Who Controls the Preparation of Education Administrators?

Edited by:
Arnold Danzig, San José State University
William Black, University of South Florida

A volume in the series: Research and Theory in Educational Administration. Editor(s): Arnold Danzig, San José State University. William Black, University of South Florida.

Call for Manuscripts

This volume is part of the series Research and Theory in Educational Administration, which is soliciting diverse scholarly works intended to develop theory relevant to the preparation of educational leaders, and engage philosophical questions about inquiry and knowledge utilization in Educational Administration. The editors are seeking contributions for the current volume in three major areas: 1) Institutional Production, which considers the nature of institutions and market control, 2) Academic Drift, which considers the content of the curriculum and the forces controlling curriculum, and 3) Epistemic Drift, which considers the disciplinary norms related to knowledge production and control in the regulatory state.

Institutional Production – Institutions and Market Control: Institutional production deals with the number and types of institutional providers for education administrator preparation and the reputation of institutions providing the same. Changes to institutional production are seen in increasing applicant pools and greater diversity of options for individuals in a market of preparation pathways. Baker, Orr & Young et al. (2007) report a steep decline in research university production of master’s, specialist, and doctoral degrees in education (p. 279). More recent data have borne out this trend: “[M]ajor research universities continue to play a declining role in the production of graduate degrees (all levels) in education administration” (Baker, 2012). New or expanding producers consist of less research-focused institutions (i.e., Baccalaureate Colleges II [LA 2] in Carnegie Classification terms). The shift in the preparation of school administrators, from public to private institutions, from research institutions to teaching institutions, has been accompanied by increasing numbers of candidates who achieve administrative credentials through non-university certification routes. Competing providers include state and county government providers, local school districts, professional associations, non-profit or not-for-profit organizations, and private providers. We are interested in manuscripts that describe these new markets for leadership preparation. A focus on shifting institutional production patterns and analysis of the mechanisms of control involved in these shifts will be welcomed.

Academic Drift – Curriculum and Control: Harwood (2010) defined academic drift as “the process whereby knowledge which is intended to be useful gradually loses close ties to practice while becoming more tightly integrated with one or other body of scientific knowledge” (p. 414). He points out that the mission as well as the retention and promotion policies of research universities often do not reward the type of work that builds connections or partnerships with P-12 education. There are multiple challenges to managing the sometimes competing goals of research-focused higher education and P-12 schools (Harwood, 2010; Scribner, Bartholemew & Haymore Sandholz, 2009). However, if one believes professional administrator preparation should include consideration for historical, social, intellectual, and theoretical understandings of the workplace and concern with day-to-day roles played by professionals, then the consequences of academic drift explored in this section are doubly harmful: 1) fewer highly rated researchers and scholars from research-based universities will be engaged in the preparation of future administrators, and 2) the preparation of those in the pipeline will be focused more on theoretical concerns, to the potential detriment of understanding practice. We seek manuscripts that employ the concept of academic drift as a way of examining current debates on the quality of administrator preparation, often from widely differing points of view. Manuscripts can consider assumptions embedded in principal preparation pathways as well as the priorities of the people who teach in them.

Epistemic Drift – Disciplinary Norms and Control: Epistemic drift refers to changes in the internal norms of disciplined inquiry and the external conditions that also influence scientific investigation and evaluation. According to Elzinga (1997), epistemic drift occurs when there are changes in criteria used to assess research and research findings. Included in the concept are attention not only to the internal norms of scientific inquiry but also to the role of external organizations as well as larger socio-cultural norms and symbols. Epistemic drift has multiple dimensions. The first dimension considers changes in the criteria used by researchers to evaluate their work. Drift occurs when the traditional reputational control systems of disciplines are challenged by governmental or managerial policy impositions. Too often, the funded research is limited to quantitative methods and causal analysis, ignoring other more interpretive approaches which may contribute to a deeper understanding of the discipline. A second aspect of epistemic drift looks at the internal values and norms of the research community including the organizational and social underpinnings of the community of scientists and investigators. This dimension considers changing norms for publications, peer review, and participation at research meetings. A third dimension of epistemic drift looks at the moral dimension of inquiry and the deeply embedded value system that confers credit and trust in some knowledge but not others.

Suggested topics for chapters to be considered in this volume are listed below. Other research and theoretical concerns related to the overall themes of the volume are also invited.

Section A – Institutional Production: Research about Institutions and Market Control

> Research on administrator preparation and the administrative pipeline – Which institutions, agencies, and organizations provide administrator preparation and training? Who enters the pipeline? How have entry routes into the field changed over time? Who exits the pipeline? What differences are found across routes in terms of experience levels, gender, and ethnicity?

> Research on variations in outcomes within and across administrator preparation routes – Which outcomes are associated with different preparation routes (state and county offices of education, local school district programs, partnerships with profit and non-profit providers)?

> Research on the role of the regulatory state and role of market determinants in administrator recruitment, preparation, and professional development.

Section B – Academic Drift: Curriculum and Control Relevant to Educational Administration

> Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of knowledge for educational administration;

> What knowledge is seen as most relevant to educational administration? Who contributes to the knowledge base, and what is the basis for inclusion? How has the knowledge base in educational administration, administrator preparation, and professional development changed over time?

> Research on how non-profit, not-for-profit, for-profit organizations, and private foundations influence the curriculum and pedagogy of administrator preparation and professional development;

> Research on administrative internships and the knowledge resulting from on-the-job experiences;

> Research on beginning administrator support programs and the outcomes of tiered administrator licensing requirements.

Section C – Epistemic Drift: Disciplinary Norms and Control
> Research on the sources of funding of research in educational administration and funding of research on exemplary educational administration programs;

> Traditional and alternative epistemological stances used to assess program effectiveness and designs or methods best suited to research on administrator preparation and practice;

> Research on the methods and approaches used to determine effective job performance of educational administrators.

Potential contributors are invited to submit a chapter proposal (3-5 pages, including references) clearly explaining their conceptual frameworks and research-based findings related to the objective or one or more of the suggested topics, and/or state and how they envision framing their chapter around these findings. Please consider submitting a chapter to be included in this volume and sharing this call with colleagues who may be doing research in these areas.

Authors will be notified by January 15, 2018 about the status of their proposals. Full chapters, ranging from 7,000 to 12,000 words each including title, abstract, manuscript, and references, should be submitted by October 31, 2018.

Tentative Schedule for Publication:

Proposal Submission Deadline:
December 20, 2017

Notification of Acceptance:
January 15, 2018

Full Chapters Submitted by Authors:
April 30, 2018

1st Round-Results Returned to Authors:
June 30, 2018

1st Round- Revised Chapters Re-submitted:
August 30, 2018

2nd Round-Results Returned to Volume Editors:
September 30, 2018

2nd Round-Revised Chapters Re-submitted:
October 31, 2018

Final Editing and Compilation of Book by Editors:
November 30, 2018