Conceptual Framework, Mission Statement, Epistemological Assumptions, Curriculum Structure
July 30, 2004
The Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Leadership Studies is based on the Jesuit tradition of educating the whole person.The interdisciplinary degree program is designed for working professionals across an entire range of professions, including K-12 education, higher education, health care, social services, theology, philosophy, engineering, government, law enforcement, and business.The program is interdisciplinary and designed to develop scholarship and professional competencies while encouraging self-reflection and strengthening a commitment of service to others.
From the beginning of the program over twenty years ago, Gonzaga has been the place where critical thought and moral conviction meet the questions of humanity.The theory and practice of writers such as Bernard Bass and James Burns in transformational leadership, Robert Greenleaf in servant-leadership, Carol Gilligan, Parker Palmer, and Bernard Lonergan in personal development; Peggy McIntosh, Ronald Heifitz, Peter Senge, Margaret Wheatley, and David Cooperrider in change and organizational meaning; and Dorothy Day, Paulo Freire, Martin Luther King, and Desmond Tutu in the liberation of global systems are samples of the scholarship and social action that inspire the community of the Gonzaga doctoral program.
With nearly three-hundred graduates, the doctoral program has achieved national recognition and international reach.Among other professional roles, graduates are CEOs of major corporations, professors throughout the world, international leadership consultants, members of research think-tanks, directors of universities, presidents of organizations, entrepreneurs, and leaders of profound influence in varied professions.Most students are working professionals while pursuing the Ph. D..They enter the program often already established in leadership positions.The program is instrumental in deepening the development of the students' leadership potentials.Notably, past student dissertations have been honored with national dissertation awards, reflecting the strong foundation of scholarship the program provides.
Mission of the Program
The Doctoral Program in Leadership at Gonzaga University is premised on the belief that leadership is based on a deep understanding of the self and of the core values that drive one's actions.Thus effective leadership requires the development of a compelling personal vision that engages others by offering meaning, dignity, and purpose.The ultimate aim of leadership is the building of more humane relationships, organizations, and societies.Effective leaders need to develop the critical imagination required to embrace individual, organizational, and global change from a stance of hope and courage.
In the Jesuit tradition, the Doctoral Program attempts to provide a learning community in which students can develop the personal qualities of self-knowledge, self-acceptance, a restless curiosity, a desire for truth, a mature concern for others, respect for human individuality, and a thirst for justice.The Program promotes academic excellence and facilitates the strengthening of conceptual, scholarly, and professional competencies for use in leadership roles that serve others.
Conceptual Framework
The Doctoral Program centers on three dimensions of leadership: (a) the leader as person, (b) the leader in organizational systems, and (c) the leader in global systems.Each dimension emphasizes the nature of change and the development of human capacities for life that is healthy and sustainable.Principles of research designed to honor humanity are threaded throughout the program and provide doctoral students a structured way of thinking and coming to understand leadership from personal, organizational, and global systems perspectives.
The Leader and the Personal System
Throughout society, in the culture of families, groups, communities, and corporations, the call for effective leadership is increasing (Gardner, 1990).Effective leaders make a difference in the world by building more humane relationships, organizations, and societies.They focus on transforming human capacities in ways that fulfill the human spirit, raising awareness of new possibilities and potentialities and encouraging self and others to transcend self-interest for the sake of the greater human endeavor (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).Terry (2001, p. 418) suggested that leaders who make a difference in the world serve the "promise of authenticity," which requires knowledge of self and the courage to act according to what one knows and values.A choice ensues, to "live the promise every day everywhere, and all the time."
Examining leadership through a Jesuit ideal, Lowney (2003) proposed leadership opportunities are found not only at work but also in the ordinary activities of everyday life.Four principles of leadership emerged from Lowney's analysis: (a) everyone is a leader; we are all leading all of the time, well or poorly; (b) leadership springs from within, it is about who we are as much as what we do; (c) leadership is not an act, it is a way of living; and (d) leaders never complete the task of becoming a leader, it is an ongoing process (p. 19).Essential to the Jesuit model of leading is the notion that leadership is not defined by "the scale of opportunity, but by the quality of response" (p. 19), a response that deepens and matures as leaders continue to enrich their own lives, seeking greater fulfillment of the human community.
The process of self-questioning forms the basis of personal authenticity, an authenticity that comes from a compassionate, disciplined, and discerning self.Lonergan (1968, 1988) viewed self-questioning as a natural instinct of the human conscience.It is through such questioning that one is able to see new horizons and possibilities for one's life.Personal authenticity occurs when we are attentive and conscious of our thinking, gain deeper understandings, make judgments that are reasonable, and choose to act in ways that are responsible.Actions taken become a source of new data, the subject for new questioning.Ultimately, self-questioning can lead to a conversion of one's thinking and of one's heart.Beck and Cowen (1996) and Kegan (1982) addressed the need for leaders to transcend current thinking, moving toward more inclusive, systematic, integrative, and global views of the world.Changing one's views of the world requires a deepened consciousness, the vulnerable contemplation of one's own thinking and value systems in order to gain clarity as to what is important, and then to take actions that align one's own deeply held intentions and desires with the greater good of humanity.
For the alignment of one's intention with the greater good of humanity to occur, Palmer (1991) suggested leaders integrate contemplation and action in their lives.He defined contemplation as the unveiling of illusions that masquerade as reality, thereby revealing a reality behind the masks.Action is "the visible form of an invisible spirit, an outward manifestation of an inward power" (p. 17), that becomes a way of creating reality with other people.To Palmer, the ability to integrate contemplation and action is not reserved for the virtuoso few.Rather, these skills "are the warp and weft of human life.The interwoven threads form the fabric of who we are and who we are becoming" (pp. 18-19).Being an authentic leader requires continuous self-reflection and accountability to beloved others, and learning to help assure acts of goodness and well-being(e.g., Lowney, 2003; Palmer, 1991, 2000; Terry, 2001).Palmer (2000) warned that leaders have the capacity to "project either shadow or light onto some part of the world and onto the lives of the people who dwell there" (p. 78).Leaders who cast more light and less shadow are "intensely aware of the interplay of inner shadow and light, lest the act of leadership do more harm than good" (p. 78).
Even though leaders desire to do more good than harm, they may be challenged by the fast pace of change, which can catch them in a storm of stress (Senge, 1990), tempting them to make quick, unreflective decisions just to keep up.And yet, there is an increasing need expressed in leadership literature for leaders to inspire others toward a higher vision of what it means to be human (e.g., Goleman, 1995; Greenleaf, 2002; Heifitz, 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Palmer, 2000; Senge, 1990).Such visioning comes from reflection and contemplation on the part of the leader, signifying a slowing down, thinking and acting with intentionality, meaning, and purpose.Senge (1990) emphasized that leaders in today's world need to develop personal mastery, a discipline of continually clarifying and deepening one's personal vision and focusing one's energies toward new realities, new stories that speak of hope and courage.Now more than ever, there is a need for leaders to commit to the promise of personal authenticity and to gain deeper understandings of the nature of humanity.Greenleaf suggested that such leaders are servants first, fostering a sense of community that embraces diversity, and developing in the self an intricate and artistic understanding of what it means to develop the freedom, health, wisdom, and autonomy of others.
Effective leaders are consciously present to leader-follower relationships, realizing that relationships form the foundation of leadership.How leaders' values play out in the relationship can mark success or failure of the leader to inspire and motivate others to become more fully human.Ciulla (1998) explained that leaders are called to recognize the moral line between free will and subtle forms of manipulation and deception; they are called to become aware of the conflict between factional interests of followers and the common good; and they are called to develop ethical reasoning and reflection skills so they can see how their actions affect their own lives and the lives of others.
Servant-leadership (Greenleaf, 2002), relational leadership (Fletcher, 2001; Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998), transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), and appreciative leadership (Bushe, 2001; Luthans & Avolio, 2003) are examples of leadership theory and practice that are based on deep, personal, and positive senses of vision.These leadership practices can bring individuals to a greater sense of themselves and can give individual organizations new life.Servant-leadership in particular implies the importance of forgiveness and restoration of relationships.A true sense of forgiveness is inherently bound to the ideas of integrity and justice and can move us toward robust and resilient relationships that build the foundation of legitimate power.In the discovery of reconciliation there is also the antidote to the "terrifying emptiness" (Taylor, 1989) that is too often our collective experience of one another.Increasingly, scholarly literature on the role of forgiveness and restorative justice is providing answers regarding failures of leadership.Such studies validate the capacity for moral fortitude, point to greater efficiency and productivity, and model how organizations can maintain a healthy sense of hope and meaning.On a global level, Tutu (1999) called the human community toward more humane expressions of relationships, work, power, and meaning.His approach suggested that people are inextricably bound to one another and therefore responsible for the goodness of all society.
Profound understandings of leadership theory can deeply influence the individual leader and the organization.From a personally authentic place a leader learns to listen and contemplate, and from this quietness the leader discerns the nature of leadership required for a more whole experience of the self, others, and the world.
Questions to explore through the coursework in this dimension include:
How do leaders' images of themselves effect the system in which they lead?
What is involved in risking deep positive change at the personal level?
What is the role of positive affect in higher levels of human development and what are implications for developing leaders?
How does one cultivate a life of deliberately noticing, anticipating, and magnifying positive potential in the self and others?
The Leader and the Organizational System
Leaders lead within a context.Personal visions and values become shared visions and values.Because organizations are, in the end, webs of relationships, they are dynamic, living systems.Leaders cannot control dynamic, living systems, but they can disturb them (Wheatley, 1999).Leaders who influence organizations in an efficacious manner form a comprehensive understanding of both the theoretical and practical workings of organizations. This involves discernment regarding organizational structure, human resources, culture, and politics (Bolman & Deal, 2003).Identifying the mental models individuals hold about the organization that collectively identify the organization is inherent to the development of mature leaders.In turn, mature leadership is creative not only with strategies for changing organizations but specifically for transforming them at fundamental levels.
Because organizations are created and populated by people, they are social constructions (Gergen, 1991).As such, they can be re-constructed (Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2003).The people in the organization have the ability to determine if their organization will be one of problems or opportunities, despair or joy, mediocrity or excellence, enfeeblement or empowerment.Block (2002) suggested "we decide what the world around us should become" (p. 134).
Organizational transformational change can occur when leaders identify and change the thinking of the organization.Changing the thinking of the organization entails surfacing and examining the mental models of the organization.The identification and examination from many angles of the complex and difficult issues associated with mental models requires the ability to engage in dialogue.Genuine dialogue involves listening without judgment, reflecting on thoughts and feelings, respecting differences, seeking deeper levels of understanding, releasing control, and identifying underlying, unstated assumptions (Daft & Lengel, 1998; Senge, 1990).According to Senge, the ability for groups to engage in dialogue is at the heart of the discipline of team learning.
In order to integrate diverse wills in an organization, a leader seeks to understand the dance of interdependence that he or she is part of.Tutu (1999, p. 35) asserted "a person is a person through other persons."Thus, a leader of caring influence engenders in the members of the organization not only the will to share in the leader's experience, but perhaps more importantly, his or her own will to share in the members' experience.According to Spears (1996), followers in purposeful organizations:
Know how to lead themselves well.
Have focus, commitment, and incentives beyond personal gain.
Build competence and credibility to have maximum influence in the workplace.
Exercise an honest courageous conscience when carrying out assignments and implementing policies.
Control their own ego to work cooperatively with leaders. (p. 177)
Follett (as cited in Tonn, 2003, p. 449) argued that "the best leader knows how to make followers actually feel power in themselves, not merely acknowledge [the leader's] power."She explained:
if the followers must partake in leadership, it is also true that we must have followership on the part of leaders.There must be a partnership of the following.The basis of [organizational] leadership is creating a partnership in a common task, a joint responsibility.
Similarly, Wheatley (1999, p. 144) stated:
As people engage together to learn more about their collective identity, it affects them as individuals in a surprising way.They are able to see how their personal patterns and behavior contribute to the whole.The surprise is that they then take responsibility for changing themselves.
According to Wheatley, the effective leader realizes "everything comes into form because of relationship" (p. 145).She suggested this requires leaders to shift from seeing an organization as a series of boxes and arrows to seeing it as a "dense network of interdependent relationships" (p. 144).
Seeing organizations as dense networks of interdependent relationships is inconsistent with the fission metaphor of management that Daft and Lengel (1998) contended evolved over the last century (p.14).Fission creates energy by splitting.When the metaphor is applied to machine-like organizations, Daft and Lengel, Wheatley (1999), and Zohar (1997) contended departments and people have been separated through hierarchies, splitting that results from separating practices and polices, splitting management from non-management, and splitting the professional self from the personal self.This separation usually encourages competition for limited resources.Daft and Lengel propose a new metaphor is necessary for joining, coming together, creating connections, and building partnerships.Sustainable and meaningful systems seek integration and wholeness (Barros & Cooperrider, 2001).Wheatley suggested healthy systems connect to more and more of themselves by strengthening the relationships within the system.
Creating organizations based on networks of relationships requires moving from personal to shared visions and this means reconciling individual purpose with organizational purpose (Senge, 1990) by deciding together what we want to create (Block, 2002; Wheatley, 1999).Quinn (2000) contended that leaders facilitate this process by creating the conditions for productive communities to emerge and that these conditions require systems of relationships in which members share a common purpose and each works for the benefit of all (p. 28).
Shared visions often are negative rather than positive.According to Senge (1990, p. 225), negative visions are limiting for three reasons: (a) energy that could build something new is diverted to preventing something we do not want to happen; (b) they carry a subtle yet unmistakable message of powerlessness; and (c) they are inevitably short term and when the threat subsides, so does the vision.Senge went on to state, "The power of fear underlies negative visions."Senge contrasted negative visions with positive visions, that according to him are driven by the power of aspiration (p. 225).He suggested it is critical that leaders learn to engage the power of aspiration.Cooperrider and Whitney (1999) identified Appreciative Inquiry as a philosophy and process that engages the power of aspiration.Appreciative Inquiry centers on human relatedness.By learning to appreciate rather than fix our organizations, we move from problem-solving to discovering the positive core of the organization, and from deficit-based change methodologies to a life-centric domain (p. 7):
Relationships thrive where there is an appreciative eye—when people see the best in one another, when they share their dreams and ultimate concerns in affirming ways, and when they are connected in full voice to create not just new worlds but better worlds. (p. 28)
Appreciative Inquiry focuses on what is valued about an organization and is an invitation to discover what gives the organization life.Whereas problem-solving tends to lead to a path of negativity, criticism and "spiraling diagnosis," Appreciative Inquiry leads to a path of "discovery, dream, and design" (Cooperrider, 2000, p. 124).Appreciative Inquiry leads to seeing organizations "not as machines or as problems to solve but as living organisms with their own capacities of self-organization" (Quinn, 2000, p. 222).Quinn further suggested that organizations that have a capacity for self organizing can have both hierarchical structure and adhocractic processes.It is possible to be simultaneously stable and flexible.It is possible to have hierarchy and equality at the same time.In such systems, people can connect, cooperate, and co-create a desired future.In such a community, people empower each other.Everyone becomes more autotelic in that they are more internally driven and other focused.Each person who takes part in a[n organization] like this is likely to grow; the system itself is likely to grow.(p. 222)
To be internally driven and other focused requires the leader to wrestle with issues such as the intent versus the impact of each action the leader takes; the role of blame and forgiveness in organizations; and the deepening of both justice and mercy.
Questions to explore through coursework in this dimension include:
What kind of leadership creates an organization that is a place of infinite possibilities?
What is the role of the person in creating positive organizational change?
How can organizations be leader-full (leadership is shared among all people at all levels) yet be led at the same time?
How can the sacred and miraculous become valued in organizations?
The Leader and the Global System
Personal and organizational leadership occurs within the context of global systems.As used in the phrase "global systems" global means general or comprehensive.The Doctoral Program in Leadership Studies assumes that leadership begins with systems thinking and that cultural, political, and international are important and relevant systems for providing the context for personal and organizational domains.The relevance to leadership and the complexity of these systems is reflected in the rapidly changing ethnic composition of organizations, the ability of political change to radically alter the environment, and the extent to which international issues, including trade and employment, impact local situations.
Leadership requires systems thinking, understood as viewing a system as a whole and gaining a perspective on the entire "entity" before examining its parts.In systems thinking, the unit as a whole and the nature of its relationship to the surrounding environment is the primary concern; the parts of the system that are assumed to work together for the overall objective of the whole are secondary (Haines, 1998, p. vi).Since the development of General Systems Theory in the 1920s, a variety of different interpretations have emerged.Soft Systems Methodology associated with Peter Checkland (1999) is one of the most relevant to leadership.Soft Systems Methodology provides a rigorous way for finding out about a situation, including cultural, political, and global aspects; formulating a relevant purposeful activity model; discussing changes which would improve the situation and are regarded as desirable and culturally feasible; and taking action to bring about improvements (p. A15).Senge (1990) considers systems thinking to be the foundational discipline of learning organizations, illustrating the importance of systems understandings for leadership.Senge argued that a learning organization is continually expanding its capacity to create its future through the use of learning that enhances the capacity to create (p. 14). Senge advocated systems thinking for better depth regarding the interrelationships between ourselves and those we perceive as different.Such connections can form the foundation for compassion, the human touch that is central to the essence of good leadership and meaningful work.Systems thinking provides the theoretical underpinnings for the cultural, political, and international dimensions of the program.
There is considerable overlap between the leadership competencies necessary to successfully deal with cultural, political, and international systems.
Cultural competency.Both Hassan (2003, p. 42) and Meiland (2003, p. 44) maintained that good leadership requires cultural competency.Cultural competency is based on an understanding of culture as knowledge people use to generate and interpret social behavior.The assumption is that this knowledge is learned and to a degree shared but that no two people share exactly the same culture (Spradley & McCurdy, 1972, p. 9).Culture is constantly in flux and because it is learned, it can be changed.Cultural competency is not learning about the cultures of specific ethnic groups, rather, it is about developing an understanding that allows leaders to recognize the role of culture, and in turn transcend their own culture.Subsumed under cultural competency are the cultural aspects of (a) knowing oneself (b) knowing others (c) knowing issues, and (d) working with others.Necessary cultural skills include personal assessment, empathic listening to others with attention to observing and reflecting, recognizing the implications of cultural groups, discernment regarding diversity and biases, and paying attention to intentions and impacts when working with others.The development of cultural competency begins with systems thinking and the work of Senge (1990).One then develops the ability to deal with cultures through an introduction to the different theories that offer perspectives on culture (Salzman, 2001).Cultural competency provides leaders with conceptual tools for building community that celebrates diversity, and for resolving and managing conflict that results from diverse styles and values (Mindell, 1995).Schein (1992) showed the direct relevance of understanding organizational culture to leadership, stating that "leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin" (p. 1).
A critically important aspect of cultural competency involves recognizing the differences that gender and gender orientation make in systems.Feminist theory is explicitly about changing the social and cultural order to open as much of the range of human potential to women as has traditionally been open to men (Salzman, 2001, p. 113). The research of feminist scholars such as Gilligan (1993) and McIntosh (19??) and womenist scholars such as hooks (1994) and Walker (1983) provides leaders with new ways of understanding the importance of relationships in everything they do and new ways of evaluating the ethics of leadership.In addition to contributing to changes in culture, feminist theory provides conceptual tools for research on leadership and organizations.The development of cultural competency is foundational to the development of leadership.The development of cultural competency requires consistent work focused on the values and the culture of the leader.
Political competency.At a minimum, political competency requires understanding the interplay of policy goals and power goals in political systems.Policy goals focus on things to be accomplished or defeated and problems to be solved within a context of preserving power or gaining power in order to accomplish policy goals (Stone, 2002, p. 2).Political competency also requires an understanding of the geographical and economic implications of political action.Policy provides the interface between leaders and systems, especially political systems.Stone suggested that "policy is the rational attempt to attain objectives" (p. 37) and is primarily "a struggle over ideas" (p. 11).Leaders, regardless of their level, are always impacted by policy while at the same time having a responsibility to discern and implement policy that deepens and enhances the human experience.In implementing policy from a servant-leadership perspective, good policy serves to create greater freedom and wisdom in the person, the organization, and society as a whole.
International Competency.International competency means seeing the world as a diverse, heterogeneous community composed of different communication, social, political, economic, and fiscal systems.Leaders who engender meaning and purpose in others are able to deal with these systems by understanding the implications of modernization, dependency, and world-system theories of leadership (So, 1990).Knowledge of these outside influences and their relationship to each other helps increase awareness of competing value systems and of the many principles by which individuals, organizations, and nations function.As it becomes more obvious that issues faced by leaders and their organizations do not observe national boundaries, the notion of community clearly extends itself internationally.Whether working in the private or public sectors, most individuals can expect at some point in their careers to be part of trans-national organizations and to be called upon to provide leadership in the global context.According to Tapp (1996) institutions of higher education play a central role in preparing graduates to work internationally.Explicit exposure to the theories and practice of international leadership becomes essential.Even leaders who are not actively part of trans-national organizations benefit from gaining access to the experiences and knowledge of the international community.Development of international competency requires access to international curriculum and professors, as well as international students as part of exchange programs and institutional partnerships.
Information Technology and Leadership
Effective use of technology by leaders provides an example of the importance and relevance of global systems and the relationship of cultural, political, and international understandings.Effective use of technology is not about learning specific applications that tend to be situational specific and quickly obsolete.The cultural competencies required for cross-cultural communications change when the communication is mediated by technology.The information explosion associated with globalization requires new ways of thinking about the management of information.Technology, such as the Internet, provides powerful tools for influencing policy and, notably, the political competencies required for responding to and changing policy are significantly different when they are exercised in virtual organizations.Virtual leadership for virtual teams requires radically different ways of relating to each other ( Lipnack & Stamps, 2000).The effective use of technology requires consideration of ethical issues associated with technology (Dyson, 1998).Among the ethical issues are the implications of the digital divide separating individuals based on wealth, education, gender, ethnic identity, and nationality.
In addition, the information explosion has led to the need to understand knowledge management.Davenport and Prusak (1998) purported that "in a global economy, knowledge may be a company's greatest competitive advantage" (p. 13).With corporate knowledge becoming a valued asset, leaders must understand how to manage and invest in employees' knowledge as well as other tangible corporate assets.A wide variety of technologies can be used to extend the reach of and enhance the speed of knowledge transfer (Davenport & Prusak).The ultimate value in managing the knowledge within an organization is to be able to use it to make better decisions, leading to actions that are wholistic in nature.This again illustrates the need for systems understandings for leadership.
Questions to explore through coursework in this dimension include:
If we truly saw one another as gifts to each other, how would our world be different?
If we live in a world we have socially constructed, how might we re-construct a better world?
How can multinational relationships be created that are trusting yet challenging, supportive yet provocative, visionary yet practical?
Research and Leadership
Research in the Doctoral Program constructs knowledge about leadership in order to contribute to the development of leadership practices that can impact human life in meaningful ways.Argyris (1993) suggested that knowledge gained through research should, in a practical manner, inform future actions taken within organizational systems. Research then is more than a specialized form of academic work: it is a way of thinking that improves the ability to read situations, to evaluate and extend practices, and to make personal, organizational, or global systems more flexible, confident, and responsive (Schratz & Walker, 1995).
In constructing knowledge, research is bound by paradigms.Thomas Kuhn describes a research paradigm as the social construction of realities, a belief system that prevails in a given scientific community at a given time in history (in Grenz, 1996).Paradigms influence what we see and how we interpret events that happen in the world.In essence, three types of paradigms are operative during the research process.One paradigm centers on research methodology and the underlying assumptions that accompany quantitative and qualitative approaches to research.A second paradigm that formulates and guides the researcher's thinking centers on existing knowledge constructions about the research topic.The third paradigm centers on the person as researcher, or how the researcher views self, others, and the world, and how he or she goes about interpreting and gaining meaning from what is observed.
The Research Paradigm.The research paradigm centers on how one is to conduct the research, including what is an acceptable approach to observing, codifying, and analyzing data such that meanings can be derived.Presently in the social sciences, there is more than one "acceptable" way of designing and carrying out a study.In general, one may select a quantitative or qualitative paradigm, and within either of these paradigms select a more specific avenue, such as quantitative survey or experimental research, or qualitative phenomenology or grounded theory.Underlying each paradigm and specific method are assumptions about reality associated with the topic being studied, as well as the researcher's belief system.
Both the quantitative and qualitative paradigms have been greatly impacted by postmodern thinking.In many ways, postmodernism has marked the end of modern scientific thinking, which established a mechanistic outlook on the world, reducing reality into a set of elements that can be manipulated and controlled (Grenz, 1996 ).The modern scientific enterprise was based on the assumption that scientists were able to be neutral observers of parts and particles.The theory of relativity and quantum theory, however, have questioned whether truly neutral observations can be made, given the presence of the scientists themselves is likely to change what is being observed.In the quantum universe, "all life is understood to operate within the context of relational interaction.Everything is affected by everything else" (O'Murcho, 1999, p. 34).
The Topic Paradigm.This paradigm encompasses literature that expounds on thoughts, theories, and research findings about the topic.Of interest to the researcher is: (a) the meaning of the topic: how is it defined and why it is important to study; (b) the nature of theories developed thus far about the topic, their quality, functionality, and underlying assumptions; (c) conceptual frameworks or ways of viewing the topic: philosophical, psychological, historical, etc.; (d) research that has been completed on the topic including the nature of research, theories tested, and findings; and (e) what research is needed at present to further understanding of the topic.Understanding and delineating existing knowledge on the topic informs the researcher and provides a framework in which new knowledge can be positioned.
From a postmodern perspective, a knowledge base on a topic may be fraught with disbelieving "narratives" about reality; narratives that may, in part, be based on false assumptions and political agendas (Grenz, 1996).The researcher is challenged to think critically about this knowledge base, by seeking underlying patterns in thinking and by deconstructing narratives that may have gone unquestioned in the past.The researcher is challenged to imagine new horizons and to engage in thinking that can advance knowledge in creative ways, constructing new realities and new possibilities.
The Personal Paradigm.The nature of the researcher's thinking will affect how he or she views the topic and which research paradigm is selected for the study.How one thinks can limit one's capacities to construct new possibilities.Each of us has a system of thought that frames how we see the world, how we think, and the actions we choose to take (Bohm, 1998).Typically our system of thought, which is formed through our life experiences, our families, and the social communities in which we participate, goes unexamined, leaving us to act and react to life in habitual, unconscious ways.Why we behave as we do and why we think as we do are important points of consideration for researchers attempting to seek a deeper and more truthful understanding of a topic.Lonergan (1988) speaks of knowing as a cognitive process about which individuals are conscious; people who gain new insights are aware of how they are thinking.Such individuals are aware of how they pay attention to data and how they understand or make judgments about data.From Lonergan's perspective, viewing one's interior is a pre-requisite for intellectual conversion.Researchers bring their personal biographies (Rossman & Rallis, 2003) to the research and display their own unique signature, making "it clear that a person, not a machine, was behind the words" (Eisner, 1991, p. 36).
The fidelity and integrity of research requires that researchers gain a clearer understanding of themselves as knowers.Profound research rises from researchers who realize the virtues of thinking critically, with clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, and logic.An aim of the Doctoral Program in Leadership Studies is for doctoral students to become proficient scholars able to develop the virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, and fair-mindedness (Paul & Elder, 1999).Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman (2000) suggested that the foundation for scholarship as a collective human enterprise is neither intellect nor technical skill, but simple honesty.Researchers are to practice the "habit of truth," and then use this way of seeing in the scholarly pursuit of truth.The rules for practicing a habit of truth are absolute with no compromises, no evasions, no shortcuts, and no excuses (Locke, et al.)
Seeking the truth through research can be an elusive process, as truth in the postmodern world is viewed as socially constructed.This social construction can be changed over the course of time.Truth then tends to be revealed through several iterations of investigation, with each yielding new insights and understandings.On a personal level, truth is important to the researcher and is inherent in one's desire to have intellectual integrity.Seeking the truth at this level becomes personal in nature.Parker Palmer (1971) described truth as a relationship, a relationship between the knower (e.g., the personal paradigm) and the known (e.g., the topic paradigm):
To know in truth is to become betrothed, to engage the known with one's whole self, an engagement one enters with attentiveness, care, and good will.To know in truth is to allow one's self to be known as well, to be vulnerable to the challenges and changes any true relationship brings.To know in truth is to enter into the life of that which we know and to allow it to enter into ours. (p. 31)
Inherent in research is the discipline of knowing oneself and how one thinks and comes to know the truth.
Questions to explore through coursework in this dimension include:
If we live in the world our questions create, what kinds of questions are we asking?
If systems move in the direction of what is studied, what are we studying and why?
How is the relationship between the knower and the known cultivated on a daily basis?
Philosophy of Teaching and Learning:
Epistemological Assumptions
Faculty in the Doctoral Program believe in lifelong learning and that we are all learners and teachers.Core values include encouraging a spirit of inquiry through the construction of true dialogue, learning in community with others, and developing mindfulness through seeking truth.Thus, education is both interpretive and associative; more about process than product (Palmer, 1998).It is about respecting and caring for the very souls of one another so that we can provide the conditions for learning to "most deeply and intimately begin" (hooks, 1994, p. 13).
"To teach is not to transfer knowledge but to create the possibilities for the production or construction of knowledge" (Freire, 1998, p. 30).Faculty endeavor to create those possibilities by fostering an open atmosphere that encourages inquiry, discussion, and dialogue with others.This entails encouraging three kinds of thinking: critical, creative and dialogical.Critical thinking refers to evaluating the rationale of an argument or stance on an issue (Davis & Davis, 2000) by questioning the assumptions behind it (Brookfield, 1995).Creative thinking is the kind of thinking that breaks rules and usually results in creative products, services, inventions, or processes (Davis & Davis).Dialogical thinking involves being able to see things from different points of view and understanding another point of view and not suppressing it even if it is a dissenting viewpoint or one oppositional to your own (Davis & Davis).By constructing the conditions for true dialogue to emerge, unseen thinking patterns are revealed (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998), ideas are tested, and learners are drawn to reflect upon their beliefs and convictions.A "communal effort to stretch each other and make better sense of the world" unfolds (Palmer, 1998, p. 103).
A majority of the students in the doctoral program are working adults.As such, they bring with them a diversity of professional and cultural backgrounds.The Doctoral Program seeks to engage this diversity through the creation of a dynamic community of learners.Parker Palmer (1998) described teachers and learners together trying to understand the subject (in this case, leadership) in a "community of truth."Such a community is circular, interactive, and dynamic."Truth" is the passionate and disciplined process of inquiry and dialogue itself; the dynamic conversation of a community that keeps testing old conclusions and coming to new ones (Palmer).In the context of the Doctoral Program, "leadership" becomes the subject at the center of our attention "that continually calls us deeper into its secret, a subject that refuses to be reduced to our conclusions about it" (p. 105).Together, we help each other to "think in a circular fashion, in spirals, to note patterns and to be continuously willing to expand the depth and breadth" of the subject (Feige, 1999, p. 85).
Within the community of learners, individual learners are challenged to be mindful learners by developing their own habits of truth.Mindfulness refers to the continuous creation of new categories, openness to new information, and a conscious awareness of more than one perspective (Langer, 1997).This calls each of us to be continuous learners by developing a habit of mind that challenges oneself to purposely learn in new realms, take risks, and accept a degree of internal dissonance as part of the learning process (Taylor, Marienau, & Fiddler, 2000).A restless curiosity is encouraged, a curiosity that draws us to search and re-search to discover "what I do not yet know and to communicate and proclaim what I discover" (Freire, 1998, p. 35).Freire describes such a curiosity as "restless questioning, as movement toward the revelation of something hidden, as a question verbalized or not, as search for clarity, as a moment of attention, suggestion, and vigilance" (pp. 37-38).Rather than taking us to answers, the process may take us to more useful questions (Feige, 1999) that we then may have to learn to live before the answers reveal themselves (Rilke, 1934).
Doctoral level education is about developing breadth and depth in the field.The program curriculum is designed to provide breadth in the field of leadership.By taking different classes in the program curriculum, students are broadly exposed to the field of leadership studies.Each class provides a different lens through which to examine the subject of leadership.The liberal arts lend themselves particularly well to a broad exploration of leadership.The different fields in the liberal arts can be seen as different paths towards knowledge, each providing a different way to think about leadership through insights gained by voyaging into other disciplines.Depth comes through using electives, individualized studies, the candidacy process, and the dissertation to delve more deeply into a particular aspect of leadership that is intriguing to the student.
People have been interested in the phenomenon of leadership for centuries, and have defined and explored it in numerous ways for an abundance of reasons.Due to this complexity, the inherent interdisciplinary nature of leadership has come to the fore in the present scholarly dialogue.Northouse (2001) contended that there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it, and as such, it is much like the words democracy, love, and peace.From this perspective, leadership becomes a gathering place for all disciplines, helping to form more meaningful understandings of human experience.
Students are simultaneously supported and challenged in the Program.While the faculty strive to meet students where they are at, the faculty also challenge them to, in the words of Taylor, Marienau, and Fiddler (2000) "stretch beyond what is currently familiar and comfortable in order to achieve some new level of competence" (p. 326) or understanding.As faculty, we embrace the arguments of Daloz (1999), hooks (1994), and Tisdell (2003) that our job is not merely to transmit information but to share in the intellectual and spiritual growth of one another.The Jesuit tradition of caring for the whole person—mind, body, and spirit—compels us to see others as whole human beings with complex lives and experiences.Hence, the teaching of the content is not separate from the formation of the learner.Students arrive in the program with multiple levels of understanding and will leave the program with what Bateson (1999) described as multiple levels of understanding.However, it is the faculty's hope that as a result of having spent time in the Doctoral Program, students will have experienced growth towards more complex ways of knowing and deeper, more reflective understandings of themselves and others (Taylor, Marienau, & Fiddler).Ultimately, faculty look to engage students' passions, activating energy to effect personal, community, organizational, and world change for the better.Learning is a lifelong process.As the subject of leadership calls us deeper into its secret, promoting a restless curiosity that is "critical, bold, and adventurous" (Freire, 1998, p. 38) we recognize that "whoever teaches learns in the act of teaching, and whoever learns teaches in the act of learning" (p. 31).
Curriculum Structure
The following section outlines the program details such as its goals, the program curriculum, the candidacy process, and the dissertation.
Program Goals
As part of the Doctoral Program learning community, students will:
1.Understand principles of contemplation and discernment in order to facilitate personal development and to become more authentic leaders.
2.Understand the role of ethics in leadership, and develop ethical reasoning and reflection skills that will enhance positive, healthy relationships and that will move self and others toward the goodness of life.
3.Inspire, create, and lead based on respect for and accountability to others, their organizations, and humanity as a whole.
4.Understand organizations as social constructions that are living, dynamic systems.This leads to purposeful thought, words, and action regarding the change process at the individual, organizational, and global level.
5.Through the practice of positive organizational leadership, develop the ability to seek goodness, engender and amplify it, in personal, organizational, and global systems.
6.Understand and prize diversity and promote global approaches to issues, with special attention to the implications of diversity for individuals, organizations, and societies.
7.Become increasingly committed to social justice, and through their participation in community activities, refining the skills relevant to bringing about more humane social institutions.
8.Develop research competencies that are founded on practices of rigorous scholarship and that inform a practice of seeking truth in social science.
Courses for the Program
The Doctoral Program curriculum includes a structure that focuses on the four dimensions of leadership described above: personal systems, organizational systems, global systems, and research.A total of at least 60 credits must be successfully completed for graduation from the program.
Core Courses
Students are required to complete the following courses (12 credits) prior to applying for candidacy:
Personal Systems:DPLS 700 Leadership Theory (3 credits)
Organizational Systems: DPLS 701 Organizational Theory (3 credits)
Global Systems: DPLS 703 Policy Analysis and Global Systems (3 credits)
Research: DPLS 720 Principles of Research (3 credits)
Other Course Requirements
In addition to the 12 credits of core courses, students are required to complete the following courses (19 credits total):
Ethics (4 credits):
DPLS 745 Leadership and Personal Ethics (2 credits, required)
An additional 2 credits of ethics is required from the following courses:
Leadership and Applied Ethics DPLS 746 (2 credits)
Leadership and Classical Ethics DPLS 747 (2 credits)
Leadership and Feminist Ethics DPLS 748 (2 credits)
Additional Ethics courses are in the process of being developed.
Research (15 credits):
Quantitative Data Analysis DPLS 722 (3 credits)
Qualitative Research Theory and Design DPLS 723 (3 credits)
Proposal Seminar DPLS 730 (3 credits)
Dissertation:
Proposal Defense DPLS 735 (1 credit)
Dissertation 736 (5 credits)
Dissertation completion DPLS 737 (variable credit) if needed (see "The Dissertation" section)
Electives
Students satisfy the liberal arts component of the degree through electives as classes from the liberal arts are embedded in the curriculum.Courses that have a title of "Leadership and…" have an especially strong emphasis in the humanities and enhance interdisciplinary thinking about leadership.Students may develop a concentration in the Personal, Organizational, or Global Systems dimensions by focusing the dissertation on that dimension and taking at least 9 additional hours of elective coursework related to the dimension, for a total of 12 hours of coursework in a particular dimension.
The total number of required credits equals 31, leaving 29 credits as electives.The only stipulations regarding these 29 credits are that:
1.No more than 12 can be either individualized study credits or doctoral level credits transferred in from another university.Transfer credits are subject to review and approval by the Doctoral Faculty.
and
2.No more than 3 credits can be taken on-line or through an internship or mentorship (DPLS 766).
This allows for a total of 21 credits to be completed off-campus (12 individualized study or transfer, 3 on-line or internship/mentorship, 6 dissertation).Exceptions to the above stipulations must be requested in writing and approved by the Doctoral Faculty.
Internship/Mentorship: DPLS 766
Students enrolled in the Doctoral Program may complete an internship/field experience or mentorship as an elective by registering for 1-3 hours of DPLS 766.For internship or mentorship credit, students must submit a proposal at the beginning of the course and attach it to the "Application for Individualized Study" form marked for DPLS 766.A report or project must be submitted at the end of the internship/mentorship to complete the course.For internship credit, the proposal may be to gain experience in another work setting or to complete a work project that will require the application of DPLS coursework.For mentorship credit, the proposal should describe the purpose of the mentorship, identify the mentor, and explain how the mentorship will enhance leadership abilities in the personal, organizational, or global dimensions.In both cases, the proposal should show that the student will be challenged in some way and explain how it will be related to their DPLS coursework.Proposals must be submitted to the instructor who will be the "professor of record".At the end of the internship/mentorship, the student will submit a report and/or products developed as a result of the experience to the "professor of record."The grading mode for this course is Satisfactory/Nonsatisfactory.
Student Flow in the Program
The program can be completed in as few as 2 1/2 years by students who can attend full time and year-round, or in 4 to 7 years by students who can attend part-time or during summers.Students are to complete the degree within 7 years of the first day of a semester in which they first enroll in a doctoral program class.Courses are held at convenient times, such as evenings, weekends, and summers.Occasionally, a course may be augmented with online technology such as Blackboard.The Program offers a "Summers Only" option, allowing students to complete the Program by coming to Spokane only during summers.
A new student orientation program is held once per year and generally during the summer session.Students are required to attend orientation the first summer after they are admitted into the program.Participation in the orientation program early in their coursework helps students find direction, familiarizes them with the University and Program resources that are available, and acclimates them to the Doctoral Community.
To facilitate students' progress towards Candidacy, a Reading List is being developed.
Advancement to Candidacy
Advancement to candidacy is a critical part of the program and is designed to provide an opportunity to reaffirm the appropriateness of the program relative to the needs and abilities of the students.Upon successful completion of the core courses (Leadership Theory, Organizational Theory, Policy and Global Systems, and Principles of Research) each student should see his or her pre-candidacy advisor to review the policies and procedures regarding candidacy.In order to protect the interests of students who may not be advanced to candidacy, students are not to enroll in more than 22 credits until they have met this requirement.Advancement to candidacy is not automatic.More specific information about advancement to candidacy is available on the doctoral homepage.
The method of achieving candidacy is the written response to a specified question or topic that is determined jointly by the student and his or her pre-candidacy advisor.The candidacy topic is to align with the core curriculum framework.One or more of the program dimensions—personal, organizational, or global systems—provides the conceptual framework for the paper.The paper must be of the quality acceptable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.The paper is to be submitted to the journal for review, although advancement to candidacy is not contingent upon the paper being accepted.The journal to be used as a reference point is selected by the student and approved by the pre-candidacy advisor.
Once the topic has been designated, the student has up to four months to submit two copies of the paper to the pre-candidacy advisor.The pre-candidacy advisor and one other doctoral faculty member will review the paper.The decision to award candidacy is based on: (a) the student's demonstration of competence in conceptualizing significant and complex theoretical subject matter, and (b) the student's abilities to write with coherence, relevance, appropriate mechanics, scholarly tone, and veracity.If the candidacy paper is found to be unacceptable, the student will be asked to rewrite the paper and resubmit it, according to departmental guidelines.Failure to pass a third attempt at writing this paper will result in the student's termination from the program.The student will receive a written notice of advancement or non-advancement to candidacy.
The Dissertation
An original scholarly research study must be completed by each student under the guidance of a dissertation committee.The research conducted is to inform the knowledge base of personal, organizational and/or global systems leadership.
Committee Membership
A pre-candidacy advisor is assigned to each student at the time of admission to the program, whose responsibilities are to assist the student in making program decisions and to facilitate the student through the candidacy process.Once students have been advanced to candidacy, they select a chairperson and two or more additional committee members for their dissertation committee.Students should realize that it is not unusual for a chairperson or other committee members to change as a result of changes in the faculty or in response to the needs of the student.Students who are not making timely progress on their proposal or dissertation and have had no contact with their dissertation chairperson for a semester or more should expect to confirm whether their previously selected chairperson is still available to work with them.
It is expected that the chairperson of the committee and at least one of the remaining two to three committee members will be selected from the core faculty of the Doctoral Program.A student may petition to (a) have a core faculty member of the program as the chairperson of the committee and all other committee members from outside the program, or (b) have the chairperson of the committee from outside the program and at least two of the remaining members from the program.Given the importance of the committee chairperson in facilitating the student's completion of the dissertation, the chairpersons selected from outside the core faculty must be prepared to work closely with committee members from the program and invest sufficient time to fully understand the unique requirements of the Gonzaga Doctoral Program.Any exceptions to the expected committee configuration should be carefully discussed with the advisor before individuals from outside the program are approached about participation on the committee.Written approval of the entire core doctoral faculty is required for any petition submitted.
Proposal Seminar: DPLS 730
Proposal Seminar (DPLS 730) is a required course.The purpose of the seminar is to assist students in developing the first three chapters of their dissertations.Before students can enroll in DPLS 730 they must have achieved candidacy and have completed or be enrolled in DPLS 722 (Quantitative Data Analysis) and DPLS 723 (Qualitative Research Theory and Design).Students who anticipate taking DPLS 730 should discuss timing with their dissertation committee chairperson.In addition, enrollment in DPLS 730 requires a written petition to the doctoral faculty, submitted through a student's dissertation chairperson at least 60 days before the course begins.Specifications for the petition are available on the Doctoral Program website or from doctoral faculty.Ideally, students should be able to defend the dissertation proposal soon after completing this course.
The Proposal Defense: DPLS 735
The dissertation process in the Gonzaga Doctoral Program includes a formal defense of the dissertation proposal (defined as the first three chapters of the dissertation).The term a student will be defending their proposal, they register for 1 credit of DPLS 735.The purpose of the defense is to assure the student's research design will yield new knowledge that is reliable, valid, and beneficial.The defense meeting includes discussions to clarify the study's purpose, conceptual framework, and corresponding research methods.Following the discussions, the committee members decide if the proposal is accepted as written, if it is accepted with an accompanying addendum, or if another proposal defense meeting is required following more major rewrites of the document.A copy of the accepted proposal and accompanying addendum if requested is placed in the student's file along with the committee's signature form.The approved proposal with other related documents serves as an agreement contract between the student and the committee.In the event a change in committee membership occurs, the agreement contract continues to be valid for the student.
Writing the Dissertation: DPLS 736, DPLS 737
Once a student has successfully defended their dissertation proposal, the student has up to five consecutive terms (Fall, Spring, Summer are all "terms") to complete the dissertation.The student must register for a total of 5 credits in DPLS 736.Credits can be registered for one at a time or all at once.If a student takes more than five terms to complete the dissertation, starting with the sixth term after the defense of the dissertation proposal, the student must then enroll in DPLS 737 (1 credit) each term until the dissertation is completed.(In such cases, students will have more than 6 hours in dissertation credits and it will take more than 60 credits total to complete the degree.)
The dissertation itself.The dissertation is a published document that bears the name of the Doctoral Program, the School of Professional Studies, and Gonzaga University.For this reason, special care is taken to assure the dissertation is written in a scholarly manner.After the student has successfully written the dissertation, the committee meets with the student for a final, celebratory occasion to provide signatures of approval to the dissertation.The dissertation then is reviewed by the Dean of the School of Professional Studies.
To assure the document is written in acceptable format, the students may be asked to pay an editor that is approved by the department to review the final draft of the document.The editor will be checking for proper APA writing format as well as sentence structure throughout the dissertation.Any additional editing assistance needed for developing the final copy of the dissertation will be the responsibility of the student.
Students will not print the dissertation on the cotton paper until all parties have read and approved the document.They are to check with the Doctoral Program's Program Assistant for specific information about printing the final copies of the dissertation.
Dissertation timeline for spring graduation.Students who anticipate a Spring graduation must have a sound draft of their entire dissertation to their Dissertation Chair by February 1 of the year they intend to graduate.The Chair will then be able to assess the feasibility of a Spring graduation.This allows time for the final reading and editing of the dissertation.Keep in mind that the dissertation will go through an average of four more revisions before it is ready for sign off.The sign off must take place no later than April 15 for Spring graduation.This means the dissertation must be to the committee members by April 1 to allow them time to read it.
Annual celebration.Gonzaga University holds one graduation ceremony per year and it is held in the Spring.Students who satisfactorily complete program requirements after the Spring term will be able to participate in the next Spring graduation ceremony.The Doctoral Program holds a celebratory banquet to honor graduates each Spring.
Residency
Upon admission to the Doctoral Program, students must complete three out of four consecutive semesters of study on campus, earning a minimum of six credit hours per semester.For students who intend to attend summers only, this requirement may be met by attending three out of four consecutive summer sessions.
Faculty Availability
During certain times of the year, Doctoral Faculty are not available.These times generally are: Mid-May until the beginning of the 6-week Summer Session; the first three weeks in August; and between the end of the Fall semester and beginning of the Spring semester.These times coincide with breaks in the schedule for students.During these breaks, Doctoral Faculty engage in professional development and personal renewal.It is important to keep these times in mind when submitting candidacy papers, drafts of dissertations, or scheduling meetings (including dissertation proposal defenses and sign-offs).When classes are in session, all faculty members are available and meet with students by appointment.
References (NOT COMPLETED)
Argyris, C. (1993).Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barros, I. O. & Cooperrider, D. L. (2000).A story of Nutrimental in Brazil: How wholeness, appreciation, and inquiry bring the best in human organization.In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, D. Whitney, & T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative Inquiry: Rethinking Human Organization Toward a Positive Theory of Change (pp. 269-277).Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York: Free Press.
Bateson, M. C. (1999).In praise of ambiguity.In Kane, J., Ed. Education, information and transformation, pp. 133-146.Upper Saddle River, JJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Beck, D. & Cowan, C. (1996).Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Block, P. (2002).The answer to how is yes.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Bohm, D. (1992). Thought as a system. New York: Routledge.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003).Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership, 3rd ed.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995).Becoming a critically reflective teacher.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership.New York: Harper and Row.
Bushe, G.R. (2001). Clear leadership.Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black Publications.
Checkland, P. (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice: Includes a 30 year retrospective.West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Ciulla, J. (1999, ed).Ethics: The heart of leadership.Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Cooperrider, D. L. (2000).The "child" as agent of inquiry.In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, D. Whitney, & T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative Inquiry: Rethinking Human Organization Toward a Positive Theory of Change (pp. 123-129).Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.
Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney, D. (1999).Appreciative Inquiry.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D. & Stavros, J. M. (2003).Appreciative inquiry handbook.Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeside Communications, Inc.
Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1998).Fusion leadership.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Daloz, L. A. (1999).Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners (2nd Ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998).Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davis, J. R. & Davis, A. B. (2000).Managing your own learning.San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dyson, E. (1998).Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age.New York: Broadway Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1991).The enlightened eye.New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Ellinor, L. & Gerard, G. (1998).Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Feige, D. M. (1999).The legacy of Gregory Bateson: Envisioning aesthetic epistemologies and praxis.In Kane, J., Ed. Education, information and transformation, pp. 77-109.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Fletcher, J. (2001).Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge: the MIT Press.
Freire, P. (1998).Pedagogy of freedom.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gardner, J.W. (1990).On leadership.New York: The Free Press.
Gergen, K. J.(1999). An invitation to social construction.London: Sage Publications.
Gilligan, C. (1993).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Goleman, D. (1995).Emotional intelligence.New York: Bantam Books.
Greenleaf, R.K. (2002).Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness.New York: Paulist Press.
Grenz, S. J. (1996). A primer on postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Haines, S. G. (1999).The manager's pocket guide to systems thinking and learning.
Human Resource Development. Hassan (2003).
Heifitz, R.A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers.Cambridge: The Belknap Press.
hooks, b. (1994).Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom.New York: Routledge.
hooks, b. (2000).Feminist theory: From margin to center (2nd. ed.).Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Komives, S.R., Lucan, N., & McMahon, T.R. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes J. M. & Posner B. Z. (2002).The leadership challenge (3rd ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Langer, E. J. (1997).The power of mindful learning.Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Lipnack, J. & Stamps. J. (2000).Virtual teams (2nd ed.).San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.
Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W. & Silverman, S. J. (2000).Proposals that work (4th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lonergan, B. (1968). The subject.Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Lonergan, B. (1988). Collected works of Bernard Lonergan: Volume 4. (Crowe. F.E., &
Doran, R.M., Eds).Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Lowney, C. (2003).Heroic leadership. Chicago: Loyola Press.
Luthans, F & Avolio, B (2003).Authentic leadership development.In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-258).San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
McIntosh, P. (1988).White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack (SEED Project, Wellesley Centers for Women). Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.wcwonline.org/seed/unpacking.html
Meiland (2003).
Northouse, P. G. (2001).Leadership: Theory and practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O'Murcho, D. (1999).Quantum theology: Spiritual implications of the new physics. New York: Crossroad.
Palmer, P. (1971).To know as we are known.San Francisco: Harper Rowe.
Palmer, P. (1991).The active life: A spirituality of work, creativity, and caring.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. (1998).The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. (2000).Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (1999).The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools
[Brochure].Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Quinn, R. E. (2000).Change the world.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rilke, R. M. (1934).Letters to a young poet.New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Rossman, G. B. & Rallis, S. F. (2003).Learning in the field (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Schein, E. H. (1997).Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schratz, M. & Walker, R. (1995).Research as social change.London: Routledge
Senge, P. M. (1990).The fifth discipline.New York: Doubleday/Currency.
So, A. Y. (1990).Social change and development: Modernization, dependency, and world-system theories.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Spears, L. C. (1996).Insights on leadership.San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Spradley & McCurdy
Stone, D. A. (2002).Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.).New York: Norton.
Tapp
Taylor, C. (1989).Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000).Developing adult learners.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Terry, R. (2001). Seven zones for leadership: Acting authentically in stability and chaos. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Tisdell, E. J. (2003).Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tonn, J. C. (2003).Mary P. Follett: Creating Democracy, Transforming Management. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Tutu, D. M. (1999).No future without forgiveness.New York: Doubleday.
Walker, A. (1983).In search of our mothers' gardens: Womanist prose by Alice Walker. New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.
Wheatley, M. J. (1999).Leadership and the new science (2nd ed.).San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Zohar, D. (1997).Rewiring the corporate brain.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.