<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >

Importantly, issues of context and tension were raised as different perspectives were offered on the surveyquestion itself from both voting and non-voting respondents. The tension evident in the opening quotes signifies deep, unresolvedissues that surfaced during the data analysis. The complexities of this picture are also briefly explored in this article and are opento further interpretation.

Conceptual Framework and Research Scaffolds

In addition to my own curiosity as a professor in this area, four sources inspired this preliminaryexploration: (1) the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration’s (NCPEA) Living Legend Awards, recognized annually since 1999 (http://www.ncpea.net); (2) Kiewra and Creswell’s (2000) study of highly productive educational psychologists, whichidentified living legends—Richard Anderson, Richard Mayer, Michael Pressley, and Ann Brown—through nominators’eyes; (3) Culberton’s (1995) seminal work on the University Council for EducationalAdministration’s (UCEA) history that provides insight into the creation of this organizational inter-university system and thosepioneering scholars involved; and (4) Murphy’s (1999)“self-portrait of the profession,”informed by professors in school administration programs.

Kiewra and Creswell’s (2000) study benefited from their ongoing research on productive scholars. They combined afield-based survey approach with dialogic case study methods, interviewing the“most successful”nominees. Adapting but also modifying this approach to satisfy my own objectives, I surveyedpracticing educational leadership professors in their role of peer nominator. To obtain as many responses as possible and to dilutethe influence of any particular“filter”on the outcomes, I did not seek sponsorship from an association or funding agency, insteadaccessing different venues over time.

Murphy’s (1999) study also explored professors’concepts of important markers in the academy over one decade (e.g., reform efforts and publications and presentationswithin the field). Interestingly, those authors and works cited as seminal from 1987 to 1996 overlapped with the results of my ownstudy carried out seven years later.

Of the top four nominees in my own study—in alphabetical order, John Goodlad (University of Washington,retiree), John Hoyle (Texas A&M University), Joseph Murphy (Vanderbilt University), and Thomas Sergiovanni (TrinityUniversity)—

all but one (John Hoyle) were listed in Murphy’s results. Since my survey question did not specify what configures a“living legend,”the possibilities for naming new anddifferent individuals extended beyond the use of publications and citations as a traditional marker of excellence in the academy. Theresults outlined in Table 1 support this perception, as criteria generated by nominees for making these decisions were much morecomprehensive and show value for theory/practice links. However, despite these differences between the two studies (e.g., my ownpool of participants was greater, list of nominations longer, and survey question open-ended), the core selections of Murphy’s respondents mirrored my own. This suggests outcomes beyond thescope of either of the studies, each reinforcing the other and, perhaps, enhancing validity. However, neither Murphy’s study nor my own claim to have comprehensively sampled the discipline, optinginstead for a purposeful sampling, consistent with a preliminary exploration. This is also the case for Kiewra and Creswell’s study.

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, Mentorship for teacher leaders. OpenStax CNX. Dec 22, 2008 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col10622/1.3
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Mentorship for teacher leaders' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask