Evolution or extinction? Reflections on the future of research in educational leadership and management

Consideration of the quality, relevance and utility of research in educational leadership and management has been a growing concern of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners, but there is little agreement about its current state or priorities for development. The article reflects on the key criticisms that have been made of research in educational leadership and management in this issue, and elsewhere. It considers how we might begin to devise better ways of understanding its audiences, judging its quality and identifying priorities for the future. It argues that the research reflects its capture by those with particular interests or values, and impacts in ways which are complex and indirect. If educational leadership and management research is to be secure in its perceived value and contribution in the future, several developments are needed, including a greater emphasis on interdisciplinarity, an expansion of the range of methodologies, particularly qualtitative studies; and these shifts must be evident in training researchers as well as in the conduct of research.

Doctoral supervision of colleagues: peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence

The nexus of teaching, administration and research activities engaged in by academic staff in higher education means that each individual plays a multitude of roles in relation to colleagues, producing inevitable tensions. One role relationship that epitomizes this extraordinary juggling task is that of doctoral supervisor/supervisee, when both are academic staff in the same institution. The last 10 years has seen an upsurge of research interest in doctoral research students, and government and funding bodies have imposed ever more stringent requirements on supervisors. However, staff pairings have been ignored in this literature and research. This article reports on an exploration that seeks to redress this omission by giving voice to the participants (colleague supervisor or research student), allowing them to articulate constructs about what may be unique in the interaction, thus highlighting factors that support or impede success in the enterprise.