Abstract
As part of the special edition recognizing the 40th anniversary of Educational Management Administration & Leadership this article reviews the coverage of leadership and diversity issues in the journal. The majority of articles concerning diversity have focused on gender, with attention turning to the wider concept of diversity since the year 2000. This article considers two main aspects: the impact of diversity on becoming a leader and the impact of diversity on the practice of educational leadership. The article finishes by raising some of the debates around diversity and suggesting areas for further research and publication.
Introduction
As part of the special edition recognizing the 40th anniversary of Educational Management Administration & Leadership (EMAL), I was asked to review the coverage of leadership and diversity in the journal, in the context of current international and global developments. Looking over earlier editions showed a fascinating progression, with very little coverage of any diversity issues in the early years and a flowering of gender related material starting in the 1980s. Other ‘strands’ of diversity such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation feature rarely although increasing attention has been paid to broader issues of diversity post-2000 with a special issue on leadership and diversity in 2006.
The articles relating to diversity and leadership, could be categorized in different ways, for example, according to the specific ‘strand’ of diversity covered (see Table 1) but in much of the growing body of literature on leadership and diversity (for example, Lumby with Coleman, 2007) there is recognition of leadership for diversity, which would increase the range of people who are leaders, and leadership with diversity, to ensure that leadership is beneficial to everyone and the organization as a whole. The review of articles in EMAL indicated such a categorization could apply. First, the impact of diversity on becoming an educational leader and, second, the impact of the diversity of student and staff on the ways in which educational leaders lead their schools and colleges. This division forms the major structure for the article.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership: articles relating to leadership and diversity 1972–2012
Before embarking on the discussion of the impact of diversity on becoming a leader and on the practice of leadership in EMAL and elsewhere, there will be some attention to the meaning of diversity and related concepts. The article ends with a look at some of the contentious issues surrounding research into leadership and diversity and suggestions for future research in the area. Please note that in the text that follows references to articles that appear in Table 1 are indicated as being EMAL papers and do not appear in the end references. End references are to other relevant texts only.
What Do We Mean by Diversity?
The concept of diversity needs some examination; it has come to be associated with ethnicity at the present time, perhaps due to increasing migration for economic and political reasons between countries. Ethnic diversity within a country is now more common, even where societies were previously homogenous, for example, Iceland (Ragnarsdottir, 2010). However, ethnicity is only one part of diversity, and the concept encompasses many qualities some of which might be easily visible, for example gender, ethnicity and some religious affiliations and disabilities, and others less visible, for example class or sexual orientation. The key issue is not just that of difference, but that we tend to apply stereotypes and automatically categorize and judge people on the basis of differences. Often these stereotypes are negative and are used in respect of different sectors of the student and staff population as a kind of ‘shorthand’ that may not be helpful to the individual.
There is also a general tendency to apply stereotypes to leadership, which then tends to be equated with being white (in Western countries), male, heterosexual, middle class and middle aged. This means that those who diverge in any way from this ideal are seen as ‘outsiders’ if they aspire to become leaders. The ‘outsider’ is anyone who does not belong to the dominant group and the extent to which the presence of outsiders causes stress and anxiety is in relation to the degree of strangeness or ‘minorityness’ they represent. We tend to be more positively disposed to those who are similar to us (see Lumby with Coleman, 2007). It has long been known that there is a tendency for ‘gatekeepers’ to appoint people in their own image (Morgan et al., 1983). Recent qualitative studies in Ireland featured in EMAL (Grummell et al., 2009) and Australia (Blackmore et al., 2006: 297) have concluded that: ‘a form of homosociability the tendency to select people just like oneself’ dominates the selection of senior leaders in all phases of education.
The Concept of Diversity: Policy and International Context
Conceptually, the relevant issues to be taken into account when considering diversity and leadership are those of equal opportunities, equity, equality, social justice, inclusion and discrimination both direct and indirect. Social justice is based on the concept of human rights, that everyone is equal, no matter what their gender, ethnicity, religion and so on. But there is an important difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of outcome means that it is not enough just to ensure that the race is run fairly, but that attention is also given to the preparation for the race and its context. It might mean for example that women or ethnic minorities should be advantaged or given preference when applying for a job because without this their status is likely to disadvantage them. This interpretation of equality of opportunity has led to there being policies for affirmative action or positive discrimination, for example, the relatively short-lived ‘femocrat’ reform in Australia (Blackmore, 1999) and legislation in South Africa to attempt to put right some of the wrongs of the apartheid period (see EMAL, Grobler et al., 2006).
Internationally the UN Declaration of Human Rights calls for everyone to be treated the same without regard to any of the differences between us. In 1979 the Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) described as the Bill of Rights for Women (http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/women/) was founded and the Millennium Development Goals include Gender Equality.
With a lead on human rights established internationally, individual countries have their own equality and human rights legislation. If we take the example of the UK, there has been considerable legislation since the 1970s intended to protect the rights of those who might face discrimination. For example, gender equal opportunities legislation including the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 have been strengthened in recent years by the duty on public organizations to promote gender equality. Legislation has established the rights of women in the workplace including the right to maternity leave. There are laws relating to Gender Reassignment 1999, Sexual Orientation 2003, Disability Discrimination 1995 and 2005 and Special Educational Needs and Disability 2001. The Race Relations Act 1976 and 2000 means it is unlawful to discriminate against anyone on the basis of ethnicity and there is a positive duty on public authorities to promote racial equality. The Employment Equality (Religion or Beliefs) Regulations of 2003 protects workers with regard to their religion, and most recently regulations on age discrimination were introduced in 2006. Legislation is necessary but not sufficient to ensure that individuals are treated fairly without discrimination related to their diversity. Although discrimination may be technically unlawful, there are ways in which indirect or covert discrimination may be applied. The more subtle forms of discrimination that occur in relation to diversity that emerge when discrimination is illegal may be more insidious and difficult to oppose than the more direct forms of discrimination.
The policy context for education is changing in many countries with a trend towards the devolution of power towards individual institutions, for example, the move to school based management increasing the scope of leadership roles within schools and colleges. It is not possible here to go into the many different ways in which such a change has been implemented (see, for example, Whitty, 2002). However, we cannot presume that either human rights or educational reforms are applied in identical ways in different locations. Contributions to EMAL increasingly come from different countries and although often dealing with similar themes, indicate these differences. A particular example is the continuing coverage of barriers that women experience in accessing leadership positions. This has been covered in EMAL in the past but particular aspects of the problem have been revealed in recent editions, for example in relation to the Arab minority in Israel (Shapira et al., 2011), first generation college students in North Carolina, USA (EMAL, Seay, 2010), female principals in South Africa (EMAL, Moorosi, 2010) and women in higher education in Catalan Spain (EMAL, 2010).
Coverage of Diversity in Past Issues of EMAL
Looking back at past issues of the journal (see Table 1) overall, diversity has not featured strongly and where it does it has usually been concerned with gender. However, the international and comparative approach that is now so important in EMAL was somewhat present from the start when the journal was first known as the Bulletin of Educational Administration and then as Educational Administration prior to the later changes in title which added ‘Management’ and ‘Leadership’. It is interesting to note that international contributions in the early days of the journal were not necessarily gender aware with a series of articles on training headmasters in Sweden (EMAL, Ekholm and Stego, 1978) France (EMAL, Soubry, 1978) and Lower Saxony (EMAL, Killait, 1978). A review of 140 EMAL articles from 1981–1986 (Hough, 1988) indicated that only 10 per cent of authors were female and there were no examples of a research problem formulated for females. However, during the later 1980s there was a growing emphasis on gender rather than any other aspect of diversity, exceptions being the work of Little (EMAL, 1984) who recognized that ethnicity disadvantaged pupils of West Indian origin in comparison with those of UK origin, and Taylor (1987) who saw comprehensive schools as failing children who are working class, black, girls, lesbian and gay and those with special needs. In doing so she identified the implications for change on a large scale affecting every aspect of leading in education including curriculum and pedagogy, recruitment, resources and personnel issues, and decried token gestures, such as appointing on secondment one advisory teacher to be responsible for equal opportunities in an entire LEA. There was also the work of Parker Jenkins (EMAL, 1987) who commented on the difficult and sensitive leadership issues including conflicts and legal ramifications relating to homosexuality of teaching staff.
In the 1990s, apart from articles featuring gender, there were very few that dealt with diversity issues. Morgan, (EMAL, 1992) used accounts of children to focus on equal opportunities, in the context of the BSI 5757 quality system and Bryant (EMAL, 1998) drew attention to cross-cultural understandings of leadership recognizing that the Western models were not always appropriate and recommending more use of the Hofstede dimensions and of biographical and ethnographic research methods. Gender was the main theme related to diversity in the 1990s but no issues of gender or any other aspect of diversity were considered in Les Bell’s (EMAL, 1991) editorial identifying six issues for the 1990s or in ‘crisis or crossroads’ the 1999 EMAL issue reporting on the outcomes of the ESRC seminar series examining the status of educational management and leadership. However, gender was recognized when Valerie Hall’s work took an influential place in EMAL in 1997 with her review of the previous 25 years of EMAL ‘Dusting off the Phoenix’, and her book ‘Dancing on the Ceiling’ (1997) was featured in a rare review symposium of EMAL in January 1999 when she was able to respond to reviews of the book and make a case for more research on the impact of gender on leadership focusing on men as well as women.
Ethnicity was not featured strongly in EMAL until relatively recently with Mackay and Etienne’s (2006) study of black managers in further education, and from then on the focus has began to turn to diversity as a broader concept encompassing the single strands of diversity including ethnicity as well as gender. Religion and sexual orientation as particular aspects of diversity in Ireland were the focus of the work of NcNamara and Norman (EMAL, 2010) who commented on the tension in Catholic schools between the Church and the State in relation to sex education and reported significant levels of homophobic bullying in schools.
Tony Bush has pointed out in a number of editorials (EMAL, 2003, 2006a, 2006b) the diversity of the field of educational leadership and management itself, relating as it does to such a diverse set of institutions from early years settings to universities, across the continents and all operating in a dynamic environment. A number of relatively recent special issues of EMAL have featured diversity, notably the special issue of April 2006 edited by Coleman and Cardno and the subsequent two issues of 2006 each of which had a diversity focus for some of the papers. Since that year most of the article that might be included under the heading of diversity have focused on gender issues.
Although this article is concerned with leadership and diversity, the sheer weight of papers focusing on gender over the last 30 if not 40 years means that a wider discussion of diversity must draw on the research that focused on the single strand of gender. Also issues identified in relation to gender and leadership are largely the same as those that apply to any ‘outsider’ who aspires to leadership or to leading a diverse community. Gender is one ‘strand’ of diversity and the coverage of gender and leadership in EMAL, just like the coverage of other strands such as ethnicity has broadly focused on the two areas mentioned above: how difference impacts on becoming a leader and how that difference impacts on the practice of leadership. Many of the references in the following sections are taken from the EMAL articles listed in Table 1, with complementary or confirmatory references from elsewhere listed in the end references.
Diversity and Accessing Educational Leadership
The Issue of Representation
Internationally it is difficult to obtain accurate statistics relating to diversity and leadership. Available statistics indicate that there are disproportionately few women in senior leadership positions in education apart from in early years education where there is an expectation that women will take the lead. In fact gender may be a source of discrimination for those men who do want to work in early years settings. There are often assumptions that it will be relatively easy to access information about gender or ethnicity of educational leaders, but in practice this is rarely the case. Lumby et al. (2011) reported on this difficulty in a Commonwealth Committee for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM) project the aim of which is to map the gender of leaders throughout the Commonwealth countries. The pilot for this project took place in South Africa and included a survey and interviews. The research revealed particular challenges in obtaining information on gender including difficulties in negotiating access and inaccuracies of existing data sets (Lumby, 2011). The collection of data in South Africa also highlighted the intersectionality of diversity characteristics as the leaders were differentiated by many factors including language, culture, religion and ethnicity as well as gender.
In England at present despite there being a large proportion of children from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds (up to 75 per cent of primary school children in some areas of London) the proportion of BME teachers is small and the proportion of educational leaders is smaller. At least 95 per cent of headteachers are white British, with only 0.7 per cent from black Caribbean or black African communities (Shepherd, 2011a). In higher education there are only 50 black professors in the UK out of a total of 14,000 (Shepherd, 2011b). As far as gender is concerned 35 per cent of secondary head teachers are women although 60 per cent of teachers are women, while 33 per cent of principals of further education colleges and 14 per cent of university vice chancellors are women (EHRC, 2011).
Racism and Discrimination
The stereotype that identifies individuals as ‘outsiders’ in terms of leadership means that people who do not fit the stereotype have additional barriers to overcome. In the research of Mackay and Ettienne (EMAL, 2006) reported in this journal, in a report carried out for the NCSL (Bush et al., 2005, 2006) and in other research, for example, Coleman and Campbell Stephens (2010), there is evidence that indirect racism is perceived by potential BME senior leaders to be a major barrier to attaining leadership positions in the UK. For black women, gender adds another dimension as the following quotation from a headteacher shows:
Huge obstacles all along the way, there still are. I don’t want to get into the victim mentality, but I feel that there is a glass ceiling and it is more difficult for Black women. People on panels are not sure you will fit in. I have to be careful with parents. If they saw a White man in a suit that’s the image of authority, they would respond to that. I have to be articulate, and stand firm, not be swayed by how people see you. It’s important to be clear about values and where they fit. I am very aware of the effect I have on people who come in to meet me. I have to be very professional, very clear. (Coleman and Campbell-Stephens, 2010: 44)
Gender and Discrimination
Discrimination against women as leaders in education is well documented (see many of the articles listed in Table 1) and linked to stereotypes, for example, that women will not be able to administer discipline, particularly to boys and that they are less likely than men to be good at financial management (Coleman, 2002). Stereotypes may also link women to the more domestic or supportive roles, certainly this was true in the past for example the work of McBurney and Hough (1989) in EMAL, but stereotypical expectations about the behaviour of women continue to be associated with their leadership, see, for example, Moorosi (EMAL, 2010). There have been debates about feminine values and the ways that women work that may highlight the positive (for example, Coleman, 1996; Limerick and Anderson, 1999; Sherman, 2000, all in EMAL) but are written in the knowledge that feminine values held by women leaders may be going against the grain of social expectations particularly in a more managerial society (Larusdottir, EMAL, 2007). Discussion of the ways in which women work risk essentializing women, and the EMAL article of Ball and Reay (2000) illustrated that women may operate in many different ways including in a stereotypical masculine style. However, there is what Still (2006: 187) refers to as ‘the femininity/competence bind’, which is the underlying belief that femininity debars a woman from being a leader, but that if she acts in a masculine fashion she is not acting like a proper woman and is therefore also not acceptable, a double bind that was discussed in a relatively early EMAL article (Johnstone, 1986).
Given social expectations about the role of women it is more common for a female leader than a male leader to take on the bulk of domestic responsibilities and this social convention appears to take its toll on family life for female leaders who, for example, are more likely to be separated or divorced than men and are less likely than male leaders to have children (Coleman, 2005). The difficulties normally only faced by women who aspire to educational leadership but have family care responsibilities were picked up recently by Seay (2010) in EMAL.
The Role of Gatekeepers
There are many implications to explore from the mass of data that relate to the barriers to ‘outsiders’ who may wish to become leaders. One key point seems to be the role of the ‘gatekeepers’. In the UK and elsewhere this is often the governors or board members of the school. The potential blocking of appointments by gatekeepers raises questions about the selection processes and about equality of opportunity. For example a black, male, deputy headteacher in England stated:
People who appoint are the main obstacle. To what extent are governors receiving training? … People can find any reason to reject you, but cannot find reasons to appoint you. Governors need to look outside the box, and at what a candidate could bring to a role. They should be forward-thinking. The educational world is conservative and traditional. In crucial areas like appointments they still tend to play it safe. (Coleman and Campbell-Stephens, 2010: 44)
In Ireland, McNamara and Norman (EMAL, 2010) report on the role of the Catholic Church in schools which runs counter to recent equality legislation particularly that relating to sexual orientation. This raises questions of equity relating to every aspect of school leadership, and the article (2010: 545) suggests that faith based schools: ‘may become inhospitable places for minorities which are perceived to be outside the fold’.
Combatting the Barriers
Recent articles in EMAL (Oplatka and Tamir, 2009, and Smith, 2011a, 2011b) have focused on the agency exercised by women who are actively choosing not to aim for headship/principalship rather than barriers that impede their progress. In the case of the Israeli research many of the 25 female deputy headteachers interviewed chose to maintain their role which they saw as preferable to that of the more stressful and formal role of the principal. Smith’s research in England led her to conclude that we should look beyond barriers to leadership to unpick the valid reasons for women’s career choices. The research of Collings et al. (EMAL, 2011) in higher education in New Zealand focused on the positive experiences that had helped women access leadership as well as the negative aspects of barriers to help formulate good practice in higher education.
The focus appears to be shifting from the barriers themselves towards what helps to overcome them, and mentoring and networking are seen as particularly helpful in relation to ethnic minority staff as well as women (for example, MacKay and Etienne, EMAL, 2006; Coleman, 2011a). Leadership training is obviously helpful to aspirant leaders, but there is a case for training aimed specifically at particular groups of ‘outsiders’ for example courses aimed at helping women aspire to leadership (see EMAL articles, for example, Jayne, 1989; Woodd, 1997; McLay, 2008). Specialized courses for BME staff may be particularly helpful in reducing isolation and offering role models (EMAL articles by MacKay and Etienne, 2006; Ogunbawo, 2012). These courses beg the question of whether or not diversity and equity are concepts that are automatically included in the training and education of all leaders not just those who are ‘outsiders’.
Diversity and the Practice of Leadership
Many of the article relating to diversity that have appeared in EMAL have focused on the difficulties and challenges that surround accessing leadership but there are also those that focus more on the practice of leadership that is intended to foster a more equitable ethos conducive to diversity in educational institutions.
There are many inter-linking ways in which diversity impacts on the practice of educational leadership. Practice can be seen to start with the views and values of individual leaders which, if identified and communicated, can then affect the culture of the whole organization and the ways in which it is run, with all its processes and structures: including having policies that ensure there is equity relating to diversity; having targets and monitoring them; providing appropriate staff training and development; and providing mentoring and role models (Lumby with Coleman, 2007; Coleman 2011b).
The Importance of Reflection – the Individual Leader
All of us, including leaders, carry unthinking stereotypes about others and examination of these beliefs is appropriate for leadership for diversity. As Begley (EMAL, 2007: 164) points out, authentic leadership: ‘is proposed as the outcome of self-knowledge, sensitivity to the orientations of others and a technical sophistication that leads to a synergy of leadership action’. In the same special edition of EMAL Branson (2007: 239) takes the idea of self-knowledge and self-reflection further, seeing the development of authentic leadership as possible only if a leader is willing: ‘to engage in some professional development experiences incorporating a process of deeply structured self-reflection’.
Begley (2003) also talks about leaders auditing their views and encouraging others to do the same. Capper et al. (2006) discuss ‘critical consciousness’. Whatever the terms used, some level of self-reflection for the individual leader is a basis for establishing ethical, authentic leadership. It is only through such self-reflection that clarity about values can be established. However, for effective leadership, individual clarity is not enough; views and values have to be shared and owned and feed through into practice. A key finding of research on successful leadership in multi-ethnic schools in England was that:
It is based on the articulation and implementation of explicit values that promote an agenda of equality, fairness and respect. (Walker et al., 2005: 3)
Establishing an Inclusive Culture
Establishing a shared culture requires a sharing of values. Ethical leadership that places diversity and equity at the heart of the culture of the school has been evident in recent examples of successful schools for example in Australia, (Niesche and Keddie, 2011), and in Canada (Shields, 2010). In the special edition of EMAL focusing on leadership for diversity, Leo and Barton (EMAL, 2007) comment on the difficulty school leaders experience of focusing on inclusion, given a difficult policy context in England, a point echoed by Ryan and Rottman (EMAL, 2009) in relation to Canada. In all cases they stress the importance of involving all the stakeholders in adopting an ethical and inclusive set of values and a collaborative style of management and leadership is seen as ideal and beneficial to promoting an inclusive culture. A similar conclusion was reached by Grobler et al. (EMAL, 2006) in relation to post-apartheid South Africa. Also in the 2007 special edition, Shah (EMAL, 2007: 231) discusses inclusion, particularly in respect of Muslim pupils, and offers advice to school leaders to respect diversity: ‘by enhancing the students’ confidence in identity and by strengthening the notion of equality in relationships. Difficulties in achieving an inclusive culture that respects and values diversity are recognized in a further article in the special edition, where Lumby (EMAL, 2007: 151) in discussing evidence from 10 case study further education colleges in England concludes that, despite any rhetoric to the contrary, diversity generally has not been valued or supported:
Staff are shown both to create an ‘other’ than the norm, an ‘outgroup’ particularly in relation to black and ethnic minority potential leaders, and to homogenize those who have entered leadership to delete any ‘other’.
Professional development is a route through which an inclusive culture might be developed, for example in a case study of the management of change in a higher education institution, (Robertson et al., 2009: 33) the leadership team initiated the development of ‘whole staff shared understanding and ownership of a vision of “inclusive education”’. The process continued over two years. It was intended to give a sense of ownership, and all academic and administrative staff were included: ‘activities were undertaken which challenged staff to focus on their own identity/diversity, to review values and vision and to explore what [the institution] wants to say about itself regarding diversity and equality’. Over the time period there was evidence of real change which was judged successful because, although initiated from the top, the majority was ‘gradually involved in co-constructing’ (Coleman and Glover, 2010: 14–15).
Diversity and Focusing on Student Achievement
Although articles relating to diversity and student achievement appeared in early editions of EMAL, for example, Little (1984) and Taylor (1987), there has been relatively little recent coverage of how leadership relates to the achievement of students from diverse backgrounds, although there are some exceptions particularly in the special edition of 2007, specifically the papers of Leo and Barton, and Shah. An example of focusing on gender equity in sport was revealed in the work of Whisenant et al. (EMAL, 2010) who explored decisions to ensure equitable participation opportunities in sports for all students, equity in the hiring of coaches, and the creation of an organizational culture of fairness relating to gender in sport.
Prejudice and stereotypes can impact on the achievement of ‘outsider’ students, including those with special needs and those whose ethnicity is different from the norm. Apart from the work of Little (1984) and Taylor (1987) there has been relatively little attention given to the impact of race/ethnicity on student achievement in EMAL. Gillborn (2008: 240) concluded that:
The Black/White achievement gap in England has the hallmarks of locked-in inequality. That is, an inequality so great and so deep seated that it cannot be closed through the ‘normal’ workings of the system.
His work on Critical Race Theory (CRT) draws on theorizing from the USA to question the implicit acceptance of ‘whiteness’ as the norm from which others deviate. He argues that every aspect of policy and practice is set on this basis. In particular he critiques the British government’s continued assertions that the achievement gap between BME and white students is narrowing and that the minority who are really suffering (implicitly because of the focus on black student achievement) are white, working-class boys.
Although having high aspirations for students has been recognized as a vital part of effective schooling for many years (Sammons et al. 1997), the work of Gillborn and others questioning the unthinking dominance of whiteness, raised the possibility that high aspirations were not necessarily the norm applied to black students. If this is the case, it brings us back to the need for critical reflection on the part of educationalists.
In a recent study of teaching English as an additional language in primary and secondary schools in England, Mistry and Sood (2011: 129) in the companion professional journal Management in Education, point to the need for:
A ‘deeper understanding of the different cultures and values of pupils, parents and communities’:
Strong partnerships between all concerned including local authorities;
Keeping accurate data on pupils who have EAL;
A professional development programme for staff utilizing members of staff from different cultures;
‘Leaders with moral courage to tackle inequity in society’.
The Diversity Debates
Diversity is a complex and sensitive area and as such poses particular challenges both for leaders and researchers of leadership.
Meaning
The meaning of the word diversity is not static and is somewhat contested. It currently is often understood as a synonym for ethnicity. Very different interpretations are possible. In an article focusing on diversity in an ultra-orthodox Jewish college, Starr-Glass and Schwartzbaum (EMAL, 2002: 200) encouraged those associated with the college to see diversity as: richness and difference recognized and valued, but without forming relationships with the ‘outgroup’. Whereas a focus on diversity is more often seen as efforts to include the ‘outgroup’.
Implications for Theory
However, as Lumby with Coleman (2007) suggests, the inclusion of the outgroup in the sense of smoothing out difference is somewhat antipathetic to the concept of diversity, and leadership for diversity should be valuing difference rather than trying to eliminate it. Currently favoured leadership theories of transformational and distributed leadership can be critiqued for appearing to seek a consensus rather than celebrating and benefitting from a diversity of views and influences. Leading for diversity may require the development of yet more new leadership theory.
Intersectionality
Another aspect of the concept of diversity is intersectionality, which may involve looking at the individual as a particular case rather than an example of one category of diversity, for example, gender. The intersectionality of dimensions of diversity provides a more complex picture than focusing on one aspect only. As Shah (EMAL, 2007: 224) points out British Muslim students have four major strands of identity, which are:
country of abode identity;
country of origin identity;
racialized identity;
religious identity.
The complexity of the diversity involved indicates the sensitivity with which leaders in schools need to operate. A further example of such complexity is the discussion of the leadership of indigenous women in Australia, New Zealand and Canada: ‘Indigenous women “walk” and work “within two systems” (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) and are “judged as a woman” in a “white man’s world”’ (Fitzgerald, EMAL, 2006: 207).
Research Issues
The difficulties of researching leadership for or with diversity are considerable, including the difficulties of collecting basic statistics outlined above. The complexities of intersectionality would appear to call for an interpretative research approach, perhaps one that stresses biography and narrative. In addition research associated with leadership and diversity is likely to take place within a social justice framework and such research is likely to be transformative drawing on feminist research, critical race theory, queer theory and post-colonial theory (Grogan and Simmons, 2012).
Researching leadership and diversity may require particular sensitivity where issues of power are concerned, for example, where the researcher is from the dominant group and those researched are from an outgroup. In research to identify what helps and hinders their career progress (Shah and Shaikh, 2010) the researchers found particular difficulty in accessing aspirant educational leaders who were male and visibly Muslim, through their dress and appearance. Researchers who belong to the outgroup being researched are likely to be more successful than researchers who belong to the dominant ingroup.
Positive Discrimination
Although outsiders may be disadvantaged, decisions to provide additional support to individuals on the basis of their diversity remains contentious with individuals feeling that they should not get special treatment, for example attending courses designed especially for BME staff (Bush et al., 2005, 2006). However, positive discrimination is an important tool to be considered when leading for diversity.
Possible Future Developments for Leadership and Diversity
In terms of accessing leadership, the overall trend appears to be towards more equity but change is slow and some problems appear fairly intractable. For example, although there have been tremendous strides for women in obtaining leadership positions in education, there remains an underlying assumption that leaders should be male across continents, and across age-groups (Schein, 2007).
Despite the fact that gender has been the main focus of diversity in EMAL, there is room for further research in this area, gender research in educational leadership and management remains somewhat separate from the mainstream of gender research in education. For example, the Sage Handbook of Gender and Education (2006) edited by Skelton et al. contains only 1 chapter out of 35 that focuses on educational management and none on leadership. Research on gender in educational leadership as reported in EMAL has so far not fully engaged with current theoretical and methodological thinking largely neglecting post-structural analysis. This is an area for future development, bringing research on gender in educational leadership more clearly into the larger debates relating to gender and education.
Ethnic diversity is increasing in many countries with a growing population of ethnic minorities in the UK, particularly in the cities. However, those from ethnic minorities continue to be under-represented as both teachers and educational leaders. It would be good to see further research reported in EMAL in the area of ethnicity, particularly linked with religious affiliations, unpicking and examining the implications in different contexts.
Sexual orientation remains a difficult and sensitive area to research. While individuals may not wish to reveal their personal circumstances it has become more common for researchers to report in terms of ‘partners’ rather than referring to ‘husband’ or ‘wife’. Nevertheless many of the same issues that were raised in relation to sexual orientation in the article of Parker Jenkins (1987) remain the same today. With the exception of the McNamara and Norman article of 2010 this is an area where little research has been reported in EMAL.
Similarly, disability remains a difficult issue in respect of accessing leadership roles. In a national survey of head teachers in England (Coleman, 2005) only 1 per cent stated that they had any disability and in most cases the named disability was deafness. Only one respondent was a wheelchair user.
With regard to leading for diversity, just as in Taylor’s (1987) EMAL article, there remains a need for examination of every aspect of education. Such mainstreaming of diversity or example of whole institution change is rare (for example, Robertson, 2009) and further coverage of the practice of leading for diversity would be welcome. An important challenge for the future is the inclusion of an understanding of diversity issues in training programmes for educational leaders. In a review of the leadership training for head teachers in England, Brundrett and Anderson de Cuevas, (2008: 258) identify as a key concern:
A re-examination of the curriculum content of leadership preparation programmes to ensure that key topics are included that assist school leaders in developing the reflective consciousness, knowledge and skill sets required to lead on issues of social justice.
The review of the last 40 years of EMAL looking at leadership and diversity has revealed that research has mainly been related to diversity for leadership, that is looking at how individuals from outgroups, particularly women, access leadership. Less attention has been paid to leadership with diversity, that is the practice of leadership that is equitable and cognisant of the value of the differences between us. I would like to echo Valerie Hall’s call in EMAL from 1997 reviewing the previous 25 years of this journal that research on leadership should include the impact of gender on leadership, but widening the category of gender to replace it with the concept of diversity. It would be good to see more research on the practice of educational leadership for diversity and to see EMAL continue to be the vehicle through which knowledge and understanding of educational leadership and diversity in internationally diverse locations is disseminated.