Search results

In the context of business schools, the word “leadership” is widely used in missions, visions, and marketing materials. However, underlying support and the infrastructure to truly develop leaders may be lacking. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the challenges and issues facing leadership education in the context of business education. More specifically, we highlight some of the structural challenges, foundational issues, and research related problems and identify several opportunities to address some of the areas for development. Throughout this paper, we discuss how the National Leadership Education Research Agenda can spark research that will legitimize our work not only in business, but across disciplines.

We conducted a national study of the Collegiate Leadership Competition (CLC), which since inception in 2015, has included over 75 higher education institutions. The CLC brings students together in collaborative institution-based teams to compete with other teams in competitions to achieve goals and practice effective leadership skills. Our goal was to assess leadership capacity growth over the course of a four-month team practice period through the daylong inter-team competition and evaluate participant leadership assessed several months later. Results suggested students made significant and sustainable gains in leader-self-efficacy and short-term gains in leadership skill and motivation to lead. Our results also indicated the team’s coach played a significant role in student leadership development.

Leadership development programs for students in educational settings are proliferating in number and design. Curricular programs range from academic minors and certificates to doctoral programs in a variety of academic homes (e.g., education, business, healthcare). Co-curricular programs often take the form of drop-in workshops, day-long experiences, alternative spring breaks, service-learning trips, and other programs housed in student affairs and administrative offices (Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018). Moreover, the number of programs has steadily increased over the last 15 years from just under 1,000 in 2006 (Brungardt, et al., 2006) to more than 2,000 (ILA Program Directory, 2021). And while there is some commonality among the approach of these leadership programs in terms of content and delivery (see Harvey & Jenkins, 2014), vast differences exist in the structure and learning goals of student leadership programs compared to other social science disciplines. A potentially fruitful area in which to explore its effectiveness in supporting leadership development is the environment of competitive teams, where individuals work together as a group to compete against other teams. The purpose of our research was to investigate the degree to which such a competitive environment might support or detract from student leadership group, employing a potentially effective example of a formal program that utilizes the innovative approach of team competitions to motivate learning (the CLC).

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.

In this chapter, I propose an integrative framework for theorizing and empiricizing about talent management, based on the notion of “talent philosophies.” I believe that current debates about whether talent management should be inclusive or exclusive create the risk that our field will become fragmented, thereby undermining its social-scientific legitimacy. Nonetheless, this debate is absolutely correct in identifying the tensions between inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management as a phenomenon. This, however, creates issues for talent management as a construct for scientific inquiry, as we need clear definitions and measures to create a cumulative body of research as a community. I propose that the solution lies in an expansion of our vocabulary as talent management researchers and identify four constructs that can help us structure and categorize our collective work: giftedness, talent, potential, and strength. Each of these constructs map logically onto different talent philosophies and talent management practices. In establishing “unity in diversity,” I believe talent management could finally make the transition into a more mature field of academic inquiry – although clearly phenomenon driven – characterized in equal parts by construct clarity, rigor, and relevance.

This study aims to explore how artificial intelligence (AI) tools influence the academic success and adaptation of international students in higher education. It examines the benefits, challenges and ethical considerations including academic integrity of integrating AI in learning environments.

An exploratory qualitative research approach was employed, utilising semi-structured interviews with postgraduate international students from diverse backgrounds.

The findings suggest that AI tools enhance academic performance by offering personalised learning, immediate feedback and efficient assessment. However, concerns about ethical use, over-reliance and the potential impact on critical thinking and academic integrity were prominent in the contexts of assessments and learning experiences.

The research offers unique insights by focusing on postgraduate international students, an often-underrepresented group in AI education studies. Their distinctive challenges, including adapting to new academic environments and overcoming language barriers, make them a particularly valuable sample for understanding the role of AI in higher education. This focus allows the study to contribute new perspectives on how generative AI (GenAI) tools like Grammarly and ChatGPT facilitate academic performance improvement, especially in enhancing writing proficiency and managing academic expectations. These findings extend the discussion by specifically addressing the experiences of international students in postgraduate studies, a demographic where AI’s impact has been less explored.

This paper presents a reflection in memory and tribute to the work and life of Professor Barbara Czarniawska (1948–2024).

We invited those colleagues whom we knew to be close to Barbara to submit reflections about her contributions to academia alongside their memories of her as a person. We present these reflections in the order we received them, and they have only been edited for minor grammatical and punctuation issues to preserve the voice of the contributing authors.

The reflections in this paper represent different translations of Barbara’s academic and theoretical contributions. However, she also contributed to people. While we can count the number of papers, books and book chapters she published, we must also count the number of co-authors, Ph.D. supervisions, visiting professorships and conference plenaries she touched. This (ac)counting tells the story of Barbara reaching out to work and interact with people, especially students and early career researchers. She touched their lives, and the publications are an artefact of a human being, not an academic stuck in an ivory tower.

A paper in Barbara Czarniawska’s honour where some of her closest colleagues can leave translations of her work through a narrative reflection, seems to be a fitting tribute.

With the advancement of novel forms of text mining techniques, new possibilities have opened up to conduct large-scale content analysis of educational research from an international and comparative perspective. Since educational research tends to convey great variation based on country-specific circumstances it constitutes a good testbed for context-rich depictions of the knowledge formation within a given research field.

In this article, the authors compare the educational research that has been produced by scholars in Singapore and Sweden. The article begins by providing a rich overview of what has characterised the formation and institutionalization of educational research in public policy. After this background they map the knowledge formation of education by means of a comparative bibliometric approach using words from abstracts, titles and keywords published in 9017 peer-reviewed articles between 2000 and 2020. First, the authors describe the dominant topics in each country using topic modelling techniques. Secondly, the authors identify the most distinguishing discourses when comparing the two countries.

The findings illustrate two ideal-types for conducting educational research: Singapore being more centralised, practically-oriented, quantitative and uncritical, whereas Sweden is decentralised, pluralistic, qualitative and critical in orientation. After having mapped out the prevailing topics among researchers working in these locations, the authors connect these findings to larger debates on rivalling knowledge traditions in educational scholarship, the role of the state and the degree of autonomy within higher education.

Through large scale text mining techniques, researchers have begun to explore the semantic composition of various research fields such as higher education research, research on lifelong learning, or social science studies. However, the bibliometric method has also been criticised for creating “mega-national comparisons” that suffer from a lack of understanding of the national ramifications of various research pursuits. The authors’ study addresses these shortcomings and provides a rich depiction of educational research in Singapore and Sweden. It zooms in on the relationship between each country's institutional histories, research priorities and semantic output.