A Response to Larry Sackney's Review of "Decentralization and School-Based Management"Author(s): Dan BrownSource: Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation, Vol. 19, No. 4(Autumn, 1994), pp. 479-480Published by: Canadian Society for the Study of EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1495344 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 18:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Canadian Society for the Study of Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Dibat / Discussion Note

A Response to Larry Sackney's Review of Decentralization and School-Based Management

Dan Brown university of british columbia

Larry Sackney's review of my book Decentralization and School-Based Manage- ment appeared in the Canadian Journal of Education in Autumn 1992 (volume 17, number 4; pp. 473-476). Unfortunately, the review has some glaring defi- ciencies: serious omissions, extraneous criticisms, unsubstantiated allegations, and contradictory concluding statements. As it stands, the review is a strong example of how not to write a book review.

One objective of a review is to convey to the reader what the book was intended to do, why it was written, and what the author's main conclusions are. Sackney's review is spotty since it is restricted to only some of the volume's contents. The overall subject matter and boundaries could have been made clear. Among points that might have been mentioned are that the book considers school-based management to be an organizational rather than a political phe- nomenon, that the voices in the book are chiefly those of persons who work in decentralized school districts, and that the change to decentralization requires a lot of preparation. These omissions are substantial, but the review falls down even more on its three kinds of criticisms.

Sackney takes questions about instructional practices and teacher supervision from my suggestions for further research in the last chapter, and then implies that they should have been addressed. Clearly, they were not part of the study and ought not to be considered oversights. Sackney calls for more data from teachers on empowerment. But such data were not collected because it was not my speci- fied intention to stress this topic. What Sackney does is ignore my aims and ask, "Why didn't he use a different viewpoint or different data?" As stated, these criticisms are entirely extraneous to the book. This is akin to picking up a book on religion and saying that it does not offer knowledge about gardening, which is what the reviewer wanted.

Sackney's point about the unusual juxtaposition of a structural view with per- ceptual data (p. 474) is well made. Elementary readings on educational research show, however, that administrative studies conceived entirely within one para- digm are severely limited either by lack of meaning or generalizability. That is why most researchers combine paradigms and methods to some extent. More

479 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 19:4 (1994)

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

480 DE'BAT / DISCUSSION NOTE

importantly, his remark about superficiality of the analysis of the effect of decentralization on roles other than the principalship is not backed up. In fact, I devoted 7 pages of data analysis to the principalship, and 8.3 pages to other roles on which the effect of decentralization was much less (according to both the data and the literature). Criticisms must be substantiated by evidence. In this instance, the facts make the allegation of superficiality appear superficial itself.

Sackney zeros in on my query of whether school-based management increases school productivity. He claims I did not answer this question, then cites the four answers I provided. On the basis of his own data, it appears I did in fact answer the question.

In Sackney's final comment he says I showed what decentralization is, how it works, and how it is achieved, and that the book would be of interest to others. But he (1) does not say what the book did do well, and (2) makes some severely negative criticisms. This is an ethical issue; these particular remarks are incon- sistent with the preceding review. Reviewers must ensure that what they state or imply in one place does not contradict what they say in another.

Some of Sackney's responses go well beyond the book to comment on the study of decentralization in general. That is probably a good idea. For instance, he asserts that more data are available from the Edmonton Public Schools, although I had written that they were not on hand. The author and reviewer here disagree. But the discussion could have been extended to other developments. Since the book was written, political decentralization has been instituted in England and Wales as well as Chicago, whereas organizational decentralization closely akin to the Canadian version is being implemented in Kentucky. Issues of governance and participation could have been made really exciting had the models been contrasted.

Writing an informed and reasoned review is not easy; no question. But this does not mean that ill-thought-out reviews are excusable. They are not. For many readers, a single review will be their sole acquaintance with a book. Academic decisions are made on the assumption that reviewers have done a conscientious job. Although Sackney's review is a notable failure, I hope my response will strengthen reviewers' resolve to do the best work possible.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions