Ethics education in leadership development: Adopting multiple ethical paradigms

Izhak Berkovich*, Ori Eyal

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Scopus citations

Abstract

Attitude development and identity formation in educational leadership are the goals of non-traditional, and in the 21st century also of neo-traditional, development initiatives. Ethics education emerges as one of the linchpins in neo-traditional and non-traditional development initiatives. Yet, despite considerable interest in ethics education in educational leadership development, ethics education has not been examined systematically, and empirical research on its effects is scarce. The present paper aims to address this lacuna by exploring the effects of ethics education based on extended multiple ethical paradigms in the context of an educational leadership programme. Moreover, the study follows a systematic longitudinal design, based on pre- and post-course measurements that used the Ethical Perspectives Instrument in six Israeli cohorts of educational administration graduate students (n = 73). The findings indicate that ethics education has a limited effect on the student body as a whole, but when students were separated into those who did and did not change their dominant ethics, differences emerged. The results suggest that school leadership development focusing on attitude development and identity formation in general and on ethics education in particular lead to different outcomes.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)270-285
Number of pages16
JournalEducational Management Administration and Leadership
Volume48
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Mar 2020

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2018.

Keywords

  • Adult education
  • educational leadership development
  • ethics education
  • identity formation
  • multiple ethical paradigms

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ethics education in leadership development: Adopting multiple ethical paradigms'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this