Educational leadership & management: A contested & complex field Farhana Amod Kajee Introduction : Presentation Outline The notion of ‘field’ in ELM Problems in the field Theory/ practice tension Lacks a strong theoretical base The National Audit Review (2010) Theorizing ‘knowledge structures’ and ‘knowers’ Legitimation Code Theory (LCT): A multi- dimensional toolkit Early findings Concluding thoughts The notion of ‘field’ of ELM in South Africa: A complex and contested terrain Fitz (1999, p. 313) draws on Bernstein (1990) and Bourdieu (1988) in defining ‘fields’ as “scholarly arenas, each of which has their special interest, with their own rules of access, privilege and regulation”. For him, they are “dynamic arenas of conflict as occupants seek to determine what knowledge and practices are to be regarded as legitimate and in what knowledge forms and practices they are prepared to invest” Power differentials Not a neutral space In similar vein, Bourdieu helps us to conceptualise an educational or intellectual field in terms of “relationally positioned struggles over status and resources” (Maton, 2010, p. 37). Tackling the tensions The theory / practice tension Tension exists in the field of ELM between the theoretical (academic) and practical (professional) dimensions. Field members comprise academics and professionals ELM as a region Are we facing inwards or outwards? What do our academic programmes priviledge as legitimate knowledge Tension of theory The field generally lacks a theoretical base Feature of leadership literature Gunter (2010) acknowledges this weakness ‘small-scale case-study research’ What has changed? Ability to separate what moves the field intellectually forward and what continues to spin it in ideological and methodological circles (Heck& Hallinger, 2005, p.239) Similar tensions surfaced by the National Audit Review (2010) Focus of the report MEd programmes try to incorporate… but foreground workplace knowledge and experience in curriculum design (CHE, Monitor no 11, August 2010) Links to the discussion on the regions Course coherence & the link to a discipline’s knowledge structure Importance of highlighting knowledge structures Questions raised…. What counts as knowledge? How and by whom is knowledge produced? How is what counts as knowledge subsequently organised in the curriculum and What is included in and excluded from the curriculum? (Bates, 2013) The Pedagogic Device The field of production • Where new knowledge is produced The field of Recontextualisation • Where knowledge is transformed into the curriculum The field of reproduction • Where pedagogic practice (teaching and evaluation) occurs (Singh,2010) Bernstein: Knowledge Structures Horizontal Discourse Vertical Discourse • Everyday, context-dependent, segmentally organized knowledge. • All segments of knowledge are of not equal importance. • Is hierarchically organized and context-independent • Bernstein differentiates between hierarchical and horizontal knowledge structures. A hierarchical knowledge structure is a hierarchically organised “coherent, explicit and systematically principled structure” (Bernstein, 1999, p.159). Horizontal knowledge structures Horizontal knowledge structures, “take the form of a series of specialised languages with specialised modes of interrogation and specialised criteria for the production and circulation of texts” (Bernstein, 1999, p.159). Within horizontal knowledge structures each language may have a strong or weak grammar. Strong grammars Weak grammars An analysis of the knowledge structures in ELM Bernstein’s Classification and Framing (2000) Purpose Classification (+C=stronger boundaries) (-C= weaker boundaries) Framing Stronger Framing (+F) Weaker Framing (-F) Relevance to my study/ presentation Maton’s critique of Bernstein’s work How knowledge may develop in disciplines with horizontal structures? The assumption of this paper Only focuses on knowledge structures Educational knowledge codes account for the “epistemic relation” of knowledge, but not the “social relation” (Maton, 2014, p. 91). This supports the argument for an account of both knowers and knowledge and Maton’s LCT extends this exploration. Legitimation Code Theory (LCT): A multi-dimensional conceptual toolkit Five dimensions- each exploring different organising principles of practice Three of the five are relevant Specialisation Semantics Autonomy Specialisation (LCT tool) Maton (2014,p.30) Operationalising the theory Early findings: First case study Data The notion of a translation device as advocated by Chen (2010) Bernstein’s internal & external language of description Snapshot of the findings “improvement of teaching & learning should be the purpose of any teaching and learning” highlights a personal expression of development The mission statement & research outcomes The use of personal pronouns Student’s agency Drawing on the background experience of students A feature of interest is the raising of questions throughout the course outline A fascinating observation is the mention of the dual interests and tensions that arise in this qualification “The heart of our approach to ELM is leadership” The research focus and the integration of life into the educational context Assessment practices The field has knowledge Vertical discourse The discussion of social theory The analysis in a nutshell … There are knowledge and knower structures in the curriculum Strong emphasis on the knower Focus on personal attributes Strong social relation exists Knowledge is horizontally organised Initial stages of the analysis reveals a strong social relation exists Knower code Reflecting on the way forward… Firstly the benefits of focussing on knowledge practices by using LCT as a framework The need to expand my analytical sophistication Expanding the toolkit from Maton The usage of Critical Realism