This grounded theory study on developing a leadership identity revealed a 6-stage developmental process. The thirteen diverse students in this study described their leadership identity as moving from a leader-centric view to one that embraced leadership as a collaborative, relational process. Developing a leadership identity was connected to the categories of developmental influences, developing self, group influences, students' changing view of self with others, and students' broadening view of leadership. A conceptual model illustrating the grounded theory of developing a leadership identity is presented.

This article describes a stage-based model of leadership identity development (LID) that resulted from a grounded theory study on developing a leadership identity (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005). The LID model expands on the leadership identity stages, integrates the categories of the grounded theory into the LID model, and develops how the categories of the theory change across stages of the model. The model has implications for working with individuals as they develop their leadership identity and for facilitating groups as they develop empowering environments for shared leadership. Connections to related scholarship and stage-based implications for practice are explored.

The leadership identity development (LID) grounded theory (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005) and related LID model (Komives, Longerbeam, Owen, Mainella, & Osteen, 2006) present a framework for understanding how individual college students develop the social identity of being collaborative, relational leaders interdependently engaging in leadership as a group process (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998, 2007). Challenges to applying and measuring this stage based developmental theory are discussed and recommendations are included.

Objective. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the PTPN22 gene encoding the lymphoid protein tyrosine phosphatase (Lyp) has recently been identified as a functional variant associated with susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis (RA), type 1 diabetes, and systemic lupus erythematosus. To determine whether association of this variant (PTPN22 1858T) with RA is reproducible and is also observed in another autoimmune condition, Crohn's disease, we investigated the association between the PTPN22 1858T allele and RA and Crohn's disease in a Canadian population.Methods. Two RA case-control cohorts representing a total of 1,234 patients and 791 healthy controls as well as a cohort of 455 patients with Crohn's disease and 190 controls were genotyped for the PTPN22 C1858T polymorphism, and genotype frequencies were compared between patients and controls.Results. Significant association of the PTPN22 1858T allele with RA was detected in both the Torontobased RA cohort (P ‫؍‬ 1.6 ؋ 10 ؊6 , odds ratio [OR] 1.8) and the Halifax-based RA cohort (P ‫؍‬ 9.4 ؋ 10 ؊4 , OR 1.94). Association of the risk allele with RA was not affected by sex, age at disease onset, or the presence of either rheumatoid factor or rheumatoid nodules. No association between the PTPN22 risk allele and Crohn's disease was detected.Conclusion. These observations confirm the association of RA susceptibility with the PTPN22 1858T allele. However, the data also reveal a lack of association between this variant and Crohn's disease, suggesting that the PTPN22 1858T allele is a risk allele for multiple, but not all, autoimmune diseases.Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common systemic autoimmune disorders, affecting an estimated 0.5-1% of the population. The disease is characterized by peripheral synovial joint inflammation, which leads to cartilage and bone damage and, ulti-

This study combines multiple national datasets on leadership educator demographics, education, positions, and experiences, in order to answer the question: Who teaches leadership? Comparing leadership educators across both curricular and co-curricular contexts allows a snapshot of the diverse perspectives of leadership educators and informs a set of critical questions and challenges for the field. Questions about the preparation and socialization of leadership educators, the development of pathways for faculty from traditionally underserved backgrounds, and the multiple roles and identities of leadership educators merit further investigation.