“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

Abstract

The launch of independent Ed.D. programs in 2007 at campuses of the California State University (CSU) is significant for its large program size and timing amidst national debate on Ed.D. programs. These applied programs for practitioners require a traditional dissertation based on rigorous research that address problems of practice. This qualitative case study explores how CSU doctoral faculty and program directors conceptualize the purpose and nature of the applied dissertation and the professional and institutional factors that shape their views. It is important to document program norms at this critical early stage to guide improvements at these and other new Ed.D. programs and to contribute to the ongoing debate. Interviews and document review revealed mixed evidence, with some programs stressing scholarly rigor similar to a Ph.D. and others advocating a more relevant, practitioner-oriented approach, such as esummaries of dissertations geared toward educators at the research site. Participants agreed, “We are still feeling our way” regarding dissertation expectations, and greater collegial deliberation is needed. State legislation, accreditation requirements, faculty's own doctoral experience, and other factors tend to reinforce the status quo and inhibit the development of applied approaches. Implications for practice include facilitation of faculty dialogue and consensus-building around visions of the applied dissertation within and across Ed.D. programs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Herr

(1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12–28.

Anderson

G. L.

Herr

(in press). Action research and educational leadership: Power, hierarchy, and practitioner knowledge. In Smekh

Noffke

(Eds.), Handbook of Educational Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson

G. L.

Jones

(2000). Knowledge generation in educational administration from the inside-out: The promise and perils of site-based, administrator research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 428–464.

André Bechely

(2009). Capturing change in the making: The policy contexts for independent Ed.D.s at California State University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Barnes

B. J.

Austin

A. E.

(2008). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisors's perspective. Innovations in higher education 2009, 33(5), 297–315.

Bissell

(2009). The new California State University Ed.D. programs: Continuity or change? Discussant at symposium presented at the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), Anaheim, CA.

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2000). The production and utilization of education doctorates for administrators in California's public schools. (Commission Report 00–9). Sacramento, CA: Author.

California State University Office of the Chancellor. (2006). Doctor of Education Degree, Executive Order 991, 1–20. Long Beach, CA: Author.

California State University Office of the Chancellor. (2007). The CSU Ed.D. programs for educational leaders. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from www.calstate.edu/EdD.

10.

Datnow

Amanda

Hubbard

Lea

Mehan

Hugh.

(1998). Educational Reform Implementation: A Co-Constructed Process. UC Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1470d2c8.

11.

Elmore

(2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

12.

Furman

Grogan

Sernak

Osterman

(2009). From promise to practice: Implementing the action research dissertation in educational leadership. Paper presented at the annual conference of University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), Anaheim, CA.

13.

Hall

(1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory: Beyond the microlevel. Sociological Quarterly, 36(2), 397–423.

14.

Hargreaves

(1985). The micro-macro problem in the sociology of education. In Burgess

R. G.

(Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 21–47). London: The Falmer Press.

15.

Hernandez

Strauss

(2008, October 2). In most school districts, the doctor is in charge, but some question degree. Washington Post, Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100102958.html.

16.

Herr

Anderson

G. L.

(2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Kahne

(1996). Reframing educational policy. New York: Teachers College Press.

18.

Levine

(2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Education Schools Project, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm.

19.

Marsh

D. D.

Dembo

M. H.

(2009). Rethinking school leadership programs: The USC Ed.D. program in perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 69–85.

20.

Merriam

(1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Murphy

(2007April). Questioning the core of university-based programs for preparing school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 582–585.

23.

Painter

Moore

Zambo

Buss.

(2009). Faculty change to support an innovative Ed.D. program. Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), Anaheim, CA.

24.

Peshkin

(1988). In search of subjectivity—one's own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.

25.

Rubin

H. J.

Rubin

I. S.

(2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Shulman

Golde

C. M.

Conklin Bueschel

Garabedian

K.J.

(2006April). Reclaiming education's doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32.

27.

Sirotnick

K. A.

Oakes

(1990Spring). Evaluation as critical inquiry: School improvement as a case in point. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 45, 37–59.

28.

Smrekar

(2008). The professional doctorate in educational leadership: Three alternatives to the traditional dissertation. Panel discussion presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

29.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Young

M. D.

(2006). The M. Ed., Ed.D., and Ph.D. in educational leadership. UCEA Review, 45(2), 6–9.