A Systematic Comparative Analysis of Doctor of Education (EdD) Programs

Unraveling Inconsistencies and Informing Student Choices

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.408

Keywords:

Doctor of Education (EdD), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Education, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), Foucault’s Theory of Power, Adam’s Equity Theory

Abstract

Prospective doctoral students face a daunting challenge choosing between Doctor of Education (EdD) programs and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Education due to programmatic ambiguity, inconsistency, and ill-defined career alignment (Carpenter, 1987; Perry, 2012; Shafer & Giblin, 2008). This qualitative study employed comparative analysis to explore the distinctions between 50 US EdD programs, including completion time, modality, credits, qualifying exam (QE) inclusion and requirements, and dissertation requirements. The theoretical framework used to investigate the root causes and potential outcomes of the EdD and PhD inconsistency included Foucault’s Power Theory (Aguirre Rojas, 2021) and Adam’s Equity Theory (Adams, 1963, 1965). Findings revealed significant differences between EdD programs and between EdD and PhD programmatic features. This data provides valuable insight for prospective students, informs EdD improvement, and urges consistency or standardization for clarity, integrity, and advancement in the field (Fisher et al., 2020; McMahon et al., 2020; Schafer & Giblin, 2008).

References

Ali, S. (2022, September 13). The scandal facing college ranking lists, explained. The Hill. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/3641004-the-scandal-facing-college-ranking-lists-explained/

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–¬¬436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, pp. 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Aguirre Rojas, C. A. (2021). Theory of power: Marx, Foucault, neo-Zapatismo (R. Myers, Trans.). Peter Lang.

Bowles, K. (2022, January 10). Why can’t higher education change? How financial, governance, employment, and oversight models make it hard for colleges to switch gears. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-explain-it-me/why-can%E2%80%99t-higher-education-change

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). (2022). The CPED’s new mission, vision, and values. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/vision-mission

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

Carpenter, S. (1987). Degrees of difference?: The PhD and the EdD Review of Higher Education, 10(3), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1987.0024

Clark, C., Cluver, M., & Selingo, J. J. (2023, May 17). Higher education’s new era. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/articles-on-higher-education/higher-education-topics.html

Cooper, P. (2021, October 19). Is college worth it? A comprehensive return on investment analysis. The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. https://freopp.org/is-college-worth-it-a-comprehensive-return-on-investment-analysis-1b2ad17f84c8

Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

DiPietro, J., Drexler, W., Kennedy, K., Buraphadeja, V., Liu, F., & Dawson, K. (2009). Using wikis to collaboratively prepare for qualifying examinations: An example of implementation in an advanced graduate program. Tech Trends, 54(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0360-0

DeWitt, S. (2016, October 14). PhD vs. EdD: Which terminal degree is right for you? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/phd-vs-edd

Drenik, G. (2021, April 22). Businesses are increasing their investments in social media as consumers use social media more than ever before- here’s why. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/garydrenik/2021/04/22/businesses-are-increasing-their-investments-in-social-media-as-consumers-use-social-media-more-than-ever-before--heres-why/?sh=4b6488f7156f

Estrem, H., & Lucas, B. (2003). Embedded traditions, uneven reform: The place of the comprehensive exam in composition and rhetoric PhD programs. Rhetoric Review, 22(4), 396–416. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20058093

EdDPrograms.org. (n.d.). Doctor of Education (EdD) Degree Programs. Retrieved July 3, 2023, from https://www.eddprograms.org/schools/#

Fisher, R., Brock, C. H., Frahm, T., Van Wig, A., & Gillis, V. R. (2020). Reflections on writing and identity: Exploring the role of qualifying exams in the sociocultural development of doctoral students. Studies in Continuing Education, 42(3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1661237

Goodman, G. (2023, December 13). Experts discuss whether college is still worth it. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/experts-discuss-whether-college-is-still-worth-it/

Kavakli, B. (2021, May 4). Transparency is no longer an option. It is a must. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/05/04/transparency-is-no-longer-an-option-its-a-must/?sh=2f0162be75fe

Kearns, H., Gardiner, M., & Marshall, K. (2008). Innovation in PhD completion: The hardy shall succeed (and be happy!). Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658781

Lovitts, B. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91(6), 18–23.

Manus, M. B., Bowden, M. G., & Dowd, E. T. (1992). The purpose, philosophy, content, and structure of doctoral comprehensive/qualifying exams: A survey of counseling psychology training programs. The Counseling Psychologist, 20(4), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000092204011

Martinez-Lebron, C. (2016). PhD and EdD degrees in higher education programs: A mixed methods study (Publication No. 10196329) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

McMahon, N., Alcantara, C., & Stephenson, L. B. (2020). The qualifying field exam: What is it good for? PS, Political Science & Politics, 53(1), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001100

Mello, P. A. (2012, August 30- September 2). A critical review of applications in Qca and Fuzzy-Set Analysis and a 'toolbox' of proven solutions to frequently encountered problems [Paper presentation]. American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260245412_A_Critical_Review_of_Applications_in_Qca_and_Fuzzy-Set_Analysis_and_a_'Toolbox'_of_Proven_Solutions_to_Frequently_Encountered_Problems

Milošević, D., & Maksimović, J. (2020). Methodology of comparative research in education: Role and significance, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 8(3), 155–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2020-8-3-155-162

Montuori, A., & Donnelly, G. (2013). Creative inquiry and scholarship: Applications and implications in a doctoral degree. World Futures, 69(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2013.748575

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2019). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/handbook/pdf/ipeds.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Characteristics of postsecondary students. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csb

Nyunt, G., Brown, D., Jensen, A., & Schaefer, C. (2023) Motivations to Pursue an EdD in Higher Education: A qualitative case study, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 60(5), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2111521

O’Connor, S. (2019, September 12) EdD vs. PhD in Education: What’s the difference? Northeastern University. https://www.northeastern.edu/graduate/blog/edd-vs-phd-in-education/

Otsuka, Y. (2009). The challenges of fieldwork in comparative education studies in Japan: A methodological consideration. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 4, 37–51. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ912718.pdf

Perry, J. A. (2012). To EdD or not to EdD? Phi Delta Kappan, 94(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400108

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.

Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press.

Ragin, C. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.

Schafer, & Giblin, M. J. (2008). Doctoral comprehensive exams: Standardization, customization, and everywhere in between. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250802137648

Silova, I., & Brehm, W. C. (2010). For the love of knowledge: William W. Brickman and his comparative education. European Education, 42(2), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934420202

Swanson, G. (1971) Frameworks for comparative research: Structural anthropology and the theory of action. University of California Press.

Toma, D. J. (2002). Legitimacy, differentiation, and the promise of the EdD in higher education. Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education: Education Resource Information Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482308

US Department of Education. (2022). Gainful employment. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/isspap3gainempl.pdf

Downloads

Published

2024-05-01

How to Cite

Reyes, C., & Zhang, J. (2024). A Systematic Comparative Analysis of Doctor of Education (EdD) Programs: Unraveling Inconsistencies and Informing Student Choices. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 9(2), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.408

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2024): Regular Issue

Section

Essays

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Christa Reyes, Jingshun Zhang

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.