Problems of Practice: A Document Analysis of Education Doctorate Dissertations

Authors

  • John C. Gillham The University of Findlay
  • Nicole V. Williams The University of Findlay
  • Gwynne Rife The University of Findlay
  • Kara K. Parker The University of Findlay

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2019.85

Keywords:

education doctorate, dissertations, problems of practice

Abstract

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 and how this impacts local contexts. Furthermore, the nature of their problems of practice researched through the dissertation contributed to the perceived impact on the local context of the author.

Author Biography

John C. Gillham, The University of Findlay

Assistant Professor, Chair of the Doctorate of Education Program

References

Anderson, D. G. (1983). Differentiation of the Ed.D. and Ph.D. in education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 55–58.

Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005, Spring). Form should follow function: Removing the EdD dissertation from the Ph.D. straight jacket. UCEA Review, pp. 10-12.

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.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Belzer, A., & Ryan, S. (2013). Defining the problem of practice dissertation: Where’s the practice, what’s the problem? Planning and Changing, 44(3), 195-207.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Bowen, W.G., & Rudenstine, N.L. (1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). (2017). Beyond a definition: Designing and specifying dissertation in practice (DiP) models. Retrieved from http://www.cpedinitiative.org/

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (n.d.a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.cpedinitiative.org/

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (n.d.b). The framework. Retrieved from https://www.cpedinitiative.org/page/framework

City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving learning and teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Clifford, G. J., & Guthrie, J. W. (1988). Ed school: A brief for a professional education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dagenais, C., Lysenko, L., Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Ramde, J., & Janosz, M. (2012). Use of research-based information by school practitioners and determinants of use: a review of empirical research. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 8(3). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412X654031

Deering, T. E. (1998). Eliminating the doctor of education degree: It’s the right thing to do. Educational Forum, 62(3), 243-248.

Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191-229.

Gilbert, R., J. Balatti, P. Turner, & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills debate in research higher degrees. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 376-388.

Golde, C. M. (2007). Signature pedagogies in doctoral education: Are they adaptable for the preparation of education researchers. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 344–351. https://doi-org.ezproxy.findlay.edu/10.3102/0013189X07308301

Golde, C. M., & Walker, G. E. (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002, April). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-256.

Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing, 44(3), 181–194.

Hoffman, R. L., & Perry, J. A. (2016). The CPED framework: Tools for change. In J. S. Perry (Ed.) The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 13-25). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Kot, F.C., & Hendel, D. D. (2012). Emergence and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: A comparative analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 345-364.

Kumar, S., & Dawson, K. (2012). Exploring the impact of a professional practice education doctorate in educational environments, Studies in Continuing Education, 35(2), 165-178. DOI: 10.1080/0158037X.2012.736380

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Columbia University Teachers College.

Ma, V. W., Dana, N. F., & Adams, A., & Kennedy B. (2017). Understanding the problems of practice: An analysis of professional practice Ed.D. dissertations. Paper presented at the 2017 AERA Annual Meeting. San Antonio, TX.

Malen, B., & Prestine, N. (2005, Spring). The case for revitalizing the dissertation. UCEA Review, pp. 7-9.

Maxwell, T. W. K. (2009). Producing the professional doctorate: The portfolio as a legitimate alternative to the dissertation. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 46(2), 135–145.

Mowbray, S., & C. Halse. 2010. The purpose of the PhD: Theorizing the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(6), 653-664.

Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2005). Developing professionally anchored dissertations. School Leadership Review, 1(1), 33-57.

National Science Foundation (2018). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics: Survey of Earned Doctorates. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov

Nelson, J. K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the PhD versus EdD dissertation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158-168.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Dickinson, W. (2006). Mixed methods research and action research: A framework for the development of preservice and inservice teachers. Retrieved from http://www.unco.edu/ae-extra/2007/6/Onwuegbuzie.html

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Wong, M. J. (1993). The Ph.D. versus the Ed.D: Time for a decision. Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 47-63.

Perry, J. A. (2012). What history reveals about the education doctorate. In Latta, M. M., & Wunder, S. (Eds.) Placing practitioner knowledge at the center of teacher education: Rethinking the policy and practice of the education doctorate. Somerset, MA: Information Age Publishing.

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.

Storey, V. A., Caskey, M. M., Hesbol, K. A., Marshall, J. E., Maughan, B., & Dolan, A. W. (2015). Examining EdD dissertations in practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. International HETL Review, 5(2), Retrieved from https://www.hetl.org/examining-edd-dissertations-in-practice-the-carnegie-project-on-the-education-doctorate/

Tennant, M. (2004). Doctoring the knowledge worker. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(3), 431-441.

Toma, J. D. (2002, November). Legitimacy, differentiation, and the promise of the EdD in higher education. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.

Townsend, B. (2002, November 21-24). Rethinking the EdD or what’s in a name? Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.

Walker, D. W. & Haley-Mize, S. (2012). Content analysis of PhD and EdD dissertations in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 202-211. DOI: 10.1177/0888406411431168

Wergin, J. F. (2011). Rebooting the Ed.D.. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 119–139.

Willis, J., Inman, D., & Valenti, R. (2010). Completing a professional practice dissertation: A guide for doctoral students and faculty. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Zambo, D. (2011). Action research as signature pedagogy in an education doctorate program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 261–271.

Zambo, R., Zambo, D., Buss, R. R., Perry, J. A., Williams, T. R. (2014). Seven years after the call: Students’ and graduates’ perceptions of the re-envisioned Ed.D.. Innovative Higher Education, 39(1), 123-137.

Downloads

Published

2019-05-16

How to Cite

Gillham, J. C., Williams, N. V., Rife, G., & Parker, K. K. (2019). Problems of Practice: A Document Analysis of Education Doctorate Dissertations. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2019.85

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2019)

Section

Research Manuscripts

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.