No abstract

Within racialized societies, the meaning of race is an important topic of psychological study. As Helms and colleagues has been pointed out, however, race has no consensual theoretical or scientific meaning in psychology, although the term race is frequently used in psychological theory, research, and practice as if it has obvious meaning. A recent cultural historical analysis of race scholarship concluded that race as a label has developed over time, leading to the treatment of race as a “thing.” Such ideological use of race as a thing has been discredited. Nevertheless, socially destructive ideological concepts of race have been embedded in racialized societies to varying degrees through social, economic, and political institutions and their practices. In the history of the field of psychology, race has had various theoretical conceptualizations (i.e., definitions). Most of these theoretical conceptualizations can be linked to larger scientific and societal movements within racialized societies. Relatedly, psychologists have adopted various epistemological and methodological approaches to studying race, although positivist empiricism has dominated. The complexities of the theoretical conceptualization and methodological approaches in the field of psychology for studying race have led to multiple analyses of how to address “psychology’s problems with race.” Multiple features of a racialized society provide the broader context for the study race within the field of psychology.

No abstract

No abstract

This article proposes that while it is widely understood that large‐scale institutions require leadership, there is little consensus as to its definition or how to judge its degree of success or failure. A distinction is drawn between leadership and management. Historical background is provided to indicate change in the scale of academic and professional institutions. Attention is drawn to the impact of demographic changes and the expansion of academic opportunities to formerly underrepresented groups. The article argues that leadership is a dynamic process rather than the application of particular techniques or procedures to problem‐solving or the mobilization of resources. The overall perspective of the article is to shift the focus from the individual as leader to the larger framework of the environments and cultures in institutions as crucial elements of the success of academic leadership.