Balls evolving position:
Ball ends on the question if to sell out and become a technician of social management or to redefine the field of educational research as intellectuals and cultural critics (op. cit. p269).
Contrasting Balls career (Ball 2006) and publications with his affection for the French philosopher Michel Foucault, who he refers to in both papers (Ball 1995 & 2011) and lists as influence for his approach to research (Ball 2013a) as well as point of reference together with Pierre Bourdieu (Stephen Ball, Institute of Education, University of London 2011), gives an understanding of Balls weltanschauung.
Ball states that one of his main interest is how policy affects the individual within the bigger picture (ibid.)
The above helps to emphasise in how Balls position evolved from an approximation to clearly worded concerns and proposals in his later paper (Ball 2011) and subsequent written (Ball 2012) or revised books (Ball 2013b), moving from complementing Fay’s research definitions to calling out for the utilisation of business and financial analysis (Ball 2011, p50), staking out a new paradigm within the field of educational research.
Balls main points:
Ball makes the point that the current educational landscape has diversified to an extent which brings educational research to reach its limit, or to use Balls words to outrun its purview (Ball 2011, p 50). Creating the need to start utilising external fields of expertise such as forms of business and financial analysis.
Ball stresses that at the time of writing too little research exists to gain a sound understanding regarding the scope and scale of the by him considered issues.
These are presented as three interrelated focal points.
Leadership, where Ball emphasises the change of the role from Entrepreneurial Headship, – a single leader tackling issues of educational standards through their own ideas and personality, towards Subordinate Leadership, – a person put in place by a chain, representing the organisations values and policies, similar to a representative and Executive Heads – someone responsible for several establishments.
Ball accentuates that entrepreneurial headship has been celebrated over the last two decades as a tool of reforming the education sector.
This gains in my opinion relevance in combination with the observation of new career paths accompanying the described styles of leadership if put in consideration with Balls second focal point Values & Interests, which asks if the loyalties of these leaders are with the beneficiaries (institutions and students) or the stakeholders.
If the rescuer (Ball refers to entrepreneurial headship as hero innovators) is celebrated, and change in education is fostered by the search for improvement, “reform is needed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness” (Cabinet Office, 2006, p4).
The conclusion that the new approaches to leadership are part of an improvement scheme appears rational.
Considering a lack of fact...