隨著教育行政領導研究典範的轉移，認知取向的課題近年受到許多研究者的關注，而當教育現場有越來越多女性得以躋身領導一職之時，實徵研究如何反映女性教育領導者的觀點，而不落入傳統性別本質論的窠臼，則是研究者致力的焦點。環顧國內當前的教育行政領導研究，以認知取向切入的實徵研究相當有限；此外，在領導性別研究部份，雖然實徵研究已逐漸納入女性的聲音，但我們仍需要加入其他的觀點以瞭解女性教育領導者的實際。是以，本研究採取質性的個案研究取徑，透過訪談法及放聲思考法蒐集資料，探究臺北縣市六位國中女校長的問題解決實務，並以後結構女性主義作為分析觀點，試圖從後結構女性主義關切的主體性、位置性、語言與論述、權力、知識與差異，呈現不同女校長問題解決心智運作的樣貌。

綜合研究結果發現，本研究之結論如下：

壹、女校長面對問題時，常傾向透過個人詮釋理解問題，並以價值、原則引導解答程序之進行。
貳、女校長面對問題時較少提出解決目標，傾向在了解問題後提出各種策略因應，其解答歷程具動態性且有彈性。
參、女校長在面對問題情境時，均會知覺她們在解決問題可能出現的限制，並展現她們正向與負向的情感。
肆、女校長在問題解決思考內涵與解決策略的見解略有異同，但最常以溝通作為問題解決的核心策略。
伍、資深與初任女校長的問題解決實況有明顯差異，不過仍有例外的情形。
陸、女校長的問題解決心智運作受其主體位置脈絡影響，呈現多元的樣貌。
柒、女校長的問題解決歷程充滿語言與論述、權力與知識的運作。
捌、後結構女性主義的分析觀點能解構教育行政領域傳統男女校領導研究之論述。

基於本研究的發現與結論，文末針對校長、學校行政、校長培訓以及未來研究的提出建議。

As paradigm shifts in educational administration, researchers who are influenced by this pradigm shift begin to pay attention to cognitive perspective on educational leadership. While the number of female educational leader increases, many researchers who have been devoted themselves to representing the viewpoints of female educational leaders make efforts to avoid gender essentialism myths in their researches. However, in Taiwan, there are only few empirical studies which focus on educational leaders’ cognitive operations. Even though the increasing number of female educational leaders made researchers add female’s voice to their studies, we should take different pespectives to explore the praxis of female educational leaders’ experience. Therefore, six junior high school female principals from Taipei City and Taipei County were recruited to attend this study for investigating their mental operation of problem solving praxis. This study adopted qualitative case study as the research approach, and employed interview and think-aloud methods to collect data. In addition, poststructural feminism which emphasizes subjectivity, positionality, language, discourse, power, knowledge, and difference were used as the perspective to analyze different female principles’ problem solving experiences. The conclusions in this study were as follows:

1. Female principals inclined to understand problems through their personal interpretations. Their own values and principles may guide their problem solving processes.
2. When confronting problems, female principals tend to find out different solutions rather than set goals after they understand the problems. The problem solving process is dynamic and flexible.
3. In problem solving process, all female principals perceive possible constraints and show their positive and negative moods when encountering problem situations.
4. Although six female principals have different problem solving strategies, communication is seen to be one of the core tactics.
5. There are profound differences between expert and novice female principals’ problem solving praxis, however, with some exceptions.
6. Female principals’ mental operations which show varieties in problem solving praxis are influenced by their subjectivity and positionality.
7. Female principal’s problem solving processes are filled with language and discourse, power and knowledge.
8. The discourse of typical gender studies in educational administration could be deconstructed by poststructural feminism.
In the end of this thesis, several suggestions were provided for principals, school administration, principal preparation and future studies.

中央社（2007年5月5日）。少女生育率冠亞洲－學者：性教育未落實。2009年5月20日，取自http://www.cna.com.tw/SearchNews/doDetail.aspx?id=
200705050086
王如玄（2007）。青少年偷嚐禁果之法律責任：簡介兩小無猜條款。2009年5月2日，取自http://www.young.gov.tw/commmand_forum_main_txt.asp?
BKey=33
王淑英、張盈堃（1999）。托育工作女性化及相關政策檢視。婦女與兩性學刊，10，167-194。
王博弘、林清達（2006）。臺灣近二十年來校長領導實徵研究與學校效能關係之探討。花蓮教育大學學報，22，283-306。
王雅各（1999）。婦女解放運動和二十世紀的性別現象。載於王雅各（主編），性屬關係（上）：性別與社會、建構（頁8-26）。臺北市：心理。
王雅慧（2005）。後結構女性主義教學策略在技職教育英語教學之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育與技術學系博士論文，未出版，彰化市。
王麗雲、潘慧玲（2000）。教師彰權益能的概念與實施策略。教育研究集刊，4，173-199
卯靜儒（2004）。重構女性教師的「主體性」研究：女性主義研究觀點的探索。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育研究方法論：觀點與方法（頁405-424）。臺北市：心理。
白曉紅（譯）（1994）。C. Weedon著。女性主義實踐與後結構主義理論。臺北市：桂冠。
石安如（1995）。從後結構女性主義分析珍康萍的電影：以An Angel At My Table和The Piano為例。銘傳管理學院大眾傳播研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
何怡穎（譯）（2002）。J. K. Conway著。女人治校先鋒：Smith College首位女校長回憶錄。臺北市：女書文化。
何麗香（2003）。花蓮縣國小女性校長學校公共關係之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。
呂寶靜（1999）。性別與家庭照顧：一個女性主義的觀點。載於王雅各（主編），性屬關係（上）：性別與社會、建構（頁101-134）。臺北市：心理。
李玉惠（1998）。國民小學女性校長工作壓力與社會支持需求之研究。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
李莉莉（2003）。國小女性校長領導風格之研究：以北部地區為例。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
李惠宗（2004）。教育行政法要義。臺北市，元照。
吳宗立（1998）。訊息處理的認知歷程與教學策略。人文及社會教育通訊，9（2），156-164。
吳勁甫（2002）。傅科的知識／權力論述及其對教育的啟示。教育研究，10，103-112。
吳彥男（2008）。國民小學初任校長學校經營問題與解決策略之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
吳建華、謝發昱、黃俊峰、陳銘凱（2003）。個案研究。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育研究的取徑：概念與應用（頁200-236）。臺北市：高等教育。
吳清山（2005）。落實校園零體罰政策的積極策略。中原大學師培中心電子報，5。2009年5月15日，取自http://wwwsrv.cc.cycu.edu.tw/education/ epaper/
enews41/topic2.htm
吳毓真（2008）。女性主義再思索─後殖民女性主義對教育的啟示。發表於明新科技大學主辦之「人文藝術研討會──女性思維與文化呈現」，97年4月18日，明新科技大學，新竹縣。
吳豐維（2007）。何謂主體性？一個實踐哲學的考察。思想，4，63-78。
邱玉玲（2005）。校長的哀與愁。師友，462，22-24。
周月清（2001）。家庭社會工作：理論與方法。臺北市：五南。
周麗玉（2005）。懷孕學生的協助是教育的內涵，也是教育的責任。學生輔導，99，30-51。
林文律（主編）（2006）。中小學校長談校務經營（上冊）。臺北市：心理。
林宇玲（2004）。從性別角度探討社會弱勢者的電腦學習：以臺北市職訓中心第九期「電腦基礎班」為例。女學學誌，17，201-241。
林宇玲（2005）。從性別角度探討偏遠地區學童的網頁製作。女學學誌，19，105-156。
林宇玲（2007）。偏遠地區學童的電玩實踐與性別建構：以臺北縣烏來地區某國小六年級學童為例。新聞學研究，90，43-99。
林明地（2006）。教育公共關係。載於謝文全（主編），教育行政學：理論與案例（頁391-420）。臺北市：五南。
林細貞（2003）。國中女性校長專業領導行為之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
林瑩（2002）。我國國民中學女性校長學校公共關係處理。暨南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，南投縣。
洪瑞璇（2001）。大學女性院長生命故事之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
洪瑞璇（2008）。國中教師專業認同之研究：遊走在「結構－能動」之間。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
侯怡楓（1999）。一位國小女性校長領導實際之個案研究。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
胡邦欣（2000）。花蓮縣國小女性校長學校公共關係之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。
秦夢群（2002）。教育行政：實務部份。臺北市：五南。
張芳綺（2005）。國小男女校長領導特質與行為之個案研究。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
張春興（2001）。現代心理學。臺北市：東華。
張晉芬（1998）。職場中的性別歧視與就業歧視之認定。2009年5月1日，取自http://taiwan.yam.org.tw/nwc/nwc3/papers/forum511.htm
張景媛（1993）。由訊息處理模式談教學策略。中等教育，44（3），48-57。
張榮輝（2008）。重建專業、倫理、尊嚴之新校園。發表於社團法人中華民國學校行政研究學會主辦之「學校行政論壇第二十次研討會」，2008年12月27日，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
張寧（譯）（2004）。J. Derrida著。書寫與差異。臺北市：麥田出版。
張鴻煜（2006）。原住民籍國小女性校長族群文化認同、抗拒和適應之個案研究。國立臺中教育大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
戚樹誠、李俊賢、蔡華華、陳宇芬（2002）。口語協定分析在決策研究上的應用。商管科技季刊，3（1），57-69。
教育部統計處（2008）。教育類性別統計工作推動情形。2008年2月1日，取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/STATISTICS/EDU7220001/
analysis/index.htm
梁文蓁（2000）。教育行政領導理論的女性主義觀點評析。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育議題的性別視野（頁1-39）。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學。
梁文蓁（2001）。中學女性校長權力運用之研究：以兩位女校長為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
許文光（2004）。國民中學校長對議員參與及關心學校事務觀點之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
許慧楨（2006）。國小女性校長生涯阻礙及其因應策略之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
郭明德（2002）。現階段教育改革中，校長角色的定位與因應策略。研習資訊，19（4），62-75。
郭進隆（譯）（1994）。P. M. Senge著。第五項修練：學習型組織的藝術與實務。臺北市：天下遠見。
陳秀慧（1999）。論瑪格麗特．艾特伍德《女神諭》中二元性別之顛覆：女性身體及書寫為解構策略。國立清華大學外國語文研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
陳佩英、黃筱晶（2007）。不要叫我「女」校長：女性領導經驗研究。發表於世新大學舉辦之「性別平等教育專業發展研討會」，2007年5月25-27日，世新大學，臺北市。
陳依萍（2001）。後結構主義與後現代主義在教育行政上的應用。中等教育，52（2），170-178。
陳宜宣（2001）。國中女校長溝通行為之研究：以兩位女校長為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳怡君（2006）。女校長相關研究議題探析。學校行政雙月刊，43，120-133。
陳怡錚（2000）。國中女教師生涯之研究。國立臺灣師範大學公民訓育研究碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳荻卿、張景媛（2004）。內隱認知在問題解決歷程中的角色及其在教育上的意義。教育研究資訊，12（3），105-130。
陳偉茹（2006）。校長之思：透視國民小學校長教學領導之思考研究。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
陳錫珍（2003）。校長協同問題解決之探討。教育研究月刊，108，51-63。
黃乃熒（2000）。後現代教育行政哲學。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃乃熒（2001）。學校行政瘋狂行為實際之探究：以國民中學為例。教育研究集刊，47，215-251。
黃少華（2003）。論網路書寫行爲的後現代特性。網路社會學通訊期刊，33，2008年3月20日，取自http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/33/33-03.htm
黃心雄（2005）。奇哥娜．邊界．階級－墨美女性書寫中的性別、種族與階級意識。歐美研究，35（2），279-322。
黃玉貞（2004）。臺北市國民小學校長領導性別差異之研究。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北縣。
黃俊儒（2003）。傅柯「權力／知識／主體性」與多重課程論述。教育研究月刊，113，91-109。
黃麗英（1993）。解讀三臺綜藝節目短劇的性別論述。文化大學新聞學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
楊大春（1994）。解構理論。臺北市：揚智文化。
楊大春（1996）。後結構主義。臺北市：揚智文化。
楊生平（2007）。邏各斯中心的毀滅：後結構主義思想評析。2008年3月15日，取自http://www.movdata.net/Papers/Philosophy/Comprehensive/167700.html
楊巧玲（2002）。變遷中的校長角色與職責及其對校長培訓、甄選與評鑑的啟示。載於林文律（主編），中小學校長培育證照甄選評鑑與專業發展國際學術研討會論文集（頁151-168）。臺北市：國立臺北師範學院。
楊幸真（2002）。性別議題融入英語教學課程方案設計。2008年7月16日，取自www.sh2jh.tnc.edu.tw/~off26/3in1/gender/doc/1.doc
楊俐容（譯）（1990）。M. A. Boden著。皮亞傑。臺北市：桂冠。
楊振昇（2004）。近十年來教育組織變革對教學領導之啟示。教育政策論壇，7（2），107-130。
楊雀（1982）。我國女性教育主管人格特質之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
翟宗悌（2005）。學校的新挑戰：青少年懷孕的預防與處理：我們準備好了嗎？。學生輔導，99，52-61。
翟智怡（2001）。高中職女性校長生涯發展歷程之研究。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
劉自荃（譯）（1995）。C. Norris著。解構批評理論與應用。臺北縣：駱駝。
劉和然（2004）。學校公共關係與教育行銷。北縣教育，47，94-97。
劉梅君（1999）。性別與勞動。載於王雅各（主編），性屬關係（上）：性別與社會、建構（頁253-304）。臺北市：心理。
劉淑媛（2002）。國小女性校長專業發展現況、困境與需求之研究。國立新竹師範學院學校行政碩士班碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
劉麗慧（1986）。國民中小男女校長領導方式與學校組織氣氛之關係。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
歐崇敬（1998）。從結構主義到解構主義。臺北市：揚智。
潘淑滿（2005）。臺灣母職圖像。女學學誌：婦女與性別研究，20，41-91。
潘慧玲（1999）。教育學發展的女性主義觀點：女性主義教育學初探。載於國立臺灣師範大學教育學系、教育部國家講座（主編），教育科學的國際化與本土化（頁527-552）。臺北市：揚智。
潘慧玲（2000）。性別視域的教師生涯。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育議題的性別視野（頁223-249）。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學。
潘慧玲（2003）。緒論：轉變中的教育研究觀點。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育研究的取徑：概念與應用（頁1-36）。臺北市：高等教育。
潘慧玲、梁文蓁、陳宜宣（2000）。台灣近十年教育領導碩博士論文分析：女性主義的觀點。婦女與兩性學刊，11，151-190。
蔡秀燕（2002）。國小女性校長與社區互動關係之研究。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
蔡美儀（1992）。我國女性教育主管性別角色、自我概念、社會支持與工作適應之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
鄭茱月（2002）。臺北市國小女校長生涯發展歷程中重要他人及關鍵事件之研究。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
戴振浩（2001）。國民小學男女校長領導特質與學校效能影響之研究。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
謝文全（2004）。教育行政學。臺北市：高等教育。
蕭國倉、過修齊、王素貞（2008）。當前我國國小校長領導權面臨之挑戰及因應策略：數個案例分析。發表於社團法人中華民國學校行政研究學會主辦之「學校行政論壇第二十次研討會」，2008年12月27日，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
蘇千惠（2004）。四位國民中學校長領導心智模式之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
Ackoff, R. L. (1987). The art of problem solving. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Afflerbach, P. (2002). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Methods of literacy research: The methodology chapters from The handbook of reading research (Vol. 3)(pp.87-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Allison, D. J., & Allison, P. A. (1993). Both ends of a telescope : Experience and expertise in principal problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 302-322.
Arcaro, J. S. (1995). Quality in education: An implementation handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Banks, C. A. M. (2006). Gender and race as factors in educational leadership and administration. In The Jossey- Bass reader on educational leadership(2nd ed)(pp. 299-338). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beatty, B. (2005). Emotional leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), The essentials of school leadership(pp.122-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Begley, P. T. (1996). Cognitive perspectives on the nature and function of values in educational administration. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp. 551-588). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Begley, P. T. (1999a). Values and educational leadership. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Begley, P. T. (1999b). Academic and practitioner perspectives on values. In P. T. Begle, & P. E. Leonard (Eds.), The values of educational administration (pp.51-69). New York: Routledge.
Begley, P. T., & Murray, P. E. (1990). Principal’s problem solving network (PPSN): Implementation report on a pilot project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, June 3-6 1990, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. UK:Penguin Group.
Bernhardt, V. L. (2002). The school portfolio toolkit. A Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation Guide for Continuous School Improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Bittel, L. R., & Newstrom, J. W. (1992). What every supervisor should know(6th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Blackmore, J. (1996). ‘Breaking the silence’: Feminist contributions to educational administration and policy. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp. 997-1042). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Blackmore, J. (1998) The Politics of Gender and Educational Change: Managing Gender or Changing Gender Relations. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), International Handbook of Educational Change(pp. 460-481). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Capper, C. A. (1992). A feminist poststructural analysis of nontraditional approaches in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 103-124.
Capper, C. A. (1998). Critically oriented and postmodern perspectives: Sorting out the differences and applications for practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 354-379.
Cheng, Y. C. (2002). The changing context of school leadership: Implications for paradigm shift. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook o f educational leadership and administration (pp.103-132). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Christman, D., & McClellan, R. (2008). ‘‘Living on barbed wire’’: Resilient women administrators in educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 3-29.
Conway, J. A., & Calzi, F. (1995). The dark side of shared decision making. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 45-49.
Crutcher, R. J. (1994). Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in psychological research. Psychological Science, 5(5), 241-244.
David, M., & Woodward, D.(1998). Introduction. In M.David, & D.Woodard(Eds.) , Negotiating the glass ceiling : Cardders of senior women in the academic world (pp.1-22) . London : The falmer Press.
Edwards, W. L. (2001). School leadership: The crucial factor for successful schools. Paper presented at the International Conference on School Leader Preparation, Licensure/Certification, Selection, Evaluation, and Professional Development, March 3-4, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Protocol analysis and verbal reports on thinking: An updated and extracted version from Ericsson(2002), retrieved November 30, 2008, from www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.proto.thnk.html
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215-251.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eveline, J., & Booth, M. (2004). Don’t write about it: Writing “the other” for the ivory basement. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(3), 243-255.
Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Cognitive psychology: A student's handbook (4th ed). London: Taylor & Francis.
Frattura, E. & Capper, C. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Funk, C. (2004). Female leaders in educational administration: Sabotage within our own ranks. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 17, 1-16. Retrieved June 28,2008, from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed). New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagné, R. M., & Glaser, R. (1987). Foundations in learning reach. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp.49-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gardiner, M. E., Grogan, M., & Enomoto, E. (1999). Women’s conflicts as they are mentored into educational leadership in public schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 19-23 1999, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Gatenby, B., & Hume, K. M. (2004). Powerful discourses for social service: A feminist poststructural and action inquiry. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(3), 269-280.
Gavey, N. (1989). Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis: Contributions to feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 459-475.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr(Eds.), The nature of expertise(pp.xv-xxvii). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Glenn, E. N. (1994). Social construction of mothering: A thematic overview. In E. N. Glenn, G. Chang, & L. R. Forcey (Eds.), Mothering Ideology, Experience, and Agency(pp. 1-32). New York: London.
Goldring, E. B. & Vye, N. (2004). We must model how we teach: Learning to Lead with Compelling Models of Professional Development. In. W. K. Hoy, & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Educational Administration, policy and reform(pp.189-218). Greenwich, CN: IAP.
Goffman, E.（1959）.The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Gregory, A. (1990). Are women different and why are women thought to be different? Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4/5), 257-266.
Grogan, M. (1994). Aspiring to the superintendency in the public school systems: Women’s perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 4-8 1994, New Orleans, LA.
Grogan, M. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Growe, R., & Montgomery, P. (1999). Women and the leadership paradigm: Bridging the gender gap. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 1E(4), 38-46.
Gruning, J., & Hunt, T. (1984) Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2001). Handbook of interview research : context & method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Sustainable leadership. In B. Davies(Ed.), The essentials of school leadership(pp.173-189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1057-1074.
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Problem solving. In E. E. Smith & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Vol.3 Thinking (pp. 267-296). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice(6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affects facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122-1131.
Kenway, J., Willis, S., Blackmore, J., & Rennie, L. (1994). Making ‘hope practical’ rather than ‘despair convincing’: Feminist post-structuralism, gender reform and educational change. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(2), 187-210.
Law, Y. S. L., & Walker, A. (2005). Different values, different ways: Principal problem solving and education reform. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(1), 62-78.
Lazaridou, A. (2006). How effective principals think while solving problems. International Electronic Journal For Leadership in Learning, 10(15), retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/
Leithwood, K. A. (1995). Toward a more comprehensive appreciation of effective school district leadership. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Effective school district leadership (pp. 315-340). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Leithwood, K. A. (2005). Transformational leadership for challenging schools. Orbit, 35(3), 42-44.
Leithwood, K. A., & Stager, M. (1986). Differences in problem solving processes used by moderately and highly effective principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 16-20 1986, San Francisco, CA.
Leithwood, K. A., & Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in principals’ problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 126-161.
Leithwood, K. A., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Leithwood, K. A., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1992). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London: The Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K. A., Steinbach, R., & Raun, T. (1993). Superintendents’ group problem- solving processes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 364-391.
Leithwood, K. A., Steinbach, R., & Raun, T. (1995). Prospects for organizational learning in expertly managed group problem solving. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Effective school district leadership (pp. 51-83). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Lesgold, A. (1988). Problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg, & E. E. Smith(Eds.), The psychology of human thought(pp.188-213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Role of affect in cognitive processing in academic contexts. In D. Y. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp.57-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Logan, J. P. (1998). School leadership of the 90’s and beyond: A window of opportunity for women educators. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 1(3), retrieved Aug 20, 2008, from http://www.advancingwomen.com
Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: a sociological study(2nd ed). Chicago: University of Cicago Press.
Malveaux, J. (2005). Nurturer or queen bee?. Black Issues in Higher Education, Retrieved May 30,2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/
Mayer, R. E. (1985). Implication of cognitive psychology for instruction in mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving(pp.123-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Memory and information processes. In W. M. Reynold & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 7 educational psychology (pp.47-58). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Mazzei, L. A. (1997). Inhabited silences in feminist poststructural inquiry. Paper presented at the AERA 1997 Annual Meeting. March 24-28 1997, Chicago, IL.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Nalebuff, B. J., & Ayres, I. (2006). Why not?: How to use everyday ingenuity to solve problems big and small. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oakley, A. (1974). Woman’s work: The housewife, past and present. New York: Vintage Books.
Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N., & Chronicle, E. P. (2002). Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 791-799.
Pateman, M. (2005). Poststructuralism. The Year’s Work in Critical and Cultural Theory, 13, 224-239.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Payne, J. W. (1994). Thinking aloud: Insights into information processing. Psychological Science, 5(5), 241-248.
Pecora, K. E. (2007). Women high school principals: Moving beyond the myth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Peddle, M. T. (2000). Does government need to be involved in primary and secondary education: Evaluating policy options using market role assessment. London: Routledge.
Perez, L. G., & Uline, C. L. (2003). Administrative problem solving in the information age: Creating technological capacity. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 143-157.
Peters, M. A., & Burbules, N. C. (2004). Poststructuralism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Prasad, P. (2005). Crafting qualitative research. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Pratchler, J. (1997). Exploring the subjectivity of Lay Catholic women administrators in Catholic schools: A qualitative study. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Regina, Canada.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representation problems. In J. E. Davidson, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving(pp.3-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riehl, C., & Lee, V. E. (1996). Gender, organizations and leadership. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp. 873-919). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roberts, H. (1981). Women and their doctors: Power and powerlessness in the research process(pp.7-29). In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research. London: Routledge.
Rosener, J.B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119-225.
Ruff, W. G. (2002). Constructing the role of instructional leader: The mental models of urban elementary school principal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, San Antonio, TX.
Ruff, W. G., & Shoho, A. R. (2005). Understanding instructional leadership through the mental models of three elementary school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 554-577.
Scott, W. J. (1992). Experience. In J. Butler, & J. W. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political(pp. 22-40). New York: Routledge.
Schmidt, M. (2002). Emotions in educational administration: An unorthodox examination of teacher’s career decisions. In K. A. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp.1103-1131). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schmuck, P. A. (1996). Women’s place in educational administration: Past, present and future. In K. A. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp. 337-367). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp.245-264). New York: Routledge.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Business.
Shakeshaft, C. (1981). Women in educational administration: A descriptive analysis of dissertation research and paradigm for future research. In P. A. Schmuck, W. W. Jr. Charters, & R. Carlson (Eds.), Educational policy and management: Sex differential(pp.9-31). New York: Academic Press.
Shakeshaft, C. (1987). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shakeshaft, C. (1989). The gender gap in research in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 324-337.
Shakeshaft, C., Brown, G., Irby, B., Grogan, M. & Ballenger, J. (2007). Increasing gender equity in educational leadership. In S. S. Klein, B. Richardson, D. A. Grayson, L.H. Fox, C. Kramare, D. Pollard, & C. A. Dwyer (Eds.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education(2nd ed)(pp.103-129). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shavinina, L. V., & Seeratan, K. L. (2003). On the nature of individual innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International handbook on innovation(pp.31-43). Oxford: Elsevier.
Sherman, W. H. (2005). Preserving the status quo or renegotiating leadership: Women’s experiences with a district-based aspiring leaders program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 707-740.
Simon, H. A., Dantzig, G. B. , Hogarth, R., Piott, C. R., Raiffa, H., Schelling, T. C., Shepsle, K, A., Thaier, R., Tversky, A., & Winter, S. (1986). Report of the research briefing panel on decision making and problem solving. In National Academy of Sciences (Ed.), Research briefings 1986 (pp.17-36). Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Singh, P. (1995). Voicing the ‘other’, speaking for the ‘self’, disrupting the metanarratives of educational theorizing with poststructural feminisms. In R. Smith, & P. Wexler (Eds), After postmodernism: Education, politics and identiy (pp. 182-206). Briston, PA: The Falmer Press.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. Qualitative Studies In Education, 13(5), 477-515.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Dezin, & Y. S. Linclon (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.)(pp. 134-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stamatis, D. H. (2001). Six sigma and beyond: Problem solving and basic Mathematics (vol. 2). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Psychology: In search of the human mind (3rd ed). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Tisdell, E. J. (2001). Feminist perspectives on adult education: Constantly shifting identities in constantly changing times. In V. Sheared & P. A. Sissel (Eds.), Making space: Merging theory and practice in adult education (pp. 271-285). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Trifonas, P. P. (2004). Postmodernism, poststructuralism and difference. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 20(1), 151-163.
Vaill, P. (1989). Managing as a performing art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van Bove, L., & Thompson, L. (2003). A look into the mind of the negotiator: Mental models in negotiation. Group Presses and Intergroup Relations, 6(4), 387-404.
VanLehn, K. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 527-579). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1989). Toward a model of creativity based upon problem solving in the social science. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp.399-410). New York: Springer.
Westbrook, L. (2006). Mental models: A theoretical overview and preliminary study. Journal of Information Science, 36(6), 563-579.
Whitaker, J. E. (2006). Women in the middle: A qualitative study of the leadership experiences of female central office administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Wilson, T. D. (1994). The proper protocol: Validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychological Review, 5(5), 249-252.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young, M. D., & López, G. R. (2005). The nature of inquiry in educational leadership. In F. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice(pp.337-361). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman, B. J, & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solver. In J. E. Davidson, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving(pp.233-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.