Leading with Purpose? New Language and Lenses for Considering Educational Purpose and Analysis of Purpose Statements in Australia, Singapore, Finland and Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I acknowledge the relevance of the topic and the pertinence of the theoretical framework adopted, which enables the exploration of highly significant issues concerning the regulation of educational policies. However, there are a few questions I would like to raise with a view to potentially improving the manuscript. Are official documents sufficient to fully understand the role of leadership in educational organisations? Could the authors clarify how the mapping of the integrative systematic literature review was conducted, and what role the European Commission played in this process? Do leadership practices within educational organisations have the capacity to shape reform agendas? Conversely, do macro-level policy agendas substantially constrain the modus operandi of leadership practices? Might these not be more strongly shaped by local cultural contexts? Is it conceivable to envision the local management of paradoxes, dilemmas, dualities, and tensions? Finally, are the empirical sources used, concerning the four international contexts, sufficient to analyse and understand the purpose of leadership practices?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled Leading with Purpose? New language and lenses for considering educational purpose and analysis of purpose-statements in Australia, Singapore, Finland and Japan is a very interesting paper that deals with an (always) actual topic of educational purpose - but, from an original perspective. So, the advantage of this paper refers to the authors' original research approach to the topic of purpose in education - putting the emphasis on purpose statements and dominant purpose narratives from four international contexts (Australia, Singapore, Finland and Japan). 

An abstract is informative, keywords appropriate. Here I only suggest not to use ‘purpose of education’ as a keyword since it is already in the title (educational purpose).

The theoretical part of the paper is clear, cohesive, informative and coherent with the research design.

The research aim is clear, and the research questions are appropriate. The study aimed to “critically examine education’s multifaceted and often conflicting purposes through the lens of educational leadership (...) (p.3-4). The authors employed Biesta’s domains of education (qualification, socialisation, and subjectification) and a tensional analysis typology, and posed two research questions: 1) What are the benefit perspectives of educational purpose? 2) What are the tensions relating to the purpose of education? Their approach is original aand interesting, and findings/analysis/novel typology useful to educational science.

Research methodology is explained in a transparent way, as well as the results. The authors built on Biesta’s three domains of education and developed a novel typology of different perceived benefits of educational purpose and explored the tensions inherent within them. Seven tables are informative, content (characteristics, quotes, examples, tension types, implications) clear and logical. 

The discussion is written as a combination of interpretation and conclusions. It is interesting, and interpretation is sound and coherent to the previous parts of the paper. Yet, I would suggest to the authors to make more clear connections in discussion with the references reviewed in the theoretical part of the paper. Here, only four references were used (Biesta, 2015a, 2020, 2025) and Lavonen (2020), and I would expect more sources for argued discussion on the results.

Conclusions are sound and logical. References are relevant.

Overall, the paper offers fresh perspective on the topic, original insights, critical analysis and conclusions. As the title says - the paper offers new language and lenses for considering educational purpose and analysis of purpose-statements on the examples of  Australian, Singaporean, Finnish and Japanese educational context. The paper is written in a coherent way and contributes to educational theory and practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf