The purposes and practices of intellectual work. A reply to Galbraith
| Published date | 01 February 2004 |
| Date | 01 February 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410517459 |
| Pages | 29-42 |
| Author | Helen Gunter |
| Subject Matter | Education |
The purposes and practices of
intellectual work
A reply to Galbraith
Helen Gunter
School of Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Keywords Chaos theory, Leadership, Systems theory
Abstract The Galbraith article gives us the opportunity to think out loud about the purposes and
practices of field activity, and in responding this article argues that Galbraith is more concerned
with the technical application of a method rather than investigating knowledge production. Using
Bourdieu’s theory of practice enables critical evaluation to be a social practice and the author
positions herself as a knowledge worker concerned to describe and understand the interplay
between agency and structure. Chaos theory enabled the author from the mid-1990s to
problematise systems theory as the preferred way of generating leadership and management
prescriptions for educational professionals. This remains relevant today and it is argued that
Galbraith’s continued reliance on improving systems theory means that the opportunity is lost to
examine the exercise of power within and surrounding complex organisations.
When we read an author we can draw on a range of resources to be able to
critically evaluate arguments and evidence. At one level we could react
according to taste or even ideology, and so denounce what we do not like or
even engage in bad behaviour by building boundaries and digging trenches
from where we could undermine a text. As knowledge workers we would wish
to position ourselves and to conduct our professional practice in a more
productive way. Consequently, authentic critique is based on a more rigorous
analysis; first, to assess accuracy regarding the methods used; and second, to
locate a text within the social practice of knowledge production. The first type
of critique is technical, while the second is sociological. The first type claims
objectivity and epistemological purity, while the second locates knowledge
production with faces in spaces and places. The first claims transferability
through generalisability and the second relatability through recognition. The
first claims to be about application, while the second is about engagement. In
this article I intend to show that Galbraith’s critique of “Jurassic management:
chaos and management development in educational institutions” to be located
within the first type and to produce a reply located in the second. In doing this I
will draw on Bourdieu’s theory of practice to provide tools which will be used
to describe and explain the purposes and practices of intellectual work.
Critical enagagement
Galbraith’s critique of the four papers is based on the contention that the
authors have attempted to apply chaos theory to educational administration
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Purposes and
practices of
intellectual work
29
Received July 2003
Accepted August 2003
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 42 No. 1, 2004
pp. 29-42
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230410517459
To continue reading
Request your trial