For academics and students, Education Management in Managerialist Times offers a critical guide to existing educational management texts and makes a strong case for redefining educational management along more socially and politically informed lines. The book also offers practitioners alternative management strategies intended to contest, rather than support, managerialism, while being realistic about the context within which those who lead and manage schools currently have to work.

The field of educational leadership is multi-site, in which those who study and practice leadership are located within networks which connect across institutions and sectors. Charting the growth of this dynamic field is the central purpose of this paper and six interconnected typologies of knowledge production are presented: Producers, Positions, Provinces, Practices, Processes and Perspectives. We argue that these typologies enable those involved to generate descriptions and understandings of the interplay between researching, theorising and practising in educational settings. This focus (...) on knowledge production enables us to be mappers, to undertake mapping and to produce maps. These, we would stress, are all political processes through which we challenge what is said to be known and make our own claims to know. As such our agency to make choices within our practice as researchers, theorists, and practitioners is exercised within a complex setting of organisational, cultural and social structures. (shrink)

Post-structuralist discourses have usually been associated with forms of critique and deconstruction of social, cultural and philosophical phenomena. However, this article attempts to provide a generative approach to understanding educational leadership through Michel Foucault’s notions of power and subjectification, and Judith Butler’s notions of performativity and discursive agency through re-signification. We argue that leadership is not simply a list of traits, characteristics or behaviours to be implemented. Rather, we argue that leaders are performatively constituted through everyday practices and discourses. The (...) aim is to interrupt prevailing discourses that often re-inscribe certain forms of meaning and understanding in educational leadership. This disruption subsequently provides possibility for putting forward otherwise silenced ideas about what leadership is and how leadership ‘identity’ (subjectivity) is formed, thus expanding the methodological tools scholars can use to talk about leadership. (shrink)