Praetoryanist Davranış Kalıpları: Okul Müdürleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Year 2019, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 103 - 137, 01.02.2019

Ali Baltacı

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.422958

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Praetoryanizm,
askeri veya sivil otoritelerin siyasi ve sosyal kararlarda açık veya gizli
olarak aktif bir rol aldığı vesayete dayalı bir yönetim sistemidir. Aynı
zamanda praetoryanizm, devlet veya bireyin diğer bireyleri korumak amacıyla
onlar adına kararlar alması veya eylemde bulunmasıdır. Praetoryanizmde
yönetici, kendisi veya örgüt yararını korumak için yönetileni sınırlayabilir.
Bu çalışmanın amacı, okul müdürlerinin praetoryanist davranış biçimlerini
gösterme düzeylerinin belirlenmesidir. Bu araştırma, ilişkisel karşılaştırmalı
tarama modeli ile tasarlanmıştır. Araştırmanın hedef evrenini, Ankara ilinin 25
ilçesinde resmi ve özel ortaöğretim okullarında görev yapmakta olan 370 okul
müdürü oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada evrenin tamamına ulaşılarak, “tam sayım”
tekniği kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın verileri, araştırmacı tarafından
geliştirilen praetoryanizm ölçeği kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Veriler,
betimsel istatistik yöntemleri kullanılarak raporlaştırılmıştır. Çalışma
sonuçlarına göre, okul müdürlerinin en çok sahip oldukları praetoryanist
davranışın ‘yardımseverlik’ olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca sırasıyla
'otoriterlik', 'yararcılık', ‘zorlayıcılık' ve 'yönlendiricilik' okul
müdürlerinin çoğunlukla sahip olduğu praetoryanist davranışlar olarak
saptanmıştır. Bununla birlikte okul müdürleripraetoryanizmin
‘olumsuz eleştiri’ ile ‘sınırlayıcılık’ boyutlarındaki davranışlara da kısmen
sahiptirler. Okul müdürlerinin praetoryanist davranışları, cinsiyet, eğitim
durumu, okul türü ve eğitim kolu (sektör) değişkenlerine göre anlamlı bir
şekilde farklılaşmaktadır. Buna karşın mesleki kıdemin praetoryanist
davranışları farklılaştırmadığı belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Praetoryanizm, Praetoryanist davranış, Okul müdürü

Praetorianistic Behavior Forms: An Investigation of School Principals

Abstract

Praetorianism
is an administration system where the military takes an active role in
political decisions openly or covertly. Also,
praetorianism is the interference of a state or an individual with another
person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person
interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. It involves a limitation on the freedom or autonomy of some
agent and it does so for a class of reasons. The
purpose of this study is to determine the levels of school principals'
praetorianistic behavior. This research was designed with a descriptive
scanning model. The target universe of the research is composed of 370 school
directors working in public and private secondary schools in 25 districts of
Ankara. In the research, the entire universe was reached and a "complete
counting" technique was used. Data of the study were obtained using the
praetorianism scale developed by the researcher. The data were reported using
descriptive statistical methods. According to the results of the study, the
most praetorianistic behavior of the school principals' is 'helpfulness'. It
was also identified as praetorianistic behaviors in which 'authoritarianism', '
sordidness ', 'compelling' and 'orientation' were dominated by school
principals, respectively. However, school principals also have some
praetorianistic behavior in terms of ‘negative criticism’ and
‘restrictiveness’. The praetorianistic behaviors of school principals differ
significantly according to the variables of gender, educational status, school
type, and sector. On the other hand, it
has been determined that professional tenure does not differentiate between
praetorianistic behaviors.

Keywords

Praetorianism, Praetorianistic behavior, School principal

References

• Adams, G., & Balfour, D. (2014). Unmasking administrative evil. New York: Routledge.
• Adeniran, T. (1985). Military rule and nation-building: praetorianism revisited. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 27(3), 329-344.
• Alexander, L. (2001). Illiberalism all the way down: Illiberal groups and two conceptions of liberalism. J. Contemp. Legal Issues, 12, 625.
• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. New York: Jossey-Bass.
• Archer, C. I. (1990). The Royalist Army of New Spain, 1810-1821: Militarism, Praetorianism, or Protection of Interests?. Armed Forces & Society, 17(1), 99-116.
• Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 199.
• Beehner, L. M. (2018). A Means of First Resort: Explaining “Hot Pursuit” in International Relations. Security Studies, 1-31.
• Ben-Eliezer, U. (1997). Rethinking the Civil-Military Relations Paradigm: the inverse relation between militarism and praetorianism through the example of Israel. Comparative Political Studies, 30(3), 356-374.
• Bowman, K. S. (2010). Militarization, democracy, and development: The perils of praetorianism in Latin America. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.
• Bowman, K. (2002). Militarization, Development, and Democracy: The Perils of Praetorianism in Latin America. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.
• Cann, R., & Danopoulos, C. (1998). The military and politics in a theocratic state: Iran as case study. Armed Forces & Society, 24(2), 269-288.
• Cunliffe, P. (2014). The New Liberal Praetorianism. H-Diplo, 280.
• Danopoulos, C. P. (1984). Warriors and politicians in modern Greece (Vol. 1). London: Documentary Publications.
• Danopoulos, C., & Zirker, D. (2002). Civil-military relations theory in the post-communist world. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, 38, 1-23.
• Decalo, S. (1975). Praetorianism, Corporate Grievances and Idiosyncratic Factors in Military Hierarchies. Journal of African Studies, 2(2), 247.
• Egreteau, R. (2016). Embedding praetorianism: soldiers, state, and constitutions in postcolonial Myanmar. In Politics and constitutions in Southeast Asia (pp. 131-153). New York: Routledge.
• Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organizations? A study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 211-235.
• Gaub, F. (2017). Like father like son: Libyan civil–military relations before and after 2011. Mediterranean Politics, 1-15.
• Giroux, H. A. (2018). Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy. New York: Routledge.
• Hansen, R., & King, D. (2000). Illiberalism and the new politics of asylum: liberalism's dark side. The political quarterly, 71(4), 396-403.
• Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(6), 836-850.
• Hen-Tov, E., & Gonzalez, N. (2011). The militarization of post-Khomeini Iran: praetorianism 2.0. The Washington Quarterly, 34(1), 45-59.
• Herspring, D. R. (1992). Civil—military relations in post-communist Eastern Europe: The potential for praetorianism. Studies in Comparative Communism, 25(2), 99-122.
• Jarausch, K. H. (2014). Students, Society and politics in imperial Germany: The rise of academic illiberalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Kerfoot, D., & Knights, D. (1993). Management, masculinity and manipulation: From praetoryanism to corporate strategy in financial services in Britain. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 659-677.
• Kowalewski, D. (1991). Periphery praetorianism in cliometric perspective 1855-1985. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 32(3), 289-303.
• Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 863.
• Ling, Y. (2003). From praetorianism to democracy [J]. Journal of Shijiazhuang Teachers College, 2, 015.
• Ma, L., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 13-24.
• Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 105(1), 3.
• McLauchlin, T. (2010). Loyalty strategies and military defection in rebellion. Comparative Politics, 42(3), 333-350.
• Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness. New York: Education and Training Policy Division, Oecd.
• Nordlinger, E. A. (1977). Soldiers in politics: military coups and governments. London: Prentice Hall.
• Peruzzotti, E. (2004). From praetorianism to democratic institutionalization: Argentina's difficult transition to civilian rule. Journal of Global South Studies, 21(1), 97.
• Raviot, J. R. (2017). Russian Praetorianism: exercising power according to Vladimir Poutine. Hérodote, (3), 9-22.
• Rizvi, A. J. (2015). Civil-Military-Islamist Relations: An Opinion on Democracy, Islamist Militancy and Praetorianism in Pakistan. New York: Prentice Hall.
• Seligman, M. E. (2005). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. London: WH Freeman & Co..
• Vogt, W. P. (2006). Quantitative research methods for professionals in education and other fields. Columbus: Allyn & Bacon.