Part One of the Themed Issue on Reimagining Research Methods Coursework for the Preparation of Scholar-Practitioners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.368Keywords:
CPED, education doctorate, research methodology, research methodology courseworkAbstract
Ongoing efforts to distinguish the EdD from the PhD as a professional practice doctorate have important implications for how research methodology courses are designed, sequenced, and taught in CPED-inspired EdD programs. Currently, there is much debate and little consensus as to what the purpose and outcomes of these courses should be and how the courses might differ from traditional doctoral-level methods preparation. In this first installment of the themed issue on redesigning research methods for CPED-inspired EdD programs, EdD faculty and students share their current redesign work and experiences implementing revised methodology courses as part of larger, practitioner-oriented program revisions.
References
Allen, J., Chirichello, M., & Wasicsko, M. (2016). The practitioner-scholar doctorate: Not a PhD lite. In J. A. Perry (Ed.), The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 105-130). Information Age Publishing.
Barnett, B. G., & Muth, R. (2008). Using action-research strategies and cohort structures to ensure research competence for practitioner-scholar leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/194277510800300101
Bengston, E., Lasater, K., Murphy-Lee, M. M., & Jones, S. J. (2016). The role of research courses. In J. A. Perry (Ed.), The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 79-104). Information Age Publishing.
Buss, R. R., & Zambo, D. (2016). Using action research to develop educational leaders and researchers. In J. A. Perry (Ed.), The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 137-152). Information Age Publishing.
Capello, S. A., Bonney, E. N., & Yurkofsky, M. (in press). The practitioner inquiry course sequence: Centering improvement science in the design of an EdD program. In C. Benedetti & A. Covarrubias (Eds.), Critical inquiry and applied research in Ed.D. programs: Moving beyond traditional methods. Myers Education Press.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2022). The CPED framework©. https://cped.memberclicks.net/the-framework
Firestone, W. A., Perry, J. A., Leland, A. S., & McKeon, R. T. (2021). Teaching research and data use in the education doctorate. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751198722
Foster, H. A., Chesnut, S., Thomas, J., & Robinson, C. (2023). Differentiating the EdD and the PhD in higher education: A survey of characteristics and trends. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 8(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.288
Hinnant-Crawford, B. N. (2020). Improvement science in education: A primer. Myers Education Press.
Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 181–195.
Hovannesian, A. (2013). CPED: Reshaping perceptions of the scholarly practitioner. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 308–316.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.
Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2018). Program evaluation theory and practice. Guilford Publications.
Perry, J. A. (2016). The new education doctorate: Preparing the transformational leader. In J. A. Perry (Ed.), The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 1-10). Information Age Publishing.
Perry, J. A., Zambo, D., & Crow, R. (2020). The improvement science dissertation in practice: A guide for faculty, committee members, and their students. Myers Education Press.
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(1), 58–85. https://doi.org/10.3138/jspr.36.1.58
Rohanna, K. L., & Christie, C. A. (2023). A problem-bound evaluation approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 96, 102187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102187
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035003025
Yurkofsky, M. M., Bonney, E. N., & Capello, S. A. (in press). Integrating improvement science into leadership preparation programs: Enduring challenges and promising strategies. In E. A. Anderson & S. D. Hayes (Eds.), Continuous improvement: A leadership process for school improvement. Information Age Publishing.
Zambo, D. (2011). Action research as signature pedagogy in an education doctorate program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9171-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sarah Capello, Maxwell Yurkofsky, Edwin Nii Bonney
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- 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.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- 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:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- 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.
