May 24…On the Nature of a Discipline or Field of Study…Steward of What?
Have you ever thought about the potential for unintended
consequences in acquiring disciplinary expertise? While one might assume that you see the
rewards as worth the risks, this might not be the case, as some of you might be
in the program more for the post-credential opportunities than for a genuine
desire to become an “expert.” How does all of this relate to your situation and
also to the current state of Doctoral
Education in Education?
kurt here...sd'lksdk'fas;;sdkl
ReplyDeleteIn the article, Golde makes a reference to how being a researcher will never be at the center of the professional identities of many graduates with a Doctoral degree in Education. The truth is that many of us who hope to gain some professional advancement with a PhD. However, I think that another question to consider is, what is the purpose of a doctoral education? Let's assume that 50% of teachers who graduate with a doctoral degree go on to be principals, or superintendents of schools. They may not do very much researching after obtaining their degree. However, these individuals are now equipped with the skills needed to refer to literature, critically think about the issues before them, the significance of a low p-value, etc. While they are not actively contributing to expanding knowledge in terms of doing research, they are now critical consumers of such knowledge and may be better able to apply such research to practice. I guess the second question here is what qualifies someone as being an expert in the field? Is this only limited to the researcher who both creates and consumes knowledge, or can we extend this definition to include the professional who may be a voracious consumer of knowledge in one discipline and tried to apply it to practice?
ReplyDeleteCassandra
DeleteI agree with you. I struggle with the whole academy as it is. I am one that has a hard time buying into the research because of the lack of perspective and lack of diversity in the Academy, in Universities, and in research. I agree whole heartedly that there has to be a space for practitioners who want to further the field of practice and there has to be a space for those of us who come in with twenty plus years of educational experience, particularly because we not only owe a debt to other researchers, we owe it to future teachers who stand where many of us stood before. In 702 we talked about a community of practice and that community giving credibility to work, and about researchers having an audience where their work is translated in a way that is easily understandable and easily translated. If you think about it, it is an absolute gap in schools and universities. Just take a look at the community in which VCU is located.
Jessica
DeleteA concept that really jumped out at me was the difference in the Ed.D. and Ph.D. When I began my master's program, there was a continuation program - Ed.D, that we were really pushed to continue into. It was in no way the type of research program that I am currently in now. For it to be considered a doctoral program and me to see what people experienced in it, and then to know and understand what I am experiencing now, totally blows my mind.
I do ponder the ability to "switch gears" from practitioner to researcher, but having the varying levels of 'practitioners' experience in my background- special educator, general educator, and administrator, I think only enhances my ability to bridge the research to practice goal.
Jen G.
ReplyDeleteGoing through the process of earning a Ph.D. has already been a rewarding one. Deciding to pursue this degree full-time has been beneficial for being able to fully devote myself to understanding not only the field of education but also my specific track in the field of sport management. Beginning this journey, the foundations of education courses have been pleasant and possible unintended consequences of building my base knowledge contributing to the beginning of disciplinary expertise.
The current state of the Doctoral Education in Education specifically, the foundational courses taken in the first year of the program have really helped my understanding of what it takes to be a steward of the field. Along with the coursework in the school of education the seminars offered through the center of sport leadership have also greatly contributed to my knowledge of the understanding in being a scholar in the field. Richardson in his article stated, “Stewards have a respectful sense of the broader intellectual landscape, including paradigms and questions, and are able to speak about how the field can contribute important understanding to these larger questions”. As stewards, we must understand the history of the research but also contribute to creating new knowledge in the field.
In my current situation as a student, I think it is important to understand what it takes to become an expert scholar. This is the first important step in becoming one. Being able to recognize my own beliefs and understand the process of forming new knowledge can help begin the process of broader conceptual understanding. To be a true expert I think I must be able to understand both my beliefs and knowledge, separate the two, and be able to communicate my understanding and knowledge to others.
Shannon N.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, I see the current state of doctoral education in education as problematic for both students intending to continue as practitioners and those looking to careers in research. Education’s odd positioning as “an enterprise and a field of study” can create a tug of war between competing interests (or necessary skillsets) and sometimes students lose out when both sides meet in the middle. A practitioner-focused doctoral student might want more personnel prep courses that may not be of interest, or even beneficial, to a more research-focused student, who may be seeking out more methods classes. Golde notes the distinction between the Ed.D. and Ph.D. as an intended solution to this problem and highlights its current problems. I agree that there should be a clearer distinction between the two degrees and think that doing so may be beneficial to all students, specifically in narrowing focus and creating intended career paths.
Cassandra
DeleteI think about how we were told that research and scholarship is more valuable in a PhD program than service, which is counterintuitive to teachers and those who have worked in schools as a career. I also think that while you are a doctoral student, you should be allowed to research and work on products and projects that are meaningful to you. I feel like you are obligated to whatever is available, or open, or what your faculty advisor is interested in. This further creates the tug of war between competing interests in my opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGolde mentioned that the percentage of students pursuing doctoral degrees in education on a part-time basis was greater than in arts-and-sciences programs. This certainly seems to be true at VCU as well. While reading the article, I thought about the differences in experiences of part-time versus full-time doctoral students and how "expertise" likely looks differently for full vs part-time students. As a full-time student with a research assistantship, I am fully immersed in my classes, in research with faculty members, and in the expertise of SOE faculty and educational literature in general. My work identity is now doc student, not the violence prevention educator like it used to be. This identity shift has benefited me tremendously and I know my experiences have, in some ways, put me in closer contact to the traditional Ph.D. expertise. However - I have also moved further from my practitioner-oriented roots as I am not on the ground every day anymore. And no matter how much I try to stay up to date on what is going on in the field of college gender-based violence prevention, it is not the same as actually experiencing it. I fear that I am losing a level of expertise related to actually understanding what questions need answers and what information needs to be uncovered to actually improve things. I do not think that researchers can be experts without the input of practitioners, and that practitioners cannot be experts without input from researchers. And yet, the system seems set up to keep the two roles in separate boxes instead of rewarding shared and co-created expertise.
ReplyDeleteAshlee Lester
ReplyDeleteI often think about how the current state of doctoral education in education is not necessarily where I would like to see it, and how it runs the risk of changing my research direction. I strongly value community engaged research, and the dissemination of research to appropriate stakeholders. In 702 we learned about public intellectuals, and the role that they play in not only producing quality publications but also intentionally disseminating this research. However, wrapped up in our discussions was the underlying notion that this work necessitates copious amounts of additional work. Even throughout this year in the doctoral program I have recognized the divergence of my two goals: 1. to obtain a faculty position at a research university and 2. to conduct community engaged research that makes real impacts in the broader education sphere. In many ways I fear that the current state of doctoral scholarship will draw me away from this impactful work. However, I balance those fears by seeking opportunities that allow me to engage in both forms of work. For example, working on two MERC study teams allow me the opportunity to learn about the nuances of community engaged work. At the same time, working with the VCU researchers on these study teams allow me to engage in work with the potential of publication.
Despite these opportunities I still struggle to find a balance between these two goals. This is a struggle I’m sure will persist.
Cassandra
DeleteI agree with you Ashlee and I too signed up for MERC studies for similar reasons. It allows me to utilize the twenty years of expertise I already have, and build an arsenal of new skills and networks to hopefully help me matriculate through the program. When talking to faculty members, I often refer to my old life. I do not feel it is valued at this level and I am one that wants to return to the field after graduation. I am not 100% sold on being at a University.
I agree with Jennifer. While immersing yourself in the doctoral student role and appreciating the experience that comes with it, you lose the practitioner lens to an extent because you are not in the field. I, too, left my position as a full-time therapist to be a full time student. And while I love the experience and feel opportunity has presented itself because of my full-time status and ability to collaborate with professionals within the university, I also feel a small loss not working in the community. I am glad I chose the route I did, but there tends to be a unfair aspect to several consistent messages: "You need to be full time in order to get the most out of it"; "You get as much out of it as you put into it"; "You need university experience and publication to expect employment upon graduation"; "Go to as many conferences and community events as possible to network."
ReplyDeleteNot everyone has the ability to quit their job and not worry about finances, and there are only so many hours in the day to fit it all in. The expectations, I feel, can sound one-sided. Those who can use the learned ability to disseminate literature and statistical findings in practical application are equally as important as those who produce the research.
Melissa Cuba
ReplyDeleteGolde’s Doctoral Education in Education looks at the current state of doctoral education by providing some descriptive statistics and background of those entering the field. Richardson goes on to explain how doctoral students should look at both the field of study and the system that is being studied, and provides a framework to target diverse skills needed for scholarly inquiry. While they may disrupt the conversation of those entering doctoral education programs, I am more concerned with how the process of acquiring disciplinary expertise allows for self-reflection on positionality and acceptance of diverse perspectives and professional backgrounds. As a former high school ESOL teacher, I started my doctoral program because I believe the process will better equip me to improve outcomes for English learners by impacting tracking systems, programming, and policy. Similar to Richardson, I see the importance of dialectically engaging with groups and analyzing an area of study constructively, hence empowering those involved. Similar to others who have voiced concerns of feeling detached from the profession, I also felt a lack of purpose and utility as an educator advocate during my first semester. It wasn't until I connected with local groups that serve the immigrant community that I was able to refocus.
Virginia here:
ReplyDeleteI am in this program to gain the credential needed for a faculty position, and always assumed becoming an expert in a subject matter came with the territory. I always thought that having expertise on a topic would be pretty cool. However, I think the misconceptions Richardson brings up in her article are valid points. For example, she mentions delving into one research method (quant. or qual.) and learning some of the others. I think this knowledge is important for scholars to acquire, but I wonder how often it is true. Can you be an expert in a discipline and not be an expert in a research method? There is also the potential possibility for an expert to put up blinders from other ideas and research in related disciplines. We discussed on Monday how scholars should know the literature of their discipline, but should also spend time learning about disciplines outside of it in order to better understand their subject matter. I wonder how often that actually happens though. Finally, I think there needs to be a more definitive way to identify who is an expert. The thought of policymakers using their personal educational experience or catching the blurbs they want to hear from research to drive their decision-making makes me furious. It seems most practical and logical that an expert should be on the team to make those kind of decisions.
Josh here:
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question, but for me personally, I don’t feel like this question of a rift between practitioner and researcher relates to me since my work as a grant-based faculty member, which combines both of the lenses described in the texts. That isn’t to say that I haven’t processed certain feelings of guilt about abandoning students touched on in Richardson and Labaree--fears of lost credibility and anxiety about not having a “finger on the pulse” of the actual craft of classroom teaching. Thus far, though, I have more or less been able to align my work objectives with the skills and knowledge I’ve gained from my doctoral studies. However, I can certainly see how many Education Ph.D. programs may experience a general lack social validity with respect to prospective and current candidates. Given shifts in shifts in public policy, the demands not only of classroom teachers, but also of the education system as a whole, changes are also needed about the way the academic and empirical study of education is conducted. Bryk introduces an interesting improvement science framework for examining questions of more sustainable, and effective change within educational systems. Dean Fixsen and NIRN (National Implementation Research Network) offer similar approaches that draw from implementation science frameworks from other fields to more systematically align, resource, and execute improvement efforts.
Education students differ from their arts-and-sciences colleagues in three other important ways. First, a large number of students self-finance their educations or are funded by their employers. Education does not offer many teaching or research assistantships, nor would these low-paying positions be attractive to students. Instead (and this is the second way education programs differ from art-and-sciences doctorates), most doctoral students attend graduate school part-time, while continuing to work. In response, schools of education often schedule classes at night or on weekends. As a result, students face relatively long registered time-to-degree- an average of 8.3 years (which is, however, still shorter than the humanities).
DeleteThe last difference is that only one-third of the students starting a doctorate in education have an undergraduate degree in education… (Golde & Walker, 2006, 246).
I question some of Gold and Walker’s (2006) claims. I’d like to share a description of my own background to explain my perspective. I completed an A.B. in Visual Arts at University of Chicago in 2007. My first job out of the University was in a research lab. By 2008 I was a residential advisor at the Louisiana School for the Deaf and in summer of 2009 I completed the Teach Baton Rouge alternative teacher certification program and received a practitioner license (I completed the regular license in 2011). I worked in East Baton Rouge Parish School System for 3 years. I started an M.A.Ed. in gifted education at College of William & Mary in 2012, had completed my course work in 2015 and graduated in 2016. I had no plans after I graduated in 2007 but by 2009, while I was starting to work as a residential advisor, I decided I would try to become an art teacher. My progress has been excruciatingly slow. I needed to complete 3 years of teaching in LA to be eligible for reciprocity in other states. I did not like teaching science or math but did the best I could with little experience and somewhat limited content knowledge. There was no alternative certification program or demand for art teachers in the EBRPSS. I applied to College of William and Mary with the goal of adding on a gifted endorsement. I recently obtained a 5-year renewable licensee in VA in preK-12 Art, and Biology. I am trying to complete the gifted endorsement now and am hopeful it will be added soon. This summer I am working on an EMT certification as well. My goal is that with 3 degrees, 3 certification areas, 3 years of public school experience, and, hopefully some basic medical knowledge and experience to demonstrate familiarity with emergency situations, I will be a highly qualified art teacher. Subsequently I would like to complete national board certification. This may seem like more than the minimum requirements for this job type but competition is high. I have taken out more than $100,000 in student debt, will take on more, and am grateful for the support I am receiving now via my GA. It has been a long path and I expect it to become more difficult in the immediate future, but my hope is that it will pay off in the end with a stable job that helps others, that I enjoy, and am competent to perform. Once I have more experience as an art teacher I would like to continue to contribute to art education research. I hope to finish the Ph.D. relatively quickly. If I graduate at 33 and start working full time by the time I am 34 I will be close to the average age for a Ph.D. graduate. I think about the idea that If I had continued to study molecular biology or a related science like forestry or agriculture in theory I could have been done by 28, but I don’t think I would have been a particularly talented or happy biologist, so I am grateful to have found a way to proceed along my chosen path.