The State of Educational Administration Scholarship in Turkey from the Scholars’ Perspectives: A Qualitative Analysis

Öz

Background. The field of educational administration has become critically important both in the world and in Turkey because of a heightened interest in education by all the nations. Schools are the foci of societal and global change, which places the educational administrators in a critical situation. In order to cope with and adapt to the rapid changes, they need to be well-trained and perform their jobs professionally. At this point, the scholars of educational administration holds outstanding responsibility for training the school administrators as well as contributing to the academic development of the field. The field of educational administration, owing its presence to the general administrative thought and science of management, has been influenced by different paradigms, thematic domains, various lines of inquiry and a continuing quest for a knowledge base since its emergence. Moreover, various organizational theories were utilized and various trends became dominant in research at different times (Willower & Forsyth, 1999). Educational administration scholarship in Turkey has to encounter many challenges due to the recent global changes. Evidently, it is woven with problems and issues such as the scientific nature of the field, the efforts to build a solid knowledge base, using research paradigms and methodology, scholarly activities, various phenomena affecting the scholarly development of the field (Aydın, Erdağ ve Sarıer, 2010; Donmoyer, 1999; Maxcy, 2001; Şimşek, 2003). Purpose. In the light of the literature review, the purpose of this study is to investigate the current state of educational administration as an academic field from the perceptions of the educational administration scholars residing in Ankara. Method. This research was designed as a qualitative study. In qualitative studies, the whole phenomenon is understood as a complex system that is more than sum of its parts, which brings up a holistic picture of a case, a situation, an activity, a material or a fact (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). The data collection instrument was a semi-structured interview guide prepared by the researchers based on the conceptual framework to achieve as detailed data as possible. As for the data source, the population was the educational administration scholars residing in Ankara. The population and the sample had to be the same because of the limited number of scholars in the field. Before the actual interview sessions, 3 interviewees participated in the piloting stage of the interview form, and of the remaining 20 participants, there were nine professors, one associate professor and ten assistant professors from the 3 state universities in Ankara. One of the scholars did not want to participate in the study, so the total number of the participants was 19. At the beginning of each interview session, the participant was briefed about the aim of the study and the interview. Further information was provided about the length of the interview and anonymity of data was ensured. Consent for audio recording was requested from the participants and except 5 participants, all the others agreed to be audio recorded. In terms of data analysis, the data from the interviews were subjected to content analysis. In this particular study, the researcher, first, transcribed all the interview recording word by word. Then, all the transcriptions were read to be analyzed and notes were taken as to where certain words or statements could be categorized. Finally, in the light of the interview questions and the notes taken by the researcher while reading the transcribed texts, a coding list was prepared. Next, as proposed by Akşit, (as cited in Yıldırım & Şimşek, 1999, pp. 183-4), the researcher utilized Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet program to put the oral data in numbers and to make it accessible. On a spreadsheet, 4 columns were created to demonstrate which subject the data came from, what general categories, parent and sub-parent categories the data fell into and what the participant had said. All the data were categorized this way entering certain words and phrases provided by 19 participants. Next, it was more practical to sort the data according to the parent and sub-parent categories to analyze and write the results. While the researcher was categorizing the data, further categories emerged and there was a need to provide a second-level coding. Content-Analytic Summary tables were prepared for each sub-parent category, through which the perceptions of the scholars were demonstrated by quantification. Moreover, the researcher went over the content analytic summary tables, the Excel sheets and checked back the texts of interview records when necessary not to miss any single data or not to distort data. Results and conclusions. Results of the study comprise of 6 main themes being the scientific nature of education and educational administration, the existence of an established knowledge base, possible presence and dominant use of any research paradigm or method, the impact of various events and phenomena on the field, problems shaping the present state of educational administration scholarship and expectations from the future. The results revealed that educational administration is perceived as an interdisciplinary social science. A solid knowledge base for the field is necessary but it has not been fully achieved yet. Moreover, the dominant research paradigm is positivism and the use of quantitative method is widespread among researchers. In addition, some turning points affecting the development of the field are the establishment of first Faculty of Education in Ankara University and restructuring of faculties of education in 1997. Other issues have also been mentioned as having either negative or positive impact. Numerous problems were identified from the perceptions of the scholars, which help to shape the present state of the educational administration scholarship in Turkey. Considering the results of the study, it may be concluded that there is some kind of what Maxcy (2001) called “turmoil” present in the educational administration scholarship within the perceptions of the scholars working in Ankara. For the future, there were both optimistic and pessimistic remarks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• educational administration , scientific field perception , knowledge base in educational administration

Akademisyenlerin Gözünden Türkiye’de Eğitim Yönetiminin Akademik Durumu: Nitel Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye'de eğitim yönetimi alanının akademik bir disiplin olarak günümüzdeki durumunu Ankara'da eğitim yönetimi alanında görev yapmakta olan akademisyenler tarafından algılandığı biçimiyle irdelemektir. Nitel araştırma yönteminin kullanıldığı çalışma, Ankara'da bulunan üç devlet üniversitesinde mevcut olan Eğitim Yönetimi, Teftişi, Planlaması ve Ekonomisi alanında eğitim-öğretim görevi yapan öğretim üyeleri ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya Ankara, Hacettepe ve Gazi Üniversitelerinde görev yapan 8 profesör, 1 doçent ve 10 yardımcı doçent katılmıştır. Sayı az olduğu için örneklem yoluna gidilmemiş ve mevcut evrenin tümü araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Kavramsal çerçeve ışığında araştırmanın veri toplama aracı olan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu oluşturulmuştur. Veriler içerik analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, Ankara'da görevli akademisyenlerin algılarından akademik anlamda eğitim yönetimi alanının karmaşık ve çeşitli açılardan problemli bir yapıda olduğunu göstermiştir. Problemler, araştırmaların ve akademisyenlerin özellikleri, bilgi temeli, meslekleşmesi ve sosyo-politik bağlamla ilgilidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• eğitim yönetimi , bilimsel alan algısı , akademik durum , eğitim yönetiminin bilgi temeli

Kaynakça

1. Achilles, C. (2005). Drama in education administration: A farce or a morality play? In Crediting the past, challenging the present, creating the future. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA), Sam Houston State University.
2. American Educational Research Association (1999). Task force on research & inquiry in educational administration. http://www.aera.net/divisions/ a/anews/ fall99 2.htm., 15/12/2005 tarihinde alındı.
3. Anderson, G. L., & Jones, F. (2000). Knowledge generation in educational administration from the inside out: The promise and perils of site-based, administrator research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 428- 464.
4. Aydın, A. (1998). Eğitim fakültelerinin yeniden yapılandırılması ve öğretmen yetiştirme sorunu. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 4(15), 275-286.
5. Aydın, A., Erdağ, C., & Sarıer, Y. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi alanında yayınlanan makalelerin konu, yöntem ve sonuçlar açısından karşılaştırılması. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. Bahar (39), 37-58.
6. Bajunid, İ. A. (1996). Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 50- 73
7. Balcı, A., Şimşek, H., Gümüşeli, A. İ., & Tanrıöğer, A. (2009). EYAK Eğitim yönetimi arastırmaları ve yayın hakkında rapor. http://eyedder.org/belgeler/Egitim-Yonetimi-Arastirmalari-Yayin-Hakkinda- Rapor.pdf, 18/4/2010 tarihinde alındı.
8. Barnett, B. C. (2006). Emerging trends in international leadership education. Available from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/issue.php. 15/10/ 2006 tarihinde alındı.

9. Beach, R., & Berry, J. (2005). Now is the future. In T. Creighton, S. Harris, & J. Craig Coleman (Eds.), Crediting the past, challenging the present, creating the future. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, 123-134.
10. Bates, R. J. (1994). The bird that sets itself on fire: Thom Greenfield and the renewal of educational administration. Paper presented at the 8th International Intervisitation Program Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada, Toronto.
11. Boyan, N. (1988) Administrative behavior. In N. Boyan (ed.). Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 77-97). New York: Longman.
12. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. New Hampshire: Heinemann.
14. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2000). Eğitimde yönetimi anlamak sistemi çözümlemek. Ankara: Pegem.
15. Campbell, R. F., Bridges, E. M., Corbally, J. E., Nystrand R. O., & Ramseyer, J. A. (1971). Introduction to educational administration (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
16. Celep, C. (2009). Türkiye’de eğitim yönetimi bilimsel toplantıları: Tarihsel gelişim, kararlar, belgeler, yazışmalar. http://www.eyedder.org.tr, 15/07/2010 tarihinde alındı.
17. Chun Kim, Y., & Cho, J. (2005). Now and forever : Portraits of qualitative research in Korea. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 355-377.
18. Culbertson, J. A. (1988). A century’s quest for a knowledge base. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.). In Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 3-26). NY: Longman.
19. Çelik, V. (2003). Eğitim yöneticisi yetiştirme politikasına yön veren temel eğilimler. C. Elma & Ş. Çınkır (Eds.), 21.Yüzyıl Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Yetiştirilmesi Sempozyumu (pp.3-12). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
20. Dembowski, F. (2006, October 23). The role of NCPEA in developing and promoting best practice. http://cnx.org/content/m13665/1.3/, 20/9/2010 tarihinde alındı.
21. Donmoyer, R. (1999). The continuing quest for a knowledge base: 1976-1998. In J. Murphy, & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration (25-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Donmoyer, R., Imber, M., & Scheurich, J. (Eds.). (1995). The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23. Donmoyer, R. (2001). Evers and Lakomski’s search for leadership’s holy grail (and the intriguing ideas they encountered along the way). The Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 554-572.
24. Esther, S. H. (2006). Educational decentralization in three Asian societies: Japan, Korea and Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 590- 603.
25. Evers, C. (2003). Philosophical reflections on science in educational administration. International Studies in Educational Administration, 31(3), 30-41.
26. Fırat, N. Ş. (2006). Pozitivist yaklaşımın eğitim yönetimi alanına yansıması, alana getirdiği katkı ve sınırlılıklar. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 40-51.
27. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw Hill.
28. Garrett, A. W. (2007) The games people play: Educational scholarship and school practice. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 10(1), 3-11.
29. Gedikoğlu, T. (1997). Eğitim yönetimi dün, bugün ve 2000li yıllara doğru. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 3(3) 299-308.
30. Gore, J., & Gitlin, A. (2004). [Re]Visioning the academic divide: Power and knowledge in the educational community. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice Journal, 10(1), 35-58.
31. Griffiths, D. (1995). Theoretical pluralism in educational administration. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp. 302-311). Albany: State University of New York Press.
32. Hoang, T. (2006). Recognizing each others’ faces in educational leadership’s scholarship and practice. University of South California Essays in Education, (17). http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol172006/Hoang.pdf. 20/09/2008 tarihinde alındı.
33. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, G. C. (1987). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice. NY: Random House.
34. Hoyle, J. R. (2003). Educational administration: Atlantis or Phoenix. UCEA Review, XLV(1), 5-9.
35. Imber, M. (1995). Organizational counterproductivism and educational administration. In R. Donmoyer., M. Imber, & J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp. 113-123). Albany: State University of New York Press.
36. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Introduction: Perspectives on cultures and contexts of teaching. In J. W. Little, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 1-8). New York: Teachers College Press.
38. Littrell, J., & Foster, W. (1995). The myth of a knowledge base in administration. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp. 32-46). Albany: State University of NewYork Press.
39. Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (1996). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (2nd ed.). CA: Wadsworth.
40. Lutz, F. W. (Fall 2000) Daniel E. Griffiths: He changed an entire profession. UCEA Review, XLI(3), 1-3.
41. Maxcy, S. J. (2001). Educational leadership and management of knowing: The aesthetics of coherentism. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 573- 588.
42. Mullen, C. (2006). Hope replenished: Exceptional scholarship strides in educational administration. http://cnx.org/content/m13697/1.3/, 15/12/2010 tarihinde alındı.
43. Mullen, C., & Fauske, J. (2006). The Academy’s Zeitgeist—standards of scientific investigation: Exploring the impact of scholarly work. http://cnx.org/content/m13504/1.1/, 15/12/2010 tarihinde alındı.
44. Murphy, J. (1995). The knowledge base in school administration: historical footings and emerging trends. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp. 61- 73). Albany: State University of New York Pres
45. Oplatka, I. (2007). The scholarship of educational management: Reflections from the 2006 CCEAM Conference. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(1), 92-104
46. Orr, M. T., & Pounder, D. (2006). UCEA/TEA-SIG Taskforce on evaluating leadership preparation programs. Taskforce report: Six years later. In the Annual Conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, San Antonio, TX.
47. Papa, R. (2009). The discipline of education administration: Crediting the past. http://cnx.org/content/m12868/1.7/ 08/04/2010 tarihinde alındı.
48. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
49. Ribbins, P., & Gunter, H. (2002). Mapping leadership studies in education towards a typology of knowledge domains. Educational Management & Administration, 30(4), 359-385.
50. Riehl, C., Colleen, L. L., Short, P. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Reconceptualizing research and scholarship in educational administration: Learning to know, knowing to do, doing to learn. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 391-427.
51. Sakaoğlu, N. (2003). Osmanlı’dan günümüze eğitim tarihi. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
52. Samier, E. A. (2008). On the kitschification of educational administration: An aesthetic critique of theory and practice in the field. International Studies in Educational Administration, 36(3), 3-18
53. Scheurich, J. J. (1995). The knowledge base in educational administration: postpositivist reflections. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp.17-31). Albany: State University of New York Press.
54. Sergiovanni T. J., Burlingame, N., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1987). Educational governance and administration (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice- Hall Inc.
55. Şimşek, H. (1997). Pozitivizm ötesi paradigmatik dönüşüm ve eğitim yönetiminde kuram ve uygulamada yeni yaklaşımlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 3(1), 97-109.
56. Şimşek, H. (2003). Eğitim yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesi: Karşılaştırmalı örnekler ve Türkiye için çıkarsamalar. Çağdaş Eğitim Sistemlerinde Öğretmen Yetiştirme Ulusal Sempozyumu Eğitimde Yansımalar: VII, (syf. 130-138). Ankara: Tekışık Yayıncılık.
57. Şimşek, H. (2005). Eğitim yönetimi bilimin neresinde? http://www.hasansimsek.net/files/Eğitim%20Yönetimi%20Bilimin%20Neresi nde.doc. 3/6/2007 tarihinde alındı.
58. Şişman, M. & Turan, S. (2003). Dünyada eğitim yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesine ilişkin başlıca yönelimler ve Türkiye için çıkarılabilecek bazı sonuçlar. C. Elma, & Ş. Çınkır (Eds.), 21.Yüzyıl Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Yetiştirilmesi Sempozyumu (syf. 239-253). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
59. Şişman, M., & Turan, S. (2004). Eğitim yönetiminin gelişimi. İçinde: Y. Özden (Ed), Eğitim ve okul yöneticiliği el kitabı (pp. 99-146). Ankara: Pegem
60. Thomson, P. (2000). Move over Rover An essay/assay of the field of educational management. UK Journal of Educatıon Policy, 15(6), 717-732.
61. Turan, S. (2000). John Dewey’s report of 1924 and his recommendations on the Turkish educational system revisited. History of Education, 29(6), 543-55
62. Turan, S. (2004). Modernizm, postmodernizm ve ‘krizdeki alan eğitim yönetimi.’ XIII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı, Malatya, 6-9 Temmuz 2004.
63. Willower, D. J., & Forsyth, P. B. (1999). A brief history of scholarship in educational administration. In J. Murphy, & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration (pp.1-23). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
64. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.