Abstract:
The past two decades have seen a ‘leaderisation’ of knowledge about schools. This can be seen in the explosion of leadership research, and the surrounding ‘leadership industry’ (Gronn 2003, Gunter 2012). It is also apparent from the growing prevalence of the ‘leadership’ label in educational policy and training programmes (Riveros 2015, Simkins 2012). My project aims to explain leaderisation by tracing the history of educational leadership research back to its provenance in organisational studies. My project draws on two concepts from Michel Foucault. Firstly, I compare school research and organisational studies as ‘discourses.' Second, I draw on Foucault’s practice of analysing ‘systems of thought’ (thought-systems) to differentiate between two events where there was transfer between discourses. In the 1950s, school discourse imported leadership research methods, but not an overall thought-system. However, in the 1980s, school discourse imported an entire 'leadership influence' thought-system, along with methods. This thought-system construes leadership as interpersonal practices that target staff’s perceptions and attitudes. Leadership influence was initially welcomed into school discourse because it displaced critiques of a previous thought-system. However, leadership influence presents its own issues. Because it is a self-contained thought-system, it is unclear how its research interfaces with other discourses. Additionally, educational leadership research today builds on a knowledge base of early survey questionnaires. This raises questions about whether surveys provide evidence of improved performance, or simply improved morale. My historical work has also uncovered lines of inquiry that complicate the prevailing view of schools as leader-driven institutions, and the principal's work as influence-based.