Advertisement

Researching Leadership for Social Justice: Are Some Methods Better than Others?

  • Robert DonmoyerEmail author
Chapter
  • 2.4k Downloads
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 29)

Abstract

This chapter links a concern with social justice, in general, and leadership for social justice, in particular, with choices about research methodology. The first part of the chapter demonstrates how the methodological debate about qualitative and quantitative research that occurred in the United States during the final three decades of the twentieth century helped keep a concern for promoting social justice front and center in the field of education. Specific benefits of both the qualitative research that these debates legitimated and the thinking that was used to legitimate the use of qualitative methods are also discussed.

In the second part of the chapter, the author argues that the juxtaposing of qualitative and quantitative methods during the final three decades of the twentieth century and the demonizing of quantitative methods that often accompanied this juxtaposition is, actually, quite problematic. This claim is supported by a three-part argument. First, the author notes that many of the critiques of quantitative methods were more critiques of their inappropriate use rather than of the methods themselves. Second, the author demonstrates that descriptive statistics, at least, are required to learn about the extent of social injustice and make a compelling case that some sort of action is required. Finally, the author argues that even studies that attempt to provide causal explanations (or reasonable facsimiles of causal explanations) could possibly be useful if we think of the results of these studies as potentially functional fictions rather than as ontological statements about the social world.

Keywords

Twentieth Century Social Justice School Leader Social Injustice Female Leader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, G. (1986). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, G., & Scott, J. (2011, April). Toward an intersectional understanding of causality and context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  3. Anthropology and Education Quarterly. (1996, December). Ogbu’s theory. Special Issue of Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 27(4).Google Scholar
  4. Antonakis, J., Schriemsheim, C., Donovan, J., Gopalakrishna-Pillai, K., Pellegrini, E., & Rossomme, J. (2004). Methods for studying leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. Cianciolo, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bates, R. (1980). Educational administration, the sociology of science, and the management of knowledge. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, R. (1982). Toward a critical practice of educational administration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Bates, R. (1987). Corporate culture, schooling, and educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 79–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates, R. (1989). Educational administration, the sociology of science, and the management of knowledge. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967–1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callahan, R. (1964). The cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1971, c1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: R. McNally.Google Scholar
  13. Carbone, P. (1977). The social and educational thought of Harold Rugg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, P. (1968). The very idea of a social science. In I. A. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Problems in the philosophy of science (pp. 407–432). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Counts, G. (1978, c 1932). Dare the school build a new social order? Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cronbach, L. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cubberly, E. (1909). Changing conceptions of education. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction to the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Dewey, J. (1916, c1997). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Dilthey, W. (2002). In R. Makkreel & F. Rodi (Eds.), Selected works, volume III: The formation of the historical world in the human sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Donmoyer, R. (1991). Postpositivist evaluation: Give me a for instance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 265–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donmoyer, R. (2005). Science as scriptwriters: How educational researchers influence public policy without ever producing definitive results. In B. Alexander, G. Anderson, & B. Gallegos (Eds.), Performance theories in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Donmoyer, R. (2011, April). Can qualitative researchers answer policymakers’ what-works Question? Paper presented at the annual meeting, of the American Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  26. Donmoyer, R., & Galloway, F. (2010). Reconsidering the utility of case study designs for researching school reform in a neo-scientific era: Insights from a multi-year, mixed- methods study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promise: New approaches to educational administration. Prometheus:Buffalo, N.Y.Google Scholar
  28. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Greenfield, T. (1975). Theory about organizations: A new perspective and its implications for schools. In M. Hughes (Ed.), Administering education: International challenges. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  31. Greenfield, T. (1978). Reflections on organizational theory and the truths of irreconcilable realities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
  32. Greenfield, T. (1980). The man who comes back through the door in the wall: Discovering truth, discovering self, discovering organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(3), 26–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenfield, T., & Ribbins, P. (Eds.). (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: Towards a humane science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Heath, S. (1999, c1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kincheloe, J., & McClaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory in qualitative research. In Y. Zou & E. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 87–95). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Konyeaso, O. (1975, October). The role of education in nation building: The case of Nigeria. West African Journal of Education, 19(3), 435–450.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, T. (1996, c. 1970, 1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Education Review, 56(3), 257–277.Google Scholar
  39. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Lather, P., & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1999, c 1984). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  44. Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1977). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. In D. Hamilton, B. MacDonald, C. King, D. Jenkins, & M. Parlett (Eds.), Beyond the numbers game (pp. 6–22). Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.Google Scholar
  45. Rist, R. (1973). The urban school: A factory for failure. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sayani, A. (2010). Pathologies and complicities: High school and the identities of disaffected South Asian “Brown Boys.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Vancouver, Canada: The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  47. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  48. Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Sharp, R., & Green, A. (1975). Education and social control: A study in progressive primary primary education. London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  50. Spindler, G. (2000). Fifty years of anthropology and education, 1950–2000: A Spindler anthology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Stake, R. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.Google Scholar
  52. Thorndike, E. (1910). The contribution of psychology to education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tyack, D. (1979). The one best system. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Winch, P. (2007; c. 2003, 1990, 1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  56. Wolcott, H. (2003, c1973). The man in the Principal’s office. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Leadership and Education Sciences, Department of Leadership StudiesUniversity of San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations