Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 216–223 | Cite as

The serendipity of principalship: meaning-making of a filipino secondary school principal

  • Allan B. de Guzman
  • Sr. Maria Lirio Tan Lagrimas Guillermo
Article and Report


Meaning-making is vital in the realm of principalship. It serves as the fulcrum of one’s practice which eventually leads to seeing the light and appreciating the serendipity of principalship. While explicit knowledge abounds in the literature and is communicated in professional development programs, the role of the principals’ tacit knowledge derived from their experiences, day-to-day dealings with the school’s stakeholders, observations, insights, and reflections are vital inputs in understanding the dynamics of school principalship. This narrative inquiry is an attempt to capture the tacit knowledge of a Filipino secondary school principal whose experiences were limited by the absence of a formal academic preparation in school management but illumined by herleadership reflective space (LRS) which enabled her to surface the serendipitous language of principalship.


tacit knowledge meaning-making, serendipity leadership reflective space (LRS) Filipino principal 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, N. N., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendents: Its nature, meaning, and context.Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 86–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Celikten, M. (2005). A perspective on women principals in Turkey.International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(3), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school leadership.International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Guzman, A. B. & Fernandez, E. A. (2005). Understanding Filipino pre-service and in-service teachers’ motivations to teach: A convergence of transcendental views.Teacher Education and Practice, 18(4), 433–441.Google Scholar
  5. Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes.Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1997). Hong Kong’s change of sovereignty: School leader perceptions of the effects on educational policy and school administration.Comparative Education, 33(2), 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fennel, H. A. (2002). Letting go while holding on: Women principals’ lived experiences with power.Journal of Educational Administration, 40(2), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glasman, N. S., & Glasman, L. D. (1997). Connecting the preparation of school leaders to the practice of school leadership.Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal leadership.School Leadership and Management, 26(4), 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallinger, P. (1992). Changing norms of principal leadership in the United States.Journal of Educational Administration, 30(5), 35–48.Google Scholar
  11. Hausman, C. S., Crow, G. M., & Sperry, D. J. (2000). Portrait of the “ideal principal”: Context and self.NASSP Bulletin, 84(617), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heck, R. H. (1998). Conceptual and methodological issues in investigating principal leadership across cultures.Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herbig, B., Bussing, A., & Ewert, T. (2001). The role of tacit knowledge in the work context of nursing.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(5), 687.695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kochan, F., Spenser, W., & Matthews, J. (2000). Gender-based perceptions of the challenges, changes, and essential skills of the principals.Journal of School Leadership, 10(4), 290–310.Google Scholar
  15. Kruger, M. L. (1996). “Gender issues in school headship” quality versus power.European Journal of Education, 31(4), 447–461.Google Scholar
  16. Law, L. Y. S., Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2003). The influence of principals’ values on their perception and management of school problems.Journal of Educational Administration, 41(5), 498–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985).Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Lyman, L. L. (2000).How do they know they care? New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. McDaniel, R., & Pollard, L.(2003). Tacit knowledge in information systems. Professional Communication Conference, 2003.IPCC 2003 Proceedings, IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245521Google Scholar
  20. McgOugh, D. J. (2003). Leaders as learners: An inquiry into the formation and transformation of principals’ professional perspectives.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noddings, N. (2006). Educational leaders as caring teachers.School Leadership and Management, 26(4), 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oplatka, I. (2004). The principalship in developing countries: context, characteristics and reality.Comparative Education, 40(3), 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pounder, D. G., & Merill, R. J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective.Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 27–57.Google Scholar
  24. Portin, B. (2000). The changing urban principalship.Education and Urban Society, 32(4), 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Republic Act No. 9155.Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001. Retrieved January 24, 2007, from http:// htmlGoogle Scholar
  26. Schutte, T. J., & Hackmann, D. G. (2006). Licensed but not leading: Issues influencing individual’s pursuit of the secondary principlaship.Journal of School Leadership, 16(4), 438–466.Google Scholar
  27. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). Refocusing leadership to build community.The High School Magazine, 7(1), 11–15.Google Scholar
  28. Spiegelberg, H. (1965).The Phenomenological Movement. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  29. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense.American Psychologist, 50(11), 912–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Su, Z., Adams, J. P., & Mininberg, E. (2000). Profiles and preparation of urban school principals.Education and Urban Society, 32(4), 455–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tomlinson, H., & Holmes, G. (2000). Assessing leadership potential: Fast track to school leadership.Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct.Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Maanen, M. (1992).Researching Lived Experiences. London: Althouse Press.Google Scholar
  34. Viernes, Sr. nR. M., & de Guzman, A. B. (2005). Filipino teachers’ experiences of supportive relationships with colleagues: A narrative-biographical inquiry.Asia-Pacific Education Review, 6(2), 135–140.Google Scholar
  35. Walker, A., & Quong, T. (1998). Valuing differences: strategies for dealing with the tensions of educational leadership in a global society.Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitaker, K. S. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitment and selection: An international perspective.Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan B. de Guzman
    • 1
  • Sr. Maria Lirio Tan Lagrimas Guillermo
    • 1
  1. 1.UST Center for Educational Research and Development Room 201 Thomas Aquinas Research ComplexEspañaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations