Science is a dynamic process; its basic goal is to develop theory. Theories are abstract, general explanations which are not strictly true orfalse but, rather, useful or not. Such theories in educational administration are those that help administrators solve the problems of practice; hence theoretical perspectives in educational administration must be open, fluid, and pluralistic. Although administrators ground their knowledge in problem-solving experiences, experience is contextual and conclusions are contingent and probabilistic. Today ' propositions should remain open to inquiry and be subject to revision in light of new evidence. Above all, reflective administrative practice is rational, systematic, and reasonable and avoids all dogma that inhibits inquiry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blanshard, B. (1984). Four reasonable men. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
2.
Blumberg, A. (1984). The craft of school administration and some other rambling thoughts.Educational Administration Quarterly, 20, 24-40.
3.
Blumberg, A. (1989). School administration as a craft: Foundations of practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Brinton, C. (1990). A history of western morals. New York: Paragon House.
5.
Burrell, G. , & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.
6.
Carey, S. , & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific inquiry.Educational Psychologist, 28, 235-252.
7.
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven: Yale University Press.
8.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
9.
Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt.
11.
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Horace Liveright.
12.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Heath.
13.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.
14.
Einstein, A. , & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.
15.
Etzioni, A. (1992). Normative-affective factors: Toward a new decision-making model. In M. Zey (Ed.), Decision-making: Alternatives to rational choice models (pp. 89-111). New-bury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Evers, C. W. (1995). Recent developments in educational administration.Learning and Managing, 1, 1-13.
17.
Evers, C. W. , & Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing educational administration. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
18.
Feigl, H. (1951). Principles and problems of theory construction in psychology. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in psychological theory (pp. 179-213). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
19.
Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
20.
Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Press.
21.
Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
22.
Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon.
23.
Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.
24.
Griffiths, D. E. (1959). Administrative theory. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
25.
Griffiths, D. E. (1995). Theoretical pluralism in educational administration. In R. B. Donmoyer, J. Schurich, & M. L. Imber (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp. 300-309). Albany: SUNY Press.
26.
Halpin, A. W. (Ed.) (1958). Administrative theory in education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago.
27.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Radical choice theory: Radical but not sufficient.American Psychologist, 45, 356-367.
28.
Hoy, W. K. , & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Hoy, W. K. , & Tarter, C. J. (1995). Administrators solving the problems of practice: Decision-making concepts, cases, and consequences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
Huyssen, A. (1984). Mapping the postmodern.New German Critique, 33, 22-52.
31.
James, W. (1983). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management. New York: Free Press.
33.
Roberts, K. H. , Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Postmodernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Sarup, M. (1989). An introductory guide to poststructuralism and postmodernism. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
36.
Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
38.
Willower, D. J. (1975). Theory in educational administration.Journal of Educational Administration, 13, 77-91.
39.
Willower, D. J. (1991, August). Art and science in administration.Education, 497-500.
40.
Willower, D. J. (1992). Educational administration: Philosophy, praxis, and professing. Madison, WI: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration.
41.
Willower, D. J. (1993). Explaining and improving educational administration.Educational Management & Administration, 21, 153-160.
42.
Willower, D. J. (1994). Values, valuation, and explanation in school organizations.Journal of School Leadership, 4(5), 466-483.
43.
Zey, M. (1992). Decision making: Alternatives to rational choice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
Zuckerman, H. (1988). The sociology of science. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 511-574). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
