Theory development methodology process: Transformational leadership model for academic nurse leaders in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the article was to develop a transformational leadership model for academic nurse leaders in the nursing education institutions through theory development methodology process. This study emanated from objectives that were set into two phases whereby phase one formulated to enable the identification and classification of concepts in relation to transformational leadership of academic nurse leaders and phase two to develop and describe a model for transformational leadership for nursing education leaders in the Nursing Education Institutions.Methods: An overarching theory generative design was adopted, in qualitative, quantitative, exploratory, descriptive and contextual nature. The theory generative design provided an understanding of the phenomenon of transformational leadership model development for academic nurse leaders in nursing education institutions. The research methods followed the strategy of theory development using concept, identification and classification, data collection methods and procedures, data analysis methods and processes to ensure the trustworthiness of the study, concept description and critical reflection of the model. The study was conducted at nursing education institutions from four Provinces of South Africa, namely, Gauteng, KwaZulu Natal, Free State, and Northwest.Results: A visual structure was constructed after main and associated concepts were identified to give the researcher a diagram that relates to the process and structure for the incorporation of academic nurse leaders. The structure of the model was developed and gave an account of the content conceptually classified. There were four structural forms, which to convey hierarchical relations, differentiation, overlapping areas, and polarity and continuity. The structured model formed the conceptual relationships within the model and thereafter, emerged from relationships within the model, which included central elements of the model and consists of concepts, statements and relationships between concepts. The concepts addressed were agent (transformational leadership), recipient (followers), context (nursing education institution), procedure (transformational leadership), terminus/goal (empowerment) and dynamic (collaboration and partnership).Conclusions: This article described the research design and method employed to develop a model for transformational leadership for nursing education leaders. A theory development, descriptive, exploratory, contextual, qualitative and quantitative research design in nature was described. The research objectives were formulated in two phases to enable exploration, identification, and definition of concepts (phase 1) and for model development (phase 2). Data collected though individual interviews for college principals and focus group interviews for vice-principals and subject heads and questionnaires for lecturers, students and administrative staff. Information regarding the sample size and number of participants the data collection method was discussed. The instrument used in this research including its reliability and validity, discussed in detail. Finally, the data analysis of qualitative and quantitative research methodology was highlighted.
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 | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".