Invisible,Limited,and Emerging Discourse: Research Practices that Restrict and/or Increase Access for Women and Persons of Color to the Superintendency
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2008
Invisible,Limited,and Emerging Discourse: Research Practices that Restrict and/or Increase Access for Women and Persons of Color to the Superintendency
The intent of this article is to provide some evidence that decisions about the use of data are critical and can result in discourse that is inaccurate about and unsupportive of women and persons of color. Evidence is gathered through an examination of the published data used in The Study of the American School Superintendency (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000) published and funded by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). In sum, the article illustrates how choices about which and how much data to publish can result in the reification of the status quo and/or generation of a tremendously powerful new discourse that establishes the inclusive norms for a new genre of superintendency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdkinsonJ. (1981). Women in school administration: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 311–343.
2.
AlstonJ. (1999). Climbing hills and mountains: Black females making it to the superintendency. In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency (pp. 79–90). Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
AnthonyR., RoeJ., & YoungM. D. (2000). Selecting new administrators for tomorrow's administration.Iowa City, IA: Educational Placement Consortium.
4.
BarnettR. C., & BaruchG. K. (1979). The status of women senior high school principals in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 4259A. (University Microfilms No. 77-681)
5.
BellC. (1995). “If I weren't involved with schools, I might be radical”: Gender consciousness in context. In DunlapD. M., & SchmuckP. A. (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 288–312). Albany: State University of New York Press.
6.
BellC., & ChaseS. (1993). The underrepresentation of women in school leadership. In MarshallC. (Ed.), The new politics of race and gender (pp. 141–154). London: Falmer.
7.
BlackJ., & EnglishF. (1996). What they don't tell you in schools of education about school administration.Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
8.
BlountJ. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873–1995.Albany: State University of New York Press.
9.
BrunnerC. C. (Ed.). (1999). Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency.Albany: State University of New York Press.
10.
BrunnerC. C. (2002). A proposition for the reconception of the superintendency: Reconsidering traditional and nontraditional discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 402–431.
11.
BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.). (2001). The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy: Vol. 6. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
12.
BrunnerC. C., GroganM., & BjorkL. G. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the superintendency: Historical and current foundations of the position. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 211–238). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
CarterG., GlassT., & HordS. (1993). The American school superintendent: Leading in an age of pressure.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
ChaseS. (1995). Ambiguous empowerment: The work narratives of women school superintendents.Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
15.
ChaseS. E., & BellC. S. (1990). Ideology, discourse, and gender: How gatekeepers talk about women school superintendents. Social Problems, 37(2), 163–177.
16.
CherryholmesC. H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education.New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
CohenT. (1987). Remaking men. Journal of Family Issues, 8, 57–77.
18.
DunnR. J. (2001). Community and control in the superintendency. In BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 153–168). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
19.
FirstP. (2001). The new superintendency as guardian of justice and care. In BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 249–266). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
20.
GardinerM., EnomotoE., & GroganM. (2000). Coloring outside the lines: Mentoring women into school leadership.Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
GlassT. (1992). The study of the American school superintendency: America's education leaders in a time of reform.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
22.
GlassT. (1993). Through the looking glass. In CarterD., GlassT., & HordS. (Eds.), Selecting, preparing, and developing the school district superintendent (pp. 20–36). Washington, DC: Falmer.
23.
GlassT., BjorkL. G., & BrunnerC. C. (2000). The study of the American school superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
24.
GroganM. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency.Albany: State University of New York Press.
25.
GroganM. (1999). A feminist postmodernist account of collaboration: A model for the superintendency. In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred teams: Women and the superintendency (pp. 199–216). Albany: State University of New York Press.
26.
GroganM. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117–142.
27.
HansotE., & TyackD. (1981). The dream deferred: A golden age for women school administrators (Policy Paper No. 81-CC2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University School of Education, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
28.
Haring-HidoreM., & BrooksL. (1987, April). Mentoring in academe: A comparison of proteges’ and mentors’ perceived problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
29.
HochschildA. R. (1989). The second shift.New York: Viking.
30.
HoustonP. (1998). The ABCs of administrative shortages. Education Week, 17(38), 32–44.
31.
JacksonB. L. (1999). Getting inside history—Against all odds: African-American women school superintendents. In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency (pp. 179–198). Albany: State University of New York Press.
32.
JohnsonS. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
KowalskiT. (2001). The future of local school governance: Implications for board members and superintendents. In BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 183–204). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
34.
LeonardP. Y., & Papa-LewisR. (1987). The underrepresentation of women and minorities in educational administration: Patterns, issues, and recommendations. Journal of Negro Education, 57, 188–207.
35.
LomoteyK., AllenK., MarkD., & RiversS. (1996, April). Research on African American educational leaders: The state of the art. A paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York.
McAdamsR. (1998). Who'll run the schools? The coming administrator shortage. American School Board Journal, 185(8), 37–39.
38.
Mendez-MorseS. (1999). Redefinition of self: Mexican American women becoming superintendents. In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency (pp. 125–140). Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
MirandeA. (1991). Ethnicity and fatherhood. In BozettF. W., & HansonS. M. H. (Eds.), Fatherhood and families in cultural context (pp. 56–58). New York: Springer.
40.
MontenegroX. (1993). Women and racial minority representation in school administration.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administration.
41.
MountfordM., & BrunnerC. C. (2001). Motivations for school board membership: Implications for decision making. In BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 135–154). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
42.
NataleJ. (1992). Up the career ladder. Executive Educator, 14(2), 16–21.
43.
OrtizF. I. (1982). Career patterns in education: Women, men and minorities in public school administration.New York: Praeger.
44.
OrtizF. I. (1999). Seeking and selecting Hispanic female superintendents. In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency (pp. 91–101). Albany: State University of New York Press.
45.
OrtizF. I. (2000). Who controls succession in the superintendency? A minority perspective. Urban Education, 35(6), 557–566.
PerkinsJ. (2001). Souling the new superintendency: Individual souls healing the soul of the world. In BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 267–284). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
48.
PykeK. D. (1994). Women's employment as gift or burden?Gender and Society, 8, 73–91.
49.
RenzettiC. M., & CurranD. J. (1995). Women, men, and society.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
50.
RevereA. (1985). A description of Black female school superintendents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Miami University, Miami, FL.
51.
RevereA. (1989). Pioneer Black woman superintendent: Velma Dolphin Ashley, 1944–1956. Equity and Leadership, 24(2), 62–63.
52.
RiehlC., & ByrdM. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary footnotes to an optimistic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 45–64.
53.
SchmuckP., & WyantS. (1981). Clues to sex bias in the selection of school administrators: A report from the Oregon network. In SchmuckP., ChartersW., & CarlsonR. (Eds.), Educational policy and management: Sex differentials (pp. 73–97). New York: Academic Press.
54.
ScottH. J. (1980). The Black school superintendent: Messiah or scapegoat?Washington, DC: Howard University Press.
55.
ShakeshaftC. (1989). Women in educational administration.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
ShakeshaftC. (1999). The struggle to create a more gender-inclusive profession. In MurphyJ., & Seashore-LouisK. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association (2nd ed., pp. 99–118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57.
SheltonB. A. (1992). Women, men and time: Gender differences in paid work, housework and leisure.Westport, CT: Greenwood.
58.
SheltonB. A., & JohnD. (1993). Does marital status make a difference?Journal of Family Issues, 14, 410–420.
59.
SizemoreB. A. (1986). The limits of the Black superintendency: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 6, 180–208.
60.
SkrlaL. (2000). The social construction of gender in the superintendency. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 293–316.
61.
SkrlaL., ReyesP., & ScheurichJ. J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Women superintendents speak up and speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 44–75.
62.
SwobodaM., & MillarS. (1986). Networking-mentoring: Career strategy of women in academic administration. Journal of NAWDAC, 49, 8–13.
63.
TallericoM. (2000). Accessing the superintendency: The unwritten rules.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
64.
TallericoM., & O'ConnellR. W. (2001). Women and men in the superintendency: A case of a promising research alliance. In BrunnerC. C., & BjorkL. G. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 75–86). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
65.
TyackD., & HansotE. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820–1980.New York: Basic Books.
66.
WilkieJ. R. (1993). Changes in U.S. men's attitudes toward the family provider role, 1972–1989. Gender and Society, 7, 261–279.
67.
YoungM. D., & McLeodS. (2001). Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: Factors affecting women's decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 462–502.
