Spring, 2008 EDLD 606
Leadership, Inquiry and Research, Part II
Instructor: Steve Gelb, Ph.D. sgelb@sandiego.edu 619-260-4893
Office Hours:
3 Units Tues 2:00-5:00 Thurs 3:00-5:00
Course Description The second semester of Leadership, Inquiry and Research focuses on the justification of research through critical analysis and synthesis of empirical literature. Because success in academic writing requires a great deal of socialization and practice into its conventions, the course is built around formative writing assignments that prepare students to write the type of critical and fluent review of literature required for the dissertation. Students are encouraged to explore potential topics that may be developed for the dissertation, however, they are not expected to settle upon their thesis topic and question in this course. Course Objectives - Students will learn to: 1. Write critical, fluent reviews of literature. 2. Justify research questions through the identification of gaps and/or problems in existing literature. 3. Link relevant foundational academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology, history, philosophy, social psychology, sociolinguistics, sociology, theology) to questions about leadership. 4. Consider alternatives to traditional social science research methods in studying leadership. 5. Use APA reference style proficiently. Course Requirements/Activities 1. Participation and attendance. Class time is spent in focused discussion and textual analysis of readings. Attendance, thorough preparation, and engagement in class activities are the responsibility of each student, not only to her or himself, but to the class as a whole. [20%] 2. Leading discussion Students will sign-up, in pairs, to lead discussions of two reading assignments. [10%] 3. Formative Writing Assignments. [0%] These assignments receive copious feedback but are not evaluated as part of the course grade: Formative Writing Assignment 1: Write a one page (double-spaced) paper describing a specific research topic that you wish to study. Please include: 1) a title; 2) a description of the topic that delineates its focus and scope (to the degree that you’re able to at this point); and 3) a brief justification of the significance of the topic. (Due
February 14) Formative Writing Assignment 2: Write a two-page paper describing, comparing and contrasting the findings and methodologies of two or more studies that you will be including in your literature review. (Due February 28) Formative Writing Assignment 3: Write a five-page paper comprising one sub-topic that will be included in your final literature review. Revise and resubmit after receiving feedback. (Due March 13; April 10) Formative Writing Assignment 4: Write a five-page paper comprising a different subtopic that will be included in your final literature review. Hand in together with your revised assignment #3. (Due April 10) 4. Final Paper – Review of Literature The final paper is a 14-18 page review of literature (not including reference pages), and is due May 8, the final night of class. The rubric which will be used to evaluate the final paper is found in this syllabus following the class schedule. [70%] Course Calendar Course readings are available on-line through electronic reserve via the Copley Library. The password is “inquiry.” Under each date readings are listed in the order in which they should be read, rather than alphabetically. Please print the readings and bring them to class on the dates they are assigned. January 31 Introduction: Features of Disciplined Inquiry February 7 Research Justification Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation and research. Belmont, CA: Cole-Thompson Learning. [Chapter 3] Creager, P. L. (2007). Building management bench strength: A qualitative look at a job rotation program (Doctoral Dissertation, University of San Diego, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 5. [Chapter 1] Gallant, T. B. (2006). Reconsidering academic dishonesty: A critical examination of a complex organizational problem (Doctoral Dissertation, University of San Diego, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, [Chapter 1]. February 14 Introduction to Reviews of Literature Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation and research. Belmont, CA: Cole-Thompson Learning. [Chapter 4] Eagly, A. H. (2004). Prejudice: Toward a more inclusive understanding. In A. H. Eagly, R. M. Baron, and V. L. Hamilton (Eds.). The social psychology of group identity and social conflict: Theory, applications, practice (pp. 45-64). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Davidheiser, M. (2008). Race, worldviews, and conflict mediation: Black and white styles of 2
conflict revisited. Peace and Change, 3, 60-89. Formative paper #1
February 21 The Comprehensive Review Dickson, M. W., Hartog, D. N. D., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a crosscultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly 14, 729768. February 28 Alternative Methodology I: History Lodge, T. (2006.). Mandela: A critical life. Oxford: UK: Oxford University. [Chapters 6 and 8]. Kershaw, I. (1999). Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris. New York: W.W. Norton. . [Chapters 5 and 6]. Formative paper #2 March 6 Analysis of Reviews of Literature in Leadeship Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2007). Strategic Bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 195-2006. McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Conner, P. M. G., Baker, B. A. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 634-653. March 13 Analysis of Reviews of Literature in Leadership Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly 17, 595-616. Pittinsky, T. L., & Simpson, S. (2007). Intergroup leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 585-605. Formative paper #3 March 20 Spring Break – No Class Meeting March 27 Alternative Methodology II: Action research Chandler, D., & Torbert, B. (2003). Transforming inquiry and action: Interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Research, 1, 133-152. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Chapter 6] April 3 Individual Meetings with Instructor - No Class Meeting 3
April 10 Analysis of Reviews of Literature in Leadership Bess, J. L., & Goldman, P. (2001). Leadership ambiguity in universities and K-12 schools and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 419-450. Formative paper #4 (and revised #3). April 17 Alternative Methodologies III: Philosophy and Theology Chernus, I. (2008). President Eisenhower and Dr. King on peace and human nature. Peace and Change, 33, 114-140. Price, T. L. (2000). Explaining ethical failures of leadership. Leadership & Organization Developmental Journal, 21(4), 177-184. West, C. (1986). Neo-Aristotelianism, liberalism and socialism: A Christian perspective. In B. Grelle, & D. A. Kreuger (Eds.). Christianity and Capitalism (pp. 79-89). Chicago: Center for the Scientific Study of Religion. April 24 Alternative Methodology IV: Depth Psychology Brazaitis, S. (2003). White women—protectors of the status quo; Positioned to disrupt it. In S. Cyntrynbaum & D. A. Noumair (Eds.). Group dynamics, organizational irrationality, and social complexity: Group relations reader #3 (pp. 99-116). Jupiter, FL: A. K. Rice Institute. Smith, K., Miller, R. S., & Kaminstein, D. S. (2003). Consultant as container: Assisting organizational rebirth in Mandela’s South Africa. In S. Cyntrynbaum & D. A. Noumair (Eds.). Group dynamics, organizational irrationality, and social complexity: Group relations reader #3 (pp. 243-266). Jupiter, FL: A. K. Rice Institute. May 1 Student presentations May 8 Student presentations Final Review of literature paper due
Grading Scale: A = 93 – 100, A- = 90-92 B+ = 88-89, B = 83-87, B- = 80-82 C+ = 78-79, C= 73-77, C-= 70-72 D = 65-69 F = <65
4
Coverage
Synthesis
Rubric for Evaluating Literature Reviews 1-2 3-4 Discussed the Did not discuss the literature included and criteria for inclusion excluded and exclusion from review Discussed what has Did not distinguish and has not been done what has and has not Some discussion of been done broader scholarly Topic not placed in literature broader scholarly Some mention of literature history of topic History of topic not Key vocabulary discussed defined Key vocabulary not Reviewed discussed relationships among Key variables and key variables and phenomena not phenomena discussed Accepted literature at Some critique of literature face value
Methodology
Research methods not discussed
Some discussion of research methods used to produce claims
Significance
Practical significance of research not discussed. Scholarly significance of research not discussed Poorly conceptualized, haphazard Frequent mistakes in most areas.
Practical significance discussed. Scholarly significance discussed.
Rhetoric Use of Reference Style (APA or other)
Some coherent structure Mistakes are limited and mastery is shown in some areas.
5-6 Justified inclusion and exclusion of literature
Critically examined the state of the field Topic clearly situated in broader scholarly literature Critically examined history of topic Discussed and resolved ambiguities in definitions Noted ambiguities in literature and proposed new relationships Offered new perspective Critiqued research methods. Critical appropriateness of research methods to warrant claims. Critiqued practical significance of research Critiqued scholarly significance of research Well-developed, coherent Mastery present in all areas.
Note: This rubric is adapted from Doing a Literature Review by Christopher Hart, 1999. London, SAGE Publications.
5