PDF Ebook Corruption and Abuse of Power in Educational Administration
Definitions of corruption are problematic. Agreed-on definitions are rare, and definitions of corruption run the gamut from being too broad as to be rendered relatively useless to being too narrow and thus be applicable to only limited, rare, well-defined cases. Discussion of the issue seems to be entirely absent in the literature on educational administration. Fortunately for us, other domains and professions deal with the issue of corruption on a more regular basis. From the literature on police corruption we have this definition, a relatively simple one: corruption is “the misuse of public power for private and personal benefit” (Palmer [1992] as cited in Sayed and Bruce, 1998b). This simple definition, according to Sayed and Bruce, provides a good starting point, as it identifies three critical elements in a consideration of corruption: what was done, how, and by whom. The authors develop a much more strict definition of corruption as it relates to police: “any illegal conduct or misconduct involving the use of occupational power for personal, group or organizational gain” (Sayed and Bruce, 1998b, p. 9).
And while this particular definition has advantages over the simpler one (for example, the addition of group and organizational gain—which will be beneficial in the discussion of corruption in educational administration), its drawback for our purposes is the insistence on the illegality of the corruption. Group and organizational benefit or gain were added to the simpler definition of corruption to allow for individuals of a given profession (police) or organization to act in concert to benefit individually and collectively through the abuse of power and position.
As Sayed and Bruce (1998b) admit, there are several approaches to the discussion and definition of corruption, one being the distinction between formal (legal) and social approaches. Social approaches to the definition of corruption permit a much broader conception, allowing, for example, moral considerations to be applied to distinguish corrupt from noncorrupt acts. Sayed and Bruce recognize that the legal definitions of corruption often are too narrow.
A broader social approach to the definition of corruption, according to Sayed and Bruce (1998b), reflects “what is commonly meant by corruption, it places the emphasis on morality and has its roots in classical conceptions of corruption which sought not so much to identify behaviour, but to judge the overall political health of a society and its institutions” (p. 3). For purposes of the present analysis, then, what we intend by the term corruption is any use of power or position through discrete acts or behavior(s) that benefit an individual, group, or organization. Our definition must allow for states of corruption, that is, the accrual of such acts over time as to constitute a state, climate, or culture of corruption. The gains or benefits derived through corruption can be other than financial. Our definition must also allow for a normative judgment or assessment of corruption, one that is not based on strict legal interpretation but that draws from more widely held, commonplace conceptions of corruption as the deviation of a person, organization, or group from its purposes, such as when self-interest influences decisions by administrators.
Consideration of well-documented, well-known acts should help define/refine what constitutes corruption. The examples that follow—some of which come from domains other than education and some of which are drawn from other countries—may permit us, as theorists of educational administration and practitioners, to perceive our actions, the actions of others, and even the actions of educational organizations in which we work in a different light. Consideration of the examples that follow and refinement of the notion of corruption promises to affect our practice, we hope, for the better.
Download
Posted in :
