Introduction
Principal leadership behaviors and practices have interested researchers of educational leadership and administration for nearly 50 years (e.g., Bridges, 1967; Camburn, Spillane, & Sebastian, 2010; Day, Sammons, Leithwood, Hopkins, Harris, Gu, & Brown, 2010; Dwyer, Lee, Rowan, & Bossert, 1983; Eberts & Stone, 1988; Hemphill, Richards, & Peterson, 1965; Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010; Kmetz & Willower, 1982; Martinko & Gardner, 1990; Martin & Willower, 1981; Peterson, 1977; Wolcott, 1973). Within this context, a line of research on how principals use their time in school has also emerged over the last four decades in particular (e.g., Chung & Miskel, 1989; Goldring, Huff, May, & Camburn, 2008; Grissom, Leob, & Master, 2013; Horng et al., 2010; Kmetz & Willower, 1982; Lee & Hallinger, 2012; Martin & Willower, 1981; Martinko & Gardner, 1990; May & Supovitz, 2011; Shin & Slater, 2010; Spillane & Hunt, 2010; Ten Bruggencate & Luyten, 2010; Wolcott, 1973), although early research on principal time use can be traced further back to the early 20th century (see Hochbein et al.'s chapter in this book).
What we know from the literature, mostly conducted in north American contexts, is that principalsā work time in school has continuously increased over the last decades (see McPeake, 2007; Pollock, 2016). Some anecdotal evidence suggests that this pattern may also hold true in non-Western contexts (e.g., Cheng & Szeto, 2016; see also Oplatka's chapter in this book). It appears that there is āso much to do, so little timeā in principalsā work lives. To capture the changing nature and volume of principalsā time use, various methods in terms of data collection and analytical strategies have been developed. Researchers have employed a variety of methods to document how principals spend their time in order to improve their organizations. These include observed work activity analysis (e.g., Kmetz & Willower, 1982; Martin & Willower, 1981), structured observation and reflective interviews (e.g., Dwyer et al., 1983; Martinko & Gardner, 1990), cluster analysis of self-report activity log data (e.g., Goldring et al., 2008), quantitative analysis of combined self-report activity log data and teacher surveys (e.g., May & Supovitz, 2011), ethnography (e.g., Wolcott, 1973), and cluster analysis from an experience sampling method (ESM) log, coupled with data from interviews, observations, and quantitative survey questionnaires (e.g., Spillane & Hunt, 2010), and using large international assessment data (e.g., Lee & Hallinger, 2012; Lee, Ryoo, & Walker, 2021; Shin & Slater, 2010; Ten Bruggencate & Luyten, 2010). All these diverse approaches have their own strengths, limitations, and trade-offs, in that single measurement and analysis is often incomplete (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). Given that those methodological issues are discussed in depth in the following three chapters (Rowan's chapter, Camburn and Sebastian's chapter, and Hochbein et al.'s chapter), in this chapter I review theoretical issues, leadership domains, and future directions of research on principal time use.
Theoretical perspectives of time use research
Theoretical discussions on principal time use are thin on the ground. There are only a few articles that explicitly discuss theoretical issues in principal time use research (e.g., Eacott, 2018). This is surprising given that principal time use reflects principalsā goal and task prioritization and, therefore, constitutes a fundamental dimension of principal leadership (Dwyer et al., 1983; Goldring et al., 2008; Silins & Mulford, 2010). However, beyond the school leadership literature, researchers in the social sciences have long explored time use of people theoretically and empirically in various social dimensions and systems. According to Bauman, Bittman, and Gershuny (2019), the origin of time-diary studies dates back to the 19th century in Russia. These early time-diary studies monitored peasant households with a focus on peasant work. Since then, more systematic approaches to time use research had been conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom during the 20th century. Notably, Taylor's (1911) work āThe Principles of Scientific Managementā shaped the dominant trend of time use research during the last century. Based on positivism, Taylor viewed time as a quantifiable, linear, and universal unit of analysis. This research tradition (i.e., researching time as āclock timeā) has been dominant in Western contexts. For example, the contemporary research on time use adopting (post)positivistic research approaches utilizes large survey data such as American Time Use Survey and Australia's Time Use Survey.
At the same time, a diverging epistemological perspective has emerged over the last three decades. Some social scientists (particularly, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, education researchers) have paid more attention to understanding how people āperceive and experienceā time rather than quantifying how people spend and allocate their time. In other words, researchers have focused on interpretative dimensions of time, because people can perceive and experience time differently due to the socio-cultural contexts within which they are situated. This research approach highlights that time is socially constructed. Therefore, it emphasizes understanding āsubjective and diverse temporal experiences that clock time cannot captureā (Duncheon & Tierney, 2013, p. 248). This line of research, in general, camped in social constructivism and/or critical realism, is critical of post-positivistic research approaches to time use. For example, Eacott (2018) points out that clock time should not be the only version of time research. He suggests that focusing on temporality is another way to shed light on time use research, particularly in education research. He also criticizes that research exploring clock time as units of analysis is a case of the commodification of time, given that such research is in line with the capitalist project of economic productivity. Eacott's concern for the dominant time use research has a point, given that most researchers in time use research rely largely on clock time. At the same time, however, his criticism of the commodification of time aligned to capitalist, economic productivity can be trapped in a pitfall that overlooks the contribution of post-positivistic approaches to time use research. Indeed, a body of education research based on the idea of clock time has systematically explored how principals and teachers strive for (1) improving learning outcomes of all students through their time use and allocation (e.g., Gentilucci & Muto, 2007; Robinson & Aronica, 2015), (2) school improvement issues with a focus on educational equity for disadvantaged student groups (e.g., Nettles & Herrington, 2007), and (3) student well-being and sense of belonging to school (e.g., Astor, Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009; Lee et al., 2021). The wholesale criticism of research using clock time can risk misleading to a fallacious dichotomy. Simply dismissing time use research adopting clock time as (neo-)Taylorism (see Eacott, 2018) is counterproductive and counterintuitive because clock time as a lens captures complex temporal structures and quantities where meanings...
