The body of research on the career prospects of Black and minority ethnic (BME) teachers cites racism as one of the reasons for BME underrepresentation in positions of school leadership in England. Understanding the nature of such discriminatory practices is needed in order to find solutions. It has also been reported that pioneer BME leaders are perceived as role models. Such a claim is mainly based on their appointment rather than their action or inaction in facilitating the career progression of other members of BME staff. To address these gaps, this study draws on electronic survey data of eight respondents out of ten, two of whom provided rich written and interview narratives. The data were analysed under the group-based identity formation framework to suggest that the underrepresentation of BME staff due to racism can be explained by head teachers’ prototypicality of group/team values and their failure to deviate from these. That a BME senior leader acted in the same way highlights the following: the dominance of the role of head as a group prototype; the need to challenge deep-seated discrimination; and the view that increased representation needs to be matched with modified school-wide attitude.
This article investigates the role of emotions of inspectors while inspecting schools as reported by inspectors themselves within an education context of increased accountability that arguably privileges rationality over emotions. The study is built on an emotion management framework that regards emotions not only as unavoidably natural and intimately linked to 'rational' judgements that people make, but also that such judgements are social constructions used to regulate expression of emotions. In-depth interview data of one retired and another, semiretired Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), inspectors were thematically analysed to assess the extent to which their emotions formed part of school inspections. In the absence of an officially sanctioned narrative of inspectors' emotions during inspections, two kinds of self-prescribed emotions emerged as key findings: emotions for accountability, to which inspectors gave expression, and emotions for improvement, that they suppressed. For an inspection body that needs to ensure both accountability and improvement of schools to justify its viability, these research claims open up a new area of discussion that should lead to a review of inspection body's stance on emotions and individual inspectors' self-reflections on the moral as well as professional obligation to pursue both emotions for accountability and improvement.
Communalism, otherwise known as ‘Ubuntu’ in African literature, has come to signify the philosophical and ethical thought capable of transforming behaviours/lives and restoring the continent’s cultural identity. This potent energy is explored in this article with a critical discussion of the conceptual, cultural and operational statuses of Ubuntu. While inhumanity across Africa has prompted some to question its viability, others – including the author of this article – see, in these testing times, an opportunity to reinvent the concept. Using narrative data from two urban primary head teachers based in Kinshasa/Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the article highlights unique Ubuntu operational patterns of understanding others’ needs, negotiating and prioritising needs, assessing available resources, attending to others’ needs, and raised expectations and commitment to organisational goals. This process, it is noted, can successfully take place in the context of genuine dialogue; a compromise that not only prevents ‘bogus needs’ and looks beyond limited resources, but also serves the interests of both individuals and schools.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.