Educational leaders are increasingly encouraged to engage in practitioner inquiry to drive school improvement and advance equity. However, when such inquiry is conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation, particularly within Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) programs, it often collides with district research and conflict of interest policies not designed for embedded, improvement-focused studies. This paper analyzes policies from 13 large urban school districts, collectively serving over 3 million students, to examine how these systems enable or constrain employees’ ability to conduct dissertation in practice (DIP) research in their own settings. The findings reveal substantial variation in district guidance, reflecting underlying tensions between ethical oversight, institutional risk, and support for practitioner-led inquiry. These competing values and underlying institutional logics shape whether and how districts recognize the potential of embedded research to contribute to continuous improvement and equity. The study highlights how coherent, transparent policies can uphold ethical standards while fostering conditions for meaningful practitioner dissertation scholarship.
AinscowM.DysonA.GoldrickS.WestM. (2016). Using collaborative inquiry to foster equity within school systems: Opportunities and barriers. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(1), 7–23. https://doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.939591
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
3.
AndersonG.HerrK.NihlinA. S. (2007). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to practitioner action research. Corwin Press.
4.
Bridwell-MitchellE. N.YurkofskyM. (2023). Defying logic? Exploring the multiple network pathways for principals’ institutional logics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(2), 306–338. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231156874
5.
BrykA. S.GomezL.GrunowA.LeMahieuP. (2015). Learning to improve. How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
6.
CameronK. S.QuinnR. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Jossey-Bass.
CoghlanD.BrannickT. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage.
9.
Gannon-SlaterN.La LondeP. G.CrenshawH. L.EvansM. E.GreeneJ. C.SchwandtT. A. (2017). Advancing equity in accountability and organizational cultures of data use. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 361–375. https://doi-10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0108
10.
Hinnant-CrawfordB.BonneyE. N.PerryJ.A.BozackA.R.PetersonD. S.CrowR.CarlileS. (2024). Continuous improvement, institutional review boards, and resistance to practitioner scholarship. Educational Researcher, 53(1), 46–53. doi- 10.3102/0013189X231208413.
11.
HochbeinC.PerryJ. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 181–195.
12.
HuguetA.FarrellC. C.MarshJ. A. (2017). Light touch, heavy hand: Principals and data-use PLCs. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 376. https://doi-10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0101
LynchD.SmithR.ProvostS.MaddenJ. (2016). Improving teaching capacity to increase student achievement: The key role of data interpretation by school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(5), 575–592. https://doi-10.1108/JEA-10-2015-0092
15.
LytleJ. H.LytleS. L.JohanekM.RhoK. J. (2018). Repositioning educational leadership: Practitioners leading from an inquiry stance. Teachers College Press.
NicholsS.CormackP. (2016). Impactful practitioner inquiry: The ripple effect on classrooms, schools, and teacher professionalism. Teachers College Press.
PapeS. J.BryantC. L.JohnBullR. M.KarpK. S. (2022). Improvement science as a frame for the dissertation in practice: The Johns Hopkins experience. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 7(1), 59–66.
21.
ParkV.KennedyK. E.GallagherH. A.CottinghamB. W.GongA. (2022). Weaving and stacking: How school districts craft coherence towards continuous improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09471-5
22.
PerroneF.TuckerP. D. (2019). Shifting profile of leadership preparation programs in the 21st century. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(2), 253–295. https://doi-10.1177/0013161X18799473
23.
PerryJ. A.ZamboD.CrowG. (2020). The improvement science dissertation in practice. Myers Education Press.
24.
ScottW. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Sage.
25.
SteneckN. H. (2007). ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. U.S. Government Printing Office. rcrintro.pdf.
26.
StoreyV. A.MaughanB. D. (2016). Dissertation in practice: Reconceptualizing the nature and role of the practitioner-scholar. In StoryV. A. (Ed.), International perspectives on designing professional practice doctorates (pp. 213). Springer.
27.
ThompsonC.NkansahJ. (2023). The dissertation in practice and the responsible conduct of research. In BenedettiC.CovarrubiasA. (Eds.), Teaching critical inquiry & applied research (pp. 209–220). Meyers Education Press.
WhicherD.KassN.SaghaiY.FadenR.TunisS.PronovostP. (2015). The Views of Quality Improvement Professionals and Comparative Effectiveness Researchers on Ethics, IRBs, and Oversight. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 10(2), 132–144.
30.
YurkofskyM. (2022). From compliance to improvement: How school leaders make sense of institutional and technical demands when implementing a continuous improvement process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(2), 300–346. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1177/0013161X211053597
31.
ZeniJ. (2014). A guide to ethical issues and action research. Taylor & Francis.
