Approaching EdD Program Redesign as a Problem of Practice

  • Lesley F Leach Tarleton State University
  • Juanita M Reyes Tarleton State University
  • Credence Baker Tarleton State University
  • Ryan Glaman Tarleton State University
  • Jordan M Barkley Tarleton State University
  • Don M Beach Tarleton State University
  • J Russell Higham Tarleton State University
  • Kimberly Rynearson Tarleton State University
  • Mark Weber Tarleton State University
  • Tod Allen Farmer Tarleton State University
  • Randall Bowden Tarleton State University
  • Jesse Brock Tarleton State University
  • Phillis Bunch Tarleton State University
Keywords: problem of practice, EdD program redesign, faculty


As members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), universities across the United States are restructuring EdD programs to better prepare professional practitioners with the practical skills and theoretical knowledge needed to improve the educational environments that they serve. The hallmark of these programs is often the dissertation in practice, a scholarly investigation within which students define a problem of practice and then systematically test solutions to that problem. In this study, we investigate the experiences of university faculty participating in the redesign of an Educational Leadership EdD program who approach the redesign as a problem of practice. Root causes of identified program issues are presented in addition to the changes implemented in the redesigned program to improve upon the problem of practice.



Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5(44), 704-739.

Archbald, D. (2014). The GAPPSI Method: Problem-solving, planning, and communicating – concepts and strategies for leadership in education. Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Publications.

Barnett, B. G., & Muse, I. D. (1993). Cohort groups in education administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 400-415.

Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2003). Effects of cohorts on learners. Journal of School Leadership, 13(6), 621-643.

Burnett, P. C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 46-52.

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from

Dorn, S. M., Papalewis, R., & Brown, R. (1995). Educators earning their doctorates: Doctoral student perceptions regarding cohesiveness and persistence. Education, 116, 305-314.

Everson, S. T. (2006). The role of partnerships in the professional doctorate in education: A program application in educational leadership. Educational Considerations, 33(2), 1-15.

Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde, & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education (pp. 3-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harry, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Six Sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolution the world’s top corporations. New York, NY: Currency.

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

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (6th ed.). (2017). Root cause analysis in health care: Tools and techniques. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Author.

LeMahieu, P. G., Nordstrum, L. E., Cudney, E. A. (2017). Six Sigma in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 91-108.

Perry, J. A. (2016a). The scholarly practitioner as steward of the practice. In Storey, V. A., and Hesbol, K. A. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to dissertation development and research methods (1st ed., pp. 300-313). New York, NY: Information Science Reference.

Perry, J. A. (2016b). 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). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Preuss, P. G. (2003). School leaders’ guide to root cause analysis: Using data to dissolve problems. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Green, P. (2009). Business process modeling – A comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(4), 333-363.

Rohanna, K. (2017). Breaking the “adopt, attack, abandon” cycle: A case for improvement science in K-12 education. In C. A. Christie, M. Inkelas & S. Lemire (Eds.), Improvement Science in Evaluation: Methods and Uses. New Directions for Evaluation, (153), 65-77.

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, 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

(University Name) (n.d.). Mission/Vision/Core Values. Retrieved from https://www.(University Name).edu/strategicplan/2016-2020/mission-vision.html

Williams, P.M. (2001). Techniques for root cause analysis. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 14(2), 154-157.

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

How to Cite
Leach, L. F., Reyes, J. M., Baker, C., Glaman, R., Barkley, J. M., Beach, D. M., Higham, J. R., Rynearson, K., Weber, M., Farmer, T. A., Bowden, R., Brock, J., & Bunch, P. (2020). Approaching EdD Program Redesign as a Problem of Practice. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(1).
Research Articles