Tech Leadership

Overview
In the previous assessment, you did some significant critical thinking with more straightforward writing. For this assessment, you will do even more critical thinking and analysis. Then you will present your ideas in a scholarly manner, meaning a more detailed narrative. You can assume your audience consists of people with advanced training who expect to understand your analysis in depth so they can critique it. You will do this in the format of a literature review.

The purpose of this literature review is to demonstrate that your proposed capstone topic makes sense in light of current research findings. That is how doctoral-level professionals use the research literature: they start with an idea, discover what is currently known about the topic, and then refine their idea to incorporate those findings.

Instructions
So let’s say you presented your proposal to the organization where you would like to conduct your capstone project, and they agreed! Now you must submit a formal literature review for your Capella class to justify the topic to your instructor. While professionals tend to want the highlights of the key points, academics want all the details so they can critically evaluate your work. This is a scholarly paper.

You can use the 10 articles that you located for earlier assessments. For this paper, however, you should add in a scholarly theory that helps make sense of the research.

Your paper should include:

Title page.
Introduction. (Explain the topic and problem.)
Literature review. (Include subsections.)
Theory.
Project proposal.
Conclusion.
References.
In your paper:

Explain the topic and problem (1–2 pages).
This is the Introduction section of your paper, so use the heading “Introduction” as an APA Level 2 heading.
Synthesize literature to support the topic and problem (3–5 pages).
Literature should be related to the identified problem.
Use headings and subheadings as needed to synthesize the literature (critical analysis of literature).
Apply theory to the synthesized literature (1–2 pages).
Describe the theory.
Apply theory to literature review.
Propose a project relevant to the topic and problem and supported by literature (1–2 pages).
What will the project be?
How does the project relate to the identified topic and problem?
Why does the project make sense in light of the literature?
Convey purpose, in an appropriate tone and style, incorporating supporting evidence and adhering to organizational, professional, and scholarly writing standards.
This applies to entire text, including the conclusion, which should provide a concise summary of key points from the paper.
Apply APA style and formatting to scholarly writing.
This applies to entire paper.
Submission Requirements
Length: The narrative section of paper should be 5–10 pages long. Title page and reference list should be included in addition to 5–10 pages for paper.
References: 10 peer-reviewed research articles plus a scholarly theory.
Format: Use current APA style and format for references and in-text citations. Visit Evidence and APALinks to an external site. for help with APA as needed. Include headings for sections of the paper, aligned with APA standards for headings.
Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 points.

Additional Comments:

Utilize these 10 references while adding 5 – 10 new references:

Chaaban, Y., Saba Qadhi, Hessa Al-Thani, Floyd, A., & Du, X. (2023). Supports and constraints to middle leadership development in higher education: A Q-methodology study. 174114322311740-174114322311740. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231174092
Chunoo, V. S., & Torres, M. (2023). Critical perspectives on leadership identity development. 2023(178), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20554
Davila Dos Santos, E., Albahari, A., Díaz, S., & De Freitas, E. C. (2021). “Science and Technology as Feminine”: raising awareness about and reducing the gender gap in STEM careers. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1922272
Herbst, T. H. H. (2020). Gender differences in self-perception accuracy: The confidence gap and women leaders’ underrepresentation in academia. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1704
Kjellström, S., Stålne, K., & Törnblom, O. (2020). Six ways of understanding leadership development: An exploration of increasing complexity. Leadership, 16(4), 434–460. Sagepub. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020926731
Lau, J. D., Kleiber, D., Lawless, S., & Cohen, P. J. (2021). Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00999-7
Lopez-Inesta, E., Botella, C., Rueda, S., Forte, A., & Marzal, P. (2020). Towards Breaking the Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 15(3), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1109/rita.2020.3008114
Siambi, J. K. (2022). The Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Leadership Development: A Study of Leaders in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business and Management, 17(3), 85. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v17n3p85
Simmons, S. V., & Yawson, R. M. (2022). Developing Leaders for Disruptive Change: An Inclusive Leadership Approach. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 24(4), 152342232211143. https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223221114359
Wynn, A. T. (2019). Pathways toward Change: Ideologies and Gender Equality in a Silicon Valley Technology Company. Gender & Society, 34(1), 089124321987627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219876271

Week 10 Assignment – Literature Review of a Potential Capstone Topic
Criteria Ratings Pts
Explain the topic and problem.
view longer description
70 to >59.5 pts
DISTINGUISHED
Clearly explains the topic and problem and the relationship between them.
59.5 to >49 pts
PROFICIENT
Explains the topic and problem.
49 to >0 pts
BASIC
Identifies but does not explain the topic and problem, or the relationship between them is unclear.
0 pts
NON_PERFORMANCE
Identifies neither the topic nor problem, or they do not appear to be related.
/ 70 pts
Synthesize literature to support the topic and problem.
view longer description
56 to >47.6 pts
DISTINGUISHED
Synthesizes literature to support the topic and problem. Uses paraphrasing to clearly convey meaning. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the literature and how it relates to the topic and problem.
47.6 to >39.2 pts
PROFICIENT
Synthesizes literature to support the topic and problem.
39.2 to >0 pts
BASIC
There is more summary of individual articles than a synthesis of findings.
0 pts
NON_PERFORMANCE
There is almost exclusively summary of individual articles with little or no synthesis.
/ 56 pts
Apply theory to the synthesized literature.
view longer description
56 to >47.6 pts
DISTINGUISHED
Applies theory to the synthesized literature. Cogently articulates how the theory makes sense of the literature findings and the problem.
47.6 to >39.2 pts
PROFICIENT
Applies theory to the synthesized literature.
39.2 to >0 pts
BASIC
Provides an incomplete application of theory to the synthesized literature.
0 pts
NON_PERFORMANCE
Does not apply theory to the synthesized literature.
/ 56 pts
Propose a project relevant to the topic and problem and supported by literature.
view longer description
56 to >47.6 pts
DISTINGUISHED
Proposes a project relevant to the topic and problem and clearly supported by literature. Explicitly discusses the justification of the project.
47.6 to >39.2 pts
PROFICIENT
Proposes a project relevant to the topic and problem and supported by literature.
39.2 to >0 pts
BASIC
Proposes a project, but it is not clear now the project is related to the literature or theory.
0 pts
NON_PERFORMANCE
Does not propose a project relevant to the topic and problem and supported by literature.
/ 56 pts
Convey purpose, in an appropriate tone and style, incorporating supporting evidence and adhering to organizational, professional, and scholarly writing standards.
view longer description
56 to >47.6 pts
DISTINGUISHED
Conveys clear purpose in a tone and style well-suited to the intended audience. Supports assertions, arguments, and conclusions with relevant, credible, and convincing evidence. Exhibits strict and nearly flawless adherence to organizational, professional, and scholarly writing standards.
47.6 to >39.2 pts
PROFICIENT
Conveys purpose in an appropriate tone and style, incorporating supporting evidence and adhering to organizational, professional, and scholarly writing standards.
39.2 to >0 pts
BASIC
Conveys purpose in an appropriate tone or style. Clear, effective communication is inhibited by insufficient supporting evidence and/or minimal adherence to applicable writing standards.
0 pts
NON_PERFORMANCE
Does not convey purpose in an appropriate tone and style, incorporating supporting evidence and adhering to organizational, professional, and writing scholarly standards.
/ 56 pts
Apply APA style and formatting to scholarly writing.
view longer description
56 to >47.6 pts
DISTINGUISHED
Applies APA style and formatting to scholarly writing. Exhibits strict and nearly flawless adherence to stylistic conventions, document structure, and source attributions.
47.6 to >39.2 pts
PROFICIENT
Applies APA style and formatting to scholarly writing.
39.2 to >0 pts
BASIC
Applies APA style and formatting to scholarly writing incorrectly or inconsistently, detracting noticeably from good scholarship.
0 pts
NON_PERFORMANCE
Does not apply APA style and formatting to scholarly writing.
/ 56 pts
Total Points: 0