However, the recurring reasons that were forwarded virtually bypassed contributions in the areas ofdiversity and social justice as well as alternative paradigms, such as feminism, critical theory, and postmodernism. Perhaps these andother philosophically critical locations will emerge in a more exhaustive sampling or a future one. A critical reader of a draftversion of this article asserted that the results“reflect a chasm in the field, which is still very traditional while movingahead.”
Going Wide/Deep as Reformers
Those who functioned broadly in their work and impact received more tallies within the discipline thanscholars who functioned more narrowly. This pattern suggests that those receiving an abundance of votes were perceived as having ahigher value. However, those who have made significant inroads in an educational leadership domain, such as administrator programpreparation reform, were simultaneously associated with specific change agendas. Going wide/deep was a salient pattern, then,associated with“living legend.”Generally speaking, nominees had appeared to construct their own meaning of“exceptional,”seeing this as a comprehensive effort closely related to particular reformagendas. Fullan (1999) explains that“large scaleness”is only possible where human contact has been fully established and a“multilevel system”has been managed on a“continuous basis”(p. 74). Although Fullan was addressing large-scale reforms per serather than particular reformers, these can be linked as I have done in this discussion.
Tensions in the data analysis
As is evident from Table 1, the results proved productive for identifying criteria that some academicscurrently associate with outstanding scholarship. In contrast, a minority (19 individuals) offered powerful insights into whynomination was simply not feasible to them. For a few, the very use of“our field”in the survey question was problematic:“I see a problem with your question vis-à-vis your use of the label‘our field.’”Respondents doubtless thought about the heroes in their own areas of study.
Granted, the concept of“field”is very tricky. English (2003) critiques“field”and its cousin“knowledge base”as leftovers from modernism, denying a plurality of realities, truths, and interpretations. Postmodernism bringscontext, human agency, and multiplicity into the foreground: Educational leadership, similar to leadership studies, incorporates“a broad range of perspectives,”from descriptive to social scientific to humanistic and drawing upon the interpretive methodsof history, literature, philosophy, and education (Johnson, 1996, p. 13). Another perception is that educational leadership ischanging: The intent to bridge theory with practice has created an“emerging discipline that transcends the academy precisely because it is more than mere scholarship; it is scholarship plus”(Born, 1996, p. 47).
The hybrid or“borrowing”nature of educational administration has produced a composite field, arousingconcern. Someone shared,“I’ve been deeply troubled by the many contradictions between American democratic ideals and the theoriesand notions borrowed from business, the military, and the social sciences being subsumed within the field of educationadministration with little scrutiny.”Because of the increasingly amorphous nature of educational leadership, another argued in favor of actually creating a“field”that has boundaries and a distinct identity:“Without clear, substantive differences from other academic departments, educational administration as a field ofserious scholarly inquiry has no legitimate grounds on which to defend its continued existence within academe, particularly whilehigher education is being downsized.”