No abstract

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a long‐standing critical tradition in the educational leadership literature through an analytical examination of the idiosyncrasies of leadership in Higher Education institutions (based on the UK example). It applies a postmodern way of thinking to the educational leadership phenomenon to problematise and challenge the traditional views on the trajectories of power in Higher Education institutions, utilising Foucault’s key theoretical units of discipline, governmentality and biopolitics as a toolbox for dissecting the implications of neoliberal ideology on the leadership praxes. Significantly, the paper demonstrates how the engagement with Foucault’s three modes of objectification—dividing practices, scientific classification and self‐subjection—can expose the ways, in which the roles of educational leaders become re‐configured into economic‐rational individuals or subjects, who are compliant with the imposed requisites of the government’s neoliberal agendas. The paper concludes that Foucault’s theoretical perspectives could be used as a methodological template for a deeper critical analysis of leadership practices, equipping academics with additional tools for critiquing the existing boundaries of neoliberalism and intervening in the transformation of the social order by undertaking an investigation into the practices of governmentality, as suggested by Foucault.

No abstract

Purpose -The paper aims to contribute to the ethnographic tradition in the educational leadership literature through providing an autoethnographic critical analysis of the idiosyncrasies of leadership across two different socio-political environments: a Soviet educational establishment and a contemporary UK higher education institution. Design/methodology/approach -In a previous issue, Doloriert and Sambrook (2012) argued that autoethnographic approach could help to uncover some experiences and voices that previously were silenced due to the discomfort they caused. In response to this claim and with consideration of three epistemological possibilities of autoethnography as suggested by Doloriert and Sambrook (2012), the author uses narrative accounts of personal experiences of leadership in Soviet Georgia and in the UK as the main source of data in the attempt to demonstrate how the three epistemological positions overlap and complement each other in the context of a critical autoethnography. Findings -The paper argues that autoethnographic approach can provide a unique opportunity for a simultaneous analysis of the particularities of leadership practice across different socio-political environments, whereas the 'three positions' approach could be used as an expedient template for further exploration of educational leadership. The paper also suggests there are some parallels between current leadership practice in the UK higher education and Soviet system of 'clientilism'. Originality/value -This paper is one of the first attempts to use autoethnography as an analytical tool for comparing leadership patterns in two contrasting socio-political structures.

No abstract