| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 教育學系 === 88 === At the beginning of the 20th century, educational administration had just begun to emerge as a recognizable discipline and was therefore in a sort of "prescriptive era." After World War II, the theory movement which was based on the foundation of Logic Positivism started with great swiftness. The movement aimed to establish general and systematic rules for the administration practices, while excluding the subjective elements (values and ethics) of educational administration research. In 1970, the philosophy of science shifts to the postpositivism era and begins to rapidly influence the research of educational administration, thus greatly altering the original methodology. Greenfield, Bates, and Hodgkinson, the key scholars of this movement, criticize the scientific view, and hence influence educational administration methodology away from the dominant positivistic era and into the multi-paradigm era.
The purpose of this study is to explore the historical development of paradigm shifts in educational administration methodology, and to explain how the paradigms (including positivism, postpositivism, and postmodernism) have influenced the theory development of education administration. Using the paradigm debates as a main source, this study will reveal the problematic issue of theory development of educational administration and then analyze the problematic issue of contemporarily studies in educational administration. The methods of this study consist primarily of documentary analysis, historical approach, as well as critical analysis.
The major findings of this study include:
1. Logic Positivism is still the most influential paradigm in educational administration research, the multi-paradigmatic view needs further enforcement.
2. Most scholars confirm that the scientific view in fact does contribute to the theory development of educational administration.
3. In contemporary paradigm debates, most scholars prefer theoretical pluralism to theory replacement.
4. Postmodernism is still an underdeveloped concept in educational administration research.
5. The range of research of educational administration has become more complicated, therefore leading to the growing popularity of the qualitative method.
6. The improvement of studies in educational administration is dependent on the professional committee''s push.
7. The unavoidable dimensions of "values" and "ethics" have erroneously been neglected in previous research.
8. The "craft" dimension of educational administration and the thought of the inability to link together theory and practice, have been widely neglected in previous research.
Based upon the previous discussion and analysis, several recommendations for improving the development of educational administration in Taiwan are made:
1. Latest methodological tendency should be known and different paradigms should be mutually adopted.
2. Different research methods should be respected, thus avoiding falling into the single methodology trap again.
3. Educational Administration professional organizations should come into effect and enforce the academic development.
4. There is a need for academic conferences to be held periodically, as well as the publication of periodicals in order to broadcast the newest theory development.
5. National College of Educational Research should be set up for data synthesis and the development of relevant research affairs.
6. Dimensions of "ethics", "values", and "craft" should be emphasized on.
7. National or international academic interaction should be encouraged and the biases of different groups should be eliminated.
8. Four recommendations are made for further research.
|
|---|
