What Are Doctoral Programs in Organizational Leadership Telling Us About What Is Important for Teaching About Leadership for Changing Times?

• In Event: Enhancing Our Impact in Doctoral Programs

Short Description

What are the sources of knowledge validity, methods, scope, and program objectives of doctoral programs in organizational leadership around the world? This presentation will provide a comprehensive overview of the existing doctoral programs in organizational leadership to understand their epistemologies and program objectives for leadership in turbulent times.

Detailed Abstract

Doctoral programs in Organizational Leadership are found in multiple disciplines: business/management, education, and the ministry, and within schools and departments such as liberal arts or studies, professional studies, graduate studies, social sciences, and not within a discipline or particular school. There are approximately 70 generalist leadership degree programs and approximately another 60-70 in specialized disciplines that currently exist, as identified in 2014, nine of which are outside the US. Terminal degree programs such as this assumes a market for professors, researchers, and practitioners of leadership in some form or another. What are they teaching? What are students learning? Where and how are they going to use what they know in the near future, a time shaping up to be different from what we in the West have experienced for some time – more polarizing, fearful, profit-hungry, and turbulent while more diverse, information-rich, and connected through social media, across geographic and political divides.

The questions that guided our research are: How do existing doctoral programs approach teaching the interdisciplinary field of Organizational Leadership? What are the theoretical presuppositions, conceptual frameworks, and philosophical approaches – epistemologies -- in doctoral programs in leadership studies? In short, what are these degree programs preparing students for and how?

In this study we describe academic programs offering terminal degrees across subfields and disciplines and analyze program descriptions, course offerings, and course descriptions to learn about the value propositions, the purpose, the designs, and approaches these programs offer. Program descriptions for doctorate programs tell potential students a lot about the tenor, purpose, and character of the university program. A perusal of course descriptions and course options indicate what kind of approach to leadership learning the program offers and what is deemed important by the department for its graduates to be able to know and do. We categorize characteristics, tone, and values interpreted through a semiotic analysis of language and images of doctoral program websites.

This study is approached in accordance with a goal of the conference: to recognize what we are teach and what we need to teach to future teachers and practitioners. The ability to discern changes and reactions in the environments in which we act, recognize the many faces of social and economic injustice around the globe and their myriad causes, the conscious and subconscious needs of people who are encountering ambiguous information, are skills and capacities for leaders of the coming years. The rapidly increasing focus on “what is good for me, what I want, how the environment is not responsive enough for my needs,” and the eroding focus on how community – of people, of regions, and of nations -- will create many challenges for aspiring leaders who may find the conditions in which they wish to lead or must lead vastly different from the conditions that existed when they were students.

A content analysis of program descriptions, course options, course descriptions, and additional elements such as number of credits, dissertation requirement, residency requirement, and ranking was performed to compare programs. A rhetorical analysis of program descriptions and course descriptions focuses on approaches to leadership learning, organized by language and images that indicate the depth and breadth of the program’s leadership thinking. This includes the desire for diversity of thought, experience, and capacity; interest in global activities and socio-political-economic issues therein; awareness of problems caused by uncertainty, risk, and instability, and understanding of collective action, a quest to learn more about social media and information dissemination, and more. A database of all generalist doctorate programs (approximately 70), ministry (30), and educational administration leadership (30) programs identified in 2014 is our source material that also includes websites, costs, credits, mode of delivery, residency and dissertation requirements, and other information about the universities and colleges or organizations in which these academic programs reside.

We guided our inquiry by thinking about epistemologies for teaching and learning. Epistemological frames ranged from interpretations implying teacher-centered (control over how knowledge is conveyed, how it is absorbed, and how learning is evaluated remains with the teacher) (Kain, 2003; Hannafin, Hill, & Glazer, 2011; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), student-centered (learners have control over what and how they learn) (Estes, 2004; Knowlton, 2000; Land, Hannafin, & Oliver, 2012; Hannafin, Hill, Land, & Lee, 2014), the information processing model (to acquire meaning and understanding) (Axelrod, 1973; Borgatti & Cross, 2003; Eveland, Shah, & Kwak, 2003; Mascolo, 2009; Nyikos & Oxford, 1993), intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Levesque, 2014; Reiss, 2012; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000), critical inquiry (to develop insight) (Bangert, 2008; Jaworski, 2006; Lather, 2004; Taylor, Taylor, & Luitel, 2012; Taylor & Medina, 2013), problem-based learning model (learning is achieved through problem solving and induction) (Bridges & Hallinger, 1996; Fly, Rasmussen, & Moffitt, 1997; Savery, 2015; Sternberg, 2008), constructivist approach to learning (to construct knowledge by questioning what one understands: acquire knowledge that is relevant to one’s life and as an agent of change) (Cooperstein & Kocevar‐Weidinger, 2004; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Ertmer & Newby, 1993; Huanga, Rauchb, & Liaw, 2010; Jenkins, 2006), interactionist approach to learning (cooperative) (Enfield, N. J., 2011; Goodwin, 2013; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012; Melander, 2012), situated learning (connection between context, social environment, culture, and learning linked to specific tasks to develop meaningful learning experiences) (Handley, Clark, Fincham, & Sturdy, 2007; Kempster & Stewart, 2010; Korthagen, 2010), functionalist/structuralist approach (human behavior is in response to the social environment – identities, values, and cultural conditions) (Hartley, 2010; Kurzweil, 1996; Netting & O'Connor, 1993; Rieppel, 1990; Sułkowski, 2009), post-structuralist/post-modern approach (skepticism and criticism of structures created by history and culture which are subject to bias and misinterpretation) (Baxter, 2008; Collinson, 2005, 2006; Crevani, Lindgren, & Packendorff, 2010; Rost, 1993), systems approach (people and environment are interrelated, actions of the collective emerge from actions of the individual) (Kauffman, 1980; Lichtensteina & Plowman, 2009; Montuori, 2000; Uhl-Biena, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001), and interdisciplinary approach to knowledge acquisition (Boden, Borrego, & Newswander, 2011; Borrego & Newswander, 2010; Schmidt, Robbins, Combs, Freeburg, Jesperson, Rogers, Sheldon, & Wheat, 2012). We searched for implicit and explicit epistemologies for what the knowledge base is and how it should be conveyed. We then cataloged programs according to approach and epistemology. The rhetorical analysis focused on language used in marketing doctoral degree programs, noting metaphor, formality, appeals to motivations, appeals to intellect, and to social action/social justice.

We conclude with thoughts about what doctoral leadership programs are purporting to do to launch the next generation of academicians and practitioners for turbulent and changing times and what ways they are preparing them for.

Participants

• Elizabeth Stork, Robert Morris University

• Petros G. Malakyan, Robert Morris University