
































Microsoft Word - 101-Manuscript-1593-1-11-20210820.docx


Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 2, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Annie Muscato, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Florida, PO Box 112060 Gainesville, FL 32611, 

afmuscato@ufl.edu   https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9936-9374    
2. Matthew Sowcik, Assistant Professor, University of Florida. PO Box 112060 Gainesville, FL 32611, sowcik@ufl.edu  

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5630-2281  
3. Rebecca Williams, Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Florida, , PO Box 112060 Gainesville, FL 32611,  

rjwillia@ufl.edu  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3849-9348    
125 

 

An Exploration of Graduate Level Agricultural Leadership 
Course Descriptions 

A. Muscato1, M. Sowcik2, R. Williams3 

 
 

  

Abstract 

Since its introduction into agricultural education programs in the 1970s, agricultural leadership has 
continued to change due to the needs of students and trends within the field (Cletzer et al., 2020; 
Jones, 2004; Williams, 2007). A single research question guided the study: What is the nature of 
graduate agricultural leadership courses offered in the United States? This study utilized a qualitative 
content analysis to capture the meanings, emphasis, and themes of agricultural leadership graduate 
course descriptions. The frame for this research was established by consulting the American 
Association of Agricultural Educators member list. University course catalogs were reviewed, and all 
graduate coursework offered by the agricultural education departments of the identified institutions 
that included any of the following terms in the title were noted: (a) lead, (b) leader, and (c) 
leadership. A total of 62 courses from 11 institutions met the criteria. The findings clustered the 
courses into 21 categories, further compiled into six themes: (1) individual-level focus, (2) 
organizational-level focus, (3) societal-level focus, (4) professional focus, (5) methodological focus, 
(6) developmental focus. The findings and recommendations should be considered by agricultural 
leadership educators as they evaluate how to most appropriately grow their academic programs and 
coursework.  
 
 

Keywords 

Content analysis, graduate courses, leadership education, curriculum  



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  126 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Leadership education provides students with the skills to effectively engage with organizations, 
establish meaningful dialogs, increase their ability to fulfill leadership roles, and expand their 
capacity for thoughts and ideas (Huestedde & Woodward, 1996; McCauley, et al., 1998; Day, 
2000). Additionally, when exposed to leadership theory and practice, students are better suited 
to assume leadership roles within their community and contribute to the growth of businesses, 
industry, and community development (Kristick, 2009; Russon & Reinelt, 2004). The field of 
agriculture is no exception to these benefits (Weeks et al., 2020). Those working in this context 
continually face complex problems such as climate change, droughts, flooding, and water 
scarcity, requiring strong leadership (Jordan et al., 2013).  
 
Since its introduction into agricultural education programs in the 1970s, agricultural leadership 
has continued to change to meet the needs of students and industry (Cletzer et al., 2020; Jones, 
2004; Williams, 2007). One of the major changes that occurred in agricultural leadership was 
the inclusion of the discipline in graduate agricultural education (Jones, 2004). However, 
despite the growth of these programs, there exists a scarcity of research on the topic in this 
context. As agricultural leadership graduate programs further develop, research is critical to 
better understand both the current state of the field and changes needed to improve the 
educational outcomes of programs. As Alexander (2015) suggests, “Having a better 
understanding of agricultural leadership-related programming will be an asset to the discipline 
regarding restructuring programs to students’ needs, creating growth among academic 
programs, and increasing the knowledge of educators within the field” (Alexander, 2015, p. 26). 
The current study provides insight into graduate level agricultural leadership coursework in the 
United States and explores how the coursework fulfills the needs of the agricultural industry.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study utilized Finch and Crunkilton’s (1999) program systems model (PSM) as its 
conceptual framework (see Figure 1). The PSM describes a basic feedback loop using a systems 
approach demonstrating how academic programs revise the process by which they educate 
students using new information (Finch & Crunkilton, 1999). This model has been used 
repeatedly as the framework for examination of agricultural education and communication 
programs over the course of the last ten years. Cannon et al. (2016) used it to develop a 
national portrait of undergraduate agricultural communication courses. Morgan et al. (2013) 
used the model to explore elements of undergraduate agricultural leadership programs. 
Additionally, research has been conducted within the field of agricultural education related 
specifically to each component of the model. Specifically, Watson and Robertson’s (2011) 
research on students, Morgan and Rucker’s (2013) research on faculty, and Morgan’s (2012) 
research on graduates.  
 
 
 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  127 
 

Figure 1 
 
Program Systems Model 

 
Note. Adapted from “Curriculum Development in Vocational and Technical Education, Planning, 
Content, and Implementation,” by C. R. Finch and J. R. Crunkilton, 1999, Allyn and Bacon. 
 
In this study, the model’s systems theory approach was employed to understand how graduate 
level agricultural leadership programs are operating within and influenced by the external 
environment. Specifically, this study will utilize the curriculum component of the process 
portion of the model, as it is directly related to programmatic coursework. In Cletzer et al. 
(2020) the model was used similarly to explore the scope and nature of undergraduate 
agricultural leadership coursework. This consistency between approaches for the latter 
previous research and the current study allow for a holistic discussion regarding the 
development of agricultural leadership programs in higher education. 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the scarce research on agricultural leadership 
education programs by identifying themes between graduate level course descriptions. The 
importance of the programs themselves is captured by Research Priority 3 of the American 
Association for Agricultural Education’s National Research Agenda. and tasks agricultural 
educators with preparing graduates with 21st century skills, such as leadership (Roberts et al., 
2016). An overarching research question guided the study: What is the scope and nature of 
graduate agricultural leadership courses offered in the United States?  
 

Methods 
 
Research Design 
This study utilized a qualitative content analysis, defined by Krippendorff (2004) as, “a research 
technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  128 
 

the contexts of their use” (p. 18). The purpose of qualitative content analysis is to, “capture the 
meanings, emphases, and themes of messages to understand the organization and process of 
how they are presented” (Altheide, 1996, p. 33). Additionally, Knapp (2017) argues the study of 
leadership education is uniquely appropriate to be approached qualitatively. Therefore, this 
qualitative design was most appropriate to capture the meanings, emphasis, and themes of 
agricultural leadership graduate coursework.  
 
Data Sources and Collection 
The frame for this research consisted of all departments or programs in the United States 
currently offering agricultural leadership programs at the graduate level. The population frame 
was established by consulting the American Association of Agricultural Educators (AAAE) 
member list and determining who self-identified as offering a masters or doctoral degree or 
graduate level specialization in agricultural leadership. Eleven institutions were identified: 1. 
University of Florida, 2. University of Kentucky, 3. University of Nebraska, 4. Ohio State 
University, 5. Oklahoma State University, 6. University of Tennessee, 7. Texas A&M University, 
8. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 9. Oregon State University, 10. Georgia 
State University and 11. University of Missouri. Publicly available university graduate course 
catalogs were reviewed, and all graduate coursework offered by the agricultural education 
departments of those institutions that included any of the following terms in the course title 
were noted: (a) lead, (b) leader, and (c) leadership. Then, the corresponding course descriptions 
were collected. University course descriptions provided a summary of course purpose and 
objectives making them an appropriate data set for broadly understanding graduate level 
agricultural leadership courses in the United States. A total of 62 courses met the criteria and 
were included in the study.  
 
Data Analysis 
After initial collection the data was first analyzed to determine a variety of factors. These 
included the number of graduate level agricultural leadership courses offered by the individual 
institutions and how often the terms: (a) agriculture, (b) natural resources, (c) Extension, and 
(d) agricultural education were included in the course descriptions. Since the literature 
indicates a potential disconnect between the study of leadership and agricultural leadership 
specifically, these terms were important to understand if leadership courses were including an 
agricultural and/or life science focus. While qualitative content analysis is not often focused on 
quantification of individual words or terms, Krippendorff (2004) argued the two are inextricably 
linked when he stated, “ultimately, all reading of texts is qualitative, even when certain 
characteristics of a text are later converted into numbers” (p. 16).  
 
Next, a qualitative content analysis approach was used to identify patterns within the course 
descriptions. Following the recommendations of Krippendorff’s (2004) hermeneutic loop the 
researcher engaged in an iterative process of reviewing and re-reviewing the entirety of the 
data while continuously re-contextualizing, reinterpreting, and redefining it. The intention of 
this was to construct themes from the content using an abductive research approach as 
suggested by Delputte and Orbie (2017). From this the researcher compiled a list of codes for 
categories all the courses would fit into. Leaning on previous research of agricultural leadership 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  129 
 

courses these categories were compared to Cletzer et al. (2020) and then compiled into 
corresponding themes.  
 
Limitations 
It is worth noting one institution included in the study had no leadership courses listed within 
the agricultural education department and another had only one. Presumably there is an 
explanation for these outliers, but based strictly on content analysis, that is impossible to know. 
This method is highly effective for categorizing data, as was done in this study, but the results 
lack the thick rich description qualitative research is known for. Additionally, a lack of publicly 
available access to up-to-date syllabi made it impossible to include course syllabi in this study. 
However, it was determined that course descriptions are intended to serve as an outline of 
both the purpose and objectives of courses, thus serving the research purpose sufficiently. 
 

Findings 
 
Of the 11 institutions listed as having graduate level agricultural leadership programs in the 
AAAE membership directory, 90.9% (n = 10) list at least one graduate level leadership course 
housed within their agricultural education department in their university course catalog. Total 
number of graduate level agricultural leadership courses offered nationwide was 62. Number of 
courses offered per institution ranged from 0 to 15 with a median of 5 and mean of 5.64.  
 
When examining the intentionality of connecting the leadership courses specifically to 
agricultural and life sciences, only 41.9% (n = 26) of the courses included the terms: (a) 
agriculture, (b) natural resources, (c) Extension, and/or (d) agricultural education in the course 
description found in the university course catalog. Respectively, each term occurred in a course 
description the following number of times: (a) agriculture = 16, (b) natural resources = 3, (c) 
Extension = 10, and (d) agricultural education = 11.  
 
The content analysis of course descriptions resulted in 62 courses fitting into 21 distinct 
categories. These were further compiled into six overarching themes specifying the shared 
collective focus of the course categories (see Table 1). Because the categories and themes so 
closely aligned with Cletzer et al.’s (2020) findings, the researcher used their established 
definition of themes. This provides important consistency of language to national conversations 
about agricultural leadership programs. 
 
Description of Themes 
1. Individual-level Focus: “…courses focused on the individual student, such as introductory 

courses designed to provide a survey of leadership theories, or personal leadership courses 
designed to help students discover their individual leadership strengths, styles, or values” 
(Cletzer et al., 2020. p. 4). 

2. Organizational- level Focus: “…courses designed to improve bounded systems, such as 
teams, organizations, and communities” (Cletzer et al., 2020. p. 4). 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  130 
 

3. Societal- level Focus: “…courses discussing how leadership impacts broad societal issues, 
such as diversity, change, and ethics” (Cletzer et al., 2020. p. 4). 

4. Professional Focus: “…courses intended to prepare students for leadership roles specifically 
as agriculture teachers, or more broadly in the agriculture industry” (Cletzer et al., 2020. p. 
6). 

5. Methodological Focus: “…defined by the structure of the course, rather than content or 
focus” (Cletzer et al., 2020. p. 6). 

6. Developmental Focus: “…courses related to teaching students to develop, deliver, and 
manage leadership programming. A distinction was made between courses focusing 
exclusively on youth and those intended for broader applications” (Cletzer et al., 2020, p. 6). 

 
The range of courses making up each individual theme was 8-13, indicating the courses were 
distributed among the themes relatively evenly. The mean number of courses in each theme 
was 10.3 and the median number of courses was 10. However, the number of courses offered 
nationwide, when examined by category, was much more varied. The range in number of 
courses offered per each of the 21 categories identified was 1-8 while the mean number of 
courses per category was only 2.95 and median only 2. 
 
  



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  131 
 

Table 1 
 
Organization of leadership courses by category and theme 
Theme Category Number of 

Courses by 
Theme 

Number of 
Courses by 
Category 

Individual-level Focus Introduction to Leadership Theory 9 8 
 Personal Leadership Development 1 
    
Organizational-level 
Focus 

Organizational Leadership 
Development 

10 5 

Leadership and Community 
Development 
Team and Group Leadership 
 

3 
 
2 

   
Societal-level Focus Global 

Diversity and Culture 
8 3 

2 
 Ethics 

Change 
 2 

1 
  

 
  

Professional Focus Leadership in Agriculture 
Agricultural Teacher Preparation 
Communications and Leadership 
Leadership for General Career 

12 6 
4 
1 
1 

    
Methodological Focus Interdisciplinary 

Research Methods 
Individual Study  
Critical Leadership Studies 

13 3 
3 
2 
2 

 Single Theory Focus 
Seminar 

 2 
1 

    
Developmental Focus Program Development, Delivery, 

and Volunteer Management 
Youth Leadership Development  
 

10 7 
 
3 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
The results of this study indicate that the number of graduate level agricultural leadership 
courses offered in the United States has increased by 82.4% (n = 28), since 2003 when Fritz et. 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  132 
 

al. identified 34 graduate leadership courses offered by agricultural education programs. When 
considering the results of this study through the lens of the Finch and Crunkilton’s (1999) 
Program System’s Model, the model suggests academic programs are influenced by their own 
faculty, graduates, and industry representatives. The results of this study, however, do not 
correspond with Jones (2004) findings identifying what leadership traits faculty members and 
industry representatives’ rate as important for graduates to possess. Both groups agreed the 
three most important traits for graduates were communication, interpersonal relationship 
building, and collaboration. Therefore, Program Systems Model would suggest the categories 
corresponding to those traits would have an above average number of courses included in 
them.  
 
In the current study, the communications and leadership category includes only one course, 
and the team and group leadership category, which would apply to both interpersonal 
relationship building and collaboration, includes only two courses. In both of these categories 
less than the mean number of courses (n = 2.95) are included. To determine what the focus of 
graduate level agricultural leadership courses are in the United States, we must look to the 
categories with the greatest number of courses. Of all 62 courses, 48.0% of them (n = 30) fall 
under five of the 21 total categories. The five categories and the number of courses includes: 
(1) individual-level focus (n = 8), (2) program development, delivery, and volunteer 
management (n = 7), (3) leadership in agriculture (n = 6), (4) organizational leadership 
development (n = 5), and (5) agricultural teacher preparation (n = 4).  
 
Additionally, when considering content, it is important to consider how few courses included 
the terms: (a) agriculture, (b) natural resources, (c) Extension, and/or (d) agricultural education 
in the course description. Despite 100% of the analyzed courses (n = 62) being offered within 
Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences, by agricultural education departments, only 41.9% (n 
= 26) included any of the terms. Based upon the growth of agricultural leadership programs 
identified by this study and the literature, graduate level agricultural leadership programs 
should continue to be examined more in depth. A valuable contribution to the national 
conversation about the future of agricultural leadership education would be to determine if the 
direction the field is being managed intentionally in program design and delivery. Finally, 
research on agricultural leadership programs should consider the role context and contextual 
expertise (Kellerman, 2014) has on leadership education in an agricultural context. To best 
meet the unique challenges of the agricultural industry, should coursework focus on leadership 
education through an agricultural lens? Research into this area would provide agricultural 
leadership faculty insight into the need to introduce context specific areas like agriculture, 
natural resources, or Extension into the leadership education curriculum. It is possible that 
being housed within agricultural education departments in colleges of agricultural and life 
sciences is not enough if faculty members aren’t engaging students in examination of 
leadership challenges or development of skills specific to agricultural industry needs.  
 
Over the past five decades, the number of agricultural leadership programs have continued to 
increase within higher education. Over that time, these programs continued to change and 
evolve to address the needs and interests of those in academia and industry. While those 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  133 
 

working within the discipline have recognized a need for research and possibly standardization 
within agricultural leadership programs, the research is still in its infancy. The current study 
looked to add to the body of knowledge on agricultural leadership programs by providing an 
overview of themes found in graduate level course descriptions. This research is a first step to 
address commonalities and differences within agricultural leadership programs and 
purposefully move the discipline forward. 
 

References 
 
Alexander, J. (2015). Perceptions of agricultural leadership academic programs at 1862 land- 

grant universities [Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas]. ScholarWorks. 
http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1394  

 
Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. Sage Publications.  
 
Brown, F. W., & Fritz, S. M. (1994). Determining the breadth of leadership and human resource 

management/development offerings in post-secondary departments of agricultural 
education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(3), 1–5. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1994.03001  

 
Brungardt, C., Greenleaf, J., Brungardt, C., & Arensdorf, J. (2006). Majoring in leadership: A 

review of undergraduate leadership degree programs. Journal of Leadership Education, 
5(1), 4–25. https://journalofleadershiped.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/5_1_Brungardt_Greenleaf_Brungardt_Arensdorf.pdf  

 
Cannon, K. J., Specht, A. R., & Buck, E. (2016). Agricultural communications programs: A 

national portrait of undergraduate courses. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 
22-32. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/80   

 
Cletzer, D., Mott, R., Simonsen, J., Tummons, J., Peckman, J., & Preston, K. (2021, May 24-27). 

Agricultural leadership: A national portrait of undergraduate courses. [Paper 
Presentation]. Annual Meeting of the North-Central American Association for 
Agricultural Education, Virtual.  

 
Connors, J., & Swan, B. (2006). A synthesis of leadership development research. Journal of 

Agricultural Education, 47(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02001 
 
Crawford, P., Lang, S., Fink, W., Dalton R., & Fielitz, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of soft skills: 

What is important for new graduates? 
https://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-
resources/CFERR_Library/comparative-analysis-of-soft-skills-what-is-important-for-new-
graduates/file  

 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  134 
 

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 
581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8  

 
Delputte, S., & Orbie, J. (2017) EU development policy: Abduction as a research strategy. In H. 

Heinelt, & S. Münch (Eds.), Handbook of European Policy: Formulation, Development 
and Evaluation (pp. 288 – 305) Edward Elgar. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8590074  

 
Dooley, K. E., & Lindner, J. R. (2002). Competency-based behavioral anchors as authentication 

tools to document distance education competencies. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
43(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.01024   

 
Finch, C. R., & Crunkilton, J. R. (1999). Curriculum development in vocational and technical 

education, planning, content, and implementation. Allyn and Bacon.  
 
Fritz, S. M., & Brown, F. W. (1998). Leadership education courses and programs in departments 

of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(3), 57–62. 
Https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1998.03057      

 
Fritz, S., Townsend, C., & Hoover, T. (2003). An analysis of leadership offerings in collegiate 

agricultural education departments. North American Colleges and Teachers of 
Agriculture Journal, 47(3), 18-22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43765775   

 
Hustedde, R. J., & Woodward, A. (1996). Designing a rural leadership program and curriculum. 

University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. 
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agcomm/pubs/ip/ip54/ip54.pdf  

 
Jones, L. (2004). Academia and industry perspectives on leadership and human resource   

development competencies required for agricultural leadership graduate students 
pursuing industry careers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. 
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0001294/jones_l.pdf   

 
Jordan, P. J., Buchanan, G. A., Clarke, N. P., & Jordan, K. C. (2013). Leadership in agriculture: 

Case studies for a new generation. AgriLife Research and Extension Service Series, Texas 
A&M Press. https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Agriculture-Generation-AgriLife-
Extension/dp/1603449418?asin=1603449418&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1  

 
Kaufman, E., Rateau, R., Ellis, K., Kasperbauer, H., & Stacklin, L. (2010). Leadership program 

planning: Assessing the needs and interests of the agricultural community. Journal of 
Leadership Education, 9(1), 122–143. 

 
Kellerman, B. (2014). Hard times: leadership in America. Stanford University Press. 
 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  135 
 

Knapp, M. S. (2017). The Practice of designing qualitative research on educational leadership: 
Notes for emerging scholars and practitioner-scholars. Journal of Research on 
Leadership Education, 12(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116647365   

 
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1997). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary 

things done in organizations (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass 
 
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage. 
 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. 
 
Lindner, J. R., & Baker, M. (2003). Agricultural education competencies: A comparison of 

master’s students at Texas Tech and Texas A&M Universities. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 44(2), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.02050  

 
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (1998). The center for creative leadership 

handbook of leadership development. Jossey-Bass.  
 
McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Training and Development Journal, 43(9), 49+. 

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A7695572/AONE?u=anon~d3cabba2&sid=googleSchola
r&xid=c731221f  

Moody, L. D. (2001). Identifying and prioritizing agriculture and natural resources curriculum 
needs of Nebraska secondary and post-secondary institutions [Dissertation, University 
of Nebraska – Lincoln]. DigitalCommons. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI3022653/   

 
Morgan, A. C. (2012). Competencies needed by agricultural communications undergraduates: A 

focus group study of alumni. Journal of Applied Communications, 96(2), 17–29. 
 
Morgan, A. C., King, D. L., Rudd, R. D., & Kaufman, E. K. (2013). Elements of an undergraduate 

agricultural leadership program: A Delphi study. Journal of Leadership Education, 12(1), 
140–155. 

 
Morgan, A. C., & Rucker, K. J. (2013). Competencies needed by agricultural communications 

undergraduates: An academic perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 97(1), 
50–65. 

 
Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Brashears, M. T. (Eds). (2016). American Association for Agricultural 

Education national research agenda: 2016-2020. Department of Agricultural Education 
and Communication, University of Florida.  

 
Russon, C., & Reinelt, C. (2004). The results of an evaluation scan of 55 leadership development 

programs. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(3), 105–107. 



Muscato et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.101  136 
 

 
Simonsen, J., & Birkenholz, R. (2010). Leadership courses required in agricultural teacher 

education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 114–124. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03114     

 
Stedman, N., & Weeks, P. (2013). The balancing act: Exploring scholarship for the agricultural 

leadership educator. Journal of Leadership Education, 12(3), 82–94.  
 
Strickland, L. R., Carter, H. S., Harder, A., Roberts, G., & Wysocki, A. (2010, February 7-8). 

Understanding the intended outcomes and impacts of agricultural leadership 
development programs. [Paper Presentation] Southern Association of Agricultural 
Scientists, Orlando, FL. 

 
Velez, J. J., McKim, A. J., Moore, L. L., & Stephens, C.A. (2015). A nationwide assessment of the 

scope and impact of agricultural leadership education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
56(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01116  

 
Velez, J., Moore, L., Bruce, J., & Stephens, C. (2014). Agricultural leadership education: Past 

history, present reality, and future directions. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), 65–70. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21312   

 
Watson, T., & Robertson, J. T. (2011). Perceptions of agricultural communications freshmen 

regarding curriculum expectations and career aspirations. Journal of Applied 
Communications, 95(3), 6–20. 

 
Weeks, W. G., & Weeks, P. P. (2020). Agricultural sciences and natural resources: Developing 

future agricultural leaders. New Directions in Student Leadership, 2020(165), 37–48. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20367    

 
Western, S. (2019). Leadership: A critical text. Sage Publications.  
 
Williams, J. (2007). The conceptualization of leadership and leadership development by 

academic department heads in colleges of agriculture at land-grant institutions: A 
qualitative study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas A&M University. 

 
Williams, J., Townsend, C., & Linder, J. (2005). Teaching leadership: Do students remember and 

utilize the concepts we teach? Journal of Leadership Education, 4(1), 62–74. 
 
 
© 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


