Academic Leadership Development for Black and Latinx Faculty: Program Refinements and Participant Change Over Time in a Mixed‐Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in academic leadership is rare; robust leadership development efforts are required to move the ranks of faculty of color into the roles of department chairs, deans, and provosts. This study describes a 6‐month leadership development program and evaluation data that focused on Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx faculty. Both quantitative data and qualitative data were obtained. Participants were also asked the frequency with which they practiced leadership behaviors. Our qualitative data were obtained at post‐program and during the 6‐month follow‐up interviews. Increases in confidence were found in organizational dynamics and personal and professional leadership skills. Participants' postevaluation of the program was overall very positive, indicating that increases in self‐awareness, the development of specific leadership skills, and learning from university leaders were viewed as the most effective elements of the program. Six‐month follow‐up interviews revealed that most participants had moved into or were considering moving into a leadership position. Each interviewee articulated elements of the program that they carried with them after program completion toward their leadership goals, which included focusing on strengths in self and others, understanding how the university works, being better prepared for leadership roles and working with diverse groups, and stronger feelings of confidence and feeling deserving of a position of leadership. Recognition of the need to intentionally promote faculty of color into leadership training programs, and eventually into positions of leadership, will be key to moving the needle to change the face of academic leadership for the future.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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".