Eğitim Yönetiminde Epistemik Bunalımın Arkeolojisi

Bu çalışmanın amacı eğitim yönetiminin yaşadığı epistemik bunalımın nedenlerini ve sonuçlarını, alanın ABD'deki gelişim süreci temelinde tartışmaya açmaktır. Bu amaçla eğitim yönetimi alanı tarihsel olarak üç döneme ayrılarak incelenmiştir. Birinci dönemde eğitim yönetiminin ABD'de ortaya çıkışı ve bu süreçte alanın bilgi temeline harç atan bilim insanlarının katkıları değerlendirilmiştir. İkinci dönemde alanda mantıksal pozitivizmi meşru bilgi üretme yöntembilimi kabul eden teori hareketinin ontolojik ve epistemolojik temelleri sorgulanmıştır. Üçüncü dönemde ise teori hareketine muhalif bir duruş olarak 1970'li yıllarda ortaya çıkan post-pozitivist, neo-Marksist ve post-modern düşünürlerin görüşleri irdelenmiştir. Çözümlemeler sonucunda birinci evrede alanın kendi özgün kavramsal ve kuramsal araçlarını geliştirme sorunu yaşadığı görülmüştür. Teori hareketinin alanı kuşattığı ikinci dönemde ise, değer alanının eğitim yönetimi araştırmalarında inceleme dışı tutulduğu; bu nedenle alanın bir meşruiyet krizi içerisine sürüklendiği gözlenmiştir. Teori hareketinin düşünsel temellerinin eleştirisi üzerine yükselen üçüncü dönemde ise, alanın entelektüel bir çatışma sahasına dönüştüğü anlaşılmıştır. Bu çözümlemeye dayalı olarak bir çalışma alanı olarak eğitim yönetiminin gelişme gösterdiği ilk yıllardan itibaren epistemik bir bunalım yaşadığı ve bunalımın etkilerinin günümüze kadar devam ettiği genel sonucuna ulaşılmıştır

Archeology of Epistemic Crisis in Educational Administration

The purpose of the present study is to set up the causes and effects of the epistemic crisis in educational administration. Consistent with this purpose the history of the educational administration was divided into three eras. In the first era, the emergence of educational administration in the USA and the contributions of scholars to the field were evaluated. In the second era, epistemological and methodological bases of the theory movement that assumes logical positivism as the legitimate way of producing knowledge were questioned. In the third era, post-positivist, neo-Marxist and postmodern thinkers' views that opposed to theory movement in 1970s were considered. At the end of the analysis it was seen that the field failed to develop its authentic conceptual and theoretical tools in the first era. In the second era in which theory movement dominated the field, it was observed that the value domain was excluded in educational administration studies and the field was faced with legitimacy crisis. It was understood that the educational administration was turned to an intellectual battle field in the third era in which the theoretical bases of theory movement were criticized. Based on the analysis it was concluded that the field of educational administration has encountered epistemic crisis since the beginning years and the effects of the crisis has continued till present time

PDF

___

Balcı, A. (1992). Eğitim örgütlerine yeni bakış açıları: Kuram-araştırma ilişkisi. Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 27-45.
Balcı, A. (2003). Eğitim örgütlerine yeni bakış açıları: Kuram-araştırma ilişkisi II. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 9(33), 26-61.
Balcı, A. (2008). Türkiye'de eğitim yönetiminin bilimleşme düzeyi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 54, 181-209.
Barnard, C. I. (1966). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bates, R. (1980). Educational administration, the sociology of science and the management of knowledge. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 1-20.
Bates, R. (1982). Toward a critical practice of educational administration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Beycioğlu, K. (2012). Will Evers & Lakomski be able to find leadership's holly grail?. KEDİ Journal of Educational Policy, 9(2), 349-362.
Bobbitt, F. (1913). Some general principles of management applied to the problems of city-school systems. The Twelfth Year Book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. The Supervision of City Schools (pp. 7-96). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boyan, N. J. (1988). Handbook of research on educational administration. New York: Longman.
Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2002). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış (13. Basım). Ankara: Pegem A.
Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2005). Eğitim yönetiminde teori ve uygulama (8. Basım). Ankara: Pegem A.
Bush, T. (1999). Crisis or crossroads? The discipline of educational management in the late 1990s. Educational Management and Administration, 27(3), 239-252.
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, R. F., Bridges, E. M., Corbally, J. E., Nystrand, R. O., & Ramseyer, J. A. (1971). Introduction to educational administration (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn Bacon.
Campbell, R. F., Fleming, T., Jackson, N., & Bennion, J. W. (1987). A history of thought and practice in educational administration. New York: Teachers College Press.
Coladarci, A. P., & Getzels, J. W. (1955). The use of theory in educational administration. Standford: Standford University Press.
Cubberley, E. P. (1916). Public school administration. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Cubberley, E. P. (1917). School organization and administration. New York: World Book Company.
Cubberly, E. P. (1919). Public education in the United States. A study and interpretation of American educational history. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cubberly, E. P. (1922). A brief history of education: A history of practice and progress and organization of education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Çelik, V. (1997). Eğitim yönetiminde kuramsal gelişmeler. Eğitim Yönetimi, 3(1), 31-43.
Dewey, J. (1946). Problems of men. New York: Philosophical Library.
English, F. W. (1992). Educational administration: The human science. New York: HarperCollings Publishers.
English, F. W. (1994). Theory in educational administration. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
English, F. W. (2002). The point of scientificity, the fall of the epistemological dominos, and the end of the field of educational administration. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 109-136.
English, F. W. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practive of educational administration. İllinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing educational administration. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1996). Exploring educational administration. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (2007). Doing educational administration. United Kingdom: Emerald.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Pitman.
Fitz, J. (1999). Reflections on the field of the educational management studies. Educational Management and Administration, 27(3), 313-321.
Follett, M. P. (1940). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (Ed. H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick). New York: Harper & Bros.
Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. New York: Prometheus Books.
Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. The School Review, 65(4), 423-441.
Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M., & Campbell, R. F. (1968). Educational administration as a social process. New York: Harper & Row.
Greenfield, T. B. (1973). Organizations as social inventions: Rethinking assumptions about change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9(5), 551-574.
Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about organization: a new perspective for schools. In Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P (Eds.), Greenfield on Educational Administration (pp. 1-25).
Greenfield, T. B. (1986). The decline and fall of science in educational administration. Interchange, 17, 57-80.
Greenfield. T. B. (1974). Theory in the study of organizations and administrative structures: A new perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Intervisitation Programme on Educational Administration, Bristol, England.
Griffiths, D. E. (1956). Human relations in school administration. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Griffiths, D. E. (1959a). Administrative theory. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts Inc.
Griffiths, D. E. (1959b). Research in educational administration. New York: Teachers College Press.
Griffiths, D. E. (1979). Intellectual turmoil in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 43-65.
Gulick, L. & Urwick, L. (1937). Papers on the science of public administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Habermas, J. (1988). Legitimation crisis (Tranlated by T. McCharty). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in Administration. London: The Macmillan Company.
Halpin, A. W. (1967). Administrative theory in education. New York: Macmillan Company.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(2), 229-244.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management. Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 33(2), 229-244.
Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Hodgkinson, C. (1983). The philosophy of leadership. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: the moral art. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hodgkinson, C. (1996). Administrative philosopyh. Oxford: Pergamon.
Hoy, W. K. (1994). Foundations of educational administration: Traditional and emerging perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 178-198.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1978). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. NY: Random House.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and practices. CA: Wadsworth
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Mort, P. R., & Ross, D. H. (1957). Principles of school administration: A Synthesis of basic concepteps. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Murphy, J., & Louis, K, S. (1999). Handbook of research on educational administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oplatka, I. (2008). The field of educational management: Some intellectual insight from 2007 BELMAS national conference. Management in Education, 22(3), 4-10.
Özdemir, M. (2011). Educational administration: A science at the intersection of public administration and business administration. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 44(2), 29-42.
Payne, W. H. (1875). Chapters on school supervision. Cincinnati: Wilson, Hinkle & CO.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sears, J. B. (1947). Public school administration. New York: Ronald.
Sears, J. B. (1950). The nature of the administrative proceses: With special references to public school administration. New York: McGraw Hill.
Simon, H. (1997). Administrative behavior. A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Şimşek, H. (1997). Pozitivizm ötesi paradigmatik dönüşüm ve eğitim yönetiminde kuram ve uygulamada yeni yaklaşımlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 3(1), 97-109.
Şişman, M. (1996). Postmodernizm tartışmaları ve örgüt kuramındaki yansımaları. Eğitim Yönetimi, 2(3), 451-464.
Turan, S. (2004). Modernite ve postmodernite arasında bir insan bilimi olarak eğitim yönetimi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 1-8.
Turan, S. ve Şişman, M. (2013). Eğitim yönetimi alanında üretilen bilimsel bilgi ve Batılı biliş tarzının eleştirisine giriş. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 19(4), 505-514.
Willower, D. J., & Forsyth, P. B. (1999). A brief history of scholarship on educational administration. In J. Murphy and K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 1-24). California: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Yauch, W. (1949). Improving human relations in school administration. New York: Harper and Bros.