Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural contexts

Abstract

PurposeEstablished educational leadership discourse has been dominated by Anglo‐American perspectives oblivious to the cultural diversity that characterizes the contemporary world. It has frequently privileged mono‐cultural, mainstream values which have meant indigenous and ethnic groups have suffered alienation, exclusion and disadvantage. Western‐led educational interventions in developing nations also frequently fail to acknowledge the rich cultural traditions of recipient societies and theories and practice are rarely appropriately scrutinized for “cultural fit”. The purpose of this paper is to construct a theory for leadership in intercultural contexts.Design/methodology/approachThe article reviews how monocultural assumptions of colonial and national leadership cultures in the past were frequently inappropriate for the diverse populations they were intended to serve. The global era has witnessed the emergence of cross‐cultural theory and research paradigms to combat cultural blindness and develop cultural sensitivities. While applauding these developments, the epistemological assumptions that underlie such research are questioned. A case for more nuanced theory, which acknowledges complex interactions between agents from different cultures, is developed. This includes a call for more dynamic research tools based upon constructivist and phenomenological premises.FindingsCross‐cultural research has generated territorial maps that promote insight and mutual understandings. However, it relies upon essentialist stereotypes that mask the existence of complex sub‐cultures and dynamic forces of change within national cultures. Case study research which taps the subjective understandings of cultural actors is cited to reveal a more complex process of interaction between cultural agents.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a theoretical exploration, not an empirical report. It is limited by the scarcity of existing research in a fledgling field.Practical implicationsThe article encourages researchers to move from observationally based, stereotypical portraits to more nuanced concepts of cultures as complex, multi‐layered and changing phenomena. It establishes the epistemological foundations for future research in inter‐cultural contexts.Originality/valueThe paper develops new directions for future theory and research.

Educational leadership in China: Contexts and issues

“…Are the values and actions of educational leaders in China bound or shaped by these cultural contexts? Collard (2007) argued that there is a need for constructing a theory for leadership in intercultural contexts and a call for educational leaders "to understand diverse cultural realities, to discern the deep values and assumptions upon which they are based, to mediate between them and to build bridges at cognitive, individual and institutional levels" (p. 751). In addition to the influence of culture and values, there are also themes of study in educational leadership such as school leadership, teacher leadership, middle leadership and leadership in special education (Ribbins, 2006).…”

‘Parallel leadership in an “unparallel” world’—cultural constraints on the transferability of Western educational leadership theories across cultures

“…Many scholars attribute the upsurge of US-based management theories to the political, technological and economic superiority of the USA in the post-war years (e.g. Foster 1962, Hofstede 1980a, Collard 2007. As a result, it is laden with theories, practices and modes of operation that reflect US cultural assumptions which are characterized by consumerism, individualism and self-sufficiency, competitiveness, toughness and rationality; while being exemplified in some non-Western countries as new, modern, scientific and results-oriented (Bellah et al 1985, Lam et al 1999, Pilkington and Johnson 2003.…”

Comparative leadership: pathways, scope and values in DRC-English 'urban' schools

“…Some may be motivated by 'what works' and embrace a view of comparative research that produces objective instrumental knowledge, as framed by Ribbins and Gunter (2002). They tend to favour, though not exclusively, quantitative approaches designed to respond to explicit policy demand (Métais, 2001), to allegedly solve particular problems ranging from students' achievement gaps, optimal class size, teacher salary, to staff motivation (Steiner-Khamsi, 2016) -forgetting or ignoring that globalisation is mediated by culture (Vulliamy, 2004) that needs to be captured even in its constantly changing forms (Collard, 2007). McGrath (2001, p.267) describes it as the 'cult of efficiency (that) works against the painstaking analysis of systems, cultures and histories and in favour of quick, simple and implemental solutions.…”

“…Without discounting the multiple published and ongoing comparative researches, some pioneering literature based attempts to theorise on multicultural comparative school leadership (Collard, 2007;) are yet to be enriched by theories built from empirical studies.…”

“…An overarching framework does not necessarily have to eliminate the multiplicity of theories and approaches. Instead, it should seek to articulate diversity in continually changing cultures (Collard, 2007), by attempting to develop a framework that recognises, to some extent, what I would call a 'homogenous multiplicity' of school leaders-based approaches, which do not necessarily have to fall into the 'hegemonic trap' of neoliberalist managerialism (Ward et al, 2015). With 'homogenous multiplicity', I aim to recognise unity over multiplicity; while I take 'hegemonic trap' to imply the dominance of managerialist approaches over multiple other perspectives.…”