Recently, I've come across comments or specific points of view, and I'm curious about the sources people use to acquire knowledge. Last week I presented my doctoral research at the AIS research symposium. Several individuals have expressed interest in my study and my viewpoint on doctoral research. This led me to reevaluate my perspective, which is primarily shaped by my personal experiences, the reading of research texts, and discussions with individuals who possess greater knowledge and experience.
PhD or EdD
Which option is more advantageous depends on your goals. Students who wish to apply research to address real-world educational challenges often choose an EdD, a professional doctorate that is more practical. Individuals who aspire to become educators, administrators, policymakers, or organizational leaders frequently choose this degree. EdD programs emphasise practical research applications to enhance educational systems, policies, and practices, making them ideal for those who want to influence schools, districts, or education-focused groups.
If you aspire to work in academia or research, where publishing and contributing to educational theory are significant, a PhD may be the most advantageous choice. While both pathways may be equally challenging and rewarding, each offers a unique approach to influencing education. I have spoken to friends in various countries who see both as different but equally valued. However, people here in Australia have said in passing, "You're only doing an EdD, not a PhD." I am curious if this viewpoint is evident in other countries.
To distinguish my EdD from a PhD, I wrote in my thesis: "A professional doctorate requires the dual role of practitioner and researcher. The intention of this professional doctorate is for me to develop a deeper understanding of research (Fox & Slade, 2014) and generate a “substantive piece of research in the field relevant” (Wildy et al., 2015, p. 768) for my professional practice as a coach and educator (Stringer, 2024).
Quantitative or Qualitative
Someone recently told me that he doesn't think qualitative data is sufficient and that he only values and reads research with quantitative data. This was the last thing I needed to hear before I presented my research.
Some people feel quantitative data is “better” than qualitative data because it seems more objective, precise, and straightforward to analyse. People often perceive quantitative data as more reliable and less biased, citing the solidity and trustworthiness of numbers and statistical methods. Additionally, the use of standardised measurements in quantitative research allows for study replication, a crucial aspect in science for validating results. The precision of numbers also simplifies the measurement and comparison of findings; when comparing average scores across groups, the structured data simplifies the comparison process. Because quantitative methods often rely on larger sample sizes, people feel more comfortable using these results to make broader conclusions about bigger populations. Numbers also help turn complex information into clear statistics, charts, and graphs, making it easier to spot trends and patterns at a glance. In my research, one principal stated, "The qualitative evidence within doesn't meet muster with the quantitative evidence required by external authorities."
However, qualitative data offers a unique depth and richness, capturing context, motives, feelings, and experiences—elements that quantitative data may overlook. This human side provides insights that reveal the “why” behind the numbers, bringing added meaning that pure statistics can’t fully capture. It was crucial to me to convey the perspectives and narratives of the coaches, principals, and early career educators. I am intrigued by the reasons why certain individuals do not believe that both equally contribute to educational research.
Scholar or Practitioner
I've heard some comments suggesting that it's impossible to excel in both areas. One individual expressed that I wasn't the 'academic' type, while another suggested that I should focus on my strengths and stay within my area of expertise. I'll let you sit with that comment. When I was provided an opportunity to develop my scholarly skills, I was advised that I should not consider the invitation to join the journal board, as I had not yet graduated. While I continue to engage with others and listen to their perspectives, these examples illustrate various perspectives that often influence decisions. It can be challenging to understand the culture when entering a new field; however, listening to too many people may possibly undermine your confidence.
While practitioner-researchers, scholar-practitioners, and pracademics all describe people who navigate both practical and intellectual worlds, they have different focuses. While the three terms reflect a blend of practical and academic pursuits, they each emphasise different aspects of that integration.
Practitioner-Researchers are individuals who not only work in their field but actively engage in research. They use data and evidence to inform their practice, aiming to improve outcomes. Their primary focus is on applying research methods to enhance practical effectiveness and find ways to implement research findings in real-world situations. The lead coaches in my study consistently pursued research to disseminate their expertise across their coaching staff, while enhancing their coaching practice.
Scholar-Practitioners highlight the dual roles of being a practitioner and a scholar. These individuals blend academic knowledge with hands-on experience, applying theoretical frameworks to solve practical problems. While they engage in research, they prioritise teaching, mentoring, and applying their scholarly insights to real-world challenges. Consultants with doctorates often apply theoretical knowledge, establishing evidence-based courses, which they facilitate in schools.
Pracademics engage in scholarly work while also applying their knowledge in practical settings. They may not emphasise the research aspect as strongly as the other two terms but they still contribute meaningfully to both fields. Their objective is frequently to provide a bridge between theory and practice, thereby, enhancing both with their perspectives. I have consistently prioritised bridging the divide, and this is where I see myself.
What conclusions have I drawn from pondering this blog post? Base your selections on your enthusiasm, expertise, and independent research. Exercise caution against external negative influence, and believe in yourself. You don't want to regret squandered opportunities.
Stay Curious,
Andrea
Burnard, P., Dragovic, T., Ottewell, K., & Lim, W. M. (2018). Voicing the professional doctorate and the researching professional's identity: Theorizing the EdD's uniqueness. London Review of Education,, 16(1), 40-55.
Campbell, P., Hollweck, T., & Netolicky, D. M. (2023). Grappling with pracademia in education: Forms, functions, and futures. In (pp. 65-83). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33746-8_6
Fox, A., & Slade, B. (2014). What impact can organisations expect from professional doctorates? Professional Development in Education, 40(4), 546-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.843579
Poultney, V. (2010). Challenging the PhD: Managing the alignment of an EdD programme alongside a traditional PhD pathway. Work Based Learning e-Journal, 1(1), 71-84.
Stringer, A. (2024). Coaching Early Career Teachers: Exploring the Implementation of Coaching in Schools for Professional Growth. University of New South Wales.]. University of New South Wales Library.
Wildy, H., Peden, S., & Chan, K. (2015). The rise of professional doctorates: Case studies of the Doctorate in Education in China, Iceland and Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 761-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842968
No comments:
Post a Comment