Broad and diverse membership is central to CPED’s success. Annually, CPED invites schools and colleges of education from around the world to join its 135+ member institutions in the work of transforming the EdD into the professional practice doctorate in education. Through professional development opportunities and a wide range of resources, CPED and their faculty learn to redesign their EdD programs to better serve practitioners. include a professional development network that supports schools and colleges of education in EdD program design, annual Convenings, virtual events, resources to access national data, opportunities for collaboration and publication.
Through a collaborative, authentic process, members of CPED developed a that supports creating quality, rigorous practitioner preparation while honoring the local context of each member institution. The three-part Framework for EdD redesign includes a new definition of EdD, a set of guiding principles for program development, and a set of design concepts that serve as program building blocks. CPED members are often at different ; as they engage in the consortium, they utilize the Framework© to design/redesign, evaluate, and improve their programs.
®Latest news, twitter feed, impacting education: journal on transforming professional practice.
Forthcoming CSU CPED Convening on June 11-12, 2009
Previous CSU CPED Convening on October 20-21, 2008
Previous CSU CPED Convening on January 29-30, 2008
© 2007 California State University Concept and design by CSU Academic Technology Services and the Center for Distributed Learning MERLOT Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching
Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, the carnegie project on the education doctorate: a partnership of universities and schools working to improve the education doctorate and k-20 schools.
University Partnerships for Academic Programs and Professional Development
ISBN : 978-1-78635-300-9 , eISBN : 978-1-78635-299-6
Publication date: 16 August 2016
Since its inception at Harvard in 1921, the Doctorate in Education (EdD) has been a degree fraught with confusion as to its purpose and distinction from the PhD. In response to this, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), a collaborative project consisting of 80+ schools of education located in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand were established to undertake a critical examination of the EdD and develop it into the degree of choice for educators who want to generate knowledge and scholarship about practice or related policies and steward the education profession. However, programmatic changes in higher education can bring both benefits and challenges (Levine, 2005). This chapter explains: the origins of the education doctorate; how CPED as a network of partners has changed the EdD; the use of bi-annual Convenings as spaces for this work; CPED’s three phases of membership that have built the network; CPED’s path forward.
Perry, J.A. and Zambo, D. (2016), "The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate: A Partnership of Universities and Schools Working to Improve the Education Doctorate and K-20 Schools", University Partnerships for Academic Programs and Professional Development ( Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 7 ), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120160000007024
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2016 Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Something didn’t work….
Report bugs here
Please share your general feedback
Platform update page.
Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates
Answers to the most commonly asked questions here
You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.
If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.
Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.
You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.
You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.
No items selected.
Please select one or more items.
You might have access to the full article...
Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.
PLANNING AND CHANGING SPECIAL ISSUE
With the prompting of a consortium member and a very gracious offer from the former Editor of Planning and Changing, this special issue focused on the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) was developed and edited by me, Dr. Jill Perry. As the Co-Director of CPED, I welcomed the opportunity because it afforded me the chance to tell the story of the project and its accomplishments through the voice of the consortium. I often tell people that, while I have a birds-eye view that allows me to see the accomplishments of CPED across 56 U.S. schools of education, this opinion is rarely heard by everyone or accompanied by voices that speak to the influences CPED has had on individuals and programs. This special issue gave me the privilege and honor of collaborating closely with deans, faculty and graduates of CPED institutions to learn how the broader CPED work is transpiring at the institutional, programmatic and individual level. It is with the voices of varied individuals that I wish to present this issue outlining how CPED's reconceptualizing of the EdD has changed schools of education at these three levels.
To this end, this special issue serves three purposes. First, it provides a brief introduction to the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, written by me. This article offers a historical overview of the project, a description of how it came to be the first action-oriented effort to distinguish the EdD as a professional practice degree, and a summary of the consortium's accomplishments. Second, through the stories of change presented by various authors, this issue will demonstrate how national level ideas, tested locally, are driving the way we think about the EdD as a professional practice degree. Finally, this issue supports the goals of CPED as a learning organization. The articles included are written so that all schools of education can leam from the experiences of those who are already walking the path of redesigning the EdD, of those who have faced and continue to face the many challenges that come with change in higher education, and of those who continue to improve professional preparation in education. This issue serves as a precursor to the publication of findings and lessons...
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
You are here: american university school of education admissions doctorate in educational policy and leadership.
202-885-8201
Spring Valley , Room 471 on a map
Back to top
American University’s School of Education believes education shouldn’t just focus on what students learn—it should provide students with an opportunity to reach their full potential and be a force for positive social change. Education should give students hope. Antiquated policies and structures have made hope hard to find in modern education, and the United States needs a new approach to education leadership and policy to bring hope and action to its schools.
The Online Doctorate in Education Policy and Leadership (EdD) is a response to this need, empowering leaders in education who have the practical experience and theoretical knowledge to effect widespread, progressive change in education. Whether they pursue opportunities in educational instruction, organizational leadership, or policymaking, EdD graduates will be better prepared to change education, for every student.
Peer learning and a sustained learning network are essential hallmarks of the Online EdD program. As a result, students will progress through the program as part of a cohort, taking the same courses, and accomplishing program milestones together. We intentionally build a diverse cohort of students to contribute to the dynamic learning environment in the program. Learning will occur through robust dialogue, shared learning experiences, and presenting current professional work and doctoral research.
How long does it take to complete.
Typically the program can be completed in less than three years.
This program is designed for working PK-12 leaders who want to connect policy to practice and gain the practical knowledge and skills to transform their organizations and education systems.
Graduates of the Online EdD program will be equipped with the skills every education leader needs to be effective, including strategic budgeting, collaborative inquiry, talent management, partnership building, learning science, and program evaluation. We strive to hone students’ knowledge and develop their skills and beliefs in the following four domains:
Personal leadership, social justice and antiracism, policy and research.
These domains serve as the backbone of our program and live out in each course, module, and residency experience that our students engage in. After completing their coursework and their Problem of Practice dissertation, students will have the policy, leadership, and research skills necessary to serve in senior positions in school district central offices, independent schools, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, advocacy organizations, and more.
Full-time work while taking the program is normal. Students will participate in a residency enabling them to interface with peers and faculty, so they need to visit Washington, DC for three (3) required residencies in terms 1, 4, and 6 from Thursdays through Sundays, encapsulated in the EDU-798 course.
Applications are due each December for placement in the cohort the following fall.
The Online EdD program at American University is proudly part of The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). The vision of the CPED is to inspire all schools of education to apply the CPED framework to the preparation of educational leaders to become well-equipped scholarly practitioners who provide stewardship of the profession and meet the educational challenges of the 21st century.
Have questions? Send us an email: [email protected] 202-885-3720
It looks like you already used that name and address to request information for one or more AU graduate program(s).
If you have not previously requested AU graduate program information, create a new request
Believed to be one of the first of its kind to focus on antiracism, the “practice-oriented” doctoral program ...
Dr. Cheyenne E. Batista ’22 was recognized by the Carnegie Project on Education Doctorate (CPED) as the winner of ...
Answer: Established in 2007, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) is a collection of colleges and schools of education whose faculty meet consistently to discuss, reassess, and improve the structure of the Doctor of Education (EdD) degree. Their membership currently includes over 135 institutions in the United States and Canada, all working together to redesign the EdD to better serve advanced practitioners in the field. The primary goal of CPED is to promote its three-part framework for EdD redesign, which includes “a new definition of the EdD, a set of guiding principles for program development, and a set of design-concepts that serve as program building blocks.” While member schools are expected to adhere to this framework and restructure their EdD programs accordingly, the CPED does not grant any type of accreditation to these institutions or their degree offerings.
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate ( CPED ) is comprised of a wide range of postsecondary institutions who are looking to develop and implement changes to their current EdD programs. Working together, these member schools have performed a critical examination of the Doctor of Education degree and created a set of guiding principles intended to refocus the degree on rigorous practitioner preparation. Colleges that join the consortium agree to adopt and institute this framework, making changes to improve their EdD curriculum with support from the CPED community and membership resources, such as collaborative meetings (also known as Convenings ) and access to the peer-reviewed, open source journal, “Impacting Education: Journal for Transforming Professional Practice.”
In our exclusive interview with Dr. Jill Perry , Executive Director of CPED, we discussed the mission and evolution of the CPED. “CPED started in 2007 as a research project among 25 institutions. Really, what that meant was about 50 faculty came together to think it through. We weren’t a formal organization, we didn’t have a coalesced mission early on,” Dr. Perry explained, “As we’ve grown over time, what I’ve observed is that CPED is kind of two things at once–we are a group of institutions, each of which is tackling their Ed.D. program, but as we’ve grown, CPED has become a professional development organization where people collaborate to advance the Ed.D. degree forward.”
Through this combination of discussing innovative ways to improve the EdD, advocating for education practitioners, and designing professional development and networking opportunities for EdD program faculty, CPED takes a multifaceted approach to ensuring the Doctor of Education continues to evolve, expand, and optimally serve the needs of educators and educational leaders.
In an effort to help improve EdD program content and outcomes, members of CPED developed a framework for EdD redesign that consists of three components. The first is a unified description of the degree that clearly outlines its goal of producing advanced practitioners in the field. According to CPED, “The professional doctorate in education prepares educators for the application of appropriate and specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the profession.” This new definition serves as somewhat of a mission statement for the consortium, summarizing the general consensus of members’ stance on the EdD and serving as the overall objective for program development.
From there, CPED outlined six guiding principles for schools to follow as they reassess and redesign their EdD programs. These guidelines (found on the CPED website) stipulate that the professional doctorate in education:
Finally, CPED members developed a set of seven design concepts based around these principles, each representing an integral factor in the preparation of educational leaders. These are fundamental ideas or elements to be used as building blocks when designing or reconstructing a program, as opposed to a rigid or prescriptive model that schools must adhere to, allowing each institution to apply them in a manner that best aligns with their individual program goals. With that in mind, the consortium believes an effective EdD program should be built upon or include the following concepts (which have been paraphrased from the CPED website ):
As CPED has grown, Dr. Perry and her leadership team began to define the organization’s core values and their role in guiding EdD program faculty in their efforts to optimally prepare the next generation of scholarly practitioners. “These values are really reflective of our CPED Framework, which includes our definition of the Ed.D., our six principles that guide program design, and our design concepts that frame the pieces of an Ed.D. program. The values are meant to be shared across both the program and the organization itself,” she noted in her interview. The six values (and how they apply to EdD programs as well as education practitioners in the field) are as follows:
CPED only accepts non-profit institutions with current accreditation from a U.S. regional accrediting body, who can demonstrate commitment to ongoing enhancement of EdD education and a willingness to implement the CPED Framework in their EdD program. To illustrate the ongoing impact that the CPED has had on EdD programs nationwide, OnlineEdDPrograms.com interviewed the program directors for several EdD programs that are CPED members (you can view CPED-related interviews with program faculty in our Educational and Organizational Leadership Interviews section).
For example, Northeastern University’s Doctor of Education program won the 2022 CPED Program of the Year Award. In an exclusive interview with OnlineEdDPrograms.com, Northeastern’s Assistant Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs Dr. Sara Ewell explained how, “Having CPED behind us as a standard of excellence within the field really helped establish our work. […] The CPED convenings and subsequent relationships have been really helpful in terms of creating thought partners. I feel like every relationship or conversation that I had at the convening or follow-up was another little nugget of the big picture: […] ‘Wow that’s a really great idea to use that kind of a template to help students organize the literature review’ or ‘That’s really interesting, what you’re doing to ensure that social justice is infused throughout the program.’”
Similarly, in an exclusive interview with Dr. Nancy Hastings , Assistant Dean of the College of Education at the University of West Florida (UWF) and Chair of the Department of Instructional Design and Technology, she explained how her program’s membership with CPED helped them clarify their curricular content and research mentorship and guidance for students. “We are a member of the Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate, and the resources our membership provides to our faculty and students also make us stand out. The Carnegie Project is all about recognizing that an Ed.D. and a Ph.D. are two very different things, meant for different audiences,” she noted, “An Ed.D. is for the practitioner—the person who is looking to be the leader in their organization. The chief learning officer or performance consultant, those are people who are going to stay in practice.”
As mentioned above, CPED does not directly accredit EdD programs, and member schools may be in different phases of implementing the framework and its guidelines. In general, students should choose an EdD that provides the curriculum and structure needed to help them best achieve their academic and career goals, independent of whether the program comes from a CPED member school. With that said, membership is definitely another factor one might consider when researching options for their doctorate.
If students are unclear about how a particular institution has implemented the framework or where they are in the process, it is best to reach out to a school representative for more information. This is a great opportunity to learn how a prospective EdD program has evolved over time and where the school sees that program going in the future. Pursuing an EdD is a significant time and financial commitment; therefore, students should be certain that the program they choose is the ideal match for their personal and professional needs both now and in years to come.
Featured Online EdD Programs | ||
---|---|---|
Note: These institutions are members of the CPED consortium. |
The following schools are members of the CPED and offer online EdD programs. The CPED classifies members into three categories based on their phase of program development. These three phases include: Designing and Developing, Implementing, and Experienced. The following schools/programs are currently in one of these three phases.
School Name | Program |
---|---|
American University | |
Appalachian State University | |
Arizona State University | |
Austin Peay State University | |
Bay Path University | |
Baylor University | |
Boston College | |
California State University Channel Islands | |
California State University, Fresno | |
Clemson University | |
Concordia University - Saint Paul | |
Drexel University | |
Florida State University | |
Florida State University | |
Fordham University | |
Frostburg State University | |
Georgia Southern University | |
Georgia Southern University | |
Illinois State University | |
Johns Hopkins University | |
Kent State University | |
Lamar University | |
Lindenwood University | |
Loyola Marymount University | |
Marymount University | |
Middle Tennessee State University | |
Molloy University | |
Northeastern University | |
Northern Illinois University | |
Radford University | |
Rockhurst University | |
Rowan University | |
Sacred Heart University | |
Salisbury University | |
San Jose State University | |
Southeastern Louisiana University | |
Texas A&M University, College Station | |
Texas Tech University | |
Texas Tech University | |
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology | |
The College of St. Scholastica | |
The College of William & Mary | |
The George Washington University | |
The University of Arizona | |
The University of Mississippi | |
The University of Southern Mississippi | |
The University of Southern Mississippi | |
The University of Texas at Tyler | |
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley | |
The University of West Alabama | |
University at Buffalo (SUNY) | |
University of Bridgeport | |
University of Dayton | |
University of Findlay | |
University of Florida | |
University of Florida | |
University of Houston | |
University of Mary | |
University of Massachusetts Lowell | |
University of Missouri | |
University of Missouri - St. Louis | |
University of Nebraska - Lincoln | |
University of North Dakota | |
University of Northern Iowa | |
University of South Carolina | |
University of Southern Indiana | |
University of West Florida | |
University of West Florida | |
University of West Georgia | |
University of Wyoming | |
University of Wyoming | |
Virginia Commonwealth University | |
Webster University | |
Western Kentucky University |
Connect with Pitt Education
News and Events
Left: October 2015 convening at Lynn University as local superintendent tells members about the role of research in practice. Right: CPED's AERA collaborative session.
In fall 2015, the University of Pittsburgh School of Education signed an agreement with the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) Board of Directors that brought the organization and its executive director to the School of Education. The goal of this partnership is to strengthen the CPED organization with School of Education supports and to advance the Pitt doctorate in education (EdD) as a model for other CPED member schools of education.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching established CPED in 2007 in an effort to redesign and transform the education doctorate for the advanced preparation of school practitioners, academic leaders, clinical faculty, and professional staff for the nation’s schools, colleges, and the organizations that support them. Starting with 25 original member institutions, it is now a network of more than 80 colleges and schools of education in the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand, each having committed faculty and resources to work collaboratively to undertake a critical examination of the purpose and design of the doctorate in education.
Every three years or so, CPED invites applications for new schools of education to join. Potential members complete an application process that demonstrates their commitment to improving the EdD both at their institution and through the broader network. The goal of this grassroots, faculty-led effort is to improve the preparation of all educational leaders to ensure they become well-equipped scholarly practitioners who can meet the educational challenges of the 21st century.
To do this, early CPED members worked together at bi-annual convenings to redefine and reshape what professional preparation should look like. Rather than set forth a one-size-fits-all model, members wanted a flexible design that would honor the local context of schools of education. After three years, members developed a framework that includes a set of guiding principles for program design, a set of curricular design concepts, and a new definition of the EdD that strengthens its purpose as a professional degree (further details are available at http://cpedinitiative.org/about ).
Left and middle: CPED learning communities share ways to operationalize the CPED framework. Right: CPED fellow engages members in assessing the impact of EdD graduates.
As new members have entered the project, they utilize this framework to redesign existing EdD degrees or to create new ones. Members are supported by the CPED Web site, which offers resources like curriculum, program design, and dissertation in practice samples. They are also supported at the bi-annual convenings, which are designed as professional development and a critical friends experience for faculty and serve to both advance individual program designs as well as strengthen, improve, support, and promote the CPED framework through continued cooperation and empirical investigation.
The School of Education joined CPED in 2011 and its new EdD was redesigned utilizing the CPED framework. The School of Education EdD serves as a model within CPED of how to collaborate and engage many departments in creating one EdD program with a systems approach to thinking about education. This EdD design and Pitt’s ability to support the continued growth of CPED as a research organization were primary reasons for moving the CPED headquarters to the School of Education. Professor and Renée and Richard Goldman Dean Alan Lesgold enthusiastically welcomed the opportunity to host CPED for the next five years. Because CPED is a 501c3 organization, its activities and administration are self-supportive; however, being headquartered at an academic institution like the University of Pittsburgh provides the kinds of supports and resources that allow CPED to deepen its work on improving the EdD through research and publication.
For example, the School of Education will house the first-ever CPED journal. This new journal, titled Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice , will make its first call for submissions in April 2016. The publication will offer CPED faculty and graduate members and non-members opportunities to share their learning about redesigning EdD programs and the impact of graduates in educational practice. School of Education faculty and students are encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity.
Additionally, on June 12-14, 2017, the University of Pittsburgh will welcome the CPED convening at the University Club, which will include a new wave of CPED members to be recruited in late 2016. Pitt faculty and students will have the opportunity to share the EdD program with current and new CPED members. More information will be available at www.cpedinitiative.org/convenings-events .
In turn, CPED has many resources and opportunities for the University of Pittsburgh School of Education and its education faculty. The CPED leadership team is excited about its new home and looks forward to working together over the coming years.
Programmatic Resources: Faculty members are welcome to utilize the resources on the CPED Web site (email [email protected] to receive a log-in) to support EdD program and curriculum design.
Convenings and Events: CPED hosts bi-annual convenings and member meetings at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), and the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). Pitt education faculty are encouraged to participate in all of these opportunities, as they are a form of professional development that offer a network for learning and sharing ideas about EdD program designs. Upcoming events include:
Meetings on April 8 at the 2016 AERA conference: 9 a.m. member meeting and 2 p.m. co-sponsored panel with Special Interest Groups (SIG) 168 on the future of doctoral preparation in education.
Research and Publishing: In addition to the forthcoming journal, CPED frequently engages member faculty in research and publication opportunities. To learn more, email [email protected] . CPED will also fund a Pitt student as a graduate assistant.
Promotional Resources: As the headquarters for CPED, Pitt has access to CPED promotional materials and labels when recruiting students. In addition, CPED lists Pitt on all of its materials shared internationally.
JILL PERRY is a research associate professor and executive director of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate.
Sfa joins the carnegie project on education doctorate to elevate doctoral education program.
NACOGDOCHES, Texas — The Doctor of Education in educational leadership program offered through Stephen F. Austin State University’s James I. Perkins College of Education has joined the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate , a consortium of over 125 colleges and schools of education that have committed to critically examine the doctoral degree in education. “Through collaborative efforts, CPED member institutions work together to share best practices, engage in research, and advocate for the transformation of doctoral education in the field of education,” said Dr. Summer Pannell, associate professor and coordinator for SFA’s educational leadership program. “This will help us produce graduates who are well-prepared to address complex educational challenges and contribute to positive change in educational organizations and systems.” Established in 2007, CPED aims to redesign professional practice preparation in education at the doctoral level. After receiving an invitation to join, SFA’s educational leadership faculty members completed a vigorous application and interview process to become a CPED member. The educational leadership faculty who worked together on this project include Pannell and educational leadership faculty members Dr. Brian Uriegas, Dr. Barbara Qualls and Dr. Ali Hachem, all SFA associate professors of human services and educational leadership. SFA began the partnership in early October, when CPED members convened in Pensacola, Florida, to collaborate with other CPED institutions to explore various models and implementation strategies to fit the project’s standards and principles. “CPED's main focus is on reimagining the Doctor of Education degree to better align it with the needs and challenges of professional practice in educational settings,” Pannell said. “This focus on the Doctorate of Education as a professional degree aligns with our goal to become a premier doctoral program in the state of Texas and nationwide.” CPED membership provides faculty members at affiliated institutions access to a professional learning community, support and resources to redesign and enhance the educational leadership program, the integration of research and scholarship into professional practice preparation, and a platform for collective advocacy for the transformation of doctoral education. “Membership can provide valuable opportunities for collaboration, learning and improvement that can enhance the quality and effectiveness of our Doctorate in Education program,” Pannell said. “We will have the opportunity to engage with a community of like-minded institutions and work together toward advancing the field of educational leadership and practice.” To align with CPED’s standards, the program will begin this spring semester to audit courses and curriculum to identify where changes might be beneficial. Changes to adhere to CPED’s goals include refocusing on scholarly practitioner preparation, incorporating a commitment to social justice and ethical practice in education, strengthening partnerships with other schools and districts, and exploring alternative assessment practices. Revisions will be applied strategically to ensure the least amount of disruption to the program’s current students and maintain the integrity of the program as it is currently designed. For more information about the doctorate, visit gosfa.com/47vKiCD .
ABOUT STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY Stephen F. Austin State University, the newest member of The University of Texas System, began a century ago as a teachers’ college in Texas’ oldest town, Nacogdoches. Today, it has grown into a regional institution comprising six colleges — business, education, fine arts, forestry and agriculture, liberal and applied arts, and sciences and mathematics. Accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, SFA enrolls approximately 11,000 students while providing the academic breadth of a state university with the personalized attention of a private school. The main campus encompasses 421 acres that include 37 academic facilities, nine residence halls, and 68 acres of recreational trails that wind through its six gardens. The university offers more than 80 bachelor’s degrees, more than 40 master’s degrees and four doctoral degrees covering more than 120 areas of study. Learn more at the SFA website .
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
Valerie A Storey , Kristina A Hesbol
This article examines the evolution of the dissertation in practice: the capstone effort from the doctoral program of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate consortium. The project represents professional practice programs that endeavor to design and implement al ternative dissertation-in-practice models to the traditional five-chapter re search study. The article assists in the identification of the conditions that facilitate or obstruct the transition toward alternative dissertation models and the impact of the consortium on the researcher-practitioner gap.
Kristina Hesbol , T. Lange
This article examines the evolution of the dissertation in practice: the capstone effort from the doctoral program of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate consortium. The project represents professional practice programs that endeavor to design and implement alternative dissertation-in-practice models to the traditional five-chapter research study. The article assists in the identification of the conditions that facilitate or obstruct the transition toward alternative dissertation models and the impact of the consortium on the researcher–practitioner gap. In this article, we examine the conditions that can serve to facilitate or obstruct the transition toward alternative dissertation models. They argue that the United States’ current knowledge economy cannot reliably depend on a research model that fails to connect with the practitioner in the field, and they argue for a rigorous model that bridges the CPED consortium’s researcher–practitioner gap and develops meaningful knowledge to inform change.
Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice
Gwynne Rife
The purpose of this study was to learn how education doctorate students create the problems of practice researched in their dissertations, and the potential impact of their research on their local contexts to enhance the generation of knowledge. Three research questions guided this study: 1) How do education doctorate students derive their problems of practice?, 2) What is the nature of the problems of practice that the students have studied?, and 3) What are the reported impacts the study of problems of practice has on doctoral students’ local contexts? To answer these questions, the researchers conducted a document analysis of 19 dissertations. Student dissertations included a diverse set of problems of practice largely determined by their professional roles. The findings indicate a need for further refinement of the concept of a problem of practice and how the education doctorate program and their candidates employ the concept of a problem of practice in their dissertations a...
Valerie A Storey
Two diverse universitiesone large public metropolitan and one small independent participate in the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) the purpose of which is to clearly distinguish between the Ph. D. and the Ed. D. and their unique intended outcomes. These universities (re)designed and implemented the professional doctorate (Ed. D.) in educational leadership aligned with the CPED concepts. Development processes, experiences in (re)design and implementation, as well as the resulting degree requirements are compared. Signicant changes in student learning experiences, student outcomes, and the capstone experience are commonalities of each university's newly (re)designed Ed. D.
School Leadership Review
Joseph Murphy
Judith Aiken
Change Magazine, 2015. An overview of the project 8 years after its birth.
Valerie A Storey , Kristina Hesbol
This article examines the evolution of the dissertation in practice: the capstone effort from the doctoral program of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate consortium. The project represents professional practice programs that endeavor to design and implement alternative dissertation-in-practice models to the traditional five-chapter research study. The article assists in the identification of the conditions that facilitate or obstruct the transition toward alternative dissertation models and the impact of the consortium on the researcher–practitioner gap.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
International Journal of Doctoral Studies
Examining EdD Dissertations in Practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate
IHR Note: We are proud to present this second article in the fifth annual volume of the International HETL Review (IHR) with the academic article contributed to the February issue of IHR by Drs. Valerie Storey, Mickey Caskey, Kristina Hesbol, James Marshall, Bryan Maughan and Amy Dolan . In this action research study, the authors, members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) Dissertation in Practice Awards Committee have examined the format and design of dissertations submitted as a part of the reform of the educational doctorate. Twenty-five dissertations submitted as part of this project were examined through surveys, interviews and analysis to determine if the dissertations had changed as a result of the project and re-design with the participating programs. Their results raise questions about distinctiveness of Educational and professional doctorates, as compared to PhDs and the criteria to “demonstrate new knowledge” in the dissertation process.
Valerie A. Storey University of Central Florida, U.S.A.
Micki M. Caskey Portland State University, U.S.A.
Kristina A. Hesbol University of Denver, U.S.A.
James E. Marshall California State University, Fresno, U.S.A.
Bryan Maughan University of Idaho, U.S.A.
Amy Wells Dolan University of Mississippi, U.S.A.
In 2007, 25 colleges and schools of education (Phase I) came together under the aegis of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) to transform doctoral education for education practitioners. A challenging aspect of the reform of the educational doctorate is the role and design of the dissertation or Dissertation in Practice. In response to consortium concerns, members of the CPED Dissertation in Practice Awards Committee conducted this action research study to examine the format and design of Dissertations in Practice submitted by (re) designed programs. Data were gathered with an online survey, interviews, analyses of 25 Dissertations in Practice submitted in 2013 to the Committee. Results indicated few changes occurred in the final product, despite evidence of change in the Dissertation in Practice process. Findings contribute to debates about the distinctive nature of EdDs (and of professional doctorates generally) as distinct from PhDs, and how about the key criteria for demonstrating “new knowledge to solve significant problems of practice” are demonstrated through the dissertation submission.
Keywords : Dissertation in Practice, Professional Doctorate, Doctoral Thesis, Education Doctorate
Introduction
During the past decade, epistemological and philosophical debates have surrounded the EdD (Caboni & Proper, 2009; Guthrie, 2009; Shulman 2005, 2007; Zambo, 2011). These debates focus on the source, depth, and type of knowledge doctoral students need to become reflective practitioners and effective school leaders (Andrews & Grogan 2005; Evans 2007; Shulman 2005, 2007; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006), and the different roles of the EdD (Doctor of Education) and PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) programs failing in delivering these outcomes (Caboni & Proper, 2009; Guthrie, 2009). Some postulated that the programs were indistinguishable in some higher education institutions (Guthrie, 2009; Shulman 2005, 2007; Shulman et al., 2006). Levine (2005) observed that the EdD lacked its own identity, failing to prepare school leaders who understand real school problems with the ability to take action and make effective, lasting change. Additionally EdD graduates often fail to impact students and teachers in their schools (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2005), declining to turn theory into practice, change practice, or challenge the status quo (Evans, 2007).
In 2007, institutional members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) came together to re-imagine and redesign the EdD (Perry & Imig, 2008), clearly differentiating the Professional Practice Doctorate (EdD) from the PhD. A major outcome was the culminating EdD experience, validating the scholarly practitioner’s ability to solve Problems of Practice, and demonstrating the doctoral candidate’s ability “to think, to perform, and to act with integrity” (Shulman, 2005, p. 52).
In this article, we first set the study context, illustrating the epistemological and philosophical debates relating to the EdD, focusing on Dissertations in Practice (DiPs). Next, we discuss the developing design of DiPs, reflecting new models of educational research that emerge from Problems of Practice (PoPs). Finally, we report an action research study in which we investigated exemplar DiPs, nominated by 54 Phase I and II institutions, for the annual Dissertation in Practice Award. The purpose of the study was to generate valuable insights about the nature of professional practice doctorate dissertations.
The Association of American Colleges and Universities define the EdD as a terminal degree, presented as an opportunity to prepare for academic, administrative, or specialized positions in education. The degree favorably places graduates for leadership responsibilities or executive-level professional positions across the education industry (National Science Foundation, 2011). At most academic institutions where education doctorates are offered, the college or university chooses to offer an EdD, a PhD, or both (Osguthorpe & Wong, 1993). However, Shulman et al. (2006) contended that EdD and PhD programs are not aligned with their distinct theoretical purposes, and that poorly structured programs, marked by confusion of purpose, caused the EdD to be viewed as “PhD Light,” rather than a separate degree for a separate profession (p. 26).
Expanding Role of Influence
CPED encourages Schools of Education to reclaim the education doctorate (Shulman et al., 2006; Perry & Imig, 2008; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008) by developing EdD programs with scholarly practitioner graduates. The program design includes a set of courses, socialization experiences, and emphases that are distinct from those conventionally offered in PhD programs (Caboni & Proper, 2009; Guthrie, 2009). Bi-annual, three-day CPED convenings include graduate students, college deans, clinical faculty, teachers, college professors, and school administrators from member institutions. The first convening in Palo Alto, CA (June 2007), attended by 25 invited institutions, set the tone for future convenings by orchestrating an exchange of information with colleagues, grounded in a spirit of scholarly generosity, ethical responsibility, and integrity.
CPED Institutions, Phase 1, 2007-2010
Arizona State University | University of Louisville |
California State University | University of San Francisco |
System Duquesne University | University of Southern California |
Lynn University | University of Vermont |
Northern Illinois University | University of Oklahoma |
Pennsylvania State University | University of Nebraska-Lincoln |
Rutgers University | University of Missouri-Columbia |
University of Central Florida | University of Maryland |
University of Connecticut | Virginia Commonwealth University |
University of Florida | Virginia Tech University |
University of Houston | Washington State University |
University of Kansas |
A second group of institutions responded to a call for CPED membership in 2010. The call, open members of the Council for Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions (CADREI), included institutional commitments outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding. Identified as Phase II institutions, 26 new universities joined the consortium, beginning their work of EdD re-design at the fall convening held at Burlington, Vermont in 2011.
CPED Institutions, Phase II, 2011-2013
Baylor University | Texas Tech University |
Boston College | University of Akron |
Florida State University | University of Alabama |
Fordham University | University of Alaska Anchorage |
Illinois State University | University of Arkansas |
Indiana University | University of Dayton |
Kansas State University | University of Hawaii |
Kent State University | University of Idaho |
North Carolina State University | University of Massachusetts Amherst |
North Dakota State University | University of Mississippi |
New York University Steinhardt | University of Missouri-St. Louis |
Portland State University | University of Pittsburgh |
Texas Southern University | University of San Francisco |
An ongoing discussion has centered on the nature of the final capstone of CPED influenced programs which Hamilton et al., (2010) suggest helps invigorate the use of a traditionalacademic tool. Many Phase 1 institutional members are farther into their programmatic implementation, with cohorts who have graduated and completed a DiP. Still, iterative questions abound among CPED institutions regarding the nature, scope, impact, and format of the DiP (Sands et al., 2013), as institutions learn from graduating cohorts (Harris, 2011).
CPED Institutions, Phase III, 2014
Brigham Young University | Mills College |
California State University System | Montana State University |
– Bakersfield | Northeastern University |
– Los Angeles | Northern Kentucky University |
– Stanislaus | Nova Southeastern University |
– San Jóse State | Regis College (MA) |
Kansas State University | Salisbury University |
Fielding Graduate University | Seattle University |
Florida A&M University | Tennessee State University |
Frostburg State University | Texas A&M University |
Georgia Regents University | Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi |
Georgia Southern University | The George Washington University |
High Point University | University of Auckland (New Zealand) |
Johnson & Wales University | University of Denver |
Kennesaw State University | University of Georgia |
Loyola Marymount University | University of New Mexico |
Miami University | University of North Texas |
Michigan State University | University of Toronto (Canada) |
In April 2014, the consortium’s membership increased to 84, including two universities from Canada and one from New Zealand.CPED’s commitment to support institutional flexibility in the DiP design presents difficulty sorting out issues of rigor, and advancing common understandings about the nature of problems of practice (Sands et al., 2013). An informal survey of current CPED institutions (CPED, 2013) identified culminating projects including white papers, articles for publication, monographs, electronic portfolios, and the traditional five chapter dissertation document.
Not surprisingly, the consortium has struggled to reach consensus on a DiP definition. Several drafts have been distributed on the consortium’s web site inviting feedback and comment. The current version is, “The Dissertation in Practice is a scholarly endeavor that impacts a complex problem of practice” (CPED, 2014). What is agreed upon by the consortium is that the DiP is focused on practice, and that local context matters. Faculty in EdD programs must have a clear sense of the nature of problems in practice among their constituent base, appropriate types of inquiry used to address those issues, and the manner in which results can be conveyed in authentic, productive ways (Sands et al., 2013).
Key Principles and Components of an Innovative DiP
The nature and format of the DiP diverge (Archbald, 2008; CPED, 2012; Sands et al., 2013). The first major discussion about the attributes of the CPED DiP occurred at the second convening (Fall, 2007), at Vanderbilt University (Storey & Hartwick, 2010). Peabody College faculty and recent program graduates described their DiP’s client-based process. Faculty expressed that the DiP’s primary objective is to provide a program candidate with an opportunity to show they are informed and have the critical skills and knowledge to address complex educational problems (Smrekar & McGraner, 2009). They indicated that the EdD candidate could exemplify a skill set including deep knowledge and understanding of inquiry, organizational theory, resource deployment, leadership studies, and the broad social context associated with problems of educational policy and practice (Caboni & Proper, 2009). Faculty asserted that while DiPs may vary by focus area, geographical location, institutions (school, district, agency, association), and scope (case study, systematic review, program assessment, program proposal), all share common characteristics related to rigorous analysis in a realistic operational context (Smrekar & McGraner, 2009). In the convening’s keynote speech, Guthrie (2009) argued that if capstone requirements for research and practice are the same in EdD and PhD programs, then program purposes, research preparation, and practitioner professional training have been woefully compromised.
During the Fall 2012 convening, consortium members tackled the development of a set of standards and criteria to assess the DiP. Questions regarding the requirements of DiP remained, however. In response to a proposed standard that the DiP “is expected to have generative impact on the future work and agendas of the scholar practitioner” (CPED, 2012), members asked, “What is meant by generative impact? Is this doable in a dissertation capstone?” Members wondered if APA was the appropriate stylistic guide for the formatting of final products, and whether blogs, websites, graphic novel, or YouTube videos were appropriate products (Sands et al., 2013).
Participants at the 2009 convening developed six Working Principles to guide the consortium’s work (Perry & Imig, 2010):
The professional doctorate in education:
These principles guide institutions as they develop the DiP’s conceptual foundation. Scholarly practitioners blend practical wisdom with professional skills and knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of practice. They disseminate work in multiple ways, with an obligation to resolve problems of practice by collaborating with key stakeholders, including the partners from schools, community, and the university. The second CPED principle, inquiry as practice, poses significant questions focused on complex problems of practice. By using various research, theories, and professional wisdom, scholarly practitioners design innovative solutions to improve problems of practice. Inquiry of Practice requires the ability to gather, organize, judge, aggregate, and analyze situations, literature, and data with a critical lens (Sands et al., 2013). The final CPED principle relates directly to the DiP as the culminating experience that demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to solve problems of practice and exhibit the doctoral candidate’s ability “to think, to perform, and to act with integrity” (Shulman, 2005, p. 5).
In 2012, CPED formed a DiP Award Committee to develop assessment criteria for DiPs nominated for the CPED DiP of the Year Award, and to review submitted DiPs for the award. To develop the assessment criteria, the committee drew on Archbald’s (2008) work, which specified four qualities that a reimagined EdD doctoral thesis should address: (a) developmental efficacy, (b) community benefit, (c) stewardship of doctoral values, and (d) distinctiveness of design. In arguing for a problem solving study, Archbald advised that unlike a research dissertation, findings are not the goal. Rather, the problem-based thesis’ goals are decisions, changed practices, and better organizational performances.
At the June 2012 convening, hosted by California State University (Fresno), the DiP committee guided members in a Critical Friends activity, “Defining Criteria for a Dissertation in Practice”. Subsequently, the 2012 DiP Committee developed and circulated the draft criteria, inviting feedback from CPED members.
At the October 2012 convening, hosted by at The College of William and Mary, the DiP Award Committee proposed their assessment criteria and requested additional feedback from CPED colleagues (CPED, 2013). The assessment rubric was revised, responsive to the feedback, and was circulated to a wider consortium membership for public comment on CPED’s website. Review of this feedback led to item criteria refinement along with performance indicators:
The DiP Award Committee conducted two rounds of review for the DiP Annual Award, applying the above assessment criteria.
What Makes a Professional Practice DiP?
In this section, we turn to the international community for guidance in answering two major issues concerning the CPED Award Committee as they wrestled with the assessment criteria. First, what should a DiP look like? Second, how should DiP potential impact be measured?
Numerous national and international bodies govern qualifications and specifications for what doctoral level work should look like, e.g., European University Association (2005), Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies, Australia (2007), Council of Graduate Schools (2008), Quality Assurance Agency (2012). Common to all is the emphasis on critical assessment of the originality of findings presented in the dissertation in the context of the literature and the research. Fulton, Kuit, Sanders and Smith (2013) drew on their experience teaching in a Professional Practice Doctoral program at the University of Sunderland in England, concluding that the “ability to design research objectively and logically, and then to critically review and evaluate findings, is what makes it doctoral level, not the actual findings themselves” (p.152). In their view, the difference between a PhD and a Professional Practice Doctorate is the demonstration of knowledge production that makes a significant contribution to the profession. O’Mullane (2005) noted that while the structure of a DiP may be similar to that of a PhD dissertation, it should contain additional reflective elements relating to personal reflections on the learning journey. But the question remains, what should a DiP look like? O’Mullane (2005) identified six outputs currently used by universities to demonstrate a significant contribution to the profession:
These six DiP designs can be found within CPED; a group DiP design is also being explored. Universities are offering several DiP design choices: (a) Baylor University’s DiP can be thematic, assessment, action research, or three articles; (b) California State University San Marcos’ DiP can be a policy brief, executive summary, or series of articles; (c) Rutgers University’s DiP can be thematic, assessment, three article, action research, portfolio, or 3 “products” tied together with an introduction and conclusion; and (d) the University of Arkansas’ DiP can be an executive summary and article submission for publication in a peer reviewed scholarly journal (CPED data, 2013). O’Mullane (2005) also identified the essentials of a DiP:
Fulton et al. (2013) suggested that “the creation of new knowledge and significant contribution” are critical, and likely to give any DiP assessor the most difficulty. Not only does “the creation of new knowledge and significant contribution” vary between professions, but the opportunity to influence a profession also tends to be based on position and length of service. To bring clarity to the problem of “significant contribution,” O’Mullane (2005) suggested two classifications, active or inactive, in terms of contribution to the profession. An active contribution generates new significant knowledge, which results in significant improvement in practice. An inactive contribution generates significant knowledge that has not yet been disseminated.
Current Rhetoric and Reality of DiPs: An Action Research Study Methods of the Study
For this action research study (Lewin, 1944; Stringer, 2007), we gathered data from an online survey from the eight member DiP Award Committee. Members came from a variety of institutions; four had previous Dissertation Award Committee experience with American Education Research Association special interest groups. The authors of this paper were among those who provided data.
Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using a Qualtrics administered survey with Likert responses and assessors’ comments. Each survey item was scored 1 to 4, with 1 indicating “unacceptable,” 2 “developing,” 3 “target,” and 4 “exceptional”.
Each member of the committee responded to an email invitation to complete a blind review of four DiP synopses submitted by the nominated candidate. Two committee members assessed each synopsis against the assessment item criteria, with a third assessment by the committee chair, as needed. Based on the quantitative scores and qualitative comments of the synopses, the pool was narrowed from 25 to 6 DiPs. A second blind review of the full text of the six DiPs was conducted with each committee member reading the full DiP and submitting criteria assessment data in Qualtrics.
Limitations
The authors of this paper are DiP Award Committee members, which could cause bias in interpretation. The committee members’ initial judgments were based on the submitted synopses; some may not have adequately represented the overall DiPs quality. The sample was neither random nor sufficiently large to draw generalizable conclusions. 14 DiPs came from three Phase 1 institutions. While not surprising that most submissions came from Phase 1 institutions, multiple submissions from any institution was unexpected.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for each DiP synopsis assessed on the six CPED assessment items (Table 1). Item means ranged from 2.78 to 2.94 with an overall mean of 2.86. The median was 3 (“Target”) for each of the six items and the mode was 3 (“Target”) for all items except item #5, where the mode was 2.
Table 1. Item Statistics for the DiP Award Assessment Survey
DiP | Award Assessment Item | Mean | SD |
1. | Demonstrates an understanding of, and possible solution to, the problem of practice. | 2.82 | 0.720 |
2. | Demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to act ethically and with integrity. | 2.90 | 0.580 |
3. | Demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to communicate effectively in writing to an appropriate audience in a way that addresses scholarly practice. | 2.94 | 0.793 |
4. | Integrates both theory and practice to advance practical knowledge | 2.78 | 0.679 |
5. | Provides evidence of the potential for impact on practice, policy, and/or future research in the field. | 2.86 | 0.808 |
6. | Uses methods of inquiry that are appropriate to the problem of practice | 2.86 | 0.639 |
Across the range of 300 individual responses (2 reviewers x 25 dissertations x 6 survey items), a 1 (Unacceptable) was selected only four times, while 4 (Exceptional) was selected 50 times. The remaining 246 responses were either a 2 (Developing) or 3 (Target), indicating considerable restriction of range at both ends of the scale. As for measures of central tendency, the median of 3 (Target), and a grand mean of 2.86, indicate that overall, reviewers found the DiP to be near “Target” based on the review criteria.
Figure 1 shows a frequency distribution of total scores for the 25 DiPs submitted for review. The numbers on the X-axis represent a unique identifier for the 25 reviewed DiPs. The scale ranged from 0-48 possible points (6 items of the survey x 4 maximum points allowed x 2 reviewers). The observed scores ranged from 25 to 45 with no obvious natural breaks in the distribution.
Figure 1 . Frequency distribution of scores across 25 DiPs synopses. Prior to scoring, the DiP Award Committee predicted that an analysis of the score distribution might reveal a natural break that could be useful to narrow the pool for further review. Because there were no obvious natural breaks, the committee, after careful review of both the quantitative and the qualitative data, agreed that the top six scoring DiPs would move forward for a full text review.
The format of 24 DiPs was the traditional (five chapter) dissertation, with one non-traditional chapter. All had single authors. Two submissions implemented results of their study and showed immediate impact. The average page length of the 25 DiPs was 212, with a range of 85-377 pages. Four studies used quantitative methods, 17 used qualitative methods, and four used mixed methods. The methodology used in 10 studies was action research, case studies, grounded theory, and phenomenology.
In additional to numerical rating, the DiP Committee members commented on quality and overall alignment with the DiP assessment criteria. For DiPs that received similar, or identical marks, committee members reviewed the reflective comments, re-read the synopses, and continued meetings via Skype, Adobe Connect, or by phone. The inclusion of quality data provided a point of reference to triangulate perspectives regarding the eventual five finalists.
Critical reflections and subsequent comments can often appear somewhat tenuous. Elements of ambiguity may exist in such reviews, and reviewers may be guilty of overgeneralizing. As the process continued, a clear inter-rater agreement (Creswell, 2013) was evident among committee members.
The qualitative data confirmed the quantitative findings. Regarding those dissertations where the mean was closer to the “exceptional” category, some reviewers stated:
A characteristic of all submitted DiPs was addressing immediate needs in practice. Some were assessments of existing programs; others delved into theoretical constructs and inquired about their applicability to educational issues within the local, regional, or national context. Among these studies, a few took their inquiry directly into the classroom. While the DiPs that rose to the top during the review process were regarded by their submitting institutions as exemplary, not all addressed all of the assessment criteria in their synopsis.
Critical assessment of the DiPs indicated that most CPED member institutions remain unclear about what constitutes an exemplary DiP. While the conclusions drawn from the 2009 Peabody convening asserted that all share a set of common characteristics related to rigorous analysis in a realistic operational setting (Smrekar & McGraner, 2009), the DiP Award Committee’s analysis of 25 submissions revealed a continuum of alignment to the Working Principles for Professional Practice Programs.
Discrepancy in alignment to the Working Principles may be indicative of an analogous disconnect between the central principles that were developed by the consortium to guide all programs in 2009 and what is, in reality, being practiced currently among Phase I and II CPED institutions. The assumption that these principles would be tested during Phase II seems to be flawed, borne out by the analysis of the 2013 data. Alternately, the discrepancy in alignment to the Working Principles may also reflect the need for additional refinement and discussion around the rubric used for review by the DiP Award Committee. Again, because the rubric evolved from a community-based process, further refinements may require similar processes of discussion and recommendation from the broader constituency.
Many of the DiP submissions lacked clear evidence of impact on practice, a characteristic that is foundational to the Working Principles. While submissions demonstrate the author’s ability to generate solutions, whether a complex problem of practice had been identified in the studies was unclear in a majority of the submissions. Additionally, it was unclear in most submissions whether the author included implications for generative solutions at the local and/or broad context. Drawing on the work of Bryk, Gomez, and Grunow (2010), the six Core Principles of Improvement Science suggest the following:
Concluding Remarks
The analysis of DiPs and the narrative presented is indicative of both the challenges institutions face and their pervasiveness, as faculty wrestle with the design of a professional practice doctorate program. While challenging, the identification of common issues provides an opportunity for institutions to engage in conversation with others that appear to have found solutions to some of the challenges. Such conversation is a start to ensuring program rigor and consistency at both a national and international level. Learning in situ develops praxis in education. At the core, the creation of generative knowledge forms a substantive epistemology that guides the construction of meaning and builds confidence in decision makers.
To re-imagine and redesign the EdD will require innovation, a commitment that has now been made by the growing membership of CPED, now collaborating on a global stage to rethink the fundamental purpose of doctoral education with specific focus on the professional practice doctorate, the EdD.
Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005). Form should follow function: Removing the EdD. dissertation from Ph.D. straightjacket. UCEA Review , 46(2), 10–13.
Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the Education Leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 704–739.
Bryk A. S., Gomez L. M. & Grunow A. (2010). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Caboni, T., & Proper, E. (2009). Re-envisioning the professional doctorate for educational leadership and higher educational leadership: Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College EdD. program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (1), 61–68.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2012). Consortium members . Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/consortium-members
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2013). Dissertation in Practice of the Year Award . Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/dissertation-practice-year-award
Council of Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. (2007). Guidelines on professional doctorates. Adelaide, Australia: Council of Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. Retrieved from https://www.gs.unsw.edu.au/policy/findapolicy/abapproved/policydocuments/05_07_professional_doctorates_guidelines.pdf
Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Task force report of the professional doctora te. Washington, DC: Author.
European University Association. (2005). Salzburg Principles, as set out in the European Universities’ Association’s (EUA) Bologna Seminar report. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Conclusions.1108990538850.pdf
European University Association. (2005). Salzburg principles, as set out in the European Universities’ Association’s (EUA) Bologna seminar report. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Conclusions.1108990538850.pdf
Evans, R. (2007). Comments on Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, and Garabedian: Existing practice is not the template. Educational Researcher, 36 (6), 553–559. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X07313149 in S.I.
Fulton, J., Kuit, J., Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2013). The professional doctorate: A practical guide. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guthrie, J. (2009). The case for a modern Doctor of Education Degree (EdD.): Multipurpose education doctorates no longer appropriate. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (1), 2–7.
Hamilton, P., Johnson, R., & Poudrier, C. (2010). Measuring educational quality by appraising theses and dissertations: Pitfalls and remedies. Teaching in Higher Education, 15 (5), 567–577.
Harris, S. L. (2011). Reflections on the first 2 years of a doctoral program in educational leadership. In S. Harris (Ed.). The NCPEA handbook on doctoral programs in educational leadership: Issues and challenges. Retrieved from Open Educational Resources Commons website: http://www.oercommons.org/courses/reflections-on-the-first-2-years-of-a-doctoral-program-in-educational-leadership.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders . Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Retrieved from www.edschools.org .
Lewin, K. (1944). The solution of a chronic conflict in industry. Proceedings of the Second Brief Psychotherapy Council. Reprinted in B. Cooke & J. F. Cox (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research , volume I, pp. 3–17. London: Sage.
Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2005). Developing professionally anchored dissertations: Lessons from innovative programs. School Leadership Reviews, 1 (1), 33–57.
National Science Foundation. (2011). Numbers of doctorates awarded in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf12303/
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Wong, M. J. (1993). The PhD versus the EdD: Time for a decision. Innovative Higher Education, 18 (1), 47–63.
O’Mullane, M. (2005). Demonstrating significance of contribution to professional knowledge and practice in Australian professional doctorate programs: Impacts in the workplace and professions. In T.W. Maxwell, C. Hickey, & T. Evans (Eds), Working doctorates: The impact of professional doctorates in the workplace and professions. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.
Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2008, November/December). A stewardship of practice in education. Change, 42–48.
Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2010, May). Interrogation of outcomes of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2012). UK quality code for higher education. Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality, Chapter B11: Research degrees . Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Quality-Code-Chapter-B11.pdf
Rivera, N. (2013). Cooperative Learning in a community college setting: Developmental coursework in mathematics . Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved from CPED Dissertation in Practice Award Winner website: http://cpedinitiative.org/news-item/2013-dissertation-practice-year-award-winners-honorable-mentions-announced
Sands, D., Fulmer, C., Davis, A., Zion, S., Shanklin, N., Blunck, R. Ruiz-Primo, M. (2013). Critical Friends’ perspectives on problems of practice and inquiry in an EdD program. In V.A. Storey (Ed.), Redesigning professional education doctorates: Applications of critical friendship theory to the EdD (pp. 63–81). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134 (3), 52–59. Doi: 10.1162/0011526054622015
Shulman, L. S. (2007). Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher , 36, 560–563. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X07313150
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorate: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35 (2), 25–32.
Smrekar, C., & McGraner, K. (2009). From curricular alignment to the culminating project: The Peabody College EdD capstone. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (1), 48–60.
Storey, V. A., & Hartwick, P. (2010). Critical friends: Supporting a small, private university face the challenges of crafting an innovative scholar-practitioner doctorate. In G. Jean-Marie & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education . New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Stringer, E.T. (2007). Action research (3 rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publication.
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctorial education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Zambo, D. (2011). Action research as signature pedagogy in an Education Doctorate program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education . 36(4), DOI: 10.1007/s10755-010-9171-7.
This feature article was accepted for publication in the International HETL Review (IHR) after a double-blind peer review involving three independent members of the IHR Board of Reviewers and two revision cycles. Accepted for publication in July 2014 by Dr. Lorraine Stefani (University of Auckland, New Zealand), IHR Senior Editor.
Suggested citation:
Storey, V. A., Caskey, M. M., Hesbol, K. A., Marshall, J. E., Maughan, B., & Dolan, A. W. (2014). Examining EdD dissertations in practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. International HETL Review , Volume 5, Article 2. https://www.hetl.org/examining-edd-dissertations-in-practice-the-carnegie-project-on-the-education-doctorate
Copyright [2015] V. A. Storey, M. M. Caskey, K. A. Hesbol, J. E. Marshall, B. Maughan and A. W. Dolan.
The authors assert their right to be named as the sole authors of this article and to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third party’s rights including copyright. The authors assign to HETL Portal and to educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this article for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to HETL Portal to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the HETL Review . Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors
Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position of other professionals or any institution. By publishing this article, the author affirms that any original research involving human participants conducted by the author and described in the article was carried out in accordance with all relevant and appropriate ethical guidelines, policies and regulations concerning human research subjects and that where applicable a formal ethical approval was obtained.
About the author: patrick blessinger.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
CPED is a collaborative project to redesign the Ed.D. degree for school practitioners and leaders. It involves over 50 colleges and schools of education in dialog, experimentation and evaluation.
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) is an international network of 135+ graduate schools of education leading the charge to transform the Education Doctorate into the Professional Practice Doctorate in Education. Members are committed to rethinking advanced educational preparation through improved EdD program designs that offer academic rigor, practical impact, applied ...
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) began in 2007 and currently is a consortium of over 100 colleges and schools of education that have committed resources to work together to undertake a critical examination of the doctorate in education (Ed.D). The purpose of CPED is to build the capacity of educational leaders through the ...
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) is a three-year effort sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation and the Council of Academic Deans in Research Education Institutions to strengthen the education doctorate. The participating colleges and universities have committed themselves to working together to undertake a critical ...
The Professional Doctorate in education: Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice. Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities.
CEAC is providing a formative evaluation to understand the current needs and challenges of member institutions. The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) operates as a member-driven organization of colleges and schools of education working together through communication and evaluation to the examine the doctorate of education (EdD).
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1,537 likes · 9 talking about this · 12 were here. CPED is the knowledge forum on the EdD with a membership of over 100...
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), which began in 2007, is a consortium of over 100 colleges and schools of education that have committed resources to work together to undertake a critical examination and redesign of the doctorate in education (EdD) through dialog, experimentation, critical feedback and evaluation.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) Higher Education Pittsburgh, PA 1,071 followers A Knowledge Forum on the Education Doctorate.
Since its inception at Harvard in 1921, the Doctorate in Education (EdD) has been a degree fraught with confusion as to its purpose and distinction from the PhD. In response to this, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), a collaborative project consisting of 80+ schools of education located in the United States, Canada, and ...
First, it provides a brief introduction to the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, written by me. This article offers a historical overview of the project, a description of how it came to be the first action-oriented effort to distinguish the EdD as a professional practice degree, and a summary of the consortium's accomplishments.
Beginning with 21 US schools of education, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) has created a network of education faculty who are differentiating the EdD from the PhD in order to better meet the needs of their practitioner-scholar students. Their discussions center on two questions: "What are the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that professionals working in education ...
In 2007, 25 colleges and schools of education (Phase I) came together under the aegis of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) to transform doctoral education for education practitioners. A challenging aspect of the reform of the educational doctorate is the role and design of the dissertation or Dissertation in Practice.
Jill Alexa Perry ([email protected]) is the executive director of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) and a visiting assistant professor at Duquesne University.Her research focuses on professional doctoral preparation in education, organizational change in higher education, and faculty leadership in higher education.
Yes! The Online EdD program at American University is proudly part of The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). The vision of the CPED is to inspire all schools of education to apply the CPED framework to the preparation of educational leaders to become well-equipped scholarly practitioners who provide stewardship of the profession and meet the educational challenges of the 21st ...
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate is comprised of a wide range of postsecondary institutions who are looking to develop and implement changes to their current EdD programs. Working together, these member schools have performed a critical examination of the Doctor of Education degree and created a set of guiding principles intended ...
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching established CPED in 2007 in an effort to redesign and transform the education doctorate for the advanced preparation of school practitioners, academic leaders, clinical faculty, and professional staff for the nation's schools, colleges, and the organizations that support them.
January 22, 2024. NACOGDOCHES, Texas — The Doctor of Education in educational leadership program offered through Stephen F. Austin State University's James I. Perkins College of Education has joined the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, a consortium of over 125 colleges and schools of education that have committed to critically ...
The discussion consists of the experiences in developing an Ed.D. program in partnership with the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), and the importance of the role played by our ...
We examined how end-of-first-year students in a Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED)-affiliated EdD program were developing professional identities as educational leaders and researchers. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed substantial development of leadership skills, but even greater growth in perceptions of research ...
In 2007, institutional members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) came together to re-imagine and redesign the EdD (Perry & Imig, 2008), clearly differentiating the Professional Practice Doctorate (EdD) from the PhD. A major outcome was the culminating EdD experience, validating the scholarly practitioner's ability to ...
In 2007, institutional members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) came together to re-imagine and redesign the EdD (Perry & Imig, 2008), clearly differentiating the Professional Practice Doctorate (EdD) from the PhD. A major outcome was the culminating EdD experience, validating the scholarly practitioner's ability to ...
for teacher education, little reform has resulted from this. discourse. In January 2007, the Carnegie Project on the Education. Doctorate (CPED) was launched as a response to Shulman, Golde ...