What’s the fuss? Gender and academic leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women continue to be disproportionately represented in top leadership positions. Leadership development programs typically focus on skills attainment. The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions and experiences of academic leaders in order to inform how leadership development programs may more effectively address the gender gap in leadership. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A sequential mixed methods study design was used. Participants completed the Leadership Practice Inventory ®(LPI) survey followed by individual interviews of a subset of participants. The survey results were analyzed and compared by gender using the t-test. Thematic analysis was used to compare themes across and between genders. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated in the final analysis. FINDINGS: In total, 65 leaders (38 women; 27 men) (37.7 percent response rate) participated in the survey. There were no significant demographic or statistical differences between women and men on any of the LPI® components. Five women and five men were interviewed. Thematic analysis revealed common leadership aspirations and values. Gender differences were noted in leadership attainment, mentorship and the influence of gender on leadership. While the male narratives reflected cognitive awareness of gender inequities, the female narratives also included lived experiences. Male participants focused on the importance of meritocracy whereas the female participants emphasized the gendered social and structural influences on leadership attainment. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Leadership development programs need go beyond generic "skills-building" in order to conceptualize leadership within a gendered social context. This framework will enable critical awareness and tools for developing both women and men's fullest leadership potential. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study was conducted in order to better understand how academic health leaders experience the intersection of gender and leadership. The findings contribute to the current literature by providing insight into perceptual gaps that exist at the level of practice between women and men leaders. In doing so, the authors discuss how leadership development programs may play a more effective role in addressing gender equity in leadership.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".