Search results

As of 2007, there were an estimated 10.4 million businesses in the United States that were owned and operated by women. The number of women-owned firms has continued to grow at around twice the rate of all firms for the past two decades (Center for Women℉s Business Research, 2008). On the other hand, women comprise only 15.4 percent of corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, 2007b) and, in 2003, held only 14.8 percent of board seats in the Fortune 500 (Catalyst, 2007a).To better understand the glass ceiling faced by both female entrepreneurs and women leaders, the research on women℉s issues is examined from a number of different vantage points. Women℉s entrepreneurship and women℉s leadership research on leadership, decision-making, and gender differences was examined to discover commonalities. Then female single-sex education literature was reviewed for insights on developmental issues that might influence future women entrepreneurs and leaders. In this exploration of research, it was found that both women entrepreneurs and women leaders in the corporate environment tend toward the same leadership styles and ways of interacting with others; they also experience a lack of role models and possible lack of self-efficacy.The literature on single-sex education provides observations that young women may thrive in environments in which there are fewer male competitors, hold less stereotyped views on gender, hold higher aspirations, may have greater opportunities for training of leadership skills, and may have increased self-confidence that may be the result of exposure to successful women role models. Implications for future research are explored and suggestions are provided to meet the needs of developing women entrepreneurs.

While scholars recognize that digital technology is a major tool employed by contemporary learners to access knowledge, its full capacity is yet to be utilized. This paper investigates opportunities to increase individual learning engagement and knowledge retention in higher education and corporate environments through integrating educational content with innovative digital technology. Currently, within commonly adopted e-learning platforms, the most utilized online content delivery and student progress assessment tools in leadership education appear to be discussion-based instruction, along with written assignments, and research projects (Jenkins, 2016). To inform leadership educators’ choice in innovative tools for increased effectiveness of instruction, this paper shares an experience of delivering integrated global leadership education pedagogical content (i.e., cross-cultural competency instruction for graduate management class at a U.S.-based public university) within a gamified real-time multiuser learning platform—MyAltis—and discusses implications for leadership education.

Entrepreneurship and leadership may flow from the same genealogical source and the appearance of separation of the two constructs may be due to differences in the contexts through which the root phenomenon flows. Entrepreneurship and leadership are figuratively different manifestations of the need to create. To better understand the origin of entrepreneurship and leadership, research must first focus on the combinations or hierarchy of traits that are necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, to stimulate the two constructs. Factors that trigger a drive to create or take initiative within the individual in the context of a particular circumstance should be identified, and the situational factors that move the individual toward more traditional leader or classic entrepreneurial-type behaviors need to be understood.

This study aims to demonstrate what myths of and about science are reproduced in this popular cultural work (movie – “Oppenheimer”). This is done by examining the unconscious hegemonic positions supported by the reproduction of stereotypical and mythical images of science.

Content/Text Analysis: The conceptual analysis of a cultural text – a film (“Oppenheimer”) – through a theoretical apparatus (B. Latour’s theory).

The film demonstrates its reproduction of three distinct elements. Firstly, it exhibits classic scientistic clichés pertaining to technoscience. Secondly, it highlights the replication of the individualized monomyth about the (super) hero, leading to the exclusion of the intricate conditions of technoscience’s existence. Lastly, the film aligns with the Californian ideology, as proposed by Barbrook.

The value of the text is twofold: (1) To show that the classical approaches of Bruno Latour are still relevant. (2) To show what hidden premises and myths about technoscience are being propagated through a work of pop culture (the film “Oppenheimer”) and, in effect, to show what kind of influence of cultural hegemony is at work here.