Serendipitous Pathways and Elusive Definitions: Leadership in Continuing Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) field has rapidly expanded in scope, breadth, and depth, there is a gap in how we understand CPD leadership and the role of the leader. Previous scholarship indicates that there is neither an agreed on set of competencies for CPD leadership roles nor a distinct pathway towards those roles. This study is aimed at answering the following question: How is leadership described or defined in CPD and what are the contextual issues that are and/or should be shaping its evolution? METHODS: Conducted between 2020 and 2022, CPD leadership program learners and CPD leaders with a range of leadership expertise were identified using convenience and purposive sampling and invited to participate in this study. Semistructured interviews were conducted with consenting participants. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a qualitative thematic template analysis approach. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted. There were multiple components identified that were important to CPD leadership, such as being visionary, or having strong collaboration skills with some components, such as adaptability and flexibility appearing more unique to the CPD context. The role of CPD leadership and the pathway to CPD leadership remain highly variable. DISCUSSION: Attaining a CPD leadership position predominantly involves some degree of "serendipity." While CPD leaders may fundamentally need basic and common leadership skills, an essential attribute of the CPD leader is to effectively respond to the context and the unique needs of the health system. We recommend better articulating and valuing the role of the CPD leader within the health system.
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 | 0.024 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".