Dr. Jill Alexa Perry, Duquesne University Dr. Debby Zambo , Arizona State University

1. The Education Doctorate, Grassroots Changes, and Future Aspirations: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate’s Work to Reinvasion the EdD Dr. Jill AlexaPerry, Duquesne University Dr. Debby Zambo, Arizona State University Dr. David Imig, University of Maryland BELMAS 2013

2. The Problem In the long history of the debate between the Ed.D. and the Ph.D., the conversation rarely left the walls of academia (Brown, 1966, 1991; Clifford & Guthrie, 1988; Dill & Morrison, 1985; Freeman, 1931; Levine, 2007; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian 2006). Since its inception, no group actively looked at the work of practitioners or sought to redesign the EdDas a true professional preparation degree in education.

3. The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) The first action oriented effort in an 80 year history seeking to distinguish and define the EdDacross many facets Administration, Teacher Preparation, Higher Education, Organizational Leadership A consortium of 56 institutions that are critically examining the doctorate in education through dialog, collaboration, experimentation and evaluation A design experiment (We don’t have all the answers…yet.) A national network of institutions, SOE, faculty, student-practitioners, graduate scholarly practitioners It is a grassroots organization - is member-run

4. What has CPED accomplished in 6 years? Refashioning 2014 & Beyond: Organizational Structures, IES Grants Improvement Science Multiple Agendas- IMPACT 2013: FIPSE Evidence- Institutional, Programmatic & Individual Change Other Evidence: Books, articles, presentations Nationally & Internationally Redesigning Reclaiming Phase I (25 members) Phase II (56 members) Phase III + 47 interested

5. FIPSE Research Questions 1. What has been CPED’s impact on doctoral preparation? 2. What do the Professional Practice Doctorates look like and how do they differ from what was offered before? 3. How did the college/school make these changes? 4. What are the lessons learned?

6. Data and Analytical Process DATA: We have 19 cases (2 more coming) and 3 surveys (student, faculty, researcher that had both closed- and open-ended items). Analysis of all measures aimed at ensuring credibility/trustworthiness/validity/reliability ANALYSIS OF CASES: Focused on finding commonalities and complexities within and across CPED institutions (Stake, 2006; Yin, 2009). Analysis of cases performed f-2-f and virtually. Layers to the cross-cases analysis process: Cases have been read and reread by 3 researchersthen examined for answers to RQs Matrices have been created for each case by RQ (Miles & Huberman, 1994) From matrices and cases themes have emerged at the institutional, the programmatic, and the personal level From themes preliminary claims have been developed Working on substantiating claims with individual cases and converging data

7. RQ#1 - What has been CPED’s impact on doctoral preparation? Claim 1: CPED has impacted institutional policies and practices related to doctoral study and these support the EdD as a professional degree Institutions turned to CPED because they were facing internal and external challenges: Dwindling applicants – colleges/departments losing revenue ABDs - low completion rates Frustration (administration, faculty, students) - EdDand/or PhD not meeting students’ needs (EdD lacked its own identity) Demand for school leaders Administratorsand faculty turned to CPED for answers and CPED provided: A common language/definition of the EdD as a professional degree Principles and design features based on students’ needs Networking opportunities - access to and an opportunity to engage in a national conversation Opportunities to see if ideas aligned with others Prestige – cachet Survey data converges: Faculty feel CPED offers a safe place to explore. As a group, and because they were redefining the EdD, CPED has been accepted by some institutions but has met with resistance from others.

8. Claim #2 - CPED has had an impact on programs in terms of: • Design • Cohorts • Dissertations • Committees • Patterns of engagement • Student/faculty roles • Research Survey data converges: Faculty try to utilize a field-based approach, try to have students apply what they learn to their practice, and seek new ways to evaluate students. Improvement is continuous and ongoing. But there are differences - CPED provided programmatic information in the form of principles and design features and depending on the program’s context and where it was in the design/implementation process, this information was used in different ways.

9. Claim #3 CPED has had an impact on faculty, students, and deans FACULTY CPED influenced their perceptions of the EdD Have a clearer understanding of the EdD CPED influenced their positions • Types of Positions filled • Policies governing their work environment, workload, and reward structures CPED gave faculty information and a network of support • Provided a national network and framework within which faculty learned and contributed • Conveningsseen as a place to network, receive new ideas, and get support to enact programmatic changes Survey data converges: Faculty reflected on their programs, built communities of practice and increased communication, collaboration, and dialogue CPED helped faculty understand the purpose of the EdD, the goals and needs of students in these programs, and the importance of using students’ knowledgeand opinions in making programmatic changes.

10. But there are challenges for faculty: • understanding change as a democratic process • faculty who were not on board with changes stopped working in programs • untenured faculty dedicated to working with CPED struggle to understand how this work fits into their tenure/reward process • practitioners recruited as faculty for their perspectives but not all feel a part Survey data converges: Workloads are a concern.

11. STUDENTS CPED influenced students’ • views of doctoral education in relation to their professional practices • views of the cohort experience, as communities of scholar practitioners Survey data converges: Students pursued a CPED-influenced EdD because of their professional, career related goals, personal reasons, and because of the degree itself (it met their needs in terms of flexibility and usefulness) DEANS • Gave them new ways to bargain and collaborate across their organization and others

12. How Changes Were Made At the institutional level changes were made considerate of and within the local context either by intention and/or necessity Support (including financial) from varied levels of administration was provided for redesign or development of programs When it came to change circumstances varied - no one timeline describes all Many Phase I institutions were committed to meeting the CPED intent to both distinguish the EdD from the PhD and to strengthen both degrees The development of new/reformed programs has benefitted students in multiple ways – programs are more attentive to students’ needs Phase I members joined CPED and learned from and contributed to the learning and change of Phase II members through attendance at and participation in CPED convenings

13. Interested • CPED will be making a call later this year for new members. • Visit their website • For general information go to: http://cpedinitiative.org/about • For an orientation visit: http://cpedinitiative.org/new-member-orientation • For manuscripts/books: http://cpedinitiative.org/emerging-literature • CPED has joined with SIG 168 at AERA you may connect there. • Readings can be found at: http://cpedinitiative.org/emerging-literature • Contact JillAPerry@cpedinitiative.org

14. Thank you http://belmaszambo.weebly.com/ Questions?