چکیده:
This text is a re-reading of one of Linda Evans’s important articles on the current state of the field of educational leadership studies. In this article, Evans uses an exploratory-empirical approach to critically and expertly analyze the scholarship on educational leadership and management. The Evers Thought Foundation is based on the premise that the field of educational leadership studies, especially in explaining leadership, is a place of controversy. She believes that the claims of mainstream educational leadership research have been challenged by a wide range of critics. Some of these criticisms focus on the conceptual clarity of educational leadership, such as who and on what basis is classified as a leader; and whether it is useful to refer to the relationships of “leaders” and “followers” to explain this concept. Evans emphasizes that the “new wave” of critical studies of educational leadership has raised controversial questions; Is there such a thing as leadership at all, or is it a constructed myth? The main criticisms of educational leadership challenge three claims of mainstream theoretical knowledge—underlying what Evans calls in his article the belief in causality, the belief in leadership dependency, and the belief in perception—which are the focus of this article. While criticisms of these beliefs have been repeated many times in this field of study, this article analyzes them from the epistemological perspective of Lawrence Bonjour to address the question of whether educational leadership is still worth studying. In this article, Evans attempts to analyze the mainstream belief system of educational leadership knowledge within a framework drawn from the philosophy of science, and therefore uses Bonjour’s “coherentist theory of epistemological justification” to develop a more structured assessment of what has been achieved so far by critical research.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In this article, Evans attempts to analyze the mainstream belief system of educational leadership knowledge within a framework derived from the philosophy of science by presenting these three components of belief, and for this reason, she uses Bonjour's "epistemic coherentist theory of justification" to provide a more structured evaluation of what has been achieved by critical research so far.
Kitcher Field of Disagreement Alvesson & Spicer Therefore, this article attempts to provide a new and comprehensive perspective by focusing on the concept of "epistemic competence in the scholarly knowledge of educational leadership research.
Although this research aims to challenge the views, beliefs, claims, and common studies in this field, other educational leadership researchers also express their critical views, even if others are unaware of the existence of these views or if their results and achievements remain unknown; these researchers still adhere to a critical spirit and align themselves with the "new wave" current of critical leadership scholarly knowledge.
The main axis of the analysis is Bonjour's (1985) framework of criteria for the epistemological competence of belief systems, which aims to answer the question: "Is educational leadership (still) worth studying?" This is not necessarily a comprehensive analysis, and its goal is to highlight key points rather than attempting precise comprehensiveness, because comprehensiveness is not possible in a space with these limitations, and on the other hand, belief systems in social sciences can be subject to such (selective) criteria.
Causal belief in instructional leadership is often used as a "primary basis for research" and a "starting point for presenting results related to the role of senior administrators of educational institutions," such as school principals and leaders.
(
, 
, 
)
