1.2 Reflections on the first 2 years of a doctoral program in  (Page 3/7)

Harris (2005) noted that the goal of a scholar practitioner program is transformative in nature, a notion which suggests that these graduate and doctoral programs are situated in studying actual leadership while consistently engaging in inquiry. This leads to changing understandings of leadership which are reflected in school improvements at all levels.

Role of EdD or PhD

Hart and Pounder (1999) observed that the re-examination of doctoral programs and the role of the traditional dissertation associated with the PhD, but also usually required for the EdD, has brought the discussion of PhD and EdD requirements to the forefront. Young (2006) has suggested that there should be different models for the practitioner EdD and the researcher PhD Milstein (2000) argued that often universities do not“create and conduct programs that differ depending on career goals”(p. 542). He suggested that one reason this may occur is that university faculty are unsure of the difference between the two degree programs. Traditionally, the PhD was for individuals who intended to become researchers or professors while EdD programs were primarily designed to“enable practitioners to expand their knowledge and ability to be transformational leaders”(Milstein, 2000, p. 542). However, Irby and Lunenburg (2006) noted that the differences between the two types of programs in reality are few. At the same time, Bredeson (2006) observed that the PhD prepared practitioners and researchers to bring theory and practice together. He also suggested that it should not be necessary for students to choose one over the other. Yet with the growing number of regional institutions granting doctoral degrees, usually the EdD, the lines have blurred. This is creating a disconnect between the PhD and the EdD, a situation which may still result in challenges for new doctoral programs.

Changing Cultural Climate

Alford, Gill, Marshall, Crocker and Spall (1999) addressed the changing dynamic of new doctoral programs on the university department itself. Traditionally in regional universities especially, the emphasis for faculty had been on service and teaching, with little expectation of scholarly writing or presentations at national meetings. However, with the new EdD program emphasizing a scholar-practitioner model, the emphasis has shifted to that of faculty having a record of scholarship and publications. This shift is required for faculty to teach in the doctoral program and to serve on dissertation committees.

Methodology

Reflective narrative methodology was selected for this study because of the need to articulate and interpret the experiences of implementing a new program. I was not involved with designing this new program and therefore did not participate in the 2 years of meetings during which the Lamar University College of Education designed the program to present to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). Instead, I was hired as a core faculty member to teach in the program just prior to the implementation of the program in the fall, 2004. I became director of this new EdD program in educational leadership at the end of the first semester’s implementation. In addition to my own reported observations in this paper as an insider researcher, I have utilized faculty meeting minutes, informal discussions with doctoral faculty, personal notes, focus group interviews with students in the program, and end-of year student evaluations to address the multiple realities expressed within the context of a new program (Stake, 1995).