Explore the vast range of titles available.

This essay highlights the value of an applied methodology course in program evaluation in the education doctorate program by exploring several benefits that it offers to enhance a doctoral student’s ability to solve complex problems of practice. Observations and recommendations are made based on designing and teaching two cohorts of EdD students in a program evaluation course. Improvement science is referenced throughout to highlight how the two may complement each other, not to place a higher value on one or the other. How and where program evaluation and improvement science appear to have possible areas of overlap, along with a brief overview of the major differences, are discussed. The author maintains that both program evaluation and improvement constitute a tremendous capacity to provide the ideas, tools, and approaches to prepare students to be the change agents they hope to aspire to be in their present and future roles as scholarly practitioners.

In this second installment of the themed issue on redesigning research methods coursework for CPED-inspired EdD programs, EdD faculty and students share empirical research, conceptual insights, and practitioner-oriented coursework and activities to contribute to the conversation on research methods training and skill development for scholar-practitioners.

Background This study aimed to map and summarise the state of the research regarding doctoral programs in nursing, as well as the issues debated in the context of nursing doctoral education. A Scoping Review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension scoping reviews statement (PRISMA-ScR) was conducted. Three electronic bibliographic data bases were searched: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, Medline (on EBSCO Host) and SCOPUS to identify empirical studies published between January 2009 and December 2019. The review process was based on framework identified by Arksey and O’Malley and further revised by Levac and colleagues. Analysis was performed with the use of the Donabedian framework regarding the structure of the doctorate programmes, the process, and the outcomes. Results The review included 41 articles, mostly originating in the United States ( n =26) and Europe ( n =8), mainly by collecting the perceptions of students and faculty members with descriptive studies. The following issues were investigated at the (a) structure level: Prerequisite for doctoral candidates , Qualifications of faculty members , Mission of doctoral programs ; (b) process level: Doctoral programs contents, Doctoral programs resources and quality, Mentoring and supervision, Doing doctorate abroad ; and (c) outcome level: Academic performance outcomes in doctoral programs, Doctoral graduates’ competences, Doctoral students/graduates’ satisfaction, Doctoral graduates’ challenges. Conclusions Doctoral programs have mainly been investigated to date with descriptive studies, suggesting more robust research investigating the effectiveness of strategies to prepare future scientists in the nursing discipline. Doctorates are different across countries, and there is no visible cooperation of scholars internationally; their structure and processes have been reported to be stable over the years, thus not following the research development in nursing, discipline and practice expectations. Moreover, no clear framework of outcomes in the short- and long-term have been established to date to measure the quality and effectiveness of doctorate education. National and global strategies might establish common structure, process and outcome frameworks, as well as promote robust studies that are capable of assessing the effectiveness of this field of education.

In this article we present an overview of a recently launched cohort-based Ed.D. program that prepares participants to conduct group dissertations. The program, a hybrid model of online learning activities and monthly face-to-face class sessions, is delivered through a partnership between a university’s college of education and the administrative office of a statewide system of community and technical colleges. Discussion begins with a review of the pedagogical rationale that informed program design and instructional practices, followed by a presentation of key program elements tracing the development of the cohort through an innovative, collaborative dissertation process still in progress.

Northeastern University’s EdD faculty faced unique challenges during the pandemic and racial reckoning following George Floyd’s murder. During this period, however, we found opportunities to adapt and improve our program. We prioritized compassion and connection. We made significant strides in curriculum development through design and implementation of three new concentrations. We focused all program elements on how social justice works in a variety of educational settings. We altered our approach to data collection and doctoral supervision. In so doing, we were able to maintain consistency for our students and develop a closer bond with our faculty colleagues.

The purpose of the study was to examine education doctoral student perspectives on their experience of enrolling in a fully online EdD program during a global pandemic and achieving career advancement during their enrollment through the lens of transformative learning theory. A qualitative study of 12 participants was conducted to examine in what ways the pandemic influenced their decision to enroll in an online doctorate program, in ways their thinking progressed throughout the program, and the factors affecting their decision to take on a career advancement while enrolled in the program. The findings indicate that there were elements of transformative learning that occurred for many of the participants. Faculty teaching in doctorate programs are encouraged to explore how they might foster transformative learning experiences for their students.

The education doctorate program fills an essential niche that allows practitioners to earn a doctorate and make a difference in educational practice and policy. However, critics claim EdD programs are failing to effectively prepare students. There has been a push for the reinvention of the EdD which includes improving EdD student confidence in their ability to undertake research. This calls for a redesign of research methods courses and purposefully grounding them in adult learning theory. The framework of transformative learning can foster higher-order learning by including key components such as critical reflection, collaborative dialogue, and awareness of context. This article shares a transformative learning model used to redevelop an EdD research methods course that emphasised self-reflective tasks such as identity memos, research design maps, and cognitive interviews. This learner-centred, constructivist approach resulted in positive learning outcomes including increased student confidence and enhanced practical knowledge and research skills.

I am an example of a transformed higher education administrator. In this essay, I describe how my journey to an education doctorate impacts my work as a scholar-practitioner in higher education. The CANDEL program challenged what I thought I understood about the status quo in higher education with respect to race, socio-economic impacts, meritocracy, grit, and assumptions we make about students. The coursework and cohort model confronted my own biases and were foundational to my dissertation questions. Conducting my research on university leadership at my home institution gave me an opportunity to develop a shared equity leadership approach to solving complex problems. Equity-focused work in higher education is a long-game, ongoing, and essential to addressing the challenges facing our institutions. Without this, inequities experienced by faculty, staff and students will persist. The education doctorate and its scholar-practitioners are important drivers in shifting the American educational landscape.

This article introduces the special issue on the evolution of the dissertation in practice, presenting a brief overview of the history of the EdD cand the concerns raised over professional doctorates, that triggered efforts to redefine the education doctorate through the leading role of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate.

This paper focuses on the Education Systems Improvement EdD program (EDSI) at the University of South Carolina and how the program faculty utilize the signature methodology of the program, improvement science, towards its improvement efforts towards enhancing its equity focus, especially post-pandemic. We utilize the framework of improvement science including tools such as gap analysis, program evaluations, empathy interviews, and focus groups to better understand the problem and best design the appropriate improvement efforts. Broadly, three program improvement foci were identified for the improvement arc: program purpose, curricular design, and continuous improvement processes. Findings from this study provide details about program improvement efforts in improving an EdD program’s equity focus post-pandemic, in a particular setting. In the spirit of continuous improvement, this work is never done. It will be forwarded by follow-up improvement endeavors and activities.