Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership Redesign: Utilizing a Multicriteria Framework

Abstract

The development of educational leaders, who have a profound influence in shaping a culture of organizational learning; ethical community engagement; advocacy for diversity, equity and inclusion; and theory to practice solutions, is the aim of redesign efforts in one educational leadership (EDLE) program in the United States. These ideas, grounded in a multicriteria framework, are reified in the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate’s (CPED) Principles and Design Concepts and reinforced by the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) criteria. Yet, right from the beginning, faculty struggled with ideological differences and logistical challenges. Without the dean and department chair’s collaborative, visionary leadership and support of key faculty, efforts to redesign the program would have been stifled. We argue that the multicriteria framework, underscoring the importance of collaborative leadership, is the cornerstone of the education doctorate program redesign. The article’s contributions are intended to inform the planning, implementation, and evaluation of this program redesign and its impact.

Examining Educational Leadership Doctoral Students’ Self-Efficacy as Related to Their Role as a Scholarly Practitioner Researcher

“…Education leadership faculty strive to afford students the opportunity for proper support resources, including adequate writing support for students, effective faculty who are well-versed on doctoral level research and the necessary requirements for dissertation completion, and faculty support commitment of time for reflective feedback (LaFrance et al, 2020). The cultivation of a scholarly practitioner researcher serves as the focal point of developing an effective doctoral program, so implementing practices to enhance doctoral student self-efficacy and research skills is needed (Ezzani & Paufler, 2018). Providing doctoral students with a supportive research training environment can equip them with the resources necessary to produce stronger research and increase productivity.…”

An Emerging Framework for the EdD Activist

“…Peterson (2017) suggested a tight timeline with a clear mission, identification of future roles for doctoral students, and the use of CPED principles for guidance. Ezzani and Paufler (2018) advised allocating time for faculty collaboration and engagement in the change process. As institutions continue to strive to improve Ed.D.…”

Educational Leadership Doctoral Program Evaluation: Student Voice as the Litmus Test

“…Challenges in designing and implementing EdD programs are well documented in the literature (see, for example, Amrein-Beardsley et al, 2012; Ezzani & Paufler, 2018). Courses need to support research skill development among students in ways that prepare them to apply these skills in their educational settings (Bowers & Murakami-Ramalho, 2010; Firestone et al, 2019).…”

“…Faculty should mentor students and prepare them to think deeply, to apply theory to practice in conducting dissertation research, and to act ethically and with integrity to serve students and communities (McCarthy, 2015; Welton et al, 2014). However, tension among faculty can hamper innovative program design such as implementation of relevant research courses (Ezzani & Paufler, 2018; Firestone et al, 2019) or structures and practices in mentoring and coaching students (Rueda et al, 2013).…”

“…The program’s four core values and beliefs define the ability of a graduate to: (a) lead learning organizations (see UCEA Criteria 2, 3, 6, and 10) (Hipp & Huffman, 2007; Hord, 2009; Stoll & Louis, 2007); (b) engage ethically with the community (see UCEA Criteria 4 and 9) (Mullen, 2017; Rodela & Bertrand, 2018); (c) advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion (see UCEA Criteria 1, 7, and 8) (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2015; Sanzo, 2014); and (d) develop theory-to-practice solutions (see UCEA Criteria 5, 9, and 11) (Jean-Marie et al, 2009; Reed & Kensler, 2010; Tucker & Dexter, 2011). The program focused on social justice, since at the time, the University, College and Department emphasized the importance of considering social justice issues in education (Ezzani & Paufler, 2018). Thus, implementation included specific attention to the first CPED Principle, which “is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice” (CPED, 2019b, para.…”