{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028481012658227847, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031645569620253164, 'mean_word_length': 5.912568306010929, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How Principals Lose 'Face': A disciplinary tale of educational administration and modern managerialism

The pictures painted of principals’ work in educational administration literature are not simple re ections of reality, mirror images of lives and truths out there in school of ces around the country. They are constructions made by researchers systematically working on, and working over, evidence and artefacts they have manufactured and collected. They are public and analytic textual fabrications built with assistance from participants, to meet the standards developed by the broad community of educational administration scholars (Harding, 1993). School systems also manufacture texts about principals’ work, worked up from, and out of, the snarl of industrial relations, the tangle of public management approaches and the knots of political steerage. These systemic expository texts are loaded approximations of required, desired and actual principals’ work, and just like the more scholarly productions, they too are saturated in discourses, histories and biographies, local narratives and situated perspectives. Both scholarly and organisational texts might be seen as ‘representations’ of principals’ work, when ‘representation’ is understood to be: