傅柯（Michel Foucault）是影響當代思潮甚鉅的哲學家，其從系譜學的方法出發，考察日常中的原則規範如何與無所不在的權力產生互動，以及權力如何影響一個人對事物的理解、認知與日常實踐。傅柯對權力、知識與主體性的研究分析，與對權力的重新界定與問題化意識與生存美學的進路，帶給我們看待生活中權力關係與互動另一個視角。
本文主要探究地方教育行政組織與校長間權力互動，從傅柯的權力論述出發，透過個案研究法與研究者長期在教育行政場域的觀察，並輔以文件分析與深度訪談，分析兩者間權力關係、影響權力互動的因素、權力運作策略，以及權力互動產生的效果。研究發現主要如下：
一、地方教育行政組織與校長間的權力關係部分，可發現權力互動媒介的形式可分為「正式」與「非正式」兩大類。權力關係有伴隨組織架構而生的關係、伴隨行政委託衍生的關係，以及更大範疇的人際網絡架構等。透過媒介與關係的分析，除了顯示教育場域中權力運作的複雜性，正式與非正式機制的交互影響，也可發現權力關係是一個動態的體系，每次的權力互動都是與其他社會成員連結的延伸，且在特定的脈絡下，每個局部的權力關係都有不同的樣態，也啟發吾人對權力的看法應更開放，不僅限於支配、威權或統治等傳統概念，而是應視之為散佈於社會空間中的微小實踐。
二、在影響地方教育行政組織與校長權力的互動因素上，可發現懲罰、規訓、知識與治理術在權力互動中的運用與實踐。教育場域的懲罰多透過對校長的例行年終考核與校長遴選進行，而實際的懲罰效果則會受到督學訪視、會議宣示與非正式溝通管道的影響。規訓手段的施行也更為細緻與隱秘，並融入地方教育行政組織與校長間的日常生活與關係脈絡中。知識與權力的互動上，地方教育行政組織通常透過督學、年終考核等觀察與登記手段，累積並構成校長的個人檔案與綜合評價，再連結校長遴選以產製真理。而校長則是會透過人際網絡、政治策略等第三方力量，影響知識產製結果。但上開權力效果均是局部的，且在我國教育政治治理模式下，會隨著人際網絡，如縣市首長更迭而改變。最後，治理術係透過校長主任遴選、甄選等方式調控，在校長個體層級透過建立高層次治理目標、關懷校長內心需求與福祉等手段實施。面對教育局處治理與權力互動的反抗上，校長反抗動機分為爭取資源與對抗政治干擾，策略則分別有主要透過人際網絡來影響教育局處的資源分配或決策，以及回歸校務與人際網絡經營，強化自身權力關係能量。
三、影響校長與地方教育行政組織互動因素部分，可爬梳出「校長養成過程行政倫理觀念的植入」、「甄選與儲訓過程的潛移默化」與「師範機構養成背景」等生命史的經驗對權力互動的影響，並形成校長與教育局處權力互動的基礎。此外，於看待權力的角度與對權力脈絡的理解，可發現校長與教育局處均傾向視權力為具體物來進行權力互動，容易落入權力關係混淆，價值判斷困難的困境。
四、權力運作策略上，可發現在校長與地方教育行政組織的日常權力互動中，校長可運用的權力關係途徑較教育局處多，且權力運用策略靈活，會隨著爭取資源的屬性，而搭配不同關係和策略的運用，達成獲取人力、遴選學校位置、經費或反抗治理的效果。而教育局處因具有組織層級與掌握考核、經費的優勢地位，許多權力運作策略則多透過體制內的校長會議、甄選、儲訓等例行行政流程來達成治理校長的權力效果，而無須透過外部權力關係。
本研究最後並提出傅柯權力理論在臺灣教育場域運用之反思，如以自我關懷為核心解構校長遴選制度、重新檢視地方教育行政組織治理目標、轉向權力脈絡分析理解與實踐、關注生命史對權力互動之影響、鼓勵踰越情感與生存美學態度等建議，期能對地方教育場域在權力互動與策略的運用上，協助地方教育行政組織與校長在日常繁忙的教育行政事務與日漸紛雜的教育環境中，用更正向與開放的角度看待權力互動，並保持批判與實踐反抗的勇氣。

Michel Foucault, a philosopher of significant influence on contemporary thought, starts his examination from the genealogical method, exploring how principles and norms in everyday life interact with pervasive power, and how power influences an individual's understanding, cognition, and daily practices. Foucault's analysis of power, knowledge, and subjectivity, along with his approach to redefining power and problematizing consciousness and aesthetics of existence, offers people another perspective on understanding power relations and interactions in life.
This article mainly explores the power interactions between local educational administrative organizations and principals, starting from Foucault's discourse on power. Through case study methods, long-term observations in the educational administration field by the researcher, document analysis, and in-depth interviews, it analyzes the power relationships between the two, factors influencing power interactions, strategies of power operation, and the effects of power interactions. The main findings of the research are as follows:
1.Power Relationships Between Local Educational Administrative Organizations and Principals: The forms of power interaction media can be divided into "formal" and "informal" categories. The power relationships arise from organizational structures, administrative delegation, and broader interpersonal network structures. Through the analysis of media and relationships, besides showing the complexity of power operations in the educational field, the interplay of formal and informal mechanisms reveals that power relationships are dynamic systems. Each power interaction extends to connect with other social members, and in specific contexts, each local power relationship has different forms. This inspires a more open view of power, not limited to traditional concepts like domination, authority, or governance, but as small practices distributed in social spaces.
2.Factors Influencing Power Interactions: Punishment, discipline, knowledge, and governmentality are utilized and practiced in power interactions. Punishments in the educational field are mainly carried out through routine year-end assessments of principals and the selection of principals, while the actual effects of punishment are influenced by supervisor visits, meeting declarations, and informal communication channels. Disciplinary measures are more detailed and covert, integrated into the daily life and relational context between local educational administrative organizations and principals. In the interaction of knowledge and power, local educational administrative organizations usually observe and record through supervisors and year-end assessments, accumulating and forming personal files and comprehensive evaluations of principals, which are then linked to the selection of principals to produce truth. Principals, on the other hand, influence the results of knowledge production through interpersonal networks, political strategies, and other third-party forces. However, these power effects are local, and under the educational political governance model in Taiwan, they change with interpersonal networks, such as changes in county and city leaders. Finally, governmentality is regulated through the selection and recruitment of principals, and at the individual level of principals, it is implemented through high-level governance goals, caring for principals' inner needs and welfare. In terms of resistance to the governance and power interactions of educational bureaus, principals' motivations for resistance are divided into resource acquisition and opposition to political interference. Strategies include influencing the allocation of resources or decisions of educational bureaus through interpersonal networks and returning to school affairs and interpersonal network management to strengthen their power relationship energy.
3.Factors Influencing the Interaction Between Principals and Local Educational Administrative Organizations: The process of administrative ethics implantation in the training of principals, the subtle influence during the selection and training process, and the background of normal schools' training all influence power interactions, forming the basis of power interactions between principals and educational bureaus. Moreover, in terms of perspectives on power and understanding power contexts, it is found that both principals and educational bureaus tend to view power as a tangible object in power interactions, easily falling into the confusion of power relationships and the dilemma of value judgments.
4.Power Operation Strategies: In the daily power interactions between principals and local educational administrative organizations, principals have more power relationship channels available and flexible power utilization strategies. These strategies vary with the nature of resource acquisition, using different relationships and strategies to achieve effects such as obtaining manpower, selecting school positions, funding, or resisting governance. The educational bureaus, due to their organizational level and advantageous position in holding assessments and funding, achieve power effects of governing principals through routine administrative processes such as principal meetings, selection, and training without the need for external power relationships.
Finally, the study reflects on the application of Foucault's power theory in the educational field in Taiwan, offering suggestions such as deconstructing the principal selection system with self-care at its core, re-examining the governance goals of local educational administrative organizations, shifting to power context analysis for understanding and practice, focusing on the impact of life history on power interactions, and encouraging the transgression of emotions and attitudes of the aesthetics of existence. These suggestions aim to assist local educational administrative organizations and principals in viewing power interactions and strategy applications in a more positive and open manner amidst the busy educational administrative affairs and increasingly complex educational environment, while maintaining the courage to critique and practice resistance.

A. Brossat（2013）。傅柯╱危險哲學家（羅惠珍譯）。麥田。（原著出版年：2012）
B. Smart（2002）。傅柯（蔡采秀譯）。巨流。（原著出版年：1996）
G. Frédéric（2006）。傅柯考（何乏筆、楊凱麟與龔卓軍譯）。麥田。（原著出版年：1996）
H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow（1995）。傅柯－超越結構主義與詮釋學（錢俊譯）。桂冠。（原著出版年：1982）
J. G. Merquior（1998）。傅柯（陳瑞麟譯）。桂冠。（原著出版年：1985）
M. Foucault（1990）。性意識史第一卷：導論。（尚衡譯）。桂冠。（原著出版年：1976）
M. Foucault（2003）。規訓與懲罰─監獄的誕生。（劉北成、楊遠嬰譯）。桂冠。（原著出版年：1975）
M. Foucault（2019）。古典時代瘋狂史（林志明譯）。時報文化。（原著出版年：1961）
M. Foucault（2019）。臨床的誕生（彭仁郁、王紹中譯）。時報文化。（原著出版年：1963）
M. Lichtman（2010）。教育質性研究：實用指南（江吟梓、蘇文賢譯）。學富（原著出版年：2006）
W. L. Neuman（2000）。社會研究方法：質化與量化取向（朱柔若譯）。揚智（原著出版年：1997）
于奇智（1999）。傅科。東大。
王文科、王智弘（2007）。教育研究法。五南。
王志弘（1992）。權力的凝視：同巴盧和貝羅的對談。當代，74，97-115。
王秀玲（2000）。國民小學校長遴選制度實施之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北教育大學。
王俊斌（2010）。論系譜學方法與主體化倫理問題之分析。教育科學期刊，9（2），31-52。
王瑞祺、王恭志（2007）。傅柯的生存美學及其對品格教育的啓示。教育資料與研究雙月刊，75，51-70。
王嘉陵（2012）。遵守規範還是踰越規範？一位大學初任教師藉由探索傅柯理論的自我教育實踐。生命教育研究，4（2），121-139。
王德威（譯）（1993）。M. Foucault著。知識的考掘。麥田。
王麗雲（2005）。地方權力結構與教育治理關係之研究(I)。政府研究資訊系統。取自https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=1101140
王麗雲（2014）。家長組織現況及其教育參與─中央與地方層級的研究。政府研究資訊系統。取自https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=8125687
伍振鷟、謝文全（1990）。教育局。載於教育大辭書（2008）。文景。取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/022634611234a50dc7c4d0ebe47d59ed
各科職掌（無日期）。彰化縣政府教育處單位介紹。2024年3月15日，取自https://education.chcg.gov.tw/01in tro/intro03.aspx
朱淑如（2020）。國民中小學校長遴用制度之初探與省思。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（4），50-55。
江芳盛、鍾宜興（2006）。各國教育行政制度比較。五南。
牟宗三（1994）。中國哲學的特質（再版）。學生。
但昭偉（2008）。權力。載於教育大辭書（2008）。文景。取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/f70ad4f02923e4e786cbbfdfb0d1c53d
何乏筆（2010）。從權力技術到美學修養：關於傅柯理論發展的反思。哲學與文化，37（3），85-102。
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。
吳清山（2004）。學校行政（六版）。心理。
吳清山、林天祐（2005）。教育新辭書。高等教育。
李宏儒（2011）。論法國哲學家米歇爾・賽荷之「第三者」概念及其教育哲學意涵。市北教育學刊，40，167-192。
李建興（2010，7月21日）。教師工會的角色期望。財團法人國家政策研究基金會。取自http://www.npf.org.tw/post/3/7823
李真文（2008）。重新檢視教育上懲罰運用的正當性。教育實踐與研究，21（1），33-64。
李猛（2005）。傅柯與權力分析的新嘗試。載於黃瑞祺（編），再見傅柯：傅柯晚期思想新論（117-164頁）。松慧。
李雯琪（2016）。從縣市督學工作場域論其所需專業能力。彰化師大教育學報，28，1-24。
李慈純（2000）。國民小學校長遴選制度之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺中教育大學。
李慧娟（2009）。以傅科權力／知識論述評析日治時期同化教育政策。國立台中技術學院學報，10（1），17-34。
沈六與吳裕益（2008）。互動。載於教育大辭書（2008）。文景。取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/24dd86e44d12af745eb5a5b362d60824
阮明淑（2006）。概念地圖。載於圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典（2006）。漢美。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679259
周武昌（2003）。從傅柯權力理論看學校權力/知識運作。菁莪季刊，15（2），8-14。
林孟君、陳亮君、陳妙娟、王順平、許民忠、鍾明倫、洪秋瑋、陳奕嘉、葉川榮、林郡雯、江湘玲、余啟名、洪榮良、蕭憶梅、廖容辰、洪詠善、曾春英、高慧容（2012）。各國教育行政組織與學制。國家教育研究院。
林淑芬（2004）。傅柯論權力與主體。人文及社會科學集刊，16（1），117-150。
林騰蛟（2012）。國民中小學校長遴選制度評析。臺灣教育評論月刊，1（13），57-60。
邱殊勝（2002）。國民中小學校長遴選制度之研究-------以台東縣為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺東大學。
邱華君（2001）。行政倫理理論與實踐。政策研究學報，1，85-105。
姜文斌（2016）。論傅柯「人之死」的概念兼談主體解放與生命的意義。生命教育研究，8（1），1-22。
政府組織（無日期）。地方政府。中華民國總統府，2018年11月11日，取自https://www.president.gov.tw/Page/106
胡文琪、劉世閔（2012）。從Foucault複雜權力關係網絡論述高雄市校長遴選委員會之運作。臺灣教育評論月刊，1（12），24-29。
范家豪（2011）。傅柯與盧曼權力分析觀點的整合及其在國民小學行政權力策略研究之應用〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立臺南大學。
修正文書處理手冊（無日期）。文書處理手冊。行政院，2023年11月2日，取自https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/F0CD366C64B5A15C/ecb75289-a85d-45be-9fb0-0fa64c302b54
秦夢群（2006）。教育行政—理論部份。五南。
秦夢群（2010）。教育領導理論與應用。五南。
高宣揚（2004）。傅科的生存美學。五南。
張明輝（1999）。學校教育與行政革新研究。師大書苑。
張鈿富、王世英與吳舒靜（2008）。台灣「後教改時期」中小學校長生態之研究。教育資料與研究雙月刊，81，95-124。
張靜文（2009）。幼兒園親師互動研究－Foucault權力觀點之分析〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學。
張鍠焜（2000）。自我生命的樹立－傅柯與孟子倫理思想及其對現代道德教育的啟示。教育研究集刊，45，203-221。
組織架構（無日期）。臺北市政府教育局組織架構。臺北市政府教育局，2024年2月16日，取自https://www.doe.gov.taipei/cp.aspx?n=7ADFE35E698BC929
許宏儒（2011）。塞荷的教育知識論探究。當代教育研究季刊，21（1），29-81。
許雅斐、陳俊言（2008）。台灣高等教育及學費政策之研究：市場機制與公民權利。政策研究學報，8，117-146。
許銘裕（2016）臺日初等英語教育政策之比較研究－傅柯觀點〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立暨南國際大學。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。五南。
陳宏彰（2017）。跨域社會化經驗：候用校長教育局處行政實習實踐之分析與反省。當代教育研究季，25（3），1-40。
陳俞余（2012）。九年一貫課程脈絡底下之教師角色論述形構，1994-2005：Foucault的論述分析觀點。教育研究與發展月刊，8（2），119-149。
陳奎憙（1993）。教育社會學。三民。
陳雅文（2006）。個案研究法。載於圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典（2006）。漢美。取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/9fad9ac6fca8c57b0c870c6276a9f18a
陳義明（2005）。學校經營管理與領導。心理。
曾榮祥（2001）。從傅柯哲學思想省思學校行政革新。學校行政，13，12-21。
鈕文英（2006）。教育研究方法與論文寫作。雙葉書廊。
馮丰儀 （2007）。學校行政倫理理論內涵及實踐之探究。教育研究與發展期刊，3 （3），219-248。
馮丰儀 （2012）。中小學校長行政倫理議題知覺及其倫理決定影響因素之研究。臺北市立教育大學學報，43 （1），27-53。
馮美滿（2016）。以Michel Foucault權力知識理論探究今日臺灣公立國中之教育實務。教育學誌，35，145-197。
黃乃熒（1998） 。教育政策對話權力運用的研究。中學教育學報，5，165-192。
黃玉鈴、劉振寧（2021）。臺灣教育政策與政治關係分析之研究。正修通識教育學報，18，25-44。
黃光國（1988）。中國人的權力遊戲。巨流。
黃昆輝與張德銳（2008）。教育行政。載於教育大辭書（2008）。文景。取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/a82904e3121da79091f5640299778ece
黃深振（2002）。國民小學校長遴選制度探討。學校行政，22，93-101。
黃瑞祺（2000）。現代與後現代。巨流。
黃瑞祺（2003）。現學新論：後現代/後結構/後殖民。左岸文化。
楊大春（1995）。傅柯。揚智。
楊宇勛（1999）。顛覆史學與權力之眼：傅柯的知識考古學及規訓與懲罰。史耘，5，202-220。
楊采蓁（2020）。高齡者儀式化行為對其生活適應影響之研究〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立暨南國際大學。
楊深坑（1999）。知識形式與比較教育。揚智。
楊榮祥（2008）。個案研究。載於教育大辭書（2008）。文景。取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/b459cd4f0a17dcc474dd33ed497b1f24
葉乃靜（2006）。訪談法。載於圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典（2006）。漢美。取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/7e0b8322f7fcd034676ffb760f958534
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理。
潘慧玲（2004）。緒論：轉變中的教育研究觀點。載於潘慧玲（主編），教師研究的取徑—概念與應用（頁 1–34）。高等教育文化。
鄭志明（2001）。華人宗教的文化意識第一卷。中華大道文化。
鄭佩晴（2022）。一堂課的儀式感—以國小視覺藝術課為例 。臺灣教育評論月刊，11(5)，188-191。
賴俊雄（2008）。傅柯與文學。書林。
錢幼蘭（2006）。探討較長遴選委員會之權力運作。學校行政，44，43-55。
謝文全（2007）。教育行政學。高等教育。
鍾蔚起（2021）。高雄市國民中小學校長遴選制度研究。高雄市政府。取自https://research.kcg.gov.tw/upload/RelFile/Research/1316/637788055419418206.pdf
簡成熙（2020）。Foucault權力／知識論述對於自主性作為教育目的之省思－J. D. Marshall專著的檢視。教育學刊，55，1-40。
蘇峰山（1996）。傅柯對於權力之分析。載於黃瑞祺（編），歐洲社會理論（99-164頁）。中央研究院歐美研究所。
蘇進棻（2002）。從中小學校長角色任務分析談校長評鑑取向。研習資訊，19（6），34-43。
櫻井哲夫（2001）。福柯─知識與權力（姜忠蓬譯）。河北教育出版社。（原著出版年：1996）
Anderson, G. L., & Grinberg, J. (1998). Educational Administration as a Disciplinary Practice: Appropriating Foucault’s View of Power, Discourse, and Method. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 329-353.
Angus, L. (1996). Cultural dynamics and organizational analysis Leadership, administration, and the management of meaning in schools. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & a. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 967-996). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Educational reform: A critical and post- structural approach. Open University Press.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Management as moral technology: A Luddite analysis. In S. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and Education: Discipline and knowledge (pp. 153-166). Routledge.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives: Modernity and its outcasts. Polity Press.
Bazzul, J., & Carter, L. (2017). (Re)considering Foucault for science education research: considerations of truth, power and governance. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 435-452.
Bernauer, J. W. & Mahon, M. (1994) . The Ethics of Michel Foucault. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Foucault (pp. 141-158). Cambridge University Press.
Biesta, G. (1995, April 18-22). From manipulation to communication: Communicative pedagogy and the postmodern crisis of the subject. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Blount, J. M. (1994). One postmodernist perspective on educational leadership. Ain’t I a leader? In S. J. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership: Meeting the crisis in educational administration (pp. 47-60). Praeger.
Bourke, T., & Lidstone, J. (2015). What is Plan B? Using Foucault's archaeology to enhance policy analysis. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(6), 1-21.
Bowdridge, M., & Blenkinsop, S. (2011). Michael Foucault goes outside: Discipline and control in the practice of outdoor education. Journal of experiential Education, 34(2), 149-163.
Bown, K. (2014). Insider perspectives on influence and decision making in the Australian political sphere: A case study of national quality policy in ECEC 2006-09. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 54-63.
Burchell, G. (1996). Liberal Governmentalities and Technologies of the Self. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of Government (pp. 19-36). UCL Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral science, 2(3), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303
De Certeau, M (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life (S. Rendall, Trans.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1980)
Donald. F. B. (Ed.). (1977). Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected essays and Interview by Michel Foucault. Cornell University Press.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement and their correlates. The Free Press.
Farrell. F, Duckworth. V, Reece, M., & Rigby, P. (2017). The moral frontiers of English education policy: governmentality and ethics within an alternative provision free school. Educational review, 69 (3), 349-365.
Fendler, L. (2010). Michael Foucault. Bloomsbury.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x
Foucault, M (1984). Truth and Power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.). The Foucault Reader (pp. 51-75). Pantheon Books。
Foucault, M (1987). Maurice Blanchot: The Thought from Outside. (B. Massumi Trans.). Zone Books. (Original work published 1986)
Foucault, M. (1972a). The Archaeology of Knowledge. (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)
Foucault, M. (1972b). The Discourse on Language. (R. Swyer, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. (A. Sheridan Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1975)
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. (R. Hurley Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1976)
Foucault, M. (1980a). The Eye of Power (C. Gordon., L. Marshall., J. Mepham & K. Soper, Trans.). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power / Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972~1977 (pp. 146-165). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1977)
Foucault, M. (1980b). Two Lectures. (C. Gordon., L. Marshall., J. Mepham & K. Soper, Trans.). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power / Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972~1977 (pp. 78-108). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1977)
Foucault, M. (1983). The Subject and Power. In Hubert L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 208-226). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1982)
Foucault, M. (1988a). Politics, philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings, 1977-1984. (L. Kritzman Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1988)
Foucault, M. (1988b). Technologies of the Self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michael Foucault (pp.16-49). University of Massachusetts Press.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 87-104). The University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. (1997). The ethics of concern for self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics, subjectivity and truth (pp. 281-302). The New Press.
Foucault, M. (2003). Governmentality. In E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie, & G. Hughes (Eds.), Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings (pp. 456-466). Sage Publications.
Foucault, M. (2007). What is critique? (L.Hochroth Trans.). In S. Lotringer (Ed.), The politics of truth (pp.41-81). Semiotext(e). (Original work published 1978)
Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics at the Collège de France, 1978-1979 (G. Burchell Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Fraser, N. (1981). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative confusions. Praxis International, 3, 272-287.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Institute for Social Research.
Gavin, K., & Gary, M. W. (1999). Using Foucault’s Methods. Sage.
Gillies, D. (2013). Educational Leadership and Michel Foucault. Routledge.
Gobby, B. (2016). Putting “the system” into a school autonomy reform: the case of the independent Public Schools program. Discourse: Studies in the cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 16-29.
Greig, C. J., & Holloway, S. M. (2016). A Foucauldian analysis of literary text selection practices and educational policies in Ontario, Canada. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 37(3), 397-410.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
Gutting, G. (2005). Foucault: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). The philosophical Discourse of Modernity (F. G. Lawerence, Tran.). Halliday Lithograph. (Original work published 1985)
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Teachers College Press.
Heilker, P. (1994). Discipline and punish and process and paradigms (or Foucault, visibility, [dis]empowerment, and the construction of composition studies). Composition studies, 22(1), 4-13.
Hoy, D. C. & McCarthy, T. (1994). Critical theory. Blackwell.
Jean, C. (2001). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. Sage.
Jones, D. (1990). The genealogy of the urban school teacher. In S. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and Education: Disciplines and knowledge (pp.57-77). Routledge.
Knight, J., Smith, R., & Sachs, J. (1990). Deconstructing hegemony; Multicultural policy and a populist response. In S. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and Education: Disciplines and knowledge (pp.133-152). Routledge.
Labaree, D. F. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: A genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 123-154.
Leone, S., Warnimont, C., & Zimmerman, J. (2009). New roles for the principal of the future. American Secondary Education, 37 (2), 86-96.
Luke, A. (1992). The body literate: discourse and inscription in early literacy training. Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 107-129.
Marshall, J. D. (1996). Michael Foucault: Personal autonomy and education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marshall, J. D. (1998). Michael Foucault. In M. Peters (Ed.), Naming the Multiple: poststructuralism and education (pp. 65-83). Bloomsbury Academic.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row Publishers.
Maxcy, S. J. (1991). Educational leadership: A critical pragmatic perspective. Praeger.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey- Bass.
Mitchell, D. (2009). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. Sage.
Niesche, R. (2015). Governmentality and My School: School Principals in Society of Control. Educational Philosophy and theory, 47(2), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.793925
Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of political power. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107(3), 232-262.
Popkewitz, T., & Brennan, M. (1994). Certification to credentialing: Reconstituting control mechanisms in teacher education. In K. Borman & N. Greenman (Eds.), Changing American education: Recapturing the past or inventing the future (pp. 32-70). State University of New York Press.
Rabinow, P. (Ed.). (1984). The Foucault Reader. Pantheon Books.
Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 445-462). Sage.
Roberts-Homes, G., & Bradbury, A. (2016). Governance, accountability and the datafication of early years education in England. British educational research Journal, 42(4), 600-613. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3221
Rose, N. (1996a). Governing advanced liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government (pp. 37-64). UCL Press.
Rose, N. (1996b). Inventing ourselves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge University Press.
Rusch, E. (1992, April). Strategic planning: Looking through the lens of Foucault. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Ryan, J. (1991). Observing and normalizing Foucault, discipline, and inequality in schooling. Journal of Educational thought, 25(2), 104-119.
Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Policy archeology: a new policy studies methodology. Journal of educational policy, 9(4), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093940090402
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). Leadership: What’s in it for school. Routledge-Falmer.
Shenker, S. S. (2008). Applying Foucault’s “Archaeology” to the education of school counselors. Educational studies, 44, 22-29.
SocioPhilosohpy. (2012, April 20). Foucault: The Culture of the Self, part 1 of 5 〔Video〕. Youtube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/umi43Ho-I24
Spohrer, K. (2016). Negotiating and contesting 'Success': Discourses of aspiration in a UK secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(3), 411-425.
Stickney, J. (2009). Casting into education reforms and regimes of inspection: Resistance to normalization through self-governance. In M. A. Peters, A. C. Besley, M. Olssen, S. Maurer & S. Weber (Eds.), Governmentality studies in education (pp. 235-256). Sense Publishers.
Tania, M. L. (2007). Governmentality. Anthropologica, 49 (2), 275-281.
Tavares, H. (1996). Classroom management and subjectivity: A genealogy of educational identities. Educational theory, 46(2), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1996.00189.x
Taylor, C. (1984). Foucault on Freedom and Truth. Political Theory, 12(2), 152-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591784012002002
Taylor, C. (1991). The Ethics of Authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Theisens, H., Hooge, E., & Waslander, S. (2016). Steering Dynamics in Complex education systems: An agenda for empirical research. European Journal of Education, 51(4), 463-477.
Waslander, S., Hooge, E., & Drewes, T. (2016). Steering dynamics in the Dutch education system. European Journal of Education, 51(4), 478-494.
Webb, C. (1999). Analyzing qualitative data: computerized and other approaches. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29 (2), 323-330. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00892.x
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press.
Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators' roles in novice teacher induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39-62.