Facing “reality”: including the emotional in school leadership programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to argue that emotions characterise organisations and, therefore, emotional labour and performance is central to the work of school administration. Thus, the study of emotions needs careful attention in educational administration programmes. The author also considers whether school leadership preparation programmes in Canada and elsewhere provide theoretical knowledge to support this. Finally, the author posits three theoretical perspectives on emotion in administrative work and organisational settings, including education, that might be included in school leadership courses to better support principals in the emotional work that is core to their effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach The author draws on two research studies to inform the analysis offered: one on the effects of restructuring on the work of school administrators and the other a consideration of principal preparation programmes in Canada. Both employ qualitative methods, including document searches. A broad literature review in relation to the research focus is also offered. Findings The paper finds that principals talk a great deal about the emotional aspects of their work yet there is no explicit exploration of theories of emotion in principal preparation programmes. The author provides brief examples of the efficacy of psychoanalytic, socio‐cultural, and feminist post‐structural analysis of emotional labour as useful for emotional praxis in administrative work. Originality/value The analysis offered will be useful in reviewing principal preparation programmes with regard to their effectiveness in addressing central concerns of emotional praxis in the work of school administrators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".