Abstract
There is an intimate interconnectivity between policy guidelines defining reform and the delineation of what research methods would be subsequently applied to determine reform success. Research is guided as much by the metaphors describing it as by the ensuing empirical definition of actions of results obtained from it. In a call for different reform policy metaphors Lumby and English (2010) note, “The primary responsibility for the parlous state of education... lies with the policy makers that have racked our schools with reductive and dehumanizing processes, following the metaphors of market efficiency, and leadership models based on accounting and the characteristics of machine bureaucracy” (p. 127)