Leadership Educator Journeys: Expandinga Model of Leadership Educator Professional Identity Development

Abstract

There is a great deal of literature on leadership education best-practices (e.g., curricular considerations, teaching strategies, assessment of learning). Yet, to be a leadership educator is more than having knowledge or expertise of content and pedagogy. Perceptions, experiences, and values of leadership educators comprise a professional identity that is reflective of not only what leadership educators do, but also who they are and how they view themselves within the profession. This qualitative study builds on Seemiller and Priest's (2015) Leadership Educator Professional Identity Development (LEPID) conceptual model by analyzing stories from participants of a professional leadership educator development experience. Leadership educators' identity development reflected a consistent and linear progression through the identity spaces outlined in the LEPID model, and further can be viewed through three distinct dimensional lenses (experiential, cognitive, and emotional experiences). Additionally, leadership educator identities were shaped by a particular set of ongoing influences and critical incidents; the most prevalent incident was related to feelings of inadequacy in leadership expertise and competence. Findings from this study can inform educational programs and professional associations in efforts to train and develop leadership educators.

Leadership Education: Illuminating a Community of Practice

“…Leadership education as a field is defined broadly as a COP that includes leadership educators (Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018;Seemiller & Priest, 2017). Harding and Matkin (2012) and Seemiller and Priest (2015) contend that leadership educators' identities emerge from various forms of participation in the field.…”

“…It values and is inclusive of both curricular and co-curricular educational contexts" (p. 3). Like Seemiller and Priest (2017), we assume that leadership educators are "members of multiple sub-communities within and outside of leadership education (e.g., professional associations, organizations, universities)" (p. 3). As chapter authors, we are also members of multiple communities within and outside of leadership education that have informed our professional practice and identity.…”

“…Within the context of COPs, engagement is even more fundamental-it is not enough to simply engage socially to build a sense of community among members, but engagement defines, reinforces, and communicates the norms and values of the field. For example, some of the patterns and processes that guide engagement include writing articles, heading up a campus-based leadership initiative, and the variety of conferences and other meetings that occur both synchronously and asynchronously across a variety of platforms-where leadership educators choose to present and/or participate (Seemiller & Priest, 2017). The ways by and through which leadership educators interact can influence how, if, and when these ideas about leadership education are modelled and promoted.…”

“…and emotional (How do I feel? ), dimensions of the leadership educator professional identity model (LEPID) offered by Seemiller and Priest (2017). Accordingly, the complexity of these spaces "provides a robust framework with which to better understand elements of leadership educator professional identity development and anticipate professional development needs of both individual educators and the broader leadership education community of practice" (Seemiller & Priest, 2017, p. 16).…”

“…As this entire issue suggests, the process of "becoming and being" a leadership educator may mirror the idea of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP), as professionals negotiate movement-or developmentfrom the role of a newcomer or young professional in the field to a full or expert member of the community (Jenkins, 2019;Seemiller & Priest, 2017). Central to this process is the assumption that learning is inherently relational and involves the social negotiation of meaning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), making it nearly impossible to separate learning the "what" of the field from learning "to be" a leadership educator (Duguid, 2005).…”