ontological relativists contend that there is
not one external reality. Rather individuals socially construct reality. From this
perspective, there are multiple realities and everything is socially constructed.
There is a substantial critical literature on this perspective (Campbell, 1988; Green,
Camilli, & Elmore, 2006). As noted previously, there is some evidence of
ontological constructionism in the sample, however this is both minimal and does
not go to the extent of recognising multiple realities. This work recognises that
alternate points of view exist but still an underlying assumption of an empirically
verifiable reality, just different points of view rather than alternate realities.
Epistemological Assumptions
A recent epistemological review of educational administration by Oplatka (2009)
highlights the ‘recycling’ that takes place in the field. That is, the long standing
debates over similar ideas, assumptions and insights about educational
administration. Interestingly, Park (2001) presents a linear history of
epistemological developments in the field. Yet in doing so, he conforms to what
English (2002) calls ‘the point of scientificity’. Like Culbertson (1988), Park
demarcates a point in time where study in the field began, ignoring all that came
before. A consistent theme of epistemological reviews in the field has been the
dominance of positivism or logical empiricism (see Bates, 1980; Bhola, 2002;
Biesta & Miron, 2002; English, 2001, 2003). The positivist or logical empiricism
paradigm assumes one reality. For example, many realist studies of strategy in
education assume the existence of a single overt institutional identity. They view
the school as an entity which is efficiency-oriented, seeks to maximize its potential,
and is governed by a single organisational reality. Such a view denies the existence
of multiple realities or even perspectives in schools. This realist stance treats
schools as single entities. Therefore, there is an assumption of a knowable reality
with a degree of certainty. Combined with this certainty is the question of
reliability and validity of the work. However, across the scope of the literature
base, the questions of reliability and validity are notably absence.
Across the sample there are a number of works that rely on questionnaires (see
Kriemadis, 1997; Neumann & Neumann, 1999) and the analysis of OfSTED
reports (see Bennett, Crawford, Levačić, Glover, & Earley, 2000; Cuckle, Hodgson
et al., 1998). These are evident of an objective epistemology. In addition, although
a number of works call upon interviews and the narratives of school leaders (see
Forshaw, 1998; McDevitt, et al., 2008), there is still an underlying assumption of
objectivism. Notions of validity and reliability are not addressed and the certainty
of the data is based on having adhered to principles of scientific research. Some
seek to address these issues through triangulation of data (see Bunnell, 2005;
Cuckle & Broadhead, 2003; McTavish, 2006), yet there is a dearth of discussion in
26
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
relation to the central issues of trustworthiness of data – a central feature of
objectivism.
Drawing on the work of Campbell (1988) and Mir and Watson (2000), it is
possible to represent the ontological and epistemological positions of the literature
in a 2 x 2 matrix (see Figure 4). As seen here, the scholarship of strategy in
education has traditionally been from a realist perspective, both ontologically and
epistemologically. However, it should be noted that despite identifying an
epistemological realist perspective in the body of work, much of the work remains
under-theorised. This is arguably the result of underlying normative/ethical
concerns in the work.
Realism
Ontology
X
Epistemology
X
Relativism
Figure 4. Matrix of ontology / epistemology perspective
Ethical/Normative Assumptions
Much of the research on educational leadership finds its raison d’être in what
many believe to be the key mission of professional schools (e.g. education,
business, nursing), that is, to develop knowledge that can be translated into skills
that advance the practice of professionals (Kondrat, 1992; Simon, 1976; Van de
Ven & Johnson, 2006). This professionalization of knowledge has been a barrier to
the effective linking of knowledge claims and action (Lagemann, 1997) in
education as a discipline and educational leadership specifically. Theory and
practice are construed as distinct kinds of knowledge. While complementary, they
possess different ontological (truth claims) and epistemological (ways of knowing)
perspectives for addressing problems of practice. In an attempt to address the
theory-practice nexus, many researchers have sought to produce work which will
help educational leaders in their daily activities. As Gunter (2010) argues, theory
only seems to matter if it can directly translate into particular decisions to be made
and implemented at 9:00am on a Monday morning. The preoccupation with the
‘real’ work of educational leaders, demonstrating ties to functionalism, positions
scholarship on strategy in education as a problem solving tool for managers in
educational institutions. In doing so, it does not emphasise the many subtle ways in
which cultural, social, historical and political forces, both individual and
organisational might influence practice.
Rather than derive a sophisticated conceptualisation of practice from social
theorists such as Bourdieu (1977, 1990, 1998) or Foucault (1977), the research
27
CHAPTER 2
agenda of strategy in education has utilised a narrow and under-theorised view of
practice. It has limited itself to ‘what people do’, restricted to the bodily
movements of actors and the functional implications of such actions. This
sociologically naïve (Carter et al., 2008) and under-developed conceptualisation of
practice fails to engage with the discursive nature of social interactions. After all,
Sun Tzu, a Chinese military strategist, made the point some 3000 years ago that all
men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy
out of which great victory has evolved. Such a positioning of strategy requires a
deeper sociological theoretical position than has traditionally been the case. As
noted by Gunter (2010), in recent times there seems to be an emergence of work
that is more sociologically informed and in the context of a post Global Financial
Crisis world, the seduction of economic and managerialist assertions is ripe for
crushing. This book contributes to this emerging discourse. In the sample there is
an emerging voice of more sociologically informed work (see Daly & Finnigan,
2010; Eacott, 2010a, 2010c; Ryan, 2010), or bringing new perspectives to the
discourse (Glanz, 2010), yet this remains in the minority.
In general, the literature sample on the strategic role of the school leader is
arguably written for an audience of practitioners. The theoretical perspectives taken
in the identified works serve the knowledge requirements of school leaders as
opposed to fostering any form of theoretical evolution, that is, increasing levels of
sophistication of the construct. The managerial, practical orientation of the
literature is atheoretical, non-rigorous, jargonistic and commonsensical. In general,
scholars investigating the strategic role of school leaders have reduced their work
to that of description. There are examples of outlining different models of strategic
leadership and management (Cheung & Cheng, 1996, 1997; Davies & Davies,
2006), describing the experience of a school or institution with different strategic
models (Bell, 2003; Hatton, 2001; Jones, 1996; Mather, 1998), and general how to
do it better approaches. Underlying this work is a pragmatic approach to
educational leadership research that is focused on improving practice. This is not
overtly surprising given that most end-users of research look for technical solutions
to problems of policy and practice (Riehl & Firestone, 2005). It is this desire for
solutions that legitimises and supports the expansion of objectivist research as it is
more ‘scientific’ and pragmatic empiricism because it is accessible. This is not to
suggest that academics should not concern themselves with issues of what works,
but that there is a need for balance. The work by Dimmock and Walker (2004)
provides an example of a quasi-critical perspective and Inbar (1991) uses metaphor
to problematise educational planning. The most dominant position taken within the
sample is that of uncritical adoption of market ideology/neoliberal policy. Working
from Thrupp and Willmott’s (2003), much of the sample falls into an overt or
subtle apologist frame. Moving beyond the apolitical nature of a ‘how to’
approach, the textual apologist brings into their discussion post-welfarist reform,
market ideology and the managerialist project, yet their stance is either uncritically
supportive, barely acknowledging the social implications associated with it, or not
strong enough to provide a serious challenge to the status quo. Work focused on
making better decisions and that better strategy will equal a better organisation
28
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
with higher levels of student performance and satisfaction from the community
fails to critically engage with the measures of school success or the inherent social
inequality of the market. Just as the move toward evidence based decision making
has cloaked the discursive mechanisms surrounding who sets the criteria of what
makes a good school, strategic planning and the pursuit of higher levels of
performance and market share has schools busy playing the game rather than
engaging with the game. This is why in the broader discourse, English (2003)
argues that data driven decision making actually dumbs down schools as the key
decisions of what is important are taken away from educators by bureaucrats and
Gunter (2010) claims that in such contexts, the thought that decisions could be
made the pedagogical space that exists between student and educator is ignored in
favour of an externally driven intervention.
Arguably the presumed value of the topic of strategy for school leadership is the
improvement of schooling. The challenge with this however, is that the vision of
schooling is highly contested. Depending on one’s perspective, the value of actions
will be different. Therefore, I am not advocating that researchers adopt a single
normative approach to the exclusion of all others – although a substantive case
could be made for a social justice perspective – as such a dogmatic approach would
offer little to the topic. Rather than urging researchers to retreat to a state of
disciplinary isolation or specialisation (Thomas & Pruett, 1993), building on from
Thomas and Carroll (1992), it is more sensible to adopt the viewpoint that the
phenomenon of strategy in school leadership can be, and often should be, viewed
through more than one lens. In the spirit of a balanced discussion and theoretical
pluralism, the clashes of different perspectives may stimulate thought and help to
extend existing theories and/or develop new ones.
Theory of ‘Subject’
Rumelt (1979) contends that the kind of situations that call for strategic thinking
and analysis are those that are ill structured and therefore difficult and ambiguous.
Weick (1989) argues that it is impossible to construct a theory that is both accurate
and simple. Having been present in educational settings since the 1970s (El Hout,
1994) and the literature for over 25 years, strategy remains strongly associated with
rational approaches to corporate management.
Much of the literature takes a ‘best practice’ approach, identifying the
conditions for the successful implementation of strategic management programs
(Brown, 2004). Arguably, this is the result of conceptualising strategy as a tool for
leading and managing an organisation. The original emergence of strategy in
educational administration literature was under the title ‘School business
administration’ (see Jordan & Webb, 1986). It was seen as an analytical framework
taken from business and applied within education. This is not specific to strategy in
education. Gunter (2010) argues that many reform initiatives or interventions into
education ignore the notion that ideas can come from the pedagogical space that is
the school in favour of importing ideas from beyond.
29
CHAPTER 2
Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis (2002) draw attention to the word strategy and its
origin from the Greek word strategos, which means ‘a general and the leader of the
army’ (p. 6). This is arguably why much of the literature assigns strategy and
strategy development with an individual within an organization. In contrast,
Watson and Crossley (2001) describe strategy from an alternate perspective,
emphasizing that how a school’s strategy is put together and operated, reinforces or
challenges meaning among organizational members. They state that:
Strategy is not neutral or valuefree, but emerges from a melee of
organizational vested interests, personal agendas and ambitions, and the
utilization of power. From this perspective a reliance upon the concept as an
inherently rational and logical process, and a bulwark against the ambiguity
of organizational life, is not only problematic but highly questionable. (p.
117)
Davies (2003) states that strategy is ‘a specific pattern of decisions and actions
taken to achieve an organisation's goals’ (p. 295). He emphasises however, that
strategy and strategic planning are not synonymous activities. Later (Davies,
2004a) he adds that strategy may consist of two sub-concepts, one concerned with
the broad major dimensions of the organisation and the other with the medium to
longer term. He suggests that instead of being associated with a linear plan,
strategy might usefully be thought of instead as a perspective, as a way of looking
at things. It provides the template against which to set short term planning and
activities. In a related argument, Leader (2004) adds, that strategy is a proactive
rather than reactive means of translating decisions into actions.
Returning to the conceptual definitions of strategy, Kettunen (2005) states that
strategy implies the movement of an organisation from its present position,
described by the mission, to a desirable, but uncertain, future position, described by
the vision.
There has simply been no agreement on a single definition of strategy within
education. This is arguable because strategy in education research is
multidisciplinary (Brown, 1997) and interdisciplinary (Schendel, 1994; Watson,
1997) as indicated by the diverse literature base that informs the discussion.
However, there is an absence of literature from a sociological, philosophical or
historical perspective. Although such a pluralistic position – uncommon in
educational administration – is inherently subject to the criticism that it does little
to foster any paradigmatic development. However, strategy in the educational
leadership context is an area of practice and application, where practitioner trends
have led the way and scholars are left to play catch up to understand the
continually changing context. A limitation of this context is that occasionally
practitioner trends can take a very narrow or incorrect focus. This renders the
construct unlikely to ever be governed by a single definition. However, what is
needed is a conceptual understanding and articulation of the fundamental
dimensions of strategy to refocus research.
For research on the application of strategy in education, the selection of a unit of
analysis is a critical conceptual choice that has implications for the theoretical
30
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
development of an argument. Research on the strategic role of school leaders is
concerned with individual decision makers, management teams, departments,
divisions, firms, populations of like-firms and whole industries and organisation
fields (St John, 2005). However, unlike other research fields that may successfully
isolate their unit of analysis from contextual influences, strategy researchers must
consider their unit of analysis within a larger context, arguably a rationale for the
use of theories from the wider social sciences. The unit of analysis proved a
difficult lens through which to examine the literature in the identified knowledge
base. In the corporate world, the unit of analysis used in strategy research may
include chief executive officers, executive teams, board of directors or entire firms.
In contrast the works surveyed in the sample primarily focus on plans or the linear
rational process of constructing a plan. This represents a significant flaw in
research on the strategic role of educational leaders. Focusing solely on a plan or
the planning process implies that strategy is merely the formulation of a plan or
priorities (commonly referred to as ‘strategic process’ or ‘strategic choice’
research). This excludes other aspects of strategy such as implementation,
evaluation, cycles and the subtle ebbs and flows of power in relationships. With the
exception of Davies and Davies (2004) and other sporadic examples (Dimmock &
Walker, 2004; Leggate & Thompson, 1997; Murgatroyd, 1991; Neumann &
Neumann, 1999) the focus on a plan as if it were an inanimate object restricts
strategy research and teaching to a mechanistic perspective. This has led to a
situation where the management of planning processes, usually referred to as
‘strategic management’, has been limited to a model of rational decision making.
Levačić and Glover (1997, 1998) label this as a ‘technicist-rational’ approach. This
approach is consistent with what Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) call ‘strategic
rationality’, where the manager’s task is to ‘identify techno-economic opportunities
and problems, systematically search for and weigh alternatives, and make choices
that maximize firm performance’ (p. 337). Frequent reference is made to models of
collaborative leadership and involving others in the process, implying that strategic
leadership and management is a shared responsibility. Some articles make explicit
reference to political or legal contexts (such as the Education Reform Act) shaping
the strategic process (Bell & Chan, 2005; Giles, 1995; McNarmara et al., 2002;
Radford et al., 2003). Symbolism is not explored as a form of strategic leadership
and management in the literature. This possibly suggests an instrumental bias in the
collective perceptions of what educational leaders do. Assumptions concerned with
linear rational planning and decision making are based on the simplistic model of
strategy such as the one proposed by Johnson and Scholes (1988) which includes
strategic analysis, strategic choice and strategic implementation and change.
Davies (2004b) argues that Johnson and Scholes (1988) is a significantly overused
perspective of strategy in the field of educational leadership. The work of Bryson
(2004) in the public and not for profit sector is also becoming increasingly popular
in some parts of the world. For strategy to continue to develop as an educational
leadership construct in its own right, scholars must begin to see strategy as more
than the rational process of writing and implementing a plan.
31
CHAPTER 2
Methods Employed
As might be expected, a variety of design and research methods are used in the
scholarship of strategy and school leadership. The focus in this section is on a
small set of key characteristics that describe the methods employed in the work.
The key characteristics are sampling (both size and strategy), data sources,
statistical techniques and the time frame of the study. This selection of
characteristics is consistent with previous work by Finkelstein and Hambrick
(1996) and Eacott (2008a) and represents the most commonly found research
methods reported in empirical journal articles. As this section is focused on the
details of research methods, it only examines empirical studies (n=65).
Sampling: The sample of a study operates at two inter-related but distinct levels:
the first being the strategy for selection; and the second, the size. Investigating the
sampling strategies of the empirical literature provides additional insight into the
nature of knowledge on the topic. Bergh et al. (2004) believe that most researchers’
natural inclination is to use samples where they expect to find support for their
hypothesized relationships. This is even an issue with the single case study (a
frequently used research design in the corpus).
The most frequently used sampling strategy is that of ‘convenience’ (see
Table 5). One potential reason for that occurrence is that educational research, and
particularly educational leadership research, is frequently not well supported or
funded by external agencies, making it difficult to conduct large scale studies. A
point strongly argued by Mulford (2007). In addition, at least in Australia, research
by Holbrook and colleagues (2000) argues that higher degree researchers (e.g.
doctoral and master’s students) account for more than 60% of personnel
conducting education research.
Table 5. Distribution of sampling strategies (N=65)
Sampling strategy
Convenience
Population
Purposive
Quasi-experimental
Random
Representative
Snowball
Unclear
Percentage
13.85
9.23
27.69
3.07
9.23
4.62
3.07
29.23
The sample size used in the empirical research on strategic leadership in schools
varied immensely. The largest sample size in the sample was a questionnaire phase
of the English National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy conducted by Leithwood
32
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
and colleagues (see Leithwood et al., 2004) in which a total of 4036 responses
were received. This is made up of 1972 in the National Literacy Strategy (176
principals, 1501 teachers and 299 consultants) and 2064 in the National Numeracy
Strategy (197 principals, 1527 teachers and 340 consultants). The next largest is
505 participants (Broadhead et al., 1996). The smallest sample was a single
participant. A moderating factor on sample size was the data source. As data
sourced through observation is generally more difficult to obtain, the expectation
would be for smaller sample size. In contrast, data sourced through document
analysis or questionnaire is easier to obtain and consequently a larger sample size
might be expected. Some questionnaire based studies made reference to the
response rates. These ranged from 36.5% (Brock, 1997) to 89% (Giles, 1995), with
most falling between 65-80%. The actual highest reported response rate was 98%
(Daly & Finnigan, 2010), but this was for a sub-group within a study rather than an
overall project response rate. Within the sample, there is no reference to the use of
power tables (see Cohen, 1988) or other forms of statistical analysis to validate
sample size.
Data Sources: For the purpose of this analysis, data sources are categorized into
five types – archival/document analysis, observation, interview, questionnaire and
self-report/narrative. Each empirical work is assigned to at least one of the five
types of data sources. Data deriving from interviews is the most frequently
employed (40.00%, n=26). Observation is the least frequently employed data
source (9.23%, n=6). Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) acknowledge the difficulty
in studying strategy through observation primarily because strategic
leadership/management behaviours and their results are only evident after a time
delay. But they warn that strategy research suffers from a reliance on sterile
archival and survey data. This is a feature of this corpus as many studies focused
on the analysis of OfSTED reports and using those reports to identify schools. In
fact, many of the studies that employed a purposive sampling strategy utilised
OfSTED reports as criteria for identifying ‘strategic’ schools. The role of policy
shaping the ontological reality of researchers is discussed in later chapters.
Table 6. Distribution of data sources (N=65)
Data source
Archival / document analysis
Questionnaire
Interviews
Observation
Self-report / narrative
Unclear
Percentage
29.23
36.92
40.00
9.23
13.85
6.15
Table 7 provides a comparison of the results from similar studies within the
field of strategic management (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick, 1986;
Saunders & Thompson, 1980; Schwenk & Dalton, 1991; Shrivastava & Lim,
33
CHAPTER 2
1989). Although each of these studies does not cover the same sample or deliver
the same detail, several patterns are present. Work from the field of strategic
management has a higher frequency of data derived from archives and
questionnaires whereas education based work displays a far greater propensity for
interviews and even observation. This is a potentially a strength of educational
leadership based work on strategy as Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) state that
despite the attraction of archival data (relatively low cost of obtaining and superior
reliability), it does raise concerns of research becoming sterile with considerable
leadership activities being lost in a ‘black box’ (see Trim & Lee, 2004).
Table 7. Other reviews of data sources in strategy research
Period
N
Sources
Archival
Questionnaire
Interview
Observation
Experiment
Saunders
and
Thompson
(1980)
1979
18
39
39
50
28
11
1980-85
23
Shrivastava
and
Lim
(1989)
1960-82
98
Schwenk
and
Dalton
(1991)
1986-87
91
Finkelstein
and
Hambrick
(1996)
1980-94
109
65
39
43
0
0
28
28
33
0
11
49
32
5
0
3
68
33
22
5
6
Hambrick
(1986)
Measurement: The use of statistical techniques in the works is examined to develop
an understanding of how researchers have investigated the phenomenon of strategy
in education. Very few studies use statistical techniques beyond the reporting of
percentages, frequencies or means (n=6). Of the 65 empirical works, 19 drew on
quantitative techniques. The dominant mode of analysis was reporting the
frequency or percentage of activities. Some examples did draw on more complex
analysis. Brock (1997) used a z-test, Kriemadis (1997) used a chi-square, Goldring
and Pastnerack (1994) used discriminant analysis, Leithwood et al. (2004) called
upon correlations, Levačić and Glover (1998) used ANOVA, Bauer and Bogotch
(2006) use path-modelling, and Midthassel et al. (2000) called on the greatest
number of techniques using t-test, correlations, path analysis, and parameter
estimates. While not quite statistical measurement, Daly and Finnigan (2010) use
social-network analysis.
Overall, statistical techniques are rarely used in the interpretation of data. This is
not to prescribe the use of statistical techniques in the study of the strategic role. In
many cases, the specific research question/s of the work (e.g. How do school
leaders go about school development planning?) does not require the use of
statistical techniques. Despite a variety of alternate methods (e.g. cluster analysis,
event history) no analytical technique has gained prominence. The conservatism
34
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
and low level of sophistication of approach (mere description) counters the
complaint that researchers use more complex statistical techniques than necessary
(Daft, 1986). While it remains unclear as to whether different techniques would
yield better insights, the move toward a wider set of statistical methods, assuming
that they are empirically appropriate, ‘would at least help ensure that we are not
unnecessarily constrained to established approaches, and it might even help
establish the robustness of our findings’ (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996, p. 349).
In addition, despite calls for statistical reform in educational leadership (Byrd,
2007), education as a discipline (Thompson, 1996) and other disciplines such as
marketing (Sawyer & Ball, 1981) and strategy research (Mazen, Hemmasi, &
Lewis, 1987), not to mention the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (APA), the use of confidence intervals and effect sizes
was not reported in any study in the sample.
Time Frame: The empirical works from the sample were examined in relation to
the dynamism embedded in the research design. They have been viewed as to
whether the data used in the research was cross sectional or longitudinal. While
there are examples of studies which extended over a couple of years (see Brazer,
Rich, & Ross, 2010; MacGilchrist & Mortimore, 1997), contained phases
stretching over multiple years (see Cuckle & Broadhead, 2003), or included
follow-up studies (see Neumann & Finlay-Neumann, 1994; Neumann & Neumann,
1999), the overwhelming majority of works were static cross-sectional projects.
This pattern is consistent with previous work by Hambrick (1986), Schwenk and
Dalton (1991), Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) and Eacott (2008a) and cross
sectional methods have remained the pre-dominant mode of analysis in empirical
strategy research since its inception (Bowen & Wiersma, 1999).
Causality Implied
Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) define causal logic as ‘the underlying set of
relationships among major constructs that form the basis for propositions tested,
generated, or implied’ (p. 333). Causal models present predicted relationships
between administrator behaviours and outcomes variables in a variety of ways
(Pitner, 1988). These are present in both conceptual and empirical works, as most
works either propose a relationship or test a particular relationship. Finkelstein and
Hambrick (1996) use four constructs (strategic leadership, environment, firm
performance, organisation form or conduct) to conceptualise causal models in
strategy research. Previously, I have used this framework to discuss causation in
the discourse about strategy in educational leadership. For this analysis, strategic
leadership refers to any aspect of leadership by the principal (whether
characteristics or behaviours). The environment is defined as any external stimulus
on the school (e.g., contextual changes, legislation, market place uncertainty).
Organisation form and conduct includes all aspects of the school that are not from
the strategic leadership construct. Performance refers to the measures of school
35
CHAPTER 2
effectiveness, as indicated by such factors as enrolment, exam results and student
learning.
Using these four constructs to distinguish the causal models used in strategy
research, it is possible to classify causal models into four categories: as an
independent construct; dependent construct; moderator construct; or both an
independent and dependent construct (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). Strategic
leadership as an independent construct implies that strategic leadership has an
effect on performance or organisation form or conduct. When portrayed as a
dependent construct implies that the environment, organisation form or conduct or
performance affects strategic leadership. Strategic leadership as a moderator
construct implies that strategic leadership when linked with a second construct
affects a third construct. When portrayed as an independent and dependent
construct simultaneously implies that strategic leadership effects strategic
leadership. Table 8 provides a breakdown of the different types of relationships
examined or proposed in the above mentioned analysis.
Table 8. Analysis of causal models (Source:Eacott, 2008a)
Type of causal model
School leadership as an independent construct
Æ Organisational structure
School leadership
Æ School performance
School leadership
No. of works
16
7
9
School leadership as a dependent construct
Æ School leadership
Environment
Æ School leadership
Organisational structure
Æ School leadership
School performance
19
14
4
1
School leadership as a moderator construct
Æ Organisational structure
Environment and School
leadership
Æ School performance
Environment and School
leadership
Æ School performance
Organisational structure and
School leadership
Æ Organisational structure
School performance and
School leadership
11
1
School leadership as an independent and dependent construct
Æ School leadership
School leadership
5
5
4
6
0
In this analysis, strategy was most frequently modelled as a dependent construct,
especially as dependent on the environment. This analysis shows that the research
on strategy in the sample with a clearly identifiable causal model viewed the
environment and strategic leadership as closely aligned. This is not surprising
36
ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE
given the current market ideology of western education systems and the push for
evidence based decision making.
Since undertaking this analysis, I must admit to being far less inclined to
compartmentalise causal models in relation to strategy and school leadership. I am
drawn to Weick’s (1995) argument that, strategist act, and in doing so they create
the constraints and opportunities they encounter. Pondy and Mitroff (1979) define
strategy as an ‘enacted phenomenon’ (p. 17). One where the strategist plays a
major role in producing the market they face. Given my own theoretical preference
for Bourdieu, I find causation a much more complex notion than previously. That
being said, in the corpus from which this chapter is based there are a few clear
underlying causal assumptions at play. Firstly, there is a clear assumption that
leadership matters and it has an effect, even if indirect, on student outcomes – the
chief measure of school performance. Secondly, there is an assumption that
strategy is in a bounded relationship with the specific context of the school. This
bounded relationship has much of the work that is described as strategic being
dependent on what policy says (e.g. The Education Reform Act, 1988). A third, but
somewhat more implicit assumption is that market position matters. This is much
harder to get a grasp of, yet as Thrupp and Willmott (2003) argue, much of the
work on strategy in education has an uncritical adoption of market ideology. The
belief in strategy as a means to bring about competitive advantage – even if the
actual written argument is advancing school performance – displays a belief in the
mechanisms of the market. It is this assumption that arguably contributes to the
normative push for problem solving scholarship.
CONCLUSION
Research is inextricably linked with theory; therefore, the misconceptions and
ambiguities surrounding theory are reflected in the ‘interpretation of the meaning
and purpose of research’ (Hoy & Miskel, 2001, p. 6). Considering that research has
tended to follow practitioner trends (e.g. the spike in research following the
Education Reform Act, 1988 in the UK), research on strategy in education has been
limited in its selection of unit of analysis to that of a plan or a planning process.
Recent trends seem to suggest a move towards an integrative perspective of
strategic leadership in education, yet there still remains a number of content and
methodological refinements required (e.g. a move away from small-scale case
studies; the analysis of strategic leadership behaviours and practitioner
perspectives) to further inform the debate and develop a more sophisticated theory,
or at least model, of strategy in educational leadership.
In summary, the analysis presented in this chapter indicates that the conceptual
characteristics of research on strategy in schools have yet to exhibit considerable
stability and/or a coherent research agenda during the last 30 years (Table 9
provides an overview of the previous discussion). The concept of strategy remains
misunderstood and is commonly applied as little more than a vacuous adjective.
While recent works indicate a shift towards a more integrated conceptual model of
strategy in schools, the elusiveness of strategy as a concept has posed considerable
37
CHAPTER 2
issues for researchers when selecting a unit for analysis. The conceptual framework
provided by Davies and Davies (2004) signifies a shift towards the strategists who
enact strategic decisions rather than the eventual document they produce. Through
a greater integration of perspectives, the picture of strategy in education that
emerges is far more complex than the prescribed rational model of strategic
management. Instead, the strategic role is characterised by constraints, limitations,
flaws and biases similar to those faced by the practicing strategists on a daily basis.
Table 8. Summary of methodological features of the corpus
Methodological feature
Ontology
Epistemology
Normative/ethical
Theory of subject
Methods employed
Causality implied
38
As present in the literature
Strategy is part of an external reality that is knowable. It is
possible to identify the unique characteristics or dimensions
of strategic action, whether they be individual or
organisational properties.
Combined with the ontological realism, there is a perception
of objectivity to research on strategy in education. However,
little, if any, attention is paid to issues of reliability or
validity and the degree of certainty is addressed through
adherence to the principles of ‘scientific’ research.
Strategy is perceived as a means to bring about
improvements in schooling. Both its purpose and value lies
in its focus on improving organisational, and arguably
individual, performance.
The body of work has focused on the rationalisation of
practice, including both the nature of decisions made by
individuals and the degree of agency of those
individuals/schools.
A wide range of methods have been used with particular
preference given to interviews, questionnaires and
documentary analysis frequently of a static / cross-sectional
nature. The analysis however is under-developed, with little
reference to theory.
An uncritical adoption of market mechanisms combined
with the notion that leadership matters for organisational
performance.