The purpose of this study was to examine gender dynamics in educational leadership doctoral cohorts and explore the propensity for educational leadership programs to unintentionally perpetuate inequity through continued silence and unawareness of issues related to gender. The study includes narratives from two women cohort members and two professors (one man, one woman), detailing their experiences in an educational leadership preparation program at the pseudonymous Southern University. The authors conclude that it is important for students and faculty to proactively engage gender inequity in both professional venues and during informal interactions. Professors who engage in these conversations create opportunities for students to facilitate discussions regarding gender inequity in educational leadership. The cohort model allows students to be in a supportive environment where difficult conversations can take place, but it can also perpetuate inequity and oppression unless gender dynamics are interrogated and dismantled.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckerS.FeuervergerG. (1996).Doing good and feeling bad: The work of women university teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 401–423.
2.
AdkisonJ. A. (1981). Women in school administration: A review of the research. Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 311–343.
3.
BarnettB. G.BasomM. R.YerkesD. M.NorrisC. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 255–282.
4.
BernsteinR. J. (1993). The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5.
BjorkL. G. (2000). Introduction: Women in the superintendency – advances in research and theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 5–17.
6.
BlountJ. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873–1995. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
7.
BrunnerC. C. (2000). Unsettled moments in settled discourse: Women superintendents' experiences of inequality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 76(1), 76–116.
8.
FierstE. (1988, May). Careers and kids. Ms. Magazine, 62–64.
9.
GroganM. (1999). Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 518–536.
10.
HodginsD. W. (2007). LMX revisited: A woman superintendent leading through dyadic relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University – Tallahassee.
11.
HooksB. (1992). Men in feminist struggle: The necessary movement. In HaganK. L. (Ed.), Women respond to the men's movement (pp. 111–117). San Francisco: Pandora.
12.
HopkinsM. M.O'NeilD. A.PassarelliA.BilimoriaD. (2008). Women's leadership development strategic practices for women and organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 348–365.
13.
JohnsonW. Y. (2006). The effects of race and gender on the superintendency: Voices of African-American female superintendents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas – Austin.
14.
Kurtz-CostesB.HelmkeL. A.Ulku-SteinerB. (2006). Gender and doctoral studies: The perceptions of Ph.D. students in an American university. Gender and Education, 18(2), 137–155.
15.
LatherP. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and Post-Structural perspectives. Qualitative Issues in Educational Research, 31(2), 87–99.
16.
MarshallC.YoungM. (2006). The wider societal challenge: An afterward. In Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 307–317). New York: Pearson.
17.
McPhailC. J.RobinsonM.ScottH. (2008). The cohort leadership development model: Student perspectives. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 362–374.
18.
MeyersonD. E.ScullyM. A. (1995, September/October). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6, 585–600.
19.
MeyersonD. E. (2001). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
20.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006313.
21.
NorthouseP. G., (2009). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
NorthouseP. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
RidenourC. S.TwaleD. J. (2005). Academic generations exploring intellectual risk taking in an educational leadership program. Education, 126(1), 158–164.
24.
RigerS. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices. American Psychologist, 47(6), 730–740.
25.
RuschE. A. (2004). Gender and race in leadership preparation: A constrained discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 14–46.
26.
Sapon-ShevinM.Chandler-OlcottK. (2001). Student cohorts: Communities of critique or dysfunctional families?Journal of Teacher Education, 52,(5), 350–364.
27.
ScribnerJ. P.DonaldsonJ. F. (2001). The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to tranformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 605–636.
28.
ShakeshaftC.BrownG.IrbyB. J.GroganM.BallengerJ. (2007). Increasing gender equity in educational leadership. In KleinS. (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (pp. 103–129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
29.
ShieldsC. M.EdwardsM. M. (2005). Dialogue is not just talk: A new ground for educational leadership. New York: Lang.
30.
ShieldsC. M.LaRocqueL. J.ObergS. L. (2002). A conversation about race and ethnicity: Struggling to understand issues in cross-cultural leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 116–137.
31.
SkrlaL.ReyesP.ScheurichJ. J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Women superintendents speak up and speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 44–75.
32.
TrinidadC.NormoreA. H. (2005). Leadership and gender: A dangerous liaison?Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(7), 574–590.
33.
WitteJ. E.JamesW. B. (1998). Cohort partnerships: A pragmatic approach to doctoral research. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 79, 53–62.
34.
YoungM. D.McLeodS. (2001). Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: Factors affecting women's decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 462–502.
35.
YoungM. D.LopezG. R. (2008). Putting alternative perspectives to work in the politics of education. In SamierE. (Ed.), Political approaches to educational administration and leadership (pp. 155–172). New York: Routledge.
36.
ZhaoF.ReamesE. H.ReedC. (2004). Frames we live by: Metaphors for the cohort. The Professional Educator, 26(2), 39–44.
