As a member of the Leadership Connected editorial team, I first became acquainted with David through my own studies in further and lifelong educational leadership at UCL’s IOE. This conversation grew from our shared interest in the relationship between research, professional practice, and educational leadership.
What does it mean to lead ethically and effectively in education today? For Associate Professor David Godfrey, leadership is neither top-down nor technocratic — it’s reflective, inherently relational, and systemic in nature.
Speaking from UCL’s world respected Centre for Educational Leadership, Godfrey shares insights from a career rooted in both practice and inquiry.
“Leadership isn’t just about solving problems,” he reflects. “It’s about creating the conditions for collective thinking — spaces where improvement is possible, not prescribed.”
From Sixth Form to Systems Thinking
Godfrey’s career journey into educational research began in a sixth form college, where he pioneered one of the UK’s first “research-engaged schools.” “I led an action research programme, developed an in-house journal, and hosted annual conferences,” he explains. “Eventually, I realised I wanted to take that work further, beyond the boundaries of a single institution.”
That desire led to a PhD at UCL’s IOE, where he increasingly focused on evidence-informed practice. “Extrinsic motivation won’t sustain a doctorate,” he cautions. “You need to be captivated by the research topic. For me, it was understanding how practitioners can become researchers in their own right — how they generate, not just consume, knowledge.”
His reflections echo Schön’s (1983) notion of the “reflective practitioner” and build on Stenhouse’s (1975) vision of teachers as curriculum researchers. “It’s not just about applying evidence,” Godfrey says. “It’s about theorising your own practice, understanding context, and making that knowledge communicable to others.”
The Messy Reality of Research Application
Why, then, does research often fail to influence practice? Godfrey doesn’t flinch. “Time. Confidence. Access. We know teachers are enthusiastic, but structural barriers prevent deeper engagement.” He points to recent international studies that show teachers lack both access to research and the professional development to interpret it meaningfully (Cain, 2015; OECD, 2021).
But the challenge is rather more complex. “Even when evidence is clear, it doesn’t always change behaviour,” he says, citing the widespread, and research-discredited, practice of setting pupils by ability. “Common sense narratives often win out over research. Teachers feel differentiation in mixed-ability classrooms is overwhelming. Parents support streaming. It’s not irrational — it’s just human.”
On this, Godfrey aligns with the likes of Biesta (2007), who disapproved of reducing educational research to technical application. “Practitioners aren’t robots. Teaching is a moral and intellectual act — not a formula to follow.”
Data, AI, and the Limits of Technocracy
Asked about the shift toward data-driven leadership and the growing role of AI, Godfrey is both optimistic and wary. “There’s potential for time-saving, sure. But let’s not pretend AI will automatically reduce workload. Like email, it might just increase expectations.”
He worries that AI tools risk eroding the human relationships at the heart of education. “If AI sets the homework and AI marks it — where is the teacher in that? Do they even know their students anymore?”
Instead, he advocates for a blended model — where big data, practitioner expertise, and contextual judgement work together. “Randomised control trials (RCTs) tell us something,” he says, “but so do interviews, case studies, and teachers’ own inquiry. Research can’t dictate action. It has to inform judgement.”
Connecting People and Perspectives
This ethos underpins Godfrey’s work on a digital magazine and community which he launched to bridge gaps in practice and research. “It started as a newsletter during the COVID lockdowns. But I realised we could do more — connect master’s degree and doctoral students, practitioners, and global thought leaders. The title says it all, he says assuredly: Leadership Connected.
Recent articles in the magazine have explored education in conflict zones, the leadership of refugee support, and teacher wellbeing across systems. “Leadership can’t be understood in isolation. Our aim is to create a space where educational leadership is contextualised — not abstracted — and connected to wider social change.”
At Its Heart
“Leadership is relational. Research is relational. Schools are relational,” Godfrey concludes. “If we want to build better systems, we have to start by listening — across disciplines, sectors, and borders. That’s what I hope the Leadership Connected community can keep on doing.”
References
Biesta, G. J. J. (2007) ‘Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research’, Educational Theory, 57(1), pp. 1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x.
Cain, T. (2015) ‘Teachers’ engagement with published research: addressing the knowledge problem’, The Curriculum Journal, 26(3), pp. 488–509.
OECD (2021) Teachers Getting the Best out of Their Students: From Primary to Upper Secondary Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/5bc5cd4e-en.
Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
Leave a Reply