Vinsamlegast notið þetta auðkenni þegar þið vitnið til verksins eða tengið í það: http://hdl.handle.net/1946/19316
Leadership continues to be an energetically debated and contentious
concept. In many contexts it elicits heated and robust discussion and illustrates a
degree of disenchantment with the enactment of leadership by corporate moguls,
politicians and others in positions of leadership responsibility (Wheatley, M. 2005.
Finding Our Way: Leadership for Uncertain Times. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Inc; Sinclair, A. 2007. Leadership for the Disillusioned: Moving Beyond Myths and
Heroes to Leading that Liberates. Sydney: Allen and Unwin; Preskill, S., and
D. Brookfield. 2009. Learning as a Way of Leading: Lessons from the Struggle for
Social Justice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons). This was clearly illustrated in
the 2008 Icelandic economic context where the community was turned upside down
due to adventurous ‘entrepreneurs’, who, within a defective surveillance system,
caused the collapse of the bank and financial system. In contrast leadership in the
field of early childhood education could be expected to reflect aspects connected to
the stereotypically feminine leadership style and demonstrate a collaborative or team
approach, participation and power sharing (Shakeshaft, C. 1989. Women in
Educational Administration. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; Strachan, J. 1993.
“Including the Personal and the Professional: Researching Women in Educational
Leadership.” Gender and Education 5 (1): 71–80). However, this article explores
two studies of leadership in the field of early childhood education and care (ECEC),
one conducted in Iceland and the other in Australia and findings illustrate aspects
such as micro-politics and horizontal violence which emerge as powerful influences
on leadership aspirations and enactment.
|Leaderships is not a dirty word.pdf||168.13 kB||Opinn||Heildartexti||Skoða/Opna|