Rethinking Research Approaches in the Educational Leadership Ed.D.: Introducing Interpretative Description as a Viable Solution

• In Event: Filling the Theory-to-Practice Gap: Teaching Educational Research to Teachers in Professional Graduate Programs

Abstract

Education has been described as complex in nature (Jacobson, Levin, & Kapur, 2019), fluid in action (Mintrop, 2016), and containing fuzzy borders as a field embedded in social science research (Delamont, 1997). There is a growing realization that traditional research approaches such as singular statistical quantitative approaches or narrow qualitative approaches (e.g., phenomenology, ethnography) do not address the complex problems embedded in educators’ professional practice. Some scholars suggest researching education requires a combination of traditional methodologies (Capraro & Thompson, 2008; Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton, 2006). Others have proposed more innovative approaches (e.g., design-based research, agent-based models) that move beyond prescribed mixed-methods designs incorporating traditional approaches in somewhat unique ways (Jacobson et al., 2019; The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).

Parallel to any discussion of the evolving nature of educational research is an ongoing critical examination of the education doctorate (Ed.D.). As a professional degree situated in a vibrant profession, scholars and practitioners alike continue to call for transformation that distinguishes the Ed.D. from Ph.D. (Archibald, 2008; Perry, 2012; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006). In response to perceptions that “the problems of education doctorates are both chronic and crippling” (Shulman et al., 2006, p. 25), scholars have brought various reform initiatives to the Ed.D. Perry (2012) suggests that the traditional Ed.D., which many consider “Ph.D. lite,” does not meet the needs of the practicing scholar; thus, Perry questions the practicality of the degree as it exists under the old paradigm of doctoral-level research approaches. Even with these realizations and the call to redesign the Ed.D., there has been little change (Buttram & Doolittle, 2015).

The Ed.D. graduate should be a professional educator with the ability to develop ways of thinking and outlooks that allow them more effectively to confront the complex problems they face as educational leaders. This paper argues for interpretive description (Thorne, 2016) as a powerful and meaningful way for Ed.D. candidates to learn how to engage pragmatically in solving complex problems through rigorous research methods. Interpretive description comes from the field of nursing – a professional arena akin to education, where problems confronting practitioners are complex and embedded in the human condition. Thorne (2016) proposes, “being able to think through the relationship between the problem, a question, a method, and the eventual research product is an essential skill in becoming proficient in research” (p. 45). Being proficient in research is important for Ed.D. candidates; however, the same relationship Thorne proposes is also essential for the Ed.D. graduate to understand and use as an effective educational leader – a scholar-practitioner.

Interpretive description is primarily considered a qualitative research approach; however, as Thorne (2016) explains, “we don’t want to teach people to be grounded theorists or phenomenologists; rather we must teach them to apply the methods that are appropriate to the answering of real and meaningful research questions within their fields” (p. 48). This paper will make the case and address the challenges for using the framework and philosophy of interpretive description for a more pragmatic approach to research in the Ed.D.

Author

• Ed Bengtson, University of Arkansas