Leadership in Australian arts organisations: A shared experience?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on an exploratory and qualitative study of leadership in Australian arts organisations. Despite the large amount of research into leadership available in academic journals, little relates to leaders of the many organisations devoted to the arts. The few studies which do exist suggest that leadership in these organisations is often shared by an artistic director and a general manager. Arts literature suggests that these leaders work together to cope with the tension faced in arts organisations between the need to be creative, while at the same time complying with accepted management practices. The general view suggests that the artistic director should be the dominant partner. This study finds that shared leadership is common in arts organisations. However, the leaders may be a partnership of two - the artistic director and the general manager, as expected - but in large organisations there is likely to be a team of three or more people, similar to an executive team in other large organisations. Leadership by a single individual occurs in a minority of cases. The study also finds that the artistic director is not always dominant when working in partnership with a general manager.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".