Don Hackmann, University of Illinois; Joel Malin, Miami University & Martha McCarthy, Loyola Marymount University
The Division A Newsletter editorial team asked Hackmann, Malin, and McCarthy to reflect on their recent publication in JRLE (see title and abstract below) to consider their vision for the educational leadership professoriate. Here's what they shared:
Journal of Research on Leadership Education; Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2017
Title: Characteristics of Tenure-Line Faculty in Leadership Preparation Programs: An Analysis of Academic Preparation and Administrative Experience
Abstract: This study investigated the credentials of 755 tenure-line educational leadership faculty members, using data collected through an online questionnaire. Findings disclosed that research institutions were significantly more likely than doctoral or comprehensive institutions to hire faculty with a PhD from a research university and who identified research as their primary professional strength. A greater proportion of faculty in comprehensive universities had served as school administrators before entering academe than was the case for those at research universities. These findings have significant implications for the field, given that an increasing number of school leaders nationally are prepared at comprehensive institutions.
Authors' DivAVision Response:
Our study of tenure-line educational leadership faculty disclosed significant differences in the research orientations of faculty across institution types, with faculty in research universities more likely to identify research as their primary strength and faculty in comprehensive institutions more likely to cite teaching as their greatest strength. In addition, faculty in comprehensive institutions were more likely to have school administrative experience, compared to those in research institutions. Over time, our research also has portrayed the educational leadership professoriate as fairly satisfied and complacent. Given the challenges facing universities and our field, such complacency must shift to activism to improve our nation’s schools and enhance the preparation of those who lead them. We envision an educational leadership professoriate comprised of active scholars who are equally committed to conducting research on problems of practice and preparing school leaders who are effective in promoting learning and social justice. Our field is experiencing dramatic growth of leadership preparation programs in non-research institutions, an increase in alternative preparation programs that are not based in universities, an expansion in the employment of clinical and adjunct faculty members across institution types, and an overall decline in the number of full-time faculty members in university-based leadership preparation programs. These trends raise important issues that must be addressed by our field. Division A could assist by working in partnership with the University Council for Educational Administration and the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership to develop policies and recommendations for faculty staffing of leadership preparation programs to include such components as minimum numbers of full-time faculty; balance between tenure-line, clinical, and adjunct faculty; expectations for teaching and research responsibilities; and desired characteristics of faculty members (e.g., major field, research and teaching orientations, teaching specializations, K-12 teaching and administrative experiences). Such policies could be helpful as educational leadership faculty members advocate for additional hires within their leadership preparation programs, and when search committees subsequently develop vacancy postings, consider applicant pools, and reach hiring decisions. Such collaboration among groups involved in university leadership preparation has never been more important.
The Division A Newsletter editorial team asked Hackmann, Malin, and McCarthy to reflect on their recent publication in JRLE (see title and abstract below) to consider their vision for the educational leadership professoriate. Here's what they shared:
Journal of Research on Leadership Education; Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2017
Title: Characteristics of Tenure-Line Faculty in Leadership Preparation Programs: An Analysis of Academic Preparation and Administrative Experience
Abstract: This study investigated the credentials of 755 tenure-line educational leadership faculty members, using data collected through an online questionnaire. Findings disclosed that research institutions were significantly more likely than doctoral or comprehensive institutions to hire faculty with a PhD from a research university and who identified research as their primary professional strength. A greater proportion of faculty in comprehensive universities had served as school administrators before entering academe than was the case for those at research universities. These findings have significant implications for the field, given that an increasing number of school leaders nationally are prepared at comprehensive institutions.
Authors' DivAVision Response:
Our study of tenure-line educational leadership faculty disclosed significant differences in the research orientations of faculty across institution types, with faculty in research universities more likely to identify research as their primary strength and faculty in comprehensive institutions more likely to cite teaching as their greatest strength. In addition, faculty in comprehensive institutions were more likely to have school administrative experience, compared to those in research institutions. Over time, our research also has portrayed the educational leadership professoriate as fairly satisfied and complacent. Given the challenges facing universities and our field, such complacency must shift to activism to improve our nation’s schools and enhance the preparation of those who lead them. We envision an educational leadership professoriate comprised of active scholars who are equally committed to conducting research on problems of practice and preparing school leaders who are effective in promoting learning and social justice. Our field is experiencing dramatic growth of leadership preparation programs in non-research institutions, an increase in alternative preparation programs that are not based in universities, an expansion in the employment of clinical and adjunct faculty members across institution types, and an overall decline in the number of full-time faculty members in university-based leadership preparation programs. These trends raise important issues that must be addressed by our field. Division A could assist by working in partnership with the University Council for Educational Administration and the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership to develop policies and recommendations for faculty staffing of leadership preparation programs to include such components as minimum numbers of full-time faculty; balance between tenure-line, clinical, and adjunct faculty; expectations for teaching and research responsibilities; and desired characteristics of faculty members (e.g., major field, research and teaching orientations, teaching specializations, K-12 teaching and administrative experiences). Such policies could be helpful as educational leadership faculty members advocate for additional hires within their leadership preparation programs, and when search committees subsequently develop vacancy postings, consider applicant pools, and reach hiring decisions. Such collaboration among groups involved in university leadership preparation has never been more important.