Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter offers insights into equitable leadership knowledge and practice through considerations of knowledge institutionalization processes, sense-making within institutions, and educational structures and norms. The chapter draws from a larger international comparative study that used a critical constructivist grounded theory approach to explore the influence of institutional factors on school administrators’ constructions of equitable leadership knowledge and practice in Kenya and Canada. Eleven school administrators from Kisumu County, Kenya and Ontario, Canada participated in the study. In this chapter, the author outlines the pathways that school administrators took to connect equitable leadership knowledge and practice to institutional obligations in K–12 settings. These pathways coalesced around actions such as (a) gathering knowledge, (b) establishing the relative importance of knowledge, and (c) confirming institutional knowledge legitimacy. The author connects these pathways to a three-stage process theory that emerged from the data. The three stages are identified as mimetic, normalizing, and transference stages. The mimetic stage is built around actions that mirror sanctioned knowledge, the normalizing stage is associated with norms and values arising from common interpretations, and the transference stage focuses on mental operations that rely on legitimated knowledge. These ideas are then linked to possibilities for decentering institutional undertones of equitable leadership knowledge and practice to ensure they do not place perceptual limits on school principal choices and subsequent knowledge construction as well as to ensure that school principal actions do not reinforce unequal social relations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.020 |
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".