ABSTRACT
Willower’s observation notwithstanding, the achievement of consensus among academics on the nature and function of values in administration has been problematic. Academic debate on the subject has gone on for years; involving the likes of Greenfield and Ribbins (1993), Hodgkinson (1978, 1983, 1991, 1996); Willower (1994, in press); and certainly Evers and Lakomski (1991, 1996, in press). There is even a metaphor which captures the flavour of this debate in its earlier stages. It has been compared (see Begley, 1996a) to an endless medieval conflict; the champions of each side residing in craggy paradigmatic redoubts, emerging periodically for a skirmish or two on the battlefield of academic journalism. Moreover, of late a whole new generation of players has now appeared on the field. These relative newcomers include Beck (1990, 1993, and Chapter 13); Begley (1988, 1996a, in press); Campbell (1994); Campbell-Evans (1991); Lafleur (Chapter 10); Leithwood (in press), Leonard (1997, in press and Chapter 6); Roche (in press); Walker and Shakotko (in press) and others. It would appear that the debate has not abated, it has intensified! This academic ferment may have seemed almost heroic at times to the academics engaged in it. However, many school practitioners would probably comment that very little has been achieved that has increased the clarity, coherence and relevance of values to their everyday administrative practice. It has been very much a conversation among academics, far removed from the day-to-day concerns of school administration. As a consequence, a significant relevancy gap has developed between academic and practitioners on matters relating to values and valuation processes in administration. Fortunately, there is recent evidence to suggest that this situation is changing. There has been a proliferation of books and research centres focused on the study of values and moral leadership. Furthermore, as the chapters comprising this book suggest, at least some of the traditional epistemological issues have come close to being resolved. A consensus is developing on at least some of the vocabulary and issues. Moreover, this is occurring just as practitioners are manifesting
a renewed interest in values and valuation processes as responses to the realities of school leadership in our post modern societies.
