Read Case Study b12 pages 81-88 in the attached Kowlaski?textbook and answer questions 2-11 on pages 87-88.? Article Critique- Read it carefully and reflect on itED60

Page 1 of 1

Case Study Analysis

Scoring Guidelines

Available points: 10

Component Target Proficient Unacceptable

Answers Responses for all questions are included.

(1 point)

Response for 1 or more questions is missing.

(0 points)

Clarity of Argument

Complete, well-formed, and accurate

responses to all questions; shows a

thoughtful, reflective, in-depth understanding of concepts. (3 points)

Response to one question is inaccurate

showing a limited understanding of

concepts. (2 points)

Responses to more than one question are

inaccurate indicating a lack of understanding of

concepts. (0 points)

Effective and Appropriate Use

of Evidence

Each response is supported by accurate and specific evidence cited from appropriate resources. (3 points)

Response to one question is not

supported by accurate and specific evidence.

(2 points)

Failed to support responses to more than

one question with evidence. (0 points)

Professional Presentation

Writing is free of all writing errors.

(3 points)

Writing involves few errors (no more than 2).

(2 points)

Writing involves many errors (more than 3).

(0 points)

Page 1 of 2

Article Critique

General Directions

Using all library databases available, locate a journal article related to school leadership. Read it carefully and reflect on it, then follow the attached guidelines and rubric to help craft your critique. Articles should not be older than two years old.

Reading and Thinking:

• Read the article SLOWLY. Don't criticize anything just yet. Try to really understand the author's logic rather than questioning it.

• Mark key points and transitions as you read. Try to isolate at least one central point in each paragraph.

• Review introductory and closing sections closely. Think about how the author moves from opening statements to conclusions via the body of the article.

Writing:

• Begin your written analysis with a blanket statement summarizing what the author does in the article. Sometimes the author explicitly gives you his or her agenda in the introduction and/or in the conclusion. You should be able to relay this in one or (maybe) two sentences.

• Summarize the key ideas used by the author in achieving his or her agenda. Look at the parts of the article you have marked. Try to indicate how the author progresses from idea to idea in the article.

• List important evidence used to support key ideas in the article. Indicate why the author finds this evidence convincing.

Critiquing:

• Carefully describe any biased, illogical, or inappropriate use of evidence in the article. Take into account the author's purpose and perspective, as any apparent misuse of evidence may be attributable to these factors.

• Note any avoidable lack of evidence in the article.

• Note the strong points of the article.

Finalizing:

• Proofread your writing. Read it aloud. Try to use active verbs and concise modifiers.

• Verify that your analysis would be helpful to someone who hadn't read the article. Don't assume that your reader can intuit what you mean by anything.

Grading Rubric

Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target

At the top of the page, write your article

Reference has more than 1 APA error.

(0 points)

Reference follows APA format, with 1 error.

(1 point)

Reference carefully follows APA format,

Page 2 of 2

Component Unacceptable Acceptable Target

reference in APA format.

with no errors. (2 points)

Summary Key points and

evidence to support those points is clearly

presented

Summary of article is inadequate or too

brief; does not identify main points; fails to include appropriate evidence to support

points. (0 points)

Acceptable summary of information that

describes the article’s premise; evidence is included. (2 points)

Excellent summary of relevant information that clearly describe the article’s premise; evidence is included.

(4 points)

Critique Incomplete critique; lacks reflection and

sound analysis of the chosen article; no

clear connections are made to evidence

gather from the article. (0 points)

Complete critique; shows an adequate

level of reflection and analysis; may lack

connections to evidence gathered

from the article. (2 points)

Complete, well-formed critique; shows a

thoughtful, reflective, in-depth analysis of

chosen article. (4 points)

Professional Presentation

Writing involves many grammatical errors

(more than 3). (0 points)

Writing involves few grammatical errors (no more than 2). (1 point)

Writing is free of all writing errors.

(2 points)

DOI: 10.1002/yd.20468

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Interrogating leadership education: Why? For what? For whom?

Kathy L. Guthrie1 Christine D. Navarro2 John Weng3

Kerry L. Priest4

1 Florida State University

2 University of California, Davis

3 University of California, San Diego

4 Kansas State University

Correspondence Kathy L. Guthrie, Florida State University, 1114 W. Call St., Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. Email: [email protected]

Abstract This article is an exploration into the purpose of lead- ership education and leadership learning in higher education. It will simultaneously explore who leader- ship education is for and investigate privilege, iden- tities, class, and the intersecting impact on access to these programs and content.

The events of 2020 amplified urgency to hit the reset button for leaders around the world. The global health pandemic was a tipping point which exposed long standing, deeply rooted systems of inequity. Although when exposed, it may have not been surprising for some, specifically individuals whose lives are the most affected. What was shocking was the extent to which those roots have grown. The ensuing additional pandemics in this tsunami shook our culture to its core. As a civilization, we have allowed the divides to grow deeper than we realized. Should we truly want our communities, global society, and civilization to move forward, we need to reckon with the purpose of leadership education and creation of leadership learning opportunities (Wheatley, 2017) to address these root causes. Our effec- tiveness as leadership educators relies on our continual growth and development. As the collaborative inquiry process outlined in Article 2 (Priest et al.) of this issue illustrates, in times of uncertainty and change, we must lean into inquiry—asking powerful questions of ourselves and others, engaging new lenses for meaning making, and inviting new possibili- ties for action. One way we can do this is by interrogation, in our case, interrogation of lead- ership education. The principles and practice of interrogation as an inquiry purpose comes out of social justice research and is rooted in feminism, Marxism, and critical race the- ory/critical theory (Bhattacharya, 2017). This form of inquiry highlights issues of inequity and marginalization and offers ideas for solutions. This article reflects insights from the author team’s interrogation of leadership education and offers questions by which readers may engage in their own inquiry that not only supports their growth and development as professionals, but also helps to shift broader systems within the leadership education field.

One aspect of interrogating leadership education is reflecting on where emphasis of the process and outcome should be. Although educators should focus more on learning than teaching (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018), educators often create programs by picking and choosing isolated activities. When educators can shift their focus to learning, student-centered learning approaches emerge (Barr & Tagg, 1995). This shift can allow for

New Dir Stud Lead. 2021;2021:45–52. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals, LLC. 45wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/yd

46 INTERROGATING LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

the social construction of leadership in and through learning opportunities that are cultur- ally relevant for all learners.

How individuals define the complex concept of leadership is another critical component to consider when interrogating leadership education. Individuals define leadership differ- ently based on personal experiences, social identities, or various worldviews. Therefore, as a socially constructed concept, leadership holds different meanings to various individu- als (Billsberry, 2009; Dugan, 2017; Guthrie et al., 2013). Social construction means that an understanding of an idea (leadership in this case) is jointly created over time and develops into a shared assumption. Shared assumptions have significant cultural influence as they become central to the meanings developed with others. By honoring that the concept of leadership is socially constructed, we can interrogate how we teach the process of leader- ship and how to be a leader more critically.

In this article, using the interrogating words of why, what, and who will help guide us in deconstructing and reformulating leadership education. Dugan (2017) offers tools of deconstruction as one way to interrogate our leadership education practice, including ide- ological critique, commodification, willful blindness, and flow of power. Ideological cri- tique means to question underlying core beliefs of theories used to detect what is viewed as normative. Commodification questions how a constant focus on maximizing produc- tivity can dehumanize people and can diminish knowledge. Deconstruction using will- ful blindness questions how and why people remain unaware to avoid responsibility and therefore perpetuates harmful norms. Finally, the flow of power provides reflection on how power is acknowledged, flows, and shapes relationships and experiences. With Dugan’s (2017) deconstruction tools in mind, we interrogate leadership education by reframing our purpose as educators, reflect on our purpose and intended outcomes, intentionally think about who we are creating leadership learning opportunities for, and then discuss how we can move forward and frame higher education as a source of liberation.

STARTING WITH WHY? REFRAMING OUR PURPOSE

Interrogation of leadership education and creating leadership learning opportunities must start with the question, “why.” Beginning any inquiry or interrogation with this one-word question helps us to make sense of the things around us and leads to other questions that can help us progress in not only working from a place of passion and purpose, but also creating innovative and influential programs that have the power of developing the leaders our world needs now and in the future. Sinek (2009) popularized the concept of “starting with why” through his golden circle model, which reflects a pattern of leadership think- ing, action, and communication. The model is represented by three concentric circles and corresponding questions why, how, and what? The center circle question is about beliefs and purpose: Why do you do what you do? According to Sinek (2011), very few people can clearly articulate why they do what they do. We recognize the answer to “why” is unique to individual educators; yet through a critical systems lens, we are also curious about the “why” of our programs and the leadership education field more broadly.

The middle circle question is about process: How do you do what you do? Applied to leadership education, this question calls into question the learning and leadership pro- cesses embedded within our practice, programs, institutions, and professional organiza- tions. And finally, the outer circle is about results: What do you do? This is often what peo- ple can see – the activity or products or outcomes that can be clearly identified, assessed, reported, and marketed. It is also often the focus of best practice literature and training within our field (e.g., What topics to teach, what kind of activities to use). However, from a social constructionist lens, we recognize that “best practices” are themselves culturally and

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP 47

contextually situated – what works best for some may not be best for all. And in conditions of great disruption, like the confluence of pandemics we have experienced, our “what” may be in constant change. Getting clear on our “why” serves as a compass as we navigate the uncertainty (how and what).

The golden circle offers a lens to explore how leadership educators experience congru- ence or conflict between their individual purpose and philosophy and that of their pro- gram. Seemiller and Priest (2015) suggest a sense of congruence influences leadership edu- cators’ professional identity development. They emphasize the need for reflection on align- ment between content-related values (beliefs about what leadership is and is for), process- oriented values (beliefs about how leadership should be taught), and expectations-related values (how role expectations align with beliefs about what a leadership educator is and should do).

The purpose and values of a program matter because, through a social construction lens, students and educators both shape and are shaped by the discourses, everyday practices, and experiences of participation within communities. Values and purpose are what con- nect people to the program (help people see themselves in the program) and influence their views of self in the work of leadership (identity), capacity, and efficacy (Guthrie et al., 2021).

Dugan’s (2017) tools of deconstruction can help us to reveal hidden, competing values at play within our leadership education programs. Recognizing programs are nearly always embedded within broader institutional systems that seek to sustain themselves, there is a risk for commodification (increasing production and consumption at all costs). This may show up in an implicit, but observable emphasis on university recruitment, establishing “elite” learning experiences, or catering to the values of big donors (private or industry). A commodification lens of interrogation asks tough questions like: Is our why to keep pro- ducing positional leaders? Is our why to develop others to check off acquired competencies to gain admission to graduate programs, medical school, or launch a career? Is our why to really groom others to make money?

Wheatley (2017) spoke to purposeful leadership in times of chaos, asking, “Now, who do you choose to be as a leader for this time?” (p. 249). Through the co-inquiry process that prompted this special issue, we asked ourselves: who do we choose to be as leader- ship educators for this time? We considered our personal “why’s”, reflected on congruency within our programs, and interrogated broader themes we noticed in the field, both pre- and through the pandemics. Our reconstruction focuses on critical hope (Dugan, 2017). We propose the answer to “why” lies within the restoration of humanity. The restoration of leading with love, compassion, grace, humility, inclusion, equity, mindfulness, and forgive- ness. These qualities and actions are not easily measurable; yet, they are fundamental to survival. Leading with humanity requires us to embrace different ways of knowing, being, and doing. As much as we would like to believe the events of 2020 have an end and we will resume some sense of normalcy, the real work is just beginning, getting to the root of the trauma inflicted by our social and political divides and addressing inequities in policies, laws, and institutions. Working toward social justice and human rights must be our path forward. Continuing to design and implement leadership education pre-pandemic will be more detrimental than we think. Some questions for readers to consider:

∙ Why do you do what you do as a leadership educator? ∙ In times of chaos, turbulence, and disruptions, what are the core values or beliefs that

serve as your compass? ∙ How does your “why” influence your “how” and your “what”? ∙ What values (spoken or unspoken) have the greatest influence on our program? ∙ Where might there be competing values and what is the impact?

48 INTERROGATING LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

IDENTIFYING FOR WHAT? REFRAMING OUR FOCUS AND OUTCOMES

“What do we want students to learn or do?” A variation of this question is a common start- ing point for course, curriculum, or program design. From this framing, the question what drives outcomes, which then drive decisions of how we achieve those outcomes. What is not a bad question, but it is not sufficient to the kind of leadership learning required to address inequities. We suggest a better question is: “leadership for what?”. Similar to why, the question for what holds our attention to a broader purpose or cause. Throughout our co-inquiry process, our group returned, time and time again, to leadership is for creating and maintaining justice, equity, and liberation. By situating justice, equity, and liberation at the core, figuratively and in practice, we are better equipped to achieve the aspiration of our overarching purpose (why); the restoration of humanity. Work toward justice, equity, and liberation, in turn, calls for change in how we not only frame leadership, but also how we teach leadership.

Shifting from a frame of leadership education to leadership learning is critical to achieve our purpose (why) and our focus and outcomes (for what). In Article 6 in this issue, Pierre and Weng discuss the need for this shift. Building upon the concept of creating leadership learning environments, fostering co-creation of knowledge opens possibilities to collec- tive solutions. Furthermore, collaborative environments provide space for diverse voices, views, and experiences to be shared and learned. If our focus and outcomes are to achieve a more just, equitable, and liberated society then leadership must be rooted in community. Leader-centric mindsets and pedagogical practices are ineffective in the shift from leader- ship education to leadership learning.

Leading in and among community affords the energy, creativity, historical knowl- edge, and co-created solutions to address complex issues. Kniffin and Patterson (2019) highlighted collective dimensions of leadership theory and practices that emerged dur- ing the post-industrial era of leadership education. They argued the need for commu- nities to “exercise collective leadership to address complex social issues” (p. 205). By developing community leadership, solutions are generated within and alters the all-too- common approach of those existing outside of the community proposing and implement- ing changes. Ospina and Foldy (2015, 2016) examined the emergence of collective lead- ership practices to create social change and posited the need for multiple organizations and communities to engage together to find and create solutions. To fully reframe our leadership focus and outcomes (for what) toward justice, equity, and liberation, continued research and efforts to develop leadership within and among community is key. Consider the following questions to reframe the focus and outcomes of leadership learning:

∙ How would you describe the purpose of your leadership courses or programs? ∙ Identify several primary resources or references that inform your course or program?

What do these resources say about the implicit or explicit assumptions about what lead- ership is and is for?

∙ Is there congruence between purpose and outcomes?

LEADERSHIP LEARNING FOR WHOM? ADDRESSING OUR ROLE IN PERPETUATING THE PROBLEM

Many entry points in collegiate leadership education and development programs require an application, nomination, or minimum grade point average. These programs end up being accessible to a select few. As such, the concept and attainment of “leader” and

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP 49

“leadership” continue to be set aside for a select few. Historically, this selected few con- sists of privileged, homogeneous students from the dominant group. Leadership programs then become gatekeepers to who has access to and who is served by what? These closed ecosystems of who is funneling through leadership education programs keeps in place dominance, power, and hierarchies that perpetuate systems of oppression.

Outside of the academy, the definitions of “leader” and “leadership” are more fluid. Leader and leadership continue to be viewed in a top-down, hierarchical, transactional, pre-industrial manner (Rost, 1991) and the two terms are used interchangeably. Although scholarship has made progress in distinguishing between the individual as “leader” and the actions, behaviors of “leadership”, societal messages, depictions, and archetypes conflating the two persist. With this reality, misconceptions of “who” can be a leader (e.g., white males typically in business and politics) also persist.

Recent leadership scholarship has broadened conversations on how personal and social identities, diversity, inclusion, and social justice intersect with being a leader and engag- ing in the leadership process. However, our field has not addressed the issue of access to diverse voices and demonstrations of leadership. More often than not, we like to look toward singular examples of diverse “leaders” in business (e.g., Oprah Winfrey), in social movements (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez), and, of course politics (e.g., Har- vey Milk, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris). These individuals are all are leaders in their own right and their contributions should not be dismissed. Yet, these singular examples so often used in our curricula reinforce positionality, hierarchy, and communicate underlying mes- sages to students of color that following in the footsteps of these individuals is how your will achieve being a leader. How many of us, really, in our lifetimes, will achieve this cal- iber of “leader”? Owen (2020) outlines the danger of placing positional leaders on pedestals and labeling them as “SHE-roes”, thus leadership seemingly becomes unattainable. Owen’s (2020) argument can extend to any positional leader from all backgrounds and sectors.

Conversely, leadership education that focuses on addressing inequities can, uninten- tionally, privilege learning of students who are “less aware” of social justice over those who have lived experience. When we focus learning on diversity, equity, and inclusion, it can tax students who come from historically excluded communities (Brewster, in press). In practice, we ignore collectivism: the practice of placing group/community as the pri- ority, not the individuals within. We continue to structure our programs, teachings, and expectations toward individualism. The vast majority of historically excluded communi- ties of color function in a collective manner. Leadership models often are leader-centric and reinforce individualism. As leadership educators, we need to do a better job at distin- guishing between individualism and individuality. We propose a valuing individuality in the form of social justice education and further describe how leadership education in a higher education setting can support this below.

MOVING FORWARD: HIGHER EDUCATION AS A SOURCE OF LIBERATION

We hope it has become evident that the institution of higher education is at a time where change is not a nice consideration, but rather a necessary imperative. Leadership learning and development is not a mathematical concept to be learned or a vocabulary word to be spelled; treating it as such is neither sufficient nor acceptable.

In Article 7 of this special issue, Gleason and Weng recognized that leadership educa- tors are put in difficult situations. Those of us in the classroom must think about course outcomes, curriculum planning, alignment to program outcomes, accreditation, etc. And

50 INTERROGATING LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

some of us are in precarious situations where the abandonment of terminology like “best practices” can be seen as reckless and irresponsible. Many of us are embedded in systems that privilege or even mandate the use of “High-Impact Practices.” For example, the 23 campuses that make up California State University (the U.S.’s largest public 4-year system) have taken up the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) essential learning out- comes as their general education and assessment framework (O’Donnell et al., 2011). The root and intention of these best practices come from a good place, an intention and desire to serve those who may be otherwise underserved. Yet, the reality of the matter that has been enumerated above is that these ways of educating simply continue to perpetuate the problem.

Chunoo et al. (2019) call for leadership educators to see themselves as social justice edu- cators who advance perspectives “that confront power and interrupt oppression in sys- tems” (p. 87), and who commit to culturally relevant pedagogies. This may require requires recognizing and reconciling the need for radical changes throughout curriculum and envi- ronments where leadership is learned. Leadership education needs to advance ideological positions and pedagogical approaches through which learning about leadership can break the perpetuation of oppression in and of itself. For example, the study of formal author- ity and informal authority through adaptive leadership (Heifetz & Linsky, 2017) present an opportunity to examine other less conscious influences in which certain voices may be privileged. This serves as a case in and of itself to examine where oppression is and can occur.

In order for leadership learning to create the conditions to study and break the perpet- uation of oppression, the ways in which we are facilitating this learning must also change. Traditional ideology and approaches emphasize the development of leadership compe- tency, behavior, and traits. Scholars suggest instead a shift in focus toward the considera- tion and development of leadership identity, capacity, and efficacy (Bertrand Jones et al., 2016; Guthrie et al., 2017) which emphasize culture and context. Just as if fish were judged by their ability to climb a tree, they will fail every time; those charged with facilitating the learning of leadership need to contextualize this learning by approaching students as indi- viduals rather than a classroom to be taught. An example of this can be tied to consid- erations of identity, where someone’s identity might influence how they relate with one another. For example, an individual’s identities might influence the way in which they see the world, and thus how they accept or reject aspects of leadership theory.

The consideration of individual characteristics in the facilitation of leadership learning does not necessarily represent a rejection of outcomes-based learning nor does it represent a critique on the