ABSTRACT
Some might ask why study values or, why connect values and educational leadership at all? Christopher Hodgkinson’s answer to the values question is,
…educational administration is a special case within the general profession of administration. Its leaders find themselves in what might be called an arena of ethical excitement-often politicized but always humane, always intimately connected to the evaluation of society…it embodies a heritage of value on the one hand, and is a massive industry on the other, in which social, economic, and political forces are locked together in a complex equilibrium of power. All this calls for extra-ordinary value sensitivity on the part of educational leaders. (1991, p. 164)
There are other pioneers of the field equally convinced that a values perspective is essential to educational administration. These include Starratt (see Chapter 2) and Willower (see Begley, Chapter 4), and although it would be safe to say that all the contributors to this book agree on the importance of values as a topic for inquiry, beyond that, some quickly part company. Evers (Chapter 5) and Lakomski (Chapter 3) propose coherentist perspectives as a comprehensive and epistemologically justifiable foundation for a philosophy of educational administration. Willower (see Begley, Chapter 4) is more in favour of Deweyan pragmatism. Hodgkinson (Chapter 1) believes scholars should be studying the problems of emotions, ethics and ego. Ryan (Chapter 7) reminds us that it is a post-modern world. Finally, those with practitioner orientations (i.e. Begley, Chapter 4; Gronn, Chapter 9; Leonard, Chapter 6; Shakotko and Walker, Chapter 12) prefer a situated problem-based approach, or to focus on the resolution of value conflicts in specific contexts. The overall effect is to illustrate that theory and research about values and leadership are still very much works in progress. The field remains fragmented at this time, and although many academics are now actively engaged in dialogue with each other, there is still no strong consensus on the nature and function of values as influences on administration.
