The purpose of this study was to present the current status of program focus and delivery of doctoral-level educational leadership programs in the United States. Drawing on a 2011 national survey of educational leadership doctoral programs in 103 institutions, this study describes the differences and similarities of EdD and PhD programs in two domains–-program focus (i.e., purposes, credit requirements, and curriculum emphases) and program delivery (i.e., use of cohort model, time, location, and face-to-face/online hybrid). In light of mixed findings, implications for practice and recommendations for further research are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchbaldD. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the educational leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function.Educational Administration Quarterly,44(5), 704–739.
2.
BakerB. D., OrrM. T., & YoungM. D. (2007). Academic drift, institutional production, and professional distribution of graduate degrees in educational leadership.Educational Administration Quarterly,43(3), 279–318.
3.
BarnettB. G., BasomM. R., YerkesD. M., & NorrisC. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders.Educational Administration Quarterly,36(2), 255–282.
4.
BarnettB. G., & MuseI. D. (1993). Cohort groups in educational administration: Promises and challenges.Journal of School Leadership,3, 400–415.
5.
BasomM., YerkesD., BarnettB., & NorrisC. (1996/1997). A backward glance: Cohorts in educational leadership programs.Record in Educational Leadership,16/17(1/2), 55–60.
6.
BasomM., YerkesD., NorrisC., & BarnettB. (1996). Using cohorts as a means for developing transformational leaders.Journal of School Leadership,6(1), 99–112.
7.
BitusikovaA. (2009). Reforming doctoral education in Europe.Academe,95(1), 21–23.
8.
BrownK. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative framework and andragogy.Educational Administration Quarterly,42(5), 700–745.
9.
BurnettI. E. (1989, August). Elaboration on working together: A collaborative approach to university/school system principalship career development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Tuscaloosa, AL.
10.
ClarkD. C., & ClarkS. N. (1996). Better preparation of educational leaders.Educational Researcher25(8), 18–20.
11.
CordieroP. A., KruegerJ., ParksD., RestineL. N., & WilsonP. (1992). Taking stock: A study of the Danforth programs for the preparation of school principals.St. Louis, MO: Danforth Foundation.
12.
DembowskiF. (2007). An empirical description of doctoral programs in educational leadership. In National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (Ed.), The handbook of doctoral programs in educational leadership: Issues and challenges (pp. 7–9). Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m14577/1.1/
13.
DonaldsonJ. F., & PetersenG. J. (2007). Cohort doctoral preparation programs: Neo-institutional perspectives. In National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (Ed.), The handbook of doctoral programs in educational leadership: Issues and challenges (pp. 9–22). Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m14518/1.1/
14.
Educational Testing Service. (2010). The path forward: The future of graduate education in the United States.Princeton, NJ: Author.
15.
EversonC. T. (2009). A professional doctorate in educational leadership: Saint Louis University's EdD program.Peabody Journal of Education,84, 86–99.
16.
GlasmanN., CibulkaJ., & AshbyD. (2002). Program self-evaluation for continuous improvement.Educational Administration Quarterly,38(2), 257–288.
17.
GoldringE., & SchuermannP. (2009). The changing context of K–12 education administration: Consequences for EdD program design and delivery.Peabody Journal of Education,84(1), 25–43.
18.
GreenleeB. J., & KaranxhaZ. (2010). A study of group dynamics in educational leadership cohort and non-cohort groups.Journal of Research on Leadership Education,5(11), 357–382.
19.
GuthrieJ. W. (2009). The case for a modern Doctor of Education degree (EdD): Multipurpose education doctorates no longer appropriate.Peabody Journal of Education,84, 3–8.
20.
HackmannD. G., & PriceW. J. (1995, February). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century: Results of a national survey of educational leadership doctoral programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration Conference Within a Conference at the Conference of the American Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA.
21.
HallingerP., & S;nidvongsK. (2008). Educating leaders: Is there anything to learn from business management?Educational Management Administration & Leadership,36(1), 9–31.
22.
HillM. S. (1995). Educational leadership cohort models: Changing the talk to change the walk.Planning and Changing,26(3/4), 179–189.
23.
IvankovaN. V., & StickS. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study.Research in Higher Education,48(1), 93–135.
24.
JacksonB. L., & KelleyC. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership.Educational Administration Quarterly,38(2), 192–212.
25.
JahngN. (2012). A systematic review of small-group communication in post-secondary online courses.Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning,16(2), 26–40.
26.
Jean-MarieG., AdamsC. M., & GarnG. (2010). Renewing the EdD: A university K–12 partnership to prepare school leaders. In Jean-MarieG., & NormoreA. H. (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education (pp. 77–109). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
KehmB. M. (2007). Quo vadis doctoral education? New European approaches in the context of global changes.European Journal of Education,42(3), 307–319.
28.
LeithwoodK. (1995). Preparing school leaders: What works?Connections!3(3), 1–7.
29.
LevineA. (2005). Educating school leaders.Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.
MarshD. D., & DemboM. H. (2009). Rethinking school leadership programs: The USC EdD program in perspective.Peabody Journal of Education,84, 69–85.
32.
McCarthyM. M., & KuhG. D. (1997). Continuity and change: The educational leadership professoriate.Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
33.
MurphyJ. (1991). The effects of the educational reform movement on departments of educational leadership.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,13(1), 49–65.
34.
MurphyJ. (1999). The quest for a center: Notes on the state of the profession of educational leadership.Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
35.
MurphyJ., MoormanH. N., & McCarthyM. (2008). A framework for rebuilding initial certification and preparation programs in educational leadership: Lessons from whole-state reform initiatives.Teachers College Record,110(10), 2172–2203.
36.
MurphyJ., & VriesengaM. (2006). Research on school leadership preparation in the United States: An analysis.School Leadership and Management,26(2), 183–195.
37.
MurphyJ. (Ed.). (1993). Preparing tomorrow's school leaders: Alternative designs.University Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration.
NeradM. (2011). What we know about the dramatic increase in Ph.D. degrees and the reform of doctoral education worldwide: Implications for South Africa.Perspectives in Education,29(3), 1–12.
40.
NeumannR. (2005). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,27(2), 173–188.
41.
NorrisC., BarnettB., BasomM., & YerkesD. (1997). The cohort: A vehicle for building transformational leadership skills.Planning and Changing,27, 145–164.
42.
NormoreA. H., & SlaytonJ. (2010). An interdisciplinary doctoral program in educational leadership (EdD): Addressing the needs of diverse learners in urban settings. In Jean-MarieG., & NormoreA. H. (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education (pp. 133–151). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
NortonM. S. (1992). Doctoral studies of students in educational administration programs in non-member UCEA institutions.Educational Considerations,20(1), 37–41.
44.
NortonM. S. (1995). The status of student cohorts in educational administration preparation programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.
45.
NortonM. S., & LevanF. D. (1987). Doctoral studies of students in educational administration programs in UCEA member institutions.Educational Considerations,14(1), 21–24.
46.
OstermanK. F., & HafnerM. M. (2009). Curriculum in leadership preparation: Understanding where we have been in order to know where we might go. In YoungM. D., CrowG. M., MurphyJ., & OgawaR. T. (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 269–317). New York: Routledge.
47.
PerryJ. A. (2012). To EdD or not to EdD?Phi Delta Kappan,94(1), 41–44.
48.
PounderD. G. (2000). A discussion of the task force's collective findings.Educational Administration Quarterly,36(3), 465–473.
49.
ProbstC., & LeporiB. (2008). What is a doctorate? Changing meanings and practices in communication sciences in Switzerland.European Journal of Education,43(4), 477–494.
50.
RichardsonV. (2006). Stewards of a field, stewards of an enterprise: The doctorate in education. In GoldeC. M., & WalkerG. E. (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline: Carnegie essays on the doctorate (pp. 251–267). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51.
ServageL. (2009). Alternative and professional doctoral programs: What is driving the demand?Studies in Higher Education,34(7), 765–779.
52.
SheckleyB. G., DonaldsonM. L., MayerA. P., & LemonsR. W. (2010). An EdD program based on principles of how adults learn best. In Jean-MarieG., & NormoreA. H. (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education (pp. 173–202). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
53.
ShermanW. H., & BeatyD. M. (2007). The use of distance technology in leadership preparation.Journal of Educational Administration,45(5), 605–620.
54.
ShermanW. H., CrumK. S., BeatyD. M., & MyranS. (2010). Perspectives on distance technology in leadership education: Transfer, meaning, and change.Journal of Research on Leadership Education,5(13), 589–610.
55.
ShulmanL. S., GoldeC. M., BueschelA. C., & GarabedianK. J. (2006). Reclaiming education's doctorates: A critique and a proposal.Educational Researcher,35(3), 25–32.
56.
StoreyV. A., & HartwickP. J. (2010). Critical friends: Supporting a small, private university face the challenges of crafting an innovative scholar–practitioner doctorate. In Jean-MarieG., & NormoreA. H. (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education (pp. 111–132). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
57.
TeitelL. (1997). Understanding and harnessing the power of the cohort model in preparing educational leaders.Peabody Journal of Education,72(2), 66–85.
58.
University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). (2012). Designing purposeful and coherent leadership preparation curriculum: A curriculum mapping guide.Charlottesville, VA: Author.
59.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
60.
YerkesD. M., BasomM. R., NorrisC., & BarnettB. (1995, August). Using cohorts in the development of educational leaders. Paper presented at the 13th annual international conference of the Association of Management, Vancouver, Canada.
61.
YoungM. D. (2006). From the director: The MEd, EdD and PhD in educational leadership.UCEA Review,45(2), 6–9.
62.
ZanderA. (1982). Making groups effective.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63.
ZhaoY., LeiJ., LaiB. Y. C., & TanH. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education.Teachers College Record,107(8), 1836–1884.
