Science in Educational Administration: A Postpositivist Conception

Abstract

Arguments about the strengths and weaknesses of traditional logical empiricist conceptions of science have figured prominently in debates over the nature and content of theories of educational administration. In this article, we briefly review some of these debates and their consequences for administrative theory, concluding that much of the dispute is misconceived owing to the widespread acceptance of foundational assumptions about knowledge justification. As an alternative, we urge the adoption of a nonfoundational, coherentist view of knowledge justification that leads to a much broader conception of science, one we think is more suitable for developing a systematic new science of administration. We conclude by outlining some consequences of our new science for postmodern developments in the field and approaches to organizational design and leadership.

Reculturing the Profession of Educational Leadership: New Blueprints

“…To begin with, there is the work of Griffiths (1995Griffiths ( , 1997 on what he refers to as "theoretical pluralism" (1997, p. 371), but theoretical pluralism that is intrinsically yoked to problems of practice. The scholarship of Evers and Lakomski (1996b) on "developing a systematic new science of administration" (p. 379)-what they describe as "nuturalistc coherentism" (p. 385)is a fourth example of a principle of correspondence at work. A related line of work, which might be best labeled "pragmatism," has been developed by Hoy (1996).…”

Thinking while leading. Understanding school leaders' everyday thinking

“…With regard to the conception of science entertained, educational administration research has since long been taken a positivistic-objectivist approach, aimed at formulating general applicable theories (cf. Evers & Lakomski, 1996). But, as Murphy states, "the outcomes of the quest for a science of administration were considerably less robust than had been anticipated" (Murphy, 1992, p. 67).…”

“…These are considered subjective processes which are not open to objective scientifi c scrutiny (Donmoyer, 1991). However, as Evers and Lakomski (1996) argue, a strict subjectivist viewpoint is not very feasible, as this negates the "capacity of humans to extract useful patterns from an evidently nonrandom fl ux of experience" (Evers & Lakomski, 1996, p. 386). They argue that a reconciliation of the traditional approach and the subjectivist critique is possible by studying the reasoning, problem solving and decision making of school leaders "as involving the simultaneous satisfaction of multiple soft constraints, including constraints that express values" (Evers & Lakomski, 1996, p. 398).…”

Need to Address Evidence-Based Practice in Educational Administration

“…Many critics from within educational administration have argued that this hallmark either has never been established or has been seriously attenuated in their field (Björk, Kowalski, & Young, 2005). Recurring criticisms of administrator preparation have included (a) reliance on an ambiguous and often irrelevant research agenda (Foskett, Lumby, & Fidler, 2005;Heck & Hallinger, 2005;Leithwood & Riehl, 2003;Levin, 2006), (b) failure to integrate espoused and action theories (Björk, Kowalski, & Browne-Ferrigno, 2005;Hoy, 1996;Sergiovanni, 1992), (c) an antiintellectual and antiprofessional culture (Elmore, 2007), and (d) philosophical and epistemological disunity (Evers & Lakomski, 1996Murphy, 2002). Reflecting on these problems, Elmore (2007) concluded that educational administration lacks social authority, a deficiency stemming from a failure to establish standards "defined by a core set of practices that can be used to define a collective identity and to exclude practitioners from practice" (p. 2).…”