Positioning oneself for leadership: feelings of vulnerability among aspirant school principals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research context for this article is the difficulty being experienced by a number of school systems, especially in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia, in recruiting principals. In our discussion we draw on preliminary findings from ongoing research into the experiences of a cohort of aspiring primary and secondary school principals. Our data comprise the electronic journal (E‐journal) entries of the 21 aspirants. We characterize the E‐journal reflections as identity narratives in which the aspirants are able to explore a range of feelings, challenges and uncertainties associated with the possibility of future principal role incumbency. The significance of these E‐journalling narratives, therefore, is that they provide aspirants with an opportunity, through semi‐private reflection, to begin positioning themselves for leadership. For this reason we articulate the idea of ‘positioning space’, a supportive holding environment which facilitates the exploration of potential and possible selves and we explore some properties and protocols associated with occupancy of this space.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".