Monograph Editors: Allan Walker, Philip Hallinger and Anissa Chan

Correspondence The Joseph Lau Luen Hung Charitable Trust Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, N.T., HONG KONG.

Fax: +852 2948 8634 Tel: +852 2948 6257 Email: apclc@ied.edu.hk Website: www.ied.edu.hk/apclc/

© The Hong Kong Institute of Education 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Hong Kong Institute of Education. For any copyright matters please contact Allan WALKER at Hong Kong Institute of Education.

This monograph is published by The Joseph Lau Luen Hung Charitable Trust Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change, HK Institute of Education and the Hong Kong Principals’ Institute. This monograph was published as an article in School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 369-399.

APCLC – HKPI Monograph Series

We are pleased to introduce this new series of monographs as part of the ongoing collaboration between the Asia Pacific Centre of Leadership and Change (APCLC) and the newly established Hong Kong Principals' Institute (HKPI). Both organizations are focused on promoting deeper understanding of school leadership through innovative research and to improved leadership practice in schools. We believe that working partnerships between organizations such as ours provide fertile tracts within which ways to more successful leadership can be explored, tested, practiced and disseminated in ways that neither partner can achieve individually. We hope that you enjoy reading the monograph and that it in some way helps you reflect on what you do as a leader, regardless of where that is.

Allan Walker Joseph Lau Chair Professor of International Educational Leadership Head, Department of Education Policy and Leadership Director, The Joseph Lau Luen Hung Charitable Trust Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change Hong Kong Institute of Education

Anissa Chan, JP Convener, Hong Kong Principals’ Institute Principal, St. Paul’s Co-educational College

Philip Hallinger Joseph Lau Chair Professor of Leadership and Change Director, The Joseph Lau Luen Hung Charitable Trust Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change Hong Kong Institute of Education

APCLC - HKPI Monograph

Series

Contents

1 Introduction

6 The Review Process

8 Education Research in China

12 Non-empirical Literature—core patterns

20 Empirical Literature—core patterns

31 Summary and Discussion

38 References

Gateways to Leading Learning

Principal Leadership in China an initial review Allan Walker, Rongkun Hu and Haiyan Qian

APCLC - HKPI Monograph

Series 2013

Number 2

Allan Walker is Joseph Lau Chair Professor of International Educational Leadership, Director of Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change and Head of Department of Education Policy and Leadership at The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Rongkun Hu is lecturer at the

Faculty of School Leadership Training and Research, Beijing Institute of Education.

Haiyan Qian is Assistant Professor

at the Department of Education Policy and Leadership and Research Fellow of Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change at The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Principal Leadership in China: an initial review Allan WALKER, Rongkun HU and Haiyan QIAN

Abstract This monograph reviews the literature on Chinese principalship written in English and Chinese between 1998 and 2008. The first sections discuss the rationale for the research, the review process, and the state of education research in mainland China. The review findings are presented as a set of core patterns and contributory subpatterns, which flow from either the empirical or non-empirical literature. Two core patterns are identified from the non-empirical pieces – prescriptions and commentaries. Prescriptions focus on telling principals what they need to do to be successful, especially in the present reform environment. Commentaries focus on the key concerns and problems confronting principals. Three core patterns can be discerned from the empirical pieces – imported frameworks, indigenous investigations, and contextual influences. The final section offers a number of conclusions that look within and across the core patterns and pose questions to guide further research.

Keywords: principal leadership; China; literature review; leadership studies in China; international comparative leadership studies

1

Introduction This monograph is a review of the recent literature on principal leadership in China.1 The purpose is to synthesise and critique the research for the period between 1998 and 2008. The review aims to provide a snapshot of school principals in the world’s most populous and increasingly influential society. In doing so, it supplies a number of insights into the role of Chinese principals and notes some areas for future research.

2

Internationally, research into principal leadership has accelerated over the last decade. Interest has been driven by the demand for change, which requires a deeper understanding of what type of leadership works and how it works. The sophistication of this research has grown in tandem with the availability of sophisticated statistical techniques, more rigorous and theoretically sound qualitative investigations, and the increasingly accepted use of mixed-method approaches.

Recent large-scale literature reviews and meta-analyses of published data about principal leadership have contributed to the understanding of what principals do, how they make a difference to student learning, ways to better prepare them, and some of the dilemmas they face (e.g., Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). On-going research into principal leadership has increased our understanding of the subject and identified areas requiring deeper exploration. One such area is how different contexts influence principal leadership. Significant contexts include personal, organisational, political, economic, geographic, societal, and cultural factors. Among these, the influences of societal and cultural factors have gained increasing prominence in recent research. While recognising the importance of the range of factors on principals’ work, this paper focuses on the societal context.

The societal context includes the historically accepted patterns of behaviour, hierarchies of power, and norms of interaction that shape principals’ work (Smulyan, 2000, p.4). Gordon (2002) described these as deep structures that reflect historically constructed codes of behaviour. These codes ‘‘convey the relative status of people within the social system within which they exist’’ (p. 152). As such, deep structures lurk unseen throughout different organisational levels.

3

Despite the recognition of the importance of context and its influence on practice, it has not been adequately explored, particularly in societies with relatively underdeveloped education research traditions. This is not to say that contextually sensitive research has been totally ignored in and across non-Western settings. In fact, evidence is accumulating that societal values and other contextual variables influence the way principals perceive and enact their roles. The research, however, remains relatively scarce and is produced, stored, and disseminated according to rules established in a limited collection of societies.

4

Some of the current advances in our understanding of school leadership are spread globally. Published and unpublished research is freely disseminated through multiple mediums and is relatively easily accessed from many corners of the world. The wider availability of knowledge means that policy makers, scholars, and practitioners alike have easier access to work produced in societies, systems, and schools far removed from their own. However, both the production and flow of such knowledge remains a largely one-way affair (Walker & Dimmock, 2002).

Knowledge production and dissemination is dominated by Western-based and/or focused scholars, organisations and agencies working ‘‘at home’’. This is due to a variety of economic and developmental factors, the dominance of English as the global language, and, sometimes, political imperatives. It also relates to the dissemination mechanisms which give some journals, websites, and the like status and control. With increasing access to international resources, culturally bounded leadership knowledge is easily accessible even in under developed societies.

Given the global primacy of written and spoken English in the field, work in English is more widely read internationally. This has led to a situation where international scholars and practitioners have access to knowledge written in English,

generally framed by a Judeo-Christian value system, while scholars in English language systems read only their own culture’s work. This widespread international dissemination of English language literature may give it a disproportionate influence across societies.2 These existing production and dissemination scenarios risk overlooking knowledge gathered in other societies, and so restricting the breadth and shape of the knowledge available. They may also trivialise challenges exacerbated by context. For example, although principals the world over struggle to manage conflicting pressures for stability and change, this is further complicated in non-Western societies where many of the new initiatives come from societies and cultures that operate on very different normative assumptions.

China is a case in point. The guiding principle of education reform in China is a concept called suzhi jiaoyu. This imprecise term, which is frequently translated as ‘‘quality education’’, encompasses a range of educational ideals but generally refers to a more holistic style of education which centres on the whole person (Carney, 2008). Many scholars (e.g., Dello-Iacovo, 2009; Pepper, 1996, 2000) believe that the suzhi jiaoyu education reformers have attempted to learn from and borrow from Western educational methodologies without committing themselves to the conceptual bases that underpin them. Major suzhi jiaoyu reform thrusts include encouraging

schools to be more competitive, promoting school-based management, granting schools more autonomy in terms of curriculum development, increasing student participation in class activities, and giving more emphasis to formative student assessment. These reform ideals, although rhetorically adopted in Chinese schools, inevitably clash with traditionally embedded practices such as respect for authority, emphasis on high-stake examinations, and an over-reliance on teacher-centred pedagogy.

This monograph aims to partly redress the status quo by reviewing the literature on principalship in China, written in either Chinese or English. Given the space restrictions, this review is introductory – a more in-depth analysis is currently in progress. The aim is to identify the main trends in the research on principalship in China while commenting on the state and status of research in the area – we hope this will spur further research. This article does not aim to explicitly present a comparison between knowledge of principalship across different societies. In other words, the primary goal of the article is not to explore the impact of the dominant international discourse on school principalship in the Chinese literature. However, the sheer number of articles that we identified in the Chinese literature that adopt Western leadership concepts reveals the disproportionate influence of Western ideas and theories in China.

The review is important for at least three reasons. First, while there is no shortage of papers reviewing research leadership, most of these include work from a small number of societies. Reviews of educational leadership in non-Western societies remain relatively rare. Second, given the uneven flow of knowledge dissemination, a review of principal leadership in China provides a foundation upon which future cross-societal discourse can be based. Third, since the review reveals a number of holes in the knowledge base of school leadership in China, it suggests directions for future research in China and beyond.

There are five main sections. The first section outlines and illustrates the review process. The second sketches the general state of educational research in China. The remaining sections describe the core and subpatterns identified in the review. The third section presents the first two core patterns, labelled prescriptions and commentaries. These were derived from the non-empirical literature. The fourth section describes the core patterns derived from the empirical (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method) literature. These patterns are labelled imported frameworks, indigenous investigations, and contextual influences. The final section offers a number of conclusions and some questions that may guide further research.

5

6

THE REVIEW PROCESS The review used the following process:

● We reviewed literature published between 1998 and 2008.3 This time frame was selected to align with recent major changes to school education in China and was considered manageable in terms of available resources. The former related to the slew of major suzhi jiaoyu (quality education) reforms introduced in the 1990s (Feng, 2006) and the later to the necessity of translation. Current education reforms have done much to highlight the role of the principal in China.

● We identified papers written in either English or Chinese. Although this made arrangements more complex, to include English papers only risked constructing a very limited picture and undermining our purpose.

● To be included in the review, literature had to relate specifically to principal leadership in mainland China. Consequently, we identified pieces that directly targeted principal leadership in the Chinese Mainland. For reasons that will become apparent, these could be research studies, reviews, or commentaries. We searched both English and Chinese databases. English language databases included Google Scholar, ProQuest 5000, ERIC, Hong Kong Library and Information Services (HKLIS) Dissertations and Theses Collections, and Dissertations and Theses at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong. Chinese databases included China Academic Journal Full-Text Database (Education and Social Sciences), Chinese ERIC, and the China Master Theses Full-Text Database and China Doctor Dissertations Full-Text Database (Education and Social Science).

● To maximise consistency, we used the same keywords in the two languages – ‘‘principalship, or principal leadership (xiaozhang lingdao)’’ – and for English literature, we added an additional keyword ‘‘China’’. When we searched in the Chinese Academic Journal database, we restricted our search to ‘‘core journals’’ (a category which recognises higher quality journals published in China). We also searched the content pages in a number of English and Chinese journals focusing on educational leadership and screened the reference lists in a number of relevant pieces (e.g., Feng, 2002; J.P. Li & Zhang, 2006; Qian, 2008), research reports (e.g., Wong, 2007), and chapters in international handbooks (e.g., Feng, 2003).

7

THE REIVIEW PROCESS The review used the following process:

At the conclusion of this process, we identified 170 usable pieces. The excluded unusable pieces were mainly ‘‘figure portraits’’ or news reports which also appear in Chinese academic journals. We also excluded pieces about university leadership.

● We divided the identified literature into two simple tranches. The first included non-empirical pieces only. These were opinion pieces, descriptive accounts, ‘‘famous principal’’ stories, and other forms of analytic/synthetic review. We included these because they form a major tradition in school leadership writing in China and are in fact labelled as ‘‘research’’ in much of the Chinese education community (T. Wang, 2004). In total, 91 useable non-empirical pieces were identified. The second tranche included empirical pieces only. Here, we identified 79 usable pieces, most of which were unpublished dissertations. Table 1 introduces the basic break-down of papers reviewed in this monograph.

● We considered applying an existing leadership framework to the review but decided against this for the initial review, while retaining it as a future option. While acknowledging this as a possible weakness, our reasoning was that available frameworks risked being too culturally or contextually loaded and that their application could restrict the review. We also considered applying a comparative framework, but as our purpose at this stage was not to compare approaches we also put this option aside.

● We analysed the two tranches independently. In both, we looked for dominant patterns which provided insights into the state of principal leadership in Mainland China. The non-empirical pieces were examined for form, source, and focus. These pieces provided insights into the thinking of scholars and practitioners commenting on principal leadership in China from various perspectives. Empirical pieces were reviewed to identify the venue and dominant methodology used, including method of data collection, sample, and informants and the major findings/arguments of the study (see Table 2 on the following page for an example of this). This was translated into English, and the patterns were identified.

8

EDUCATION RESEARCH IN CHINA

When Western-educated scholar Cheng Kai-Ming first collaborated with education institutions in the Chinese mainland in the 1990s, he identified some notable differences in the way he and his new colleagues conceptualised research (yanjiu). He found that education research in Chinese institutions fell largely into four quite distinct categories (K.M. Cheng, 2000). Although some progress is evident, his categorisations and their implications largely continue to hold true.

9

1. The questionnaire survey:

Survey methods were seen as a ‘‘modern way’’ of conducting research because they employed computerised statistical analyses. This was considered the most sophisticated approach to educational research.

2. The experiment:

Educational experiments were used as a means to promote reforms in schools and/or districts. This was especially common in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A researcher would be sent into the field to direct a project. Their role was to ensure that the project accomplished the outcome anticipated by the reform designer.

3. The collation:

Often, a research project’s goal was the compilation of a monograph written by famous writers in the field. The researchers would collate their articles and publish them as a text. Such projects were clearly classified as ‘‘research’’ (yanjiu).

4. The reflection:

Researchers were asked to ponder policy issues in the name of yanjiu. The expected outcome was a paper containing opinions and recommendations for implementation.

10

13 11

Cheng concluded that the difference between these and Western research conventions was not so much a question of methods but rather one of purposes. Most of the research conducted by the institute/s he worked with was prescriptive in that they aimed to arrive at definitive conclusions or findings that could quickly inform recommendations for educational policy. The researchers involved were not accustomed to descriptive studies that aimed to generate general understandings or insights into educational processes.

Although considerable progress was made during the intervening decades, a lack of rigorous empirical study remains a feature of education research in China. Much research still relies on the traditional Chinese method of ‘‘argumentation’’ (R. Yang, 2005). Papers offering personal reflections, explanations, or illustrations of certain policies are labelled research papers, even though they lack a theoretical component and logical reasoning (T. Wang, 2004;

R. Yang, 2005). For example, in the first volume of Educational Administration Review (zhongguo jiaoyu guanli pinglun), a relatively new journal that claims to improve the knowledge base of school administration in China, only 3 out of 19 papers used empirical data (Chu, 2003).4

Even the increasing numbers of studies employing empirical data take an objectivist viewpoint. Researchers still tend to regard quantitative studies as more advanced (Ding, 2004, cited in R. Yang, 2005, p. 8). Most of these studies are modelled on Western theories and instruments. As such, although they contribute in a manner to understanding in China, they do relatively little to establish an indigenous knowledge base.5 The development of such a knowledge base requires an increase in the number and quality of empirical studies embedded in China’s cultural, political, social, and schooling contexts and an account of the knowledge already produced in these contexts.

11

12

Non-empirical literature — core patterns Two major patterns define the essence of the non-empirical literature – each was comprised of a number of subpatterns. The first core pattern was labeled prescriptions. Literature shaping this pattern focused mainly on telling principals what they needed to do to be successful. The second pattern was called commentaries. Messages forming this pattern focused on key concerns and problems confronting principals.

Prescriptions (for principals)

The first core pattern was prescriptions; four interrelated subcategories were recognised.

Reform prescription These pieces dictated what principals should do to work success-fully within the demanding reform environment.

Heroic prescription These pieces drew on the stories, experiences, and successes of highly regarded principals. These included historical principal-icons and ‘‘famous’’ practicing principals. Issues discussed within this category (and across others) were contemporary, and often contentious and philosophically based.

Political prescription These pieces reinforced the importance of the Party and associated ideology to principal leadership.

Imported prescription These pieces drew heavily on Western theories and models of leadership to guide principal improvement. Such prescriptions sometimes specifically targeted reform implementation and sometimes related more generic advice.

13 13

REFORM PRESCRIPTION The first cluster of prescriptive pieces stressed the critical role principals play in leading educational quality, school development, and other education reform requirements (Dou, 2007; Du, 2004; Feng, 2006; H.Y. Gao, 2002; J. He & Ying, 2003; H. Ma, 2005; Qiu, 2008; Xia, 2008; Xiao, 2008; L.C. Zhang, 2004; W. Zhang, 2006; H. Zhao, 2005). Over the review period, the literature became more and more concerned with the shifting role of the principal within the reform environment. Much was written about the qualities needed for successful implementation. For example, R. Zhou (2006) listed 13 leadership qualities principals needed to implement curriculum reform. Among these were a caring teacher, a tolerant friend, a highly disciplined person, a flexible leader, a servant, learner, researcher, an optimist, innovator, and practitioner.

The literature advised principals on ways to take greater responsibility for school management (H.Y. Gao, 2002), develop school-based curriculums, use information technology (Xiao, 2007; X.Y. Liu, 2007), lead teacher professional development (Deng, 2008), be aligned with the new reform ethos (R. Zhou, 2006), and improve instructional practices (Du, 2004; Feng, 2006; F. Gao & Xu, 2006; Y.F. He, 2007; Huang, 2008b; C.S. Meng, 2008; X.Y. Sun, 2007a, 2007b; J.L. Yu, 2004; Zou, 2007). There was also an increasing focus on raising student achievement in line with reform intentions (X.P. Dong, 2006; L. Guo, 2006; Y. Zhao, 2007). Reform-focused prescriptions projected traditional images of the principal as the ubiquitous leader, taking the school to new heights through their strength and moral purpose. The numerous qualities, functions, responsibilities, and capabilities needed to be successful leaders were provided in great detail (H.B. Dong, 2004; Y. Li & Chu, 2005; D. Xu, 2005; D.J. Zhang, 2004; H. Zhang, 2005; X.P. Zhang, 2004, 2007). These included the skills and knowledge needed to organise learning, provide instructional resources, evaluate instructional practices, and build learning teams (R.P. Chen, 2004; Y.N. Zhao, 2007). At the same time, it stressed the importance of efficiency, basic administrative functions, setting school direction, overseeing human resources management, and often above all, implementing central policies (Cai, 2000; X.T. Li, 2008; D.G. Meng, 2004).

13

14

IMPORT PRESCRIPTION The second type of prescription promoted ‘‘ideal’’ leadership styles or models. These were related to reform implementation and/or more generic discussion of principalship. Models were normally imported directly from the West (e.g., Feng, 2002; Gu & Meng, 2001; S. Wang, 2007) and translated verbatim into Chinese. The most common format recounted a detailed introduction to a theory or model popular in Western societies (sometimes current and sometimes quite outdated) and a conclusion with sketchy suggestions of the conditions and qualities needed for application in China (e.g., W.A. Guo, 2001; H.H. Wei, 2006). They provided little or no evidence of relevance or applicability and included high levels of rhetoric and idealism. Hence, they appeared more motivational than pragmatically or intellectually informative.

Western leadership theories were promoted as necessary for improved principalship practice, and they covered a wide range of topics (e.g., Feng, 2002; Gu & Meng, 2001). For example, some promoted management as a ‘‘scientific exercise’’ (e.g., C.Z. Xu, 1999, T. Wang, 2004) or suggested schools establish formal quality assurance systems (such as ISO standards) as pathways to improvement (H.B. Cheng, 2006).Others suggested principals become more people oriented and avoid ‘‘technical rationality’’ (C.L. Chen, 2005, J.M. Sun & Xie, 2008), act as servants and moral models (T.X. Zhang & Zeng, 2006), build school culture (Fan & Wang, 2006; Yuan, 2002), and promote appropriate values (Z.Y. Shi, 2007). Concepts such as curriculum leadership (C.L. Chen, 2005; Lv, 2002), instructional leadership (R.P. Chen, 2004; Peng, 2006; Y. Zhao, 2007), contingency theory (Z.Q. Tang, 2001, 2006), shared leadership (X.P. Dong, 2006), transformational and charismatic leadership (C.Q. Chen, 2002; G.S. Chen, 2001; X.P. Dong, 2006; Peng, 2006; M.Z. Shi, 2007; X.P. Zhang, 2008), moral leadership (Zhong, 2007), distributed leadership, and servant leadership (Feng, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; C.S. Hu, 2005) were all present in the literature. They were generally presented without any explicit contextualisation and more closely resembled sterile lists of things principals ‘‘should do’’. In sum, this category of prescriptive pieces largely ignored the question of the relevance and applicability of Western theories to Chinese schools.

15 15

HEROIC PRESCRIPTION This collection of literature narrated stories of famous principals, portraying them as almost superhuman leaders who had mastered a huge repertoire of leadership skills (B. Zhou, 2006).6 Advice from these icons was sometimes infused with issues that appeared to be almost endlessly debated. One such debate was whether principalship is an occupation (zhiye) or a profession (zhuanye).Many papers advocated for one position or the other, that is, build the job as an occupation – zhiye hua, or professionalise (zhuanye hua) the principalship (Chu, 2003; W.B. Li & Li, 2003; T.J. Wang, 2003). As with many debates, the longer it continued, the more convoluted it became (Y. Li & Chu, 2005).

Another debate was whether contemporary principals were entitled to be called educators (jiaoyu jia).7 Writers argued that principals should aim to be complete educators (e.g., Y. Liu, 2002) – or perfect principals. A group of nationally recognised principals such as Liu Pengzhi, principal of the High School Affiliated to Renmin University of China, and Wei Shusheng, ex-principal of Panjin Experimental High School, were identified in the literature as extraordinary (e.g., L. Li, 2005). Other principals were supposed to copy these individuals.

While they provided certain insights into the idealism of principalship, heroic prescriptions lacked context and suffered from a number of weaknesses. First, they did not seek to problematise a principal’s work or acknowledge the difficulties and struggles many encountered in reality. Instead, they aimed to generalise successful experiences to other schools and principals. Second, they often seemed little more than empty rhetoric, which principals had difficulty understanding. For example, T.J. Wang (2005) suggested that principals implement new education ideas, reflect deeply on practices, and experiment with new ideas. Third, scholars derived long lists of ‘‘best practices’’ that were too lofty for principals. Fourth, as is apparent above, many of the prescriptions presented were contradictory. Again, this did little to aid understanding of the realities the principals faced.

16

POLITICAL PRESCRIPTION Adherence to mainstream political ideology was a widely prescribed part of a principal’s job. This endured in the literature despite the policies of marketisation and decentralisation. Almost all principals in China are Party members and as such work within the ‘‘cadre’’ system. In this system, a person’s political knowledge is an integral part of the selection process (Cai, 2000; S.F. Li, 2005; Z.E. Wang, 2004). Commitment to the Chinese brand of socialist ideology was seen as an essential component of a leader’s ‘‘moral character’’. This is clearly reflected in principals’ job descriptions and in the make-up of principal preparation and training programmes reported in the literature (D.C. Chen, 2006; Feng, 2003; C.Q. Li, 2000a, 2000b; see Ministry of Education [MoE], 1999; State Education Commission [SEC], 1989). More explicitly, the expectations were that principals serve others ‘‘wholeheartedly’’, even at the expense of themselves; devote themselves to the realisation of moral education; work hard; put collectivistic interests before individual benefit; abide by Party policies and state laws; maintain unity; be loyal and honest to the Party; resist corruption; promote communist moral codes; and be ready to sacrifice their lives in times of difficulty and danger (Jia, 2005; see MoE, 1999; SEC, 1989).

Some of the papers analysed did not fit neatly into any of the above categories, even though they were prescriptive in nature. These papers focused more on specific concepts of principal leadership (S. Zhang, 2007). For example, Z.C. Wei (2008) provided prescriptions targeting coordination as a basic function of leadership. Gong and Guo (2005) discussed the knowledge base needed for principal leadership to progress in China. Other researchers (e.g., L.H. Liu, 2001; Sui & Wang, 2006; X.Q. Yang, 1999) targeted the importance of ‘‘leadership’’ as a generic concept and made suggestions for how principals could improve what they called the ‘‘art of leadership’’.

17

Commentaries (on principals’ concerns)

The second core pattern was labelled commentaries. Pieces making up this pattern commented at various analytic depths on key concerns and problems confronting principals. These reflective pieces provide very different stories from the prescriptive pieces. They focused sharply on the daily realities, dilemmas, and problems facing principals – rather than just providing them with instructions. The three major interrelated subthemes are listed below and then teased out.

financial responsibility and resource acquisition; academic outcomes and university entrance; Guanxi (connections and good relationships) and upward connections.

Information gleaned from these commentary pieces provided insights into the assumed reality of Chinese principals’ work. Although many papers claimed to be empirical, they were built primarily upon anecdote, first-hand observation, and restricted personal interviews. They often began with statements such as: ‘‘I have visited a school and talked to the principal . . .’’ or ‘‘I have some friends who are principals and they told me . . .’’ Thus, the data were neither collected nor analysed within accepted (at least Western) conventions. Hence, we did not classify them as empirical studies. With this caveat, they still provide useful information about principalship, as they are widely read.

18

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RESOURCE ACQUISITION Chinese principals were very concerned about their financial responsibility, and specifically about having enough resources to sustain their school and achieve success (D.J. Zhang, 2004). Acquiring additional resources was critical to successful principalship in any school and was especially difficult in ‘‘ordinary’’ schools that were disadvantaged in formal resource allocation arrangements. Acquiring resources was also more difficult for ‘‘schools in remote areas (which) have minimal resources’’ (Hannum & Park, 2002, p.7). In their own words, many principals were forced to ‘‘beg for alms’’ (huayuan) from local government, local enterprises, and parents (G. Zhang & Gu, 2005). Finding sufficient resources called for creativity and flexibility.

As a result, principals spent much of their time lobbying local education authorities for more direct support and/or increased quotas of fee-paying students. As well as actively seeking donations, they engaged in entrepreneurial activities such as renting classrooms to outside groups or producing goods to sell for profit. These activities consumed so much time that they distracted principals from their educative roles (J. Lin, 2000; G. Zhang & Gu, 2005).

ACADEMIC OUTCOMES AND UNIVERSITY ENTRANCE Raising student achievement was closely linked with a principal’s

reputation and their ability to attract financial resources. It was more significant than their direct influence on learning and student outcomes (L. Guo, 2006; C.H. Li & Ma, 2006; S.P. Wang, 2005). As a result, principals were almost obsessively focused on academic results and school leavers’ destinations. This has long been a major principal concern, even before the flood of reforms. However, it becomes even more important, and much more complicated, when coupled with increased competition, financial severity, and the central push toward quality education. The success of a secondary school, at least in the eyes of parents and the public, was judged firmly on student success on college entrance examinations.

Academic results were also related to a school’s financial well-being. Schools with higher admission rates are more likely to get increased financial support from parents, local government, and local enterprises, and vice versa (G. Zhang & Gu, 2005). Given this, it was not surprising that high admission rates were the top priority for most schools (L. Liu, 2005). This in turn was related to the quality of the student intake.

To attract more and better quality students, principals engaged in all manner of marketing, including clever use of the media, open days, home visits, and bonus award schemes (M. Wang, 2005; G. Zhang & Gu, 2005). For example, Shatoujiao High School in Shenzhen provided students with scores above 580 in the junior school leaving exams with tuition waivers (G. Zhang & Gu, 2005). It was common for schools

18

19

to openly acknowledge that ‘‘what is to be examined is what is to be taught in schools’’ (X.P. Dong, 2006, p. 33), even though this openly contradicted the philosophy of the new curriculum. To ‘‘deal’’ with this dilemma, some schools prepared two sets of timetables and syllabi. One timetable targeted raising performance on entrance exams – this was enacted; the other was reserved for external assessment to show the school was implementing the curriculum reform – this was enacted when necessary (G. Zhang & Gu, 2005).

GUANXI AND UPWARD CONNECTION There was strong consensus in the literature about the importance of principals establishing and maintaining guanxi (connections and good relationships) with important school stakeholders and other influential figures. As one school principal stated, ‘‘if you have guanxi [with those influential people], then nothing matters; if you don’t, then everything matters’’ (G. Zhang & Gu, 2005, p. 32).

Close relationships with local government agencies could benefit schools in a number of ways, including the allocation of additional financial resources – this seemed the rule of the game. Principals therefore spent considerable time and effort in formal and informal meetings organised by education bureaus and other functional government departments. They did this because their presence promised to strengthen their guanxi

with the appropriate officials (S.F. Li, 2005; J. Lin, 2000; Yan, 2006).

Obeying the rules of the game also meant that principals sometimes had to do what they did not want to do. For example, in Feng’s (2004) study a principal was visited by the local director of education department just before the end of the school day. Although the principal wanted to go home, he understood it was his obligation to treat his superior to a meal and drink with him. Principal autonomy could be compromised when they were caught up in complex, hierarchical relational networks (guanxi wang). Because of the influence of such connections, principals risked acceding too readily to their superiors’ wishes. For example, principals, especially those of key schools, faced huge pressures each summer from all kinds of influential people to squeeze their children or relatives into their schools. Given insufficientquotas, this presented a real problem for many principals. Some principals even hid away for weeks to avoid such awkward relational obligations (G. Zhang & Gu, 2005).

As mentioned earlier, the papers within this category were not classified as empirical studies because they did not adopt vigorous methods to collect and analyse data (at least according to Western conventions). However, the subject matter overlaps with those explored in empirical studies. Topics such as the pressure for high student academic achievement and guanxi with important people will be further discussed in the following empirical literature section.

19

20

Empirical literature — core patterns A number of interrelated core patterns were identified in the empirical pieces. For this initial review, we were interested in the overarching patterns rather than differentiating the methodological approaches. We therefore combined findings regardless of the methodology employed. The data were divided into three major patterns:

Imported frameworks

Contextual influences

Indigenous investigations

IMPORTED FRAMEWORK Much of the empirical work was framed explicitly by Western leadership frameworks and used imported instruments and research designs. This sometimes arrived via studies from other Chinese societies, such as Hong Kong (e.g., J. Tang, Cheng, & Ying, 1999). The most commonly imported frameworks were transformational leadership and different variants of behavioural, participatory, instructional, and curriculum leadership models.

A slew of studies adopted a transformational leadership approach. Most of these studies, however, were unpublished Master theses. A group of these studies found that transformational leadership was positively related to teacher job satisfaction and commitment (J.M. Sun & Wang, 2008; Tian, 2005; Z.S. Zhang & Wu, 2000, 2001). More specifically, Tian (2005) found a relationship between principal transformational leadership and teacher job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Transformational leadership was found to be a better predictor of leadership effectiveness than teachers’ demographic variables. Chinese principals displayed transformational practices very similar to those described in the imported frameworks. These included: consideration/inspiration, charismatic leadership, promoting cooperation, and intellectual stimulation (Tian, 2005); morale modelling, charisma, visionary leadership, and individualised consideration (Hou, 2006); and charisma/idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bo, 2007; J.P. Li & Zhang, 2006; H. Zhang, 2005). Hou (2006) found Chinese principals rated high in terms of ‘‘individual consideration’’ (J.P. Li & Zhang, 2006), low in terms of ‘‘charisma’’ (Hou, 2006), and lowest in ‘‘intellectual stimulation’’ (H. Zhang, 2005).

Some of these studies (e.g., Bo, 2007) adopted a case study design. They tended to focus on a single principal who demonstrated some qualities of transformational leadership. The researchers collected data from

21

22

interviews with the principal, his/her colleagues, and school documents. The researchers then used the transformational leadership framework (in most cases, Leithwood’s model; e.g., Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990, 1999, 2000) to organise the stories told by the teachers and the principal. These studies showed that Chinese principals did have their own interpretation of the qualities of a transformational leader. For example, for the dimension of ‘‘individualised support’’, they recounted many stories about how principals dealt with different groups of people within schools in order to strengthen their interpersonal relationships and build a more harmonious campus.

A group of studies targeting principal leadership behaviour using different frameworks found that Chinese principals tended to pay more attention to task or work/performance (or building structures) than to individual consideration, people orientation, or relationship building (Chi, 2007; X.Y. Hu, 2005; J.M. Sun & Wang, 2008; F. Wang, 2005; L.P. Wang, 2006; S.Q. Wang, 2004; Z.S. Zhang & Wu, 2000). Z.S. Zhang and Wu (2000, 2001) found that principals’ ‘‘consideration behaviours’’ had a highly significant, positive impact on all dimensions of teacher job satisfaction. Principals’ structure - building behaviours were significantly and positively related with teachers’ satisfaction with teaching, the principal, colleagues, promotion, and the whole school work. In some qualitative studies (i.e., Liang, 2004; X.L. Wang, 2007), principals’ leadership and innovations led to organisational progress and reforms.

23

Looking a little deeper, F. Wang (2005) found differences between teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal leadership behaviours. His findings suggested that teachers were significantly less positive about principals’ supportive behaviours than their school leaders.

A similar pattern emerged from studies adopting imported participative leadership frameworks. These studies reported that, even as principals gave lip service to the importance of teacher participation (An, 2006), they had little trust in teachers’ ability to participate meaningfully in school management. Concerns were expressed about whether participation in decision-making would compromise principal authority (Lu, 2002, 2007). Principals appeared more inclined to rely on hierarchical rather than professional power to lead their schools. L. Wang (2007) reported that schools generally lacked openness and democratic or cooperative decision-making structures and operated under hierarchical management structures which mirrored those prevalent in other government organisations. T.L. Lin (2007) summed up a fairly common notion that although principals were familiar with and even attracted to imported leadership notions, such as transformational and participative leadership, they saw these as idealist but not feasible management styles.

The same conclusions were found in studies framed by imported instructional leadership and/or curriculum leadership models. Whereas principals emphasised the central place of instruction and curriculum in their schools (e.g., Y.L. Tao, 2008; X.L. Wang,

2007), they generally saw their role from an administrative perspective only (C.L. Zhang, 2004). They provided indirect support rather than direct supervision through teacher evaluation schemes. Principals were minimally involved in quality assurance, tracking instructional effects, providing feedback, or mentoring. They were more likely to see their instructional function as raising funds to support the curriculum (J.X. Li, Xu, & Li, 2006), rather than direct involvement with the curriculum and instruction, team building, teacher professional development, and teachers’ partici-pation in learning and training (Huang, 2008a; C.H. Li, 2006; L. Liu, 2005; L. Wang, 2007).

Part of the reason principals kept their distance from curricu-lum and instruction appeared to be that they lacked effective strategies or suffi-cient capacity to perform these funct-ions (M.H. Chen, 2007; Y.P. Ma, Wang, & Xie, 2008). These shortfalls were accen-tuated in rural areas where principals were confused about their role in curriculum reform, and con-tinued to focus on examination-oriented strategies and prior-itising physical con-struction (J.H. Hu, 2005; Y.P. Ma, Wang, & Yan, 2005; B. Wang, 2005).

INDIGENOUS INVESTIGATIONS A growing group of studies attempted to move away from the simple application of imported frameworks and take greater account of context. These studies can be divided into two general types. The first drew on generic frameworks but focused on the local divergence from de-contexualised studies rather than seeking to confirm imported frameworks. The second were even more grounded in local context and did not draw on imported generic frameworks. A quantitative example of the latter was Ling, Chia, and Fang’s (2000) study, which used an implicit conceptual framework of Chinese leadership. They developed the Chinese Implicit Leadership Scale (CILS) and administered it to different occupation groups in Beijing (cadres, factory workers, teachers, college students, and technicians). They found that the Chinese use four dimensions to describe their conceptualisation of leadership: personal morality, goal efficiency, interpersonal competence, and versatility. Among these dimensions, all groups rated interpersonal competence highest; this is consistent with Chinese collectivist values. The participants also considered virtue as an important feature of leadership. The researchers argued that Chinese tradition, values, and perceptions are so different from those in the West that there is an urgent need for both sides to better understand each other. They suggested that future researchers ‘‘must continue to explore deeper into the hearts and minds of the Chinese to find out the true Chinese meaning of leader’’ (p. 34).

Another qualitative example was a life history reported by X. Gao, Su, and Hu (2006). Their study detailed how one principal artfully adapted the traditional top-down approach to work with market demands that

the school became a self-funded tertiary vocational institution. It also documents how the principal dealt with complex internal and external relationships, including relationships with colleagues, the Party, government agencies, students, parents, and private enterprises. Another mixed study examined principal power and

24

attempted to provide answers to the question ‘‘why principals think they are not granted adequate autonomy’’ (Wu, Xie, & Zhou, 1999).

Subpatterns within these indigenous investigations were labeled:

Basic findings in these areas are discussed in the following pages.

25

Politics and Guanxi

Paternalism

Harmony

Paternalism A number of studies suggested principals displayed a preference for paternalistic leadership styles (see B.S. Cheng, Huang, & Chou, 2002; B.S. Cheng, Shieh, & Chou, 2002). Leadership was normally assumed to be the sole right and responsibility of principals (T. Wang, 2004, 2007) who by and large preferred directive or top-down styles (Lu, 2007; Wong, 2007). Ryan et al.’s (1998) research characterised democratic leadership practices in Chinese schools as a form of false collegiality, where there was ‘‘no debate, no argument; the principal selects who would speak and ballots were held in relation to options put forward’’ (p. 178). Wong’s (2006) research in Shanghai supported these assertions. He found that principals exerted decisive authority in schools and that staff behaved in a deferential manner towards this authority (see further explanation of these generalisations in Pittinsky & Zhu, 2005). Wong (2006) also noted the importance of principals ‘‘cunningly’’ using exchange and appraisal processes to exert influence.

Politics and Guanxi The review established that politics, in various forms, dictates the leadership philosophies and practices of mainland principals (Jia, 2007). Adhering to the dominant political ideology was an important requirement for school principals (An, 2006; S.L. Hu, 2007; Jia, 2007). Their socialisation within this ideology and its attached structures affected different aspects of their work. For example, they work as ‘‘governmental officials’’, whose priority is to implement educational policies enacted by the governments (X. Chen, 2007; G. Lin, 2007; Zhu, 2008). Their schools are structured hierarchically in ways very similar to government departments (L. Wang, 2007). According to these bureaucratic governance patterns, principals’ practices and decisions are framed by the demands of central (District) authorities rather than the needs of other stakeholders (Qian, 2008; B. Yu, 2001; B. Yu & Liu, 2005). As noted, the control of local authorities over resource allocation gives them considerable power over a principal’s job. Because of this, a principal’s ability to build guanxi (good relation- ship with these

authorities

is very important (Qian, 2008; Ryan et al., 1998). In a

survey of principal job specifications

26

(Qiao, 2003),principals reported that the and maintaining six most important tasks were strategic planning, school work monitoring, class observation, self-learning, fundraising, and maintaining guanxi. In follow-up interviews, the principals focused on three major tasks only: strategic planning, maintaining guanxi, and fundraising. When questioned about the discrepancy between the questionnaire and interview data, principals explained that they felt it necessary to emphasise the tasks ‘‘principals are supposed to do’’.

A particularly insightful study by C.Q. Chen (2002) examined the leadership role of Chinese secondary school principals using a mixed-method approach. The study identified a tension between existing bureaucratic cultures and the emerging democratic culture in the schools that rendered principals inconsistent in terms of empowerment. The former cultures favoured Political and systemic interests and the latter culture the interests and desires of the people working in and for schools. C.Q. Chen (2002) thus empirically exposed the constraints and dilemmas that jeopardized the principals’ effective running of the schools.

Harmony Research also stressed the importance of moral leadership and of maintaining harmony. As moral role models, principals worked consciously to be generous, honest, fair, and cooperative (Bo, 2007; Jiang, 2006; P. Xu, 2007). Shen (2007) related this human orientation to successful school leadership and the maintenance

of organisational harmony. The pursuit of harmony was prominent

in the literature and linked closely to maintaining good

interpersonal relationships (P. Xu, 2007; W.J. Yang, 2004; M. Zuo, 2006;

M.Y. Zuo, 2006). Moral and servant Leadership practices of mainland

principals were strongly influenced by political ideology (Luo & Najjar, 2006).

27

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES Research in China provides insight into the variables which influence principal leadership practice. These factors range from individual characteristics to organizational and societal conditions. An overview of these contextual variables is shown in Table 3.

28

INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES The first group of variables were the principals’ personal traits, including age, gender, time teaching, position, and personality. Quantitative studies established a relationship between principal leadership behaviours (or styles) and a

number of personal factors. For example, Geng (2002) and A.X. Dong and Geng (2008) divided principal leadership behaviours into two dimensions: ‘‘care for people’’ and ‘‘care for work’’. Their analysis showed that age and a principal’s professional title influenced their ‘‘care for people’’. The length of time principals had taught and their training influenced both dimensions. J.P. Li and Zhang (2006) affirmed a significant positive correlation between principal leadership behaviours and gender, years of teaching, years of principalship, and educational background.

For example, female principals were better at handling interpersonal relations (T.L. Lin, 2007) and more inclined toward cooperative relationships (N. Jiang, 2007; Zeng, 2004). Principals with higher academic credentials tended to be more people oriented (L.P. Wang, 2006). In Luo and Najjar’s (2006) study, the extent of a principal’s education was positively related to both internal and external leadership practices. A lack of leadership training or a formal degree in administration appeared to compromise the principal’s effectiveness. For example, female principals were better at handling interpersonal relations (T.L. Lin, 2007) and more inclined toward cooperative relationships (N. Jiang, 2007; Zeng, 2004). Principals with higher academic credentials tended to be more people oriented (L.P. Wang, 2006). In Luo and Najjar’s (2006) study, the extent of a principal’s education was positively related to both internal and external leadership practices. A lack of leadership training or a formal degree in administration appeared to compromise the principal’s effectiveness.

The other studies on personal variables included case studies of principals’ possession and use of personal management knowledge (L.G. Tao, 2005). Research indicated that Chinese principals could be characterised by mission consciousness, initiative, analytical thinking, conceptual thinking, originality, and communicativeness (S.L. Hu, 2007; L.N. Li, 2006; W.L. Liu, Zhao, & Zhong, 2007; X.L. Wang, 2007). Excellent principal performance,especially in senior secondary school principals, was significantly correlated with certain management capabilities (Jia, 2004; L. Zhang, 2006) and qualities such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, extroversion, and openness (Y.Z. Guo, 2003; K. Ma, 2007).

29

ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES A number of organisational characteristics influenced principal leadership. These included school location, level, and status (J.P. Li & Zhang, 2006). Lu (2007) confirmed that principals in cities espoused more support for democratic management than their rural counterparts. L.P. Wang (2006) found that high school principals were more task oriented and controlling than their middle-school colleagues. C.H. Lin (2000) compared the power of primary and secondary school principals. His major conclusion was that secondary school principals have greater autonomy. J. Tang et al. (1999) found that school culture and school efficiency were related to different combinations of principal leadership behaviours. R. Yang (2007) compared the use of ICT across different rural districts in Beijing. Finally, Qian (2008) found that the status of a school was inextricably connected to perceptions of the effectiveness of the principal (see also Wong, 2006, 2007).

SOCIETAL INFLUENCES Some scholars explored the influence of societal context on principal leadership. The most prominent factor was traditional Chinese culture (T. Wang, 2004, 2007). Traditional culture was predominantly framed by Confucianism. In brief, a series of widely cited Confucian values8 constitute ethical guidelines across Chinese social and personal life. These include respect for authority, patriarchy, seniority and age, conflict avoidance and obeying superiors, ‘‘face (mianzi)’’, interpersonal relations ‘‘guanxi (relationship/network)’’, collectivism, harmony, and order (for further explanation, see Farh & Cheng, 2000; Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; C.C. Lin, 2008; Pittinsky & Zhu, 2005). T. Wang (2004, 2007) found that these values influenced principals’ perceptions of their leadership role.

Other researchers investigated the influence of local politics on principal leadership (Luo & Najjar, 2006; J. Tang et al., 1999). Principals are usually appointed by local educational authorities who assess and evaluate their professional, moral, and political suitability (Wong, 2006, 2007). Although the principal responsibility system and ‘‘career-ladder’’ system (zhiji zhi) have been implemented to decentralise the school administration system and depoliticise principalship, the party secretary still plays an important role within school organisations (Ryan et al., 1998; Z.F. Zhang, 2004).

Qian (2008) investigated how Chinese principals perceived and enacted their roles within the context of Quality Education reform. She found that, despite the influence exerted by each principal’s immediate context, a number of commonalities were identified in her 11 case studies. These common issues, defined as unwritten libretto in the study, included maintaining guanxi with the government, ensuring internal school harmony, and winning resources for schools. Knowledge of these rules was found to be indispensible to a principal in China and formed the grounds upon which they based their actions.

In summary, the research suggests that principal leadership in China is influenced by multilevel contextual factors. These variables work together to impact principal leadership and shape school outcomes.

30

Summary and Discussion Despite advances over the last decade, there remains a lack of serious empirical research into principalship in China. This can be traced to an underdeveloped research infrastructure, an inadequate knowledge base, a centralised ideology, and the enduring influence of traditional values. This review has uncovered some useful information on the state of principalship in China, drawn from a variety of sources. This section summarises the thematic findings and methodological observations and makes some suggestions for future research.

First, insights can be drawn by comparing the main content patterns of the two tranches of literature. Table 4 compares these main patterns.

At least two broad conclusions can be inferred from the comparison. First, the imported (Western) models cited in both the empirical and non-empirical literature are almost identical. These include relatively current theories such as transformational and instructional leadership, but also more dated behavioural approaches. New and older theories inform both the non-empirical, prescriptive literature and the conceptual frameworks used in empirical studies (especially those using quantitative methodologies). The value of these models is questionable both because of the issues discussed earlier about the general applicability of imported models – including those currently in vogue in Western societies – and the number of studies using models considered outdated even in their societies of origin. This is not to say that imported knowledge has no place in strengthening the immature Chinese knowledge base, but if over-relied upon they may skew or even retard the development of more contextually relevant theory.

31

32

Second, some important commonalities about the indigenous perspective of principalship emerged from both tranches of the literature. Even given that many of these studies drew on anecdotal data and/or relatively unsophisticated research designs, they point to some heretofore unreported phenomena. Two examples illustrate this. One is the place of ideological obedience in principal selection, training, and change of leadership. As stressed in the literature, Party political acumen and an associated brand of morality appear over-stressed in discussions of principalship (Jia, 2007). Another topic requiring investigation is the connection between politically and traditionally defined relational ties (guanxi) and resource acquisition and the meaningful implementation of education reform.

The findings painted a fluid picture of principals caught between a connected series of contradictory forces. For example, there appeared ample evidence of principals:

● leading in a society characterised by a strong state presence and weak, although increasing, market influence;

● struggling to conscientiously implement reforms heavily influenced by global trends, while being bound by structures and cultures that dictate otherwise;

● armed with the latest imported leadership theories but still having to live and work according to ‘‘the rules of the game’’ formed over the years in China;

● confronting the dynamic between change-oriented policy initiatives and longstanding traditions and norms.

Further research into these dilemmas and how principals cope with or balance contradictory demands would be welcomed by principals and policy makers alike.

Research and commentary on principal leadership drew heavily upon Western leadership models. Many of these were presented as ‘‘ideals’’, especially in prescriptive papers. However, evidence emerging from the empirical studies indicates that Chinese principals enact hybrid leadership practices that integrate Western thought with indigenous devices. Western practices are serendipitously adapted by principals because of contextual and cognitive differences, but indigenous patterns of principal leadership (e.g., paternalistic leadership, moral leadership) were readily found in the literature. However, despite their prominence, the knowledge and insights provided by indigenous patterns lacked adequate empirical support.

33

34

In addition to papers explicitly telling school principals what they should do, there was a trend toward explaining why they fail to achieve the ‘‘ideal’’ or to implement reforms as required. Thus, there seems an alignment between formal policy imperatives and the ideal leadership models promoted in the literature. Both the policy imperatives and the leadership models promoted are taken from the West. For example, while discussing reforms that grant schools more discretion over the curriculum, scholars advocate curriculum and distributed leadership. In reality, the complexity of the context seems to result in a disconnection between principal practice and the leadership approaches promoted in both policy and the literature. Thus, despite policymakers and academics advocating curriculum and distributed leadership, the continuing emphasis on high-stake exams by educators across the educational spectrum (education officials, principals, and even teachers) means that principals tend to pay lip service to these ideals while continuing to do things ‘‘the same way as they have always been done’’ (Pepper, 1996, pp. 104–111).

Thus, suzhi jiaoyu as a whole is ‘‘said to be important, secondary in deed and put aside when busy’’ (Pang, 2004, p. 3, cited in Dello-Iacovo, 2009, p. 248). The ideal leadership theories and models espoused by policy makers and academics have therefore been labelled as ‘‘empty talk’’ (Pang, 2004). The question of why Chinese principals fail to meet reform requirements or reach the ideal leadership types prescribed is an important one. Although many papers touch on this issue, most have no empirical basis.

Successful Chinese principals were portrayed in the literature as masterful, almost omniscient leaders with comprehensive expertise who could deal with all issues essential to school survival and development (i.e., student achievement, school finance, and guanxi). In this sense, there was no real shortage of principal role models. What was lacking, however, was research that produced authentic insights or research that unveiled the deep structures underpinning principals’ roles in either the personal or interpersonal dimensions of their jobs. To be worthwhile, future research must locate understanding of educational leadership within the broad sociopolitical and historical context in which schools operate and principals manage and lead.

The review showed that the education system is a microcosm of Chinese society and, as such, is undergoing massive change. There appears no dependable path, everyone, including principals, are tentat ively, even unsteadily, navigating their way forward. Thus, despite the useful insights provided by the literature, it is difficult to describe accurately who principals are or what principalship in China really means/looks like. In Western term s, Ch inese scho o l principals can be seen as very powerful, much more so than their Western counterparts , part icu lar ly when ‘‘ leading’’ parents, teachers, and students. But in their own context they are haunted by internal struggles and anxieties, particularly when forced to implement policies in which they have little faith or when their schools are ‘ ‘ranked’’ by their superiors. To understand these complexities, we

35

we require a stronger knowledge base of Chinese principalship.

Despite progress over the last decade, principalship research in China has yet to establish a firm foundation. This is understandable given that in many ways it had to start afresh after the ravages of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). However, with increasing calls for higher quality empirical research and more and more overseas-trained scholars ‘‘returning home’’, positive movement may be imminent. The increasing number of Master and Doctoral dissertations using empirical research is a sign of this. Quality research will be further enhanced by the ever-increasing demands in Chinese universities for scholars to publish internationally.

Regardless of the technical quality of future research, these review findings suggest that educational leadership researchers in China will be confronted by the same dilemmas faced by their colleagues in business schools (Barney & Zhang, 2009). A key choice will be whether to follow the path of deductive theory development and testing or to use inductive (thicker) ethnographic approaches. This may come down to a choice between examining and applying Western patterns and models in the Chinese context or developing uniquely Chinese school leadership theories and stories. Put more simply, the debate may be between developing a theory of Chinese educational leadership or a Chinese theory of educational leadership. Barney and Zhang commented that resolving this choice is difficult because the options are so jumbled. However, the questions need to be addressed, and quite quickly. The decisions that governments, universities, and scholars make over the next few years will have a huge impact on the future research landscape. Scholars tussling with such complex choices may ask not only what international (Western) leadership studies can do for the Chinese principalship but what Chinese studies can contribute to the international community.

Accepting this mindset prompts a number of questions. The following are just some of them. By addressing these and similar questions, scholars can expand the knowledge base of Chinese principalship and play a worthwhile role in the field both locally and internationally.

36

● How do Chinese principals manage the changes modelled on the Western education systems?

● What practices and beliefs have Chinese principals inherited from traditional Chinese education systems? How do traditional beliefs either clash or cohere with the demands of modern reforms?

● How do Chinese principals balance change and stability?

● How do principals understand, interpret, and implement major reform initiatives such as the promotion of curriculum leadership?

● What contributes to the indigenous Chinese thinking on educational leadership?

● What can the international academic community learn from the Chinese thinking on educational leadership?

We divided the literature into empirical and non-empirical research. The main criteria used to classify a piece as empirical was whether it adopted a rigorous research methodology as defined by Western academic conventions. Although we are strong advocates for more indigenous research, the fact is that the international discourse continues to be shaped by Western research traditions and the English language. By differentiating the two tranches we do not deny the wisdom so often embedded in the non-empirical pieces, particularly those we labelled as commentaries. In these commentaries, the authors often based their opinions on in-depth observation and analysis.

Thus, there is considerable convergence between the findings presented in the commentaries (classified as non-empirical) and the indigenous investigations classified as empirical. However, because the studies did not apply or present a methodology recognised as rigorous by Western societies, they had little chance of being published in the international literature. Interestingly, because the empirical studies are seen to produce little more than ‘‘commonsense’’ findings (what people already know), their influence in the Chinese educational community remains marginal. As a result, non-empirical research still dominates the Chinese literature and commonly accepted research norms.

37

Notes 1. The term education leadership is relatively new in mainland China;

traditionally, the term educational management (jiaoyu guanli) has been used. The Chinese term for principalship is xiaozhangxue, which literally means the discipline of principal studies. An appropriate term equivalent to principalship can be principal leadership.

2. Having said this, access to international journals in China has recently become a problem. A number of major international publishing groups have begun substantially increasing the subscription fees for access to their journals. They recently increased subscription fees by a minimum of 14% per year over a 3-year period. As a result, 33 national and university libraries in China have united to boycott these publishing groups and written an open letter to the companies and to other Chinese subscribers.

3. Over the past 3 decades (from China’s ‘‘opening’’ in 1978 until about 2008), 68,355 academic papers and 516 books on educational management/leadership have been produced (M.T. Sun, 2009). Within China itself, a number of senior academics (e.g., L.F. He, 2005; M.T. Sun, 2009) have argued strongly that the local knowledge is inadequate in a number of ways and needs to be further developed. L. Tang (1999) reviewed 2,389 papers on education management published from 1982–1999. Of this number, only 5% (203) were based on empirical studies. Despite the improvement over the past decade, ‘‘China’s educational research relies overwhelmingly on the traditional Chinese way of argumentation.’’ (R. Yang, 2005, p. 76)

4. A review of educational management studies (from 1982 to 1999) indicated that during this 17-year period, out of 2,389 papers on education management, only 203 were based on empirical studies, accounting for only 5% of the total number of papers (L. Tang, 1999).

5. Indigenous knowledge refers to ‘‘the knowledge unique to a given culture or society characterised by the common-sense ideas, thoughts, and values of people formed as a result of the sustained interactions of society, nature and culture’’ (R. Yang, 2005, p. 68).

6. Widely acknowledged outstanding educators were Cai Yuanpei and Tao Xingzhi, who lived in the pre-Liberation period.

7. For example, Wei Shusheng’s practices have been summarised as encompassing eight domains of management such as target management, time management, space management, and efficiency management (B. Zhou, 2006).

8. Confucian values are represented by four closely connected virtues: the class system, obedience, doctrine of the mean and ‘‘renqing’’, and the idea of ‘‘Wulun’’ or ‘‘five cardinal relationships’’ (see K.S. Yang, 1993). The class system and obedience refer to maintaining ancient rituals and proper ordering in society and the observance of orders; doctrine of the mean and renqing are embedded in the pursuit of harmony and the order of hierarchical relationships (Fu & Tsui, 2003); the five cardinal relationships imply that an individual’s role is defined by the bond between father and son, the duty between ruler and subject, the distinction between husband and wife, the precedence of the old over the young, and the trust between friends.

38

REFERENCES

An, Y.W. (2006). An investigation on principal qualities in Zhangye city (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. (in Chinese)

Barney, J.B., & Zhang, S.J. (2009). The future of Chinese management research: A theory of Chinese management versus A Chinese theory of management. Management and Organization Review, 5, 15–28.

Bo, X.H. (2007). Research on principal’s leadership behavior in school cultural construction: Based on Shanghai Qibao Senior High School (Unpublished master’s dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Cai, D.T. (2000). Capacity and quality of primary and secondary school principals in new times. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Social Science), 29(5), 156–157. (in Chinese)

Carney, S. (2008). Learner-centred pedagogy in Tibet: International education reform in a local context. Comparative Education, 44, 39–55.

Chen, C.L. (2005). Implication of principal curriculum leadership and its requirement of principals’ way of thinking. Education Exploration, 168(6), 31–33. (in Chinese)

Chen, C.Q. (2002). Charismatic personality of principals in the management of primary and secondary schools. Journal of Ningbo University (Educational Science), 24(4), 117–118. (in Chinese)

Chen, D.C. (2006). Research on headmaster’s occupational morality of primary and secondary school in the period of social transformation (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Liaoning Normal University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China. (in Chinese)

39

Chen, G.S. (2001). Comments on ‘‘Charismatic personality of principals’’. Research in Educational Development, 8, 86–87. (in Chinese)

Chen, M.H. (2007). A study on principal’s curriculum leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Chen, R.P. (2004). Principal instructional leadership: Strategies of improving school effectiveness and promoting school change. Contemporary Educational Science, 20, 30–32. (in Chinese)

Chen, X. (2007). The role of principal in the process of implementing the new curriculum: A self-narrative study of a primary school principal (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

Cheng, B.S., Huang, M.P., & Chou, L.F. (2002). Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies (Hong Kong), 3, 85–112. (in Chinese)

Cheng, B.S., Shieh, P.Y., & Chou, L.F. (2002). The principal’s leadership, leader-member exchange quality, and the teacher’s extra-role behavior: the effects of transformational and paternalistic leadership. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 17, 105–161.

Cheng, H.B. (2006). School administrative opening: A wise cultural behavior. Shannxi Education, 3, 26–28. (in Chinese)

40

REFERENCES

Cheng, K.M. (2000). Understanding basic education policies in China: An ethnographic approach. In J. Liu, H.A. Ross, & D.P. Kelly (Eds.), The ethnographic eye: An interpretive study of education in China (pp. 29–50). New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Chi, H.M. (2007). Research on leadership behavior of principals: An investigation analysis to some principals of elementary schools in Jinan (Shandong) by the PM questionnaire (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Shandong Normal University, Jinan, Shandong, China. (in Chinese)

Chu, H.Q. (Ed.). (2003). Educational Administration Review (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Educational Science Publisher. (in Chinese)

Dello-Iacovo, B. (2009). Curriculum reform and ‘‘quality education’’ in China: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 241–249.

Deng, Y.C. (2008). Principal leadership in teacher professional development. Theory and Practice of Education, 18, 24–25. (in Chinese)

Dong, A.X., & Geng, G.Y. (2008). Exploration of principal leadership style under new curriculum. Forum on Contemporary Education, 6, 33–35. (in Chinese)

Dong, H.B. (2004). Learning ability: Exhaustless impulse to success for principals (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. (in Chinese)

Dong, X.P. (2006). From transactional leadership to shared leadership: Building the drive for quality education. Contemporary Educational Science, 12, 33–36. (in Chinese)

Dou, G.J. (2007). School leadership capabilities of being modern principals. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education, 9, 48–50. (in Chinese)

41

Du, P. (2004). High effective principal leadership: Important guarantee for curriculum reform. Exploring Education Development, 11, 28–31. (in Chinese)

Fan, G.R., & Wang, Z. (2006). Principal cultural mission. Shanghai Research on Education, 7, 6–8. (in Chinese)

Farh, J.L., & Cheng, B.S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J.T. Li, A.S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84–130). London, UK: Macmillan.

Feng, D.M. (2002). Communication and sharing in educational administration: The dialogue between leading Chinese and Western scholars at the turn of the century. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Education Press. (in Chinese)

Feng, D.M. (2003). Principal training and development in the People’s Republic of China: Retrospect and prospect. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global perspective (pp. 205–216). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitilinger.

Feng, D.M. (2004). Ten-year development of educational leadership theories in USA, UK and Australia (1993–2002). Educational Research, 3, 74–80. (in Chinese)

Feng, D.M. (2005, November). Can we find a solution for the current cultural conflicts in the field of school leadership? Paper presented at the international seminar on education in China: The dialectics of the global and the local, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Feng, D.M. (2006). China’s recent curriculum reform: Progress and problems. Planning and Changing, 37(1/2), 131–144.

42

REFERENCES

Fu, P.P., & Tsui, A.S. (2003). Utilizing printed media to understand desired leadership attributes in the People’s Republic of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20, 423–446.

Gao, F., & Xu, J. (2006). The role of principals as curriculum leader. Contemporary Educational Science, 23, 49–55. (in Chinese)

Gao, H.Y. (2002). Comparisons and considerations of the ‘‘autonomous management’’ in China and abroad. Comparative Education Review, 8, 54–57. (in Chinese)

Gao, X., Su, Z., & Hu, X. (2006). Managing vocational institutional transformation: A Chinese case study. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 11, 49–63.

Geng, G.Y. (2002). Research on principal leadership: An investigation of principal leadership with Grid Theory in schools of compulsory education in selected areas of Shandong province (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Shandong Normal University, Jinan, Shandong, China. (in Chinese)

Gong, B., & Guo, Z.Z. (2005). Practice theory: The knowledge basis for improving the principal’s leadership ability. Theory and Practice of Education, 25(6), 20–24. (in Chinese)

Gordon, R.D. (2002). Conceptualizing leadership with respect to its historical–contextual antecedents to power. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 151–167.

Gu, M.Y., & Meng, F.H. (2001). International new ideas of education. Haikou, China: Hainan Press. (in Chinese)

Guo, L. (2006). A study of evaluation system of primary and secondary school headmasters (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

43

Guo, W.A. (2001). Characteristics of innovative principals in new times (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. (in Chinese)

Guo, Y.Z. (2003). The relationship between character structure and performance of high school principals (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, Zhejiang, China. (in Chinese)

Hannum, E., & Park, A. (2002). Educating China’s rural children in the 21st century. Harvard China Review, 3(2). Retrieved from http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/15132/2/hcr.pdf

He, J., & Ying, J.F. (2003). Principal research toward pluralism. School Management, 5, 4–6. (in Chinese)

He, L.F. (2005). Learning and borrowing from each other: The general trend of the world educational management development. Qiushi, 9, 56–57. (in Chinese)

He, Y.F. (2007). A research into principal’s curriculum leadership in primary and secondary schools (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. (in Chinese)

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 16(4 ), 4–21.

Hou, D.A. (2006). Transformational leadership behavior of principals in Shenhe district (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

44

REFERENCES

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organisations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. London, UK: SAGE.

Hu, C.S. (2005). New leadership theory and the growth of servant-headmasters in China (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Hu, J.H. (2005). A study on headmasters’ leadership in junior middle schools in Chinese rural areas (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, Zhejiang, China. (in Chinese)

Hu, S.L. (2007). A study on competency model of elementary school principals (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Hu, X.Y. (2005). Teachers’ satisfaction at principals’ leadership behaviors in secondary schools. Education Exploration, 11, 111–113. (in Chinese)

Huang, T.J. (2008a). Principals’ role and power as curriculum leaders (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Southwest University, Chongqing, China. (in Chinese)

Huang, T.J. (2008b). Principal’s roles in curriculum leadership. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education, 4, 49–51. (in Chinese)

Jia, H.L. (2004). Effectiveness and its evaluative system of schoolmasters leading (Unpublished master’s dissertation). South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. (in Chinese)

Jia, H.L. (2005). A comparison of credentials system and standard of primary and middle school principals between America and China. Journal of Guangdong Education Institute, 1, 81–85. (in Chinese)

45

Jia, H.L. (2007). Investigation on leadership effectiveness of primary and secondary school headteachers. Journal of Teaching and Management, 12, 12–13. (in Chinese)

Jiang, J. (2006). The change of headmaster’s role under curriculum reform: Case study of a primary school principal (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

Jiang, N. (2007). A principal’s behaviours as revealed in her speeches – A grounded model of principal Keqin Liu of Beijing Zhongguancun No. 4 elementary school (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1, 249–280.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451–479.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 112–129.

Li, C.H. (2006). From management to leadership: A case study of the curriculum leadership of a primary school principal (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

Li, C.H., & Ma, Y.P. (2006). Situation and strategies for principal curriculum leadership. Global Education, 35(6), 50–55. (in Chinese)

46

REFERENCES

Li, C.Q. (2000a). Principal influence capacity. Beijing Education, 5, 11–12. (in Chinese)

Li, C.Q. (2000b). Principal leadership capacity. Tianjin Education, 5, 20–21. (in Chinese)

Li, J.P., & Zhang, T. (2006). An investigation on principal leadership behaviors in general senior secondary schools in Shandong province. Contemporary Educational Science, 16, 14–19. (in Chinese)

Li, J.X., Xu, M.Z., & Li, R.Z. (2006). Investigation by questionnaire into the contingent of primary and middle school principals in China. Theory and Practice of Education, 26(3), 59–64. (in Chinese)

Li, L. (2005). From management to leadership: Transforming the role and behaviors of principals. Beijing Education, 2, 18–20. (in Chinese)

Li, L.N. (2006). Empirical research on competency of middle school principals (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Yunnan Normal University, Kunming, Yunnan, China. (in Chinese)

Li, S.F. (2005). Necessity of establishing principal accountability system on the basis of leadership system transition in Chinese primary and secondary schools. Contemporary Educational Science, 12, 38–42. (in Chinese)

Li, W.B., & Li, Y. (2003). The vocationalisation and professionalization of school principals. Secondary and Primary School Management, 11, 4–6. (in Chinese)

Li, X.T. (2008). Success elements of rural school principals. Guangxi Journal of Light Industry, 1–2, 56. (in Chinese)

Li, Y., & Chu, H.Q. (2005). Reconsideration of principals’ roles and functions. Theory and Practice of Education, 25(4), 24–28. (in Chinese)

47

Lin, C.C. (2008). Demystifying the chameleonic nature of Chinese leadership. Journal of leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 303–321.

Lin, C.H. (2000). Case study and comparison in terms of principal leadership power. Shanghai Research on Education, 149(5), 24–29.

Lin, G. (2007). A study on communicative actions of principals in high and primary schools in district D, City Z (Unpublished master’s dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Lin, J. (2000). Reform in primary and secondary school administration. In C. Dimmock & A. Walker (Eds.), Future school administration: Western and Asian perspectives (pp. 391–310). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Lin, T.L. (2007). Research on principals’ influence in primary and secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Ling, W., Chia, R.C., & Fang, L. (2000). Chinese implicit leadership theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 729–739.

Liu, L. (2005). Research on elementary and secondary school principal professional standards. In H. Chu (Ed.), Chinese educational administration review (pp. 298–269). Beijing, China: Educational Science Publishing House. (in Chinese)

Liu, L.H. (2001). Leadership arts of principals. Journal of ShanXi Finance and Economics University, 23(4), 164.

48

REFERENCES

Liu, W.L., Zhao, Y.N., & Zhong, Z.R. (2007). A study of headteacher competence model in Beijing high schools. School Administration, 12, 4–6. (in Chinese)

Liu, X.Y. (2007). Principal information technology leadership: Definition and structure. Information Technology Education in Primary and Secondary School, 11, 9–11. (in Chinese)

Liu, Y. (2002). Modern education and the quality of secondary and primary school principals. Educational Science Research, 11, 61–62.

Lu, B. (2002). Research on principal leadership style – Application of Path-Goal theory to sampled high schools in Shandong (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Shandong Normal University, Jinan, Shandong, China. (in Chinese)

Lu, B. (2007). Investigation and analysis of principal leadership styles and teachers’ acceptance in high schools. Contemporary Educational Science, 15, 34–35. (in Chinese)

Luo, M.C., & Najjar, L. (2006). The Chinese principal leadership capacities as perceived by master teachers. Academic Leadership Journal, 4(3). Retrieved from http://www.academicleadership.org/67/the_chinese_principal_leadership_capacities_as_perceived_by_master_teachers/

Lv, G.G. (2002). How do principals promote their curriculum leadership? School Management, 8, 18–20. (in Chinese)

Ma, H. (2005). Principals’ curriculum leadership and improvement of curriculum quality (Unpublished master’s thesis). Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China. (in Chinese)

Ma, K. (2007). Research on the relationship between personality and job performance of the headmasters (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

49

Ma, Y.P., Wang, B., & Xie, S. (2008). Principals’ curriculum leadership: An important assurance for deepening development of primary and secondary school curriculum reform in rural area. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 231(1), 30–33. (in Chinese)

Ma, Y.P., Wang, B., & Yan, J.S. (2005). Talking about the principals of the rural primary and middle schools as curriculum leaders in the new curriculum reform. Theory and Practice of Education, 25(3), 44–48. (in Chinese)

Meng, C.S. (2008). Principal leadership style under new curriculum. Journal of Inner Mongolia University of Nationalities, 14(1), 163–164. (in Chinese)

Meng, D.G. (2004). Improvement of school principal leadership. Contemporary Educational Science, 10, 40. (in Chinese)

Ministry of Education. (1999). Training regulations for school principals. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/ (in Chinese)

Pang, L. (2004). Quality education versus examination-oriented education: Which one wins? Retrieved from http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/news/2004-11/27/content_3294815.htm

Peng, H.B. (2006). The new development of school leadership: From instructional leadership to transformational leadership. Studies in Foreign Education, 33(2), 12–16. (in Chinese)

Pepper, S. (1996). Radicalism and education reform in 20th century China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

50

REFERENCES

Pepper, S. (2000). China’s rural education reform: Consequences, remedies, prospects. Retrieved from http://www.cngdsz.net/paper/sociology/005/7943.html

Pittinsky, T.L., & Zhu, C. (2005). Contemporary public leadership in China: A research review and consideration. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 921–939.

Qian, H.Y. (2008, October-November). The secondary school principalship in China: Leading at the cusp of Change. Paper presented in a symposium session entitled School Leader Development in Chinese Societies – Emerging Understandings at the University Council for Educational Administration Annual Convention, Orlando, FL.

Qiao, J.Z. (2003). Job analysis of primary and secondary school principals. In H. Chu (Ed.), Chinese educational administration review (pp. 253–278). Beijing, China: Educational Science Publishing House. (in Chinese)

Qiu, X.M. (2008). Primary and secondary school principal leadership (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. (in Chinese)

Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635–674.

Ryan, P., Xiao, C., & Merry, R. (1998). In search of understanding: A qualitative comparison of primary school management in the Shaanxi region of China and England. Compare, 28, 171–182.

Shen, Y.Y. (2007). The research of common high schools humanistic practice – Take the practice of a success principal as an example (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Suzhou University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. (in Chinese)

51

Shi, M.Z. (2007). Definition of charismatic principals from the perspective of leadership theory. Research in Educational Development, 11B, 65–69. (in Chinese)

Shi, Z.Y. (2007). Principal values leadership. School Management, 7, 4–6. (in Chinese)

Smulyan, L. (2000). Balancing acts: Women principals at work. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

State Education Commission. (1989). On strengthening the training for principals of elementary and secondary schools nation-wide. China: State Education Commission.

Sui, H.Q., & Wang, C.S. (2006). Leadership arts of school principals in the new era. Education and Vocation, 499(3), 37–39. (in Chinese)

Sun, J.M., & Wang, J. (2008). A study on the relationship between leadership behaviors of secondary school principal and teachers’ job satisfaction. Shanghai Research on Education, 2, 23–25. (in Chinese)

Sun, J.M., & Xie, X.L. (2008). Measurement of principal leadership behaviors: Theory, instrument, problem and advice. Educational Review, 1, 32–36. (in Chinese)

Sun, M.T. (2009). Thirty years of Chinese educational management: Achievement, characteristics and problems. Educational Research, 2, 21–28.(in Chinese)

Sun, X.Y. (2007a). Principal curriculum leadership: From ‘‘single force’’ to ‘‘resultant force’’. Jiangxi Educational Research, 11, 106. (in Chinese)

52

REFERENCES

Sun, X.Y. (2007b). Serve for development of teachers and students: The role and function of principals in curriculum leadership. Journal of Educational Development, 10A, 24–26. (in Chinese)

Tang, J., Cheng, Z.F., & Ying, X.P. (1999). The leadership behavior and types of principal. Exploration of Psychology, 71(3), 43–46, 58. (in Chinese)

Tang, L. (1999). An analysis of basic education in China over the past seventeen years. Shanghai Education Research, 4, 11–16. (in Chinese)

Tang, Z.Q. (2001). Basic ideas and main models of contingency leadership theory and their implication for principal job. Educational Review, 6, 46–48. (in Chinese)

Tang, Z.Q. (2006). Transformational principal and its leadership strategies. School Administration, 8, 25–27. (in Chinese)

Tao, L.G. (2005). Personal knowledge of educational management and its application: Case studies of three secondary school principals (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Tao, Y.L. (2008). Curriculum leadership of primary and secondary principals of Chaoyang district, Changchun: Problems and coping strategies (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

Tian, L.L. (2005). A study on transformational leadership of middle school principal and its relationship with leadership effectiveness (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China. (in Chinese)

Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (Eds.). (2002). School leadership and administration: Adopting a cultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.

53

Wang, B. (2005). Curriculum leadership of rural primary and secondary school principals (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

Wang, F. (2005). The research of principal’s leadership behaviors in secondary and elementary school (Unpublished master’s dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Wang, L. (2007). Study on curriculum leadership in the schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. (in Chinese)

Wang, L.P. (2006). Study of leadership effectiveness and influential factors on secondary school principals in Shanxi province (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Shanxi University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China. (in Chinese)

Wang, M. (2005). Postponing publication of junior school leaving exam results: Competition for good students. Retrieved from http://education.163.com/05/0825/09/1S097F4U00290060.html

Wang, S. (2007). How to evaluate principal effective leadership? A brief introduction to The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education. School Management, 12, 10–11. (in Chinese)

Wang, S.F. (2007). A study on school innovating reform in developed cities in Mainland China: Take NSFLS in Shenzhen as an example (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

54

REFERENCES

Wang, S.P. (2005). A comparison of headmasters’ role orientation between Chinese and American elementary and middle schools (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

Wang, S.Q. (2004). Headmaster leadership behaviors and its effect on school development: The case of a middle school in Shi Zui Shan (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Wang, T. (2004). Understanding Chinese educational leaders’ conceptions of learning and leadership in an international education context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Canberra, Australia.

Wang, T. (2007). Understanding Chinese educational leaders’ conceptions in an international education context. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(1), 71–88.

Wang, T.J. (2003). A systematic theory of the vocationalisation of principals. Journal of Jiangsu Teachers’ College (Social Science Version), 3, 1–6. (in Chinese)

Wang, T.J. (Ed.). (2005). A collection of case studies of famous principals and famous teachers. Nanjing, China: Jiangsu Peoples Publisher. (in Chinese)

Wang, X.L. (2007). A study on schoolmaster competency of elementary school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Wang, Z.E. (2004). Comment on the non-authoritative influence of principals. Education Exploration, 1, 41–42. (in Chinese)

Wei, H.H. (2006). Meanings and strategies of principal leadership in learning schools. Journal of Teaching and Management, 12, 13–14. (in Chinese)

55

Wong, K.C. (2007). Successful principalship in Shanghai: A case study. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change (pp. 139–153). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer ScienceþBusiness Media.

Wu, Z.H., Xie, X.H., & Zhou, B. (1999). An investigation into principal leadership power. Education Review, 4, 21–24.

Xia, L.X. (2008). On the improvement of principals’ curriculum leadership (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China. (in Chinese)

Xiao, Y.M. (2007). Decision-making, management, service, and assessment: Understanding principal technological leadership. Information Technology Education in Primary and Secondary School, 11, 7–8. (in Chinese)

Xiao, Y.M. (2008). Principals’ technological leadership: From the perspective of information technology in basic education (Unpublished master’s dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Xu, C.Z. (1999). Principals should be the model of scientifically managing teachers. Education Exploration, 98(2), 37. (in Chinese)

Xu, D. (2005). Understanding headmaster’s power under headmaster’s responsibility system. Continue Education Research, 6, 161–163. (in Chinese)

Xu, P. (2007). The principal and his school: Research of principal’s moral leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

56

REFERENCES

Yan, S.C. (2006). Research on role conflict of elementary and middle school principals (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. (in Chinese)

Yang, K.S. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In L.Y. Cheng, F.M.C. Cheung, & C.N. Chen (Eds.), Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the first international conference (pp. 19–56). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Yang, R. (2005). Internationalization, indigenisation and educational research in China. Australian Journal of Education, 49, 66–88.

Yang, R. (2007). Impact factors on principals’ leadership of information technology: Case studies of Beijing rural schools (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Capital Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Yang, W.J. (2004). Principal moral leadership: The case of Xingzhi Primary School in Puko district (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. (in Chinese)

Yang, X.Q. (1999). Principals should pay attention to leadership arts. Jilin Education Science, 4, 27–28.

Yu, B. (2001). Research on leadership behavior of the principal: An investigation analysis to some senior middle schools in Shandong province by PM theory (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Shandong Normal University, Jinan, Shandong, China. (in Chinese)

Yu, B., & Liu, X.M. (2005). Research on leadership behavior of the principal – A case study on the senior middle school in Shandong Province. Application of Statistics and Management, 24, 76–81, 92. (In Chinese)

57

Yu, J.L. (2004). The principals’ curriculum leadership: Roles, troubles and expectations. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 24(6), 7–12. (in Chinese)

Yuan, Z.G. (2002). Cultural mission of principals. School Management, 12, 8–10. (in Chinese)

Zeng, Y. (2004). A qualitative research into leadership of a female principal in a secondary school in Guangzhou (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Hunan Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. (in Chinese)

Zhang, C.L. (2004). From traditional teaching management to instructional leadership: The principals’ instructional leadership in the curriculum reform (Unpublished master’s dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Zhang, D.J. (2004). ‘‘Weightlessness’’ of principals’ academic identity and its reconstruction. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences), 185(5), 26–32. (in Chinese)

Zhang, G., & Gu. C. (2005). Ten major concerns of Chinese principals. The 21st Century Principals, 3, 18–39. (in Chinese)

Zhang, H. (2005). Overall planning capacity of high school principals. Shanghai Research on Education, 11, 73–75. (in Chinese)

Zhang, L. (2006). Investigation into the factors affecting the population of famous principals in Xinyi (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. (in Chinese)

58

REFERENCES

Zhang, L.C. (2004). From traditional instructional management towards instructional leadership: Principal instructional leadership under the context of new curriculum reform (Unpublished master’s dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

Zhang, S. (2007). Principal leadership: Background, connotation and practice. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education, 9, 42–47. (in Chinese)

Zhang, T.X., & Zeng, T.S. (2006). School improvement and principal power in the view of citizen society concept. Educational Research, 27(5), 55–58. (in Chinese)

Zhang, W. (2006). Research on principals’ curriculum leadership (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Shandong Normal University, Jinan, Shandong, China. (in Chinese)

Zhang, X.P. (2004). Considerations of principal professionalism. Educational Research and Experiment, 3, 1–4, 44. (in Chinese)

Zhang, X.P. (2005). Field research: The third way of educational management research. Theory and Practice of Education, 5, 15–19. (in Chinese)

Zhang, X.P. (2007). Principal ethics. School Management, 7, 7–10. (in Chinese)

Zhang, X.P. (2008). Burns’ transformational leadership theory and principal’s role transformation. Research in Educational Development, 5–6, 44–50. (in Chinese)

Zhang, Z.F. (2004). Teachers’ experience of headmaster management system: Case study of S.D public high school internal management system (Unpublished master’s dissertation). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (in Chinese)

59

Zhang, Z.S., & Wu, Z.H. (2000). Research on leadership behaviors of primary school principals. Psychological Development and Education, 2, 57–60. (in Chinese)

Zhang, Z.S., & Wu, Z.H. (2001). Research on the relationship between principal leadership behaviors and teachers’ job satisfaction. Psychological Science, 24(1), 120–121. (in Chinese)

Zhao, H. (2005). The status, role and function-fulfillment of primary and secondary school principals in new curriculum reform (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, China. (in Chinese)

Zhao, L.L. (2005). A study on transformational leadership of middle school principal and its relationship with leadership effectiveness (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China. (in Chinese)

Zhao, Y. (2007). On the ideas and tactics of the principle’s instructive leadership in our country (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Southwest University, Chongqing, China. (in Chinese)

Zhao, Y.N. (2007). A study of the headteachers’ competency model in Beijing high schools. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

Zhong, Z.R. (2007). Moral leadership, management ethics, and principal moral cultivation. School Management, 7, 1. (in Chinese)

60

REFERENCES

Zhou, B. (2006). Wei Shusheng’s thoughts on educational administration and successful. Retrieved from http://www.edu11.net/space.php?uid¼ 200&do¼ blog&id¼ 70968 (in Chinese)

Zhou, R.J. (2006). Thirteen roles of good principals in the context of new curriculum reform. Retrieved from http://news.xinhuanet.com/school/2006-02/07/content_4147001.htm (in Chinese)

Zhu, W. (2008). An investigation of principal leadership in public primary and secondary schools in Nanchang: Problems and coping strategies (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui, China. (in Chinese)

Zou, S.Z. (2007). On the function and strategy of school-based curriculum leadership of headmasters in primary and secondary schools. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 27(1), 19–22. (in Chinese)

Zuo, M. (2006). A study on principals functions in China’s course construction (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. (in Chinese)

Zuo, M.Y. (2006). Researching on the effects of headmasters’ leadership to teachers’ organizational commitment in the primary and middle schools (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China. (in Chinese)

56