Educational Administration, the Sociology of Science, and the Management of Knowledge

Abstract

educational Administration as a field of theory and research has never held a particularly high status in the academic community. There are a number of reasons for this, among them the practical nature of the activity (though the same practicality presumably applies to law, engineering, architecture, and medicine); the lack of consensus over theoretical issues (though there has always been a continuing series of controversies in science, humanities, and the arts); the low level of research methodology; and the political nature of the field. Some of the criticisms of educational administration are just. There often has been a tendency for work in educational administration to be simply a laying on of hands for those who need credentials or a programmatic concern with the maintenance of policies and regulations into which principals and departmental officers are thought to need socializing.. However, there are good grounds for believing that the processes through which learning is organized in society are of central importance in both the production of knowledge, the maintenance of culture, and the reproduction of social structure. Educational administration is a key element in these processes of structuring knowledge and society. It is at SUNY BINGHAMTON on May 16, 2015 eaq.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Archeology of Epistemic Crisis in Educational Administration

“…Bununla birlikte eleştirel eğitim yönetimi düşünürleri, çağdaş eğitim yönetimi kuramının eğitimsel özden uzak kaldığını; bunun yerine alanın bilgi temelinin daha çok işletme yönetiminden devşirilen kavram ve kuramlara dayandığı görüşünü ileri sürmüşlerdir (Bates, 1980;Foster, 1986, s. 93). Bu tespitten hareket eden Bates (1981) eğitim yönetimi kuramının meşrulaştırıcı değil anlamaya yönelik bir çaba içerisinde olması gerektiğini önermiştir.…”

“…In addition, debates on epistemology and methodology of the field have also pulled the field into epistemic turbulence. For example, theory movement which gained momentum during the fifties and its epistemological roots based on logical positivism were criticized considerably in the following years by some thinkers (Bates, 1980(Bates, , 1982English, 1992English, , 2003Evers & Lakomski, 1991, 2007Foster, 1986;Greenfield, 1973Greenfield, , 1974Greenfield, , 1975Greenfield, , 1986Hodgkinson, 1978Hodgkinson, , 1991Hodgkinson, , 1996.…”

“…Historical developments and the contents of the science of educational administration have been examined extensively in literature (Bates, 1980;Boyan, 1988;Bush, 1999;Callahan, 1962;Griffiths, 1979;Campbell, Fleming, Newell & Bennion, 1987;English, 2002;Fitz, 1999;Griffiths, 1979;Hoy, 1994;Murphy & Louis, 1999). However, domestic literature on the historical and the content of the field is limited.…”

“…Diğer yandan, alanın tarihsel gelişiminde ortaya çıkan epistemolojik ve metodolojik tartışmalar da, alanı epistemik bir türbülansa itmiştir. Örneğin 1950'li yıllarla birlikte ivme yakalayan teori hareketinin mantıksal pozitivizme dayalı epistemolojik ve metodolojik konumlanışı, izleyen yıllarda köklü eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır (Bates, 1980(Bates, , 1982English, 1992English, , 2003Evers ve Lakomski, 1991, 2007Foster, 1986;Greenfield, 1973Greenfield, , 1974Greenfield, , 1975Greenfield, , 1986Hodgkinson, 1978Hodgkinson, , 1991Hodgkinson, , 1996.…”

“…Eğitim yönetimi alanının tarihsel gelişimi, kapsamı ve ne'liği üzerine yurt dışı çalışmalar belirli bir birikime ulaşmıştır (Bates, 1980;Boyan, 1988;Bush, 1999;Callahan, 1962;Griffiths, 1979;Campbell, Fleming, Newell ve Bennion, 1987;English, 2002;Fitz, 1999;Griffiths, 1979;Heck ve Hallinger, 2005;Hoy, 1994;Murphy ve Louis, 1999). Tarihsel gelişimi bağlamında alanın ne'liğini ve alanda yaşanan bunalım durumunu doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak sorgulayan yurtiçi çalışmalar ise sınırlıdır.…”