We wanted to understand if and how educational leadership students are encouraged to address patriarchy in their doctoral programs. More specifically, we wanted to more fully understand why women may choose to avoid issues of gender injustice in their coursework and dissertations. We interviewed four women who are currently enrolled in educational leadership programs and hold positions of leadership in public schools in Ohio.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellC. S., & ChaseS. (1993). The underrepresentation of women in school leadership. In MarshallC. (Ed.), The new politics of race and gender: The 1992 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 141–154). Washington, DC: Falmer.
2.
BlountJ. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873-1995.Albany: State University of New York.
3.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
BrunnerC. C. (1997). Working through the “riddle of the heart.”Journal of School Leadership, 3, 138–162.
5.
BrunnerC. C. (2000). Unsettled moments in settled discourse: Women superintendents’ experiences of inequality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 76–116.
6.
ChaseS. E. (1995). Ambiguous empowerment: The work narratives of women school superintendents.Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
7.
FosterW. (2000, November). Democracy, leadership, and the technologies of thought. Paper presented to the University Council for Educational Administration. Albuquerque, NM.
8.
GlesneC. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.New York: Longman.
9.
GroganM. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency.Albany: State University of New York.
10.
GubaE. G., & LincolnY. S. (1981). Effective evaluation.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
MarshallC. (1993). Gender and race issues in administration. In MarshallC. (Ed.), The new politics of race and gender: The 1992 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 168–174). Washington, DC: Falmer.
12.
MarshallC. (1997). Dismantling and reconstructing policy analysis. In MarshallC. (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from primary and secondary schooling (pp. 1–39). London: Falmer.
13.
MillerJ. L. (1990). Creating spaces and finding voices.Albany: State University of New York.
14.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
RappD. (in press). On secrets, lies, and silence: A plea to educational leaders. Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Leadership in Education.
16.
RappD. (2001). Resistance, rebellion, and leadership in the new social order. In SearsJ., & SloanK. (Eds.), Democratic leadership practice and theory.Troy, NY: Educational International Press.
17.
ScottW. C., & HartD. K. (1979). Organizational America: Can individual freedom survive the security it promises?Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
18.
ShakeshaftC. (1987). Women in educational administration.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
SkrlaL., ReyesP., & ScheurichJ. J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Women superintendents speak up and speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 44–75.
20.
TallericoM., & BurstynJ. N. (1996). Retaining women in the superintendency: The location matters. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 642–664.
21.
ThomasJ. (1993). Doing critical ethnography.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
UsherR. (1996). A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of educational research. In ScottD., & UsherR. (Eds.), Understanding educational research (pp. 9–32). London: Routledge.
