Disciplinary Expertise and Faculty Credentialing in Leadership Studies: Advancing a Necessary Conversation

IF 0.5 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Jennifer W. Purcell, Deborah N. Smith
{"title":"Disciplinary Expertise and Faculty Credentialing in Leadership Studies: Advancing a Necessary Conversation","authors":"Jennifer W. Purcell,&nbsp;Deborah N. Smith","doi":"10.1002/jls.21851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The disciplinary backgrounds of leadership studies educators have considerable influence on the future of the field; however, disciplinary expertise and credentialing have yet to be examined thoroughly in the literature. Decisions pertaining to the preparation and credentialing of leadership educators, particularly among faculty, are a necessary supplement to existing discourse on the standardization of academic programs and the aim and scope of scholarship privileged within the field. While disciplinary boundaries are permeable and fluid, the organizational boundaries defined within institutions based on disciplinary affiliation impose specific expectations and limitations that may artificially constrain interdisciplinary pursuits, including those within leadership studies. The current article presents a conceptualization of how disciplinary expertise and faculty credentialing may shape the future of leadership studies. It is recommended that leadership studies faculty cultivate program-level consensus, demonstrate the integrity of leadership studies curricula, enhance interdisciplinary legitimacy through boundary spanning, determine the future trajectory of leadership studies, and set the course accordingly.</p>","PeriodicalId":45503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership Studies","volume":"17 2","pages":"5-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Leadership Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jls.21851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The disciplinary backgrounds of leadership studies educators have considerable influence on the future of the field; however, disciplinary expertise and credentialing have yet to be examined thoroughly in the literature. Decisions pertaining to the preparation and credentialing of leadership educators, particularly among faculty, are a necessary supplement to existing discourse on the standardization of academic programs and the aim and scope of scholarship privileged within the field. While disciplinary boundaries are permeable and fluid, the organizational boundaries defined within institutions based on disciplinary affiliation impose specific expectations and limitations that may artificially constrain interdisciplinary pursuits, including those within leadership studies. The current article presents a conceptualization of how disciplinary expertise and faculty credentialing may shape the future of leadership studies. It is recommended that leadership studies faculty cultivate program-level consensus, demonstrate the integrity of leadership studies curricula, enhance interdisciplinary legitimacy through boundary spanning, determine the future trajectory of leadership studies, and set the course accordingly.

领导力研究中的学科专长与教师资格:推进必要的对话
领导研究教育工作者的学科背景对该领域的未来有相当大的影响;然而,学科专业知识和资格认证尚未在文献中得到彻底的检验。与领导力教育工作者的准备和资格认证有关的决定,特别是在教师中,是对现有学术项目标准化以及该领域特权奖学金的目标和范围的讨论的必要补充。虽然学科边界是可渗透和流动的,但基于学科隶属关系在机构内定义的组织边界施加了特定的期望和限制,可能会人为地限制跨学科的追求,包括领导力研究中的追求。当前的文章提出了一个概念,学科专业知识和教师资格认证如何影响领导力研究的未来。建议领导力研究教师培养项目级共识,展示领导力研究课程的完整性,通过跨越边界增强跨学科的合法性,确定领导力研究的未来轨迹,并相应地设置课程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
33
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信