Theory and practice in doctoral dissertation research 2007 2017

Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) Summer 8-1-2019 Theory and Practice in Doctoral Dissertation Research, 2007-2017: A Content Analysis by Degree Type William Friel frielwil@shu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons Recommended Citation Friel, William, "Theory and Practice in Doctoral Dissertation Research, 2007-2017: A Content Analysis by Degree Type" (2019). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs).edu/dissertations/2688 Theory and Practice in Doctoral Dissertation Research, 2007–2017: A Content Analysis by Degree Type by William Friel Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education College of Education and Human Services Higher Education Leadership, Management and Policy Seton Hall University August 2019 © 2019 William Friel ii iii Abstract In response to the overwhelming presence of professional practice doctoral degrees in the early 2000s, universities offering Doctor of Education (EdD) and/or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees in higher education studies began to question the purpose and value of each degree. These universities asked: What is the value of academic research if it does not aim to improve the condition of what is being studied? This led to a theory-practice debate among departments offering the EdD and the PhD from the perspective of the goal of the dissertation research: Truth or improvement. To address this tension, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) was formed in 2007 with 22 founding members increasing to 100 by 2017 to examine the EdD critically.

To assess dissertation development over the 10-year period of CPED’s existence, through content analysis, this study examined 761 EdD and PhD dissertation abstracts in higher education studies from 2007 and 2017. The goals were to understand how the theory- practice tension is reflected in higher education dissertations and to assess the degree of differentiation between EdD and PhD dissertations. Boyer’s (1990) expanded definitions of scholarship served as the theoretical framework, and the coding form designed by Melendez (2002) captured a range of dissertation characteristics for analysis. Results indicated more applied research characteristics focusing on improvement for the EdD from 2007 to 2017.

In contrast, PhD dissertations in higher education studies exhibited more applied scholarship in 2007, but they had reverted to more traditional discovery- or truth-oriented research goals in 2017. These findings suggest greater differentiation between the EdD as application- and the PhD as theory-based over the 10-year period since the establishment of CPED. iv Dedication For Connor and Mae v Acknowledgments I would first like to acknowledge my dissertation committee members, Dr. John Melendez, Dr.

Robert Kelchen, and Dr. I specifically sought out each of these scholars when it was time to begin forming a dissertation committee, and this team supported my efforts in their own unique way as I hoped they would. First, my dissertation was in fact inspired by the work of committee member Dr. John Melendez, a 2002 Seton Hall University PhD graduate.

Reading his dissertation created the impetus to build upon his research while attempting to offer both truth and utility for higher education professionals. Melendez was gracious with his time and subject-matter expertise during this dissertation experience. Robert Kelchen has been a mainstay in my most recent progress not only toward degree completion, but also toward my overall understanding of the higher education enterprise. He is a natural at taking complex data and communicating it in simple terms, a rare quality that I certainly appreciated during our seminars together these past couple of years.

His guidance both in the classroom and during my dissertation experience is most appreciated. The last committee member I want to acknowledge is the first faculty member I met in my first semester as Seton Hall University doctoral student. He served as my academic advisor and graciously served as my dissertation mentor this past year. He is the scholar who knows the answers before the student knows the questions; thus, his patience is a virtue.

His sage guidance through my dissertation experience was reflected through timely and thought-provoking prods and critiques for improvement, for which I am grateful. Above all, Dr. Finkelstein believed in me from the very beginning of my Seton Hall graduate experience, and I am sincerely appreciative of his support. I hope my work has lived up to this committee’s expectations.

My academic journey at Seton Hall University could not have been completed without the love and support of my wife, Jackie. She encouraged in times of frustration and remained vi steadfast in her support through my dissertation defense. She graciously took on the responsibility of caring for our young son when I was on campus or in dissertation research and writing mode, which was more often than I care to admit. Thank you, my love.

I could not have completed this journey without you. vii Table of Contents CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. 1 Boyer’s Scholarship Model. 5 Scholarship of Discovery.

5 Scholarship of Integration. 6 Scholarship of Application. 6 Scholarship of Teaching. 6 EdD Versus PhD.

7 Statement of Purpose. 8 Significance of the Study. 9 Organization of the Study. 10 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

12 University of Denver. 16 University of Virginia. 17 Human Capital Theory. 18 Educational Credentialism Theory.

18 Neo-Institutional Theory. 19 The Purpose of Doctoral Dissertation Research. 22 Research on Higher Education Studies Dissertations. 26 Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Debby Zambo, David W.

Foulger, Kate Olson, and Kathleen S. Walker and Shannon Haley-Mize. 26 Karen Osterman, Gail Furman, and Kathleen Sernak. 27 Vera Wei Ma, Nancy Fichtman Dana, Alyson Adams, and Brianna L.

27 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Literature. 28 Summary of the Literature Review. 29 viii CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY. 32 Method of Analysis.

35 Independent and Dependent Variables. 35 Presence of a Theoretical Framework. 36 Origin of the Problem. 37 Primary Scholarship Domain.

38 Operational Criteria for Coding of Variables. 39 Validity and Reliability of Coding. 40 Limitations of the Study. 41 CHAPTER IV RESULTS.

47 Number of Dissertations in Higher Education Studies Completed in 2007 and 2017. 47 Number of Dissertations in Higher Education Studies Guided by an Existing Theory in 2007 and 2017. 49 The Dissertation Problem Based on Theory or Practice in 2007 and 2017. 50 Primary Research Methodologies in 2007 and 2017.

52 Distribution of Boyer’s Scholarship Domains Among 2007 and 2017 Dissertations. 54 Number of Dissertations in Higher Education Studies Completed in 2007 and 2017. 57 Number of Dissertations in Higher Education Studies Guided by an Existing Theory in 2007 and 2017. 60 The Dissertation Problem Based on Theory or Practice in 2007 and 2017.

63 Primary Research Methodologies in 2007 and 2017. 66 Distribution of Boyer’s Scholarship Domains Among 2007 and 2017 Dissertations. 73 Purpose of the Study. 78 ix Implications for Practice.

79 Suggestions for Further Research. Decision Rules for Coding .139 x List of Tables 1. CPED and ASHE Institutional Member Profile, 2007 and 2017 (N = 48). Carnegie Research Classification of ASHE Members, 2007 and 2017 (N = 48).

Degree Distribution in Higher Education Studies by Percentage, 2007 and 2017 (N = 48). Percentage of the Presence of a Theoretical Framework by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Origin of the Problem by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Type of Research Methodology by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017.

Percentage of Primary Scholarship Domain by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017. Degree Distribution in Higher Education Studies Among CPED Member Institutions by Percentage, 2007 and 2017. Degree Distribution in Higher Education Studies Among Non-CPED Member Institutions by Percentage, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Presence of a Theoretical Framework by Degree Type in Dissertations from CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017.

Percentage of the Presence of a Theoretical Framework by Degree Type in Dissertations from Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Origin of the Problem by Degree Type Among Dissertations From CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Origin of the Problem by Degree Type Among Dissertations From Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Type of Research Methodology by Degree Type Among Dissertations From CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017.

Percentage of Type of Research Methodology by Degree Type Among Dissertations From Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Primary Scholarship Domain by Degree Type Among Dissertations From CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Primary Scholarship Domain by Degree Type Among Dissertations From Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Origin of the Dissertation Problem, 1977, 1997, 2007, and 2017.

75 xii List of Figures 1. CPED and ASHE Institutional Member Profile, 2007 and 2017 (N = 48). Carnegie Research Classification of ASHE Members, 2007 and 2017 (N = 48). Degree Distribution in Higher Education Studies by Percentage, 2007 and 2017 (N = 48).

Percentage of the Presence of a Theoretical Framework by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Origin of the Problem by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Type of Research Methodology by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Primary Scholarship Domain by Degree Type, 2007 and 2017.

Degree Distribution in Higher Education Studies Among CPED Member Institutions by Percentage, 2007 and 2017. Degree Distribution in Higher Education Studies Among Non-CPED Member Institutions by Percentage, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Presence of a Theoretical Framework by Degree Type in Dissertations from CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Presence of a Theoretical Framework by Degree Type in Dissertations from Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017.

Percentage of the Origin of the Problem by Degree Type Among Dissertations From CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Origin of the Problem by Degree Type Among Dissertations From Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Type of Research Methodology by Degree Type Among Dissertations From CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Type of Research Methodology by Degree Type Among Dissertations From Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017.

Percentage of Primary Scholarship Domain by Degree Type Among Dissertations From CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of Primary Scholarship Domain by Degree Type Among Dissertations From Non-CPED Member Institutions, 2007 and 2017. Percentage of the Origin of the Dissertation Problem, 1977, 1997, 2007, and 2017. 76 xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Over the past 20 years, a marked increase in literature and rhetoric was evident about the disparity between professionally oriented higher education doctoral students and the academically oriented higher education doctoral programs in which they are enrolled.

Higher education scholars and practitioners alike have called for widespread reform related to meeting the more practical needs of the practitioner-scholar in higher education doctoral studies. This practice-research tension is reflected in the crafting of higher education doctoral programs to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Golde, 2006). It has become imperative that higher education research strike a balance between addressing immediate problems in higher education and constructing a body of work that has long-term implications for the field (Perna, 2016). As higher education doctoral programs continue to review, analyze, and implement incremental curricular reform in response to these calls for change, arguably the most important feature of the higher education doctoral journey has remained resistant to reform—the dissertation.

Within the field of higher education studies, it has been increasingly accepted that a research gap exists between theory and practice.