Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20

Download by: [UNSW Library] Date: 04 February 2017, At: 17:20

School Leadership & ManagementFormerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Educational leadership, management andadministration in Africa: an analysis ofcontemporary literature

Gladys Nyanchama Asuga, Jill Scevak & Scott Eacott

To cite this article: Gladys Nyanchama Asuga, Jill Scevak & Scott Eacott (2016) Educationalleadership, management and administration in Africa: an analysis of contemporary literature,School Leadership & Management, 36:4, 381-400, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2016.1247042

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247042

Published online: 26 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 73

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Educational leadership, management and administration inAfrica: an analysis of contemporary literatureGladys Nyanchama Asugaa, Jill Scevaka and Scott Eacottb

aSchool of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; bSchool of Education, University of NewSouth Wales, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACTOver the past two decades, there have been calls by scholars for amore concerted effort to develop empirically grounded researchstudies on educational leadership management and administrationin an indigenous context rather than hegemonic western contexts.This paper presents a review of contemporary literature oneducational leadership from Africa in three internationallyprestigious journals for the period 2008–2014. A descriptive andanalytical perspective is used to understand the methodologicalapproaches used by researchers studying educational leadershipfrom and in Africa. The study identified a preference for qualitativeresearch methods, an underdeveloped engagement with theoryand causal claims. The volume of work published was relativelylow, with a small number of countries being the focus of studies.We conclude that scholarship from Africa remains in its infancy andcalls for greater attention to advance scholarship that is based onempirical evidence that is grounded in perspectives from differentregions and societies in Africa.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 18 May 2015Revised 21 April 2016Accepted 30 June 2016

KEYWORDSLeadership; management;leadership in Africa

Introduction

Despite the international growth of scholarly literatures on educational leadership, man-agement and administration, reviewers have generally noted that the field has not paidenough attention to rigorous empirical studies and knowledge accumulation. There arethose who contend that in recent times the field has improved, by drawing from moretheoretical and intellectual sources in addition to drawing from more diverse andadvanced methodologies (Firestone and Robinson 2010). Eacott (2011) argues that suchclaims are contestable. Thrupp and Willmott (2003) contend that educational adminis-tration literatures fail to interrogate existing social inequalities and their non-critical refer-ence to managerial policies that may amplify the inequalities.

A number of scholars have noted that the main contributors to the literature of edu-cational administration are scholars from English-speaking, western societies (Dimmock2000; Dimmock and Walker 2005; Hallinger, Walker, and Bajunid 2005). Consequently,there is a limited understanding of how educational administration is practised outsideof this socio-geographic space. Recognising this limitation, a number of scholars have

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Gladys Nyanchama Asuga gladys.asuga@uon.edu.au

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT, 2016VOL. 36, NO. 4, 381–400http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247042

called for more effort to broaden the knowledge base of educational administration to bemore globally relevant (Belchetz and Leithwood 2007; Bush and Qiang 2002; Dimmockand Walker 2005; Hallinger and Leithwood 1998). Inclusion of literatures from otherplaces will not only articulate alternative images of how administration is practisedoutside the global north, but will also provide a deeper understanding of how schooladministrators meet the challenges of schooling across different social, cultural and organ-isational contexts (Cheng 1995; Dimmock and Walker 2005; Hallinger, Walker, and Bajunid2005). Examples such as the International Study on Principal Preparation (ISPP) and theInternational Study on Successful School Principal Project (ISSPP) include more globalvoices. In addition, there is a growing body of literature coming from Asia (e.g. Hallingerand Bryant 2013; Hallinger and Chen 2014).

There is an emerging discourse on educational leadership, management and adminis-tration from the African continent in the international arena; however, there are nomethodological reviews on this growing body of work that we know of. This paperreports on a critical analysis of a selection of contemporary literatures on educational lea-dership, management and administration emerging from Africa. The paper is part of alarger programme on leadership preparation and development in Kenya (Asuga andEacott 2012; Asuga, Eacott, and Scevak 2015; Asuga, Eacott, and Scevak 2016; Eacottand Asuga 2014). Specifically, through an analysis of the literature this paper willprovide a synoptic view of scholarship and illuminate blind spots in the interest ofadvancing knowledge of education administration in Africa.

Establishing the corpus

The review strategy employed entails a systematic search of the table of contents andabstracts of each issue of three of the oldest and most dominant refereed journals inthe field – Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ); Journal of Educational Administration(JEA) and Educational Management Administration & Leadership (EMAL) – for the period2008–2014 (seven years). This is not to say that these are the only outlets for publication;but as high-esteem journals representing different socio-geographic locations (EAQ theUSA, EMAL the UK and JEA based in Hong Kong and previously Australia), the presence,or absence, of scholarship based on or in Africa does enable us to say something aboutthe state of scholarship in the field. Building from previous work (Eacott and Asuga2014), Table 1 shows that 4.92% of published papers in the sample are based on or inAfrica. Of this corpus, 80% (n = 29) of identified articles appear in EMAL, with six (17%)and one (3%) appearing in JEA and EAQ, respectively. A 2014 special issue of EMALskews the data somewhat, yet even within this special issue, six out of the nine papersare from a single country (South Africa). To frame our analysis, the identified papers areanalysed for their methodological features – namely, ontological and epistemologicalassumptions, ethical/normative assumptions, theory of the subject, methods employedand causality implied.

The initial level of analysis identified the focal country/ies in the work. Table 2 displaysan overview of this analysis and a brief outline of the topics covered. Across the 36 papers,6 countries were represented, ranging from a single paper (Ethiopia, Tanzania and Nigeria)through to 15 (South Africa). Given the small sample, it is arguably not surprising that thespread of papers come from a relatively small set of countries. The breadth of topics

382 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

covered, when combined with the spread of countries, is consistent with earlier claims thatthere is not a strong presence of an African voice in the field, even though there is anincreasing presence of African-based scholarship (Eacott and Asuga 2014).

Methodological features of the literature

The next level of analysis was a classification exercise, where the papers were identified aseither empirical or conceptual. Out of the sample of 36 articles, 86% (n = 31) were empiri-cal. This distribution is important for the following analysis as it establishes the parameterswithin which we are working.

Ontological and epistemological assumptions

Research is guided by underlying generative assumptions about the nature of reality.These are the researcher’s ontological and epistemological assumptions. These assump-tions influence decisions regarding the choice of methods, frames of analysis and research.Ontology is concerned with the nature and essence of things in the social world. There aretwo major ontological assumptions about social reality: (i) that it is external, independentand objectively knowable and (ii) that it is socially constructed, subjectively experiencedand the result of human thought expressed through language (Sikes 2004). Epistemologyis concerned with what constitutes knowledge and whether it is possible to know, under-stand and represent (Sikes 2004). In educational administration research, ontological andepistemological dialogue and debates have a rich history, but are increasingly rare (Eacottand Evers 2015).

In educational administration, most papers rarely articulate their ontological and epis-temological assumptions. Only eight of the articles surveyed explicitly name their position.These included post-positivism (Grobler 2014; van der Vyver, van der Westhuizen, andMeyer 2014), interpretive/constructivist (Agezo 2010; Johnson 2014; Moorosi 2013;Pheko 2008) and critical feminist approach (Diko 2014; Moorosi 2010). Ontological andepistemological assumptions are, however, identifiable through the research designadopted by authors. A common approach was some claim to a realist ontology but a

Table 1. Articles focusing on Africa in leading journals 2008–2014.Journal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

EAQIssues 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 35Articles 21 24 23 25 23 23 28 167African 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

JEAIssues 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42Articles 44 39 39 33 36 39 38 268African 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 6

EMALIssues 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 40Articles 29 39 41 42 41 45 59 296African 2 3 5 1 4 0 14 29

TotalIssues 15 17 17 17 17 17 17 117Articles 94 102 103 100 100 107 125 731African 4 3 7 1 5 1 15 36

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 383

relativist/interpretivist epistemology (e.g. Agezo 2010; Owusu-Bempah, Addison, and Fair-weather 2014; Heystek 2014; Malakolunthu, McBeath, and Swaffield 2014; Mbugua andRarieya 2014; Ngunjiri 2010; Naidoo and Perumal 2014; Onguko, Abdalla, and Webber2012). There were some researchers who adopted a realist/objectivist perspective (e.g.Ah-Teck and Starr 2013, 2014; Ikoya 2008; Mestry and Naidoo 2009; Msila 2013; Pansiri2008; Tesfaw 2014). From this perspective, researchers assume an objective realitywhich is knowable and external to the knower. Hallinger (2011) argues that much ofthe research in educational administration has adopted a realist position which allowsfor generalising across contexts. However, such a perspective may be problematic –especially where theories developed are assumed to mirror reality (Eacott 2011).

Interpretive approaches are mobilised when the intention is to understand how partici-pants think and perceive (Coleman 2012). The interpretivist shows an inclination tomeaning-making and, therefore, adopts a qualitative approach, where the subject’s per-spective is central (Bassey 2012). Researchers inclined to such an epistemological stancechose mainly interviews, observations and documentary analysis among other data-

Table 2. Articles distribution by country.Country No. of articles Topics covered

South Africa 15 . Gender and women leadership and career path to leadership. Budget monitoring and governance. Globalisation and education. School development planning and localised practices. Dimensions of effective leadership. Ethnicity/diversity and impact on leadership. Trade unionism. Funding policy and social justice. Leadership caring role and emotional competence. Leadership landscapes in South Africa

Kenya 6 . Free primary education. Spiritual leadership. Leadership preparation and development. Instructional supervision. Strategic planning

Botswana 4 . Leadership practices and training. Instructional supervision. Performativity in school management and leadership

Ghana 4 . Using data for accountability. Female leadership and school effectiveness. Leadership for learning. Authentic leadership

Mauritius 2 . Total quality management

Across Africa 2 . Gender and performativity. Leadership preparation and development

Ethiopia 1 . Transformational leadership and teachers’ job satisfaction

Nigeria 1 . (De)centralisation of management of physical facilities and impact

Tanzania 1 . Leadership preparation and development

384 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

generating strategies. While choosing interviews, the researchers claim to have beenmotivated by an ‘interest to understand the lived experiences of other people and themeaning they make of that experience’ (Seidman 2006, 6). These studies (e.g. Lumbyand Heystek 2011; Moroosi 2010; Owusu-Bempah, Addison, and Fairweather 2014;Pheko 2008; Prew 2009) provide specific views of the participants and their subjectiveinterpretations. The researcher relies as much as possible on the participants’ views ofthe situation that are under study, while the researcher’s role is to interpret the meaningsthe participants constructed in relation to their social world (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison2011). The adoption of interviews in these studies is premised on the assumption that asingle reality of identity cannot be captured as the interpretation and understanding ofidentity are mutually created by the respondent and the researcher. In addition, the mean-ings are subjective and cannot be generalised, but may vary in different settings. Someresearchers recognise and acknowledge that their own background may shape theirinterpretation (e.g. Agezo 2010; Heystek 2014; Johnson 2014; Moorosi 2013).

A number of studies (e.g. Ngunjiri 2010; Prew 2009; Ngcobo and Tikly 2010) adopted aninsider perspective to understand leadership as it is practised in a broader educational,social and historical context (Morrison 2012). Reality is multi-perspective since humanbeings create meaning of what they do, which is in turn affected by their context.Some researchers, especially those interrogating gender, adopted approaches such asphenomenology underpinned with a framework of intersectionality (e.g. Johnson 2014;Moorosi 2010, 2013) and critical feminist approach (e.g. Agezo 2010; Diko 2014) tograsp the subjective meanings and beliefs of female principals (rather than impositionof the researchers’ view of the world), thus putting their experiences at the centre intrying to understand the complexity of the challenges and inequalities they face in theirleadership career route. These principles are evidence of the researcher’s position onthe relationship between the knower and the known and how knowledge is acquired(e.g. constructed through the participants’ subjective experiences). The critical feministapproach and the use of ‘thick’ data (with implicit reference to the work of Geertz) withpseudonyms give voice to the participants in an attempt to emancipate the femalevoices in an environment of dominant patriarchal voices (Moorosi 2010).

The researchers’ interpretivist paradigm is espoused in the way they engage in reflex-ivity. While the studies recognise the world making of their participants, some researchershave reflected on their world making and how that may influence their analysis and alsotheir data collection (e.g. Agezo 2010; Johnson 2014; Moorosi 2010, 2013). For example,Agezo (2010) acknowledges his position/background as a male writing about femaleleadership. There was reluctance on the part of the researchers to impose prior theoreticalframeworks (characteristics of relativist epistemology), a factor evidenced in the adoptionof a grounded theory approach to develop theory and add to the accumulation ofknowledge. This was evident in the work on the dimensions of effective leadership in dis-advantaged communities and total quality management by Ngcobo and Tikly (2010) andAh-Teck and Starr (2014). Such an approach enables the researcher not to foreclose issueswhich may not be visible at the start of the study. In 23 of the studies, it seems that theauthors are not attempting to make generalisations to whole populations, but rathertrying to understand the phenomena within its context (e.g. Diko 2014; Johnson 2014;Lumby and Heystek 2011; Naidoo and Perumal 2014; Ah-Teck and Starr 2014).

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 385

Across the sample, seven (n = 7) of the studies relied on surveys/questionnaires (e.g. Ah-Teck and Starr 2013; Ikoya 2008; Mestry and Naidoo 2009; Pansiri 2008; Tesfaw 2014; vander Vyver, van der Westhuizen, and Meyer 2014). These seven studies surveyed a largepopulation with two (Mestry and Naidoo 2009; Ah-Teck and Starr 2013) testing hypotheseswhich could be generalised to a particular population. These were evidence of an objec-tive epistemology. They are consistent with past epistemological reviews in educationaladministration and leadership where positivism has consistently been the dominanttheme (English 2001, 2003; Hallinger and Chen 2014). The questionnaires used tocollect data were generated by the researchers for their studies. Two studies utilised exist-ing standardised questionnaires (see Ah-Teck and Starr 2013; Tesfaw 2014) and adminis-tered them to a large sample group. Standardisation is a quality of positivism. Two of thestudies (Grobler 2014; van der Vyver, van der Westhuizen, and Meyer 2014) indicated thattheir work was embedded in a post-positivist paradigm where it is acknowledged that therelationship between variables in this paradigm may be influenced by factors that theresearcher has no control over (Onwuegbuzie, Johnson, and Collins 2009). In thesestudies, leadership and management are constructed as an entity that can be applied indifferent contexts and, therefore, can be measured and quantified.

Another aspect noted in the sampled empirical studies was that they wereaccompanied by ‘scientistic methods and accountability practices’ (Petersen 2015, 155),such as validity and reliability. Validity and reliability were addressed in some articles,while their absence was noted in other studies. Ways through which validity and reliabilitywere addressed included piloting and editing of instruments by experts (n = 6), triangu-lation (n = 3), a mixing of positive and negatively worded questions (n = 1) and memberchecking (n = 2). However, four studies (Mestry and Naidoo 2009; Ah-Teck and Starr2014; Tesfaw 2014; van der Vyver, van der Westhuizen, and Meyer 2014) provide a detailedaccount of how reliability and validity are ensured (that is, editing of instruments byexperts to achieve content validity and confirmatory factor analysis to achieve constructvalidity). In contrast, only five (n = 5) of the qualitative studies discussed issues of validityand reliability. Denizen and Lincoln (1998) have argued that validity and reliability arenotions mainly associated with positivism and, therefore, inappropriate for other perspec-tives. However, some scholars have argued for trustworthiness of results. In two articlestrustworthiness was addressed, with one using Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) standards,while another mentioned striving to ensure credibility and trustworthiness throughpiloting and modifying documents (Ah-Teck and Starr 2014; Onguko, Abdalla, andWebber 2012). There is no discussion on trustworthiness of data in the other empiricalstudies; however, they do provide a trail of how data were analysed. In general, the articlesalso had a form of accounting for their instrumentation and analytical process to indicatein some way that proper procedures had been followed. The following is an example:

Strong efforts were made to establish the credibility and trustworthiness of the instrumentsduring the iterative process… of piloting and modifying the documents as they were usedin other countries. (Onguko, Abdalla, and Webber 2012, 94)

Some studies noted that their conclusions were not aimed at generalisation, especiallygiven the sample size, but rather the need to capture more than one perspective. Forthe most part, these studies adopted a qualitative approach. Although this could betaken as a non-positivist approach, adopting qualitative approaches is not the preserve

386 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

of non-positivists. This claim cannot be fully supported as it was noted that most of thesampled scholarship adopted a mixed philosophical alignment. Figure 1 represents theontological and epistemological positions of the literature surveyed in a 2 × 2 matrix. Ascan be seen, the scholarship on/from the continent of Africa in the sample most frequentlyaligns with a realist ontology but relativist epistemology.

Ethical/normative assumptions

For many, educational administration is an applied field of study. Informed by studies fromother disciplines, research in educational administration has to a large extent existed toinform policy and practice in educational organisations. Therefore, any evaluation of itshould be in the light of its ability to inform policy and practice. The same can be saidabout the literature sampled – even if published in scholarly journals. There is substantialevidence that it was written to inform policy-makers and practitioners as most of theresearch is focused on the improvement of practice.

The dominant position in the sampled work is to serve the needs of school leaders(some unique to the African context) and their knowledge requirements rather than thedevelopment of theory. The majority of studies are instrumental, describing or explaininghow certain practices have been operationalised in schools and how practices can beapplied in schools to bring about improvement, or critiquing the failure of policies tobring about desired changes (e.g. Christie 2010; Diko 2014; Johnson 2014; Lumby andHeystek 2011; Malakolunthu, McBeath, and Swaffield 2014; Mbugua and Rarieya 2014;Mestry 2014; Moorosi 2010, 2013; Msila 2013; Naidoo and Perumal 2014; Onguko,Abdalla, and Webber 2012; Pansiri 2008, 2011; Pheko 2008; Prew and Quaigrain 2010;Prew 2009; Tesfaw 2014; van der Vyver, van der Westhuizen, and Meyer 2014; Wanzare2011). In general, the sampled works seek a solution to problems of practice.

Theory of subject

The literature on educational administration has shifted labels from ‘administration’ to‘management’ to the contemporarily popular ‘leadership’. With leadership gaining cur-rency, the role of management has been down-played, if not demonised. The majorityof the sampled literature emphasises leadership and leadership development, with littleattention to the management or administration of educational organisations.

In the sampled work, leadership is conceived as that of an individual who is identified ashaving certain traits, exhibiting certain behaviours or holding a particular role within anorganisation. Of the 31 empirical studies, 19 (62.29%) used the principal as the unit ofanalysis. A majority of works were oriented towards leadership in schools (primary/

Figure 1. Matrix of ontology/epistemology perspectives.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 387

elementary and secondary), but the focus remained on the individual. There were howeverexceptions: six of the empirical studies conceived of leadership as a collaborative experi-ence with other stakeholders such as either the senior management team (principals,deputy and heads of department) or the school governing body (parents and teachersand community members) (e.g. Ikoya 2008; Lumby and Heystek 2011; Mbugua andRarieya 2014; Pansiri 2008; Prew 2009; Prew and Quaigrain 2010). While moving beyondthe individual, these approaches are still grounded in a role-based description ofleadership.

Methods adopted

As noted earlier, theoretical assumptions play a role in guiding the research design andchoice of methods for a study. There should be coherence between an espoused positionand practice. A variety of designs and methods were evident across the sample. To frameour analysis of the empirical articles (n = 31), we focus on sample size and strategy, datasources and analytical techniques. Overall, there is a preference for qualitative methods(n = 22), while quantitative (n = 6) and the use of both quantitative and qualitativemethods (n = 4) being less frequent. This is not surprising as it arguably reflects generaltrends in the field at this point in time. However, it should be noted that in the Africancontext, other factors may have contributed to such a preference. This includes difficultto access funding for research. This may account for why much of the current researchon Africa is carried out by western researchers who are more likely to access resourcesthan researchers in African universities. As a result, there are many small-scale qualitativestudies as they can be carried out at a low cost by sole researchers. In addition, due to chal-lenges such armed conflict, lack of infrastructure physical access to research sites is oftendifficult in some parts of Africa.

SampleAnalysis of the sampling strategies adopted in a body of literature/research can providesome insights into the nature of knowledge on a topic (Eacott 2011) and the trendsacross the studies over time (Hallinger and Chen 2014). Researchers will use samplesthat will support their purposes. It is noted that while 31 articles were sampled in thisanalysis, some researchers adopted more than one sampling strategy in their work(Table 3). The most frequently used sampling strategy was ‘purposive’. This is not surpris-ing given that most studies were qualitative. Purposive sampling is a key feature of quali-tative research and is used to access those who have in-depth knowledge about particularissues (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011).

Sample size varied, with the largest being learners’ standardised testing in English andMathematics in which a total of 3797 responses were received. This consisted of 2076year 3 pupils (1072 boys and 1004 girls) and 1721 year 6 pupils (902 boys and 819 girls).In this study, both quantitative (standardised testing and collation and review of systemicdata) and qualitative (interviews, document analysis and observations) tests were used;however, the sample for the qualitative data was not reported. The second largest studywas by Grobler (2014), which surveyed teachers to investigate their perceptions of schoolleaders’ emotional competence. In this study, 2856 questionnaires were completed, but

388 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

2386 responses or 73% were useable. The smallest sample was one that interviewed threefemale principals from schools in disadvantaged communities (Diko 2014).

Data analysisOf the 31 empirical studies, 22 drew on qualitative techniques, 6 on quantitative tech-niques and 4 used mixed methods. Qualitative analysis frequently involved organising,coding, accounting for and explaining the data, developing categories and generatingthemes inductively (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011). One study (Wanzare 2011)employed content analysis, where data were coded, categorised and themes generatedinductively, while theory generation through a grounded theory approach with openand axial coding of data was also evident (e.g. Ah-Teck and Starr 2014; Ngcobo andTikly 2010). Analytical frameworks (intersectionality and the management route model)were mobilised to analyse gender roles and the lived experiences of female leaders(e.g. Johnson 2014; Moorosi 2010, 2013). Naidoo and Perumal (2014) employed critical dis-course analysis to understand social and cultural discourses and attendant powerdynamics. The use of data drops, quotes from participants, is arguably an attempt toprevent reductionism and give voice to marginalised people.

Eleven (n = 11) studies investigated the phenomena of educational administrationthrough statistical techniques. In these studies, the dominant mode of analysis was report-ing descriptive statistics such as the percentages, frequencies or means. A number ofpapers draw on more advanced statistical analysis such as correlation coefficient and step-wise regression (e.g. Tesfaw 2014), confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation mod-elling, Levene’s t-test and ANOVA (e.g. Grobler 2014), MANOVA and the testing ofhypotheses at both multi- and univariate levels with statistical significance also reported(e.g. Mestry and Naidoo 2009). Hallinger and Chen (2014) in a review of the literatureon educational leadership and management in Asia highlighted the lack of scientificrigour in studies. They noted that the data analysis of quantitative studies in educationalleadership and management has until recently used ‘simple statistical analysis mainlydescriptive statistics with a few using advanced modelling which comprises tests thatwere capable of exploring relationship among multiple independent and dependent vari-ables’ (15). This trend has been also noted with reviews on studies from North America(Bridges 1982; Hallinger 2011). These recent approaches to reporting of analysis aremore closely aligned with the American Educational Research Association’s (2006) guide-lines for research reporting.

Table 3. Distribution of sampling strategies(n = 31).Sampling strategy Percentage

Purposive 40.0Convenient 12.5Random 10.0Cluster 7.5Representative 7.5Snowball 5.0Probability 2.5Maximal variation 2.5Unclear 10.0

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 389

Data sourcesBased on the information provided in articles, data sources were categorised as interviews,observation, archival/document analysis, questionnaires or tests. Each empirical work wasassigned to at least one of the five types of data sources. The most frequent data sourcewas interviews (n = 27), while tests were the least used (n = 1). Observation (12.31%, n = 8)was also among the least favoured, although this low usage is expected given the difficul-ties and costs of carrying out observational studies (Table 4).

The empirical works were also examined in relation to the dynamism embedded in theirresearch design. They were classified as either cross sectional or longitudinal. Althoughthere were a few studies that span a number of years (e.g. Moorosi 2013; Prew 2009)and some with follow-up (e.g. Dixon and Tooley 2012; Tooley, Dixon, and Stanfield2008), the majority of studies were static cross-sectional projects. The reliance uponcross-sectional designs is consistent with other reviews on educational administration(Heck and Hallinger 2005; Reynolds, Teddlie, and Stringfield 2000). Such an approachwhile adding breadth to the studies in the field from Africa may not add to the depthof understanding. However, given the scarcity of resources in many African countries high-lighted earlier, small-scale cross-sectional studies may continue to be a preferred means ofmeeting universities’ research requirements.

ParticipantsIn the past there has long been a preference for the study of educational administration atthe elementary level (Bridges 1982; Erickson 1967; Hallinger 2011), although there isincreased interest in understanding how leadership is enacted in secondary schools,which in general tend to be larger, more complex and differentiated in their staffing (Hal-linger 2011). This is more so in Africa, where countries reforming their education systemhave embarked on the expansion of secondary education in line with the MillenniumDevelopment Goals on the provision of basic education.

While the participants varied across the identified studies, including principals/head tea-chers, deputy principals, teachers, school governing boards/bodies, district education officials,parents and students, the vastmajority (28out of 31) hadprincipals as theprimaryparticipants.Typically, they were interviewed or asked to complete questionnaires focused on their leader-ship roles. Consistentwith educationpolicy trends inAfrica, therewas almost an equal numberfor elementary/primary and secondary schools (16 and 18, respectively).

Causality impliedEducational researchers are frequently concerned with issues of causation. In educationaladministration, researchers may be interested in predicting, for example, what effect

Table 4. Distribution of data sources (n = 31).Data source Percentage

Interviews 41.5Questionnaire/survey 21.5Document review 15.4Observation 12.3Tests 1.5Unclear 4.6

390 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

will occur when an innovation is introduced, why or how it will produce such an effect(Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011). Casual models predict relationships between anadministrator and behaviours and outcome variables in a variety of ways (Pitner 1988).Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2011) suggest that causal relationships in a study areinferred rather than observed. There may be multiple indirect non-linear causal links inresearch. From analysis of the sampled work, where causal links were clearly identified,educational leadership was linked with improvement of practice.

In the last two decades, a great deal of attention has been directed towards studyingthe relationship between school leadership and school effectiveness and improvement.This has resulted in the development of several causal models to investigate the relation-ship between educational leadership and student achievement (Bossert et al. 1982; Hallin-ger and Heck 1996, 1998; Pounder, Ogawa, and Adams 1995). The models assume a causallink between contextual factors, leadership variables, aspects of the school’s organisationand climate and variables related to the school’s effectiveness, including student achieve-ment, student engagement, dropout, enrolment and student commitment (Krüger, Wit-ziers, and Sleegers 2007). To analyse the causal links in the studies sampled, we drawfrom the model developed by Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996).

For this analysis, the ‘educational leadership’ variable refers to leadership characteristicsor behaviour; ‘contextual/environment’ is defined as any external stimulus to the schoolthat exerts pressure on it, for example, contextual changes, legal frameworks and policiesand market uncertainty. ‘School climate or organisational form’ refers to all aspects of theschool that are not part of the leadership variables; and ‘school effectiveness or perform-ance’, which is reflected in student achievement, student engagement, enrolment,dropout and student commitment data. Causal links have been identified in both concep-tual and empirical works as the studies may test a particular relationship or propose a newrelationship (Eacott 2011). These four constructs have been further classified into fourcausal models, which include independent constructs, dependent constructs and modera-tor constructs, or both independent and dependent constructs (Finkelstein and Hambrick1996). Educational leadership can take different causal classifications depending on theapproach adopted by the researcher. Table 5 presents a breakdown of the differenttypes of causal relationship examined in the studies identified in the sample.

While it was possible to identify some causal links and the causality implied in somestudies, the majority simply explain or describe a leadership practice (e.g. Ah-Teck andStarr 2014; Mbugua and Rarieya 2014; Moswela 2010; Naidoo and Perumal 2014; Ngunjiri2010; Onguko, Abdalla, and Webber 2008, 2012; Owusu-Bempah, Addison, and Fair-weather 2014). From our analysis, we conclude that educational leadership is usually mod-elled as a dependent variable, especially as dependent on environment. This is notsurprising given that the studies sampled were primarily concerned with how contextand external policies influenced the way school leadership is practised or enacted(Table 6).

Conclusion

In concluding, we note four key aspects about the sampled studies from Africa. Research-ers had a preference for small-scale qualitative research. These were mainly cross-sectionalempirical studies rather than conceptual studies. These findings are consistent with

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 391

analysis elsewhere that suggests that research in educational leadership and managementfavour small-scale empirical investigations (Heck and Hallinger 2005). Half of the qualitat-ive studies in the sample (11 out of 22) had less than 10 participants. Some quantitativestudies incorporated elements of longitudinal designs – although very few. Analysis ofthe subsets of quantitative studies found some scholars employing advanced statisticalmethods. The analysis presented in this paper provides a sketch of African educational lea-dership management and administration research. Notable, although not inconsistentwith the field at large, was the lack of an overt theoretical orientation.

The research sampled was primarily directed to practitioners and policy-makers asthey adopted problem-solving practical approaches aimed at improving practice.This analysis strengthens the notion that educational leadership and managementare concerned with informing policy and practice (Hallinger and Chen 2014). Therewas little attention paid to theory generation which supports our earlier observationthat African-based scholarship lacks indigenous theorising (Eacott and Asuga 2014).The lack of African grounded theory means that while researchers may base their

Table 5. Analysis of causal models.

Type of causal modelNo. ofstudies

Educational leadership as an independent constructEducational leadership→ Environment 2Educational leadership→ Organisational form 4Educational leadership→ Performance 6Educational leadership as a dependent constructEnvironment→ Educational

leadership12

Organisational form → Educationalleadership

2

Performance→ Educationalleadership

1

Educational leadership as moderator constructEnvironment and Leadership→ Performance 2Organisation form and Leadership→ Performance 1Educational leadership as independent and dependent constructsimultaneously

Educational leadership→ Educationalleadership

3

Table 6. Summary of methodological features of the corpus.Methodologicalfeature As present in the literature

Ontology Educational administration is part of an external objective reality that is knowable. It is possible toidentify unique characteristics of leadership by individuals or groups.

Epistemology There is a perception of subjectivity and meaning-making. Some adherence to the principles oflogical empiricism and accountability for their instruments and analytical process, drawing onparticipants’ perception and the conclusions by authors that results were specific to the contextshows an attempt at anti-positivist paradigm.

Normative/ethical Educational administration is an applied field seen as a means to bring about improvement. In thecontext surveyed, its value lies in solving school-related challenges to improve performance.

Theory of subject The body of knowledge has focused on leadership rather than management. The role ofleadership is to address problems and challenges faced by individuals and schools.

Methods employed A range of methods such as interviews, questionnaires, observations and documentary analysismostly of cross-sectional nature. Except for a few cases, analysis does not refer to theory.

Causality implied Educational leadership coupled with external factors brings about change in school performance.

392 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

work in an African context, the intellectual resources are overlaid – a form of epistemicimperialism. As a result, any theoretical, conceptual or empirical arguments may not bereflective of African values and culture, or even sensitive to the local contexts andneeds (Pansiri 2011). The continued reliance on external/western intellectual resourcesoffers little more than novelty.

The range of topics covered in the sampled literatures is relatively narrow. This focus isin contrast to research reviews in western countries which cover a broad range of topics(Bridges 1982; Hallinger 2011; Heck and Hallinger 2005). However, this narrowness may bea strength as advancing knowledge in a field arguably requires some convergence arounda few carefully articulated problems/questions. Such a claim is beyond the scope of thispaper; but this paper makes a significant contribution towards further work focused onthe matter.

Across the studies there was a regular focus on gender, and specifically genderequity. This is not surprising given that gender equity has been one of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, of which many African nations are signatories. This focus ongender issues has provided an opportunity for feminist approaches to emerge as akey theoretical resource for educational administration studies. As Ngunjiri (2010) con-tends, this brings to the fore female leadership and voices in the education field inAfrica which have been lacking.

In order to engage with the central focus of this study, we have sought to map out themethodological approaches that have featured in the contemporary literature on edu-cational leadership management and administration in Africa by analysis of work pub-lished in three of the oldest journals. While acknowledging that the work does notcover the entire published work from Africa, it does however provide insights into contem-porary scholarship in this field.

Notes on contributors

Gladys Nyanchama Asuga is a doctoral candidate in the School of Education at the University ofNewcastle. Her research interests are in the area of educational leadership, leadership preparationand development. She has published work on educational leadership preparation and developmentin Kenya.

Dr Jill Scevak is a highly experienced researcher at the Centre for the Study of Research Training andImpact (SORTI) in the Faculty of Education and Arts, University of Newcastle, Australia, who has beeninvolved in numerous projects over a 20-year period. Dr Scevak’s research has primarily focused onthe theme of individual differences in learning at the school and undergraduate level of education,doctoral student learning and with a current primary focus on learning in the professions.

Scott Eacott PhD is an educational administration theorist in the School of Education at the Univer-sity of New South Wales. He is widely published, with research interests and contributions falling inthree main areas: educational administration theory and methodology; leadership preparation anddevelopment; and strategy in education. Scott’s latest book ‘Educational Leadership Relationally’articulates and defends a relational approach to educational leadership, management and adminis-tration scholarship.

References

Agezo, K. C. 2010. “Female Leadership and School Effectiveness in Junior High Schools in Ghana.”Journal of Educational Administration 48 (6): 689–703.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 393

Ah-Teck, J. C., and K. Starr. 2013. “Principals’ Perceptions of “Quality” in Mauritian Schools Using theBaldrige Framework.” Journal of Educational Administration 51 (5): 680–704.

Ah-Teck, J. C., and K. Starr. 2014. “ Total Quality Management in Mauritian Education and Principals’Decision-Making for School Improvement: “Driven” or “Informed” by Data?” Journal of EducationalAdministration 52 (6): 833–849.

American Educational Research Association. 2006. “Standards for Reporting on Empirical SocialSciences Research in AERA Publications.” Educational Researcher 35 (6): 33–40.

Asuga, G. N., and S. Eacott. 2012. “The Learning Needs of Secondary School Principals: AnInvestigation in Nakuru District, Kenya.” International Journal of Educational Administration andPolicy Studies 4 (5): 133–140.

Asuga, G. N., S. Eacott, and J. Scevak. 2015. “School Leadership Preparation and Development inKenya: Evaluating Performance Impact and Return on Leadership Development Investment.”International Journal of Educational Management 29 (3): 355–367.

Asuga, G. N., S. Eacott, and J. Scevak. 2016. “Bringing a ‘Local’ Voice to a ‘Universal’ Discourse: SchoolLeadership Preparation and Development in Kenya.” International Studies in EducationalAdministration 44 (1): 25–40.

Bassey, M. 2012. “Case Studies.” In Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management,edited by A. R. J. Briggs, M. Coleman, and M. Morrison, 3rd ed., 155–169. London: SAGE.

Belchetz, D., and K. Leithwood. 2007. “Successful Leadership: Does Context Matter and if so, how?”In Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change: An International Perspective, edited by C. Day,and K. Leithwood, 11–137. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bossert, S. T., D. C. Dwyer, R. Rowan, and G. V. Lee. 1982. “The Instructional Management Role of thePrincipal.” Educational Administration Quarterly 18 (3): 34–64.

Bridges, E. 1982. “Research on the School Administrator: The State-of-art, 1967–1980.” EducationalAdministration Quarterly 18 (3): 12–33.

Bush, T., and H. Y. Qiang. 2002. “Leadership and Culture in Chinese Education.” In School Leadershipand Administration: Adopting a Cultural Perspective, edited by A. Walker, and C. Dimmock, 173–186.London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cheng, K. M. 1995. “The Neglected Dimension: Cultural Comparison in Educational Administration.”In Educational Leadership and Change, edited by K. C. Wong, and K. M. Cheng, 87–102. Hong Kong:Hong Kong Press.

Christie, P. 2010. “Landscapes of Leadership in South African Schools: Mapping the Changes.”Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38 (6): 694–711.

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. London:Routledge.

Coleman, M. 2012. “Interviews.” In Research Methods in Educational Leadership & Management, editedby A. R. J. Briggs, M. Coleman, and M. Morrison, 250–265. London: SAGE.

Denizen, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1998. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Diko, N. 2014. “Women in Educational Leadership: The Case of Hope High School in the Eastern CapeProvince, South Africa.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42 (6): 825–834.

Dimmock, C. 2000. “Globalisation and Societal Culture: Redefining Schooling and School Leadershipin the Twenty-First Century.” Compare 30 (3): 1–6.

Dimmock, C., and A. Walker. 2005. Educational Leadership: Culture and Diversity. London: SAGEPublications.

Dixon, P., and J. Tooley. 2012. “A Case Study of Private Schools in Kibera: An Update.” EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership 40 (6): 690–706.

Eacott, S. 2011. School Leadership and Strategy in Managerialist Times. Rotterdam: Sense.Eacott, S., and G. N. Asuga. 2014. “School Leadership Preparation and Development in Africa:

A Critical Insight.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42 (6): 919–934.Eacott, S., and C. W. Evers. 2015. “New Frontiers in Theorising Educational Administration.”

Educational Philosophy and Theory 47 (4): 307–311.

394 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

English, F. W. 2001. “What Paradigm Shift? An Interrogation of Kuhn’s Idea of Normalcy in theResearch Practice of Educational Administration.” International Journal of Leadership inEducation 4 (1): 29–38.

English, F. W. 2003. The Postmodern Challenge to the Practice of Educational Administration.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publishers.

Erickson, D. A. 1967. “The Administrator.” Review of Educational Research 37 (4): 417–432.Finkelstein, S., and D. Hambrick. 1996. Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on

Organizations. St. Paul/Minneapolis: West Publishing.Firestone, W. A., and V. M. A. Robinson. 2010. “Research on Educational Leadership-Approaches/

Promising Direction.” In International Encyclopedia of Education, edited by P. Peterson, E. Baker,and B. McGraw, 3rd ed., 740–745. Oxford: Elsevier.

Grobler, B. 2014. “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Utilization of Emotional Competence by Their SchoolLeaders in Gauteng South Africa.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42 (6):868–888.

Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hallinger, P. 2011. “A Review of Three Decades of Doctoral Studies Using the Principal Instructional

Management Rating Scale: A Lens on Methodological Progress in Educational Leadership.”Educational Administration Quarterly 47 (2): 271–306.

Hallinger, P., and D. Bryant. 2013. “Mapping the Terrain of Educational Leadership and Managementin East Asia.” Journal of Educational Administration 51 (5): 618–637.

Hallinger, P., and J. Chen. 2014. “Review of Research on Educational Leadership and Management inAsia: A Comparative Analysis of Research Topics and Methods, 1995–2012.” EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership 43 (1): 5–27.

Hallinger, P., and R. H. Heck. 1996. “Reassessing the Principals Role in School Effectiveness: A Reviewof Empirical Research: 1980–1995.” Educational Administration Quarterly 32 (1): 5–44.

Hallinger, P., and R. H. Heck. 1998. “Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness:1980–1995.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9 (2): 157–191.

Hallinger, P., and K. Leithwood. 1998. “Unseen Forces: The Impact of Social Culture on Leadership.”Peabody Journal of Education 73 (2): 126–151.

Hallinger, P., A. D. Walker, and I. A. Bajunid. 2005. “Educational Leadership in East Asia: Implicationsfor Education in a Global Society.” UCEA Review 45 (1): 1–4.

Heck, R. H., and P. Hallinger. 2005. “The Study of Educational Leadership and Management: WhereDoes the Field Stand Today?” Educational Management and Leadership 33 (2): 229–244.

Heystek, J. 2014. “Principals’ Perceptions about Performance Agreements as MotivationalAction: Evidence from South Africa.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(6): 889–902.

Ikoya, P. O. 2008. “Centralisation and Decentralisation of Schools’ Physical Facilities Management inNigeria.” Journal of Educational Administration 46 (5): 630–649.

Johnson, A. T. 2014. “Performing and Defying Gender: An Exploration of the Lived Experiences ofWomen Higher Education Administrators in sub-Saharan Africa.” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 42 (6): 835–850.

Krüger, M. L., B. Witziers, and P. Sleegers. 2007. “The Impact of School Leadership on SchoolLevel Factors: Validation of a Causal Model.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 18 (1):1–20.

Lumby, J., and J. Heystek. 2011. “Leadership Identity in Ethnically Diverse Schools in South Africa andEngland.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40 (1): 4–20.

Malakolunthu, S., J. McBeath, and S. Swaffield. 2014. “Improving the Quality of Teaching and LearningThrough Leadership for Learning: Changing Scenarios in Basic Schools of Ghana.” EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership 42 (5): 701–717.

Mbugua, F., and J. F. A. Rarieya. 2014. “Collaborative Strategic Planning: Myth or Reality?” EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership 42 (1): 99–111.

Mestry, R. 2014. “A Critical Analysis of the National Norms and Standards for School Funding Policy:Implications for Social Justice and Equity in South Africa.” Educational Management Administration& Leadership 42 (6): 851–867.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 395

Mestry, R., and G. Naidoo. 2009. “Budget Monitoring and Control in South African TownshipSchools: Democratic Governance at Risk.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership37 (1): 107–125.

Moloi, K. C., S. J. Gravett, and N. F. Petersen. 2009. “Globalization and its Impact on Education withSpecific Reference to Education in South Africa.” Educational Management Administration &Leadership 37 (2): 278–297.

Moorosi, P. 2010. “South African Female Principals’ Career Paths: Understanding the Gender gap inSecondary School Management.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38 (5):547–562.

Moorosi, P. 2013. “Constructing a Leader’s Identity Through A Leadership DevelopmentProgramme: An Intersectional Analysis.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership42 (6): 792–807.

Morrison, M. 2012. “Understanding Methodology.” In Research Methods in Educational Leadership &Management, edited by A. R. J. Briggs, M. Coleman, and M. Morrison, 14–28. London: SAGE.

Moswela, B. 2010. “Instructional Supervision in Botswana Secondary Schools: An Investigation.”Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38 (1): 71–87.

Msila, V. 2013. “Teacher Unionism and School Management: A Study of (Eastern Cape) Schools inSouth Africa.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42 (2): 259–274.

Naidoo, B., and J. Perumal. 2014. “Female Principals Leading at Disadvantaged Schoolsin Johannesburg, South Africa.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42 (6):808–824.

Ngcobo, T., and L. P. Tikly. 2010. “Key Dimensions of Effective Leadership for Change: A Focus onTownship and Rural Schools in South Africa.” Educational Management Administration &Leadership 38 (2): 202–228.

Ngunjiri, F. W. 2010. “Lessons in Spiritual Leadership from Kenyan Women.” Journal of EducationalAdministration 48 (6): 755–768.

Onguko, B. B., M. Abdalla, and C. F. Webber. 2008. “Mapping Principal Preparation in Kenya andTanzania.” Journal of Educational Administration 46 (6): 715–726.

Onguko, B. B., M. Abdalla, and C. F. Webber. 2012. “Walking in Unfamiliar Territory: Headteachers’Preparation and First-Year Experiences in Tanzania.” Educational Administration Quarterly 48 (1):86–115.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., R. B. Johnson, and K. M. T. Collins. 2009. “Toward a Philosophy of Mixed DataAnalysis.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Diego, CA, March 2009.

Owusu-Bempah, J., R. Addison, and J. Fairweather. 2014. “Commonalities and Specificities ofAuthentic Leadership in Ghana and New Zealand.” Educational Management Administration &Leadership 42 (4): 536–556.

Pansiri, N. O. 2008. “Instructional Leadership for Quality Learning: An Assessment of the Impact of thePrimary School Management Development Project in Botswana.” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 36 (4): 471–494.

Pansiri, N. O. 2011. “Performativity in School Management and Leadership in Botswana.” EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership 39 (6): 751–766.

Petersen, E. B. 2015. “What Crisis of Representation? Challenging the Realism of Post-Structural PolicyResearch in Education.” Critical Studies in Education 56 (1): 147–160.

Pheko, B. 2008. “Secondary School Leadership Practices in Botswana: Implications for EffectiveTraining.” Educational Management Administration and Leadership 36 (1): 71–84.

Pitner, N. 1988. “The Study of Administrator Effects and Effectiveness.” In Handbook of Research onEducational Administration, edited by N. J. Boyan, 99–122. New York, NY: Longman.

Pounder, D. G., R. T. Ogawa, and E. A. Adams. 1995. “Leadership as an Organization-Wide Phenomena:Its Impact on School Performance.” Educational Administration Quarterly 31 (4): 564–588.

Prew, M. 2009. “Community Involvement in School Development: Modifying School ImprovementConcepts to the Needs of South African Township Schools.” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 37 (6): 824–846.

396 G.N. ASUGA ET AL.

Prew, M., and K. Quaigrain. 2010. “Using School Performance Data to Drive School and EducationDistrict Office Accountability and Improvement: The Case of Ghana.” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 38 (6): 728–744.

Reynolds, D. C., D. H. Teddlie, and S. Stringfield. 2000. “Linking School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement.” In The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, edited by D.Teddlie, and D. C. Reynolds, 206–231. London: Falmer Press.

Seidman, I. E. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researches in Education and theSocial Sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sikes, P. 2004. “Methodology, Procedure & Ethics Concerns.” In Doing Educational Research: A Guide toFirst Time Researchers, edited by C. Opie, 15–32. London: Sage Publications.

Tesfaw, T. A. 2014. “The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and job Satisfaction: TheCase of Government Secondary School Teachers in Ethiopia.” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 42 (6): 903–918.

Thrupp, M., and R. Willmott. 2003. Education Management in Managerialist Times: Beyond the TextualApologists. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Tooley, J., P. Dixon, and J. Stanfield. 2008. “Impact of Free Primary Education in Kenya: A CaseStudy of Private Schools in Kibera.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 36 (4):449–469.

van der Vyver, C. P., P. C. van der Westhuizen, and L. W. Meyer. 2014. “Caring School Leadership: ASouth African Study.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42 (1): 61–74.

Wanzare, Z. 2011. “Instructional Supervision in Public Secondary Schools in Kenya.” EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership 40 (2): 188–216.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 397

Appendix 1

Summary of methodological approaches in individual studies

Country Reference Topics Methods/instruments Participants/sample Paradigm

SouthAfrica

Diko (2014) Women in educationalleadership

Qualitative case studyObservationInterviewsDocumentary review

One high school (teachers, parents, schoolgoverning body (SGB) and educationofficials) number of participants unclear

Feminist criticaltheory

Moorosi (2010) Female principals’ careerpath to leadership

Qualitative approachSemi-structured interviews

28 female principals10 circuit managers10 SGB chairpersonsPurposive sampling

Critical Feministapproach

Naidoo and Perumal(2014)

Female leadershipexperiences indisadvantaged schools

QualitativeObservationField notesSemi-structured interviews

Three female principalsPurposive sampling

Interpretive

Mestry and Naidoo(2009)

Budget monitoring andgovernance

Survey questionnaire Ten members of a governing body from 45primary and secondary schools

Positivist

Moloi, Gravett, andPetersen (2009)

Globalisation andeducation

Conceptual paper

Prew (2009) School developmentplanning and localisedpractices

Case study-longitudinal studyClassroom observationsOpen and semi-structured interviews non-participant and participant observationsDocument reviews

96 schools11schoolsThree schoolsPurposive sampling

Interpretive

Ngcobo and Tikly(2010)

Dimensions of effectiveleadership

Qualitative case study interviewsGrounded theory approach

13 schools (teachers, parents and students)Purposive and convenience samplingNo. of participants unclear

Interpretive

Lumby and Heystek(2011)

Ethnicity/diversity andimpact on leadership

Comparative case study of two schools InterviewsPurposive sampling

Interpretive

Msila (2013) Teacher unionism andschool management

InterviewDocumentary review

Ten urban schools (10 principals, 10 unionmembers and 10 teachers)Purposive sampling

Positivist

Heystek (2014) Performance agreementsand motivation

Qualitative designFocused group interviews

Four focused groups of principals,Purposive samplingThree sample groups, 180, 20, 24

Interpretive

Mestry (2014) Funding policy and socialjustice

Analysis of policyDocuments

One policy document

(Continued )

398G.N.A

SUGAET

AL.

Continued.

Country Reference Topics Methods/instruments Participants/sample Paradigm

van der Vyver, van derWesthuizen, andMeyer (2014)

Leadership caring role Quantitative approachSurvey questionnaire

Principals from 83 schools1041 teachers systematic stratified clustersampling

Post-positivist

Grobler (2014) Leadership’s emotionalcompetence

Survey questionnaire 109 public schools, 3270 teachersRandom sampling

Positivist

Moorosi (2013) Constructing leadershipidentity

Mixed-methods intersectionality approachSurveyInterviewObservation

237 participants surveyed27 interviewed

Interpretive

Christie (2010) Leadership landscapes inSouth Africa

Conceptual paper

Kenya Ngunjiri (2010) Spiritual leadership Qualitative – interviews, archival data and observation 16 female leadersPurposive sampling

Interpretive

Tooley, Dixon, andStanfield (2008)

Free primary education Case study Informal interviews of four school managersFocused group interviews of 43 parentsDocument analysis

Positivist

Dixon and Tooley(2012)

Free primary education Longitudinal studyCritical review of papers/documents

Interview of managers and school ownersSample not unclear

Positivist

Onguko, Abdalla, andWebber (2008)

Leadership preparation anddevelopment

Review of publicly available document Sample 5 institutions (2 government agencies,2 universities and 1 institute ofmanagement)

Interpretive

Wanzare (2011) Instructional supervision Mixed methodSurvey questionnaires interviews

200 secondary schools136 teachers56 principalRandom sampling

Positivist

Mbugua and Rarieya(2014)

Strategic planning Qualitative case studySemi-structured interviewsDocumentary review

10 participantsPurposive sampling

Interpretive

Botswana Pansiri (2008) Instructional leadership Attitudinal questionnaires 240 teachers and head teachers, 575 learnersSchools selected through convenientsampling, at school probability andsampling of cluster and simple random toselect teachers

Positivist

Moswela (2010) Instructional supervision QualitativeOpen-ended questionnairesInterviews

15 schools15 head teachers30 teachers

Interpretive

(Continued )

SCHOOLLEA

DERSH

IP&MANAGEM

ENT

399

Continued.

Country Reference Topics Methods/instruments Participants/sample Paradigm

Pheko (2008) Leadership practices andtraining

Qualitative interview Eight secondary school principals purposivelysampled

Interpretive

Pansiri (2011) Performativity in schoolmanagement andleadership

Document review Sample data student performance results injunior and senior high school

Interpretive

Ghana Prew and Quaigrain(2010)

Using data foraccountability

Mixed methods interviews, documentary review andanalysis, observation of lessons Standardised testingcollation and review of existing EducationManagement Information Systems data

2076 Year 3 and 1721 year 6 pupils from halfthe schools in district selected randomlyafter purposive clustering for representationof rural and urban areas

Positivist

Agezo (2010) Female leadership andschool effectiveness

Qualitative interviews Five female principalsPurposive sampling

Interpretive

Malakolunthu,McBeath, andSwaffield (2014)

Leadership for learning Qualitative case studyInterviewObservationField notesDocumentary review

Four schools68 respondentsMaximal variation sampling

Interpretive

Owusu-Bempah,Addison, andFairweather (2014)

Authentic leadership(comparative study)

Q method of measuring subjectivityInterview

Two universities and two NGOs (70respondents) snowball sampling

Interpretive/constructionist

Mauritius Ah-Teck and Starr(2013)

Leaders’ perception ofquality

Questionnaire 415 principalsWhole population sampled

Post-positivist

Ah-Teck and Starr(2014)

Total quality managementand decision-making

Qualitative designSemi-structured interviewGrounded theory

6 principalsPurposive sampling

Interpretive

AcrossAfrica

Johnson (2014) Gender and performativity Phenomenological/existential reflection studyIntersectionality approachInterviews

Five senior administrators in institutions ofhigher learning

Interpretive

Eacott and Asuga(2014)

Leadership preparation anddevelopment

Conceptual paper/meta-commentary

Ethiopia Tesfaw (2014) Transformationalleadership and teachers’job satisfaction

Questionnaire 20 schools320 teachers random sampling

Positivist

Nigeria Ikoya (2008) (De)centralisation ofmanagement of physicalfacilities and impact

Survey method, questionnaires (5-point Likert scale)Documents (records)

120 Principals, 72 centralised and 48decentralised secondary schoolsRepresentative sampling

Positivist

Tanzania Onguko, Abdalla, andWebber (2012)

Leadership preparation anddevelopment

Qualitative studyQuestionnaire open-endedInterviews

Seven novice principalsA variation of snowball sampling

Interpretive

400G.N.A

SUGAET

AL.