The Reflective Journey Continues: Travelling Betwixt and Between Conflicting Worlds in Educational Leadership

Title: The Reflective Journey Continues: Travelling Betwixt and Between Conflicting Worlds in Educational Leadership

Author: John Fleming, EdD

“The growing influence of neoliberalism in post-secondary education has changed the definition of both education and educational leadership, moving each further away from values of participatory democracy toward educational practices that are antithetical to such principles. Under neoliberal conditions, education becomes a commodified resource in a global marketplace, impacting identities and relationships alike: students become customers, faculty are contractors, and administrators are corporate managers” (Fleming, 2021, p. iii).

What follows are my final reflections on the autoethnography that was my EdD dissertation, which were grounded in a Sociological Imagination (Mills, 1959, 2000) thatexplored and confronted the dissonance characteristic of my leadership experience as a dean in post-secondary education. A key claim in my study is that educational leadership must be reconstructed as a plural identity allowing one to exercise judgement in multiple worlds, holding conflicting values and practices, contributing to furthering education as democracy, when possible (Fleming, 2021).

Looking Back, Looking Forward

Time has a way of shaping how we look back and how we look forward.  Time before today is history; tomorrow is the imagined future.  Both are equally important in the stories of our lives.  Our individual and collective biographies are grounded in time, place and structure.  It is what allows us to bring meaning to the stories of our lives.  

My story is both a biography and a study.  It is the story of my experiences and the meaning I have given to them.  It is equally a study in that I have attempted to address a personal trouble within the larger social milieu.  In doing so, I aimed to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges of leadership in post-secondary education at this time.  Through sharing my biography and creative non-fiction (counter-storytelling), my goal has been to highlight my own leadership dissonance as an expression of a bigger issue; one that has the capacity to influence identity and relationships alike.  I have done so primarily by engaging in uncomfortable liminal spaces, betwixt and between the known and the unknown, with the ultimate purpose of understanding who I am and what I stand for in the biography that is my lifeand my career.

I have centred the core of my personal dissonance within the growing structural influences of neoliberalism in post-secondary education at this time (Fleming, 2021).  It does not seem an exaggeration to conclude that such influences are not only changing how education is defined and practiced but has also had the impact of changing the identities and relationships among those on their current educational journeys.  I note for example, that my own values are at odds with the philosophy and educational practices embedded within a neoliberal framework(Brown, 2005; Connell, 2013; Larner 2000; Polster 2012).  However, I hold a note of optimism.  Unlike some, I do not see the growing influences of neoliberalism in higher education as a hopeless fait accompli.  Likewise, I see no panacea as being able to counter this powerful influence.  There will most likely not be a return to a philosophy of education and an educational practice consistent with historical versions of the past (Peters, 1973; Coulter & Weins, 2009).  Instead, I argue for something betwixt and between the past and future: let us imagine educational journeys that continue to contribute to the good and worthwhile life, under present and anticipated future social conditions.  For me, such journeys continue to view education as participatory democracy (Kelly, 2014), a way for people to journey as citizens, toward the values they hold to be most precious for all.  In my case, it is a journey toward supporting a better future for all, regardless of personal status or social conditions.  It is about building a public that respects learning and living that is caring and not only respects diversity, but creates space and opportunity for it, including all the tensions that necessarily come along with it.  Finally, and most importantly, it advances autonomy equally and for all.

Looking in the present

It is not enough to look back and to look forward.  We must also acknowledge what is the reality of the present.  If we do not, we risk ignoring the importance of being in the uncomfortable liminal space that may be right now.  It is equally as important and often the place where the greatest learning can occur, if we will only acknowledge the discomfort and troubles that exist for us in the present.

The world remains in an unpredictable liminal state.  The COVID-19 pandemic has waned despite millions of people worldwide having died from this virus.  There is much talk about wanting to return to the past and what was the reality before the pandemic.  That is not to be.  It cannot be.  There is anticipation of a “new normal” but that too, for now, must only hold space in the imagined future.  We will need time to shape it—and be shaped by it.  We sit for now in the uncomfortable liminal space betwixt and between the past and the imagined future.

Post-secondary institutions continue to operate within their own liminal reality: virtuallyand in real space and time.  Students, staff, faculty and administrators continue to work almost exclusively from home.  Schooling now often occurs outside the physical space once occupied by all; our definition of this space has now ironically changed to reflect the possibility of being in physical spaces anywhere but where we used to be.  

Leadership, too, must continue to be practiced in liminal spaces.  Zoom and Teams havebecome the virtual spaces that replace the office or meeting room as we once knew them.  One can question if the present is better or worse, but I would argue that it is simply different; an uncomfortable change that we must embrace for now until we know what the anticipated future will hold.  What will we make of it?  And where then, does all this leave us?

Looking within, looking beyond

If we are not careful to take the time to look both within ourselves and to our social worlds beyond, we run the risk of engaging a personal dissonance that can completely disempower.  My study illustrated by way of my own personal biography the dissonance I have experienced as a leader in post-secondary education at this time.  Looking only within led me to conclude that the challenges I was up against in my leadership role were expressions of deficiencies in my own agency, rather than symptoms of larger social influences.  In short, such dissonance led me to believe that I alone was the problem.  

It was only after engaging with the uncomfortable liminal spaces in my own journey that I was able to locate the source of my troubles within the structural reality of neoliberal capitalism and its influence on my career, education and society itself, as we now experience it.  In truth, neoliberal philosophy and its related influences are antithetical to my own values and how I have come to define and practice education and leadership.  In short, neoliberalism had the effect of not only impacting my identity but had me question my own agency as a teacher and a leader.  

My own practice of reflexivity means questioning with intensity my experiences, my values, my judgment and my practice.  It has been the part of my journey that has allowed me to be able to answer two very important questions: who are you and what do you stand for?  Doing so facilitated a form of learning that clarified for me why the struggles in my leadership were so pronounced.  I conclude now with confidence that it was not solely a reflection of my personal agency.  It reflected the tensions at the centre of my values under the influence of the political and structural influences of this time.  This is not to be minimized.  In my own case, these tensions not only made me unhappy, but they also made me question my own sense of self efficacy and competence.  It led to a formidable case of imposter syndrome.  I won’t go as far as to argue that it made me ill, but I will argue that it certainly contributed little to my well-being.

Looking for change

By going into the uncomfortable zone of the liminal, the space betwixt and between, I have been able to anchor myself in the identity that reflects who I am, including my multi-generational family system, the cultures I have come to identify with and the experiences resulting from the structures of those cultures in time and place.  Moreover, it is the knowledge embedded in the anchoring of my identity that has allowed me to understand, by way of reflection, what I stand for.  It is clear to me now in the analysis of my practice as a leader in post-secondary education.  It is present in the exercise of my judgment: when I conform, when I innovate and when I rebel.  What I have learned along the way, is how I continue to support the educational journey of others, in support of participatory democracy.  It is evident in my judgement and my decisions as they are represented at times, in the “eruptions” and “contestations” of my practice as a leader: my actions aimed at creating public spaces and opportunities for civic dialogue by all, my efforts at ensuring that I maintain strength and participation in the web of relationships necessary in my private sphere (Arendt, 2013), and my public actions contesting decisions and practices in post-secondary education that under neoliberal influence threaten to change the very identities and relationships of all those who have entrusted us with their care (i.e. the identity of students as consumers, faculty as contractors and administrators as corporate managers).  We are all, instead, potential leaders, capable of so much more when we see each other for who we are and what we stand for.

My study represents the story of one leader.  It represents a journey of leadership, one that continues now, not in a specific role or a particular job or title.  I recommend avoiding the practice of attaching one’s identity to such tentative concepts of the journey.  The journey continues in the exercise of my judgment, anchored in the knowledge of who I am and what I stand for.  It continues in how I engage with others in supporting their own educational journeys as well.  

As previously argued, neoliberal philosophy, policy and practice in higher education is gaining influence, not losing ground (Larner, 2000). This holds the ongoing threat to the identities and relationships for all on their current educational journeys.  It is a threat that reduced identity to roles within a market economy.  More importantly, it threatens the very notion of the good and worthwhile life for all.  Rather than promote democratic and civil fellowship, neoliberalism commodifies education and learning, restricting it to some, not all, and therefore renders it antithetical to democratic practice.

The future is not hopeless.  If I have successfully argued in this study that neoliberalism has had the impact of changing identities and relationships, it is the very practice of becoming grounded in one’s identity that provides the counterbalance, the antidote, at least in part, to the current wave of change.  By knowing one’s self, one can lead from a place of confidence and integrity toward the good and worthwhile life for all.  

Identity is a tricky concept.  In my study, I make it clear that it holds good, bad and ugly personas, all of whom are necessary and must be given voice.  Like the metaphor of a masquerade ball (Fleming, 2021), on the leadership journey we must present different personas, at times masked, made public only when to do so allows for opportunities, eruptions and contestations.  All are necessary in effective leadership, but none can be your only approach.  To do so renders one either a pawn in the game of the current social structure or a problem to the system that will eventually be eliminated.  One must be smart to survive.  One must know who they are and what they stand for; because sometimes, you will not win in your eruptions or contestations but you must hold strength in the knowledge of who you are and what you value to survive long enough to exercise your judgment at the next occasion, where there is opportunity to advance the good and worthwhile life.  Essential to this goal is the necessity of a web of relationships one holds in the realm of the private sphere (Arendt, 2013).  The journey is made much easier, perhaps even possible only because of the support of like-minded others with whom one must build coalitions.  It is through these coalitions that we must navigate the “masquerade ball” that is educational leadership.  I emphasize through this metaphor that it is not always necessary to show one’s face in the dance, to accomplish what is the goal of the coalition.  All in the coalition are playing an important role, directly or by proxy.

My study in no way represents “the only way” to manage the dissonance often at the core of leadership—the assumption of deficiencies in personal agency.  It does, however, represent, “one way.”  I encourage all those in leadership positions to build on the lessons that I have engaged on this journey.  I can guarantee two outcomes: first, it will be uncomfortable; and second, it will be worth it.  What you learn will carry you for life.  In so doing, you also ensure that your educational journey continues to contribute to a good and worthwhile life for yourself and many others on their own educational journeys.  

Start by finding the uncomfortable liminal spaces that will allow you to see and name the problem at the core of your leadership dissonance.  In this study, the journey led me to the important realization that it was not me at the centre of the problem.  I was not an imposter.  I was however, impacted by the social milieu in which I was expected to lead—a neoliberal one.  As a therapist and as leader, I believe in the power of naming the problem as a first step.  By doing so, it becomes feasible to recognize one’s own strengths and to build the web of relationships that will be necessary in the realm of the private, to counter the problem.

Building on this story

I have learned a great deal on this part of my journey.  I would hope my story, this study, might continue for others on their own journeys of leadership.  I conclude by reflecting on a key theme that has surfaced from this study. It is the importance of spending time in the uncomfortable liminal spaces to engage a sociological imagination (Mills 1959, 2000) that holds the capacity to change or bring new meaning to the concept at the core of all leadership: one’s self-identity.

In my study, I have given focus to the identity and relationships of deans and associate deans.  However, the journey should not end here.  Equally important are the identities of students, faculty and all others who are currently on their own educational journeys.  It would seem a logical extension of my story and this study to explore the identities and relationships among these others, as they navigate the stories of their own educational journeys and discover who they are and what they stand for.  These stories hold yet more meaning for our understanding of education and leadership.  

Let me begin with students, who under neoliberal influence have had their identities reduced to consumers in the market economy—pursuing a necessary and restricted resource that will position them competitively in the capitalist market.  Those whose interests lie outside these boundaries will have already been pejoratively redefined in terms of their place in the market economy.

Faculty identities too have been impacted by the neoliberal influence.  Gone are traditional roles and status defined by academe, replaced by employees under contract in the market system of higher education.  It is no wonder that faculty and students share conflicted identities and purposes.  Each was introduced to “education” under different normative definitions.  How do we now reconcile these tensions?

Finally, I note that administrators such as myself and my colleagues are also at risk under neoliberal conditions.  We too have been reduced to corporate managers in audit cultures, not leaders in support of the educational journeys of others.