Research Courses in the CPED Education Doctorate: What s the Difference? Purpose

Transcription

1 Research Courses in the CPED Education Doctorate: What s the Difference? Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics and attributes of research courses taught in Education Doctorate (Ed.D.) programs associated with the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) consortium as Phase I institutions. The following research questions were used to frame the study: What are the characteristics of Ed.D. research courses being delivered in CPED Phase I institutions? What changes in the content and focus of research courses have occurred as institutions have transformed the Ed.D.? What are the perceptions of faculty related to challenges in transforming research courses in the Ed.D.? What are the perceptions of faculty related to the impact of the research courses taught in the Ed.D. programs? Internationally, the number of professional doctorate degrees has increased over the past several decades (Neumann, 2005) with perhaps the more common professional doctorate being in the field of education or the Ed.D. In the United States, work has been ongoing to distinguish between the Ph.D. and the Ed.D. through the efforts of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). The role of research continues to be a challenging enigma in higher education institutions seeking to develop and progress the professional doctorate. In examining the perceptions of faculty and program administrators, the goal of this study is to respond to the call made by Hochbein and Perry (2013) for an increased clarity in the role of research in the professional doctorate. Related Perspectives The Ph.D. and the professional doctorate have been identified as two different degrees serving two contrasting purposes (Malfroy, 2005; Manathunga, C., Smith, C., & Bath, D., 2004; Neumann, 2005). The search for a distinction between professional doctorate research experiences and those of the Ph.D. has been driven by the thought that perhaps different types of knowledge should characterize the purpose of each degree (Costley & Armsby, 2007; Notoway, Scott, & Gibbons, 2003). Additionally, Dadds and Hart (2001) note that mainstream, traditional research approaches do not always suit the needs and available resources of practitionerresearchers (p.7) a sentiment echoed in the more recent thinking of Hochbein and Perry (2013). Yet another argument supports the idea that the knowledge generated from a practical research endeavor associated with the professional doctorate might be more valuable to society than the knowledge generated through the more traditional research approaches of the Ph.D. (Usher, 2002). 1

2 A Different Type of Inquiry for the Ed.D. There is a somewhat different view of the role inquiry plays as an integral part of the learning process required for the development of the scholarly practitioner. The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (2014) identifies this view through the following definition of the design concept Inquiry of Practice: Inquiry as Practice is the process of posing significant questions that focus on complex problems of practice. By using various research, theories, and professional wisdom, scholarly practitioners design innovative solutions to address the problems of practice. At the center of Inquiry of Practice is the ability to use data to understand the effects of innovation. As such, Inquiry of Practice requires the ability to gather, organize, judge, aggregate, and analyze situations, literature, and data with a critical lens. (para.4) In traditional research pursuits at the doctoral level, there has been an emphasis placed on the role of research being one of filling the gaps of existing knowledge, or challenging an established premise through investigation and inquiry. These pursuits may or may not be related to problems that actually exist in the field of practice. On the other hand, the Ed.D. focuses on actual problems of practice in a specific work settings in which the researchers (i.e., students) are immersed. The work setting then becomes what is referred to as a laboratory of practice (CPED, 2014). The role of existing literature is altered from knowledge creation in the Ph.D. (i.e., research doctorate) to solving problems of practice in the Ed.D. (i.e., professional doctorate) (Belzer & Ryan, 2013). In the research doctorate, existing research serves to create a conceptual framework which assists the researcher in finding gaps in the literature, generating further questions to either extend or challenge the existing knowledge around a particular topic, or actualizing a new theory. In the Ed.D., the existing knowledge serves to inform the problem of practice by providing a framework for identifying, analyzing, and creating solutions. Defining the Methods to be Taught in the Ed.D. Research methods courses have historically maintained a prominent and often exclusive position in doctoral curricula, and have been well-defined for the Ph.D. as courses that cover both quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. More recently, the development of mixedmethods research has occurred as the complexities of the social sciences have led to the belief that research can be more effective if the contrasting philosophies of positivists and constructivists were combined in meaningful ways to better understand the phenomenon or problem being studied (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Action research is one popular approach to research in the field of education that predominantly uses qualitative methods; however, can also rely on some quantitative approaches as a method of inquiry (Johnson, 2008). Separating even further from the traditional research approaches, Dadds and Hart (2001) observe: 2

3 Much action research and practitioner research continues to draw upon the methods and methodologies of traditional social science research. While this methodological borrowing (Winter, 1989) can be appropriate to some degree it is often not situationally appropriate for the professional contexts in which many practitioner researchers work, or for the kinds of research questions they choose to pursue. (p. 7-8) This disparity of beliefs surrounding what research approaches are the most appropriate for the Ed.D. reflects the lack of clarity and perhaps shared understanding for those who have embarked on pursuing the transformation of the Ed.D. as a professional doctorate. As a result, for many institutions, the realization of appropriate research courses has been one of the most difficult challenges in transforming the Ed.D. (Marsh, Dembo, Gallagher, & Stowe, 2010). Methods Qualitative methods of data collection and analysis were used to answer the research questions. Data were collected through 79 individual faculty interviews in 2012 and an openended survey sent to each Phase I institution in The interview data were from a previous CPED study that examined the transformation of the Ed.D. in Phase I CPED institutions. After the initial analysis of the extant data, a survey was designed and sent to each Phase I institution. The survey was a brief online questionnaire that required open-ended responses. Initial analysis of the extant data involved broad descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2013) using terms that identified characteristics of research courses (e.g., traditional, degree of emphasis, course sequence, etc.). After reviewing the coded text from the QSA of the extant text, more specific information was identified as necessary to fully address the research questions resulting in the application of a survey. The survey data was then coded descriptively using key terms from the research questions (e.g., changes in focus, changes in content, challenges, impact, etc.). The descriptive analysis of the survey data was reduced to five overarching themes which are presented in the results section of this proposal. Data sources The sources for data were 21 Phase I CPED institutions. These institutions initially joined the CPED consortium in 2007 and represented three private-not-for-profit institutions and 18 public institutions. Areas of focus varied among the programs of these Phase I institutions with a predominate number being in educational leadership while other areas of focus included curriculum and instruction, teacher education, teacher leadership, organizational leadership, special education, and higher education administration. The Phase I institutions were targeted because they have had the longest tenure in working with CPED in efforts to define and transform the Ed.D. Two of the Phase I institutions had implemented or were in the process of implementing the CPED principals through college-wide efforts, while the remaining institutions focused the transformation on specific programs. 3

4 Results One challenge of using QSA as a strategy is finding connections between the existing data and the new inquiry. The original study, which involved over 75 faculty interviews, did not focus on research courses specifically; therefore, there was not always a direct connection between the question put forth in this study and the data of the original study. The extant data revealed that there was some identified use of the traditional qualitative and quantitative approaches, and that there was, at times conflict between those faculty that wanted to hold on to the established courses and approaches to research along with the traditional Ph.D.-style dissertation. While there was some evidence that many of the programs were still approaching the research courses through the traditional topics of quantitative and qualitative methods, there were indications that faculty were trying to make these approaches more practical. This was often manifested in the use of terms such as action research and mixed methods or titles of courses such as Qualitative Inquiry for Practitioners or Applied Quantitative Research Methods. The analysis of the survey data was more revealing; however, it is important to recognize that being an open-ended survey, there were no two responses exactly the same which is most likely attributed to the various contexts of the institutions studied. None the less, themes that have emerged thus far from our analysis suggest the following: Many Phase I CPED institutions have immersed their research courses to encapsulate the entire doctoral experience, starting with research awareness from the beginning of the program and continuing throughout. There appears to be more reference to inquiry courses rather than research courses which might indicate a shift away from the approaches of the traditional research methods courses of the Ph.D. Evidence indicates that there is a growing concern and resulting attention paid to the applicability of research courses to the world of practice. The impact of research courses are often articulated in terms of client (e.g. student s workplace or organization hosting study of problem) and a more efficient completion of the degree. While there seemed to be a decline in the problem of support from faculty for the shifting or re-creation of research courses, there were still some reports of bureaucratic challenges in meeting the requirements of graduate school s capstone requirements (i.e., five-chapter research dissertation). We will continue to analyze the data as the final surveys are received and the final draft of the paper is completed. 4

5 Significance The results of this study are significant for two major reasons. The first point of significance is that this study indicates that in CPED Phase I institutions are conceptualizing research courses based on what is involved in the examination and resolutions of problems of practice instead of simply applying traditional statistical and qualitative methods to topics surrounding such dilemmas that occur in the field. This suggests that institutions who have been working at redesigning the Ed.D. have come to the realization that the type of research practitioners should know and be able to do is different than the research that researchers know and be able to do. As a result, the methods that they are taught should indeed be different. The second point of significance is that, in the institutions surveyed, there appears to be emphasis placed on research courses being designed to assist in developing professional practitioners as a preference over emphasis on producing a capstone project. The only mention of capstone projects in the survey data thus far has been the challenge of convincing graduate schools of the necessity to have an end product that might be something different than a fivechapter dissertation. This might be a shift of focus from the idea that a capstone must be clearly defined before research courses can be developed. Instead, CPED Phase I institutions seem to focus on research courses that promote the professional skills necessary for their students to solve problems of practice in their workplace. To a great extent, this indicates a shift of emphasis from the measure of success being the production of a capstone to the production of an impactful professional practitioner. References Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), Belzer, A., & Ryan, S. (2013). Defining the problem of practice dissertation: Where s the practice, what s the problem? Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). (2014). Design concept definitions. Retrieved from Costley, C., & Armsby, P. (2007). Research influences on a professional doctorate. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12(3), Dadds, M., & Hart, S. (2001). Doing practitioner research differently. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hochbein, C., & Perry, J.A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), Johnson, A.P. (2008). A short guide to action research (3 rd ed.). Boston. MA: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed-methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 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),

6 Marsh, D.D., Dembo, M.H., Gallagher, K.S., & Stowe, H. (2010). Examining the capstone experience in a cutting-edge Ed.D. program. In G. Jean-Marie & A.H. Normore (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to the Ed.D. and graduate education (pp ). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Neumann, R. (2005). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), Perry, J.A. (2012). To Ed.D. or not to Ed.D.? Kappan, 94(1), Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manualfor qualitative researchers (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shulman, L.S., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming education s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researchers, 35(3), Usher, R. (2002). A diversity of doctorates: Fitness for the knowledge economy? Higher Education Research and Development, 21(2),