3.9 Perceptions within the discipline: exceptional scholarship in  (Page 3/8)

Participant Pool and Study Method

Nominated Scholars

The many persons forwarded as exceptional by faculty peers may all qualify as“scholar-practitioners”for whom their academic productivity inextricably links to impact andapplication within the field. While most can be described as full-fledged scholars who have significantly influenced nationaltrends and policies in addition to local contexts, others were selected for their leadership roles within school districts and thecommunity. However, the majority of exceptional scholars nominated work within the academy in various disciplines, primarilyeducational administration, in one of two respects: (1) broadly representing educational studies within such areas as business,politics, humanities, and philosophy, or (2) specializing in educational leadership with a focus on school leadership, highereducation, or teacher education, and in such areas as supervision, school–university collaboration, leadership preparation, policy, and reform.

Survey methods

Pilot and group discourse. For the survey“‘The Greatest’Living Scholars of Our Time”(that some quipped to be a“tough assignment”) recipients were asked to“take a moment to make a difference by answering this question,”to nominate one person, and to“briefly jot down the reason(s) for your choice.”The form alluded to the necessity of being able to make an informed judgment (“this survey assumes that you’re in the field of educational leadership”). It was established that any feedback would be anonymously reported. A pilot sampling, conducted in 2002at a doctoral research-extensive metropolitan university in Florida, involved eight educational leadership professors. Thequestion was openly tested and the interest level gauged. This process further verified the value/importance of the questionitself, so I broadened my data collection efforts. I also learned that some faculty wanted either to nominate more than one person orto vote with reservations, an outcome that foreshadowed an emerging pattern on a larger scale for some respondents.

Fuller sampling and distribution. Turning to listserves of professional associations, I accessed those mostrelevant to my study, including university-based educational leadership departments located through Internet searches.Conference councils and educational leadership editorial teams also received the survey. My goal was to obtain 200 surveys—214 (6%) complete responses were received; additionally, 19 electronicmessages were returned explaining why a nomination was not possible. In all, 233 (7%) responses were analyzed. Approximately3,500 individuals would have received the survey (some more than once), but this number proved impossible to accuratelytrack.

While the goal set for the completed surveys was met, the very low return rate needs to be addressed, especiallywhen one considers that a good response rate of 50 to 60% is generally considered accepted for survey research (Diem, 2002).However, at least one social science research team has found that its traditional paper survey yielded a higher response rate (60%)than the same questionnaire distributed electronically, which dropped significantly to 27%; this led them to question whethere-surveys are a reliable means of collecting data from a targeted population (Fraze, Hardin, Brashears, Smith,&Lockaby, 2003). In the long list provided by Newman (2002) for increasing one’s response rate from surveys in general, I used most of thesuggestions—provide a salient question, indicate why the respondent’s answer matters, keep the survey short and simple, use university identification and a personalized note, and follow upwith a reminder. I did not make many telephone calls or offer monetary incentives, both optional strategies for maximizing one’s response rate.