Theorising pedagogical dimensions of higher education leadership—a non-affirmative approach

Abstract

Today, multilevel analytics on educational governance, management, and leadership are common in educational leadership research, drawing on a variety of approaches and academic disciplines. This article develops a threefold critique of the state of the art. First, this article argues that research on higher education leadership often represents an unreflected position regarding the societal role of higher education—decontextualising leadership from external practices and disregarding its internal object. Second, the approaches applied in leadership as a multilevel phenomenon can be problematic. On one end of the spectrum, we find particularist approaches focusing on individual levels representing disparate and often incompatible theoretical perspectives. As these positions rarely communicate, they have difficulties producing a coherent representation of higher education leadership. Universalist approaches, in turn, study leadership on several levels but offer identical conceptual tools for any societal practice, thereby losing the sensibility of the societal, cultural, and economic tasks of higher-education institutions, and for their specific character as institutions for research and teaching. Thirdly, research on educational leadership mostly fail to provide adequate theory of pedagogical interaction and influence. This is a twofold challenge. On the one hand, research lacks a theory of the object of educational leadership, namely teaching and studying. On the other, although research often defines leadership as a process of influence aimed at supporting learning, it lacks a theory able to explain what constitutes this influence. This article elaborates the possibilities for non-affirmative theory of education to provide a theory and language to overcome these challenges.

A comparative analysis of movement and physical activity in early childhood teacher education policy in five Nordic countries

“…The study was inspired by the Non-affirmative Theory of Education, which offers a comprehensive approach to understanding multi-level leadership in higher education and how various levels and actors interact. In this view, curricular development in higher education is created in interaction between science, economy, politics, and culture and ranges from the supranational level down to the individual teacher and student level (18). The comparative analytical process can be described in four steps: (1) Delimitation and definitions, (2) Retrieval of documents, initial comparison, and analytical plan, (3) Keyword search, and (4) Qualitative description.…”

“…In light of these considerations, future cross-country collaborations are envisioned to establish shared guidelines and frameworks that fortify MoPA in national policy documents and approaches within the Nordic countries. According to the Nonaffirmative Theory of Education, understanding higher education leadership requires seeing it as a part of a more extensive dynamic process of creating direction collaboratively, spanning several leadership levels-from international to local levels, and includes a multitude of actors (18). ECTE policymaking is closely connected to ECEC policy and its role and function in society.…”

Levels of Pedagogical Leadership in Higher Education: An Overview

“…The following section exemplifies the use of NAT as an analytic approach to higher education pedagogical leadership by drawing on examples of contemporary higher education research. The discussion is structured around the visual framework for higher education leadership as a multi-layered and multi-actor phenomenon, as presented by Elo and Uljens (2022) and introduced by Uljens (2015).…”

“…We contend that understanding leadership and management within institutional education in contemporary societies requires a multi-level perspective, ranging from the macro supranational level down to the micro level of the individual teacher and student (e.g. Elo & Uljens, 2022). Thus, this article focuses on how pedagogical leadership operates in such a multi-layered system.…”

“…Fig.2.1 The organisational structure of higher education curriculum leadership as a multi-level and multi-actor phenomenon(Elo & Uljens, 2022) …”