Eğitim Yönetiminde Geleneksel Bilim Eleştirisi: Evers ve Lakomski’nin Natüralist Bağdaşımcı Epistemolojisi Üzerine Düşünceler

Yıl 2018, , 255 - 268, 31.08.2018

Murat Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.330362

Öz

Bilimsel bir inceleme alanı olan eğitim yönetimi
yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren entelektüel bir çatışma sahasına
dönüşmüştür. Alanda yaşanan tartışmalar pozitivizme dayalı geleneksel bilim
ile onun eleştirisini yapan bilim çevreleri arasında cereyan etmiştir. Son
yıllarda alandaki tartışmalara Evers ve Lakomski’nin de katıldığı
görülmektedir. Evers ve Lakomski hem mantıksal pozitivizmin, hem de onun
eleştirini yapan paradigma yaklaşımının temelci epistemolojiye dayandığını öne
sürmüştür. Evers ve Lakomski, temelci epistemolojinin eleştirisine dayalı
olarak eğitim yönetimi için uygun epistemolojik çerçevenin natüralist
bağdaşımcılık olduğunu savunmuştur. Bu kapsamda Evers ve Lakomski doğa
bilimleri ile bağdaşım içerisinde olan ve değerler ile insan öznelliğini de
içine alan bütüncül bir eğitim yönetimi bilimi tasavvur etmiştir. Bu genel
çerçeveye dayalı olarak bu çalışmada Evers ve Lakomski’nin geleneksel bilim
eleştirisini hangi argümanlara dayandırdıkları ve natüralist bağdaşımcı
epistemolojiye dayalı post-pozitivist bilimi nasıl gerekçelendirdikleri
tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eğitim Yönetimi, Geleneksel Bilim, Mantıksal Ampirizm, Natüralist Bağdaşımcılık, Evers ve Lakomski

A Critique of Traditional Science in Educational Administration: Thoughts on Evers and Lakomski’s Naturalistic Coherent Epistemology

Öz

Educational
administration, an area of scientific research, has evolved into a field of
intellectual conflict beginning from the second half of the twentieth century.
Conflicts arouse between the views belonging to traditional science that are
based on positivism and those of the scientific communities against
traditional science. It is witnessed that recently Evers and Lakomski have
joined this scientific controversy. Evers and Lakomski argue that both logical
positivism (empiricism) and paradigm approach, which acts a critic of this
approach, stand on foundationalist epistemology. Evers and Lakomski are of the
opinion that, through taking a critical stance on foundationalist
epistemology, it would be fair to state that an appropriate epistemological
framework for educational administration would be the naturalistic coherent
one. To this end, Evers and Lakomski visualize the science of educational
administration as an area which carries holistic aspects of values as well as
human subjectivity while being in accordance with natural sciences. Taking
this overall perspective as a base, this study discusses the arguments that
Evers and Lakomski found on their critique of traditional science together
with the ways they justify post-positivist science resting on naturalistic
coherent epistemology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Educational Administration, Traditional Science, Logical Empiricism, Naturalistic Coherentism, Evers and Lakomski

Kaynakça

• Allison, D. J. (2001). Riding the E and L roller-coaster: How I came to fear naturalistic coherentism. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 539-553.
• Allison, D. J., & Ellett, F. S. (1999). Evers and Lakomski on values in educational administration: Less than coherent. Values and educational leadership, 183-208.
• Allix, N., & Gronn, P. (2005). ‘Leadership’as a Manifestation of Knowledge. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 181-196.
• Bates, R. (1980). Educational administration, the sociology of science and the management of knowledge. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 1-20.
• Barlosky, M. (1995). A rejoinder to Evers and Lakomski. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(4), 467-474.
• Beycioglu, K. (2012). Will Evers and Lakomski be able to find leadership's Holy Grail?. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 9(2), 349-362.
• Çilingir, L. (2016). Bilim felsefesi. M. Demirbaş (Ed) içinde, Fen bilimleri öğretiminde bilimin doğası (ss.2-21). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları. Çüçen, A. K. (2003). Bilgi kuramına giriş. Bilimname,2, 3-12.
• Donmoyer, R. (2001). Evers and Lakomski’s search for leadership’s holy grail (and the intriguing ideas they encountered along the way). Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 554-572.
• Eacott, S. (2015). Educational leadership relationally: A theory and methodology for educational leadership, management and administration. Springer.
• English, F. W. (1992). Educational administration: The human science. New York: HarperCollings Publishers.
• English, F. W. (1994). Theory in educational administration. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
• English, F. W. (2002). The point of scientificity, the fall of the epistemological dominos, and the end of the field of educational administration. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 109-136.
• English, F. W. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practive of educational administration. İllinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
• Evers, C. (1987). Naturalism and philosophy of education. Educational Phiolosophy and Theory, 19(2), 11-21.
• Evers, C. (1991). Towards a coherentist theory of validity. International Journal of Educational Research, 15(6), 521-535.
• Evers, C., & Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing educational administration. Oxford: Perganon Press.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1994). Three dogmas: A rejoinder. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(4), 28-37.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1996a). Exploring educational administration. Oxford: Elsevier.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (1996b). Science in educational administration: A postpozitivist conception. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 379-402.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (2001). Theory in educational administration: Naturalistic directions. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 499-520.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (2008). Doing educational administration. United Kingdom: Emerald.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (2012). Science, systems, and theoretical alternatives in educational administration: The road less travelled. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 57-75.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (2015). Naturalism and educational administration: New directions. Educational Phiolosophy and Theory, 47(4), 402-419.
• Derrida, J. (2007). Marx’ın hayaletleri. (Çev. Alp Tümertekin). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Feyerabend, P. (2000). Anarşizim üzerine tezler. (Çev. Ekrem Altınsöz). Ankara: Öteki Yayınevi.
• Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. New York: Prometheus Books.
• Foucault, M. (2016). Bilginin arkeolojisi. (Çev. Veli Urhan). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Gözler, K. (2008). Tabii hukuk ve hukuki pozitivizme göre adalet kavramı. Muhafazakar Düşünce, 4(15), 77-90.
• Greenfield. T. B. (1974). Theory in the study of organizations and administrative structures: A new perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Intervisitation Programme on Educational Administration. Bristol, England.
• Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about organization: a new perspective for schools, In M. G. Hughes (Ed.), Administering education: International challenge (pp. 71-99). London: Athlone Press.
• Greenfield, T. B. and Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: Towards a humane science. New York: Reutledge. Griffiths, D. E. (1959a). Research in Educational Administration. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Griffiths, D. E. (1959b). Administrative theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc,
• Griffiths, D. E. (1979). Intellectual turmoil in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 43-65.
• Gronn, P., & Ribbins, P. (1993). The salvation of educational administration: better science or alternatives to science?. Educational Management & Administration, 21(3), 161-169.
• Gültekin, A. C. (2012). Çağdaş epistemolojide içselcilik ve epistemik sorumluluk. Düşünme Dergisi, 1(3), 7-24.
• Gültekin, A. C. (2013). Çağdaş epistemolojide içselcilik/dışsalcılık tartışması. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Habermas, J. (1988). Legitimation crisis. (Tranlated by Thomas McCharty). Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. London: The Macmillan Company.
• Halpin, A. W. (1967). Administrative theory in education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
• Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Hodgkinson, C. (1983). The philosophy of leadership. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership; The moral art. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Hodgkinson, C. (1993). The Epistemological Auiology of Evers and Lakomski: Some un-Quineian Quibblings. Educational Management & Administration, 21(3), 177-184.
• Hodgkinson, C. (1996). Administrative philosopyh. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Hume, D. (1998). İnsan zihni üzerine bir araştırma. (Çev. S. Öğdüm). Ankara: İlke Yayıncılık.
• Hume, D. (2009). İnsan doğası üzerine bir inceleme. (Çev. E. Baylan). İstanbul: Bilgesu Yayıncılık.
• Hyung, P. S. (1997). Australian naturalism and its critics. Educational Management & Administration, 25(4), 395-415.
• Kuhn, T. S. (2017). Bilimsel devrimlerin yapısı. (Çev. Nilüfer Kuyaş). İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları.
• Lambert, K. ve Brittan, G. G. (2011). Bilim felsefesine giriş, (Çev. Ed. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir) Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Lakomski, G., & Evers, C. W. 1994). Greenfield’s humane science. Educational Management and Administration, 22(4), 260-269.
• Locke, J. (1996). İnsan anlığı üzerine bir deneme. (Çev. V. Hacıkadiroğlu). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayıncılık.
• Lyotard, J. F. (2013). Postmodern durum. (Çev. İsmet Birkan). Ankara: Bilgesu Yayıncılık
• Maxcy, S. J. (2001). Educational leadership and management of knowing: The aesthetics of coherentism. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 573-588.
• Özcan, H. (1999). Birbirine Zıt İki Epistemolojik Yaklaşım: Temelcilik ve İmancılık. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Necati Öner Armağanı.
• Özdemir, M. (2017). Eğitim yönetiminde epistemik bunalımın arkeolojisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(2), 281-304.
• Öztürk, F. S. M. (2008). Carnap, Quine ve Natüralizm. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Felsefe Dergisi, 6, 101-107.
• Öztürk, F. S. M. (2014). Epistemic defeat, deontology and internalism. Kaygı, 23, 103-115.
• Platon. (2009). Theaitetos. (6. Basım). İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.
• Quine, W. V. O. (1994). Epistemology naturalized, In Hilary Kornblith (Ed.), Naturalizing epistemology (2nd Ed.) (pp. 15-31). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Simon, A. H. (1997). Administrative behavior (4th Ed.) New York: Free Press.
• Tanrıverdi, H. (2012). İnancın rasyonelliği sorunu. Gümüşhane: Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Yayınları