Nidal Al Haj Sleiman*

The last few decades have witnessed increased ‘globalisation’ of educational leadership and administration frameworks (Samier, 2020), particularly those associated with narratives of effectiveness and improvement. Concurrently, there have been growing debates in educational leadership research in western (Anglo-phonic) contexts between functionalist and educative approaches and multiple perspectives in between. While these debates are surely productive, this blog suggests that assuming that the term educational leadership and its theoretical and professional representations could be globally generalised is misleading. This discussion questions the taken-for-granted conceptualisation of the term as unquestionable knowledge in educational landscapes. Besides semantic delineations, the term is loaded with cultural and sociological representations that render its universality contestable.

To say that most of the educational leadership research has been produced by western—mainly English-speaking scholars (Hammad & Hallinger, 2017) and consumed globally is not a surprise. The notion of educational leadership has been driven by western institutions and reflects their societal values, tensions and politics. Therefore, applying the concepts associated with educational leadership to global and internationalised contexts requires a deconstruction of the aims of education and what leadership means in these spaces, and recentering the local—context-specific—perspectives. Leadership as a construct does not exist in isolation but is essentially conceptualised in relation to a specific social field (Eacott, 2016), where individuals and groups co-exist and interact. The action of ‘leading’ is not complete without the led, which makes the presence of the ‘other’ an epistemological necessity, without which the notion of leadership cannot be fully understood. Leadership in education has been defined by different scholars as a process of influence (Evans, 2022) and direction (Leithwood, 2011) that is conditioned by engaging in relationships with the other in order to make an impact. Naturally, this definition raises questions about the nature of this direction and impact, which is presumably driven by the interests of the led and influenced by leadership. The relationship between leadership and the people influenced by their direction and influence is not merely theoretical nor abstract. It is closely tied to the identity/ies of the social field where leadership takes place, as well as its history and geography.

For this discussion, adopting the term leadership in education seems to be more fit for purpose rather than the well-known term ‘educational leadership’. The notion of leader(ship) in education in Eastern (non-western) traditions embodies cultural and societal values and priorities, political and historical knowledge and simultaneously represents a collective narrative of care and social love (Hanafi, 2022), solidarity (Habermas, 1987) and hope (Freire, 2014).The term represents the multiple facets of the educational leader’s role, traditionally referred to as “The Administrator” –[Al-Mudiir in Arabic]—in educational institutions and within communities. In these traditions, leadership in education is seen and practised as a societal and communal role. While this blog acknowledges the problematisation of the hero-leader perspective, shifting the focus from the leader to leadership (knowledge and values) and leading (practice) can be more productive and realistic.

With the growth of the ‘knowledge economy’ and the neoliberalisation of education in most of the Global South(s) (Ball, 2017), new models of educational leadership were imported from the English-speaking west. While some aspects of these models could be useful and practical, applying them with no or limited adaptation to local needs and values is a performative process. The incorporation of ready-to-use models, including relevant approaches has been normalised, despite limited connection to the context in which it is being adopted and implemented. This discourse has been marketed (exported) as a managerialist provision that works in association with neoliberal dimension of quality and standardisation provided by educational consultants (Gunter, 2010). The overflowing supply of models and packages is mainly driven by business strategists in the West, who advocate for the transfer of edu-business into global markets (Thomson, 2017). Simultaneously, this business is encouraged by educational organisations in most of the Global South(s) as it fits local agendas of intenrationalisation that is highly desired by different communities, thus creating significant demand for these products and those who cater them.

However, while critical leadership research in the West has been widely established, driven by social theory, feminist, Marxist or social justice perspectives, these perspectives have been rarely successful in growing their audience globally. The mostly adopted and largely utilised perspectives are the contemporary discourses of effective leadership (disguised managerialism) or behavioral and dispositional leadership models, or merely translated frameworks—with minor adaptations for government sectors in reform contexts (Alhashem & Alhouti, 2021).Western educational leadership discourses as a body of knowledge have been utilised in leadership recruitment, preparation and development, and evaluation of educational practice, based on functionalist models and stories of success as inspirational messages. To describe these packages as orientalist and driven-by-profit is undoubtedly accurate, but not sufficient. ‘Orientalism’ has been embodied by local educators and educational services, who allegedly marginalise local and indigenous knowledge traditions in education, including leadership praxis and learning; a phenomenon that was described by Said as self-orientalism (1980). The marginalisation of local knowledge in leadership discourse is associated with the construction of new notions of ‘leaderisation’ (Aggestam & Hedling, 2020) that neglects local professional, social and cultural capital with which leadership is associated.  Thus, assuming that leadership can be effective once driven by data and gains an international—or western—accreditation is reductionist and deceiving, especially when practised through transactional and temporal approaches. In contrast, engaging with theory and relevant practical knowledge could be useful as it enables dialogic interactions with local social and cultural discourses, leading to a synthesis of ideas (Bajunid, 1996).

The consequences of instrumentalizing educational leadership praxis in the Global South(s) are predominantly political, as it alienates leaders from their local contexts and disengages them from taking a stance against authoritarian political practice that suppresses political freedoms, human rights and marginalizes social justice. Historically, leaders in education in different southern contexts were heavily involved in social movements, unions and the politicisation of education. Their work was heavily driven by their communities. As a result, leadership was demonstrated in policy, decisions, communal practice. Their ways of leading were not described as local nor indigenous in eastern and southern literature, as they were not examined by external researchers. Their leadership represented and responded to the voices of parents, teachers, students and the community. As political and social realities in most of these contexts are complicated and entrenched in corruption, oppression, poverty and multiple forms of injustice and violence, leaders in education (within and beyond school) cannot justifiably confine themselves to normative narratives of school improvement and standards of quality. There can be no quality when injustice prevails. A core part of leadership in education is leading and managing social transformation, transformative pedagog(ies), representative curriculum, and responsive educational environments (Brown, 2004). Leadership in this sense is an ethical and liberatory practice that is inseparable from its social and cultural context.

This blog argues that the relationship between leadership and its social fields is not only important but inevitable. While engagement with western theory in educational leadership could be insightful, it is the reduction of theoretical knowledge to transferable models of practice in leadership that is tedious and performative. On the contrary, leadership perspectives that emerge from societal and educational needs, and engage in social and cultural discourses, is best suited to lead education and schools to meet the goals of a community rather than merely fulfilling an organisational agenda. It is this latter form of leadership that is mostly needed, where leadership is fully rooted in the goals and aspirations of its community.

References

Aggestam, L., & Hedling, E. (2020). Leaderisation in Foreign Policy: Performing the Role of EU High Representative. European Society, 29(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2020.1798411

Alhashem, F., & Alhouti, I. (2021). Endless Education Reform: The Case of Kuwait. In A. W. Wiseman (Ed.), Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2020 (Vol. 40, pp. 345–367). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920210000040019

Bajunid, I. A. (1996). Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management The evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 50–73. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1108/09578239610148278

Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate (Third edition.). Policy Press. http://jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1t893tk

Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for Social Justice and Equity: Weaving a Transformative Framework and Pedagogy. Education Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108.

Eacott, S. (2016). Mobilising Bourdieu to think anew about educational leadership research. . . London, 12.

Evans, L. (2022). Is educational leadership (still) worth studying? An epistemic worthiness-informed analysis. Educational Leadership Administration and Managenent, 50(2), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211066273

Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Gunter, H. (2010). Review: A sociological approach to educational leadership. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(4), 519–527.

Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action: The Crtique of Functionalist Reason. Polity Press.

Hammad, W., & Hallinger, P. (2017). A systematic review of conceptual models and methods used in research on educational leadership and management in Arab societies. School Leadership & Management, 37(5), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1366441

Hanafi, S. (2022). Social Love as an Approach: Notes from the Field. In Social Love and the Critical Potential of People. Routledge.

Leithwood, K. (2011). Leadership and Student Learning: What Works and How? In Leadership & Learning. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446288931.n4

Said, E. W. (1980). Orientalism / Edward W. Said. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Samier, E. A. (2020). Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A Postcolonial Perspective on Traditions of Humanistic Marginalised Communities. In Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education. Springer, Cham. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_45

Thomson, P. (2017). Educational Leadership and Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge.

*Nidal (@NidalEdu) is a PhD Candidate at the Institute of Education, Faculty of Education and Society, University College London (UCL), and Research Fellow at Ulster University. Nidal is the co-founder of the SWANA Forum for Social Justice (UCL) and has an extensive career as a former teacher and principal. Her research interests include the sociology of education and leadership and internationalisation in education. To follow Nidal’s work: ORCID: 0000-0001-8944-8933

Deconstructing “educational leadership” in non-western contexts / Higher Education Research Group by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0