Michael F. Beaudoin's Distance Education Leadership for the New Century: 
An Article Critique

On the face of it, Michael F. Beaudoin's chapter Distance education leadership for the new century is a straight-forward work that (a) examines the state of scholarship/research in distance education leadership, (b) finds it lacking, then (c) argues that more attention should be paid to the field.  But the chapter does not fall easily into such a summary.  The argument is not quite so simple, and the ancillary points Beaudoin makes as he considers the issue may indeed be the most interesting and powerful components of the chapter.  The purpose of this brief paper is to find the (several) hearts of the piece and suggest some possible weaknesses in how the basic argument is carried out, primarily related to some assumptions Beaudoin appears to make regarding distance education in the contemporary academy.
At the beginning of the chapter, Beaudoin (2005) sets the context.  He argues that as a consequence of recent information and communication technologies, the academy is now facing "new rules of engagement" (p. 74).   Instead of functioning in relatively placid and unchanging organizational environments, we find ourselves facing new challenges, not only in how we design and deliver instruction, but also in how we function administratively and organizationally.  In essence, the academy at large is shifting from campus-centric models to more distributed models.
By setting the context in such a way, Beaudoin makes it clear that although his subject is distance education (DE) leadership, he is addressing the academy at large.  This may be the point of disconnect, for Beaudoin appears to make the assumption that most institutions of higher learning have leaders and/or practitioners in their organizations who identify themselves with distance education.  I don't believe they do.  
To be sure, the academy at large in the US has a number of faculty members, instructional technologists, directors of computing technologies, mid-level administrators, and even some higher-level administrators who are sympathetic with online learning and who have, in varying degrees, promoted online learning in their schools.  But I would challenge the assumption that these educators/practitioners think of themselves as having much to do with DE.  By way of evidence, I offer the list of presenters at the most recent Blackboard World conference (Blackboard Events –Bb World, n.d.).  Blackboard is, of course, the premier online learning platform in the United States and arguably the technology that has contributed more to the academy moving from campus-centric to distributed models of education than any other technology besides the internet itself.   By my count, there were 402 presenters at Blackboard World, but only 14 identified themselves as associated with distance anything, and of those 14, only 5 identified themselves specifically with DE--about 1%.
Further, I would argue that although there are a number of institutions n the US where DE has a strong foothold, in most colleges and universities, DE is associated with adult learners, continuing education, vocational schools, and industrial processes of course design and delivery— none of which are particularly accorded with respect or prestige that is so central to the organizational elitism that functions in most higher education institutions.  Whereas a term such as "online teaching and learning" infers something new, fresh, pedagogically innovative, and something born out of campus-based institutions, the term "distance education" infers something old, outmoded, pedagogically suspect, and something born out of non-traditional institutions of higher learning. While I cannot back up the claims of that previous sentence with research, I do believe it to be true based on my experience.  It is significant that just a few years ago, the American Federation of Teachers unanimously passed a resolution opposing the delivery of courses to undergraduates by distance education means (Carnevale, 2000).  I suspect that if they better understood that what is really going on in the academy is not traditional distance education (where courses are industrially created and delivered by non-faculty), but online learning (where learning environments are designed for students to come to and interact with faculty regardless of geographical place), they would not be so suspicious of the enterprise.   
Regarding research in the area of faculty attitudes towards DE, Wolcott (2003) provides an excellent overview of the seminal studies, as well as the (mostly institution-specific dissertation) research done in the late 1990s.  In most cases, the studies focused on barriers to faculty participation, the need for support, and attitudes toward technology.  In most cases, the studies indicated that participating in a distance education class has a positive effect on a faculty member’s attitude (see Wilson, 2001, and Bebko, 1998).  But frankly, those studies have very little to do with my point here--that in 2007, using the term “distance education” no longer makes much sense and may even be counterproductive.  As the academy at large continues to move from campus-centric and traditional DE models of instructional delivery to more distributed and networked models of teaching and learning design, it is doing so using online learning platforms where distance has become irrelevant.  The academy needs leaders.  But not necessarily “distance education” leaders.
I indicated above there are several hearts to this piece, and one of them is the collection of brief suggestions for approaches to (or theories of) leadership. Four of the most powerful are listed below.
1.	Reflective Practice-- in which experienced practitioners are encouraged to engage in active reflection, a kind of ongoing formative assessment designed to "define new truths."  This approach is especially appropriate for veteran DE practitioners who find themselves in new, evolving contexts.
2.	Transformative Leadership-- an appropriate approach for the DE practitioners because they can easily find themselves in long entrenched organizational practices that, in order to adapt to the evolving changes in the academy, need to be reshaped and transformed.
3.	Situational Leadership--an approach in which leaders focus on diagnosing the organization and the players involved so as to determine how best to lead/manage in new directions.  Certainly this approach is critical, considering the huge (differing and evolving) challenges of academic politics.
4.	Keeping a Macro View--a best practices maxim that encourages leaders not to get bogged down protecting isolated programs, but, rather, to "insinuate themselves into the academic mainstream (p. 85)" and become motivators for and stewards of a vision of learning that is supported by the entire academic community.
These four approaches to leadership seem entirely appropriate, since they can not only function as guideposts and best practices for the practitioner, they can also lay a foundation for future leadership studies in distance education (or online teaching and learning).  In my reading, this is the most valuable component of Beaudoin's chapter. Further, each strategy deals with the crucial issue: how to lead through change. 
There is another heart to this piece.  It shows up briefly in "keeping a macro view," but it also seems to serve as a refrain, if not the moral center, of Beaudoin's entire piece; that is, it really is all about teaching and learning.  And as the academy continues to move (as it almost certainly will) to less campus-centric models, if DE (online teaching and learning) leaders remain good stewards of that vision, they can play a huge, inspirational role as we create new processes, work with new organizational models, move to new markets, and expand the opportunities for teaching and learning for all. 

REFERENCES
Beaudoin, M. F. (2005). Reflections on research, faculty and leadership in distance education. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.
Bebko, P.R. (1998). Influences upon higher education faculty use of distance education technology (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(02A), 0427.
Blackboard Events –Bb World. (n.d.). Program at a glance. Retrieved, September 25, 2007 from: http://www.bbworld07.com/bbw07/pag.asp?id=224003eaf76b6400349
Carnevale, D. (2000, July 21). Faculty union opposes undergraduate degrees earned entirely through distance learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A32.
Wilson, C. (2001). Faculty attitudes about distance learning. Educause Quarterly, Vol. 24 No.2, pp.70-1.
Wolcott, L. L. (2003). Dynamics of faculty participation in distance education: Motivations, incentives, and rewards.  In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 549-565).  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.