Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the connections between the principles of a culture of peace and leadership education. It argues that leadership should be informed by the values of a culture of peace. This, in turn, compels leadership education to teach mindsets, values and competencies aligned with a culture of peace. Design/methodology/approach The paper explores the evolution of leadership theory within the context of an increasingly complex world. It then uses United Nations materials to identify principles for a culture of peace as it is now widely acknowledged by the world community. Identifying correspondence between both theoretical realms the paper identifies peace leadership education goals that are supported by established peace organizations and by philosophical and psychological scholarship. Findings The paper establishes a direct link between the values of a culture of peace and leadership that is adequate as well as successful to address the complexity of today’s world. It also identifies key principles that need to be adopted by leadership education to prepare students to become effective leaders. The paper also explores essential educational tools for leadership educators. Practical implications The theoretical framework presented in this paper can be used to adjust leadership education to give practical guidance for aspiring leaders. It is also useful for peace and conflict studies programmes interested in developing peace leaders. Originality/value The interrelationship between leadership studies and peace and conflict studies constitutes a new field of academic inquiry. The present paper is one of the first in the field and is intended to further establish this new disciplinary orientation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".