Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• mohsen mohammadi ¹
• Abolfazl Ghasemzadeh Alishahi ²
• Jahangir Yari Haj Atalu ³
• Behnam Talebi ⁴

¹ Department of Educational Management, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

² Associate Professor in Educational Administration, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran.

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Management, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.

⁴ Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Management, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

The present study aimed to construct an interpretive structural modeling of educational leadership barriers and challenges and to examine the causal relationships and classification of these barriers. This study was a mixed-method study with a sequential exploratory strategy. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 principals, teachers, and educational management experts in West Azerbaijan Province using purposive sampling and snowball technique until theoretical saturation was reached, and the main barriers were identified. In the quantitative phase, the statistical population was the same as the qualitative phase, and the same 19 participants in the qualitative phase who had the highest level of expertise were invited to complete a paired comparison questionnaire. The quantitative data collection tool was a researcher-made paired comparison questionnaire in which respondents were asked to determine the type of relationship (no relationship, one-way relationship, two-way relationship) by comparing eight main barriers in pairs. Data analysis was performed using interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and related software, followed by MICMAC analysis. The ISM model showed that financial barriers, social barriers, structural barriers, and lack of meritocracy were at the first level (most influential), educational barriers were at the second level, and three barriers of lack of professional and skill competence of leaders, inadequate quantity and quality of facilities and equipment, and lack of efficiency and effectiveness of teaching staff were at the last level (most dependent). MICMAC analysis also confirmed these four first-level barriers as independent and influential variables and the last-level barriers as dependent and influential variables. Removing the root financial, social, structural, and meritocracy barriers is an effective prerequisite for overcoming other barriers to educational leadership.

Keywords

• Educational Leadership
• Leadership Barriers
• Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
• MICMAC Analysis
• Paired Comparison

Main Subjects

• Educational Leadership