Educational Administration: An Interpretative Art

Education and Society Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2001

Abstract

Educational administration has traditionally relied on leadership science or at least so called objective processes and procedures to assist administrators in what we do.  This article addresses the problems inherent in continuing with such an approach.  The author suggests an alternative effort which advocates the principles of Hermeneutics as a more effective and legitimate approach to what educational administrators do by explaining how Hermeneutics can contribute to the wisdom of administrative action. 

Educational Administration: An Interpretive Art

    Just as a well-trained pet will obey his master no matter how great the confusion in which he finds himself, and no matter how urgent the need to adopt new patterns of behavior, so in the very same way a well-trained rationalist will obey the mental image of his master, he will conform to the standards of argumentation he has learned, he will adhere to these standards no matter how great the confusion in which he finds himself, and he will be quite incapable of realizing that what he regards as the "voice of reason" is but a causal after-effect of the training he received.  He will be quite unable to discover that the appeal to reason to which he succumbs so readily is nothing but a political maneuver.

        (Paul Feyerabend, Against Method p. 16)

    This paper is not the result of a completed research study, but is an on-going journey in search of answers for what educational administrators do every day.  My purpose in this paper is to share with you where my journey has taken me thus far. 

    I have been practicing educational administration for over 25 years and, during this time, have had many successful and rewarding experiences.  Nevertheless, I have always felt something important was missing from my profession.  In search of answers, I have paid close attention to the writings and practices of colleagues, professional organizations, universities, and colleges.  I found few answers there.  However, because of the influence of Rorty (1982), Hodgkinson (1991), Smith (1993), Feyerabend (1975), Greenfield (1980), MacIntyre (1984), and Gadamer (1994), combined with my own continuing self-examination, I have discovered that the emptiness exists because, in a philosophical sense administrators do not "know" what we are doing.

    There are two important reasons why I believe this.  First, I believe administrators continue to be heavily influence by the remnants of the science of management grounded in the belief that, with the correct quasi-scientific methodology, causal relationships can be determined. Administrators believe that with the correct objective model, process, or procedure we can predict and control the actions of others.  I believe this practice has resulted in professors and consultants in educational administration believing we can provide students and colleagues with training sessions where we provide "road maps: that show how to proceed from point A to point B.  These ready-made maps often show up in the form of a new gimmick, cliché, or sound bite that will catch the attention of the community and give the impression that something substantial is taking place, when in actuality these efforts are simply illusions.  Gardner (1995) provides insight to this problem when he states, " We seek not to be original, but convincing" (p.55).

    One reason I believe we cannot completely shed the view of educational administration as leadership science is made clear by Fiumara (1990) when she states, "Once a scientific structure is established it legitimizes the only correct way of thinking.  It is considered self evident that we spire to a particular style of knowledge without worrying about the dangers that might result" (p.22).  Feyerabend (1975) makes essentially the same point when he states, "There also exist facts which cannot be unearthed except with the help of alternatives to the theory, which becomes unavailable as soon as alternatives are excluded" (p.27).

    It is my opinion that administrators and other policy-makers who advocate so-called value-free plans do so because they believe they allow for calculated decisions unfettered with the messiness of humanity.  How does the so-called objective, technical approach guide us when dealing young adolescents who are unsure about the future, or the kindergarten student wondering when his/her mother or father is coming home?  I believe it is untenable to think that "value-free, law lie" policies are operable in these situations.  My experience has shown that predictions based on sterile quantified jargon, absent human interference, are not possible, because as Rorty (1984) states, "The human mind always interferes because the mind or reason has a nature of its own" (p.192).

    I maintain that we place faith in educational administration as objective technical training because we erroneously believe that explanation and understanding are one and the same.  As Howard (1982) explains, understanding is not explanation; it is prelude to explanation.  Technical, socialized training that I see advocated in leadership preparation programs, does not suffice for daily practice because the human element messes things up.  Jacques Ellul (1964) believes it is not a matter of leaving it up to inspiration, ingenuity, nor intelligence to discover solutions.  It is rather to rely on methods or techniques.  This technical approach is based on the very methods that caused the problems in the first place.  In other words, the true meaning of human encounters does not rest solely with a method or technique, but with one's ability to interpret and interact with the actions and beliefs of others.  Do we want descriptions of situations which facilitate prediction and control, or do we want understandings which help us decide what to do?

    The second reason our practice is operating from an erroneous philosophical foundation is based on my view that educational administration has developed into little more than a lock-step socialization process.  We have become so comfortable with this way of thinking that we either write off introspective reflection as a waste of time, or, worse yet, are not aware that such an activity is an option.  The distressing part for me is that the university, the profession, and the students of educational administration as well, seem unaware of this emptiness. David Riesman (1989) believes the socialization process holds little concern with the reasons for schooling or for educating well. MacIntyre (1984) states succinctly that this socialization mechanism can not remain morally neutral and that too often the suggested routes to effectiveness are a manipulative mode.  I take the position that answers to the above concerns cannot be found in a socialization process or managerial/scientific indoctrination.

    If, as I suggest, that our reliance on the "training" of administrators has resulted in socialized recipes that reinforce our preconceived ideas, what suggestions might rectify the situation?  Might there be ways of experiencing and knowing in educational administration based on the art of interpretation?  If approached as an interpretative art, then I believe we must examine the principles o Hermeneutics.  This term generally refers to the art, theory, and philosophy of the interpretation of meaning of an object, a work of art, and human action, Schwant (1997).

    One way to transform our thinking from the positivistic science of leadership, to interpreting human action, is suggested by Howard (1982) who sees Hermeneutics as an art, and the "flesh and bones of ordinary language" (p.36).  In order to make the leap from the mechanical process Gadamer (1994) asks, "That we remain open to the meaning of the other person" (p.268).  To ignore the experience of attempting to understand and interpret the actions and motives of others causes us to end up participating in a mindless activities where we become role players trying hard to be like everyone else.

    A thorough explanation of Hermeneutics will not be conducted for this paper, but the impact of leaders in the field such as Fredrich Schleiermacher will be examined.  Schleiermacher (Ormiston & Schift, 1990) is important because he was the first to attempt to broaden Hermeneutics to the principles of psychology and sociology.  Understanding, for Schleiermacher, was comparable to speaking.  In order to understand a thought, whether spoken or written, it must be understood as a part of the speaker's life process.

    Dilthy, another interpretative philosopher, regarded Hermeneutics as having a broader epistemological application (Palmer 1969).  Dilthy maintained that in daily life humans find themselves in situations where they have to understand what is happening around them in order to act or react accordingly.  Smith and Heshusius (1986) argue that, for Dilthy, this understanding can only be obtained through a process of interpretation involving Hermeneutics.  In other words, a bridge must be constructed between a known comfortable way of acting and an unknown way of acting.  Dilthy believed that to do this one has to understand understanding.

    Gadamer (1994), considered by many as the most important and influential hermeneutical thinker, totally rejected the enlightenment's view of reality.  Therefore, he would undoubtedly reject the positivist's underpinnings for a so-called science of leadership.  For Gadamer, understanding moves beyond science because aesthetic or artistic understanding always takes place in relationship to something else that must be understood.  Greenfield (1980) refers to this when he talks about the richness and value of the subjective aspects of educational administration.  I believe there are some critical aspects of Hermeneutics that are necessary for the successful interpretative art of educational administration.  The most important of these include: a personal commitment to understanding; historical social context of the cultural milieu; knowing the whole and the parts of actions and beliefs, listening skill and introspective self reflection.

A Personal Commitment to Understanding

    Hirsh (1967) sees understanding as the capacity to discern the true nature of a situation without rules for generating insights (p.274).  Becker (1968) believes that the true mature of a situation requires "the interpreter to put himself in the place of the actor as best he can" (p.191).  Clearly, from these definitions, a prescribed process or model is inadequate when it comes to understanding the words and actions of others.  For example, when students fight in school the initial statements about that fight are superficial at best, and one has to dig deeper to understand the true nature of the situation.  Stated differently, in order to understand others one must understand the true meaning of their actions and the words they use,  Incidentally, one often discovers that it is difficult to be as consistent as the subjective free student handbook dictates.

    Gadamer (1994) believes that understanding others begins with a questioning of things.  When we begin to ask questions, we must pay attention to language because, without understanding language, we understand very little.  These questions transform the questioner by forcing him/her out of the context of his/her own life.  Habermas (1981) supports this view with his communicative action theory in which a member of a society must attempt a reflective interaction of two or more people to establish meaningful and productive interpersonal relations.  I it possible that understanding is lacking in schools with a diverse student population?  For example, how does one understand family differences of a typical parent-teacher conference without understanding language?

    For Gadamer (1994), resolution of human interaction fail until both actor and actors reach what he calls a "fusing of horizons," because resolution and understanding do not result form individual, closed decisions.  Stated differently, any action or experience shard by both the administrator and another, is no longer the administrators experience alone, but a combined experience.  For administrators, I believe we must see actions or works in terms of the beliefs and  values of the student, parent, teacher and administrator.  For example, when an administrator attempts to include parents and teachers in decision making, actions become shared experiences between participants.

    On a daily basis, the principal attains a desired state of affairs by making many promising decisions  The principal can disagree with the majority if he/she believes a course of action will fail.  However, the only condition under which the principal overrules others should be after performing the necessary ground work.  Put simply, I believe decisions made in opposition to others can only become accepted after the principal has reached an understanding of the views of others prior to making the decision.  Thus, the understanding of an action is the fusing of the two views into a distinct entity: the interpretation.  This is what I refer to as the interpretative art of educational administration.

Historical Social Context of the Cultural Milieu

    A second consideration for the interpretative art of educational administration is the importance of the historical social context in which events occur.  Only by locating the historical social context of the present culture can we attempt to understand the cultural milieu.  I believe administrators have to understand the cultural context of their surroundings if they expect to have their decisions understood and accepted by students, parents, and teachers.  Lambert (1997) explains it by saying that we must pay close attention in identifying clues that surround us with meanings already known.  Finally, in order to describe the culture, the principal must understand it; in order to understand the culture, the principal must participate in it; and participation presupposes that the principal belongs (Habermas, 1981).  In short, we must engage in the world around us.

Knowing the Whole and the Parts of Actions and Beliefs

    A third element in the art of interpretation is the need to understand the complete actions and beliefs of others, which requires understanding the parts as well.  Critics of Hermeneutics call this the "hermeneutic circle" which results in a continuous examination of events with no resolution possible.  A paralysis of analysis.  I believe this so-called "hermeneutic circle" involves the heart and soul of administration because it embraces the humanity of what we do.  I see this circle of understanding as a strength, because through continued attempts at understanding the whole and its parts, effective praxis becomes possible.

    The issue of trying to understand the whole and its parts becomes evident when we talk about specifics, such as gifted students.  We must do more than examine the procedures and policies of the talented and gifted program.  We must also examine peer pressure, parental pressure, and the student's own hopes and fears.  Another example is that when working with diverse students, one must look beyond socioeconomic status or housing patterns.  This information alone does not explain family roles, the importance of extended family, and the meaning some cultures ascribe to academic performance versus personal respect.  Finally, standardized testing may serve as an indicator that student achievement is not what it should be, but these same quantitative, objective indicators will not help us understand why low scores exist.

    The critics of Hermeneutics also state that the hermeneutic form of knowing suffers from particular ongoing traditions, customs and prejudices that work against accurate and complete understanding.  Gadamer (1994) believes, that far from ruling out the possibility of truth, the understanding and examination of traditions, customs, and prejudices allow us to establish the truth.  I agree with him because I believe we can not find solutions to problems by using the same thinking that created them.

Listening Skill

    The fourth critical element of the interpretative art of administration, but one seldom mentioned, is the art of listening.  Fiumara (1990) believes our culture is deaf because we do not listen.  She goes on to say that:

    "The ability to listen allows us to remain open to further theoretical fields of concern.  When we fail to listen, continued information becomes busy with ever growing details, and then more details ad infinitum, but makes us strangers to our inner world" (p.162).

A fundamental tenet of Hermeneutics requires listening to one another, because the other person may be right.  The silence required for listening creates a distance or depth which allows deeper meanings and implications to emerge.  We understand the significance of this practice when faced with an irate parent or during discussions about changes of attendance boundaries for individual school buildings.  Put simply, we must listen with an open mind to things we do not want to hear.  Until we listen to everyone, we cannot fully understand others.  Until we listen well, I believe effective educational administration will elude us.

Introspective Self Reflection

    It follows, therefore, that we cannot genuinely interpret the beliefs and values of others without appreciation, recognition, and examination of our own lives.  We must attempt a cultural questioning, hermeneutic sense of being in the world.  Support for this view comes from Aaron (1970) when he talks about people having to seek out the motives for their action, if they are to distinguish between the probable and the true.  I believe none of this is possible until an administrator has a clear understanding and appreciation of "self".  Smith (1993) is correct when he states, "Put simply, because Hermeneutics is a theory of understanding, it is also a theory of self-understanding" (p.184).

   I believe most educational administrators refrain form introspection because, by avoiding any critical self-reflection, they need not face the results a concerted effort might reveal.  This closed mind set has been so pervasive that we run around paying little or no attention to what we do, just so long as we keep the school board, parents, and teachers happy.  Michael Imber (1995) contends, and I agree, that we have become really good at career knowledge because it makes our lives more pleasant.  Even if this close-at-hand, thoughtless process allows practitioners to operate on a daily basis, a continued examination of our own lives and the life situations of others will lead to greater administrative success than blindly following a training manual.  Gadamer (1994) states, "Instead of us finding truth, truth finds us" (p.38).

Ethical Considerations

   Within all interpretative activity, ethics dictate action; one must be honest and trustworthy, for example.  Therefore, a continual examination of our values in the context of others becomes necessary.  MacIntyre (1984) writes that we have become unaccustomed to thinking of effectiveness as a distinctive moral base.  As necessary as that moral deliberation is, it is not discussed in educational administration texts as mush as it should be.  Hermeneutical reflection requires us to deliberate on the actions and beliefs of others while we attempt to enrich our own moral base.  Christopher Hodgkinson (1991) makes this pint quite clearly when he states:

The central question of administration must, therefore, address how people ought to relate to each other.  Education is a deeply moral enterprise.  How can the administration of such an enterprise be any less moral?  (p.140)

    Another ethical requirement is that all administrators practice honest and open interpersonal communications through honest dialogue and narratives.  As Postman (1996) says,

The purpose of narrative is to give meaning to the world, and a basis for moral conduct, not to describe behavior scientifically.  The measure of a narrative's "truth" of "falsity" rests in its consequences.  Without a narrative, life has no meaning.  Without meaning, learning has no purpose.  Without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention (p.7).

Incidentally, we could improve honest, open interpersonal communication by having dialogue and narratives emulate from not only the professor but from the practitioner as well.

Summary

   Clearly the difference between a so-called science of administration and my belief in administration as a interpretative art is more than an operational mode.  As administrators, we may have a prescribed model or process to complete necessary managerial tasks, but a philosophical distinction remains between "what is" and what "ought to be."  The human element puts purpose and clarity into what we do and is necessary for the interpretative art of school administration.

   What does the world look like from the perspective of Hermeneutics.  Rogers (1994) believes it looks like a text.  If one pictures the world in this way, it is known only if someone reads it.  For those who do take the time to read the text, certain parts are relevant and other parts are ignored as irrelevant for interpretation.  For example, the richness and strength of cultures different form our own are sometimes seen as problems or difficulties.

   For me, understanding, not class size, standardized testing, scheduling, and other managerial details, gives purpose, inspiration, and meaning to educational administration, I assert that effective educational administration is not a question of what empirical research or established procedure to use, but what, after hermeneutical reflection, it makes sense to do.  For me, a real strength of moving away form the traditional method of studying and practicing educational administration is that one gets closer to wisdom in their decisions.  The least we can do is make the effort.

References

   Aaron, R. (1970). Main currents of sociological thought II. New York: Doubleday.

   Becker, H. (1968). Through values to social interpretation: Essays on social contexts, actions, types, and prospects. New York: Greenwood Press.

   Donmoyer, R., Imber, M., Scheurich, J. (1995). The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.

   Ellul, J. (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.

   Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. New York: Verso Publishing.

   Fiumara, G. (1990). The other side of language: A philosophy of listening. New York: Routledge.

   Gadamer, H. G. (1994). Truth and method. New York: Continuum.

   Gardner, H. (1995).  Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books.

   Greenfield, T. (1980). The man who comes back through the door in the wall: Discovering truth, discovering self, discovering organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, (3), 26-59.

   Habernas, J. (1981).  The theory of communicative action: Reason and rationalization of society. (Vol 1). Boston: Beacon Press.

   Hirsh, E. D., Jr. (1967).  Validity in interpretation.  New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press.

    Howard, R. (1982). The three faces of Hermeneutics: An introduction to current theories of understanding.  Los Angeles: University of California Press.

   Lambert, L (1997). Who will save our schools: Teachers as constructivist leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.

   Mueller-Vollmer, K. (1985). The Hermeneutics reader: Texts of the German tradition from the enlightenment to the present. New York: Continuum.

   Orimiston, G. & Schift, A. (1990). The hermeneutical tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur. New York: State University of New York Press.

   Palmer, R., (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation theory in Schliermacher, Dilthy, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

   Postman, N. (1996). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York : Random House.

   Riesman, D. (1989). The lonely crowd. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

   Rogers, W. (1994). Interpreting interpretation: Textual Hermeneutics as an ascetic discipline.  University Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State University Press.

   Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN: university of Minnesota Press.

   Schwandt, T. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.

   Smith, J. & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers, Educational Leadership, January, p.4-12.

   Smith, J. (1993). Theory and concepts of qualitative research: Perspectives from the field. Flinders, D. & Mills, G. Eds. Chapter 11. New York: Teachers College Press.

Return to LES Perspectives October Home Page