Conceptualization of Calling: A Grounded Theory Exploration of CCCU Women Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This grounded theory study provides a conceptualization of the role of calling in women's leadership development based on semistructured interviews with 16 female leaders in the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. Centered in the participants knowing and using their unique talents and strengths, which were often viewed as being clues to God's plan for their lives, the participants conceptualized calling along two dimensions: internal-external and specific-general. Internal-external refers to sources of validation from which women experienced confirmation for their giftedness. Specific-general refers to whether calling was viewed as pointing to a well-defined task or was a generalized way of being, incorporating a sense of purpose or direction. Coding of participant interviews into dominant themes revealed aspects of each dimension, with participants’ awareness of calling being enlarged or potentially constricted based on four contextual factors: theological influences, family realities, cultural expectations, and life circumstances. This article connects existing research about calling, leadership, and motivation, and provides a model that emerged from the current research that contributes to the literature about women's leadership development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".