دوره 1، شماره 2 - ( 10-1403 )
جلد 1 شماره 2 صفحات 120-81 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Soltani F. (2024). Application of Bonjour's Epistemology in the Analysis of Common Beliefs in the Field of Educational Leadership Studies. SELMJ. 1(2), 81-120.
URL: http://selmj.ir/article-1-49-fa.html
URL: http://selmj.ir/article-1-49-fa.html
سلطانی فاطمه. کاربست معرفت شناسی بونژور در تحلیل باورهای رایج در حوزه مطالعاتی رهبری آموزشی دانش پژوهی در رهبری و مدیریت آموزشی 1403; 1 (2) :120-81
گروه علوم تربیتی، مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تنکابن، ایران
چکیده: (384 مشاهده)
متن حاضر بازخوانی یکی از مقاله‌های مهم لیندا ایوانز، در خصوص وضعیت فعلی حوزه مطالعاتی رهبری آموزشی است. ایوانز در این مقاله با رویکرد اکتشافی-تجربی به‌طور تخصصی و انتقادی به تحلیل دانش‌پژوهی مدیریت و رهبری آموزشی می‌پردازد. بنیاد اندیشه ایورز بر این پیش‌فرض استوار است که حوزه مطالعاتی رهبری آموزشی، به ویژه در تبیین رهبری، محل اختلاف نظر است. وی براین باور است که دعاوی جریان اصلی تحقیقات رهبری آموزشی، توسط طیف گسترده‌ای از منتقدان، به چالش کشیده شده است. برخی از این انتقادات بر وضوح مفهومی رهبری آموزشی تمرکز می‌کنند و مواردی از جمله این که چه کسی و بر چه مبنایی در طبقه‌بندی به عنوان رهبر قرار می‌گیرد؛ و نیز اینکه آیا اشاره روابط به «رهبران» و «پیروان» ، برای تبیین این مفهوم مفید است یا خیر؟؛ را مورد توجه قرار می‌دهند. ایوانز تاکید می‌کند که «موج جدید» مطالعات انتقادی رهبری آموزشی پرسش‌های بحث‌برانگیزی را برانگیخته است؛ مبنی بر اینکه آیا اساسا چیزی به عنوان رهبری وجود دارد یا در واقع افسانه‌ای برساختی است؟. عمده انتقادات معطوف به رهبری آموزشی سه ادعای دانش نظری جریان اصلی را به چالش می‌کشد - که زیربنای آن چیزی است که ایوانز در مقاله خود آن را باور علیّت، باور وابستگی به رهبری، و باور ادراکی نامیده است - که کانون تحلیل در این مقاله هستند. در حالی که انتقاد از این باورها در این حوزه مطالعاتی به کرات تکرار شده است، این مقاله، آنها را از منظر معرفت‌شناختی لورنس بونژور برای پرداختن به این پرسش که آیا رهبری آموزشی هنوز و همچنان ارزش مطالعه دارد؟ مورد تحلیل قرار می‌دهد. ایوانز در این مقاله تلاش دارد تا با ارائه این سه مؤلفه از باورها، سیستم اعتقادی جریان اصلی دانش رهبری آموزشی در چارچوبی برگرفته از فلسفه علم تحلیل کند و به همین دلیل از "نظریه انسجا‌م‌گرای توجیه معرفت شناختی" بونژوراستفاده می‌کند تا ارزیابی ساختاریافته‌تری از آنچه تاکنون توسط پژوهش انتقادی به دست آمده است را توسعه دهد.
واژه‌های کلیدی: دعاوی جریان اصلی حوزه مطالعاتی رهبری آموزشی، نظریه انسجام‌گرایی بونژور، دانش‌پژوهی انتقادی رهبری آموزشی، توجیه معرفت شناختی
فهرست منابع
1. Alvesson M and Deetz S (2021) Doing Critical Research. London: Sage. [DOI:10.4135/9781529682649]
2. Alvesson M and Spicer A (2012) Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations 65(3): 367-390. [DOI:10.1177/0018726711430555]
3. Anderson E, Budhwani S and Perrone F (2020) State of states: Landscape of university-based pathways to the principalship. Journal of School Leadership. OnlineFirst. 1-23. DOI: 10.1177/1052684620980360. [DOI:10.1177/1052684620980360]
4. Angus L (1989) 'New' leadership and the possibility of educational reform. In: Smyth J (ed) Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership. Abingdon: Routledge, 63-92.
5. Anon (2015) High flyers and sad failure: French education. The Economist, 16 May, 415(8938).
6. Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, et al. (2010) On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly 21(6): 1086-1120. [DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010]
7. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2019a) Australian Professional Standard for Principals and the Leadership Profiles. Melbourne: AITSL.
8. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2019b) Leading for Impact: Australian Guidelines for School Leadership Development. Melbourne: AITSL.
9. Bates R (1989) Leadership and the rationalization of society. In: Smyth J (ed) Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership. Abingdon: Routledge, 131-156.
10. Bedeian AG and Hunt JG (2006) Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers. The Leadership Quarterly 17(2): 190-205. [DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.006]
11. Blanton BS, Broemmel AD and Rigell A (2020) Speaking volumes: Professional development through book studies. American Educational Research Journal 57(3): 1014-1044. [DOI:10.3102/0002831219867327]
12. Blom M and Alvesson M (2015) All-inclusive and all good: The hegemonic ambiguity of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management 31(4): 480-492. [DOI:10.1016/j.scaman.2015.08.001]
13. BonJour L (1985) The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. BonJour L (2003) The regress problem and foundationalism. In: BonJour L and Sosa E (eds) Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues. Oxford: Blackwell, 5-23.
15. BonJour L (2009) Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. 2nd edition. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
16. Browne L (2021) Effective School Leadership in Challenging Times: A Practice-First, Theory-Informed Approach. Abingdon: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780429197154]
17. By RT (2020) Organizational change and leadership: Out of the quagmire. Journal of Change Management 20(1): 1-6. [DOI:10.1080/14697017.2020.1716459]
18. Caldwell BJ (1994) Australian perspectives on leadership: The principal's role in radical decentralisation in Victoria's schools of the future. Australian Educational Researcher 21(2): 45-62. [DOI:10.1007/BF03219567]
19. Christias D (2015) A critical examination of BonJour's, Haack's, and Dancy's theory of empirical justification. Logos and Episteme 6(1): 7-13. [DOI:10.5840/logos-episteme2015611]
20. Courtney SJ and Gunter HM (2019) Corporatised fabrications: The methodological challenges of professional biographies at a time of neoliberalisation. In: Lynch J, Rowlands J, Gale T and Parker S (eds)Practice Methodologies in Education Research. London: Routledge, 27-47. [DOI:10.4324/9780429202063-2]
21. Crawford M (2012) Solo and distributed leadership: Definitions and dilemmas. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 40(5): 610-620. [DOI:10.1177/1741143212451175]
22. Department for Education (DfE) (2020) Guidance: Headteachers' standards 2020 (updated 13 October 2020). London: DfE. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-standards-of- excellence-for-headteachers/headteachers-standards-2020 (accessed 24 November 2021).
23. Derouet J-L and Normand R (2014) La question du leadership dans la tradition française: De la communauté scolaire au management. In: Derouet J-L and Normand R (eds) La Question du Leadership en Education: Perspectives Européennes. Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-l'Harmattan, 41-62.
24. Donmoyer R (2001) Evers and Lakomski's search for leadership's holy grail (and the intriguing ideas they encountered on the way). Journal of Educational Administration 39(6): 554-572. [DOI:10.1108/EUM0000000006053]
25. Eacott S (2017) Beyond leadership: Towards a 'relational' way of thinking. In: Lakomski G, Eacott S and Evers C (eds) Questioning Leadership: New Directions for Educational Organisations. London, New York: Routledge, 17-30.
26. Eacott S (2018) Beyond Leadership: A Relational Approach to Organization Theory in Education. Singapore: Springer Nature. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-6568-2]
27. Eden D (2021) The science of leadership: A journey from survey research to field experimentation. The Leadership Quarterly 32(3): 1-18. [DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101472]
28. Elgin SZ (2021) Merely partial definition and the analysis of knowledge. Synthese 198(SI 7): 1481-1505. [DOI:10.1007/s11229-018-1846-0]
29. Evans L (2014) Leadership for professional development and learning: Enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education 44(2): 179-198. [DOI:10.1080/0305764X.2013.860083]
30. Evans L (2018) Professors as Academic Leaders: Expectations, Enacted Professionalism and Evolving Roles. London: Bloomsbury.
31. Evans L (2022a, in press) Is leadership a myth? A 'new wave' critical leadership-focused research agenda for recontouring the landscape of educational leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 50: 3. [DOI:10.1177/17411432211066274]
32. Evans L (2022b, forthcoming) Conceptualising the 'leadership' in leadership in education. In Woods PA, Roberts A, Tian M, et al. (eds) The Elgar Handbook of Leadership in Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
33. Fuentes G/Reuters (2018) Growing pains for a French education system rooted in tradition. The World, 5 July. Available at: https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-07-05/growing-pains-french-education-system-rooted-tradition (accessed 23 December 2021).
34. Garet MS, Heppen J, Walters K, et al. (2016) Does Content-Focused Teacher Professional Development Work? Findings From Three Institute of Education Sciences Studies. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education NCEE 2017-4010. Available at: https://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20174010 (accessed 25 October 2021).
35. Gemmill G and Oakley J (1992) Leadership: An alienating social myth. Human Relations 45(2): 113-129. [DOI:10.1177/001872679204500201]
36. Germain S (2018) Le management des établissements scolaires: Écoles - Collèges - Lycées. [DOI:10.3917/dbu.germa.2018.01]
37. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck.
38. Gore J and Rosser B (2020) Beyond content-focused professional development: Powerful professional learn- ing through genuine learning communities across grades and subjects. Professional Development in Education: 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1725904. [DOI:10.1080/19415257.2020.1725904]
39. Grint K (2010) Leadership - A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/actrade/9780199569915.001.0001]
40. Gronn P (1996) From transactions to transformation: A new world order in the study of leadership? Educational Management and Administration 24(1): 7-30. [DOI:10.1177/0263211X96241002]
41. Gronn P (2000) Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration 28(3): 317-338. [DOI:10.1177/0263211X000283006]
42. Guarini M (2007) Critical notice: BonJour and Sosa on epistemic justification. Synthese 159(1): 131-148. [DOI:10.1007/s11229-007-9229-y]
43. Gunter H (2001) Leaders and Leadership in Education. London: Paul Chapman. [DOI:10.4135/9781446217559]
44. Hallinger P and Heck R (1996) Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5-44. [DOI:10.1177/0013161X96032001002]
45. Hallinger P and Heck R (1998) Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9(2): 157-191. [DOI:10.1080/0924345980090203]
46. Harris A (2013) Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management and Administration 41(5): 545-554. [DOI:10.1177/1741143213497635]
47. Heck R and Hallinger P (2005) The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration and Leadership 33(2): 229-244. [DOI:10.1177/1741143205051055]
48. Hill HC, Beisiegel M and Jacob R (2013) Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and chal- lenges. Educational Researcher 42(9): 476-487. [DOI:10.3102/0013189X13512674]
49. Kelly S (2014) Towards a negative ontology of leadership. Human Relations 67(8): 905-922. [DOI:10.1177/0018726713503177]
50. King F (2014) Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: An evidence-based framework. Professional Development in Education 40(1): 89-111. [DOI:10.1080/19415257.2013.823099]
51. Kitcher P (2000) Patterns of scientific controversies. In: Machmaer P, Pera M and Baltas A (eds) Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21-39. [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780195119879.003.0002]
52. Kraft MA, Blazar D and Hogan D (2018) The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research 88(4): 547-588. [DOI:10.3102/0034654318759268]
53. Kuukkanen J-M (2007) Kuhn, the correspondence theory of truth and coherentist epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38: 555-566. [DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.06.011]
54. Lakomski G (2005) Managing Without Leadership: Towards a Theory of Organizational Functioning. Sydney: Elsevier. [DOI:10.1016/B978-008043352-3/50009-8]
55. Lakomski G and Evers C (2016) Challenging leadership: The issues. In: Lakomski G, Eacott S and Evers C (eds) Questioning Leadership: New Directions for Educational Organisations. London: Routledge, 3-16. [DOI:10.4324/9781315646008]
56. Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management 28(1): 27-42. [DOI:10.1080/13632430701800060]
57. Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2006) Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 201-227. [DOI:10.1080/09243450600565829]
58. Leithwood K, Sun J and Schumacker R (2020) How school leadership influences student learning: A test of'The four paths model'. Educational Administration Quarterly 56(4): 570-599 [DOI:10.1177/0013161X19878772]
59. Levačić R (2005) Educational leadership as a causal factor: Methodological issues in research on leadership 'effects'. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 33(2): 197-210. [DOI:10.1177/1741143205051053]
60. Lumban Gaol NT (2021) School leadership in Indonesia: A systematic literature review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership: 1-18. DOI: 10.1177/17411432211010811. [DOI:10.1177/17411432211010811]
61. Lumby J (2012) What do we Know About Leadership in Higher Education? The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education's Research: Review Paper. London: LFHE.
ارسال پیام به نویسنده مسئول
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
