This preliminary study asked,“Who’s the most exceptional living scholar in the field of educational leadership?”Four scholar-practitioners who were the most frequently nominated by fellow academics from 2002 to 2003 were identified. The reasonsgiven by nominators for their selections were analyzed, resulting in criteria that can be used for characterizing exceptionalscholarship at this time or pursuing a more comprehensive study. The criteria—significant and broad impact on scholarship and the field, national spheres of public influence, and mentoring andmulti-authoring systems—appear in table form, complete with representative quotes. Importantly, issues of context and tensionare raised as different perspectives were offered on the survey question itself from both voting and non-voting respondents.
On the one hand, a survey respondent commented,
I realize the impossible task of selecting the greatest living scholar in our field.
Some are naturalistic methodologists rather than mainstream educational administration scholars, while othersapproach scholarship with very narrow or very broad perspectives.
On the other hand, another declared,
Some scholars do stand out. There is one who I think is simply the greatest“mover‘n’shaker”in the profession. This individual has done more than any to shape thedirection of the field—his work is widely read by both scholars and practitioners, and his contributions to educational leadership arewidely recognized.
Introduction
For this study, academics in educational leadership and administration were asked,“Who’s the most exceptional living scholar in the field of educational leadership?”The respondents (university faculty constituents) were encouraged to provide an explanation for their votes. The focus here is on theperceptions of nominators relative to outstanding scholarship in educational leadership. Not only the“who,”but particularly the“why,”served as the guiding framework for this analysis. Throughout this survey research spanning 2002 to 2003, fourscholar-practitioners in particular were most frequently nominated, leading to their eventual identification. The reasons given bynominators for their selections were analyzed, resulting in criteria that are discussed here; these can be used forcharacterizing exceptional scholarship at this time or pursuing a more comprehensive study. The criteria—significant and broad impact on scholarship and the field, national spheres of public influence,and mentoring and multi-authoring systems—appear in Table 1, complete with representative quotes from the data.