School Leadership: Opportunities for Comparative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, we sent out a call inviting colleagues in the field of Education Leadership to contribute to a special issue of the journal of Canadian and International Education. The decision to focus on School Leadership: Opportunities for Comparative Inquiry was motivated by the argument that, within the field of education leadership, comparative or cross-cultural theories remain underdeveloped. At the turn of the century, Dimmock and Walker (2000) were among the very few scholars who recognized the value of comparative or cross-cultural approaches in educational leadership, and expressed disappointment that a comparative branch in the field had not yet been fully developed, despite advancements in other fields (e.g., business and psychology). Dimmock and Walker felt that much could be learned from studying administrators' work, particularly regarding the manner in which cultural forces influenced practices and policies in different contexts.Dimmock and Walker's call came in the context of a rapidly changing global environment. In many instances, globalization and technology have dissolved national boundaries. The movement of knowledge, skills, and practices around the globe is now an expectation in many fields. Policy borrowing - taking ideas from one and applying them to (Levin, 2001, p. 7) - has received tremendous attention in the field of policy studies because the practice of policy borrowing has become more prevalent (Pollock & Winton, 2011, p.1). However, what works in one location may not necessarily meet the needs of another jurisdiction (Winton & Pollock, 2009, p. 1). Moreover, educators and administrators seem to find themselves challenged as globalized movements push them to ride a faster wave of change (Murakami & Sperandio, 2009).With respect to practice, Dimmock and Walker's (2000) comparative cross-cultural model offers several types of potential research studies, including the examination of organizational structures related to the physical structure; financial, human, and time resources; connections to the larger school system and decision-making processes; the role of the principal and his/her leadership style(s) across countries; the breadth, depth, integration, differentiation, and relevance of curriculum with considerations to culture and context; the nature of culturally-based knowledge; relationships between teacher-student, teacher-home, and; generalists versus subject specialists.This special issue focuses on expanding comparative and international education by providing the field of educational leadership with rich and applicable research. This volume represents an effort to encourage scholars to (a) consider more vigorous conceptual, methodological, and analytical approaches to comparative and international educational leadership research; (b) inform the field of educational leadership about comparative approaches; and (c) continue to enrich the knowledge in the field of educational leadership and comparative and international education. This issue welcomed research from across geocultural zones, including Eurocentric and non-Eurocentric contexts from the same and/or different countries, and across countries' cultural contexts. Contributions to this special issue include large nation contexts such as Chile (Flessa), South Africa (Schmidt & Mestry), and Sweden (Murakami, Tornsen, & Pollock); smaller state regions such as the state of Texas, USA, and the province of Ontario, Canada (Murakami, Tornsen, & Pollock); localized areas such as global cities like London, England, and Toronto, Canada (Edge & Armstrong); and contexts within particular jurisdictions (Jean-Marie & Sider; Santamaria, Santamaria, Webber, & Pearson). In a closing commentary, Allan Walker points out in his response to this special issue: National boundaries and cultural configurations rarely align neatly. Comparisons in this issue transcend national/international boundaries such as Chile and North America (Flessa); national/state boundaries such as Sweden, Texas, and Ontario (Murakami, Tornsen, & Pollock); city boundaries, such as London and Toronto (Edge & Armstrong); boundaries within nations states but across different local regions such as within Haiti (Jean-Marie & Sider) or within a particular sub-population such as female principals in South Africa (Schmidt & Mestry). …
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 | 0.103 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".