The main question of the present research was theorizing controversies and their reason in educational administration studies. The search for the answer to this question was done by genealogical method. In the present thesis, an attempt was made to investigate the end and method of theorizing and its supposed reasons as the two main topics of discussion in this controversy, by Foucaultian genealogy. Following the search for the roots, this study led to the discovery of the sources of theorizing, including scientific power and governmentality, three conflicting discourses of theorizing, and two major ruptures in the theorizing process of educational administration studies. The discourses were identified and divided into three categories: “conventionalism”, “sanctification of science” and “evolution”, and the ruptures were categorized as “methodological rupture” and “teleological rupture”. According to the findings of this study, it can be concluded that educational administration studies are on the one hand considered by experts in the fields of education and social sciences, and on the other hand, are favored by politicians and rulers as a political tool for governments. Contrary to the claims of many competing theories, the emergence of theory in educational administration studies in its global origin has been a tool of political governance rather than seeking to achieve ideal goals such as awareness, welfare, educational justice, democracy, freedom and education. Following the expansion of colonial territories in the European and American governments, facing the huge population of colonized countries such as India and China and the ineffectiveness of previous models of governance, technological tools of discipline from authoritarian and force-based governance are changed to governance based on the education and training of individuals in accordance with the demands of the ruler systems. In other words, according to the conflicting discourses and double ruptures, theorizing in educational administration studies from Foucault’s point of view as a technology of discipline in the modern era, where it has followed political purposes, has had no advantage for this field of study, and every theory with a new claim has increased the ambiguity and confusion in its theoretical nature.

Keywords