Grounding the Dissertation in Practice (DiP) in Dialectic Pluralism

Improvement Science as a Metaparadigm for the EdD

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.405

Keywords:

methodological paradigm, dissertations in practice, Improvement Science, practitioner-scholar

Abstract

The use of Improvement Science (IS) for the dissertation in practice (DiP) must be encouraged because the questions and concerns addressed in these projects go beyond answering basic research. Authors of dissertations in practice will bring philosophical assumptions, select research designs, and situate themselves somewhere along the practitioner continuum. DiP authors should be aware of the larger philosophical questions relating to the ontological, epistemological, methodological, axiological, and rhetorical grounding of Improvement Science. Grounded in these large philosophical questions, the Improvement Science project should be identified as a metaparadigm and counted among other research methodological paradigms.

References

Barnes, R. S. (2021). Transforming school-wide professional development utilizing culturally relevant pedagogy to engage Black boys. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Fordham University.

Capello, S. A., Bonney, E. N., & Yurkofsky, M. M. (2024). In K. K. C. Everson, L. Hemmer, K. M. Torres, & S. R. Tamim (Eds), Dissertation in Practice Methodologies (pp. 117-132). Myers Education.

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). (2022). The CPED Framework©. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework

Chesler, M. A. (1991). Participatory action research with self‐help groups: An alternative paradigm for inquiry and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(5), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00938043

Creamer, E. G. (2017). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Crow, R. (2019). Considering Improvement Science in educational leadership. In R. Crow, B. N. Hinnant-Crawford, & D. T. Spaulding (Eds.), The educational leader’s guide to Improvement Science (pp. 3-12). Myers Education Press.

Díaz-Arévalo, J. M. (2022). In search of the ontology of participation in participatory action research: Orlando Fals-Borda’s participatory turn, 1977–1980. Action Research, 20(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221103571

Hannan, M., Russell, J. L., Takahashi, S., & Park, S. (2015). Using Improvement Science to better support beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115602126

Herrick, J. A. (2017). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Routledge.

Hinnant-Crawford, B. N. (2020). Improvement Science in education: A primer. Myers Education Press.

Howell, K. E. (2013). An introduction to the philosophy of methodology. Sage.

Inayat, S., & McCaffrey, G. (2024). Dialectical pluralism for nursing knowledge development. Creative Nursing, 30(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/10784535231213843

Jackson, S. G. (2019). Focusing on social presence in an electronics course at a two-year college: An action research study (Publication No. 13904680) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Johnson, R. B. (2011). Do we need paradigms? A mixed methods perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 31–40.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

Johnson R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617479

Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97-128). Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 97-128). Sage.

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205. https://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

Maksimović, J., & Evtimov, J. (2023). Positivism and post-positivism as the basis of quantitative research in pedagogy. Research in Pedagogy, 13(1), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.5937/lstrPed2301208M

Mertens, D. M. (2015). Philosophical assumptions and program evaluation. Spaziofilosofico, Numero, 13, 75–85.

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2018). Program evaluation theory and practice. Guilford.

Mitchell, W. J. T. (1982). “Critical inquiry” and the ideology of pluralism. Critical Inquiry, 4(8), 609–618.

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.

Morgan, D. L. (2019). Commentary—After triangulation, what next? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818780596

Brydon-Miller et al. (2003). Please add to Reference list: Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why Action Research? Action Research, 1(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030011002

Omar, M. A. (2012). The Popper-Kuhn debate reexamined. Damascus University Journal, 28(1), 33–54.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). Why can’t we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying research paradigms. Education, 122(3), 518–530.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.

Patton, M. Q. (1975). Alternative evaluation research paradigm. Grand Forks: University of North Dakota Press.

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.

Spaulding, D. T., & Hinnant-Crawford, B. N. (2019). Tools for today’s educational leaders: The basic toolbox. In R. Crow, B. N. Hinnant-Crawford, & D. T. Spaulding (Eds.), The educational leader’s guide to improvement (pp. 13-41). Myers Education Press.

Sławecki, B. (2018). Paradigms in qualitative research. In M. Ciesielska and D. Jemielniak, D. (Eds.). (2018). Qualitative methodologies in organization studies. Palgrave Macmillan.

Varga, M. A., Green, K. B., & Lindsey, J. G. (2022). Professional and practical considerations for the program evaluation dissertation. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 7(1), 16–19. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2022.226

Wasserman, I. C., & Kram, K. E. (2009). Enacting the scholar—Practitioner role: An exploration of narratives. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(1), 12–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308327238

Downloads

Published

2024-10-31

How to Cite

Archer, L. A. C. (2024). Grounding the Dissertation in Practice (DiP) in Dialectic Pluralism: Improvement Science as a Metaparadigm for the EdD. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 9(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.405

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 4 (2024): Regular Issue

Section

Research Manuscripts

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Lester A. C. Archer

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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.