Superintendent Leadership Style: A Gendered Discourse Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a blend of social constructionism, critical feminism, and dialogue theory, the discourse of nine Manitoba superintendents is examined to determine if it illustrates particular gendered assumptions regarding superintendents' leadership style. Qualitative inquiry and analysis methods were utilized to identify emerging themes, or topics of talk. Six topics of talk emerged in the discourse regarding leadership style. Since "talk is a form of social action worthy of study in itself" (Chase, 1995, p. 25), each of these topics was analyzed to illustrate how men and women in the superintendency in Manitoba negotiate a gendered social action when they talk about leadership. Introduction Discussions regarding gender and the superintendency inevitably begin by recognizing the persistence of the disproportionately low representation of women in the superintendency (Brunner, 2004; Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000; Grogan, 2000; Reynolds, 2002; Skrla, 2003; Wallin, 2005). This finding is reflected noticeably in Manitoba, Canada where, during the 2004-2005 school year, only 5 of the 37 public school division chief superintendents were women. Bryant (2004) illustrated this situation by making three points regarding the Manitoba context: (a) since 2001 at the University of Manitoba alone, 66% of the graduates with a Masters in Educational Administration were women; (b) 65% of the teaching staff in Manitoba are women; and (c) 45% of inschool administrators are women. There is no lack of qualified females in the profession to warrant a low representation in the superintendency.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".