An ethic of care in relation to leadership style and women heads of independent girls' schools in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I speculated at the outset of this research that the Human Resource frame would be most consistent with leadership practice guided by an ethic of care. The findings, however, indicate that while all the participants were caring in their practice as defined by Shogan, they were divided almost equally in their dominant use of the Human Resource and Structural frames. A further analysis of the care and leadership data, however, revealed that, without exception, those who resolved dilemmas using direct care also favoured the Human Resource leadership frame. Those who used dutiful care, sometimes equated with an ethic of justice, favoured the Structural frame. While the pattern of findings is provocative, this is a very small sample that does not allow for generalizations beyond this group. A meaningful next step would be a more in-depth look at the ethical practice of one or more women heads of school. The purpose of this study was to document the experiences of ten women heads of independent girls' schools in Canada for evidence of an ethic of care, as defined by Shogan (1988), as they reflected on how they resolved dilemmas. It is inquiry undertaken from the standpoint of women, and was designed to add to the limited knowledge base that addresses the feminine strand of relational leadership. An ethic of care is a fundamental attribute of the feminine strand of relational leadership. The selection of women, as the participants for this research, is based on a body of empirical research which suggests that women often cite reasons associated with an ethic of care or relations in support of their moral positions. While there is much to suggest that the context of independent girls' schools would be supportive of an ethic of care, there is also research that suggests that there are broader pressures or contradictions within a culture or context that create a paradox for women who may want to practice an ethic of care. Bolman and Deal's (1992) typology of leadership provided the framework needed to take into consideration the impact on practice of the independent school context.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".