Action Research in EdD Programs in Educational Leadership

Abstract

This exploratory study gathered information about the use of action research within doctor of education programs in educational leadership and explored faculty understanding of and perspectives on action research. Survey data established that action research is used infrequently to meet dissertation requirements. Contributing factors include lack of clarity regarding the nature of action research (AR) and concerns about methodological legitimacy. Because the development of collaborative leadership skills and the pursuit of social justice objectives are inherent to the action research process, these results call for additional discussion regarding this distinctive methodology and its role in the preparation of educational leaders at the doctoral level.

Action Research in Doctoral Coursework: Perceptions of Independent Research Experiences

“…Klocker (2012) discussed the process of completing a participatory AR dissertation and noted that "finding an appropriate supervisor is a major issue for all graduate students" (p. 156). This aligns with survey research conducted by Osterman, Furman, and Sernak (2014) who found that only 52% of doctoral chairs at institutions offering EdD programs in Educational Leadership or Administration had ever chaired an AR dissertation although a significantly larger percentage felt that AR supported participation, collaboration and social justice goals for school leaders. With limited resources and training opportunities for doctoral students in AR methods, it becomes necessary to align programs with trends seen in current dissertation work.…”

“…The role of action research in doctoral program coursework provides students with real-world opportunities to conduct academic research on issues plaguing their specific field, increasing "students' confidence in becoming researchers in their own right" (Hendricks, 2009, p. 12). Despite the literature citing positive benefits of participation, Osterman, Furman, and Sernak (2014) determined that AR is not currently a common practice used to satisfy dissertation program requirements. Brown, Dressler, Eaton, and Jacobsen (2015) concluded that "just as action research enhances graduate students' teaching and research, action re-search can be an approach that enhances instructors' pedagogy and scholarship" (p. 74).…”

“…A typical argument against the use of AR is that the methodology is inferior to traditional quantitative dissertations; other arguments state that the methodology can be difficult for doctoral students "either because of the politics of their position or because of the demands of the methodology" (Osterman, Furman, & Sernak, 2014, p. 97). Osterman, Furman, & Sernak (2014) go on to explain that students conducting research within their own context might battle additional resistance from administration or supervisors who are unwilling to have their context examined. The politics of conducting an action research dissertation within a students' work environment can add additional challenges to the dissertation process.…”

Systems-Focused Equity Leadership Learning: Shifting Practice Through Practice

“…More recent research on Ed.D. programs highlights internships as well as applications of learning in real-world settings through action research and other projects (Auerbach, 2011; Barker & Ayala, 2016; Buss & Avery, 2017; Osterman et al, 2014; Watson & Mochizuki, 2017). For example, Cosner et al (2018) found that field-based application-oriented projects in a dual principal preparation and Ed.D.…”

Conceptualizing Practitioner-Scholarship for Educational Leadership Research and Practice

“…This methodological approach enables practitioners to “foster critical reflection and action in the context of professional practice” (p. 5). Many of the terms associated with these approaches to research have become inextricably linked to action research (Osterman, Furman, & Sernak, 2014), a methodological narrowing that is perhaps too limiting, as it excludes other potentially productive methodological and conceptual possibilities.…”