Scholar-Practitioner Leadership The construct of scholar-practitioner leadership is premised on an alternative epistemology of inquiry as practice, wherein the leader as scholar and his or her leadership practice are inseparable from scholarly and critically oriented inquiry. Scholar-practitioner leadership is grounded in a postmodern—postpositivist view of leadership, which seeks to blur boundaries in the knowledge-practice and inquiry-practice relationships. The foundation of scholar-practitioner leadership, in part, is historically grounded in the works of Dewey (1935) who, in speaking of educational administration, writes of the educational administrator: His leadership will be that of intellectual stimulation and direction, through give-and-take with others, not that of an aloof official imposing, authoritatively, educational ends and methods. He will be on the lookout for ways to give others intellectual and moral responsibilities, not just for ways of setting tasks for them . . . He will realize that public education is essentially education for the public; directly, through teachers and students in the school; indirectly, through communicating to others his own ideals and standards, inspiring others with enthusiasm of himself and his staff for the function of intelligence and character in the transformation of society. (p. 10) Dewey’s conception reflects characteristics of a practitioner who is a scholar as well as practitioner, an individual who understands the intellectual, moral, and social responsibility of education in relation to transforming society. Embodied in the work of the educational administrator/leader are the values of social justice, equity, caring, and democracy. The conception offered by Dewey is one of educational leaders as public intellectuals engaged in scholarly practice, that is, practice at the local level guided by a purpose of educating the public and transforming society. Scholarly practice brings to the foreground an understanding of the importance that inquiry and knowledge, situated in the place of practice purpose, has in preparing the “public” to transform society. Historically, the “scholar” was most often associated with academe and the university setting, and therefore his or her practice was understood as one of formal research and the development of formal knowledge (codified knowledge). More recently, efforts have been undertaken to reexamine the meaning of “scholar” within the context of educational leadership2 preparation and practice (Anderson & Jones, 2000; Jenlink, 2001b, 2001c; Riehl, et al., 2000). Preparing educational leaders as scholars invests largely in understanding a “scholar” as someone who values inquiry. Scholars “do not assume that they know the right answer and they do not assume that there is an answer that is right for all places” (Riehl, et al., 2000, p. 413). Rather, the educational leader as scholar values “interacting with people who push them to greater insight. . . . They understand that all social problems arise from a social context. They recognize that this social context may be distinctively different for people who do not reflect the social, racial, and ethnic norms of this nation” (p. 414). Importantly, as a scholarly practitioner, the educational leader is self-aware of “the assumptions underpinning their own beliefs and those of others. They willingly hold their arguments and ideas up to critique and encourage others to so as well” (p. 414). Relatedly, scholar-practitioner leadership, as a construct, represents a complex set of relationships among inquiry, knowledge, practice, and theory. These relationships have a critical intersect of the core value for and understanding of a “new scholarship”.3 This “new scholarship” defines practice, knowledge, and inquiry within the practice-based world of teachers and administrators, acknowledging the value of “local theory” and “knowledge-of-practice.” Also shaping the conceptual and practical meaning of scholar-practitioner leadership is a dimension of criticality that transforms leadership practice into leadership praxis. The complexity of knowledge-practice and inquiry-practice relationships represents an emerging framework for a “new epistemology”4 of leadership practice and suggests alternative methodological considerations for the school leader. The evolution in leadership practice has been shaped, in part, by a shift from positivistic to postpositivistic considerations, and a shift from more orthodox or traditional views of educational administration to more postmodern, poststructural, and post-formal views of educational leadership. Figure 1 provides a referent for further examining the scholar-practitioner construct in relationship to leadership preparation and practice. Learning to lead, that is, leadership preparation, may be examined as moving from a more formal, traditional orientation as often characterized from a positivistic epistemological orientation wherein knowledge-for-practice is codified and delivered. In contrast, learning to lead for the scholar-practitioner is concerned less with transitional orientations of knowledge and inquiry and more with engaging in a “new epistemology” of knowledge and practice articulated through the inquiry as praxis. In this sense, learning to lead is situated in the place of practice and works to transform social practice and address social issues and problems in the school and larger societal contexts. Scholar-practitioner leadership as represented in Figure 1 exists along multiple planes and/or multiple dimensions of space, each contributing to the definitional structure of the construct. A post-formal (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1999) approach to analysis of the scholar-practitioner leadership construct instructs the articulation of Figure 1, providing a level of complexity by acknowledging the importance of the etymology or historical origins of knowledge integral to the school leader’s work. Also important from a post-formal perspective are contexts, patterns, and processes incorporated into the activities and practices that enable the school leader to address the array of problems and issues embedded within leaders’ work. A central element in scholar-practitioner leadership is criticality, which, depending on the degree of criticality, transforms inquiry, knowledge and practice. As noted in Figure 1, criticality – critical leadership praxis – borders on the left and bottom, however this element is better understood as a dimension of space, defined by the level of criticality that transforms conventional leadership practice into a leadership praxis. Importantly, criticality shapes the practice of the scholar-practitioner, and defines the practical space of in which the scholar-practitioner carries out his or her practice. In this sense, if practice is defined by a critical orientation that is concerned with social justice and equity, asymmetrical power relationships, or marginalization based on race or ethnicity, then the culture and practiced place of the school is defined as well by the critical orientation. Criticality, as an element of scholar-practitioner leadership, brings into relief the dialectical tensions necessarily important in the school leader’s work as s/he sorts out issues such as difference, equity, justice and the often problematic nature of leadership.. As suggested by the outward movement from the primary axis point in the lower left corner, the degree of criticality in relation to types of knowledge and inquiry helps us to understand the definition of degree of scholarly practice that necessarily occurs. The ideal degree of scholarly practice for school leaders seeking to create democratic learning communities would exist at a point along the primary axis, moving outward to a level of inquiry and/or knowledge-of-practice. It is within this range that the “new epistemology” of practice is best represented. In the section that follows, the criticalist dimension is further examined. The Scholar-Practitioner as Criticalist The scholar-practitioner as criticalist is a person who uses different critical lens to interrogate and otherwise make visible hidden issues of power. These lens include Frankfurt School critical theory as discourse of social transformation (Adorno, 1982, 1991, 1997; Gramsci, 1992, 1994; Kincheloe, 1993; McLaren, 1995a, 1995b; Horkheimer, 1972); poststructural theory including interpretative and historical analysis (genealogy) of power/knowledge (Foucault, 1972, 1980); poststructural deconstruction (Derrida, 1973, 1978, 1982); poststructural feminist methods (Capper, 1995, 1998); critical pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1983, 1988, 1999); and post-formal theory (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1999). At its heart, leadership is “a critical practice, one that comments on present and former constructions of reality, that holds up certain ideals for comparison, and . . . is oriented . . . toward a reconceptualization of life practices where common ideals of freedom and democracy stand important” (Foster, 1989, p. 52). Criticality in leadership is largely dependent on the lens one applies to practice, and therefore resides in large part within one’s worldview of human social, political, cultural, and economic theory and the activities that are guided by those theories. Critical approaches to educational leadership are concerned with “finding ways to help schools improve the life situations of disadvantaged groups and advocating measures which they believe will advance the value and practice of social justice, democracy and equity” (Ryan, 1998, p. 257). The criticalist “attempts to use his/her work as a form of social or cultural criticism” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994, p. 139). As a criticalist, the school leader engages in his or her work through leadership praxis5 guided by inquiry that is reflective, ethical, critical, and intentional. Praxis-oriented scholarly practice refers to “activities that combat dominance and move toward self-organization and that push toward thoroughgoing change in the practices of . . . the social formation” (Benson, 1983, p. 338). The work of the school leader as criticalist seeks to illuminate and otherwise interrogate the social context of schools, with the inquiry focused on supporting efforts for change in social practice and cultural conditions. A critical leadership praxis is used to uncover the subtleties of oppression embedded within the cultural reproduction of society, most often associated with the public school as an often non-critical instrument of society whose function is to prepare the next generation. A critical leadership praxis is also concerned with inequity and injustice that surface within the curricula and instructional systems of schools, as well as asymmetrical power relations that all too shape student and teacher identities along ideological lines that work to control and disadvantage some while advantaging others. The praxis of the leader is guided by a critical epistemology6, an epistemology that avoids oppression because its concept of truth presupposes equal power relations and seeks symmetry in the distribution and use of power. The scholar-practitioner leader as criticalist is concerned with the relationship between knowledge and thought as well as power and claims of truth within the context of her or his practice. In this sense, leadership praxis is emancipatory, “grounded in a critical consciousness, which will manifest itself in action that will always be becoming emancipatory” (Grundy, 1993, p. 174). For the educational leader as criticalist, the question is not “Am I emancipated and how can I emancipate my staff?” but rather ”How can I engage in forms of critical, self-reflective and collaborative work which will create conditions so that the people with whom I work can come to control their knowledge and practice?” (p. 174). The school leader as criticalist must consider more than claims of objective reality since social relations involving forms of power are always entailed in any representation of her or his practice in relationship to the larger context and related patterns and processes in which the leader’s practice is embedded. Scholar-practitioner leadership is marked by approaches to inquiry, which recognize that knowledge is “socially constituted, historically embedded, and valuationally based. Theory serves an agentic function, and research illustrates (vivifies) rather than provides a truth test” (Hendrick, 1983, p. 506). Concerned over a number of epistemological issues, scholar-practitioners use their scholarly practice to ensure that issues related to power relations, marginalization, or cultural reproduction do not contribute to oppressive conditions. Scholar-Practitioner Leader as Bricoleur The word bricoleur and its cognate bricolage come from bricole, a corruption of which is the English term brick wall. The root word of bricole means rebound. Bricoleur, as Levi-Strauss (1966) has noted, is “used with references to some extraneous movement” (p. 16)—movement in physical terms such as a ball rebounding off a wall, in sociological terms the social interaction in activities, and in psychological terms the interacting and cognitive rebounding of ideas, concepts, and feelings experienced as one individual works in relationship to others. The etymology of the term bricoleur is connected with the works of the German sociologist and social theorists Georg Simmel and, by implication, Baudelaire (Weinstein & Weinstein, 1991).Noting the association with Baudelaire, bricolage, as Norris (1987) suggests, is a French word that refers to the “ad hoc assemblage of miscellaneous materials and signifying structures” (Levi-Strauss, quoted in Norris, p. 134). The bricoleur works in association with his or her culture and the material practices and artifacts available in the culture. Spivak (1976) says “the bricoleur makes do with things that were meant perhaps for other ends” (p. xix). Weinstein and Weinstein (1991) explain the bricoleur as a person who is “practical and gets things done” (p. 161). As Norris (1987) notes of the bricoleur, s/he is “happy to exploit the most diverse assortment of mythemes—or random combinartory elements” (p. 134). Bricoleur as presented herein, is used metaphorically and in a post-formal7(Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1999) sense to represent methods and practices, and cultural materials that the scholar-practitioner uses as s/he interacts in the complex web of relationships between knowledge, inquiry, practice, and learning. While Levi-Strauss (1966) suggests that a bricoleur is an ordinary person who does the best that she or he can do with what is at hand, Denzin and Lincoln (1998), provide a view of bricoleur that more closely aligns with the construct of scholar-practitioner when they suggest that “the bricoleur understands that research is an interactive process shaped by his or her personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity, and those of the people in the setting” (p. 4). As the scholar-practitioner interacts with others within a community of practice, his or her scholarly practice works with the practice of others to create a bricolage, or composite of methods, materials, actions and experiences, and sensations and perceptions. Within the context of research, inquiry, and scholarly practice, the bricoleur is one who draws from many different disciplines, using the methods necessary to his or her work. As Denzin and Lincoln (2000) note, there are “many kinds of bricoleurs–interpretive, narrative, theoretical, political . . .” (p. 4). As an example, the “interpretive bricoleur produces a bricolage–a pieced-together set of representations that are fitted to the specifics of a complex situation” (p. 4). Nelson, Treichler, and Grossberg (1992) describe the methodology of cultural studies “as a bricolage. Its choice of practice, that is, is pragmatic, strategic and self-reflexive” (p. 2). Becker (1998) suggests that the bricoleur uses the tools of his or her craft, “deploying whatever strategies, methods, or empirical materials are at hand” (p. 2), resulting in a bricolage that is contextually sensitive and which addresses the specificity of the phenomena or problem or decision. The bricoleur, in creating the bricolage, draws from a vast array of methods, materials, and practices within the context of one’s practice, acknowledging the importance of methodological diversity. Table 1 exhibits types of inquiry methods and knowledge that the school leader as bricoleur would draw from in his or her scholarly practice. The inquiry methods and different types of knowledge serve as mediational tools and artifacts, assisting in addressing the vast arrays of problems and issues the school leader is presented with on a daily basis. The type of inquiry and/or knowledge selected is important in that the school leaders engaged in scholarly practice moves beyond the work of “technician.” As the bricoleur works within the practical space of the school, s/he must draw from a diverse set of knowledge and method, forming a bricolage of practice that is cultural and politically responsive to the needs of the school and events of the moment. Whereas in more traditional settings, the school leader works from a limited scope of what stands as knowledge, the bricoleur understands knowledge is constructed within and through practice, and recognizes the need for a new epistemology of practice shaped by criticality. As scholar-practitioner, school leaders are engaged as a transformative intellectual (Giroux, 1988) who work to bring about social change and transform their social practices as well as working with those around one’s self to transform their social practices. Applying the notion of bricoleur to understanding the work of the scholar-practitioner leader, while simultaneously considering the many kinds of bricoleurs noted by Denzin and Lincoln (2000), suggests that the scholar-practitioner leader as bricoleur can take many forms. The scholar-practitioner-as-interpretive-bricoleur is “always already in the material world of values and empirical evidence. This world is confronted and constituted through the lens that the [scholar-practitioner’s] paradigm or interpretive perspective provides” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 367). The scholarly practice of the interpretive-bricoleur would depend “upon the questions that are asked, and the questions depend on the context” (Nelson, et al., 1992, p. 2), and on the nature of the practical ground from which decisions and problems emerge. Given the multiple methods that the interpretive-bricoleur would necessarily draw on for his or her practice, the methodology of the bricoleur would become the bricolage of the scholar-practitioner leader. As Denzin and Lincoln (2000) explain, “the strategy of inquiry comprises the skills, assumptions, enactments, and material practices that the [scholar-practitioner]-as-methodological-bricoleur uses” (p. 371). When considering the implications of the many types of bricoleurs, it is important to note that the scholar-practitioner leader as political-bricoleur, or as criticalist-bricoleur, or as epistemological-bricoleur, would represent multiple dimensions or ways of practice for the scholar-practitioner leader. The political-bricoleur would necessarily draw on an array of inquiry methods and strategies to interact within and/or negotiate the politics of education. The criticalist-bricoleur would likewise draw on his or her scholarly practices to engage as a criticalist, a leader concerned with social justice, equity, power, “truth,” difference, and caring. The critical-bricoleur would engage with the material practices to ensure overcome the marginalization and oppression experienced in schools, to challenge cultural reproduction which advantages one population while disadvantaging others. As an epistemological-bricoleur, the scholar-practitioner leader would necessarily use his or her scholar practices to address the problematic nature of knowledge, beginning to examine the types of knowledge, who creates knowledge, and the relationship of knowledge, inquiry, and practice. Epistemological considerations will be shaped by a lens of criticality that assists the bricoleur in examining for disadvantaging practices that tend to marginalize and silence indigenous knowledges. The bricoleur would also work to create symmetry in power and knowledge relationships between and among all cultural workers and social actors in the school community. The scholar-practitioner leader as bricoleur understands that his or her scholarly practices necessarily “bring the world into play” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 1019), and understands that the set of scholarly practices are not neutral. Rather, the practices and inquiry methods are informed by particular paradigms and ways of seeing the world as well as by the cultural or positional identities one has in relationship to his or her experiences in preparation and practice. The scholar-practitioner leader uses his or her scholarly practices to attend to the time, place, and space of the problems or decisions at hand. The scholar-practitioner leader as bricoleur must think “historically and interactionally, always mindful of the structural processes that make race, gender, and class potentially repressive in daily life” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, pp. 1019-1020). The nature of material practices within the historical, cultural, and political contexts of schools turn the scholar-practitioner leader into a methodological and epistemological bricoleur, into a person whose work is that of making sense of the world around oneself, studying and inquiring into the phenomena of personal practice while simultaneously using scholarly practice to inform decisions, construct solutions to complex problems, and create knowledge as well as critically examine knowledge in relationship to its use. The work of school leaders is coursed to and fro with pedagogical, political, social, cultural, economic, and professional issues and needs. The bricoleur’s means for accomplishing his or her work as a school leader are determined in large part on the basis of preparation as an educational leader and his or her past experiences. The bricoleur’s means must reflect an understanding of the leader’s role as scholar as well as a firm grasp of the socio-historical contexts, cultural patterns, and varied processes necessary to leading the school successfully. Such issues as high-stakes testing and accountability generate high tensions within the school and district, often demanding the school leader to respond to pressures from external agencies as well as pressure from local community members. The complex nature of problems like those aligned with standards and accountability require the bricoleur to use multiple means of accomplishing the leader’s work. Whether an issue of high-stakes testing or an issue of social justice or an issue of changing curriculum and instruction or any of the myriad issues and events that comprise the very life of the school and the school leader’s work, the bricoleur must delve into his or her repertoire methods and means to address each one individually. Pragmatically, the school leader as bricoleur must consider the consequences of his or her actions in such a way as to be contextually sensitive and culturally responsive. Importantly, as bricoleur the school leader must know when to apply what method as well as what types of knowledge are important in the socio-cultural, pedagogical, and professional currents of the schools activities (see Table 1 as exemplar of methods and knowledges). The bricoleur’s work is to balance the technical demands of daily life in the school with intellectual needs of the students and faculty, fostering an academic environment for learning as well as a democratic community for students, practitioners, and parents. Reflections Preparing school leaders as bricoleurs who are scholars of practice is a critical consideration amidst mounting concerns for “revitalization of democratic public life” (Giroux, 1994, p. 31). Importantly, the bricoleur does not merely focus on whether actions taken will achieve the desired outcome, s/he also weighs the critical implications of these consequences. A critical concern for justice, caring, and democracy becomes a measure that is used to evaluate the intended actions and their subsequent consequences. The implication for leadership preparation is significant, if faculty are to integrate the ideas set forth in Figure 1 and Table 1. Fostering a “new epistemology” as discussed will require a rearticulation of leadership preparation and reorientation of leadership practice. In turn, this will require a multi-dimension view of the space within which learning and practice takes place; the intersection of inquiry and knowledge that are “of practice” will need be defined criticality, thus creating a multi-dimensional space that transforms the nature of both preparation and practice. Figure 1 suggests that the scholar-practitioner is authentically engaged in practical inquiry of his or her practice, and is constantly seeking to transform social practice. For leadership preparation that is concerned with the aspirant bricoleur, Table 1 offers a suggested bricolage of knowledge and methods, which work interdependently to shape the nature of curriculum and culture, instruction and policy concerned with preparing bricoleurs. However, the types of knowledge and inquiry, if they are to animate the transformation of practitioner to bricoleur, must be understood in relation to what is and is not the bricoleur’s way of practice. Rather than a limited scope and breadth of knowledge and method, the practicing bricoleur works to form a diverse set of knowledge and methods that serve his or her work. For the bricoleur, there is not a one-best way or means, but multiple perspectives and means of solving problems and making decisions. This means that as curricula and instructional delivery systems will necessarily be examined in relation to the types of knowledge and methods denoted in Table 1. A heuristic to critically examine existing, more traditional systems, would be developed and use to instruct the design of new systems of learning that provide the experiences needed for the transformation to bricoleur. It is important that note that becoming a bricoleur, that is, the processes necessary to the transformation, will require that both the student and professor of leadership engage authentically as scholar-practitioners. This will not be easy work for either; however, it is necessary work. The transformation to bricoleur begins with accepting the need to transform one’s self, both the professor and the student. Becoming a bricoleur requires an understanding of and commitment to education that is concerned with society and its future. Toward this goal, the scholar-practitioner as bricoleur must continuously engaged in learning new skills, knowledges, and methods as well as continuously challenging old practices, knowledges and methods. The scholar-practitioner as bricoleur must be a student of his or her practice within the larger context of being a student of social action for the transformation of society. END NOTES: 1An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) 55th Annual Conference, August 9-13, 2001a, at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 2Leadership has been variously researched and written about for decades, and therefore is not explored within this paper as such an activity in and of itself would fill volumes. However, for purposes of this paper, educational leadership as used throughout will connote the practices and activities of individuals at all levels of the school and educational system that, through their actions, demonstrate an understanding of purpose and moral imperatives that guide and facilitate the practices and activities of others. As used in concert with scholar-practitioner, leadership is the processes and actions of any person (teacher, principal, parent, and student) who seeks cultural and social change through social critique and praxis. 3“New scholarship” reflects the ideas expressed by Anderson and Herr (1999), Jenlink (2001c), and Schön (1995) and provides the foundation for “scholarships of leading.” Schön (1995) suggests that practitioners as “new scholars must produce knowledge” (p. 27). These new scholars must have a “new scholarship” that will challenge existing epistemologies of institutional knowledge. Anderson and Herr (1999) note that we are on the “threshold of an outpouring of practitioner inquiry that will force important redefinitions of what ‘counts’ as research. This “new scholarship” also involves halting but rigorous efforts at collaboration between academics and school professionals around scholarly practice” (p. 14). Jenlink (2001c) explains the new scholarship as “scholarship wherein the practitioner is a scholar of practice, seeks to mediate professional practice and formal knowledge and theory through disciplined inquiry, and uses scholarly inquiry and practice to guide decisions on all levels of educational activity” (p. 14). 4Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Central issues in this branch of philosophy are the nature and derivation of knowledge, the scope of knowledge, and the reliability of claims to knowledge. “New” connotes for purposes of this article that postpositivistic and post-formalistic perspectives used in matters of knowledge. Knowledge is viewed as a social construction of individuals within the socio-historical and socio-cultural contexts of organizations and communities. 5Praxis, as used here, connotes a necessary relationship between theory and practice. In this relationship, theory means social, cultural, political, and economic theory. Practice connotes actions and activities that an individual takes part in to fulfill his or her professional, political, and social/civic responsibilities. Praxis is the intentional creating and recreating of conscious self-awareness, seeking to become aware of “the manifestations that our practices represent as intended-action, and the effective power that we have in our self formative capacity to transform ourselves as well as the world in which we live” (Lum, 1993, p. 39). A critical praxis means the dialectical relationship between thought and action/subjectivity and objectivity/theory and practice (Freire, 1972). 6A critical epistemology, from Kincheloe and McLaren’s (1994) perspective, includes an understanding of the relationship between power and thought and power and truth claims. Foucault (1979), in his exploration of disciplinary practices, offers an important dimension to understanding critical epistemology when he focuses on the knowledge and power relationships that shape practices, often by fragmenting knowledge and promoting a form of rationality that facilitates control. 7Post-formal refers to a way of thinking, understanding, and explaining particular phenomena within the social context of their occurrence or where they are experienced. Post-formal thinking and inquiry use a critical hermeneutic composed of four elements: etymology (historical origins), contexts, patterns, and processes. Within the post-formal view of thinking, or as the case may be, view of practice multiple methods are used to approach the project and accomplish the work. (For further explication, see Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1999.) References Adorno, T. W. (1982). Against epistemology: A metacritique: Studies in Husserl and the phenomenological antinomies. (W. Domingo, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adorno, T. W. (1991). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture. New York: Routledge. Adorno, T. W. (1997). Aesthetic theory (R. Hullot-Kentor, trans.) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12-21. Anderson, G. L., & Jones, F. (2000). Knowledge generation in educational administration from the inside out: The promise and perils of site-based, administrator research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 428-464. Becker, (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Benson, J. K. (1983). A dialectical method for the study of organizations. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 331-346). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Capper, C. A. (1995). An otherist poststructuralist perspective of the knowledge base in educational administration. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J.J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp. 285-299). New York: The State University of New York Press. Capper, C. A. (1998). Critically oriented and postmodern perspectives: Sorting out the differences and applications for practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 354-379. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1983). Knowledge, power, and discourse in social studies education. Journal of Education, 165(4), 341-358. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education. New York: Teachers College Press. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1999). Reading pragmatism. New York: Teachers College Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Derrida, J. (1973). Speech and phenomena, and other essays on Husserl's theory of signs. (D. B. Allison, trans.). Evanston, Northwestern University Press. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. (A. Bass, trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. (A. Bass, trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, c1982. Dewey, J. (1935). Toward administrative statesmanship. The Social Frontier, 1(6), 9-10. Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39-62). London: Falmer. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse of language. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books. Giroux, H. (1988b). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Gramsci, A. (1994). Letters from prison. (R. Rosenthal, trans.). New York: Columbia University. Gramsci, A. (1992). Prison notebooks. (J. A. Buttigieg, trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. Grundy, S. (1993). Educational leadership as emancipatory praxis. In J. Blackmore & J. Kenway (Eds.), Gender matters in educational administration and policy: A feminist introduction (pp. 165-177). Washington, DC: Falmer. Hendrick, C. (1983). A middle-way metatheory. [Review of Toward transformation in social knowledge.] Contemporary Psychology, 28, 504-507. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. New York: Seabury. Jenlink, P. M. (1999, August). Educational leadership as scholarly practice: Considerations for preparation and practice. Paper presented at the 53rd annual conference of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Jenlink, P. M. (2001a, August). The school leader as bricoleur: Scholarly practitioners for our schools. Paper presented at the 55th Annual National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) Conference, Houston, Texas. Jenlink, P. M. (2001b). Beyond the knowledge base controversy: Advancing the ideal of scholar-practitioner leadership. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), 21st century challenges for educational administration (pp. 65-88). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc Jenlink, P. M. (2001c). Scholar-practitioner leadership: A critical analysis of preparation and practice. Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Session, 39.55, Seattle, Washington, April 8-14. Kincheloe, J. L. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher thinking: Mapping the postmodern. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.. Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (1999). A tentative description of post-formal thinking: The critical confrontation with cognitive theory. In J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg, & P. H. Hinchey (Eds.), The post-formal reader: Cognition and education (pp. 55-90). New York: Falmer. Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lum, J. (1993). Philosophical praxis in educational leadership: The need for revitalization of the foundations curriculum. Thresholds in Education, 19(1-2), 32-42. McLaren, P. M. (1995a). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. New York: Routledge. McLaren, P. M. (1995b). Life in schools (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Nelson, C., Treichler, P. A., & Grossberg, L. (1992). Cultural studies: An introduction. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 1-16). New York: Routledge. Norris, C. (1987). Derrida. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Riehl, C., Larson, C. L., Short, P. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Reconceptualizing research and scholarship in educational administration: Learning to know, knowing to do, doing to learn. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 391-427. Ryan, J. (1998). Critical leadership for education in a postmodern world: Emancipation, resistance and communal action. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(3), 257-278. Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 27-34. Spivak, G. C. (1967/1976). Translator’s preface. In J. Derrida, Of grammatology (pp. ix-xc. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Weinstein, D., & Weinstein, M. A. (1991). George Simmel: Sociological flaneur bricoleur. Theory, Culture & Society, 8, 151-168.