“He is like Mevlân a!, She is an Amazon Warrior!”: Reflection on Successful School Leadership in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Contexts through Metaphors

Abstract

The notions of successful school principalship and how to get things done effectively in schools are often argued about, but not definitely agreed upon, by educational researchers, policy makers, practitioners. This study was to contribute to the literature on what it means with successful school principalship, by analyzing the metaphorical perceptions of a vast array of participants (deputies, teachers, students, and parents) from a broad area of schools. Designed as qualitative research, this inquiry is an ethnomethodological attempt. The data were obtained through individual or focus-group interviews through a semi-structured interview form. The metaphorical analyses rest upon the interpretive content analysis that enabled us to conduct in-depth analyses of metaphors so that we could make inferences about the professional identity of the successful school principalship. The metaphors are analyzed in a school leadership framework. This analysis contributes to the ongoing endeavour on seeking for successful principals’ characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors. Metaphors revealed in this study have shown that the successful school principals in socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts often display paternalistic, transformational, moral and servant leadership behaviors. The participants depicted affectionate, self-sacrifying, caring, disciplined, innovative and benevolent portrait of school principals. Several recommendations and implications for policy, research and practitioners are offered.

Keywords

• Successful school principals
• metaphor
• paternalistic leadership
• socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts

References

1. Ağalday, B., & Dağlı, A. (2019). Examining paternalistic leadership behaviours of primary school principals based on the teachers perceptions in Turkey. Artuklu Human and Social Science Journal, 4(2), 1-22.
2. Ağaoğlu, E., Şimşek, Y., Ceylan, M., & Kesim, E. (2012). The characteristics of successful Turkish principals: Three cases. Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 7(2), 812-822.
3. Akan, D., Yalçın, S., & Yıldırım, İ. (2014). Okul müdürü kavramına ilişkin öğretmenlerin metaforik algıları. İlköğretim Online, 13(1), 169-179.
4. Akın-Kösterelioğlu, M. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının okul yöneticisi kavramına ilişkin metaforik algıları. Zeitschriftfürdie Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 6(3), 115-133.
5. Aktaş, T. (2019). Okul müdürlerinin paternalistik liderlik davranışları ile politik taktikleri arasındaki ilişkiler (Master’s thesis). Pamukkale University, Turkey. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/.
6. Akyol, B., & Kapçak, C. B. (2017). Pre-service teachers’perceptions of “administration” and “school principal” reflected through metaphors. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(3), 293-309. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1009723.
7. Allen, A. E. S. (2004). Elementary principals' perceptions of the impact of Virginia's standards-based accountability reform initiative on their professional roles (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, United States.
8. Alqahtani, A. S., Noman, M., & Kaur, A. (2020). Core leadership practices of school principals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–15. https://doi.org/ 1741143220901857.

9. Argyropoulou, E., & Hatira, K. (2014). Metaphors and drawings as research tools of head teachers' perceptions on their management and leadership roles and responsibilities. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(4), 496-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.947832
10. Asiedu-Kumi, A. O. (2013). Model leadership: Discovering successful principals’ skills, strategies, and approaches for student success (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, USA.
11. Aslan, Ş., & Özer, K. (2019). Türkiye’de kültürel liderlik bağlamında “Hulusi Kentmen” tipolojisi ve mizahi lider “Nasreddin Hoca. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilgilerde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi (IJONASS), 3(2), 126-145.
12. Aycan, Z. (2001). Paternalizm: Yönetim ve liderlik anlayışına ilişkin üç görgül çalışma. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 1-19.
13. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N. ve Mendonça, M. (2016). Organizations and Management in Cross-Cultural Context. (Çev. A. Kayapalı) İstanbul: KÜY.
14. Aydoğdu, E. (2008). İlköğretim okullarındaki öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin sahip oldukları okul algıları ile ideal okul algılarının metaforlar (mecazlar) yoluyla analizi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
15. Balitewicz, T. F. (2015). Principal leadership in high-achieving, high-poverty schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana State University, USA.
16. Bartell, C. A. (1989). Outstanding secondary principals reflect on instructional leadership. The High School Journal, 73(2), 118-128. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40364672.
17. Beck, L. G.,& Murphy,J. (1993). Understanding the principalship. Metaphorical themes 1920’s -1990’s. New York:Teachers College Press.
18. Bennett, J. V. & Murakami, E. T. (2016). Heroic leadership redefined in the United States border context: Cases studies of successful principals in Arizona and Texas. ISEA, 44(1), 5-23.
19. Bipath, K., & Moyo, E. (2016). Principals shaping school culture for school effectiveness in South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences, 48(3), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2016.11893581
20. Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end. Los Angeles: SAGE.
21. Bolat, T., Seymen A., O., Bolat, İ., Kinter, O. & Katı, Y. (2018). Güç mesafesi ve paternalist liderlik ilişkisi: Kuşaklar açısından bir değerlendirme. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(25),5496-5502.
22. Languages of leadership: Metaphor making in educational administration. Administrator’s Notebook, 32(6), 1-5. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED294296.pdf
23. Brinkerhoff, R. (2003). The success case method: Find out quickly what's working and what's not. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
24. Brookover, W. L., Beamer, L., Esthin, H., Hataway, D., Lezotte, L., Miller, S., . . . Tornetsky, L. (1982). Creating effective schools. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.
25. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know?. School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
26. Cemaloğlu, N. (2005). Türkiye de okul yöneticisi yetiştirme ve istihdamı varolan durum, gelecekteki olası gelişmeler ve sorunlar. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 249-274.
27. Cerit, Y. (2008). Öğrenci, Öğretmen ve Yöneticilerin Müdür Kavramı ile İlgili Metaforlara İlişkin Görüşleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(147), 3-13.
28. Çobanoğlu, N., & Gökalp, S. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının okul müdürüne ilişkin meteforik algıları/metephoric perceptions of teacher candidates for school managers. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(31), 279-295.
29. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE.
31. Crum, K. S., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school principals' reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(5), 562-580. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810895492
32. Dağlı, A., & Ağalday, B. (2017). Developing a headmasters’ paternalistic leadership behaviours scale in Türkiye. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(30), 190-200.
33. Dağlı, A., & Ağalday, B. (2018). Okul müdürlerinin paternalist liderlik davranişlarinin incelenmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(66), 518-534.
34. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
35. Day, C. (2005). Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in challenging circumstances. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(4), 273-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120500330485
36. Day, C. (2007). Sustaining success in challenging contexts: Leadership in english schools. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change (pp. 59–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
37. Day, C. (2014). Resilient principals in challenging schools: The courage and costs of conviction. Teachers and Teaching, 20(5), 638-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.937959
38. Day, C. (2015). International successful school principals project (ISSPP): Multi-perspective research on school principals. Retrieved from Nottingham: University of Nottingham. https://www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/research/projects/isspp/isspp-brochure-27_jul_final_amended.pdf
39. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective. Springer Science & Business Media.
40. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863
41. De Lisle, J., Annisette, S., & Bowrin-Williams, C. (2020). Leading high-poverty primary schools in Trinidad and Tobago–what do successful principals do?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 703-723. https://doi.org/1741143219827304.
42. Dimmock, C. A., & O’Donoghue, T. A. (1997). Managerial imperatives for the improvement of school reporting to parents. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(4), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549710186254
43. Dönmez, Ö. (2008). Türk eğitim sisteminde kullanılan yönetici metaforları (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Erciyes Üniversitesi, Kayseri.
44. Drysdale, L., & Gurr, D. (2011). Theory and practice of successful school leadership in Australia. School Leadership & Management, 31(4), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.606273
45. Drysdale, L., Gurr, D., & Goode, H. (2021). How successful school principals balance their leadership and management roles to make a difference. In M. Lee, K. Pollock, & P. Tulowitzki (Eds.), How school principals use their time: Implications for school improvement, administration and leadership (pp.126-141). London: Routledge.
46. Dursun, İ. E. (2019). Okul müdürlerinin paternalist liderlik davranışlarının okul kültürü oluşturmadaki etkisi [The effect of paternalistic leadership behaviors of school principals on creating school culture] (Master’s thesis). İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, İstanbul.
47. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 22, 22–23.
48. Elçi, B., & Tan, Ç. (2015). Başarılı okul müdürlerı arasında öğretmenlere yaklaşımları yönüyle hangı motivasyon faktörlerinin daha etkili olduğunun incelenmesi. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 3(6), 168-187.
49. Engels, N., Hotton, G. , Devos, G. , Bouckenooghe, D. & Aelterman, A. (2008). Principals in schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies, 34(3), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701811263.
50. Erben, G., S., & Güneşer, A., B. (2008). The Relationship Between Paternalist Leadership and Organizational Commitment: Investigating The Role of Climate Regarding Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 82,955-968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9605-z
51. Erden, A. (2016). Proposing primary school principalship model through positive and negative metaphoric perspective. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(n12A), 71-80.
52. Fennell, H. A. (1996). An exploration of principals' metaphors for leadership and power. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED399626.pdf
53. Fullwood, J. (2016). Common leadership responsibilities of principals of successful turnaround model schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Brandman University, California.
54. Garza Jr., E., Murakami-Ramalho, E. & Merchant, B. (2011). Leadership succession and successful leadership: The case of Laura Martinez. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(4), 428-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.610558.
55. Giancola, J. M., & Hutchison, J. K. (2005). Transforming the culture of school leadership: Humanizing our practice. California: Corwin Press.
56. Greenfield, T.B. (1984). Leaders and schools: Willfulness and nonnatural order in organizations. In T.J. Sergiovanni & J.E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture (pp. 142-169). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
57. Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’. Human relations, 58(11), 1467-1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705061314
58. Gu, Q., Day, C., Walker, A., & Leithwood, K. (2018). How successful secondary school principals enact policy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(3), 327-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1496343
59. Gürbüz, R., Erdem, E., & Yıldırım, K. (2013). Başarılı okul müdürlerinin özellikleri.Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 167-179.
60. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032001002
61. Heffernan, A. (2019). The ‘punk rock principal’:A metaphor for rethinking educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 51(2), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2019.1582476
62. Heffernan, A., Netolicky, D., & Mockler, N. (2019). New and alternative metaphors for school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 51(2), 83-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2019.1585768 Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 602-623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216688470
63. Holly, M. R. (2009). Effective leadership qualities and characteristics of urban school principals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Robert Morris University, USA.
64. Inbar, E. (1996). Free educational prison: Metaphors and images. Educational Research, 38(1), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188960380106
65. Johnson, A. B. (2005). The relationship between leadership behaviors of elementary principals from various school contexts and student achievement. Argosy University/Schaumburg (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Argosy University, Chicago.
66. Kadi, A., & Beytekin, O. F. (2017). Metaphorical Perceptions of Teachers, Principals and Staff on School Management. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(15), 29-35.
67. Karaçizmeli, A., & Kesken, J. (2017). 1960'lardan 2000'lere Türk sinemasinda değişen patron temsilleri: Tüketim ve yönetim göstergeleri üzerinden bir analiz. Ege Akademik Bakış, 17(1), 127. doi:10.21121/eab.2017123472
68. Karahasanoğlu, M. (2014). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmen algılarına göre etkili okul müdürü özelliklerinin incelenmesi (Üsküdar İlçesi Örneği). Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
69. Kaul, V. K. (2015). Principles and practices of management. India:Vikas Publishing House.
70. Kızıldeniz, M. (2017). Başarılı okul müdürlerinin yönetim uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van.
71. Koçak, O. (2011). Okul müdürlerinin; öğrencilik, öğretmenlik ve müdürlük dönemlerindeki okul yöneticiliğine ilişkin metaforik algıları (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tokat.
72. Korkmaz, M., & Çevik M. S. (2018). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin müdür kavramına ilişkin metaforik algıları. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 11(4), 973-1002.
73. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. http://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=EJ527505
74. Leo, U., & Wickenberg, P. (2013). Professional norms in school leadership: Change efforts in implementation of education for sustainable development. Journal of Educational Change, 14, 403-
75. Lezotte, L. W. (1986). School effectiveness: Reflections and future directions. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, April.
76. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
77. Linn, G.B., Sherman, R. & Gill, P.B. (2007). Making meaning of educational leadership: the principalship in metaphor. NASSP Bulletin, 91(2), 161-171.
78. Llorent-Bedmar, V., Cobano-Delgado, V., & Navarro-Granados, M. (2019). School leadership in disadvantaged contexts in Spain: Obstacles and improvements. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(1), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/174114321772808
79. Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2019). Headship as policy narration: generating metaphors of leading in the English primary school. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 51(2), 103-116.
80. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509055
81. Meyer, F., & Patuawa, J. (2022). Novice principals in small schools: Making sense of the challenges and contextual complexities of school leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(2), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1757722
82. Meyers, C. V., & Hambrick Hitt, D. (2017). School turnaround principals: What does initial research literature suggest they are doing to be successful?. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 22(1), 38-56.
83. Monroe, C. E. S. (2003). An analysis of principalship metaphors at the beginning of the new millennium (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina, Greensboro
84. Moral, C., Martín-Romera, A., Martínez-Valdivia, E., & Olmo-Extremera, M. (2018). Successful secondary school principalship in disadvantaged contexts from a leadership for learning perspective. School Leadership & Management, 38(1), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1358161
85. Murakami, E. T. & Orr, M. T. (2012). International successful school principal project: Cases of improvement and sustainability in North American Schools. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(3) 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458912447795.
86. Naidoo, B. & Perumal, J. (2014). Female principals leading at disadvantaged schools in Johannesburg, South Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(6) 808–824. https://doi.org/: 10.1177/1741143214543202.
87. Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20, 1-35https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n20.2012
88. Noman, M., Awang Hashim, R., & Abdullah, S. (2018). Contextual leadership practices: The case of a successful school principal in Malaysia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 474-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216665840
89. Örücü, D. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının okul, okul yönetimi ve Türk eğitim sistemine yönelik metaforik algıları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 20(3), 327-358. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2014.014
90. Özgenel, M. & Gökçe, B. D. (2019). Metaphorical analysis of the perceptions of the primary school students on the concepts of school, teacher and principal. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(1), 100-122.
91. O., & Zepeda, S. J. (2014). Describing an ‘effective’ principal: Perceptions of the central office leaders. School Leadership and Management: Formerly School Organization, 34(5), 518-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928684
92. Payne, G., & Williams, M. (2005). Generalization in qualitative research. Sociology, 39(2), 295-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038505050540
93. Pesen, A., & Kara, İ. & Gedik, M. (2015). Çocuk gelişimi bölümü 2. sinif öğrencilerinin “müdür” kavramina ilişkin metafor algıları. Siirt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4, 39-61.
94. Reid, D. B. (2021). US principals’ sensemaking of the future roles and responsibilities of school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 251-267.https://doi.org/10.1741143219896072.
95. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton, N.C., & Ormston, R. (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
96. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509.
97. Samier, E. A. (2019). The theory and uses of metaphor in educational administration and leadership: a rejoinder. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 51(2), 182-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2019.1596889
98. Santaella, C. M. (2018). A comparative study of the professional identity of two secondary school principals in disadvantaged contexts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(2), 145-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1513152.
99. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. London: Teachers College Press.
100. Steyn, G. M. (2014). Exploring successful principalship in South Africa: A case study. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 49(3) 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909613486621.
101. Tan, C. Y., & Dimmock, C. (2014). How a ‘top-performing’Asian school system formulates and implements policy: the case of Singapore. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 743-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/174114321351050
102. Todd, Z., & Harrison, S. J. (2008). Metaphor analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 479–93). NewYork: Guilford
103. Trancevic, A. & Vaupot, S. R. (2009). Exploring aspiring principals’ perceptions of principalship: A Slovenian case study. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(1) 85–105. doi: 10.1177/1741143208099331.
104. Tubin, D. (2017). Leadership identity construction practices: The case of successful Israeli school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(5) 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216682503.
105. Turhan, M., & Yaraş, Z. (2013). Öğretmen ve öğrencilerin öğretmen, disiplin, müdür, sınıf kuralları, ödül ve ceza kavramlarına ilişkin metafor algıları. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,23(1), 129-145
106. Tüzel, E. & Şahin, D., (2014). İlköğretim birinci kademe öğrencilerinin okul yöneticilerine ilişkin metaforları. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (17), 355-396. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.736
107. Tvnavcevic, A., & Vaupot, S. R. (2009). Exploring aspiring principals’ perceptions of principalship: A Slovenian case. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(1), 85-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143208099331
108. Uğurluoglu, O., Aldogan, E. U., Turgut, M., & Ozatkan, Y. (2018). The effect of paternalistic leadership on job performance and intention to leave the job. Journal of Health Management, 20(1), 46-55.
109. Wildy, H. (2003). Meaning and method: Using metaphors in qualitative research. In T. A. O'Donoghue, & K. Punch (Eds.,), Qualitative educational research in action (pp. 121-135). London: Routledge.
110. Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2017). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. In C. Wong & K. S. Law (Eds.), Leadership perspectives (pp. 97-128). London: Routledge.
111. Yalçın, M., & Erginer, A. (2012). İlköğretim okullarında okul müdürüne ilişkin metaforik algılar. Öğretmen Eğitimi ve Eğitimcileri Dergisi, 1(2), 229-256.
112. Yalçın, M., & Erginer, A. (2014). İlköğretim okulu öğrencilerinin okul müdürü algılarına ilişkin yaptıkları çizimler. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171),270-285.
113. Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford Press.
114. Ylimaki, R. M., L. Jacobson,S. L. & Drysdale, L. (2007). Making a difference in challenging, high-poverty schools: Successful principals in the USA, England, and Australia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(4), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450701712486.
115. Zembat, R., Tunçeli, H. İ., & Akşin, E. (2015). Okul Öncesi öğretmen adaylarının "okul yöneticisi" kavramına ilişkin algılarına yönelik metafor çalışması. Hacettepe University Faculty of Health Sciences Journal, 1, 446-459.
116. Hernández-Amorós, M. J., & Martínez Ruiz, M. A. (2018). Principals’ metaphors as a lens to understand how they perceive leadership. Educational Management
117. Bouchamma, Y. (2012). Leadership practices in effective schools in disadvantaged areas of Canada. Education Research International, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/712149
118. Frederickson, J. R., & Edmonds, R. R. (1979, April). Identification of instructionally effective and ineffective schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.