a proposal from DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY for the CARNEGIE NETWORK ON THE PROFESSIONAL PRATICE DOCTORATE

Lead Submitter (point of contact for the Proposal):

Rick McCown, Professor of Education
Department of Foundational and Leadership
School of Education
Canevin Hall 401
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh, PA 15282
Email:
mccown@duq.edu or mccown@castl.duq.edu
Tel: 412.396.5568
Fax: 412.396.1681

Administrative Support Team*:

Rick McCown, Lead (also Writing Team)
Jeff Miller, Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research (also Writing Team)
Rodney Hopson, Chair, Department of Foundations and Leadership
James Henderson, Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program for Educational Leaders (IDPEL) Program Director (also Writing Team)
Olga Welch, Dean

*The Administrative Support Team will be responsible for resource management for the Writing Team and the larger Design Team (see proposal section on Building an Intellectual Community, p.6).

Summary

The Duquesne University School of Education (SoE) seeks to collaborate with other CADREI institutions in the Carnegie Network on the Professional Practice Doctorate (CNPPD). There are four reasons why Duquesne's SoE would contribute to the CNPPD. First, it would bring a spiritual mission and identity to the CNPPD. Second, it has already begun work to "reclaim education's doctorates". Third, it has developed design-based research protocols for the PPD (and PhD) effort. Fourth, it has local and national partnerships that support scholarship
for schools and afford proofing sites for "research rotations". Duquesne proposes to use a proven process for reform and continuous improvement to build an intellectual community of stakeholders in the professional practice doctorate. Duquesne will begin CNPPD deliberations with a newly proposed PhD program and its extant educational leadership EdD program (thus engaging the "CID Ripple Effect") and expand to all of the doctoral programs in the SoE.

The Duquesne University School of Education (SoE) seeks to collaborate with other CADREI institutions in the Carnegie Network on the Professional Practice Doctorate (CNPPD).

The proposal begins with four reasons why Duquesne's SoE would contribute substantially to and learn significantly from participation in the CNPPD. After each of the four reasons is discussed, the questions raised in the RFP are addressed.

1. Duquesne's SoE would contribute to the CNPPD its spiritual mission, identity, and history.

The Congregation of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritans, founded Duquesne University. The motto of the University is "Spiritus est qui vivificat", "It is the Spirit who gives life". The University's profound concern for moral and spiritual values is reflected in its mission to "serve God by serving students". The identity of Duquesne's SoE echoes the University mission's call to service; our identity honors the SoE's history as a respected provider of educational leaders to schools, school districts, and other community endeavors; and our identity frames our commitment to scholarship. Thus, our identity as a School of Education bonds together three defining elements: the Spiritan tradition of caring; leadership; and scholarship for schools.

The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID) has, since it began in 2001, framed the doctorate as stewardship. Golde (2006), in her explication of the frame of stewardship states, "...the label steward is deliberately intended to convey a role that transcends a collection of accomplishments and skills. It has an ethical and moral dimension." (p.12). Our mission, our identity, and our history offer a uniquely informed perspective on stewardship to the membership of CNPPD. As we share deliberations of the PPD with other CADREI institutions, we expect to learn how mission shapes those deliberations. Through comparative analyses with network colleagues, we expect to test, and therefore, enrich the operationalization of our identity, especially our commitment to and execution of scholarship for schools.

2. Duquesne's SoE would contribute to the CNPPD what it is learning from its experience of the "CID Ripple Effect" (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006).

In the fall of 2005, discussions began regarding the design of a new PhD program inspired by Berliner's CID essay (2006) generally and, in particular, his proposal that doctoral students in educational psychology develop an understanding of educational policy (McCown & Hopson, 2006a). Initial design decisions regarding such a program: one that seeks to prepare stewards of education who can bridge the gap between research and policy were documented in technical reports (McCown & Hopson, 2006b; 2006c). Independent of the decision to develop the PhD program, discussions were held regarding the reform of our EdD program in educational leadership, the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program for Educational Leaders (IDPEL). Both efforts were officially proposed to the faculty at the 22 August 2006 retreat of the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership. As a function of the proposals a departmental "work group on the doctorate" was formed, and we began to experience the "CID Ripple Effect" as described by Shulman, et al. (2006).

Berliner (2003, 2006) argues that educational psychology is both a discipline and a profession and, thus educational researchers have an obligation to engage in policy debates. Richardson, in her CID essay (2006), argues similarly, but in terms of stewarding both the field of education and the enterprise of education. The Berliner and Richardson essays both address the "transformative capacity" inherent in stewardship (Golde, 2006) and might be called "Phase I" commissions. The effort to strengthen doctoral education in CADREI institutions through the formation of CNPPD might be called "Phase II". The challenge is to acknowledge the obligations for all doctoral students to both the discipline/field and the profession/enterprise while differentiating how those in PhD programs and those in PPD programs fulfill those obligations. The "CID Ripple Effect" suggests that this challenge is best met by considering simultaneously the design or reform of PhD programs and PPD programs. That is exactly what is happening in Duquesne's SoE and we are eager to share what we are learning from our experience and equally eager to learn from other CADREI institutions who will form the CNPPD. We anticipate collaborating on the comparative, cross-institutional study of the "CID Ripple-Effect" that seems an inevitable outcome of the CNPPD project.

3. Duquesne's SoE would contribute to the CNPPD its design-based research protocols.

The decision to design a new PhD program in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership included a commitment to study that design process (McCown & Hopson, 2006a). The commitment expanded immediately upon formation of the departmental work group on the doctorate in August. Working with colleagues in the Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning (CASTL), we are now testing design-based research protocols developed expressly to document the design decisions regarding our new PhD program as well as the redesign of our extant EdD program in educational leadership (McCown & Hopson, 2006c). The protocols document the key design decisions, but also the theoretical and empirical antecedents as well as the "proto-theoretical" (see Barab & Squire, 2004; Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003) and empirical outcomes of key design and redesign decisions (McCown & Hopson, 2006a,b,c; McCown, Moss, & Peterson, 2006).

"The CID is an action and research project..." (Golde, 2006, p.6). As we undertake the deliberations that will determine our actions regarding doctoral preparation of both researchers and practitioners who will steward education, we will document the antecedents and outcomes of our decisions. We expect that our documentation will inform proto-theories of stewardship. We expect to share research methods as well as research findings with other institutional members of CNPPD. And we expect also to compare the efficacy of our research methods with those employed by others, thus informing not only the consequential validity of our design and implementation decisions (Hoadley, 2004), but the utility and efficacy of our research methods in the context of the CNPPD enterprise.

4. Duquesne's SoE would contribute to the CNPPD its partnerships with stakeholders in the professional preparation doctorate.

Duquesne partners with educational practitioners in and out of schools. Our school partnerships-including PDS and affiliated arrangements-include urban districts such as the Pittsburgh Public Schools and McKeesport Area Schools, suburban districts such as the Quaker Valley Schools, rural districts such as the Armstrong School District, and various research and evaluation projects with individual schools in the City of Pittsburgh, in Allegheny County, and with Parochial Schools in and around the Pittsburgh area.

In addition to school and district partnerships, Duquesne partners with a variety of non-profit organizations that work with and for children, teachers, and administrators in local schools and communities, across the state and across the country in a variety of ways. Our partnerships with non-profits include ASSET (Achieving Student Success through Excellence in Teaching), an independent, nonprofit education reform initiative that has 48 member districts. ASSET is one of eight LASER (Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform) sites in partnership with the National Science Resources Center, an organization of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Academies of Science. Other local or regional partners are APEX (Agenda to Promote Educational Excellence), focused on secondary schools through individualized attention to a school's teaching and administrative staff; Mon Valley Consortium (MVEC) a Local Education Fund focused on ensuring a quality public education for every child in every community. MVEC is part of a network of Local Education Funds operating in 34 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. We have conducted evaluation and research projects for "A+ Schools", a community alliance for public education. We are involved with the Pittsburgh and State Offices of Communities in Schools (CIS), a national organization that has just received substantial funding from the Gates Foundation to expand their work with students in danger of dropping-out of school.

Other partnerships are being established through the Duquesne Superintendents Research Collaborative. Superintendents bring to the collaborative the problems that their students, teachers, and administrators face in their schools. The School of Education brings research and evaluation expertise to those problems. Teams are formed to engage in scholarship for schools.

Duquesne's SoE was recently selected by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) as one of four Centers for Teaching Excellence in the Commonwealth and, consequently, the SoE is now in partnership with the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards as well as PDE.

Duquesne's SoE has formed a partnership with the American Evaluation Association (AEA) to offer the Graduate Education Diversity Internship Program. The program recruits graduate students of color in order to extend their research capacities to evaluation. PhD and masters students from around the country have participated in the program, which has attracted funding from NSF, Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, and others.

Our partnerships with schools, districts, non-profits, government agencies, and professional organizations reflect the SoE's growing capacity to design and execute, in consultation with practicing educational leaders, scholarship for schools. More importantly within the context of the PPD, our partnerships provide opportunities to investigate learning venues for doctoral students and the feasibility of research rotations as suggested by Berliner (2006) and by Richardson (2006). With regard to research rotations, we envision an examination of partnerships across the CNPPD. The point of such an examination would be to test the viability of partnerships as research, evaluation, and policy analysis venues for the PPD as well as to gauge the contributions of doctoral students to educational practice. As doctoral students develop the capacities of stewardship, providing service to the partner organizations will be important in maintaining the research rotations.

Having offered our thoughts on why Duquesne's SoE would contribute to and benefit from collaboration with other CADREI institutions in the CNPPD, the remainder of the proposal focuses on the questions raised in the RFP.

Demographics and Distinctiveness of Doctoral Programs

Demographics. Duquesne's SoE currently operates 2 PhD programs (School Psychology and Counselor Education & Supervision) in the Department of Counseling, Psychology and Special Education. The SoE houses also 2 EdD programs. The ILEAD program (Instructional Leadership Excellence at Duquesne) awards an EdD and is housed in the Department of Instruction and Leadership. The other EdD program is IDPEL and leads to certification for superintendency in Pennsylvania. IDPEL, which is the initial focus of our reform efforts, is housed in the Department of Foundations and Leadership. Fall, 2006 data-across the 4 programs-show 252 doctoral students in the School and 55 faculty (the student number includes those who are in the dissertation stage and who have not yet exceeded the time statute).

Distinctiveness. The RFP asks, "What are some distinct or unique aspects of either faculty composition or student body that will enable the reviewers to "match" with other applicants?" Focusing on our educational leadership doctorate, there are several that might prove helpful to reviewers.

The faculty represents a synthesis of practice and research. A decade ago, a conscious decision was made to build an educational leadership faculty that comprised professional histories built in the scholarly practice of educational leadership and professional histories built within the academic traditions of research.

The students of the program reflect a diversity of backgrounds and experiences, but also a high level of accomplishment. In addition to securing superintendencies and assistant superintendencies in districts all over Pennsylvania graduates from the program have been recognized as Clark Seminarians (invited participants in the David L. Clark National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration sponsored by UCEA, AERA, and Corwin Press), Jackson Scholars (a program of UCEA), and Educational Administration Scholars (awarded by the American Association of School Administrators.

IDPEL underwent an external review in 2004 as part of Duquesne's application for selection to the University Council for Educational Administration. Dr. Fenwick English, Robert Wendell Eaves Sr. Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina, submitted the following as part of his "On-Site Visitation" report.

Let me briefly review some of the unique aspects of the IDPEL program that I believe other UCEA institutions will find interesting and potentially beneficial. I say this with some knowledge. Over the course of my higher education career, I have served as a tenured faculty member at Lehigh University; University of Cincinnati; University of Kentucky, Iowa State University and now the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, all of which are UCEA members.

The Quality Council. This is a unique concept to the Duquesne program. The group consists of the Program Director, faculty advisors, current students, graduates and field practitioners. ... Graduates, graduate students, practitioners and faculty recounted in my interviews with them the importance of the Quality Council. Specific changes were enumerated that were made to the Council. Recommended changes can be implemented immediately through the Program Director.

The "Talking Papers". IDPEL has essentially "scaffolded" the preparation of a dissertation prospectus. Each year doctoral students are expected to engage in a conversation with their advisor regarding a possible dissertation topic. At the end of the year this "talk" is reduced to paper. There should be three papers over the first three years of the program. I examined a set of "talking papers" for one particular student. The growth and progression of thought and sophistication was quite evident.

Cohort Building, Team Building, Mentoring, and Advising. I have worked in a cohort based doctoral program before. However, what I found quite different about the Duquesne approach was that it not only began with the cohort formation, but involved a systematic approach to team building. In addition, the cohort is sub-divided into smaller groups ... assigned to a faculty advisor. Each advisor meets at least yearly with each individual student, as well as conducting sessions with his/her student group. In addition, each student is assigned a mentor who is usually a practitioner in a Practicum experience that lasts over the entire three year period.

Recent Efforts to Reform or Renew Doctoral Education

As was mentioned earlier in the reasons section, the decision to reform our doctoral program in educational leadership (IDPEL) was shared officially with the department on 22 August 2006. The decision to reform the program grew from discussions among the Dean, Chair, and Program Director. The discussions represented IDPEL's continuing evolution, they were informed by data collected routinely since IDPEL's inception, by issues raised in and deliberated by IDPEL's Quality Council, and by faculty discussions outside the Quality Council (department meetings, for example). At the same time the reform of IPDEL was being discussed, groundwork on the new PhD program that responds to the Carnegie's efforts to reframe the PhD as stewardship and specifically to Berliner's CID essay. The coincidence of reform of an extant doctoral program for practitioners, on one hand, and the design of a new doctoral program for researchers, on the other, was the catalyst for the departmental "work group on the doctorate". To date, our discussions have focused primarily on admission requirements and procedures, although a number of other questions have been raised concerning the different purposes of the programs, i.e., the "CID Ripple Effect". As discussions proceed, we are looking carefully at assessment of candidates, but also how the data generated by those assessments will be used not only to inform admission decisions, but how the data will be entered into our Unit Assessment System and rendered into evidence that supports claims of program strength and weakness.

Additionally, our work group has begun to specify the questions that we need to consider as we reform our professional practice doctorate and design our new research doctorate. As we consulted resources from CFAT, UCEA, AASA, and others, we have not only generated questions, but also considered how we need to engage others in our reform and design efforts. More will be said in our proposed plan about how we intend to build an intellectual community that will engage seriously and in a sustained way the reform of IDPEL into a new professional practice doctorate.

Our discussions of questions and how to address those questions would inform our not only first-year activities in CNPPD, but, also establish a continuing forum that includes graduate students, alumni, faculty, practicing educational leaders, and policy makers. The work group includes a planning committee that has been meeting since the beginning of the semester to create a "Leadership Symposium". The current version of the Leadership Symposium Prospectus, shared with key UCEA colleagues in San Antonio, states:

Duquesne educational leadership faculty propose to convene educational leadership researchers and practitioners in order to (a.) address issues of common interest and concern; (b.) identify areas of practice that require additional research scrutiny; (c.) create and enhance collaborative networks of researchers and practitioners; (d.) establish Duquesne as a key nexus for scholarly educational leadership research and the preparation of excellent school leaders; and (e.) continuously improve Duquesne's IDPEL and Administration & Supervision M.S.Ed. Programs.

We are planning to convene the first symposium in May, 2008. Given the timeline provided in the RFP, the first symposium would be ideally timed to present and critique our "new conceptions and criteria" for IDPEL. We envision the symposium as an additional forum that will complement our Quality Council. Together, the Quality Council and the Leadership Symposium will contribute not only to our PPD efforts, but also to the continuous improvement IDPEL. Our planning for the symposium will, we expect, inform our review of all doctoral programs in Duquesne's SoE.

In addition to doctoral reform and design efforts in the Department of Foundations and Leadership, plans for program review of the other doctoral programs in the School will be undertaken through our Research Advisory Council (RAC), which includes representation from all SoE doctoral programs. The RAC is led by our Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research, a newly created position. More will be said about the Associate Dean's contribution to the CNPPD effort under the discussion of resources and administrative support. For now, the point is that the reform of the doctoral program in educational leadership (IDPEL), the design of the new PhD, and the design-based research that will document both efforts would be the initial focus of our CNPPD work. The Associate Dean and the RAC will then coordinate the expansion of reform efforts to the other doctoral programs in the SoE, which will provide a way of testing our CNPPD conceptions and criteria.

A Proposed Plan of Action

Our proposed plan of action includes four phases. We then present our plan for building the intellectual community that will engage the challenges of the activities.

Phases of Action. Our proposed plan of action comprises four phases that coincide with the timeline in the RFP. As mentioned earlier, our plan to reform IDPEL and to develop the new PhD includes design-based research protocols that will document antecedents and outcomes of all key design (or redesign) decisions. Therefore, activities in each phase of the proposed plan that follows will be documented as a matter of course.

Phase I focuses on understanding the questions that have arisen and that will arise as we undertake simultaneously to reform IDPEL and design the new PhD. Our understanding of the questions will come from two activities: discussion of the literature and the establishment of final assessments. Our discussion of the literature will include what has been learned from the CID (in the form of publications that have already been cited elsewhere in this proposal), related publications on the research enterprise in doctoral study (e.g., Boote & Biele, 2005; Eisenhart & DeHann, 2005; Hostetler, 2005), the documentation of efforts by other institutions available from the CID Gallery, and our own technical reports that have reviewed the literature and documented our efforts to date. Using our discussion of the literature as context, we will generate the final set of assessments for both IDPEL and the new PhD as suggested by Shulman, et al., (2006). The creation of final assessments not only situates our understanding of the questions, but also establishes the criteria that will differentiate PPD preparation from PhD preparation at Duquesne and inform program quality.

Phase II focuses on creating the structures and processes (the ‘new conceptions' in the RFP) for both IDPEL and the new PhD program. The structures and processes of the two programs will be guided by the final assessments generated in Phase I. The challenge in Phase II will be to ensure that our new conceptions facilitate the formation of all doctoral students as stewards and yet differentiate their stewardship depending upon their aspirations either to practice education or to research education. By keeping the challenge in mind during our deliberations, Phase II will provide an opportunity to test, using the language of design-based research, the ‘proto-theory' embraced by our final assessments. Phases I & II will be accomplished in the first year so that we will be prepared to share-by January, 2008-both our new conceptions and the criteria by which those conceptions will be judged in the next phase.

Phase III focuses on the demonstration of the new structures and processes in the IDPEL program. As the new structures and processes ‘come online', data will be collected, analyzed, and used in conjunction with the SoE's Unit Assessment System. Although the structures and processes of the new PhD will be developed by this time, their implementation must await internal and external approvals, including funding solutions. For this reason, we anticipate that Phase III will focus on testing the new structures and processes for IDPEL only during calendar year 2008. The focus on IDPEL in Phase III will help to ensure that our "proofing efforts" will be ready to share by January, 2009.

Phase IV focuses on using the data generated by our design-based research protocols to enact "design cycles" (Cobb et al., 2003). The design cycles will evaluate the new structures and processes of the IDPEL program. Reports on the design cycles will inform the RAC deliberations to ensure that our learning in the first three phases transfer to deliberations of the remaining doctoral programs in the SoE. The transfer of learning from IDPEL to our other doctoral programs will occur within the context of the RAC within the SoE as well as the University guidelines for graduate program review that are being developed by the Graduate Council. Our Associate Dean represents the SoE on the Graduate Council. Phase IV will occur during calendar year 2009 and yield reports of the design cycles that will have been completed by that time. We will continue to use the technical report mechanism of our Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning as a way of communicating the effects our design decisions both internally and externally. The technical reports will serve also as the basis for manuscripts that will be submitted for publication.

To summarize, the goals and activities for each phase follow:

Phase I Goal: To generate ‘final assessments' that define-theoretically and operationally-the purpose of IDPEL (our professional practice doctorate) and the new PhD program. We seek to accomplish the Phase I Goal by May, 2007.

Phase II Goal: To generate new structures and processes for both IDPEL and the new PhD program that will facilitate-and differentiate-the learning and formation required for students in each program. We seek to accomplish the Phase II Goal by December, 2007.

Phase III Goal: To test initially the efficacy and viability of the new structures and processes designed to facilitate learning and formation required of aspiring educational leaders in the IDPEL program. We seek to accomplish the Phase III Goal by December, 2008.

Phase IV Goal: To evaluate-though design cycles-the new structures and processes demonstrated in Phase III and to use the evaluation to inform the review and improvement of other programs in the School. We seek to accomplish the Phase IV Goal by December, 2009.

With the goals and activities of each phase in mind, we describe our plan for engaging colleagues and stakeholders in the deliberations we will undertake and, in doing so, portray the nature of the deliberations we anticipate.

Building an Intellectual Community. The CID rests on four assumptions and one of those assumptions is: "Ideas are powerful incentives for change." (Golde, 2006, p.8). The CID has been a source of ideas that have captured imaginations in Duquesne's SoE. A working group on the doctorate has been formed with a commitment to engage in design-based research in order to study and make public our learning, in a form that invites critical review and that allows others to build on our learning (Shulman, 1999). To date, our efforts are documented in an AERA paper presented last April and two technical reports from our Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning. Going forward, we will use the work we have done and the extant structures within the SoE to build an intellectual community that will sustain our efforts beyond the 3-5 years of the CNPPD project. Ideas are, indeed, powerful incentives for change. The CID has proven to be just that for Duquesne's SoE. And now the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has teamed with CADREI to afford yet another set of opportunities to engage a critical problem: the reclamation of education's doctorates (Shulman, et al., 2006). We plan to use that problem and the ideas that have emerged thus far to build an intellectual community.

When IDPEL was first developed back in the early 1990s, we employed a process that yielded views from a wide-ranging group of stakeholders, a group we called the "Design Team". The process was quite successful and we plan to use a similar process as we reform IDPEL.

A Design Team will be formed around the challenge of reclaiming education's doctorates. IDPEL has always had a ‘loyal following' owing to its inclusive practices of continuous improvement embodied primarily in its Quality Council. For that reason, and a few others, we anticipate inviting individuals to join the Design Team that will be charged to reform IDPEL. The Design Team will include IDPEL faculty, students, alumni who are practicing educational leaders, mentors-who are or were formerly educational leaders-as well as practicing educational leaders who serve in the schools, agencies and organizations with whom we partner. The Design Team will include also the Dean, the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research, faculty members who work in the other doctoral programs in the School of Education, as well as faculty who work in doctoral programs in other professional schools at Duquesne (e.g., Nursing, Pharmacy, and Law). Finally, it is our hope that the Design Team charged to reform IDPEL will include colleagues from other CADREI institutions who are part of the CNPPD.

The role of the Design Team is to advise a smaller work group embedded within the Design Team, what we have called a "Writing Team". The Writing Team will be responsible for generating proposals and communicating those proposals to the Design Team. The Writing Team will also be responsible for convening the Design Team, collecting their advice and reactions to proposals and reformulating proposals. The process worked very efficiently when IDPEL was initially designed 15 years ago. In the context of the CNPPD, we expect it to work even more effectively owing to the design-based research protocols that we have in place to assist the Writing Team. We anticipate a Writing Team comprising approximately 6 members. An Administrative Support Team will ensure that the Writing Team has the resources it will need to drive our action plan.

We envision a design process that is collegial and collaborative. By collegial, we mean argumentative. And we mean argumentative in the sense that arguments will be made and evaluated carefully. We envision design ideas that are stated as claims, claims that are justified by evidence, and evidence that is warranted (see Booth, Colomb, & Williams, 2003; McCown & Hopson, 2006c). We envision scholarly arguments with colleagues. By collaborative, we mean hearing views from the stakeholders represented on the Design Team and, hopefully, colleagues in the CNPPD. We are looking for colleagues with whom we can argue.

Administrative Support, Infrastructure, and Capacity for Participation in the CNPPD

The timing of the opportunity offered by the CF-CADREI initiative is propitious for Duquesne's SoE. The arrival of our new Dean in July of 2005 has engendered a fresh view of our identity as a School of Education and, consequently, attention to our infrastructure in order to enhance our capacity for scholarship and rigorous programs of doctoral study. As has been mentioned, a new Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research has been appointed to coordinate doctoral program review and development both within the School of Education and in conjunction with the university's Graduate Council. Both the Dean and the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research will be part of the CNPPD Administrative Support Team. They will be joined by the Chair of the Department of Foundations and Leadership, where IDPEL resides, the Program Director of IDPEL, and the veteran faculty member chosen by the Dean to serve as "Lead" on the CNPPD effort. (The "Lead" and the Department Chair authored the technical reports that have documented our design and reform efforts to date.)

Faculty development is funded for each faculty member within each department; most use their funding to travel to research conferences to present their work. Chairs also negotiate release time for productive scholars. Beyond departmental support, faculty who are presenting at multiple meetings are supported through funds in the Dean's Office. The Provost's Office also supports faculty development through a variety of internal grants and awards, including Presidential Writing Awards, which have allowed a substantial number of education faculty to receive release time.

The capacity to conduct the design-based research that will document both our reform of IDPEL and our design of the new PhD is demonstrated in the fact that technical reports have already been produced in advance of publication of findings. Beyond what has already been produced relevant to the CID, the prospective members of the Writing Team alone include those whose research has been funded by the likes of NSF and the Kellogg Foundation, those who sit on editorial boards such as the Educational Researcher, two editorships and two associate editorships, and authorships of a dozen books.

With the administrative support of our Dean and our Provost, Duquesne's SoE is able to participate significantly in CNPPD. As demonstrated by steps already taken, we are willing. The prospect of joining the CNPPD is exciting. We hope to become a member of the CNPPD, but whether we are invited to join the network or not, we are ready to reclaim education's doctorates and indeed to invest our money, our time, and our energy. Ideas are, indeed, powerful incentives.

References

Barab S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, (1), 1-14.

Berliner, D.C. (2003). Educational psychology as a policy science: Thoughts on the distinction between a discipline and a profession.
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue 26, April 15, 2003. Retrieved 18 July 2005, from www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/miscellaneousArticles/berli...

Berliner, D.C. (2006). Toward a future as rich as our past. In C. Golde & G. Walker (Eds.),
Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline - Carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boote, D.N. & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation.
Educational Researcher, 34, (6), 3-15.

Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.C., & Williams, J.M. (2003).
The craft of research (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.
Educational Researcher, 32, (4), 9-13.

Eisenhart, M. & DeHann, R. L. (2005). Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers.
Educational Researcher, 34, (4), 3-13.

Golde, C.M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. Golde & G. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline - Carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoadley, C.M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research.
Educational Psychologist, 39, (4), 203-212.

Hostetler, K. (2005). What is good education research? Educational Researcher, 34(4), 16-21.

McCown, R. & Hopson, R.K. (2006a, April). Preparing Future Teachers of Educational Psychology: Designing a Design Experiment. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

McCown, R. & Hopson, R.K. (2006b).
Learning Science, Evaluation, and Policy: Designing a CID-Inspired Ph.D. Program. CASTL Technical Report No. 3-06. Department of Foundations and Leadership, School of Education, Duquesne University. Available online at http://www.castl.duq.edu

McCown, R. & Hopson, R.K. (2006c).
Stewardship and Practice: The CID "Ripple Effect" at Duquesne University. CASTL Technical Report No. 3-07. Department of Foundations and Leadership, School of Education, Duquesne University. Available online at http://www.castl.duq.edu

McCown, R., Moss, C.M., & Peterson, S.E. (2006).
Evolution of an Educational Psychology Course: A Design-Based Account. CASTL Technical Report No. 4-06. Department of Foundations and Leadership, School of Education, Duquesne University. Available online at http://www.castl.duq.edu

Richardson, V. (2006). Stewards of a field, stewards of an enterprise: The doctorate in education. In C. Golde & G. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline - Carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L.S. (1999). Taking learning seriously.
Change, July/August, 11-17.

Shulman, L.S., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming education's doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.