1.3 Doctoral program issues: accreditation of programs  (Page 5/10)

Over 10 years ago, Nelson and Coorough (1994) found few differences between the actual research conducted for EdD and PhD dissertations. This actually becomes one of the questions related to doctoral programs for those institutions that have an EdD program only which is equal in rigor and substance to the graduate programs that offer PhD’s and with dissertations that compare to PhD dissertations in educational administration around the country. In our recent review (Irby&Lunenburg, 2006) of research of educational administration/leadership dissertations nationally and internationally on ProQuest UMI (University Microfilms) over the past two years, there were 75 EdD dissertations and 45 PhD dissertations in educational leadership. EdD students actually conducted 12% quantitative studies, while PhD students conducted 4% quantitative studies. Additionally, all dissertations in both program types were virtually centered on similar themes of leadership and none involved experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Therefore, from a cursory investigation of 2004 and 2005 dissertations, it appears that nothing much has changed in the 10 years since the Nelson and Coorough analysis.

Many of the EdD programs, particularly in Texas, were approved based on the requirements for new doctoral programs in education from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. We surmise that some of those EdD programs are preparing students to not only continue in the PK-12 practice, but also to move into the professoriate in higher education—similar to the option the PhD afforded Bredeson (2006) and others. As Bredeson indicated the combined practitioner/researcher program offered alternative movement from the school administrator to the professoriate. We believe it is very difficult in today’s world of NCLB-driven research and accountability to not be a practitioner who also knows research and how to implement it. For example, even the Early Reading First programs must include exacting evaluation research. Additionally, if university professors, who need to be able to conduct experimental or quasi-experimental research in schools, come knocking at the door of the school, and the principal, the central office personnel, or the superintendent do not have an understanding of the research base, then a chaotic situation could erupt. It is not because the professor would be ruthless or unethical, rather, in schools, with children, with parents, with teachers—terrain must be traversed carefully with research. Trust must be built and knowledge and the language of research is a basis for trust.

Based on the debate in the field, we believe at this point, the question will remain—just because a program is a PhD, or just because a program is an EdD, does not make it eligible or ineligible for NCATE review. When a similar question about the accreditation of doctoral programs was posed to NCATE—the response by Art Wise, at a recent NCATE Conference in Arlington, VA, was that we should look at the preponderance of where our graduates are located—in positions of professor or in PK-12 administrative service. He intimated that would tell us what type program we had—the preparation of practitioners or the preparation of researchers. With that consideration, if a university has practitioner-oriented doctoral programs then it would come under review, so we call a question–In what ways can the NCATE standards be applied appropriately for doctoral programs that prepare students to serve in PK-12?