week 5
arnita
peersresponds.docx· Barrie Lewis
Nov 17, 2021Nov 17 at 2:35pm
Hello Arnita,
I hope this finds you well. I appreciate this opportunity to see how your dissertation topic is fleshing out. Much of what I have to offer you is still in line with what I said in my first peer review. At that time, I also listed a number of more current potential academic sources that could be of benefit to you in your study.
Your initial profile said more about the specific roles and responsibilities of seminary chaplains than is included in this assignment. From your comments then, it seemed that servant leadership would be the more appropriate theory to pursue. However, from these beginnings of chapter one, one can see that your passion lies with cultural intelligence. You spoke of how seminaries have students who will serve God in different parts of the world. You also said “unless and until church leadership becomes intentional in developing cross-cultural relationships and partnerships, fostering diverse leadership, and elevating such leadership to platform positions, very little will change in the life of the church.” That strikes this research as a “no holds barred” kind of assertion that reveals what really is important to you. At the same time, your chapter one has so many moving parts – cultural intelligence and servant leadership, chaplains and church leaders – all moving in different directions because the foundations and relationships have not been established.
You refer to two different reasons why chaplains should be culturally intelligent. One is to prepare the students for multi-cultural service. The other is to minister to the seminarians who themselves are multi-cultural. This researcher suggests that the first reason would be much more prevalent and necessary, especially in American seminaries. If this researcher may be so bold, she would like to offer a topic that might be more in line with your passion: Why is cultural intelligence so crucial for church leadership, and how can seminaries develop it in their students? If this has appeal, you will need to see if there is a relevant gap in the literature. It could be a qualitative study. If so, you would be exploring the phenomenon, not setting out to prove anything. Depending on the seminary, it would be interesting whom would be the right person(s) to interview.
As you can see, this researcher intentionally omitted any mention of servant leadership. Frankly, you seem bound and determined to use this phrase rather haphazardly, without any current literature support. It is more than a noble ideal for Christians because God has called His children to serve. Being a servant leader is also not something that can be assumed of anyone in a leadership position, just because it is “Christian.” One must quantity specific characteristics before one can say that someone is a servant leader. Your current title indicates a causal relationship between cultural intelligence and effective servant leadership. However, there is no link given in your chapter between the two. It seems that you have two topics or areas of interest here that could be entire studies on their own – the relationship of cultural intelligence to effective church leadership or the relationship of servant leadership to effective church leadership. This researcher suggests that you choose one.
This researcher is also curious about your focus on seminary chaplains as opposed to all seminary leaders/faculty. You mention both church and servant leaders numerous times in your Introduction and Problem Background and Statement, but are entirely silent on chaplains. The first mention is in the purpose statement. How can you assume chaplains understand cultural intelligence? If they did, then why would there be a problem with a lack of cultural intelligence among church leaders? Do seminaries across the board have courses on cultural intelligence? Or just some of them? What is the value of any chaplain’s opinion about the importance of cultural intelligence, if they have never been trained in it or spent time “on the field,” so to speak?
Have a blessed day, Arnita, and I look forward to our exchange this week.
Barrie
·
Nov 18, 2021Nov 18 at 9:48am
Arnita, your proposed study should be interesting. As Barrie stated, I enjoyed reading your first draft, the first of many drafts as we learn along the way. I have a few suggestions for your draft. And this may just be me. Initially, I got the impression that you were addressing not only leaders but students as well. And although you mention CQ, the major thrust seems to be about servant-leadership. It might assist the reader in presenting more about CQ in the opening, lining its significance with servant-leadership. In addition, not until the purpose statement do you introduce the reader to the actual focus of the study, viz., seminary school chaplains. I think that demographic should perhaps be mentioned in your introduction.
Moreover, in the Delimitations of the Research design, you use the term “prove.” I would remove that word because you are not trying to prove something; you are exploring the lived experiences of the seminary school chaplains. A phenomenological study in and of itself is an approach where the researcher is attempting to understand the phenomena addressed in your research questions, purpose, and problem statements. Your study is not positivistic in approach. Even if it were a quantitative design, the word "prove" is never used. In your Summary of the Design, I think data collection methods would round that section out more thoroughly.
Arnita, I am not an expert in this, just a student as you are. However, I want to encourage you to keep plugging away at this process. I remember something Dr. Gary Bredfeldt, our Program Chair, said way back at the beginning of this journey that I have to keep reminding myself of for encouragement. So, I will pass it on to you. He stated that in his experience, it is not the most brilliant students who graduate; it is those who don’t quit. And, that is good to know! Keep it up.
God bless you this week.
·
MondayNov 22 at 3:43pm
Richard,
Well done here in your response to Arnita. You have made some valuable points about the research prospectus that was shared with the group. I especially appreciated your comments on the phenomenological design. Providing insight on the methodology is certainly a valuable part of the peer review process. Good work including these comments! I appreciate your hard work this week in the class discussion.
Sincerely,
Dr. Farmer
·
MondayNov 22 at 7:51am
Hi Anita
The topic of cultural intelligence is one in which more exploration is desperately needed. This research challenges the underpinning of certain types of hidden nuances that exist in seminaries students. This idea of western dominance and way of thinking is often portrayed in our leading and teaching is widely overlooked by many and simply classified as normal. Understanding the broader construct of learning about other cultures and the dynamic within them, more importantly how to operate in them plays a key role in how culturally intelligent an individual is or is not. CQ places a premium on this very topic. Total emersion in this area reveals that in order to be an effective leader one needs to know how to lead who he or she is leading as well as the cultural norms which exist to the people groups involved. Although CQ has many facets what sets this subject apart is its ability for individuals, churches, and groups it offers a level of wholesomeness that speaks to the biblical narrative of “being my brother’s keeper.” Seminaries often fail to equip students with this knowledge and whether intentionally or unintentionally. do not adequately prepare leaders to function in cultural situations outside their own. The values others hold and cherish that are demonstrated in our day-to-day lives are conversations that should be had. A greater understanding can be achieved as CQ takes an introspective look through the lens of treating others with the dignity and respect that you would expect to receive for someone else while affirming one’s own self-respect. CQ also centers on the cultural character of the individual and how much cultural integrity they emmit. This is a splendid concept you may need to look at the impact of the seminary students in a multicultural context. how does seminary prepare them for that role? Or how effective the leaders are who CQ intelligent versus those who are not. I look forward to your research
