MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340604655

Women in Educational Leadership:: conceptualizing gendered perceptions in Tanzanian schools

2014· article· en· W2340604655 on OpenAlexaff
Ndenisa Mollel, Icarbord Tshabangu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEducational leadershipTanzaniaPerceptionNonprobability samplingPedagogyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologySociologySocioeconomicsPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though evidence suggests that the proportion of women in management is increasing, doubts and prejudice regarding women’s leadership skills and ability still exist. The emergence of several initiatives in Tanzania such as the Women Education and Development (WED) organ in the early 1980s, whose main goal was to enhance gender equity in education have given rise to improved numbers of women in higher education and access to resources. However, such progress has not fully translated into future professional work settings, especially in areas such as educational leadership. The study examined existing perceptions on 20 women heads of schools in Tanzania and the effects this may have on their leadership. Twenty schools led by female principals were identified through purposive sampling and 6 teachers per school also participated. Two set of semi-structured questionnaire were administered, one targeting school principals and the other was for teachers. The evidence suggests that women leadership in schools faced opposition from paternalistic cultures as leadership was still seen in masculine terms. Perceptions still abound that women lack leadership skills. The study advanced a view that the valuing of diversity of leadership particularly gender inclusivity, was critical in educational organizations if a nation hoped to be successful in its developmental vision and goals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.101 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207