The Impact of Bias on the Scholar-Practitioner's Doctoral Journey

Strategies to Legitimize it

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.398

Keywords:

improvement science, scholar-practitioner, bias, professional wisdom

Abstract

This essay discusses the utilization of safeguard strategies, particularly Improvement Science principles, in the academic and professional writing of scholar-practitioners within EdD programs. These strategies bridge the gap between theory and practice, enabling graduate students to apply their scholarly insights meaningfully. The essay highlights the roles of bias, professional wisdom, positionality, and reflexivity in inquiry, empowering scholar-practitioners to develop authentic solutions to the problems of practice they encounter. Drawing on the recommendations of Perry and colleagues (2020), the essay emphasizes rigorous data collection, explicit theoretical frameworks, evidence of impact on practice, and transparent mitigation of biases. Strategies such as positionality and reflexivity statements, adoption of Improvement Science as a conceptual framework, critical questions as safeguards, and engagement with critical friend groups (CFG) enhance the integrity and rigor of scholar-practitioners' inquiries. By implementing these measures, scholar-practitioners foster a robust examination of problems of practice and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

References

Blake, J., & Gibson, A. (2021). Critical friends group protocols deepen conversations in collaborative action research projects. Educational Action Research, 29(1), 133–148.

Bondi, L., Carr, D., Clark, C., Clegg, C. (Ed.). (2016). Towards professional wisdom: Practical deliberation in the people professions. Routledge.

Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. Qualitative Report, 19(33), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you’re supposed to be and embrace who you are. Simon and Schuster.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Crow, R., Hinnant-Crawford, B.N., & Spaulding, D.T. (Eds). (2019). The educational leader’s guide to improvement science: Data, design and cases for reflection. Myers Education Press.

Dwyer, C. (2018). 12 common biases that affect how we make everyday decisions. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-on-thinking/201809/12-common-biases-that-affect-how-we-make-everyday-decisions

Grant, & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9

Holden Thorp, H. (2023). Put your whole self in. Science, 380(6643), 323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi3753

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (n.d.a). Science of improvement. https://www.ihi.org/about/Pages/ScienceofImprovement.aspx

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four-c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

Kember, D., Ha, T. S., Lam, B. H., Lee, A., NG, S., Yan, L., & Yum, J. C. (1997). The diverse role of the critical friend in supporting educational action research projects. Educational Action Research, 5(3), 463–481.

Klein, W. C., & Bloom, M. (1995) Practice wisdom. Social Work, 40(6), 799–807. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/40.6.799

Lambrev, V. (2023) Exploring the value of community-based learning in a professional doctorate: A practice theory perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 45(1), 37–53.

Lambrev, V., & Cruz, B. C. (2021) Becoming scholarly practitioners: Creating community in online professional doctoral education. Distance Education, 42(4), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1986374

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. John Wiley & Sons.

McNiff, J. (2008). The significance of “I” in educational research and the responsibility of intellectuals. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n3a178

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2009). Doing and writing action research. SAGE Publications.

Mattoon, M. & McKean, E. (2020). Critical friends group® purpose & work. National school reform faculty. https://nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cfg_purpose_work_1-3.pdf

Noor, M. S. A. M., & Shafee, A. (2021). The role of critical friends in action research: A framework for design and implementation. Practitioner Research, 3, 1–33.

Pape, S. J., Bryant, C. L., JohnBull, R. M., Karp, K. S. (2022). Improvement science as a frame for the dissertation in practice: The John’s Hopkins experience. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 7(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2022.241

Perry, J. A. (Ed.). (2016). The EdD and the scholarly practitioner. IAP.

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.

Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach (Rev. ed.). Oxford University Press.

Popovic, A., & Huecker, M. R. (2022). Study bias. StatPearls Publishing. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34662027

Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2020a). A meta‐analysis of the relationship between curiosity and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 940–947.

Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2020b). Connections between curiosity, flow and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109555

Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd edition). Zed Books. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350225282

Son Hing, L. (2022). The myth of meritocracy in scientific institutions. Science, 377(6608), 824. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5909

Vassallo, P. (2004). Getting started with evaluation reports: Creating the structure. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 61(3), 398–403.

Downloads

Published

2024-05-01

How to Cite

Rodriguez López, L. M. (2024). The Impact of Bias on the Scholar-Practitioner’s Doctoral Journey: Strategies to Legitimize it. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 9(2), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2024.398

Issue

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

Section

Essays

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Laura M. Rodriguez López

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.