After reading Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal by Lee Shulman, Chris Golde, Andrea Conklin Bueschel and Kristen Garabedian (2006), I pondered if a Professional Practitioners Degree (PPD) is a step in the right direction as I agree that having a distinction between a PhD in Education and a Practitioner’s degree is important and relevant to the times. However, after much thought, I would argue that it is more of a hindrance.
One challenge that the article failed to develop was the difficulties in creating a new degree. The article mentions that creating a new degree lets one start at “ground zero” thus being able to create the exact degree one would like (Shulman, 2006). This statement seems to ring true, however it does not acknowledge the complexities of creating a well respected degree. A new degree lacks history, proven effectiveness, and quantity in field examples. How could one presume that a new degree without any standing would gain more respect in the academic community than the current degree already in place? What then happens to people with an EdD? Are they expected to go back and get a second degree to gain get more academic respect? Who is then in charge of making sure that the new degree maintains its intended integrity? All of these questions are rather large and unlikely to have an answer until a degree is implemented. In saying this I believe that revamping the EdD is the route to go.
In the past several years, large, prestigious universities began revamping their EdD programs – University of Southern California, Harvard, University of Washington, Vanderbilt. From personal observation, when large, prestigious universities begin to make changes, other large, prestigious universities begin to make similar changes. Thus, in this case, creating a national spur of revamping and redefining the EdD. I believe this rings true for ASU as well. A couple years ago, when I first started looking into ASU’s EdD, there were two different tracks. One was demolished and the program was remodeled. Part of the remodel (rumor has it) was due to budget constraints and for redefining the difficulty and purpose of the EdD. I dont know if it was mere coincidence, or just timing, but none-the-less the EdD at ASU is being redefined even if just for growth purposes. This would seem to support the ideas that there is a national shift beginning to happen in regards to reinvigorating the EdD programs. With this shift, it would seem better to keep the EdD rather than establishing a PPD.
References
Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 43, 25-32. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from the ASU Blackboard database.
ddrane
Latest posts by ddrane (see all)
- Formal Training for the Informal Leader – June 19, 2014
- Turning a New Leaf: The Realization of Exclusion – June 16, 2014
- External Factors on Organizations – June 10, 2014
- Shaking Up Logic and Methods – June 10, 2014
- Four Formidable Frames – June 3, 2014