The authors of the article “Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal” are employed as participants in the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID), which is sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation. The critical analysis by the CID process is meant to crystalize the purpose of the doctoral degree. The authors participated in discussions with various institutions to help clarify the purpose/objectives of their degrees. This article specifically presents the rationale for introducing a new type of degree for education practitioners and administration (specifically, those individuals not planning on a career in teaching or research).
In my opinion, the authors are clouding the discussion with an additional program suggestion. It seems the authors are suggesting questions as to whether the Ed.D. appropriately prepares one for a career of scholarly research and/or if that degrees is even needed for a career in administration. The organization of the article would suggest that a re-evaluation and re-deployment of the Ed.D. would be successful.
This was demonstrated with the example of USC’s success. “The decision-making and implementation processes, though sometimes rocky, resulted in two programs with clearly different goals, requirements, and student populations”. However, later in the article suggests a professional practice degree would enable career progression, as a reader, I’m left wondering, “why shouldn’t it be the Ed.D.?”
Ed.D. students will, according to the authors, not experience the depth of scholarly inquiry done in the program. They cite the lack of full-time study or participation in learning communities as examples. On the other hand, is it more likely that we are more effectively preparing them to be better consumers of academic research in that they can then interpret and act on research? The authors wrote, “we believe it must be a requirement for the P.P.D., to enable practitioners to make practice and policy decisions—not to add new knowledge per se to the field”. As the article progresses, instead the authors suggest that a lack of clarity in purpose for the degree (Ph.D. vs. Ed.D) leads to confusion about what grads can accomplish and are prepared for in their careers. According to the authors, a doctoral degree should teach you to collect information, research a hypothesis, and present findings, which are all part of critical analysis. Good decision makers need to be able to balance the need for an effective decision and the time available to make it.
Perhaps the article should instead be advocating for a thorough review following the CID method. The authors write, “the process of reflection, implementation of program changes, and assessment that these departments and programs engaged in is leading to stronger doctoral programs and changed habits of mind in participating faculty and students”.
Questions raised by the review of the program might include: What is the value of a dissertation? Is it just to deeply researching an issue to recommend a course of action? Is it to advance scholarly research?
The authors demonstrated a need for more clarity within the field, however, ultimately lacked rationale for the creation of a new degree. Alternatively, suggesting further review of existing degrees might engage more dialogue and commitment from those involved with existing programs.
Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 43, 25-32. Retrieved from the ASU Blackboard database.
tamcoro1
Latest posts by tamcoro1 (see all)
- Training Advisors to Conduct Research – June 20, 2014
- Do Only “Good” Peers Matter? – June 17, 2014
- Learning Outcomes and Engagement – June 13, 2014
- Leadership and Uncertainty – June 10, 2014
- Who is responsible for my graduation? – June 7, 2014