International Curriculum and Conceptual Approaches to Doctoral Programs in Leadership Studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aim/Purpose: This study explores the various teaching and learning approaches, curriculum design, and program requirements for 70 doctoral programs in leadership. Background: Early research indicates that few studies have addressed learner-centred and process-based approaches to leadership studies among doctoral programs in leadership worldwide. This study is the first complete review of programs in the interdisciplinary field of leadership. Methodology: A qualitative method approach through internet-mediated research was employed to identify explicit and implicit textual data on learning approaches of doctoral programs in leadership. The sample represents a list of 70 doctoral programs in leadership studies and organisational leadership (62 programs are in the United States and eight in Europe, Canada, Philippines, and South Africa). Contribution: This study provides an overview of doctoral program characteristics, delivery methods, coursework and research requirements, discipline-relevant teaching and learning approaches, and process-based approach to leadership. It may serve as a resource and a roadmap to assess teaching and learning approaches of doctoral programs in leadership for program reviews and improvement. Findings: The significant findings of this study are: (a) 91.4% of doctoral programs are coursework-driven, leaving little room for original research. (b) 46% of programs show lack of evidence to context-based approaches to learning (learning as a social activity served outside of classroom environment where learning tools and the context intersect with human interactions). (c) Various teaching and learning approaches, including those prescribed to constructivist, interactionist, situated, and action-based learning approaches. Recommendations for Practitioners: Leadership cannot be understood or learned without social interactions in context. In order to produce experts and “stewards of the field,” a clearer learner-centred strategy to doctoral education, including context-based experiences, should be considered. This pedagogical approach needs to be explicitly articulated (on the public website) to enable students to make an informed decision about doctoral programs in leadership. Recommendation for Researchers: In order to produce theoreticians and “stewards of the discipline” (Golde & Walker, 2006), doctoral curricula design and implementation should seek a balance between coursework, independent research, and creation of collaborative learning environment between students and faculty. Further, due to the shift from the leader-centred to the process-based understanding of leadership, doctoral programs in leadership should consider the relationship process between leaders and followers as one academic inquiry or continuum. Impact on Society: Doctoral programs in leadership that utilise more learner-centred and context-based approaches for knowledge acquisition (epistemologies) as well as studying the leadership phenomenon as a relationship process are more likely to become more impactful and sustainable in society. Future Research: More research seems necessary to identify the extent to which learner-centred approaches within doctoral programs in leadership positively impact on doctoral students’ motivation for learning, program completion, retention, and personal and professional development.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».