Action Research in EdD Programs in Educational Leadership

Transcription

1 498378JRL / Journal of Research on Leadership EducationOsterman et al. research-article2013 Article Action Research in EdD Programs in Educational Leadership Journal of Research on Leadership Education 2014, Vol. 9(1) The University Council for Educational Administration 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / jrl.sagepub.com Karen Osterman 1, Gail Furman 2, and Kathleen Sernak 3 Abstract This exploratory study gathered information about the use of action research within doctor of education programs in educational leadership and explored faculty understanding of and perspectives on action research. Survey data established that action research is used infrequently to meet dissertation requirements. Contributing factors include lack of clarity regarding the nature of action research (AR) and concerns about methodological legitimacy. Because the development of collaborative leadership skills and the pursuit of social justice objectives are inherent to the action research process, these results call for additional discussion regarding this distinctive methodology and its role in the preparation of educational leaders at the doctoral level. Keywords methods, diversity and/or social justice, graduate programs, professional development, instruction/pedagogy Action research is a research strategy that, according to some, is eminently suitable for preparation of educational leaders and the development of effective leadership skills, especially at the doctoral level of study (Anderson, 2002; Andrews & Grogan, 2005; Furman, 2011; Grogan, Donaldson, & Simmons, 2007; Herr & Anderson, 2005). Andrews and Grogan (2005), noting that the doctor of education (EdD) was originally designed for applied research rather than original research, argued that EdD programs 1 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA 2 Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA 3 Rowan University, Collingswood, NJ, USA Corresponding Author: Karen Osterman, Educational and Policy Leadership, 119 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY , USA. karen.s.osterman@hofstra.edu

2 86 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) in leadership should be organized around problems of practice, creating opportunities for inquiry and reflection. At the heart of the program must be a component based upon action learning and action research focused on what educators need to value, know and be able to do (p. 10). Anderson (2002), Herr and Anderson (2005), and Riehl, Larson, Short, and Reitzug (2000) urged greater reliance on forms of practitioner research, including action research, to meet the pressing demands for improvement in student learning. Furman (2011, 2012) makes an even more specific argument for action research in the context of educational leadership, explaining how the principles and processes inherent to action research (emphasis on problems of practice, equity, collaboration, data-based decision-making, and reflective analysis) directly align with principles of effective leadership and, more specifically, leadership for social justice. Engaging in action research, then, not only supports educational change but also contributes to the development of important leadership competencies and fosters social justice, according to these authors. Action research, as traditionally defined, is distinct in that it focuses on a problem of practice; is conducted by practitioners in their own organizational settings; and aims at generating, implementing, and assessing an action plan to address the problem. Although there are forms of action research that are limited to examining and improving individual practice, at the organizational level action research is typically a collaborative effort, including as part of the research team individuals with a direct involvement in and commitment to addressing the problem under investigation. 1 Within the action research framework are multiple steps or cycles that, while described differently in the literature (Argyris, 1993; Coghlan & Brannick, 2010; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Stringer, 2007), require the researchers to develop a deeper understanding of a problem and to utilize that information and new understanding to design an appropriate action plan. With a concerted focus on the problem, the research cycle continues as the team members implement the planned change and systematically assess their actions and the effects of their efforts. These critical findings provide the basis for refining and improving the action agenda. In educational leadership EdD programs, the majority of students are preparing for continued professional careers in schools and districts. Ideally, their participation in the EdD program should enable them to not simply advance in their careers but to enact leadership that will be effective in pursuing an ambitious agenda for change in schools and teaching and learning of students ( To meet that goal, the doctoral program, including their training in research, should be designed in ways that directly enhance their leadership competencies and enable them to more fully address educational inequities and realize social justice goals. If the purpose of EdD programs in educational leadership is to prepare leaders who are competent and effective in identifying and solving complex problems in education, action research seems to be an appropriate research methodology. These arguments regarding the value of action research in leadership preparation, and specifically within EdD programs, reflect the recent work of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED; CPED is a national project engaging a consortium of university representatives in redefining the EdD as a

3 Osterman et al. 87 professional practice doctorate, distinct from the PhD. Influenced by the critiques of Lee Shulman, Chris Golde, and others (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006), CPED participants have adopted a definition for the EdD along with a set of principles and design concepts for EdD programs, maintaining that the professional doctorate in education should prepare educators for the application of appropriate and specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the profession ( Prominent among the design principles is that the EdD should provide field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions. The CPED goes further, however, and recommends that EdD student research should be a dissertation in practice that demonstrates the scholarly practitioner s ability to solve problems of practice ( Again, action research is a method that is ideally suited to these important objectives. Obstacles to the Use of Action Research Despite the logic of these arguments, this perspective on the value of action research in leadership preparation is neither dominant nor unchallenged in the academic community. Although critics of educational leadership preparation have long urged the field to move away from what is essentially a PhD format imposed on the EdD, this argument has not been accepted widely, let alone widely integrated into EdD programs for educational leaders (Shulman et al., 2006). Within the field, there is still disagreement about the expectations for EdD graduates. While a number of EdD programs, with the support of foundation initiatives like CPED, have introduced completion requirements that are alternatives to the traditional dissertation, not all utilize action research and many institutions still require a formal dissertation grounded in the principles of the major research paradigms. Among those that require the dissertation, there are debates about what graduates should be expected to know and do, arguments that essentially revolve around the question of what constitutes good research. For some, good research is defined by its contribution to valued outcomes, such as individual well-being or social justice (Hostetler, 2005; Pyrch, 2007, Riehl et al., 2000; Stringer, 2007). For others, the quality of research is determined largely by the use of rigorous methods. While some maintain that EdD programs should prepare people for practitioner research by emphasizing the mixed methodologies that are most useful in the field applied research and action research (Johnsen, 2010; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Maurer & Githens, 2010; Mills, 2007; Young, 2006) still others maintain that EdD programs, like the PhD, should train students in traditional research methodologies. Even here, however, there are differences of opinion about what this preparation should look like. Some academicians, for example, equate good research with a positivist perspective and recommend an emphasis on quantitative skills and method (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; Torff, 2011). Others maintain the need for preparation in quantitative and qualitative methods, regardless of career aspirations (Greene, 2007; Page, 2001). There is little discussion, however, about the need to offer formal preparation in action research.

4 88 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) While the paradigm war pitting positivist and hermeneutic perspectives continues, there are also questions about the legitimacy of any form of practitioner research, including action research. Despite Boyer s (1990) efforts to expand notions of scholarly inquiry to include Scholarship of Application, or the use of existing knowledge to address problems in society, it is clear that academia, in general, places a far greater value on Scholarship of Discovery, original research leading to the discovery of new theories, principles, or knowledge. Attitudes toward action research within academia may also be complicated by a lack of conceptual clarity about action research as a research method in education. While there is general agreement that action research is problem oriented, there are different interpretations of what this means. Some authors, drawing on the foundational work of Kurt Lewin, describe action research as problem-solving interventions, grounded in research, systematically developed, implemented, and assessed. Others present a broader view that emphasizes inquiry to inform practice and provide direction for change that may or may not involve an intentional change effort. Herr and Anderson (2005), for example, describe it as inquiry that is done by or with insiders to an organization or community, but never to or on them (p. 3) and as a process that may lead to changes within the setting and/or within the researchers themselves (p. 4). This emphasis on inquiry, like that of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009), would incorporate a range of studies involving self-reflection, organizational assessment, or even the generation of plans or knowledge that lead to greater understanding and would theoretically support improvements in practice. Coghlan and Brannick (2010), too, recognized this diversity and identify a wide array of research approaches characterized as action research that, while designed to enhance understanding of problems and practice, are not necessarily initiated or conducted by practitioners and do not always incorporate the development, implementation, and assessment of an action plan. Included in this array are action learning, action science, developmental action inquiry, cooperative inquiry, clinical inquiry, appreciative inquiry, learning history, collaborative management research, reflective practice, and evaluative inquiry. Purpose of the Study Although there are numerous proponents of action research as an appropriate and preferred research method for EdD programs in educational leadership, much of the literature about action research focuses primarily on research conducted by teachers in their own classrooms (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Zeichner, 2001) either as independent projects or associated with a master s program. In contrast, there is little information about action research conducted by educational leaders in their work settings, whether as individual efforts or as part of their doctoral studies, and little information available about the use of action research within EdD programs, particularly to satisfy dissertation requirements. While there are proponents of action research as a means to develop leadership competencies and advance a social justice agenda, there is no evidence to determine if action research has become widely integrated at the doctoral

5 Osterman et al. 89 level and little information on how programs that utilize action research design these experiences for students. Furthermore, while program requirements and expectations as well as doctoral students choices in study design and methods are undoubtedly shaped by the philosophy and perspectives of university faculty, there is no published information on faculty attitudes toward action research. If the potential for action research as an effective method of inquiry for educational leaders is to be realized, more information is needed with regard to these issues to serve as a baseline for advocacy efforts and educational leadership program development. The purpose of this exploratory study, then, was to gather information about the use of action research for the dissertation within EdD programs in Educational Leadership and to explore understanding of and perspectives on action research among faculty. Specifically, we wanted to know the extent to which doctoral candidates utilized action research to meet completion requirements and to understand procedural expectations regarding the development of these studies. Given the wide variation in definitions of action research, we were also interested in learning how faculty understood action research: Did they adopt the traditional definition of action research as a change process or did they incorporate other models aimed to develop a deeper understanding of practice at individual or organizational level? To better understand factors influencing the use of action research, we wanted to know faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of action research in supporting various learning outcomes and we also hoped to learn more about sources of support and resistance from the academic and school communities. As Educational Leadership professors who advocate for action research within our own doctoral programs and chair action research dissertations, we were keenly interested in these topics. Our approach to the study and the analysis of data were influenced by our deeply held convictions about the value of action research and by our own conceptual framework for the nature of action research. We espouse a participatory model of action research as a collaborative, problem-solving process, in which interested parties seek greater understanding of an issue, engage in appropriate research methods to gather and analyze data, and develop and implement action plans or interventions to address the issue. In this model, action research is judged not only by the rigor of its methodology, but also by criteria related to inclusivity, equitable participation, and the usefulness of outcomes within the particular setting (Herr & Anderson, 2005; Stringer, 2007). Method To explore our questions about action research, we designed a survey instrument that was distributed on-line to faculty in University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) member institutions that offer the EdD in the area of educational leadership and/or administration. 2 To choose the sample for the study, we relied on the UCEA list as a readily available population of doctoral-granting institutions that, through UCEA membership, had indicated a commitment to educational leadership preparation and were also geographically dispersed throughout the United States. We decided to limit

6 90 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) the sample to U.S. institutions because action research traditions as well as models for doctoral study differ across countries, and our purpose was not to compare across systems but to explore commonalities within the U.S. context. The UCEA membership list (May 2011) included 85 universities based in the United States. Of these, 12 offered only PhDs, and seven offered educational leadership programs but did not offer the EdD or any other doctoral degree, leaving a sample of 66 EdD granting institutions. A total of 82 faculty 3 from 54 (82%) of the EdD granting institutions responded: 11 assistant professors (13%), 30 associate professors (37%), 37 professors (45%), and four (5%) in other roles. The survey included 34 items organized in three sections. The first set of items gathered information about the EdD program (numbers, mission, and practices regarding the use of action research for the final degree requirement) and information about the respondent s rank and experience with action research. Only faculty who had actually served on an action research committee as chair or committee member (N 42) completed the second set of questions about the institution s guidelines regarding preparation and completion of action research studies and purpose and perceived effectiveness of AR studies completed under their direction as chair. A final section, completed by all respondents (N 82), examined perceptions about the understanding of action research and attitudes by faculty within the higher education community and by school practitioners. Depending on the nature of the specific questions, the response options included yes/no items and Likert-type scale items (ranging from 1 to 5), as well as three open-ended items that solicited comments regarding effectiveness of action research, support and resistance to action research, and the use of action research within the EdD program in their institution. The survey was distributed on-line using the Qualtrics survey package and given the exploratory purpose of the study, the item analysis utilized descriptive statistics generated as part of the survey package. In addition, we did a thematic analysis of all of the open-ended comments, and excerpts included in the Results section illustrate those themes. Results In alignment with general perceptions about the purpose of the EdD degree (Andrews & Grogan, 2005), the majority of the faculty respondents (87%) strongly agreed (on a five-point scale) that the mission of their EdD programs was to prepare practitioners for roles as educational leaders (M 4.51). While 10% of the respondents indicated that their programs require a capstone or alternative project, the majority (78%) indicated that students must complete a dissertation prior to completion of the degree. An additional 12% said that either an alternative project or dissertation would be acceptable. According to 76% of the faculty, action research was an option for the final degree requirement, but only 47% reported frequent (17%) or occasional (30%) use, and 44% reported that students never or seldom utilized action research. On the positive side, 10% noted that action research is required as a final dissertation requirement, but 24% indicated that it is not an acceptable option.

7 Osterman et al. 91 Regarding formal preparation, approximately half (42%) reported that their institutions offered a specific course in action research, with 23% indicating that the course was required for all EdD students and 39% that the course is required for students who utilize action research. Using Action Research Of the 82 faculty respondents, 72 (89%) indicated that they serve as a chair on doctoral research studies, but only 43 (53%) of these had served as either a chair or a committee member on an action research study in the last 5 years. The findings in the following sections are based on the responses of only those faculty (N 42) who had chaired action research studies. Purpose of action research. Asked to characterize the primary purpose of their students completed action research studies, 79% of the responses emphasized two options: (a) to enhance understanding of classroom, school, or district practice as basis for future action (needs assessment), and (b) to understand and take action to address specific problems (action intervention). Only 48% selected a third purpose, to understand and improve one s own practice as an educational leader (self-study). Some of the open-ended responses offered alternate perspectives that defined the purpose of action research in ways ranging from gathering information about practice to those involving change efforts: To provide a replicable study of common issues of practice and build knowledge about addressing those issues, To leverage collective work for reform/change, Change theory and group behavior and decision-making, To try a new innovation. What is unclear from these responses is whether the studies were individual or collaborative action research efforts. Effectiveness of action research. Based on their experience, faculty were asked to rate on a Likert-type scale the effectiveness of the action research dissertation in supporting a number of learning outcomes (1 not very effective, 5 very effective). As Table 1 indicates, the overall assessment of effectiveness is positive, with mean scores ranging from 3.37 (improved teaching practice) to 4.26 (individual learning). Items related more directly to leadership also received moderately high ratings: development of professional knowledge (4.15), improved leadership practice (3.95), and development of leadership competency (3.85). If those studies coded as action research by respondents were not conducted as a collaborative effort to plan, implement, and assess an action plan to address a defined organizational problem, that might very well account for somewhat lower ratings regarding the perceived effects on leadership practice and competency.

8 92 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) Table 1. Perceptions of Effectiveness of Action Research to Support Learning Outcomes. Item M SD Individual learning Development of professional knowledge Development of leadership competency Development of research competency Organizational learning Improved teaching practice Improved leadership practice Improved organizational effectiveness Improved student learning Open-ended comments on effectiveness focused on the relationship between action research and leadership: Action research puts leadership into action. Learning to lead from an inquiry stance. They also focused on the lack of experience with action research: I rarely see action research used at the building level to study/implement reform. I think it would be particularly useful for doing that, but I don t see many students using it that way. These respondents thus tended to view action research as more effective for individual learning than for solving organizational problems, but the final comment suggests that this disconnect between action research and organizational improvement may be related to the fact that the critical action component may be missing from these studies. Action research procedures. Despite the relatively high level of interest and involvement in action research, only nine of the 42 respondents (21%) indicated that their institutions have written guidelines for preparation and completion of action research studies. Regarding procedures, the majority (88%) reported that students select their own topics; and all reported that students must prepare a proposal before beginning the study. For almost all (98%), the proposal must be approved prior to the study. All proposals include purpose, rationale, and methods, and most (92%) include a literature review and a statement on researcher perspective (83%). Additional comments indicated that the proposal may also include a conceptual framework and perspective on the problem of practice. Some respondents emphasized the importance of including information on the research design, instruments, context, and background. The proposals are always reviewed by the doctoral committee, and a majority of respondents (86%) indicated that proposals are always reviewed by the university s Institutional Review Board (IRB).

9 Osterman et al. 93 The students doctoral committees range in size from two to five members, most frequently three (50%) or four (33%). On a scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5), mean item responses indicate that the committees include faculty from the leadership program (4.81) and other programs or departments within the school (4.05). To a lesser extent, committees may include faculty from other schools in the university (2.90), educational practitioners (2.76), and infrequently, faculty from other universities (2.21). There is less involvement of district and/or school officials in proposal review (3.66). Following completion of the action research project, the final research report is always (5.0) reviewed by the doctoral committee but less frequently by action research participants (3.18) or district and/or school officials (2.85). While a majority of respondents indicate that these final reports are submitted to the university library (82%) or a national dissertation database (80%), only a small percentage (8%) is submitted directly to the cooperating school or district. Information, Support, and Resistance All respondents indicated the extent to which various groups within the university and school communities were well informed about action research and were supportive or resistant (strongly disagree 1, strongly agree 5). For each question, faculty in the leadership program were perceived as most informed and supportive, while faculty in the university as a whole were perceived as least informed and most resistant. Information and understanding. Asked if members of the various groups are well informed about action research (5 strongly agree, 1 strongly disagree), as noted in Table 2, there was greater agreement regarding faculty in the educational leadership program (3.82) and lowest agreement regarding faculty members in the university (2.88) but outside of the school. At the same time, the open-ended comments challenged the overall assessment of the level of understanding among educational leadership faculty. Some emphasized the need for definition: I think it s misunderstood, said one, while another asked, Please define it... our definitions may be different. While there was general agreement that action research involved action in some way, others raised questions about the nature of action research and its distinction from other forms of research. As one commented, All empirical research in the social sciences is action as it relates to human behavior, so would a comparative study of two schools constitute action research? Others queried about the relationship between applied research, translational research, practitioner research, practitioner inquiry, program evaluation, and action research. Confirming the lack of clarity, another respondent suggested that action research means different things to different people, in different settings!! That diversity in meaning was apparent in various comments and examples provided by respondents. Posing a nontraditional perspective, one indicated that action research projects [at this institution] mostly consist of describing archival data that exist on the (State)

10 94 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) Table 2. Perceived Information About Action Research. Group M SD Faculty in this educational leadership program Faculty in this school Faculty in this university IRB Area schools/districts Note. IRB Institutional Review Board. website. Another focused on the problem as the heart of action research and also emphasized a rigorous scientific method: If you are saying action research is determining a problem in education, researching and doing background knowledge search of all available research literature and then carrying out an investigation either by survey, case study, or personal interviews and writing it as a dissertation type report with an introduction to the problem, background knowledge of literature, instrument development and deployment, analysis, findings, conclusions, and recommendations- then our projects (problem-based learning, policy analysis or product development) might very well qualify. Another indicated that some students complete change projects, contracted for by local school districts, educational organizations, state departments of education, and so on, but reported that they don t call it action research, so I don t think folks code it that way. While these comments all identify a common focus on problems of practice, it is also apparent that faculty are classifying multiple research methods as action research. Support for action research. Regarding support for action research, the respondents (Table 3) strongly agreed that faculty in the educational leadership program were supportive (4.66) but characterized area schools and districts as more supportive (4.84). One cautioned, however, that because of the use of action research as a professional development strategy, school districts often think they know about action research but do not really have a good understanding. The survey included one open-ended item that elicited comments regarding support and resistance. Interestingly, comments identifying challenges to the use of action research far exceed those of support. Sources of support, however, referred to the power of action research as a means to facilitate awareness and change and, more generally, to establish a link between research and practice. Several argued that action research improves leadership, is consistent with the goal of preparing scholar practitioners, and is well received by students, faculty, and local school districts. Several offered pragmatic reasons, suggesting that the use of action research contributed to higher rates of completion; others emphasized its value to support leadership development and change:

11 Osterman et al. 95 Table 3. Perceived Support for Action Research by Group. Group M SD Faculty in this educational leadership program Faculty in this school Faculty in this university IRB Area schools/districts Note. IRB Institutional Review Board. Action research can be a very powerful source in bringing about change. Supports are frequently based on the potentially authentic research-practice link and the potential for advancing reflective practice, awareness of issues of social justice, access, and equity. Action research is a good fit with the scholarly practitioner EdD degree... it has the potential to positively influence the student s leadership practice and subsequent leadership behavior. Action research puts leadership into action Learning to lead from an inquiry status. Action research has been very well received by students, faculty, and local school districts The majority of my dissertations are problem-based. Developing a product for the improvement of practice is my orientation. Until I adopted this approach, many students were stuck or stalled at the dissertation stage. Resistance to action research. Overall, faculty did not identify any strong resistance to action research by any group (see Table 4). On a scale of 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree), groups perceived as least resistant were faculty in the educational leadership program (M 2.55) and faculty in the school (2.90). Perceived as more resistant were faculty in the university (3.95), and members of the IRB (3.65). Although schools and school districts were perceived as most supportive (4.84, see Table 3), this group was also perceived as moderately resistant (3.43). The open-ended comments included several explanations for the infrequent use of action research at the dissertation level in the EdD program. While some challenged the rigor of the methodology and felt it was inappropriate at the doctoral level (whether PhD or EdD), others felt that the demands of the process excluded some students. Some attributed resistance to competing demands on faculty from academia, and some had experienced difficulty in getting approval through the IRB process. It s not good research! Some respondents simply dismissed action research as a form of research: It s not good research! Not a good idea. Others characterized it as inferior to traditional quantitative research: Action research is subpar to basic

12 96 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) Table 4. Perceived Resistance to Action Research by Group. Group M SD Faculty in this educational leadership program Faculty in this school Faculty in this university IRB Schools/districts in the area Note. IRB Institutional Review Board. or advanced research necessary in doctoral programs. It falls outside of traditional research and stats sequence; peer-reviewed research is the gold standard. It doesn t meet faculty needs! Some argued that resistance to action research is grounded in the culture of academia. Action research can distract faculty from their own research agenda and need to publish: If dissertations have no hope of being published, which is largely the case with action research, action research is a distraction. It s okay in its place! Faculty also distinguished between the expectations of PhD and EdD programs, suggesting that while action research may be appropriate for EdD students, it is definitely not acceptable for PhD candidates. Even within EdD programs, there was lack of consensus. Resting largely on the belief that action research does not meet standards of rigor, some indicated that it was appropriate for principal preparation programs but not at the doctoral level. Reflecting a continuing dialogue about distinguishing characteristics, one noted that, It is a norm in the college that an EdD requires a dissertation that is, by and large, indistinguishable from a PhD dissertation. Even when institutions incorporate action research, it may be limited to the principal preparation program. While the principal preparation program... has a practical inquiry and action research component, the doctoral program does not typically incorporate action research... There is less a sense of resistance/concern (about) action research as a model for dissertation research and more of a sense that the action research paradigm isn t viewed as having as much scholarly currency in terms of finished product, that is, the dissertation. In many cases, in visiting with doctoral faculty and other faculty members who serve on the dissertation committees, I believe that the model of research for dissertation is thought to reflect a level of rigor and quality. Therefore, action research is perhaps not viewed as adding to rigor or quality... Since we require a dissertation study for completion of the EdD program, an action research project isn t typically viewed as viable.

13 Osterman et al. 97 Action research courses are offered at the master s level in many educational degree and certificate programs within the College of Education. The doctoral program seeking to advance student understanding and proficiency commensurate with a terminal degree does not support action research for dissertation studies. While some faculty indicated that students were introduced to action research at the doctoral level, for some it was still not an acceptable option for the dissertation. Action research may be carried out by practitioners in research projects within and/or outside of the doctoral courses, but is not allowed as a research design for dissertation research. Our educational leadership program for the EdD degree is founded upon principles of scholar practitioner leadership. As such, action research is a valuable inquiry tool and medium for the scholar practitioner leader. It s too difficult for students! As one person noted, action research might not fit the student s concerns, but resistance was also grounded in beliefs that action research was too challenging for some students, either because of the politics of their position or because of the demands of the methodology. One suggested, for example, that action research is easier for teacher leaders but more problematic for school leaders and particularly for district leaders: I think the action research dissertation design is helpful for teacher leaders. For school leaders, depending on their context, they may not be able to conduct an action research dissertation because of the politics of their school, district, or relationships with staff and their supervisor. I think it s even more problematic for senior/district level leaders to do action research. The Board politics and things make it difficult for them to do this without repercussions. Other responses suggested that resistance or simply frequency of use is linked to the nature of action research studies as challenging and even more complex than other types of studies, with students having difficulty being self-aware, taking broad perspectives, investing the amount of time needed to complete an AR study, or acquiring support from the school district where the study will take place. Few of my doctoral students conduct action research studies... [because] They are hard to do well. Not all students are able to negotiate the terrain of an action research study. In many ways, it is much more complex. It also requires support from the school district where the study will take place. Resistance is frequently based on individual students having difficulty being self-aware, taking broad perspectives, as well as their role on site.

14 98 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) We would like to have students complete more than one cycle in an AR study. Many students are reluctant to extend their time to degree to complete multiple cycles. Political issues within an organization often prevent a good study for many students The IRB. Although mean item responses regarding the extent to which the IRB members are well informed about action research and supportive were moderately high (3.37and 4.11, respectively), one person commented that it was not an easy sell through IRB, at least partially because of the researcher s position as leader in his or her own work setting: We have received push back from IRB to conduct studies in a work setting where the doctoral student is a leader in that setting. Lack of active support. Several faculty suggested that the limited use of action research did not reflect resistance as much as a lack of information and perhaps inertia within the field. As one mentioned, We don t tend to hear much about action research relative to the EdD. Another commented, We just don t do it in EDLDR. My sense is that it s done more in C&I. The comment continued emphasizing the importance of (and absence of) advocates: At my previous institution, we included it in our qualitative research course, and we had one particular person who championed it in EDLDR. Our program now doesn t have a course... nor a faculty member who pushes for it. If we had such a person, she [sic] would probably be supported. Another faculty member also highlighted the importance of individual advocacy: With the recent retirement of a faculty member who was the primary advocate for action research, its utilization has begun to diminish... Ultimately, we may see very few such studies unless we are able to hire someone with the same methodological skill set and orientation. Summary and Discussion This exploratory survey study provides information on the current state of the field with regard to the use of action research in EdD dissertations in Educational Leadership programs, as represented in UCEA member institutions. It was not our intent, and the methodology did not allow deeper exploration of the sources of respondents attitudes toward action research or the specific nature of the action research dissertations they chaired. Rather, the results suggest a number of conclusions that can serve as the basis for further research as well as advocacy efforts to promote the use of action research. Despite arguments in the literature that action research is eminently suitable to leadership preparation (Anderson, 2002; Andrews & Grogan, 2005; Furman, 2011; Grogan et al., 2007; Herr & Anderson, 2005), and the relative unanimity among the faculty respondents that the mission of their EdD programs is to prepare practitioners for their role as educational leaders, findings here indicate that the use of action research as a culminating product for the EdD in educational leadership is limited. The

15 Osterman et al. 99 findings offer some possible explanations for this limited use. While the majority of educational leadership faculty (75%) characterized peers as generally informed and supportive of action research, approximately 25% to 30% perceived colleagues as nonsupportive or resistant. Levels of support and resistance were similar for faculty within the school or college, but faculty within the university as a whole were characterized as less informed and more resistant. In addition, there was lack of clarity about the nature of action research and concerns about its quality and rigor as a methodology and the legitimacy of that methodology within the academic community. Open-ended responses confirmed that there is uncertainty about how action research differs from traditional methodologies and a belief that action research lacks legitimacy as a rigorous approach to research. Some faculty pointed out that action research dissertations did not lead to publications that benefited the faculty member s own research agenda. The lack of a shared understanding about the nature of action research is not surprising. The literature includes multiple approaches to inquiry that are characterized as action research, such as participatory action research, action learning, action science, cooperative inquiry, and appreciative inquiry (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). In addition, because so much of the literature regarding action research within education focuses almost exclusively on its use by teachers within the classroom, there is little information available to the field about the use of action research by educational leaders, let alone the use of action research to meet dissertation requirements. 4 Given this lack of consistency within the field, ambivalence among faculty is understandable, but nonetheless, a condition that affects the wider use of action research. As advocates for a particular model of action research, we are concerned that this lack of understanding undermines the value placed on action research and the frequency of its use. As mentioned earlier, our argument for the use of action research in educational leadership preparation programs is grounded in a specific definition of action research as a collaborative problem-solving process that is consistent with equitable and effective leadership practice. In this approach, the researcher engages with others to address a specific organizational problem, and there are two main questions that address the overall effectiveness of the process: (a) Did the action plan work as intended? and (b) was the research process consistent with action research principles (Stringer, 2007)? Specifically, was the process characterized by positive and supportive relationships among the research team? Was communication characterized as truthful, open, and attentive? Was there equitable and active participation by members of the team? Finally, was the process inclusive? To implement this form of action research clearly requires the doctoral candidate to utilize organizational problem-solving skills that are consistent with our understanding of effective leadership competencies. While it is important to note that this is not an argument for (or against) elimination of the dissertation requirement, we believe that EdD dissertation research conducted according to this model would soon demonstrate to faculty and to the broader field the effectiveness of action research in addressing real problems and its value as a leadership development experience for candidates. However, the findings of the study suggest that this definition of action research is neither widely understood nor utilized within educational leadership programs. To the

16 100 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) contrary, it would seem that an operational definition characterizing many of the responses would be simply research that helps us develop a deeper understanding of problems of practice. While that is a valuable purpose of research and may contribute to eventual change, in our opinion, it falls short of a research model that directly engages the doctoral candidate in a change effort. We argue that these limited understandings of action research among faculty should be addressed if action research is to be utilized effectively within doctoral programs. Of equal concern is the characterization of action research as inferior. Here, too, the lack of information about action research as a formal research methodology is likely an important contributing factor. These concerns, however, also raise questions about our standards for good research. As noted previously, for some, an essential feature of good research is its contribution to valued outcomes, such as individual well-being or social justice (Hostetler, 2005; Pyrch, 2007; Riehl et al., 2000; Stringer, 2007). As action research directly addresses problems of practice, including those related to social justice, and aims to create positive change, it certainly meets this criterion for good research. A valued purpose, however, must also be complemented by rigorous methods. Within the scientific community, however, there is disagreement about what constitutes rigor. Some equate rigor with scientific method. Explaining scientific method, Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff (1997), for example, focus on phases of scholarship beginning with a review of the literature, definition of measurable objectives, and choice of appropriate methods, with an analytic perspective that involves challenging assumptions and critical reflection. Similarly, almost every research text, regardless of methodological orientation, defines the scientific approach in common terms. Hoy (2010), for example, drawing on John Dewey (1933), identified four basic steps: Identification and definition of a problem, formulation of a hypothesis to solve the problem, the logical analysis of the implications of the hypothesis, and testing to corroborate or reject the hypothesis. While action research is distinctly different from other methodologies in a number of ways, well-designed action research clearly meets these basic standards for scientific rigor, in that it defines and interprets problems within the context of previous research and literature, uses rigorous methods for data collection and analysis, and tests and evaluates the action outcomes of the study. At the same time, action research includes characteristics that are decidedly inconsistent with other deeply held beliefs about the nature of scientific research. From a positivist perspective, good research is theoretical, empirical, controlled, and replicable (Hoy, 2010, p. 16). Maintaining that there is an external reality that can be discovered through systematic controlled inquiry by an independent and objective researcher, this perspective on scientific method is most distant from action research. In this regard, action research is in closer alignment with qualitative inquiry, which is generally based in a different view of the world that there is no single reality out there to be discovered, and that the researcher cannot be fully objective but interprets the data through a particular conceptual perspective or cultural stance. Given this similarity in philosophical assumptions, action research is sometimes viewed as a type of qualitative research (Stringer, 2007), but this characterization belies

17 Osterman et al. 101 important paradigmatic differences. In qualitative inquiry, the researcher s primary aim is to generate knowledge, although this knowledge is particular or idiographic rather than generalizable. While an integral part of the research process, the qualitative researcher usually attempts to achieve credibility by a careful deconstruction of the data and analysis to account for personal bias. The qualitative researcher perspective is, then, like that of the positivist, on-action rather than the in-action perspective that distinguishes action research. Action research is distinctly different in its purpose, and this purpose in turn creates differences in research processes and standards for establishing methodological rigor (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Stringer, 2007). Its purpose, to address problems of practice, is grounded in the need for social action and the need to address social justice issues. To fulfill this purpose, action research relies on research processes that tend to be collaborative and inclusive, strategies that have the potential to shift power relationships and facilitate joint efforts that cross lines of organizational hierarchy. Thus, while action research meets many conventional standards for methodological rigor, including qualitative research standards for transparency and trustworthiness (Stringer, 2007), its value or rigor is also judged by additional indicators of quality, including the achievement of action-oriented outcomes and the education of both researcher and participants (Herr & Anderson, 2005, pp ). In this sense, action research is held to even higher standards than conventional research and is, in our view, good research. In sum, while we recognize legitimate concerns and debates about research rigor at the doctoral level, we argue that well-designed action research studies meet and exceed most conventional standards for good research and should be encouraged for EdD dissertations in Educational Leadership. Action research would engage doctoral students in organizational change efforts, utilizing leadership practices and principles that are associated with the development of organizational learning communities. Essentially, the completion of an action research study would constitute an authentic performance, demonstrating the ability to exercise effective and collaborative leadership and to utilize systematic and rigorous research methods to improve practice. Thus, action research is consistent with the widely shared mission of EdD programs to improve educational leadership. At the same time, there is a pressing need for educational leaders who can engage in collaborative efforts to address problems, create school environments that support student learning, and advance an important social justice agenda, reducing a growing economic and social inequity between the haves and the havenots. This need demands that we reconsider our understanding of good research at the doctoral level and seek to more closely align the culminating requirement of the dissertation to the program mission. Implications The findings of this study raise important questions for the professoriate regarding the design and implementation of EdD programs in educational leadership. If action research advocates are correct in their claims about its usefulness and effectiveness in

18 102 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) addressing problems of practice, including those related to social justice issues and its role in developing effective leadership practices, then what needs to be done to increase its use for the EdD dissertation or culminating project? Barriers identified in this study include lack of understanding about the nature of action research, inertia, and concerns about the legitimacy of action research as a methodology. To address these issues, it is important that educational leadership faculty develop a deeper understanding of action research as a methodology and a deeper understanding of how that design can be utilized by educational leaders to meet learning objectives and to satisfy the dissertation or completion requirements for the EdD. It is also important that we develop an explicit awareness of the extent to which our attitudes toward research are shaped by dominant research paradigms in the field. As a start, it is clear that advocates of action research need to be more proactive in disseminating information and research about action research, and specifically about action research for educational leaders. What is particularly important here is information about action research as a change process and as a research methodology, focusing on its use to meet EdD completion requirements. 5 In a sense, what is needed are opportunities for dialogue and learning, provided through professional organizations and national conferences. In addition, action research advocates can do a better job within their home institutions with regard to helping their colleagues within the program, the school and the university to understand the value of the action research approach. Furthermore, faculty with action research expertise could develop better models and materials for teaching action research within the context of educational leadership doctoral programs and disseminate these instructional models through publications and presentations. Finally, to address concerns about rigor and effectiveness, the field needs more published action research studies that feature this methodology within educational settings. To date, much of this research, in the form of doctoral dissertations, remains unpublished. 6 Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Notes 1. Coghlan and Brannick (2010) helpfully distinguish between first person action research that focuses on individual practice and second person action research that focuses on a shared problem or shared practices. 2. The University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) is consortium of higher education institutions who offer doctoral programs in educational leadership and whose mission statement emphasizes its commitment to enhancing the preparation and practice

19 Osterman et al. 103 of educational leaders for the benefit of students. We selected UCEA member institutions as a representative sample of universities that offer doctoral programs in Educational Administration or Leadership. 3. UCEA initially distributed the survey to faculty members on its distribution list. Because of a low rate of response and the fact that the distribution list included numerous faculty who were not affiliated with K-12 leadership programs, we reviewed current data from each of the 66 EdD granting institutions to identify one or more faculty members with specific responsibilities in the educational leadership programs in an effort to get at least one response from each EdD granting institution. 4. A notable exception is the book by Herr and Anderson (2005) on the action research dissertation. 5. Coghlan and Brannick (2010), for example, clearly differentiate between the action research project and the dissertation, framing the action research project as a second person inquiry that focuses on the group s ability to inquiry into and work with others on issues of mutual concern (p. 6) while the dissertation itself is characterized as third person inquiry, preparation of a report that is designed for publication, and includes an analysis of the data that moves from concrete to the general (p. 6), contributing to the advancement of knowledge. 6. One example of an article that provides descriptive and analytic information about action research dissertations is by Debby Zambo (2010). Interestingly, the article appeared in a publication targeted at Higher Education (Innovative Higher Education) rather than in one targeted toward educational leadership faculty. References Anderson, G. L. (2002). Reflecting on research for doctoral students in education. Educational Researcher, 31(7), Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005). Form should follow function: Removing the Ed.D. dissertation from the Ph.D. strait jacket. UCEA Review, 47(2), Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Furman, G. (2011, November). School leadership, social justice, and action research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA. Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (8th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill. Glassick, C., Huber, M., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grogan, M., Donaldson, J., & Simmons, J. M. (2007). Disrupting the status quo: The action research dissertation as a transformative strategy. In C. A. Mullen, T. Creighton, F. L.

20 104 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1) Dembowski, & S. Harris (Eds.), The handbook of doctoral programs in educational leadership: Issues and challenges (pp ). Houston, TX: The NCPEA Press. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hostetler, K. (2005). What is good education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), Hoy, W. K. (2010). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Johnsen, H. C. G. (2010). Scientific knowledge through involvement How to do respectful othering. International Journal of Action Research, 6, doi: / _ IJAR_2010_01_Johnsen Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), Maurer, M., & Githens, R. P. (2010). Toward a reframing of action research for human resource and organization development: Moving beyond problem solving and toward dialogue. Action Research, 8, Retrieved from Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill. Page, R. J. (2001). Reshaping graduate preparation in educational research methods: One school s experience. Educational Researcher, 30(5), Pyrch, T. (2007). Participatory action research and the culture of fear: Resistance, community, hope and courage. Action Research, 5, Retrieved from content/5/2/199 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, Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Torff, B. (2011). Preparing the educational researchers the world needs. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from Young, M. D. (2006). From the director: The M.Ed., Ed.D. and Ph.D. in educational leadership. UCEA Review, 45(2), 6-9. Zambo, D. (2010). Action research as signature pedagogy in an education doctoral program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education, 36, doi: /s Zeichner, K. (2001). Educational action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Author Biographies Karen Osterman is a professor of educational and policy leadership at Hofstra University. Former department chair and doctoral director, her research interests and publications have focused on utilizing reflective practice for professional development and student motivation in the school context, with particular attention to students need for belonging in the school community. Gail Furman is a professor of educational leadership at Washington State University and interim academic director for College of Education programs at the WSU Spokane campus. A former president of UCEA, she is the author of numerous articles, book chapters, and books