Our capacity to understand the reality of school life shapes the sense we make and the actions that we take. Every decision that people make in our schools rests on interpretation. Interpretation of evidence, context and intent. We like to think we lead from facts, but even facts need sense to make them meaningful. We therefore ought to interrogate why we think in the way that we do.

This is reflexivity and it is different from reflection. While reflection asks What happened and what did we learn?, reflexivity asks How did our way of seeing shape what we noticed, valued or ignored?

Reflexivity | Recognising how we think

Reflexivity is noticing how our experiences, values and emotions shape what we pay attention to and what we ignore. It helps us to question the basis of our assumptions before turning them into action. Without it, we risk mistaking our own perspective for reality.

This leadership metacognition can be tricky to navigate but research methodology gives us a structure to lean on to do it better. Researchers strive to understand phenomena and it is not unlike the need for leaders to understand their schools. Research methodology is more than the way that researchers go about collecting data; it begins with a deep understanding of their worldview, their take on how knowledge is constructed and how their position affects their data collections. These concepts of ontology, epistemology and positionality sit as prompts for our reflexivity as school leaders.

Ontology | What is the nature of reality?

Ontology is simply our view of the nature of reality and we all hold one, even if we don’t name it.

Here’s mine. I see schools as complex adaptive systems, living networks of relationships where patterns emerge, feedback loops form and small changes can ripple unpredictably across the whole. This worldview shapes what I believe about improvement and change. It means I look for interactions, conditions and meaning, not linear cause and effect.

But this isn’t the only ontology available to a school leader. Researchers might classify their ontology as realism, relativism or positivism. Realists see a world where reality exists independently of our perceptions and beliefs. Relativists see a world where reality is socially constructed through interaction and where multiple realities exist depending on your perspective. Positivists see a world where reality is objective and measurable.

But what does this mean for school leaders? A realist leader might see the school as an independent reality that exists whether or not they are present. They might believe there are underlying structures (routines, roles and systems) that shape what happens in classrooms. If outcomes aren’t improving, their instinct is to look for the mechanisms causing the problem: curriculum design, teacher expertise, resourcing or student motivation. They trust that by uncovering and adjusting these causal mechanisms, the school can change. They’ll want to get on the balcony to see the dance floor.

A relativist leader might see the school as a collection of multiple lived realities. They might believe that what feels true for a teacher, a student or a parent might all differ and that these perspectives are co-constructed through relationships and culture. When things go wrong, they’re less interested in finding the cause and more interested in understanding the stories people are telling about what’s happening. They value dialogue, empathy and shared meaning making.

A positivist leader views the school as an objective system that can be measured and improved through evidence. They trust in quantifiable indicators (assessment results, attendance rates and survey data) to represent the truth of school performance. Improvement comes through data-driven action and replicable strategies.

Each of these ontological positions brings strengths and risks. The realist guards against superficial interpretation but can overlook human complexity. The relativist builds shared understanding but can struggle to pin down action. The positivist brings clarity and accountability but can mistake measurement for meaning. The key is not to pick one as right or wrong but to become aware of the one that most naturally shapes your own leadership.

Epistemology | How do we know what we know?

If ontology is about what the world is, epistemology is about how we come to know it.

It’s the study of knowledge; what counts as credible, how it is created and whose knowledge matters.

In leadership, epistemology determines what we treat as evidence. Two leaders can look at the same situation and reach different conclusions, not because they disagree about the facts, but because they hold different ideas about how truth is known.

In my own leadership, I’ve learned to rely on three ways of knowing:

1. Early indicators. Subtle shifts in trust, attention and routines that signal change before it shows up in data.

2. Mapping. Connecting multiple perspectives across teachers, students, and parents to understand patterns.

3. Headline measures. The tangible data points that tell us whether we’re moving in the right direction.

Taken together, these form an interpretivist epistemology; knowledge built through noticing, conversation and pattern recognition. But not every leader approaches knowledge this way.

A positivist epistemology assumes that knowledge is objective and measurable. The best route to understanding is through data collection, statistical analysis and replication. For a positivist leader, evidence lives in numbers: assessment data, attendance figures and staff surveys. This stance brings rigour and comparability but it can reduce complex human systems to what fits a spreadsheet.

A constructivist epistemology assumes that knowledge is created through human interaction and interpretation. A constructivist leader might seek meaning through professional dialogue, focus groups and reflective inquiry. This stance captures nuance but can be vulnerable to bias if not balanced with evidence.

A pragmatist epistemology, meanwhile, is less concerned with how truth is defined and more with what works. Pragmatist leaders move fluidly between quantitative and qualitative evidence, guided by practical outcomes. This stance suits adaptive environments but can lack coherence if every problem is treated as unique.

Each epistemological stance brings value, clarity and meaning but each can constrain us if we mistake our preferred way of knowing for the only one that counts.

Positionality | How who we are affects what we see

Even with a clear sense of what kind of world we think we’re leading in (our ontology) and how we believe knowledge is created (our epistemology), there’s still another layer that shapes everything we notice: where we stand within the system itself. That’s positionality, the understanding that our leadership role, relationships and identity all influence what we can see, what we value and what others show us.

In theory, senior leaders have the broadest view of the school. In reality, their visibility is often partial and filtered. Information passes upward through layers of interpretation, often losing nuance along the way. Truth doesn’t rise to the top. Every school has at least two versions of itself; the imagined school that exists in our minds and is the best of our strategy documents, dashboards and presentations; and the experienced school that lives in classrooms, corridors and playgrounds. The higher up you are in the system, the easier it is to lead the imagined school while being disconnected from the experienced one. That gap between perception and reality is a product of positionality.

Positionality isn’t just about job titles. It’s also shaped by background, identity and relationships.
A leader who has taught in the same community for twenty years interprets the same event differently from a new leader arriving from abroad. A principal who once led a failing school sees risk where another might see opportunity. A leader with strong emotional intelligence might sense tension before it appears in behaviour data. All of these are positional effects.

In research, positionality is described as insider or outsider status; how close you are to the context you study. In leadership, the same dynamic applies. When you are too close, it’s hard to see patterns; when you are too far away, it’s hard to feel the pulse. We might do better to step in to connect and step back to make sense.

The most reflexive leaders are those who are conscious of the lens their position creates. They invite alternative perspectives, knowing their own is limited. They ask whose voice is missing from this conversation? They walk the building, not to monitor but to learn. They know that perceived power distorts perception and they stay curious about what lies beneath the surface.

Reflexive leadership

School leadership is often rightly described in terms of strategy, influence or improvement but beneath all of that lies something more fundamental: how we understand the nature of the work itself.

Every meeting, every decision and every conversation involves a kind of inquiry. We’re constantly trying to interpret the system we’re part of, noticing patterns, generating meaning and making choices about what to do next. That’s why the tools of research ontology, epistemology and positionality belong in leadership just as much as in academia. They give us a language for something we intuitively do but rarely examine.

When we clarify our ontology, we name the kind of world we believe we’re leading in.
When we explore our epistemology, we uncover what we treat as knowledge and what we dismiss.
When we understand our positionality, we see the edges of our own perspective and invite others in to complete the picture.

When we practise reflexivity, we start to notice how our assumptions and emotions shape our leadership.

This reflexivity forms the foundation of sense making, The most effective leaders aren’t just thinking about their schools, they’re thinking about how they think about their schools.

Leave a comment