Differentiating the scholarly identity of educational administration

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to sharpen the intellectual identity of the field of educational administration (EA) and to understand its scholarly boundaries by comparing between the writings of this field and those of the field of organisational behaviour (OB), an area of study usually located in faculties of management, and share many commonalities with EA. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative content analysis of textbooks and journal papers in OB and EA, reading of previous writings that revolved around the epistemological dimensions of these fields. Findings – The author sheds light on the theoretical and empirical distinctions of OB and EA historically and provides insight into the distinctive intellectual identity of the latter field during the 2000s. A special attention is given to paradigms and theories in EA imported to the field from outside and transformed in a way that specify the unique identity of EA in the academic world. Originality/value – This comparison is warranted in order to clarify more profoundly the unique contributions of EA, both theoretically and practically, to emphasise the differences that separate it from other disciplines, and to legitimate its independent position in higher education.

Evaluating the Intellectual Structure of the Knowledge Base on Transformational School Leadership: A Bibliometric and Science Mapping Analysis

“…These studies may have increased scholars' research interest in the blended study of these two leadership models. However, this initial interest in such research, which was mostly comparative and aimed at understanding which model contributed more to student learning [100], evolved to be explored under a broader concept of leadership, namely 'leadership for learning' [123,124]. Combining IL, TSL, and distributed leadership, the leadership for learning framework addresses wider sources of leadership [125] that 'combines the coordination and monitoring of instruction with behaviors that promote cooperation, commitment, and capacity' [126] (p. 368).…”

“…In addition, variables significantly related to both TSL and school capacity building such as mentoring and teacher leadership were revealed to be insufficiently addressed in the TSL literature, and their joint investigation could provide deeper insights. Furthermore, as Berkovich [7] and Oplatka [123] pronounced earlier, TSL research lacks a theoretical connection to the prevailing theories in educational literature such as institutional, critical, agency, or systems theories. Although these theories could establish an expanded theoretical ground for the investigation and understanding of TSL, our analysis did not reveal any such theories.…”