What If We Just Let Teachers Run Our Schools?
In theory, classroom teachers – as trained and certified professionals – are qualified to exercise pedagogical authority in their own classrooms. But to what extent, in reality, does this authority translate to real and meaningful power in matters of classroom practice, teaching strategies, and curriculum design? Teachers function in a professional context where the exercise of certain types of authority is expected (or required) and where other types are discouraged or even forbidden. For example, it may be that teachers are required to use certain textbooks and curriculum materials while, at the same time, they are given the authority to assess (and grade) students’ mastery of content represented in those materials. The authority structure in American public schools is ill-defined at the classroom level. While teachers are accountable for student learning, they are typically required to facilitate that learning within a framework imposed from outside the classroom. The resulting tension is often cited as a leading contributor to teacher burnout (Carlotto & Gonçalves, 2017; Evers, Brouwers, & Tomoc, 2002; Ryan, et al., 2017; Santavirta, Solovieva, & Theorell, 2007; Smetackova, 2017; Tsang & Kwong, 2017).
To better understand the dynamics of classroom authority, it is important to consider the underlying characteristics and components of professional authority. As the following review will demonstrate, there are a number of alternate perspectives on the origin and nature of teacher authority. The following questions are relevant to exploration in this area: What is teacher authority? From where does teacher authority originate or, stated another way, what are the sources of legitimate teacher authority? What factors distinguish between individuals who exercise legitimate authority and those whose authority is not legitimate? And finally, how does legitimate authority translate into the legitimate exercise of pedagogical power in the classroom?
This paper will proceed from a specific position regarding the nature and origin of teacher authority. That position, in short, posits that in order to acquire legitimate pedagogical authority, a teacher must possess appropriate understanding and insight relevant to the issues, practices, and responsibilities that comprise effective teaching. Further, an individual who acquires such legitimate authority should be placed in a position to exercise decision-making influence and action-based power in those areas of professional insight. One early proponent and representative of this position was Peter Schouls (1972) who, in a book entitled Insight, Authority, and Power, defined and elaborated upon the relationship among the three constructs represented in the book’s title. In the section that follows, the ideas of Schouls will form a structure for exploring issues of teacher authority and for analyzing the views of others who have contributed to the literature and research base in this area.
Professional Insight and the Nature of Teacher Authority
In 1972, Peter A. Schouls, described the legitimate acquisition of authority (and power) this way: “To the extent that a person gains or possesses insight, to that extent he gains or possesses authority. And to the extent that [he] possesses authority, he ought to be given the opportunity to act out this authority. Acted-out authority is power.” (Schouls, 1972, p. 12) Later in his book, Schouls rephrases this thesis with specific reference to education:
"To the extent that [teachers and staff] have genuine insight into the relevant educational issues, to the extent that, as a team, they teach with authority, they will create a mature student body which, in interaction with their teachers, will use its power for the deepening of the educational experience in which both parties are engaged." (Schouls, 1972, p. 44)
So, according to Schouls (1972) insight is the basis for legitimate authority, which in turn becomes the basis for a justifiable exercise of power. The inclusion of insight as a prerequisite normative principle sets Schouls’ ideas apart from many writers and theorists who have endeavored to describe the origins and the exercise of authority. For example, some have depicted authority as a construct whose legitimacy is manifested when students accept and/or respect the person claiming that authority (Harjunen, 2011; Macleod, MacAllister, & Pirrie, 2012; Preiss, 2015; Wrong, 2002). Others assert that authority exists as a function of power struggles between teachers and students (Foucault, 1994; Sarason, 2000), that it is realized in a shared and commonly accepted moral order (Metz, 1978), or that it is culturally situated and defined (Elliott, 2009). In each of these cases, authority originates in the social or pedagogical context within which it is exercised. Schouls (1972), on the other hand, situates the genesis of authority outside of this context. It is the insight of the practitioner, rather than a characteristic of the pedagogical setting, that legitimates a teacher’s authority to direct and to act within the classroom. Hod and Ben-Zvi (2015) describe authority in a similar way, emphasizing that as teachers develop expertise and experience, they adopt and accept authority over their own professional practices. Similarly, Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016) distinguish between external and internal teacher authority, with the internal dimension most closely resembling insight, as described by Schouls (1972).
Because Schouls (1972) has so clearly articulated the connections among insight, authority, and power, his model provides a convenient scaffolding upon which to organize a discussion of teacher authority in the classroom. Therefore, it is this triarchic notion of authority that forms the organizing structure for the review that follows, which begins with further elaboration on the notion of insight as it relates to teacher authority.
Insight and the Origins of Teacher Authority
Schouls (1972) uses the terms insight, knowledge, and understanding interchangeably. With respect to professional educators, insight is more specifically defined as knowledge of “the norms that govern the educational experience” (p.39). It is, in this view, professional insight that confers upon the teacher the authority to exercise power over decision-making and planning for the classroom. A school principal, in turn, bases administrative authority upon insight into matters pertaining to the management of the school and its professional staff. The key point is that teacher authority is legitimate when (and primarily because) it rests upon a foundation of professional insight.
The relation between insight and authority has also been discussed by Wrong (2002), who describes competent authority as that which is based upon professional skill-based knowledge. However, Wrong also describes a second form of authority, which he calls legitimate authority and which is based upon group consensus. A teacher’s legitimate authority, according to Wrong, would therefore depend upon the acceptance of those over whom he wishes to exercise that authority. Wrong’s stated implication is that, in the classroom, consensus-based authority is predominant (i.e., more salient than competent authority) and that acceptance by students is a prerequisite for its legitimate exercise. In fact, he defines competent (insight-based) authority as merely a “special case of legitimate authority,” since it “rests solely on the subject’s belief in the superior knowledge of the exerciser” (p. 53), a notion that is similar to the rational-legal basis of authority described by Weber (1978/1922).
One problematic implication of Wrong’s (2002) view is an implied assumption that since in practice, legitimate authority (based on consensus) seems more powerful than competent authority (based on insight), it represents a more valid construct for explaining patterns of authority and influence in classrooms. In other words, Wrong (2002) suggests that consensus-based authority is more authentic – and therefore more legitimate – than authority based upon the expertise or insight of the authority figure. It could be argued that this unstated perspective is the foundation upon which Wrong’s view of authority is built. As the remainder of this review will demonstrate, the tension between competence-based and consensus-based authority pervades many discussions of teachers’ classroom authority.
Others have described the basis of authority in a manner similar to Wrong (2002) and Weber (1978/1922). For example, Harjunen (2011) wrote that “pedagogical authority is granted by the child, first on the basis of his/her trust and love and later on the basis of critical understanding” (p. 404). And according to Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie (2012), "Legitimate authority is being enacted when the person issuing the instruction has an acknowledged right to command" (p. 499). Similarly, Suchman (1995) defined legitimacy as a “generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574). Finally, Metz (1978) and Pace and Hemmings (2007) also located the basis for authority in interactions occurring between teacher and students. Foucault (1994) and Sarason (1990) more specifically define these interactions as power struggles between students and the teacher, resulting in the emergence of recognized authority on one side or the other.
By including the notion of socially constructed or consensus-based authority, the theorists described above depart from Schouls (1972), who posits a normative view of authority that is not defined by its acceptance but rather by the foundation (insight) upon which it stands. In this view, authority is “real” in the sense that its existence does not depend primarily on acceptance by others. Neither does authority reside solely within the teacher. Rather, its legitimacy depends upon the teacher’s possession of the prerequisite insight into and understanding of the pedagogical norms and principles that should guide and inform professional practice. It is true that some of the aforementioned views include elements of the normative approach characterized by Schouls. For example, Metz (1978) refers to a moral order that governs authority-based relations and Pace and Hemmings (2007) describe the moral authority that teachers possess by virtue of their professional training. However, even in these views, the final legitimizing factor is students’ acceptance of the teacher’s authority. In contrast, Schouls (1972) bases his notion of authority upon the assumption that there are norms upon which teachers can draw to develop and implement principles of classroom practice. Further, these norms exist whether or not they are acknowledged or accepted by students.
Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie (2012) add an interesting historical dimension to this topic by asking, “[W]hat are the implications for student-teacher relations when pupils often display more competence than their teachers?" (p. 496). Formerly, subject-area knowledge once resided mostly (or solely) with the teacher, but students now have access to a wide array of technologically sophisticated sources of information. The central question is: How does students’ technological competence serve to compromise the authority teachers can assert based upon their expertise (Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie (2012)?
Schouls (1972) openly positions normative principles at the center of his views on authority. However, it is not true that other theorists, such as Foucault (1994), Harjunen (2011), Suchman (1995), Weber (1978/1922), and Wrong (2002) take anormative or non-normative approaches. On the contrary, all definitions of authority rest upon some form of normative structure, whether acknowledged or not. In other words, every theoretical view of authority rests upon something that is ultimate or foundational, a resting point that is both an a priori assumption of the theory and a necessarily non-negotiable element if the theory is to stand. The importance of this discussion lies in the questions that could ultimately guide research into teachers’ beliefs about their own authority in the classroom, for example: What do teachers view as the source of their authority in their classrooms? Is it within the teacher (insight) or does it originate within students (consensus)? Or does authority originate outside the entire teaching enterprise (e.g., in parents’ expectations, government mandates, or school board decisions)? Or is it a combination of some or all of these, each representing equal legitimacy? And finally, how do teachers exercise this authority – however they define it – in their professional lives?
Normative Authority in the Classroom
The literature on teacher authority can be classified into a number of thematic categories based upon the normative principles or perspectives upon which that authority is assumed to rest. The following represents an outline of some of the more prominent views, along with their chief proponents. Consensus-based authority is discussed first and insight-based authority last, with some intermediate views placed between them.
1. Authority is granted and/or controlled by those over whom that authority is exercised. According to Harjunen (2011), the legitimacy of a teacher’s authority depends on how that teacher responds and adapts to the techniques used by students to convey their wishes and demands. In this view, “a teacher’s pedagogical authority and student consent to pedagogical authority are complementary ways of sharing power in the classroom.” (Harjunen, 2011, p. 403) Similarly, according to Preiss (2015), “authority facilitates the proper functioning of schools only if teachers and students recognize its legitimacy.” (p. 1)
Authority has been described as a construct that exists within the teacher-student relationship. This authority is distributed; in other words, it exists neither inside the teacher nor inside the student, but rather in the dynamic interchange between the two. Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016) studied the practice of Ashtanga yoga as a model of authority based on expertise, realized in the gurusisya (teacher-disciple) relationship. In their view, authority is “not simply the educator figure (their positionality, status, institutional location, contextualization within prior fields of knowledge/belief) but also how their exertion of authority meshes with (and sometimes conflicts with) the ‘experiential authority’ of the subjects being educated, articulating what their own ‘self-authority’ (what they know, expect, and command from themselves, on the basis of countless prior experiences, encounters, interactions, times, and spaces).” (Lea, Philo, and Cadman, 2016, p. 69) Student authority (over self) is "nested within the teacher's authority." (Lea, Philo, and Cadman, 2016, p. 79) Similarly, Hearn (2012, cited in Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie, 2012) emphasized that the exercise of authority "implies a communicative relationship, however broadly defined, between the givers and receivers of orders." (p. 498)
Wrong (2002) also emphasized that that authority is defined by the motivation of the individual to obey. Finally, (Metz, 1978) asserted that legitimate authority is realized in a shared moral order realized through the actions of all (Metz, 1978).
2. Authority can be based on personal characteristics of the authority figure. In this context, Weber’s (1947) charismatic authority is similar to Wrong’s (2002) personal authority. Both views locate authority in certain psychological or personality characteristics of the authority figure. It is these characteristics that represent legitimate authority in the eyes of others. For example, Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016) describe authority as legitimized in a setting where the teacher (or leader) is respected or even revered by those who are the subjects of instruction or training. Similarly, Mayer (2011) described intellectual authority as a critical element of democratic classrooms, defining it as the condition of being an authority as opposed as merely being in authority.
3. Authority is institutional. Pace and Hemmings (2007) describe traditional authority as that which is “based on established beliefs that grant legitimacy to those in ruling positions.” (p. 6) This is similar to Weber’s (1947) legal-rational authority, also known as bureaucratic authority. Again, the legitimacy of exercised authority is based on accepted rules and policies. Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016), in working with students of yoga, found that “the institution and practice of Ashtanga yoga itself was ... seen by the interviewees to embody expertise. [It] was trusted to be complete, offering everything needed by the students." (p. 77) In each of these cases, the source of legitimate authority exists within the institution and is presumed to be understood and accepted by those who work and/or live within that institution.
4. Teacher authority is culturally situated and determined. In a manner similar to the institutional basis of authority (#3 above), cultural and political factors can form a context for legitimizing authority. As Elliott (2009) asserts, authority structures are clearer in authoritarian societies than they are in the United States. In certain totalitarian societies, for example, norms and expectations are unambiguous and tacit and therefore authority relations are well-defined, relatively static, and understood by all. In the United States, teachers are more likely to accept and even encourage conflicting values, as would be expected in a society where individual freedoms are particularly valued. With respect to classroom authority, Pace and Hemmings (2007) stated that “the most perplexing challenges for teachers are those related to diversity” (p. 22). This suggests that in a more open cultural setting or society, where diversity is valued or at least tolerated, the concept of legitimate authority may be more resistant to definition by consensus. In this way, the exercise of authority is dependent upon the cultural and/or political context in which it is exercised.
5. Authority can exist in various forms, depending on setting and purpose. Pace and Hemmings (2007) summarized four types of authority, based on the work of Weber (1947), Metz (1978), and others: formal, charismatic, bureaucratic (legal-rational), and moral. The four types are differentiated according to their origins and legitimating characteristics. According to Wrong (2002), authority can exist in five (often overlapping) forms: coercive, legitimate, competent, personal, and/or authority by inducement. Wrong emphasized that the definitional lines between authority types are permeable and that forms of authority often overlap. In elaborating upon Wrong’s view of authority, Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie (2012) expressed their belief that competent authority and legitimate authority are most under threat in the context of contemporary educational policy and governance (Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie, 2012), implying that coercive authority and authority by inducement are ascendant in current pedagogical practice.
In an earlier discussion of authority, Weber (1978/1922) described three bases upon which authority is made legitimate: rational, traditional, and charismatic. While each of these multi-dimensional views of authority represents a unique perspective, there are some obvious similarities among the varied types of authority. For example, each of these views includes notions of authority based on personality (e.g., Weber’s charismatic and Wrong’s personal authority) and/or expertise (e.g., Weber’s professional and Wrong’s competent authority). A key element in all of these notions is the idea that all forms of authority are rooted in particular source of legitimacy. In other words, authority is never neutral or spontaneous; rather, it can and should always be interpreted with reference to its legitimating source.
6. Legitimate authority is based on insight and understanding. This view of authority situates authority within the teacher (who possesses the appropriate professional insight) but also externally, in the realm of normative principles and guiding truths that guide the teacher’s practice and decision-making. In other words, there are norms for teacher authority that transcend cultural or institutional influence, student preferences, and temporal necessity. Teachers are entitled to exercise authority and power if they can demonstrate pedagogical insight, a process that usually takes the form of certification, professional development, and on-going evaluation and critique. In this context, students act in their own best interest when they recognize (and submit to) the legitimate authority of the teacher. As Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016) express it, "the individual subjects himself or herself to the educator's authority so as to be true to himself or herself - that is, in order to be free" (p. 73). Foucault (cited in Lea, Philo, and Cadman, 2016) also suggested that we can locate the origin of teacher authority in the external authority residing in the "logos" which the good teacher will teach.
The social dimension of normative authority was described by Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie (2012) in this way: "Legitimate authority relies on a perceived obligation to obey because of the social context and the existence of shared norms. ... [Students know what] children in schools do [and they recognize] the right of the teacher to issue a command and their duty to obey by virtue of their respective social roles" (p. 499). So, in this view, students exercise a normative role as students and teachers exercise a normative role as teachers. When these roles are respected and legitimately actualized, the effective exercise of authority is made manifest.
According to Peter Schouls (1972), educational practice suffers when the normative roles of students and teachers are discounted or ignored, a situation that – in his view – represents a crisis in contemporary educational practice.
The teacher today has very little authority over against his students. And that is because he can make very little use of his insight, of his conviction that he knows what he is about because he knows what life is all about. The teacher today can no longer act and teach out of his commitment. And because the present system makes it hard if not impossible to teach from commitment, many teachers don't know what it is like to teach from commitment, with commitment. Many, therefore, are totally puzzled about the phenomenon of student power. It is because they have never experienced, in their own teaching, what it is to possess teacher power. (Schouls, 1972, p. 42)
For Schouls (1972), the teachers’ power over pedagogical decisions and actions is a natural outgrowth of the authority teachers possess by virtue of their positions as pedagogical experts. Authority is a prerequisite to power and the legitimacy of that power depends upon the legitimacy of the authority at its foundation. The following section provides an overview of diverse views of power, specifically teacher power in the classroom.
Power
Power and authority are related but distinct constructs. Schouls (1972) views power as an outgrowth of authority. In other words, a teacher with legitimate (and earned) authority should be allowed to exercise appropriate power over pedagogical decisions, classroom practices, and other professional spheres. Educators, however, are often disinclined to discuss power in an educational context, since the term may imply coercion, force, and other nondesirable (and even unethical) activities. Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie (2012) have described this general reluctance to power, because it is viewed as somehow negative or illegitimate in pedagogical settings. In this view, discussions of authority could be avoided as well, because the term itself suggests inappropriate domination or authoritarian power.
Bertrand Russell (quoted in Keir, 2015) shared this fear of actualized power in an educational context:
Authority, if it is to govern education, must rest upon the power of the state, the church, the school master, or the parent. No single one can be trusted as each has an end, which is not the child’s well-being.
Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016) counter this fear by emphasizing that power (based upon legitimate authority) does not necessarily restrict freedom, as students accept the legitimate expression of power by their teachers. In other words, power is co-produced and it is constructive and legitimate as long as students are free to subject themselves (or not) to the authority of their teachers.
Similarly, Preiss (2015) states that “authority is a power relationship in which the genuine consent of those in subordinate roles is crucial to its legitimate functioning.” (p. 1) Further, according to Foucault, the individual "is led to constitute him or herself as subject" (in Lea, Philo, and Cadman, 2016, p. 73). So, as power – based upon legitimate authority – is recognized and accepted by students, that power can have a positive and constructive effect on the educational process.
Schouls (1972) takes this discussion a step further when he laments the loss of professional or pedagogical power among teachers. There is, in his view, a tendency to regard power as a force directed against the system rather than a positive influence within the system. In his words,
Today it's striking that when we hear of teachers' power this is often in relation to extra-educational issues: teachers banding together to form a power group that can back up demands for higher pay, more fringe benefits, better working conditions. It is far less frequently the case that they band together to obtain determination of the curriculum by those who actually know what is involved in the teaching process. (Schouls, 1972, p. 42)
Conclusion
Building upon the definitions provided by Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016), Preiss (2015), and Schouls (1972), it may be advisable to consider authority and power as separate and related contructs. Power is legitimate when it is based upon genuine authority. In the education profession, the genuine authority of a classroom teacher is based upon such things as professional insight (derived from a certification-based education), experience, and demonstrated expertise in the field. It is true that schools and school districts often fail to acknowledge their teachers’ rightful claims to pedagogical power. However, this tendency does not diminish the fact that teachers who possess appropriate insight ought to be granted proper authority (and attendant power) to make significant decisions about what occurs in their classrooms. In most cases, students recognize and acknowledge their teachers’ professional status, though that status may be diminished when students perceive that teachers are not accorded “real” power by school administrators.
The whole issue of teachers’ pedagogical power is one deserving of further consideration and discussion. The topic is not routinely discussed in educational circle, perhaps because we have become accustomed to not thinking of teachers as authorities in their own classrooms. It has become commonplace to regard teachers more as instruments of administrative mandates than as powerful agents and autonomous authorities. As mentioned earlier, this lack of professional acknowledgement is often cited as a source of teacher burnout and career change (Carlotto & Gonçalves, 2017; Evers, Brouwers, & Tomoc, 2002; Ryan, et al., 2017; Santavirta, Solovieva, & Theorell, 2007; Smetackova, 2017; Tsang & Kwong, 2017). Schouls (1972) has pointed out another result of the dis-respect of teacher authority, namely the de-legitimization of teachers’ convictions and ultimately the undermining of the pedagogical enterprise itself. In his words, “By its very nature North America's monolithic school system has to cut out each teacher's individual conviction; and to the extent that it successfully cuts out conviction, it's really anti-educational." (Schouls, 1972, p. 43)
As we work to better understand the nature and significance of teacher authority, it would be instructive to consider the views of practicing teachers themselves. Teachers’ self-assessment of their own authority should be viewed as a key component of an overall belief system underlying professional life in general and classroom practice in particular. Specifically, continuing research should be directed toward these questions: How do classroom teachers view their own pedagogical authority? What are the sources of authority within schools and what relative power do teachers exercise over pedagogical decisions and actions? In what areas or circumstances are classroom teachers discouraged or forbidden from exercising legitimate authority? How is the practice of legitimate authority (or the absence of authority) related to teachers’ overall views of themselves as professionals and to their beliefs about teaching?
References
Carlotto, M. S., & Gonçalves, C. S. (2017). Burnout syndrome profiles among teachers. Psychological Writings / Escritos de Psicologia, 10(3), 159-166.
Elliott, J. G. (2009). The nature of teacher authority and teacher expertise. Support for Learning, 24(4), 197-203.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomoc, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers' beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227-244.
Foucault, M. (1994). Power. New York: New Press. Faubion, J. D. (Ed.)
Friere, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Harjunen, E. (2011). Students’ consent to a teacher’s pedagogical authority. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(4), 403-424.
Hearn, J. S. (2012). Theorizing power. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Hod, Y., & and Ben-Zvi, D. (2015, April). Teachers’ acceptance of authority: A synthesis of two empirical studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from the AERA Online Paper Repository.
Lea, Philo, and Cadman (2016). ‘It’s a fine line between … self discipline, devotion and dedication’: Negotiating authority in the teaching and learning of Ashtanga yoga. cultural geographies, 23(1), 69-85.
Mayer, S. J. (2011, April). Institutional, interpersonal, and intellectual authority within classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from the AERA Online Paper Repository.
Mcleod, G., MacAllister, J., and Pirrie, A. (2012). Towards a broader understanding of authority in student-teacher relationships. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4), 493-508.
Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pace J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4-27.
Preiss, D. (2015, April). Questioning school authority: How race and gender mediate students’ perceptions of teacher authority and school disciplinary climates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from the AERA Online Paper Repository.
Ryan, S., Pendergast, L. L., Schwing, S., von der Embse, N. P., Saeki, E., & Segool, N. (2017). Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on teacher turnover. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 1-11.
Santavirta, N., Solovieva, S., & Theorell, T. (2007). The association between job strain and emotional exhaustion in a cohort of 1,028 Finnish teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 213-228.
Schouls, P. (1972). Insight, authority, and power. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wedge.
Smetackova, I. (2017). Self-efficacy and burnout syndrome among teachers. European Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 20(3), 2476-2488.
Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Tsang, K. K., & Kwong, T. L. (2017). Teachers’ emotions in the context of education reform: Labor process theory and social constructionism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(6), 841-855.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Weber, M. (1978/1922). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wrong, D. H. (2002). Power: Its forms, bases, and uses (3rd ed.). London: Transaction Publishers.