Faculty Leaders Challenges and Strategies in Redesigning EdD Programs

Authors

  • Jill A. Perry University of Pittsburgh & CPED
  • Debby Zambo CPED
  • Emma Abruzzo University of Pittsburgh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.143

Keywords:

education doctorate (EdD), change leader, CPED, redesign, resister, institutional, programmatic

Abstract

Producing change in higher education is not always easy or quick (Kennedy, et al., 2018; Perry, 2014a; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006; Tierney, 1998). Conferences provide faculty with exposure to new ideas, but that exposure is often not enough to produce programmatic and structural change. In addition to new ideas, faculty must also have the tools they need to navigate change and institutional resistance when introducing and implementing new ideas. Over the last decade or so, school of education faculty, guided by the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) have worked to redesign the Education Doctorate and make it a professional practice degree.  As a leader in educational change, CPED aims to reframe the EdD through both the cultivation of innovative ideas and the promulgation of those ideas across existing institutions and structures. CPED found faculty leaders to be necessary in creating institutional change, but also that the role of leader is a challenging one. Building upon earlier inquiries of faculty from CPED member institutions, this current study sought to discover more about the needs, challenges, and means for successful innovation implementation by EdD programmatic change leaders.

References

Adler, J. & Karlsberg, R. (2005),7 Strategies for Sustained Innovation. Retrieved 6 March 2020 from https://innovationmanagement.se/imtool-articles/7-strategies-for-sustained-innovation/

Carnegie Project for the Educational Doctorate (CPED). (2010). Design concept definitions. Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. 1967. Weidenfield & Nicolson, London, 1-19.

Kennedy, B., Altman, M., & Pizano, A. (2018). Engaging in the battle of snails by challenging the traditional dissertation model. Impacting Education (3). DOI

5195/ie.2018.27

Meyerson, D. E. (2003). Tempered radicals: How everyday leaders inspire change at work. Boston, MA Harvard Business School Press.

Meyerson, D., & Scully, M. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perry, J.A. (2012). What does history reveal about the education doctorate? In Macintyre Latta, M. & Wunder, S. (Eds.). Placing Practitioner Knowledge at the Center of

Teacher Education: Rethinking the Policy and Practice of the Education Doctorate. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Perry, J.A. (2014a). The CPED Argument: A Counter-Response. UCEA Review, 22-24.

Perry, J.A. (2014b). Changing schools of education through grassroots faculty-led change. Innovation in Higher Education 39(2), 144-168

Perry, J.A., Zambo, D. & Wunder, S. (2015). Understanding How Schools of Education have Redesigned the Doctorate of Education. Journal of School Public Relations, 36, 58-85.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press

Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming education's doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tierney, W.G. (1998). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, (59),1, pp. 2-21.

Wergin, J.F. (2011). Rebooting the EdD. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 119-140.

Downloads

Published

2020-04-06

How to Cite

Perry, J. A., Zambo, D., & Abruzzo, E. (2020). Faculty Leaders Challenges and Strategies in Redesigning EdD Programs. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.143

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 1 (2020)

Section

From CPED Headquarters

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.