Abstract
Research and scholarship in educational leadership developed first in global North countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Inevitably, then, the cultural assumptions underpinning theory development were based on these Western contexts. In the 21st century, however, there has been significant growth of interest in this field in many Asian countries. One example of this expansion is the number of manuscripts submitted to academic journals. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership (EMAL), of which I am privileged to be editor-in-chief, received 640 submissions in the 12 months from March 2023 until March 2024. More than a third (37.5%) were submitted by Asian scholars. The main countries represented were China (94), India (41), and Malaysia (34), with significant interest also from other regions or countries, like the Hong Kong SAR, China, the Taiwan region of China, Philippines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore.
Despite this welcome growth of interest in educational leadership, much of the theory and literature remain focused on ideas developed from their Anglo/American roots. The dominant theories in the field, notably transformational, instructional, and distributed leadership, were developed, researched, and polished by Western scholars, predominantly within global North contexts. Subsequently, they have been applied in Asia, often by scholars exposed to Western ideas, perhaps as doctoral students. This application of theories, away from their geographical starting points, can be seen as an example of ‘policy borrowing’, with researchers and policy makers seeking solutions to problems, based on the assumption that they appear to have worked elsewhere.
This book provides a welcome addition to the limited literature on educational leadership through a cultural lens, recognising that global North theories may not be able to explain educational phenomena in Asia, which are often influenced by Confucian heritage. It features 12 chapters focusing on theory and practice in eight Asian countries and regions. Three main themes emerge from this body of scholarship. First, they illustrate the rapid growth of interest in educational leadership theory, policy, research, and practice in many, but not all, Asian contexts, as also noted above. However, there is only limited knowledge production in other countries, including Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka, none of which are featured in this book. Similarly, interest in school leadership in Japan is at an early stage, and Masaaki Katsuno’s chapter (seven) is a very welcome addition to the limited literature on this field in this country.
Second, the chapters demonstrate ways in which established (Western) theory may be adapted to fit very different cultures and contexts. For example, Turnaround Leadership is a worldwide phenomenon, as Peng Liu, Huan Song, and Weiran Wu note in Chapter 1. However, when applied in China, it is interpreted differently, notably through notions of Confucianism and benevolent leadership. Similarly, Lei Mee Thien, Siaw Hui, and Chee Seng Tan, in Chapter 2, and Donnie Adams and Ravadhi Periasamy, in Chapter 6, show how the well-established notion of instructional leadership is interpreted in Malaysian schools. In this highly centralised country, instructional leadership is prescribed, but it is interpreted in a distinctive fashion, with the main emphasis being on ‘control’ aspects, such as monitoring, with much less focus on empowerment through mentoring and modelling.
Third, several chapters demonstrate the connections between culture and religion, notably in China, the Maldives, and Oman. Islamic values, for example, strongly influence leadership and culture in the latter two countries, as well as in Indonesia and Malaysia. These influences have the potential to modify established theory and to customise these notions to the contextual realities of each country. In doing so, theorists, policymakers, and practitioners need to shake off the shackles of their histories, often based on colonialism. The development of culture-specific ideas and theories, grounded in each specific context, and not simply adapted from Western concepts, is long overdue, and this book is a helpful step in developing indigenous theory based on local values and beliefs. In this respect, Katsuno’s discussion of New Public Management in Japan is a timely reminder that Western ideas remain influential even in this very different context.
The chapters in this book provide valuable contributions to our understanding of how leadership plays out in these contexts and offer insights that highlight cross-cultural differences, as well as commonalities, demonstrating that there is no single unified approach to leadership in this diverse continent. The editors wisely acknowledge the great differences in culture and context across Asia and resist the temptation to claim a unified Asian culture. Rather, the significant variations across countries contribute to a rich tapestry of educational policy, theory, and practice in this important continent. The editors stress the need for more research on educational leadership in this diverse continent, and this may be especially important for countries not represented in this book. A large-scale cross-country comparative study of school leadership in Asia would be a valuable way forward, but this would require substantial funding.
The editors express the need for greater attention to educational leadership grounded in the distinctive cultural contexts of Asia, and this book is a welcome contribution to achieving that aim. It is significant that several Asian jurisdictions (China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, etc.) feature strongly in international comparative studies of student outcomes, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and more research is certainly required to understand whether and how cultural variables underpin their success Simplistic analysis, focusing on didactic teaching, passive students, and committed parents (‘tiger mothers’), needs to be supported by more grounded understanding. For example, why do apparently similar contexts produce such diverse outcomes? Malaysian educational policy, encapsulated in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, gives a high priority to school leadership, drawing on national and international evidence, but their PISA scores remain stubbornly low. It is beyond the scope of this book to address such challenging research problems, but I hope and expect that it will contribute to widening and deepening understanding of the great importance of context in developing and applying educational leadership theory, policy, and practice grounded in Asia.