Advertisement

Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 59–74 | Cite as

Examining Faculty Member Changes in an Innovative Educational Doctorate Program

  • Ray R. Buss
  • Debby Zambo
  • Suzanne R. Painter
  • David W. Moore
Article

Abstract

Recent criticisms of the Educational Doctorate (Ed.D.) have challenged faculty members to create or reform such programs. In response to these concerns, faculty members at a particular institution designed and implemented a new Ed.D. program focused on leadership and innovation. We conducted this action research study in order to examine the changes faculty members experienced as they implemented the program along with the factors to which they attributed these changes. Data were gathered with an online survey; and results indicated changes had occurred in perceptions of research, teaching, and students as well as professional identities. Participants attributed these changes to collaborative teaching, a community of practice, and strong leadership. Findings will guide program leaders and faculty members in the coming years and may provide insights to leaders of similar programs and to those guiding innovative efforts.

Keywords

Change Faculty members Innovative doctorate program Community of practice 

References

  1. Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). “Peer learning” as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boud, D., & Tennant, M. (2006). Putting doctoral education to work: Challenges to academic practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(3), 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourner, T., Bowden, R., & Laing, S. (2001). Professional doctorates in England. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 65–83.Google Scholar
  4. Carboni, T. C., & Proper, E. (2009). Re-envisioning the professional doctorate for education leadership and higher education leadership: Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College Ed.D. program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erikson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233–256.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Hargreaves, A. (1992). Time and teachers’ work: An analysis of the intensification thesis. Teachers College Record, 94(1), 87–108.Google Scholar
  14. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, A., Green, G., & Brennan, M. (2000). Organisational knowledge, professional practice and the professional doctorate at work. In I. Garrick & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Research and knowledge at work: Perspectives, case studies and innovative strategies (pp. 117–136). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Lester, S. (2004). Conceptualizing the practitioner doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 757–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Princeton, NJ: The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Lewin, K. (1945/2005). Action research and minority problems. In B. Cooke & J. F. Cox (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research, Vol. 1 (pp. 19–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Original work published 1945.Google Scholar
  20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Maxwell, T. (2003). From first to second generation professional doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Neumann, R. (2007). Policy and practice in doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rolfe, G., & Davies, R. (2009). Second generation professional doctorates in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(9), 1265–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I., & Thorne, L. (2004). Professional doctorates: Integrating professional and academic knowledge. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Servage, L. (2009). Alternative and professional doctorate programs: What is driving the demand? Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 765–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wikeley, F., & Muschamp, Y. (2004). Pedagogical implications of working with doctoral students at a distance. Distance Education, 25(1), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ray R. Buss
    • 1
  • Debby Zambo
    • 1
  • Suzanne R. Painter
    • 1
  • David W. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations