Ed.D and Ph.D educational leadership program design and delivery

One of the continual challenges facing professors who prepare TK-12 school leaders through the professional educational doctorate (Ed.D. degree), is ensuring a theory-to-practice framework, curriculum, and pedagogy. Furthermore, professors of doctoral programs whose orientation is social justice, often face the dilemma of how to infuse it as a cross-cutting issue with the theory-practice paradigm. Community-based learning (CBL), when embedded with social justice claims, can serve as a bridge between theory and practice, providing doctoral students with opportunities to achieve both goals. This qualitative case study engaged with this dilemma by investigating the efficacy of a community-based learning component that had been infused into a core doctoral leadership course. Through interviews with doctoral students, we sought to understand their perception of its connection to the program's social justice orientation, as well as the benefits, challenges, and recommendations for the efficacy of community-based learning. Students' input guided future course revisions that establish a clearer relationship among social justice themes, the program's learning outcomes, and the theory-praxis paradigm.

The words " universe " and " university " share a common root: " universus, " the Latin word for " whole, entire. " Like universe, the word university implies a capacity for limitless expansion, bringing scholars from diverse academic fields together to serve the common purpose of increasing knowledge. This is equally true even when an institution of higher education goes by another name like " college " or " school. " Somehow, though, we academics turn away from this dazzling prospect of boundless knowledge. We draw together in smaller groups of people like ourselves, preferring to associate with those who share the same disciplinary engagement, professional practices, and habits of mind. These focused relationships are undeniably beneficial, serving to concentrate disciplinary activity and promoting fruitful collaborations, working together to prepare the next generation of disciplinary scholars. Nevertheless, these self-imposed boundaries are confining. The greater our disciplinary expertise, the less likely we are to reach out for those limitless possibilities within the universe of higher education. My research and professional engagements have afforded me the incomparable opportunity of studying more than 60 institutions of higher learning and placed me in contact with no less than 1000 people across disciplines literally ranging from anthropology to zoology. Among the many things I learned, I've observed that we tend to have pre-defined ideas about leaders, believing that those from certain academic disciplines are more qualified than others for positions of leadership. Most of us prefer leaders who are somehow familiar – people who think like we do, work like we do, and share our same philosophies. Likewise, it's only natural that we encounter barriers when dealing with people different from ourselves. For instance, we've probably all had the experience in our personal lives of choosing not to associate with someone because of their political views. In higher education, though, the greatest obstacle to acceptance can arise with regard to our disciplinary orientations. The more deeply entrenched we become in our academic fields, the less likely we are to view a person from a different disciplinary orientation as someone from whom we could learn, or more so, as someone whom we could follow as a leader.

This book shares the thoughts of mostly North American scholars on many interrelated topics that have not previously been linked in academic research. The focus of the book is the belief that the Ed.D. can prepare highly competent justice-oriented scholars who will be engaged with communities. Among these future leaders, the contributors envision educators who not only lead public schools, but also private foundations, not-for-profit organizations, and community centers. An outstanding feature of this volume is that each chapter highlights existing and emerging issues such as, but not limited to, candidate recruitment and admission policies; program funding, fees, and student expenses; academic support services; faculty recruitment, compensation, evaluation, and promotion models; on-site/on-line instruction, internship policy, opportunities for graduate student employment, publishing, and conference engagement; student supervision protocols; and dissertation and capstone project parameters. In addition, the book explores cultural and socio-political contexts, public/private sector relationships, and the kinds of legislation that frame Ed.D. theory, policy, and practice from a social justice perspective.

Book Overview:

This book will embody mostly North American voices on many interrelated topics that have not previously been linked in academic research. Our focus underpins a belief in the power of the Ed.D. to prepare highly competent social justice driven scholars for civic engagement. Among these future leaders we envision educators who head up not only public school boards, but private foundations, not-for-profit organizations, cultural institutions, and a broad array of community projects.
Outstanding features of this work will be a clear and compelling challenge to end inequities across genetic and economically constructed demographics such as race, gender, class, ability, and ethno-cultural heritage. This book will embody existing and emerging issues such as, but not limited to, candidate recruitment and admission policy; program funding, fees, and student expenses; academic support services; faculty recruitment, compensation, evaluation, and promotion; onsite/online instruction, internship policy, opportunities for graduate student employment, publishing, and conference engagement; student supervision protocols, and dissertation and capstone project parameters. Also of interest would be an exploration of cultural and socio-political contexts, public/private sector relationships, and the kinds of legislation that frame Ed.D. theory, policy and practice from a social justice perspective.

This paper reports on a case study of the impact of professional doctorate programmes on graduates and their work organisations. Telephone interviews were carried out with graduates and nominated peer and senior colleagues to elucidate the types of change apparent and the impact of those changes. We found that all interviewees reported development of the graduates’ conceptual frameworks, increased personal and professional confidence, and enhanced engagement within and beyond their organisations. New capabilities and forms of interaction reported by colleagues appeared to facilitate the building of improved networks. Simple causal links were difficult to establish although the professional doctors themselves gave accounts of disruption, subversion and challenge that they attributed to their new knowledge and understandings. Such data draw attention to the complexity and messiness of the professional learning process, calling into question the simple input–output model of impact currently used. We suggest that further research is necessary to develop greater understanding of the organisational impact of the professional doctorate, and the ways in which that can be measured. This is especially important where there is increasing demand for a highly qualified workforce at the same time as decreasing professional development budgets.