Values, Conflicts & Value Conflict Resolution: An Investigation of the Experiences of Educational Administrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation reports on a study of educational administrators and the value conflicts experienced within their schools. The extensive review of literature on values in educational administration has determined very little consensus regarding the influence of values on the practice of educational administrators. A lack of common understanding about the definition of the term values exists along with variations and inconsistencies regarding the pervasiveness of values in educational administration. School leaders frequently encounter value conflicts and their resolution involves considerable degrees of decision making. \n\tParticipants in this study include members of the cohort of the Ed.D. Program in the Department of Theory and Policy Studies at the University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) as well as practising educational administrators with extensive experience in school leadership. As the researcher works within the Catholic school system, the majority of study participants are Catholic administrators who were accessible to the researcher for participation. A qualitative research methodology was employed and fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted which focused on the three main research questions. The following research questions were addressed in the study: \n1.\tHow do educational administrators see the role of values in their work?\n\n2.\tWhat types of value conflicts do educational administrators experience? \n3.\tHow do educational administrators resolve conflicts that stem from values issues?\n\nThe findings herein indicate that administrators view values as extremely important and relevant in their work. The influence of values on administrator behavior is evident in how leaders define the term value: as a code/set of rules and fundamental beliefs that guide daily interactions; and a basis for decision making. In terms of conflicts, administrators experience interpersonal conflicts frequently and attribute this type of conflict to differences in stakeholder values. Educational administrators resolve conflicts that stem from values issues by taking a moral stand which allows them to remain committed to their values.\n\tThe results of this study acknowledge and contribute to the existing field of studies relating to values and value conflict resolution within educational administration while simultaneously suggesting further implications for future research. The adoption of a values-based leadership model and its associated values clarification process is recommended for school leaders as a framework to deal with the existing realities of their complex role. This model has tremendous potential to transform the existing face of educational administration provided it is seamlessly integrated within educational organizations and becomes the new standard of leadership practice.
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 | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".