investigation.13 At the center of IaP is the ability to use data to understand the effects ..... situations call for sensitive listening to all perspectives, which, if properly .... Client based: (data gathered under the aegis of an institution, school, college,.
Spring 2015
Beyond a Definition: Designing and Specifying Dissertation in Practice (DiP) Models
Process and Product
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate A Knowledge Forum on the EdD
Valerie A. Storey University of Central Florida
Bryan Maughan University of Idaho
Suggested Citation: Storey, V. A., & Maughan, B. D. (2014). Beyond a definition: Designing and specifying Dissertation in Practice (DiP) models. The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate
ii
"The professional doctorate in education prepares educators for the
application of appropriate and specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the profession." Developed by the CPED Consortium, October 2009
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors Note ................................................................................................................................ vi Introduction ................................................................................................................................ viii Section 1 Foundational Nomenclature and Definitions
1. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN CONCEPTS
8
1.1. Vision................................................................................................................................ 8 1.2. Mission ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.3. Goal .................................................................................................................................. 8
2. WORKING PRINCIPLES FOR PROGRAM DESIGN 9 3. KEY COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM DESIGN 10 3.1 Inquiry as Practice (IaP) .................................................................................................. 10 3.2 A Problem of Practice (PoP) ........................................................................................... 10 3.3 The Dissertation in Practice (DiP) ................................................................................... 10 Section 2 Design Elements
1. FRAMING OF THE DISSERTATION IN PRACTICE (DIP)
11
Figure 1: An alternative approach for Professional Practices DiP ........................................ 13 Figure 2: A model for Professional Practices DiP ................................................................. 13
2. FRAMING OF THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE (POP) 14 Stage 1: Is the problem authentic? ........................................................................................ 15 Stage 2: Is the problem relevant? .......................................................................................... 17 Stage 3: Is the problem researchable? .................................................................................. 18 Stage 4: Articulate the problem ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 3: Stages to framing a PoP ......................................................................................... 20
iv
Section 3 Dissertation in Practice Models
1. DESIGN MODELS IN BRIEF 21 Table 1: DiPs in Phase 1 Institutions ..................................................................................... 22
2. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
31
CONCLUSIONS 31 Section 4 1. REFERENCES & ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 33
Appendices
1. APPENDIX A: PHASE I, CPED INSTITUTIONS 42
v
Authors Note This document provides a summary of innovative Dissertation in Practice (DiP) models currently being considered or implemented by CPED Phase I institutions (Appendix A: Phase I Membership, 2007-2010). It also provides concise design summary details of the key elements in the DiP. Although the CPED working principles and concept definitions are in common, the developed DiP design model framework grounded in CPED-FIPSE1 research clearly illustrates that CPED EdD programs are diverse in both program structure and/or capstone product design. Therefore, the presented DiP framework serves as a basis for new developments in DiPs2 as they occur, and has benefited from extensive comments from colleagues in response to initial consultations.
Faculty, doctoral supervisors and doctoral candidates should view this document as (1) a reference text; (2) an overview of DiP design models; (3) an explanation of key concepts that distinguish the DiP, (4) a catalyst for viewing individual institution’s CPED web pages, and (5) a resource for locating the appropriate contact information for CPED PI’s to address specific questions.
Inevitably, there will be diverse reasons for consulting this document, and we hope that readers find it useful for their need. Therefore, for your benefit, the authors have added Section 4 (frequently asked questions) and Section 5 (resources and publications).
1
A $700,000 grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Secondary Education (FIPSE) enable 18 teams of two researchers to travel to 21 CPED institutions to gather data for CPED-FIPSE research study-a mixed methods, multicase study to document the success of initial efforts to redesign the Education Doctorate (EdD). The 35-member team consisted of faculty from CPED institutions who engaged in the redesign of their own EdD programs and CPED Research Fellows who were current students or recent graduates of EdD programs (CPED Press Release, February, 2012). 2 CPED-FIPSE researchers asked individual students and a Student Focus Group in all Phase 1 institutions to describe their dissertation in practice (CPED-FIPSE Student Protocol & Student Focus Group Protocol, 2012).
vi
Introduction The doctorate is the highest level of academic qualification and is recognized internationally as an award of academic excellence3. As (re) designed EdD programs transition it is, of course, vital that doctoral standards are maintained, and that all programs are perceived as rigorous, consistent, and focused on high expectations.4 In particular it is important to ensure that the concept of the “contribution to knowledge” is upheld in our assessment processes and practices. For an EdD, rigor should be measured by the degree of impact the doctoral research generates and sustains for individuals and society. It is also important that the results are pragmatic and contain rich meaning for professional practice locally and broadly.5 The aim being that the practitioner becomes a scholar with the intent to develop generative knowledge that has immediate impact and promotes sustainable change.6 The capstone product of (re) designed EdD programs commonly known within CPED as the Dissertation in Practice (DiP) is conceptualized as a scholarly document that demonstrates a student’s ability to conduct research on a problem within a local context.7 Murphy (2014) criticizes the lack of a common definition of a DiP and expresses concern regarding the purpose, relevance, and impact of a DiP arguing that without clear operational definitions, research remains opaque8. Archbald9 suggests that the EdD DiP should have a distinctive format that demonstrates “developmental efficacy” and “community benefit”, as well as the preservation of “intellectual stewardship” by demonstrating intellectual and methodological rigor. The aim of this document is to address the above concerns by:
Developing a DiP model framework;
Defining model elements with reference to DiP literature exemplified by Phase 1 CPED institution; and
Summarizing the process for each identified DiP model to encourage quality products.
3
Taylor & Sanders, 2014 Storey, Caskey, Dolan, Hesbol, Marshal & Maughan, 2014 5 Bridges & Hallinger, 1995 6 Shulman, 2010 7 Dawson & Kumar, 2014 8 Keynote Speech, CPED Spring Convening, Denver, Colorado, 2014 9 Archbald, 2008, p. 704 4
vii
Section 1 Foundational Nomenclature and Definitions 1. Guiding Principles and Design Concepts 1.1. Vision To transform the EdD (referred to as a Professional Practice Doctorate within the CPED Consortium) into the degree of choice for preparing the next generation of education practitioners. Especially, to assist those who will generate new knowledge and scholarship about educational practice (or related policies), and will have responsibility for stewarding the education profession. In addition, to redesigning all aspects of EdD programs including: curriculum, assessments, admissions, research methodology, committee makeup, capstone project (dissertation, portfolio, etc.). 1.2. Mission To improve the efficacy and reliability of the professional doctorate in education for the advanced preparation of school practitioners, clinical faculty, academic leaders, professional staff for the nation’s schools, through strategic transformations grounded in colleges and the learning organizations that support academic leaders.
To this end, the Consortium does not offer a prescription for professional practice preparation programs, however the grounding of programs on CPED working principles is encouraged to ensure program consistency and rigor. We honor the local context of the school of education as well as those constituents who are served by CPED member programs. 1.3. Goal [To] collaboratively redesign the EdD and to make it a stronger and more relevant degree for the advanced preparation for school practitioners and clinical faculty, academic leaders and professional staff for the nation’s schools and colleges and the learning organizations that supports them.10
10
Perry, J., 2012.
8
Graduate Scholarly Practitioners:
Merge practical wisdom with professional skills and knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of practice;
Use practical research and applied theories as tools for change because they understand the importance of equity and social justice;
Disseminate their work in multiple ways; and
Resolve problems of practice by collaborating with key stakeholders, including the university, the educational institution, the community, and individuals; 11
2. Working Principles for Program Design 1. Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice. 2. Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities. 3. Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships. 4. Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions. 5. Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry. 6. Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice. Developed by the CPED Consortium, October 200912
11 12
http://cpedinitiative.org/design-concept-definitions http://cpedinitiative.org/definition-and-working-principles-edd-program-design
9
3. Key Components of Program Design A definition is the foundation of a common language for scholars and practitioners. For the purpose of the DiP design framework (Table 1) the following CPED program design definitions are used: 3.1 Inquiry as Practice (IaP)
The process of posing significant questions that focus on complex problems of practice. This is the act of the candidate intentionally treating their workplace as a place for investigation.13 At the center of IaP is the ability to use data to understand the effects of innovation. As such, IaP requires the ability to gather, organize, judge, aggregate, and analyze situations, literature, and data with a critical lens. Central to developing IaP is the task of asking the right questions at the right time, and in the right place. Getting the question right ripples into and impacts the entire research inquiry—theoretical framework, research methodology (e.g., action research, case study, phenomenology, ethnography, etc.), data gathering methods, data analysis, and the implications for practice. A well-crafted research question is specific and precise and takes into account the plethora of variables.
3.2 A Problem of Practice (PoP) A persistent, contextualized, and specific issue embedded in the work of a professional practitioner, the addressing of which has the potential to result in improved understanding, experience, and outcomes.14 PoPs that are recognized by broad swaths of the field hold promise that the DiP might contribute to larger scale impact. 3.3 The Dissertation in Practice (DiP) A scholarly endeavor that impacts a complex problem of practice.15
Cochran-Smith, Lytle, 1999 http://cpedinitiative.org/design-concept-definitions 15 Revised definition, CPED 2014 13 14
10
Section 2 Design Elements 1. Framing of the Dissertation in Practice (DiP) The DiP as described by CPED, is a culminating capstone project; different from the traditional five-chapter dissertation, that demonstrates understanding of core professional knowledge and the application of this knowledge to PoPs.16 The DiP enables a program candidate17 to draw together the state of the art in professional practice, with relevant academic theory applied to the solution of work-based problems; with a resulting change within the workplace18 recognizing that real-world problems inhabit a space, which is dynamic, multi-faceted and complex.19 Program candidates have to develop agility unique to the setting of a professional doctorate, in that while researching, they do not cease to practice, and while practicing, they do not cease to research. As such, what happens in the landscape of practice inevitably impacts on the development endeavor. Thus, the DiP is not merely an end product but rather an outcome of the EdD process emphasizing scholarly practitioner knowledge, experience, and reflection.
The emphasis on process characterizes Professional Practice Doctorates replicating the experience of practitioners in the field. The DiP is not a “finished” outcome when the candidate graduates but a beginning of an active and ongoing process of individual professional development and improvement and organizational impact and change. This interactive relationship is reflected in the growing number of programs that are developing innovative DiP models. Non-traditional formats are supported by Shulman20 who suggests that the DiP has great merit as a series of shorter, more varied performances, and not a marathon (traditional dissertation format). Therefore, he suggests that the DiP move from the traditional capstone experience and adopt an approach that demonstrates and communicates the candidate’s multifaceted abilities, skills, and talents over a variety of performance tasks, similar to what is 16
Perry & Imig, 2008 Throughout this document we refer to doctoral candidates rather than doctoral students. The consensus is that this is the most suitable term to use, even though in some institutions a distinction is made between 'student' and candidate' depending on whether the individual has successfully completed some kind of transfer of status stage. 18 Maxwell, 2003 19 Fulton, Kuitt, Sanders, Smith, 2012 20 Shulman, 2010 17
11
practiced in other fields, such as chemistry, psychology, and economics. The epistemological basis for this is ‘Mode 2’ knowledge21—knowledge generated which impacts practice. As we gathered information from Phase 1 institutions we found that occasionally confusions arose when distinguishing DiP model/methods/methodology. We were guided by Harding (1987), method refers to techniques for gathering empirical evidence; methodology is the theory of knowledge and the interpretive framework that guides the DiP. We found that Phase 1institutions are pushing their program candidates to explore and explicate their assumptions about knowledge, practice and inquiry and how these shape and inform their practice and research in/on practice.22 In some institutions the nature of the DiP is continuing to evolve as non-traditional DiP models are explored. Current identified characteristics of the DiP is that it must be a form that manifestly serves functions of the doctorate (i.e. stewardship of doctoral values; rigorous in the creation of new practitioner knowledge; demonstrates ability to conceptualize, define, analyze, and frame a problem in practice that warrants academic rigor to find solutions; demonstrates ability to translate analytical data into normative solutions; and systematic). Additionally, DiPs must bridge that gap between academe and practice, through a design that manifestly serves functions of stakeholders (i.e., rigorous in the creation of new practitioner knowledge; value to a wide community; and represents craftsmanship). Models proposed in the literature include analytical papers (usually three), case studies, clientbased structures, clinical portfolios of assessments, collaborative (clustered in teams or groups), film and video production, portfolios, problem-based investigations, position papers (thematic/problem based), projects designed to address specific client needs, research manuscripts submitted for publication, practitioner handbooks, and the use of social media.
21 22
Gibbons et al. 1994 Harding, S. (1987)
12
Figure 1: An Alternative Approach for the Professional Practices DiP
Roles
Process
Outcome
• Expert professional practitioner • DiP committee or team expert in applied research methods, and professional practice) • Transistion from expert professional practitioner to scholarly practitioner
• Candidate collaborates with supervisor (DiPcommitee /team) and stakeholders (if possible) on identified problem of practice, methodology, and process
• DiP committee/team continue collaborative partnership • Candidate disseminates DiP product
23
Figure 2: A Model for Professional Practices DiP
Stage 1
Stage 2
• Candidate in partnership with the field selects a problem or issue relevant to professional practice.
• Candidate working with DiP committee/team selects an approach (method) to address the problem.
• Candidate must be prepared to change or expand both the type of methods and the issues/questions dealt with during the DiP process.
Stage 3
• Product(s) that document the process and the outcomes.
Stage 4
24
Figure 1. Adapted from “An alternative approach for the professional practice dissertation” by J. Willis, D. Inman, & R. Valenti, 2010, Completing a Professional Practice Dissertation: A Guide for Doctoral Students and Faculty 24 Figure 2. Adapted from “A model for a professional practice dissertation” by J. Willis, D. Inman, & R. Valenti, 2010, Completing a Professional Practice Dissertation: A Guide for Doctoral Students and Faculty 23
13
Underpinning the final outcome of the DiP is the process model. Currently three process models are evident among CPED Phase 1 institutions: (1) individual inquiry; (2) collaborative inquiry in a group or team; and (3) a hybrid model which combines an individual inquiry, a collaborative thematic secondary analysis, and either individual or collaboratively designed white paper. The three processes embrace a partnership or mentorship with practitioners in the field with the intent of the final product addressing a complex problem of practice.
2. Framing of the Problem of Practice (PoP) A key part of the CPED philosophy is the principle that programs emphasize the need for students to address a PoP in the DiP or similar capstone projects.25 Defining and using appropriate language to articulate a PoP is challenging, but doing so is critical to prepare candidates to complete a DiP and lead change. Rather than framing a problem around a “gap in the existing scholarly literature,”26 as the case for PhD candidates, EdD candidates frame problems in situ—from within the elusive and moving “gap between the existing and preferred organizational state (the ‘goal’ state).”27 Given the variety of perspectives, opinions, and beliefs within a situation, this task is complex. Professionals intending to improve policy, or organizational effectiveness do so in the midst of a plethora of input from co-workers, colleagues, community members, and leadership. What contributes to the complexity of defining a PoP are the competing perspectives and interests of affected participants. Problems framed from within real-time social settings are subject to multiple forms of ambiguity. Early interpretations of an organizational problem may shift and “change over time as new information is received and people alter their perceptions.”28 Stringer29 explained that in the process of exploration and analysis of a problem at hand, the involvement of people with varying beliefs, perceptions, values, routines, and rules can make problem solving a complex and sticky process. The cultures and entrenched systems have often been maintained throughout personal
25
Crow, 2013 Creswell, 2013, p. 133 27 Archbald, 2014, p. 2 28 Choo, 2006, p. 54 29 Stringer, 2007, p. 67 26
14
and organizational history. Because of the nature of change and myopic misguided interpretations inherent in real-time problems the candidate may need to visit them not only once, but revisit them several times to ensure proper identification of the problem rather than a symptom. Archbald30 claims that problems in organizations are nuanced with various shades of meaning and interpretations. He explains, “Leaders in organizations often face ‘ill-structured’ problems.” They are multifaceted and “lack ready solutions (p. 1).” For this reason, problems for professional practice researchers tend to remain open-ended and solved incrementally.31 The benefit of practitioners conducting inquiry where they are intimately familiar with the environment—where tacit knowledge guides their craft—are the deeper perspectives they provide. In familiar spaces inquirers are fluid in their professional skills and can think on the fly and navigate their organization without giving much conscious thought to routine tasks (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This allows them to be more mindful about the nuances of an alleged problem. This insider perspective may help them examine on a deeper level the validity of the problem, and determine its authenticity, relevance, and researchability.32 Framing a PoP is a four-stage process. First, determine the authenticity of the problem; a matter of self-awareness. Second, determine the relevance of the PoP; a matter of other awareness. Third, determine if the problem deserves a scholarly inquiry—whether it is researchable; a matter of an awareness of the broader extant conversation (e.g., academic and professional publications). Finally, with heightened awareness of self, others, and the broader professional and academic conversation, articulate the PoP in meaningful and direct language. Stage 1: Is the problem authentic? Our ability to become agents of change, act with integrity, and become worthy stewards of practice33 depends largely on (a) how we see what we believe to be a problem, and, most importantly, how we perceive ourselves in the problem situation (including our motivations, cultural awareness, dominant behavioral patterns, and attitudes), (b) how we perceive others 30
Archbald, 2014 Lloyd, 1994 32 The following resources should be used as a starting point to explore various theories and approaches for investigating and framing a PoP. (Archbald, 2014; Anderson, 2012; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Choo, 2006; Clark & Fujimoto, 2008; Langley, G.J., Moen, R.D., Nolan, K.M., Nolan, T.W., Norman, C.L., & Provost, L.P., 2009; Lloyd, 1978; Schön, 1983; Senge, Ross, Smith, Roberts & Kleiner, 1994; Stringer, 2007). 33 Walker et al., 2008 31
15
associated with, or impacted by, the problem, and (c) how we interpret the problem based on these two points. Exploring the authenticity of a problem begins with questioning one’s personal beliefs, values, assumptions, and motivations about the situation with a willingness to accept potential misguidance about the perceived problem.34 Mistakes and surprises can be camouflaged by personal biases, judgments, and interpretations. Comparing our personal attitudes and abilities with those of relevant peers35 and questioning our assumptions, motives, beliefs and values is a way to strengthen our ability to determine authenticity and articulate it clearly.36 This process may be what Argyris taught as knowing in action.37 Schön teaches that ongoing self- reflection heightens one’s sensibilities and awareness of how people interact, react with one another, and the culture of “how things get done around here.” Knowing in action, according to Schön,38 suggests “not only that we can think about doing but that we can think about doing something while doing it.” We should be cautious, however, of the warning by Scott, Brown, Lunt, & Thorn,39 that too much self-reflection, or self-consciousness, may result in less spontaneity of actions and behaviors, and “therefore less effective practice.” So too, Silverman40 advises against romanticism, which he claims is culturally defined and applies particularly when researchers seek to understand the experiences of others, usually those who are marginalized. Because experience is inseparably linked to self, and people are by nature emotional beings, too much time self-evaluating may result in emotionality. As important as it is to acknowledge and express authentic emotions, when uncontrolled they may skew perspectives, which may change the interpretation of the problem. The effects may domino into data gathering, analysis, and the nature of potential impact. Clearly a balance is needed between self-awareness and selfparalyzing overdone scrutiny. Either distracts from an accurate awareness of oneself in the situation and the ability to diagnose challenges to determine authenticity. 34
Archbald, 2014, p. 3 Bridges & Hallinger, 1997 36 Copland, 2003 37 Argyris, 1993 38 Schön, 1983, p. 54 39 Scott, Brown, Lunt, & Thorn, 2004, p. 58 40 Silverman, 2001 35
16
After a period of self-reflection the next necessity for ensuring problem authenticity is listening to stakeholders, and clients as to how they see things. Discuss the differences between the current and preferred conditions, why they exist, and make some inferences about cause. Sometimes problems are culturally defined, and, as a result, may unwittingly be missed because the researcher is caught up in the culture. A third necessity for determining the authenticity of a problem is to be aware of the emotional drama of a situation; standing strong on personal opinions. Pushing hard on problems related to hegemony and more systemic issues may shut down the conversation, and cause a misdiagnosis of the problem. Feelings of threat might undermine the research inquiry. Finally, there is a problem with focusing intently on a problem. Unintended consequences of zeroing in on a problem to intently is the inability to see the problem clearly, which may result in blame and accusations, which may ultimately lead to more of the same problem that is trying to be resolved (see Appendix B for an example). This begs the question: if the problem were resolved who would be helped? If the problem were not resolved, what would become the new focus? When an inquirer becomes self-aware at this level, they may begin to more accurately determine the problem’s relevance. Stage 2: Is the problem relevant? While the PoP may be deemed authentic, it may not yet warrant systematic scholarly IaP. The PoP must mean something to someone and, by addressing the PoP, it must result in a positive impact within an organization, institution, or community. This is what makes a PoP relevant. Relevance is determined by the needs of (a) immediate stakeholders, and (b) others that may be indirectly affect by the proposed changes. a. Because EdD candidates define a problem of practice in situ, and are surrounded by diverse perspectives, including deep emotions, the candidate must listen closely to develop clarity about stakeholder’s objectives and what they want to achieve. Rigorous and relevant research considers all perspectives, which requires the candidate to suspend judgment while considering the views of others. Argyris41 encourages the researcher to “not only listen for information they are seeking,” because it may cause them to “ignore important ideas that the 41
Argyris, 1993, p. 83
17
respondents are communicating.” Argyris goes on to explain that by listening a researcher may notice how well the stakeholders “encourage inquiry into their views, and how amenable their views are to testing.”
b. To become an instrument of change and generate new practitioner and scholarly knowledge requires a deepening sense of the needs of those affected by the problem, and how authoritative sources may have already addressed it. Unpacking the problem by providing evidence from practice, and documentation from literature of its relevance is the beginning of rigor for a professional practitioner attempting to persuade and affect change.
c. A desire to know the real-ness and relevance of the problem requires an authentic listening ear. Authentic listening avoids feigned affection, but builds trust with a real intent to hear what they have to say. Bolman and Deal42 emphasize both what to listen for—a person’s aspirations and goals, —and how to listen—with personal warmth and openness. The positive environment of authentic listening, therefore, helps candidates avoid and assuage potential conflict and build consensus among those concerned with the situation. Authentic listening underpins the vitality of any research paradigm, but for professional practitioner researcher with a goal toward making positive impact, the process of listening is an act of selfless desire to become alive to the objectives of immediate stakeholders.
Listening is a creative force and allows the candidate to help stakeholders clarify needs and expectations and strip away superfluous emotional baggage that may be associated with the problem ultimately leading to honest and necessarily difficult discussions, otherwise thought of as crucial conversations43. When change is necessary, but a suggested change is not welcome, some emotions may halt the conversation. A dominant voice may deflect the conversation away from one issue to another. Silverman44 states, “Authenticity is attached to personal experience,” and because we may assume each personal experience is authentic, the interpretations of each should be respected and perceptions should be managed. Sensitive
42
Bolman and Deal, 2008, p. 331 Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2002 44 Silverman, 2013, p. 471 43
18
situations call for sensitive listening to all perspectives, which, if properly managed, leads to clarity and the ability to determine the relevance of the problem. Stage 3: Is the problem researchable? The “researchableness” of the PoP is dependent on extant conversations within both the profession and the academe. The potential for knowledge accumulation across the field may be greater if PoPs are held in common. Identified PoPs may have has been addressed in varying degrees and published in academic literature and/or other professional outlets. The candidate must make the determination whether or not to enter the conversation and add their particular perspective. a. Engage in conversations with other professionals and consult recent literature from industry experts. Because “solutions to PoP issues are not always neatly confined within the boundaries of one theory45 or location, and the PoP may be framed from multiple perspectives, it is necessary to develop awareness of the larger conversation.
b. Consult the literature. Becoming familiar with the approach of scholars and the theories that describe human phenomena in question. As candidates understand the immediate scholarly conversation around the PoP, and becoming assimilated into the knowledge base, they will gain confidence in the researchability of the problem and hope for a reasonable solution as they build upon theoretical knowledge and develop instructive and important generative knowledge. Stage 4: Articulate the problem When a candidate has clear self-awareness, an awareness of the needs of others, and can see the PoP in context of the larger conversation, they can begin to articulate the PoP. This stage requires an understanding of timing, vision, and the particular zeitgeist of the situation under investigation. Articulating the PoP, or writing the story of the unsettled situation concisely and clearly, requires deep understanding of the language and the culture, which includes: assumptions, attitudes, ethics, gender, and geographic locations. Knowing the language of the
45
Willis, Inman, & Valenti, 2010, p. 71
19
culture, along with norms and the assumptions will position the candidate to frame an authentic, relevant, and researchable PoP. a. Become immersed in the language of the existing culture, including differences due to geographical location, ethnic demographics or any number of factors. b. Envision what “better” would look like if the problem were eliminated. Candidates can lead change and motivate others when they can articulate the vision of what could be. Archbald claims, “It is harder to lead improvement if you cannot articulate what ‘better’ is”. 46 c.
Study theoretical knowledge and become emerged in the scholarly literature, there is a temptation to articulate the problem in theoretical language. Do not be hoodwinked into believing that sophisticated and complicated Greek-speak and academic-ese is the preferred language for professional practitioners. The methods by which we know things (epistemology), and the values we attribute to our knowledge (axiology), and our relationships with other beings (ontology) may be, and should be written in terms our professional colleagues can readily understand.
46
Archbald (2014), p. 35
20
Figure 3: Stages to framing a Problem of Practice
• Determine authenticity: Self-reflection. How do we see ourselves and others in context of the problem situation? Carefully consider personal limitations and biases. Stage 1
Stage 2
• Determine relevance: Establish a need for a solution. Describe differences between the current and preferred conditions? Clarify real-time issues with stakeholders, colleagues, clients, mentors, and other experts.
• Determine researchability: Contextualize the problem in the broader conversation--in the academic literature and other professional publications. Stage 3
• Articulate the problem: Understand deeply the culture, language, and assumptions of the situation under investigation. Stage 4
21
Section 3 Dissertation in Practice Models 1. Design Models in Brief An overview of the DiP models is provided below in Table 1 as a reference. In the table, a brief description is given of the process of completing a DiP and the overall product, or result of the research. Further guidance regarding an institution’s DiP design model can be found on the CPED website and by contacting the institution’s PI. Where interpretation was necessary, the authors consulted with the appropriate institution PIs as well as the research and practitioner literature on each design model. In many Professional Practices Doctoral programs candidates are expected to publish articles in professional journals or other industry specific outlets. Each dissertation format, and the dissertation development process, serves different purposes based on the intended audience and the candidate’s goals. Dawson and Kumar47 investigated a number of professional practice doctoral process components and found that the capstone product takes many forms. They provided a list of what a professional practice dissertation “might” look like:
resemble traditional dissertations (New California State, University48)
emphasize a particular stance toward inquiry such as social justice (Duquesne University49)
involve completing pieces of the dissertation throughout a program (Duquesne University)
promote particular research genres such as program evaluation or policy analysis (Illinois State University50)
promote a particular method such as action research or practitioner inquiry (Wetzel & Ewbanks, 2013)
encompass a team activity with students making individual and collaborative
47
Dawson and Kumar. 2011 Auerbach, S., 2011 49 Dissertation in Practice Guidelines, 2012. Duquesne University 48
50
Illinois State University http://cpedinitiative.org/files/Illinois%20State%20University%20
22
contributions to a final document (Kentucky Community and Technology College system)
revolve around a common theme explored by most students (USC, Marsh & Dembo, 2009)
involve a team-based evaluation conducted for actual clients (Virginia Commonwealth University)
Considering these various processes toward a DiP we again emphasize that a professional practice dissertation is not intended to generate theoretical knowledge, but is to discover ways to enhance or impact immediate practice—change a policy or improve a procedure. 51 Dissertation formats found amongst Phase 1 CPED cadre include:
5-Chapter independent and original dissertation: addressing a gap in the literature, hypothesis testing or heuristic descriptions of human phenomena. The advancement or development of a theory.
3-Article/Manuscript dissertation: Manuscripts addressing similar overall themes.
Professional Portfolio
5-Chapter group and original dissertation: addressing professional problems of practice
Each dissertation may follow a particular process that influences how data will be gathered and used. Common among most CPED-affiliate institutions is the idea that they conducted their inquiry among a Community of Practice (CoP) in a Laboratory of Practice 52(LoP). There is some crossover among the processes of each university. The processes found among this particular cadre include: 1. Original and independent data gathering and analysis: data is gathered and analyzed by a single candidate.
51
52
Willis, et al., 2010 University of Central Florida EdD Education program
23
2. Interdisciplinary: Original and collaborative data gathering and analysis—performed in teams. Stakeholders may also participate in data collection, but not analysis 3. Thematic Dissertation: Original and collaborative data gathering based on a common theme and related PoP. 4. Client based: (data gathered under the aegis of an institution, school, college, community, or business). Stakeholders may also be involved in data collection and analysis. 5. Action research: data is gathered through iterative cycles of investigating a PoP by looking closely at the PoP (observing), reflecting on what is observed, planning a strategy for improvement, and acting and then repeating the cycle (Stringer, 2007). 6. Fieldwork—onsite visits
24
DiPs in Phase 1 Institutions53 Institution
53
DiP/Capstone
Process
Product/Outcome Graduates to become scholarly practitioners A report of the consequences of a particular educational intervention. An outcome is the developmetn of a scholarly practitioners who can lead change and improve the practices of their workplace. Generate new ideas and innovation in their immediate practice (change policy, fill gaps in literature, produce generative knowledge). Program theme: Changing Leaders to Lead Change Results of sufficient merit to be published in refereed journals or to form the basis of a book or monograph Scholarly practitioner who affect positive change in the education enterprise. Implications for future research: Depth of research enables other scholars to build on it in subsequent work Action plan intended to yield generative impact on educational leadership and educational improvement.
Arizona State University
5-chapter
Action Research/mixed methods: The culmination of several iterative cycles of inquiry into a particular PoP. Addresses authentic PoP within candidate’s immediate workplace Laboratory of Practice (LoP).
California State Fresno
5-chapter
Action or Applied Research within a specified laboratory of practice (LoP) Embedded fieldwork—onsite visits. Case studies
Duquesne University
5-chapter, (individual)
Lynn University
Options: 3-article manuscript 5-chapter Videos iBooks Shared projects
Northern Illinois
Options:
Research performed in candidate’s LoP—onsite visits. Inquiry focuses on a PoP addressing issues of social justice. Incorporates change by embracing researched problemsolving practices, program design and development while utilizing new technologies. Problem-based instruction through field studies. Hybrid course delivery Laboratories of practice: real situations Four overarching themes: Leadership Accountability Equity & Diversity (A&D) Learning and Instruction Extended, Embedded, Integrated Internship model
5-Chapter Filled gap in literature, produced theoretical knowledge Implication for future research 3-Article: Produce generative knowledge Generated thematically related original article-length manuscripts 2 manuscripts fully accepted for publication in journals meeting specified criteria (see: www.slu.edu/x19951.eml?site=mobile). Policy Formation DiP: Candidates impact education
The information in this matrix was drawn primarily from the CPED website: http://cpedinitiative.org/consortium-members, and by communication with university PIs through email and/or telephone conversations.
University
5-chapter Legal dissertation Capstone project
Rutgers University
Option: 3-article/ manuscript 5-chapter
University of Central Florida
EdD in Educational LeadershipExecutive Track: 5-chapter Individual
EdD Education Program: 5-chapter (Options individual or collaborative)
(Internship is 6- semesters. It is a professional capstone project (it could be 4-5 years) wherein candidates meet with professional in their field. They tie in goals of the organization as an exemplar of the learning experience. This may also be turned into a dissertation): Integrated problem-based field project that is clientbased. Client-based project. Program Evaluation: Candidates explore the effectiveness of educational interventions and developing implications for practice Theory driven. Gap in the literature—addressing a theoretical knowledge gap. Scholarly monograph Candidates may do reflexive research: Evaluate and document performance; identify/prioritize organizational needs; analyze causes systemically and objectively; employ multiple perspectives in causal analyses; apply cost-benefit analyses, organizational values, and ethical criteria to solutions; and using appropriate technologies to support problem analysis, decision making, and communication. Test solutions to a challenge in educational practice. Ask questions: 1. What is going on here 2. What happens when I, we, or they do…? Working with stakeholders. Cohort model Field-based applied research. PoP o Identified by school leaders; or o Identified by students as emerging issues that have not been thoroughly researched yet PoP developed through gap analysis Coursework and field experience relates to complex PoP Performed in authentic professional environment. DiP is completed in a team of the student, faculty, and mentor/client.
policy. An improvement vision and performance goals for the school district. A cost benefit analysis Review of an educational issue ranging from federal involvement in public education to accountability and standards. Addresses significant programs that involve sizeable budget expenditures and affects a substantial number of people, which results in improved direction for specified stakeholders. Accepted evaluation models, methods, and practices are applied improving student learning and achievement
Direct impact on policy and practice Outline specific implementation suggestions for improved practice Publication Proposes both general implications and future scholarship that follows from work already completed. Direct scholarly practitioner who can impact policy and practice Developed leaders with improved administrative skills and capabilities. Built networks with the larger community Developed independent and original theoretical and generative Knowledge DiP presented to both faculty and mentor/client (stakeholders). Developed independent and original theoretical and generative Knowledge.
26
University of Colorado-Denver
Options: 5-chapter 3-article manuscript E-Dissertation Mastery Portfolio
Applied inquiry: Action research and problem-based. Candidates focus on PoP in their own real-world situations. Within the same medium of prose the candidate might portray the research using different genres, select different research question or use a different conceptual lens to view the problem of practice.
Scholarly practitioners who can lead positive change as a result of the program. Professionals with an eye for educational equity, particularly for urban environments. Those focused on helping curriculum and policy to become equitable for people of differing backgrounds. Candidate become excellent communicators with the use of graphics, prose, video and audio to show the degree of mastery expected of a scholar practitioner. Such variety of medium facilitates research presentations to be made to different audiences (including stakeholders) on the same research project.
University of Houston
K-12 Administration: Doctoral Thesis
Health Sciences Educators: 5-chapter
Special Populations: Doctoral Thesis (45 chapters are most
Action Research Laboratories of practice to support research and thesis process Writing laboratories to support labs of practice Comprehensive examinations is TX State Superintendency Exam
Laboratory of Practice (LoP) experiences working with university committee members and at least one committee member from the student’s home institution. Identifies areas of need and root causes related to identified institutional issues. Improve medical education at the institutions represented in cohorts. Action and applied research (mixed-methods is most typical) Research design and analytic techniques are threaded throughout the program
Publications are encouraged, but not required. Practitioners who can… Identify and develop professional leadership identity through ongoing reflection Develop and implement vision for establishing rich teaching and learning environments with input form stakeholders Frame, analyze, and innovatively resolve educational dilemmas Implement a continuous cycle of inquiry based on reflection and collaboration that includes authentic data collection, analysis, and dissemination. Practitioners who can demonstrate skills at: Performing logical analysis of organizational problems; Reviewing extant literature Creating innovative solutions for identified problems Revising training of new practitioners or remediation training for existing practitioners Revising policies where needed Leading institutions to identify problems of practice rapidly Practitioners who can demonstrate: Understanding of action plans, logic models, UDL, and Evidence-Based Best Practices New knowledge and/or processes to meet the
27
typical) Final chapter is an action plan. Thesis is linked to student’s professional practice
Cohort based Course delivery is online and hybrid Faculty collaboration to ensure consistent delivery of course content and ensure course projects can be differentiated to meet the needs of individual projects.
challenges that are faced by students in P-16 who are identified as students with disabilities, gifts and talents, English Learners, Under Represented minorities, First Generation, and those facing financial challenges Ability to implement action plan in their professional community. This generally involves professional development, assessment tools, and analysis process. Able to confront, consider, and articulate complex realities and challenges facing schools, colleges, and communities. Able to conceptualize and developed innovative and novel ways to address challenges in educational reform. Educate for diversity, inform and impact social justice, and effect positive change Cultivate community of learning professionals Build professional connections and sustain and nurture educator well-being Demonstrate expertise in area of emphasis DiPs include a chapter developed as a white paper intended to impact practice. Improve policy Fill a gap in literature Produce generative knowledge Partner with stakeholders to empower others to improve leadership and teaching.
University of Nebraska Lincoln
5 or more chapter (traditional—may incorporate video)
University of Connecticut
5-chapter
University of Kentucky
5-chapter (option: individual or group dissertation)
Deliberately connected to practice. Inquiry oriented Cross-disciplinary and cross-emphasis coursework Collaboration, debate and dialogue across scholar/practitioner Concretely consider nature of learners, learning, teaching from multiple perspectives within concrete realities from various settings
Applied and action research. Fieldwork with stakeholders and mentors Problem-based (self-generated PoP) Cross case analysis enables candidates to integrate and synthesize theoretical frameworks Findings from research studies, and case study data into a comprehensive conceptual model on systemic school reform. Applied action research in a cohort model Students work together (perform data collection and analysis) as teams. Network with academic professionals in mentoring relationships
Scholarly practitioners who better understand the multiplicity of roles in a learning organization. A document, or series of manuscripts addressing multiple issues in a single organization.54
Projects: Independently completed, but closely interrelated, projects (3). Projects are embedded within coursework and distributed across three years of the program. They focus on a PoP within the organization with which the candidate is affiliated. 54
Blankenship, P.D., Mayo, T., Bolt, W., Stephenson, L., 2012
28
University of Louisville
University of Maryland
5-chapter
University of MissouriColumbia
Dissertation in Practice (not 5chapters) defined as practitionerfocused. Includes white paper, program evaluation report, or others.
Individual or Group research Communities of practice: work with regional and statewide community—agencies and initiatives to address PoP. Authentic cases wherein students address various challenges they may face in their practice and individual lives. Organizational Analysis Systems thinking Teams use primary and secondary sources of data for addressing a PoP Critical lenses include: Leadership theory and practice Organization analysis Educational policy Learning content and context Curriculum is thematic, integrated, problem-based, and team-oriented. Policy analysis Action research to address a PoP Individual and original research Research conducted locally to improve practice in the student’s LoP.
University of Oklahoma
Dissertation has no designated number of chapters
Dissertation process options: Thematic Problem-based Program evaluation with in-depth review of the literature related to the change model Research performed among district level community— within candidate’s professional practice (LoP). Ethnography and structured case studies. Outlining how they reduce the data so their work may be replicated. Integrate language from common set of longitudinal data from public schools in adjacent school districts. Data is used in coursework to integrate into candidate’s practice and establish uniform language.
A member of each group produces one publishable manuscript that aligns or incorporates with the other manuscripts of group members. Executive summary for stakeholders Use knowledge to change in educational policy and practice. Develop students into scholarly practitioners with a repertoire of analytical skills.
Scholars who are effective, thoughtful, and reflective practitioners. Competent in identifying and solving complex problems of practice in educational settings. Knowledge of foundational theories and perspectives in leadership theory and practice, organizational analysis and educational policy. Tools necessary to transfer knowledge into practice. Responsive to issues of social justice Supportive of organizational change, and/or influence policy decisions.
To develop practitioner-scholars who are professionals who can integrate technical knowledge (theory and research), and professional knowledge from their own and other’s practices and do so in context of their practice.
29
University of Southern California
5-chapter (Thematic)
University of Vermont
Optional: 5-chapter 3-article – manuscript Scholarly Personal Narrative (SPN) 3-article – manuscript
Virginia Commonwealth University
Problem-based research Collaborative group work on related topics, or with the same database Themes are organized around field-based issues or problems Field-based research with colleagues in field Students conduct Gap Analysis to work with districts Unifying feature candidates together such that they can be mentored as a group. In process: Applied research program (action research)—pre-intervention-post Cohort model Open to professionals in Pre-K-12, higher education, healthcare, law enforcement, and social services. Ethnography (Me-search) Individual Learning Portfolio/Professional Portfolio Blended individually and collaboratively produced writing projects. Each manuscript contains the following: a. a common research agenda b. a common inquiry statement c. integrated research tasks d. a common report format e. the same advisory chair f. similar statements in each dissertation about its being a companion to others
Professional practitioners assume the role of consultant. Although much work is performed in groups, each produces his or her own, original, unique dissertation. This results in practioner scholars who are leaders of change in their respective professional practices.
To develop leaders who are deeply committed to social justice and inclusion and with expertise, skills, and courage to move in this direction School transformation and teacher education improvement Publications in practitioner-scholar journals Improved organizational performance. Scholarly practitioner who work collaboratively. The outcomes are Team portfolio Team project includes individual components and at least one collaboratively written piece reflecting a synthesis of the group work Manuscript-based companion dissertation consists of three chapters presented in the same order: (a) team collaboratively written technical report, (b) individual research report that contributed to the technical report and that can be used for dissemination as a conference paper or journal article, and (c) individual scholarly essay regarding some aspect of her or his doctoral education experience and future career plans.
Table 1: DiPs in Phase 1 Institutions
30
Conclusions While we acknowledge that program design is a complex endeavor, we admit that more importantly it is never completed. Constant evaluations and adaptations are essential to maintaining a rigorous and relevant program. Nevertheless, extensive progress has been made since 2007 when CPED Phase 1 institutions first engaged in dialogue focused on the Dissertation in Practice. Table 1 (DiPs in Phase 1 institutions) suggests that some Phase 1 programs are challenging the conventional process and traditional dissertation product particularly in terms of appropriateness in demonstrating research capability and outcomes in order to prepare “educators for the application of appropriate and specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the profession" (CPED Consortium, October 2009). As institutions wrestle with how program outcomes might be evidenced we suggest that this document which complies with FIPSE’s requirement to “disseminate…best practices for the design and implementation of professional practice degrees” (CPED website) may be a useful resource. Consortium members must continue to address the inherent intellectual structures within its domain ensuring that a program’s capstone product(s) is contextually appropriate to the professional practitioner and the community they serve. So serve communities better we encourage practitioners to examine PoPs within their sphere of influence. In this process they recognize how their work may immediately impact a larger system. The robust approach to the DiP as proposed by CPED ensures generative, actionable, and knowledge that garners immediate impact on practice. Among the benefits of a DiP is the potential for collaborative research with both practitioners and academics. A PoP might support the practice of professionals performing research in clusters rather than in isolation as experienced by traditional academia-bound graduate students. Professional practitioner-researchers do not work in a vacuum—without the collaboration of colleagues, clients, or community members. Boundaries are crossed in every direction when working in what Shulman55 refers to as a “laboratory of practice”; the laboratory being the place
55
Shulman, 2007
of practice where experiments are conducted and tested then analyzed and operationalized56. In practice the immediate impact of the study is felt not by a single person, but by a community. Results intend to improve practice, which means change from the current to the preferred state.57 This paper will not address this topic in more detail at this time, but it is worthy of further discussion.
56
Inaugural CPED convening, held at the Carnegie Foundation in June 2007 that CPED institutions were first introduced to Shulman’s (2007) conceptual vision of a professional practitioner’s “Laboratory of Practice (LoP),” typically set within their own organization where they would have multiple opportunities to explore how the theory and research covered in their coursework plays out in practice. Shulman outlined the imperative for the education profession to develop its LoP. 57 Archbald, 2014
32
Section 4 References & Additional Resources Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005, Spring). Form should follow function: Removing the EdD. dissertation from the Ph.D. straight jacket. UCEA Review, XLVI (2), 10–12. Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/ storage/review/spring2005.pdf. Archbald, D. (2014). The GAPPSI Method: Problem-solving, planning, and communicating – concepts and strategies for leadership in education. Ypsilanti: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 704–739. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. New York: Jossey-Bass. Anderson, D. G. (1983). Differentiation of the EdD. and Ph.D. in education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 55–58. Auerbach, S. (2011). “It’s not just going to collect dust on a shelf:” Faculty Perceptions of the Applied Dissertation in the New California State University (CSU) Ed. D. Programs Leadership Education from within a Feminist Ethos. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 6(3), 59-82. Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 255–282. Baxter Magolda, M., & King, P. A. (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Beebe, J. (2001). Rapid assessment process: An introduction. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Blankenship, P.D., Mayo, T., Bolt, W., Stephenson, L., (2012). Kentucky middle college schools: Students academic engagement. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Kentucky. Retrieved from ProQuest (1506156047). Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 33
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bridges, E.M., & Hallinger, P. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in leadership development. Eugene: University of Oregon, Educational Resources Information Center, Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Bridges, E.M., & Hallinger, P. (1997). Using problem-based learning to prepare educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education. 72(2), 131-146. Brown, L.D. (1990, April). A perspective on Ph.D.-EdD. Discussion in schools of education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2003). Effects of cohorts on learners. Journal of School Leadership, 13(6), 621–643. Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2008). Generative learning communities: Preparing leaders for authentic practice. In R. Papa, C. Achilles, & B. Ashford (Eds.), Leadership on the frontlines: Changes in preparation and practice (pp. 73–86). Sixteenth annual yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Lancaster, PA: Pro>Active. Browne-Ferrigno, T & Jensen, M.J. (2012). Preparing EdD students to conduct group dissertations. Innovative Higher Education 37(5), 407-421. Burke, L., Jr., Preston, N., Quillen, M., Roe, R., & Strong, E. (2009, October). Stages of group development: From strangers to partners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration, Atlanta, GA. Burnett, P. C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39(1), 46–52. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2007). Carnegie program on the education doctorate. Retrieved August 3, 2012 from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/index.asp?key=1867. Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). (2010). Design concept definitions. Retrieved from http://www.cpedinitiative.org/ design-concept-definitions. Choo, C.W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
34
Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 181–194. Churchill, F. (1996). Collaborative inquiry: The practice of professional development. In Z. Donahue, M., A.Van Tassell, & L. Patterson (Eds.), Research in the classroom: Talk, texts, and inquiry (pp. 108–116). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Clark K. B., Fujimoto, T (2008). Integrating problem-solving cycles: Enhancing product development performance. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in community. In the series Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Copland, M. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395 Cranton, P. A. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (93), 63–71. Retrieved from ERIC database (EJ642459) Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crow, E. (2013), Redesigning the professional doctorate in education, year 3 evaluation report. Retrieved from www.cpedinitiative.org/.../FIPSE%202013%20Evaluation%20Report%2.. Costley, C. & Armsby, P. (2007). Research influences on a professional doctorate. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12(3), 343 - 355. Decker, A., Dykes, M., Gilliam, J., & Marrs, S. (2009, October). Being students again: Balancing ambiguities, expectations, and responsibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration, Atlanta, GA. Deering, T. E. (1998). Eliminating the doctor of education degree: It’s the right thing to do. Educational Forum, 62(3), 243–248. Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowothy, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary
35
societies. London, UK: Sage. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts. Golde, C. M., & Walker, G. E. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Guthrie, J. W. (2009). The case for a modern doctor of education degree (EdD.): Multipurpose education doctorates no longer appropriate. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 3–8. Harding, S. (1987). The method question. Hypatia 2(3): 19-35. Hansman, C. A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (89), 43–51. Retrieved from ERIC database (EJ625874) Harvard Business School Press. (2006). Leading teams: Expert solutions to everyday challenges [Pocket mentor series]. Boston, MA: Author. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research “with’ rather “on” people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Hlinka, K., Mayo, T., Mobelini, D., Stephenson, L., & Young, A. (2009, October). Being and becoming leaders: Application of learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration, Atlanta, GA. Kegan, R. (1980). Making meaning: The constructive-developmental approach to persons and action. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 58(5), 373–380. Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Illinois State University (2014). Introduction to the Doctoral Project. Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/files/Illinois%20State%20University%20%20Introduction%20to %20the%20Doctoral%20Project20and%20Instructions.pdf. Lester, S. (2004). Conceptualizing the practitioner doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 29 (5). Taunton, UK: Stan Lester Developments. Langley, G.J., Moen, R.D., Nolan, K.M., Nolan, T.W., Norman, C.L., & Provost, L.P. (2009).
36
The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lloyd, I. (1978). Don’t define the problem. Public Administration Review. 38(3), 283-286. Manathunga, C. Smith, C. & Bath, D. (2004). Developing and evaluating authentic integration between research and coursework in professional doctorate programs. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2) 2004. Marsh, D.D. & Dembo, M.H. (2009). Rethinking school leadership programs: The USC EdD program in perspective. Peabody Journal of Education 84, 69-85. Maxwell, T. W. K. (2003). From the first to second generation professional doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 279-291. Maxwell, T. W. K. (2009). Producing the professional doctorate: The portfolio as a legitimate alternative to the dissertation. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 46(2), 135–145. Doi: 10.1080/14703290902843760. McNamara, J., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Hoyle, J., & Tong, F. (2007, May 22). Doctoral program issues: Commentary on companion dissertations. Retrieved from the Connexions web site: http://cnx.org/ content/m14542/1.1/. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (89), 3–13. Retrieved from ERIC database (EJ625870) Metcalfe, M. (2008). Pragmatic inquiry. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59, 1091 – 1099. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (74), 5–12. Retrieved from ERIC database (EJ554979) Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2005). Developing professionally anchored dissertations: Lessons from innovative programs. School Leadership Review, 1(1), 33–57. Retrieved from http://www.tcpea.org/slr/2005/murphy.pdf Muth, R. (2000). Toward a learning-oriented instructional paradigm: Implications for practice. In P. Jenlink & T. Kowalski (Eds.), Marching into a new millennium: Challenges to educational leadership. Eighth annual yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (pp. 82–103). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Wong, M. J. (1993). The Ph.D. versus the EdD: Time for a decision.
37
Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 47–63. Perry, J.A. (2012). What does history reveal about the education doctorate? In Macintyre Latta, M. & Wunder, S. (Eds). Placing practitioner knowledge at the center of teacher education: Rethinking the policy and practice of the education doctorate. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte. Perry, J.A. (2012) About CPED. Retrieved from the Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate website: http://cpedinitiative.org/about. Perry, J. A. (2011). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate: Phase II—a quest for change. UCEA Review, 52(3), 1–4. Perry, J.A., & Imig, D.G. (2010). Final report: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate 2007-2010. Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/files/CPED_Final_Report_2010%20copy%202.pdf Perry, J.A., & Imig, D.G. (2008). A stewardship of practice in education. Change Magazine, November/December. Professional Doctorate in Educational Leadership [ProDEL]. (2012). Dissertation in Practice Guidelines (DP-2.2-Fa12). Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA: Author. Riehl, C., Larson, C. L., Short, P. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Reconceptualizing research and scholarship in educational administration: Learning to know, knowing to do, doing to learn. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 391–427. Ryan, S., Belzer, A., & Heuschkel, K. (2012). Integrating practice into an EdD program in a research focused university. In M. M. Latta & S. Wunder (Eds.), Placing practitioner knowledge at the center of teacher education: Rethinking the policies and practices of the education doctorate (pp. 281–292). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Schön, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner, London: Temple-Smith. Scott D, Brown A, Lunt I & Thorne, L. (2004). Professional doctorates: integrating professional and academic knowledge. SRHE / OUP Maidenhead. Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B., & Smith, B.J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Random House. Shulman, L. S. (2010). Doctoral education shouldn’t be a marathon. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56 (30), B9–B12.
38
Shulman, L.S. (2007). Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 560-563. Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Research News and Comment, 35(3), 25–32. Storey, V. A., Caskey, M., Dolan, A.W., Hesbol, K., Marshal, J., Maughan, B. (accepted for publication and is tentatively scheduled to appear in the 2014 volume). Examining EdD Dissertations in Practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. International Journal - Higher Education Teaching and Learning Review. Storey, V. A., & Richard, B. (2013). Carnegie Project for the Educational Doctorate: The role of critical friends in diffusing doctoral program innovation. In C. A. Mullen & K. E. Lane (Eds.), Becoming a Global Voice—the 2013 Yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Publications. http://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?type=&keyWords=NCPEA+Publications. Storey, V. A., Carter-Tellison, K., and Boerger, P. (2011). Critical friends: Curricular redesign and implementation of a small independent university’s doctoral and undergraduate programs. In M. Macintyre Latta & S. Wunder, (Eds.), Placing practitioner knowledge at the center of teacher education-- Rethinking the policies and practices of the education doctorate. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Storey, V. A., & Hartwick, P. (2010). Critical friends: Supporting a small, private university face the challenges of crafting an innovative scholar-practitioner doctorate. In G. Jean-Marie & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to the Ed.D. and graduate education. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan Publishers. Stringer, E.T. (2007). Action Research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Taylor, R. & Storey, V. A. (2013). Leaders, critical friends, and the education community: Enhancing effectiveness of the professional practice doctorate. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 5(1), 84-89. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17086529&ini=aob Townsend, B. (2002, November). Rethinking the EdD. or what’s in a name? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, 39
CA. Trafford, V.N., & Lesham, S. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Education and Teaching International 44(1), 93-105. Trafford, V. & Leshem, S. (2009). Doctorateness as a threshold concept Innovations. Education and Teaching International, 4(6) 3. VCU (Virginia Commonwealth University Dissertation in Practice (online). Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/dissertation-resources. Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identify. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wetzel, K., & Ewbank, A. (2013). Conceptualizing the innovation: factors influencing doctoral candidates’ interventions in the action research dissertation. Educational Action Research, 21(3), 392-411. Witte, J. E., & James, W. B. (1998). Cohort partnerships: A pragmatic approach to doctoral research. New Directors of Adult and Continuing Education, (79), 53–62. Retrieved for ERIC database (EJ571378) Willis, J.W., Inman, D., & Valenti, R. (2010). Completing a professional practice dissertation: A guide for doctoral students and faculty. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Winter, R., Griffiths, M., & Green, K., (2000.) The ‘academic’ qualities of practice. What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education 25 (1), 25–37. Zambo, D. (2011). Action research as signature pedagogy in an education doctorate program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 261–271. Doi: 10.1007/s10755-010-9171-.
40
APPENDICES
41
APPENDIX A: PHASE I, CPED Institutions 58 Institution
Type
CPED Focus Area
Arizona State University
Public
School Leadership
California State Fresno
School Leadership
Duquesne University
Public/multi campus Private
Lynn University
Private
School Leadership
Northern Illinois University
Public
School Leadership
Penn State University
Public
Teacher Leadership
Rutgers University
Public
Teacher & School Leadership
The College of William & Mary
Public
University of Central Florida
Public
School, Teacher, & Organization Leadership School Leadership
University of Colorado-Denver
Public
School Leadership
University of Connecticut
Public
University of Florida
Public
School Leadership & Organization Leadership Educational LeadershipExecutive track
School Leadership
Public
Education Program
University of Houston
Public
University of Kansas
Public
Public School, Teacher, & Organization School Leadership
University of Kentucky
Public
Organizational Leadership
University of Louisville
Public
University of Maryland
Public
School Leadership & School, Teacher, and Organization Organizational Leadership
University of Missouri-Columbia
Public
School Leadership
58
Source: Perry, J.A., & Imig, D.G. (2010). Final report: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate 20072010. Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/files/CPED_Final_Report_2010%20copy%202.pdf
42
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Public
School & Teacher Leadership
University of Oklahoma
Public
School Leadership
University of Southern California
Private
School, Teacher, & Organization Leadership
University of Vermont
Public
School Leadership
Virginia Commonwealth University
Public
School Leadership
Virginia Tech University
Public/Multi campus Public/multicampus
School Leadership
Washington State University
Teacher & Organizational Leadership
43
44
