3.9 Perceptions within the discipline: exceptional scholarship in  (Page 5/8)

Saturation and data analysis. The scholars recognized as exceptional in this study achieved this status oncethe data (i.e., votes cast and reasons provided) revealed clear patterns. Also, the response data (reasons given for selections)were coded, and key words and phrases highlighted, in search of potential themes, applying Miles and Huberman’s (1994) qualitative procedures for data management and analysis.

Discussion of Survey Results

In supplying the reason(s) for their choice, respondents generally emphasized areas of importance, specificcontributions, and lines of work, even areas that personally influenced their own scholarship. Others noted publications andfurther scholarly contributions.

Four scholars have been identified as exceptional in this article. Although many more names wereforwarded, some with obvious and consistent support by the voting body, a demarcation became evident based on the sheer number oftallies over time. A top tier consisting of four individuals had emerged in addition to a second and third tier.

Those finalists identified here are all white males. A number of females and a few minorities were nominated (andsome were nominators), but not to the point of selection. Although there has been a dramatic increase of women in educationalleadership, school leadership certification programs, and leadership positions in national level associations (e.g., UCEA,NCPEA, and AERA), male scholars may be publishing more frequently (Engstrom, 1999). As McCarthy (1999) speculated, women as a grouphave been faculty in this field for fewer years than men, and so have“not yet hit their stride”in terms of scholarly productivity and impact (p. 202). As another possibility, male scholars may bereceiving greater recognition for works disseminated and scholarly efforts made. The same trend probably applies to minority scholars.Obviously, such trends and possibilities should be closely examined in the context of equity, ethics, and policy development inacademe, as recommended by Haring (1998) and other scholars.

Different Readings of the Question

The survey question was interpreted in various ways. While some viewed it from a national policyperspective, others considered contribution to the scholarly field, schools, or novice leaders.

Selection Criteria and Reasons

The criteria of selection and reasons given were numerous; these are summarized in Table 1. The entries(appearing on the left) represent the themes that emerged from the response data and each quote (on the right) provides support fromtwo or more respondents for the corresponding theme; these all characterize the“typical”comments received.

The four scholars selected as leading academics do not evenly fulfill all of the criteria listed, perhapsbecause each is known for particular spheres of influence (e.g., leadership standards, administrator program preparation reform,ethics and moral leadership, K–12 institutional partnership). Nonetheless, all were associated with such dimensions assignificant and broad impact on scholarship and the field, national spheres of public influence, and mentoring and multi-authoringsystems. The reasons provided extend beyond the traditional association with publication rates and impact via frequency ofcitation as markers of scholarly excellence. The proliferating criteria also fit with some of the emerging contemporary trends inour field, such as the increase since 1986 of university faculty committing to improving relationships with schools andpractitioners, developing field-based components in preparation programs, and focusing more on ethics in professional practice(McCarthy, 1999; Mullen, Gordon, Greenlee,&Anderson, 2002).