Responsibilities and Information for Publication focusing on CPED
To maintain consistency regarding the CPED message, purpose, outcomes and findings in any publication that investigates and reports on work related to member institution involvement with the CPED consortium and the redesign of the professional practice doctorate (Ed.D.).
For a list of potential places to publish about CPED, click here.
Role of CPED member publications:
The history of confusion between the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. in Education is a result of the murky beginnings of doctoral preparation in education. This confusion has been perpetuated by a number of studies and publications that have concluded there is a lack of clear distinction between the two degrees and their purposes. While there have been a few calls to eliminate one degree or the other, the work around the degree confusion has mostly been an academic exercise. The CPED consortium has committed itself to actively engage in this debate by “working together to undertake a critical examination of the work conducted to date, as well as future efforts, and intend[s] to be the leader in the effort to redesign the doctorate in education” (Perry, 2011) with a result that will identify the distinct path of the professional preparation programs separate from research doctorates but equal in quality and impact. “In the history of the debate over the purpose and goals of the Ed.D., never has any scholar or academic group attempted to take action to reclaim the Ed.D. with the goal of making it the degree of choice for professional practice preparation in education” (Perry, 2011). CPED member publications have an important influence over ending this confusion and debate, and in restoring respect and quality to professional practice preparation at the doctoral level in education.
We ask that all publications related to CPED and its work adhere to the following responsibilities and information.
Authors from CPED member institutions have a responsibility to:
- Represent the CPED consortium, its history, its membership and its work properly and accurately;
- Acknowledge the CPED consortium’s role in your work;
- Support the purpose and goals of CPED in reclaiming the Ed.D. as the highest quality of professional preparation in education;
**Researchers on the CPED FIPSE study—see special publications sheet regarding formatting and authorship of papers related to the study.
The following information about the history of the Ed.D. and CPED may be used to assist in achieving the above publication responsibilities.
Historical information about the Ed.D.
A Chronology of Doctoral Education in Education (Perry, 2012)
Teachers College, J. Russell
First Ph.D. in Education
To develop a professional degree
Harvard Graduate School of Education, Henry Holmes
First Ed.D. in Education
To establish independence from School of Arts and Sciences
Survey of 6 institutions with Ed.D. & Ph.D. programs
Curriculum between the two very similar with small difference
Extended Monroe study to 13 institutions
Ed.D. served to “organize existing knowledge instead of discovering new truths” (p.1)
Attempts to establish independence and follow national trends
Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, etc all develop Ed.D.
The Ed.D. degree spread widely among schools of education but with little distinction of purpose either academically or institutionally.
Survey of characteristics of each degree—admissions, nature of exams & dissertation, classification of each degree
Determined the degrees are indistinguishable
Survey of abilities, career motivation, & job satisfaction in graduates at 91 institutions
Ph.D. “intended to be an academic-research degree”; Ed.D. “intended to be a practitioner professional degree” (p. 22). No difference in intelligence or ability
Follow up to Ludlow study to determine similarities and difference of degree holders
Despite increase in degrees awarded, most graduates went back to prior job
Study of his academic department at Univ. of Washington to determine similarities and differences between degrees—program requirements and job aspirations
Strong similarity in admission preparation and graduation requirements; However, Ph.D. considered to be scholarly while Ed.D. viewed as professional degree.
Dill & Morrison
Study of research requirements at 81 institutions
Found methods of inquiry similar
Clifford, G.J. & Guthrie, J.W.
Study examined Ed Schools in the US
Call for elimination of Ph.D. to fully professionalize education and make Ed.D. degree of choice
Response to Clifford & Guthrie utilizing historical data on both degrees
Flux in both suggest each are valid degrees
Osguthorpe & Wong
Study of trends in doctoral education
Found no trend in moving to offer on or other, Ed.D. more likely found at comprehensive institutions. Called for national discussion to distinguish
Examined dissertations, research taught, and utilization of each degree at 50 institutions
Dissertation differences consistent with purpose of each degree—Ph.D. creates knowledge; Ed.D. investigates practical issues; both taught qualitative and quantitative methods
Shulman, Golde, Bueschel & Garabedian
Response to work of CID; historical review of doctoral preparation
Called for reclaiming of the Ed.D. as the professional practice degree in education
Response to Shulman et al.
Six disincentives that will keep schools of Ed from distinguishing.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate
Consortium to rethink the Ed.D.
25 College and schools of education come together to redesign purpose and goals of Ed.D.. Outcomes include definition of Ed.D., working principles for programs, and characteristics of graduates
CPED Stats & Data
CPED = The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate
CPED Website: http://cpedinitiative.org (includes member publications)
CPED Headquarters: Duquesne University School of Education, 600 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh PA 15282
CPED Directors: Jill A. Perry & David I. Imig
Purpose of CPED:
The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) is a national effort aimed at strengthening the education doctorate, or Ed.D. Since 2007, it has engaged over 50 colleges and schools of education which have committed resources to work together to undertake a critical examination of the doctorate in education through dialog, experimentation, critical feedback and evaluation. The intent of the project is to collaboratively redesign the Ed.D. and to make it a stronger and more relevant degree for the advanced preparation of school practitioners and clinical faculty, academic leaders and professional staff for the nation’s schools and colleges and the learning organizations that support them.
Goals of CPED:
With the understanding that CPED is a “design experiment”, members agree:
- the development of a professional practice preparation program in education needs to be both purposeful as well as fluid. As the needs in PK-20 change, so should the preparation of those who will lead in the field;
- No one-size-fits-all model of preparation will meet the diverse needs throughout our country and our public education system.
- The measure of quality and success in professional practice preparation should be the measure of IMPACT on educational practice and problems.
Phase I 2007-2010
Funded by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Phase I membership
Arizona State University, California State Fresno, Duquesne University, Lynn University, Northern Illinois University, Penn State University, Rutgers University, The College of William & Mary, University of Central Florida, University of Colorado-Denver, University of Connecticut, University of Florida, University of Houston, University of Kansas, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, University of Maryland, University of Missouri-Columbia, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Oklahoma, University Southern California, University of Vermont, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Tech University, Washington State University
Phase II 2010-2013
Funded by Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE)
Phase II membership
New Members= 26
Baylor University, Boston College, Florida State University, Fordham University,Illinois State University, Indiana University, Kansas State University, North Carolina State University, North Dakota State University, NYU Steinhardt, Portland State University, Texas Southern University, Texas Tech University, University of Akron, University of Alabama, University of Alaska Anchorage, University of Arkansas, University of Dayton, University of Hawaii, University of Idaho, University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Mississippi, University of Missouri-St. Louis, University of Pittsburgh, University of San Francisco, Kent State University
New CSUs= 8
Long Beach, Fullerton, Pomona, San Diego, San Marcos, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Complete list of Phase II Members = 55
Arizona State University, Baylor University, Boston College, California State Polytechnic U – Pomona, California State University- Sacramento, California State University – Fresno, California State University – Fullerton, California State University - Long Beach, California State University - San Bernardino, California State University- San Marcos, Duquesne University, Florida State University, Fordham University, Illinois State University, Indiana University, Kansas State University, Kent State University, Lynn University, North Carolina State University,
North Dakota State University, Northern Illinois University, NYU Steinhardt, Portland State University, Rutgers University, San Diego State University, San Francisco State University, Texas Southern University, Texas Tech University, The College of William & Mary, University of Akron, University of Alabama, University of Alaska – Anchorage, University of Arkansas, University of Central Florida
University of Colorado -Denver, University of Connecticut, University of Dayton, University of Hawaii, University of Houston, University of Idaho, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, University of Maryland, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, University of Mississippi, University of Missouri - St. Louis, University of Missouri-Columbia, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Oklahoma, University of Pittsburgh, University of San Francisco, University of Vermont, University Southern California, Virginia Commonwealth University, Washington State University
CPED definition of the EdD & Working principles for program development (2009)
We, the members of CPED, believe
“The professional doctorate in education prepares educators for the application of appropriate and specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the profession.”
With this understanding, we have identified the following statements that will focus a research and development agendas to test, refine, and validate principles for the professional doctorate in education.
The Professional doctorate in education:
- Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice.
- Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities.
- Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships.
- Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions.
- Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry.
- Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice.
CPED definitions of design concepts (2010)
Scholarly Practitioner: Scholarly Practitioners blend practical wisdom with professional skills and knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of practice. They use practical research and applied theories as tools for change because they understand the importance of equity and social justice. They disseminate their work in multiple ways, and they have an obligation to resolve problems of practice by collaborating with key stakeholders, including the university, the educational institution, the community, and individuals.
Signature Pedagogy: Signature Pedagogy is the pervasive set of practices used to prepare scholarly practitioners for all aspects of their professional work: “to think, to perform, and to act with integrity” (Shulman, 2005, p.52). Signature pedagogy includes three dimensions, as articulated by Lee Shulman (2005):
- Teaching is deliberate, pervasive and persistent. It challenges assumptions, engages in action, and requires ongoing assessment and accountability.
- Teaching and learning are grounded in theory, research, and in problems of practice. It leads to habits of mind, hand, and heart that can and will be applied to authentic professional settings.
- Teaching helps students develop a critical and professional stance with a moral and ethical imperative for equity and social justice.
Inquiry as Practice: Inquiry as Practice is the process of posing significant questions that focus on complex problems of practice. By using various research, theories, and professional wisdom, scholarly practitioners design innovative solutions to address the problems of practice. At the center of Inquiry of Practice is the ability to use data to understand the effects of innovation. As such, Inquiry of Practice requires the ability to gather, organize, judge, aggregate, and analyze situations, literature, and data with a critical lens.
Laboratories of Practice: Laboratories of Practice are settings where theory and practice inform and enrich each other. They address complex problems of practice where ideas—formed by the intersection of theory, inquiry, and practice—can be implemented, measured, and analyzed for the impact made. Laboratories of Practice facilitate transformative and generative learning that is measured by the development of scholarly expertise and implementation of practice.
Dissertation in Practice: As the culminating experience that demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to solve problems of practice, the Dissertation in Practice exhibits the doctoral candidate’s ability “to think, to perform, and to act with integrity” (Shulman, 2005).
Perry, J.A. (2012). What does history reveal about the education doctorate? In Macintyre Latta, M.
& Wunder, S. (Eds). Placing Practitioner Knowledge at the Center of Teacher Education:
Rethinking the Policyand Practice of the Education Doctorate. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte
Perry, J.A. (2011) The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate: Phase II—a quest for change.
UCEA Review (52) 3.
Shulman, L.S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus: Boston.134(3).