Faculty members' responses to implementing re-envisioned EdD programs

Limitations of the education doctorate (EdD) and the emergence of professional practice doctorates have influenced those offering the EdD to re-envision, re-define, and reclaim the EdD as the degree of choice for the next generation of educational leaders. Colleges of education faculty members have...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inStudies in higher education (Dorchester-on-Thames) Vol. 42; no. 9; pp. 1624 - 1640
Main Authors Buss, Ray R., Zambo, Ron, Zambo, Debby, Perry, Jill A., Williams, Tiffany R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Abingdon Routledge 02.09.2017
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
Administrative Principles
change
College Faculty
CPED
Delivery Systems
Doctoral education
doctoral practices
Doctoral Programs
EdD
EdD programs
Education reform
Educational Change
Educational Innovation
Educational Objectives
faculty
Graduate studies
Innovations
Instructional Leadership
Leaders
Likert Scales
Online Surveys
Partnerships in Education
Perceptions
Program Design
Program Implementation
Qualitative Research
Regression (Statistics)
Schools of Education
Statistical Analysis
Teacher Attitudes
Teacher Surveys
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Limitations of the education doctorate (EdD) and the emergence of professional practice doctorates have influenced those offering the EdD to re-envision, re-define, and reclaim the EdD as the degree of choice for the next generation of educational leaders. Colleges of education faculty members have used the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate's (CPED) working principles to redesign EdD programs to make them more relevant to educational leaders. Faculty members' perceptions of program revisions, participation in CPED, implementation of redesign efforts, factors influencing revision, and so on were assessed using closed- and open-ended items in an online survey. Results indicated variables from Rogers' theory of diffusion and adoption of an innovation and CPED working principles were useful in understanding program redesign efforts, changes, implementation efforts, and outcomes. Moreover, quantitative and qualitative data were complementary. This work has implications for EdD program design, program leaders, faculty members, and students participating in such programs.
ISSN:0307-5079
1470-174X
DOI:10.1080/03075079.2015.1113951