Defining Rigor in Justice-Oriented EdD Programs: Preparing Leaders to Disrupt and Transform Schools

Abstract

Faculty in practitioner-oriented EdD programs must continually defend the presence of rigor in their programs. The existence of rigor determines the preparedness of our educational leaders to disrupt and transform educational organizations to bring about equitable and socially just outcomes; however, perceptions of rigor by the larger community impact the overall success of these programs and their students. In this conceptual article, we discuss the ways in which the literature defines rigor within and beyond practitioner-oriented EdD programs. We integrate that the literature with the critical need for social justice leadership, and leadership preparation toward that end, to offer a conceptual framework for designing, assessing, improving, communicating, and defending the rigor of EdD programs centered upon social justice. We posit: EdD programs can claim to be rigorous and centered upon social justice if their faculty: (1) collectively envision and construct rigorous student learning outcomes (rigor as a challenge) connected to the learning of critical theory and the demonstration of critical praxis to improve the lives of marginalized/underserved students; and (2) use backward-design to develop and align curriculum and pedagogy with those outcomes, including scholarly learning experiences (rigor in research) and the elicitation of students’ critical thinking (rigor as complexity).

Consensus Is a Journey

“…However, cultivating scholarly practitioners without focusing on equity risks reinforcing the status quo (Weiler & Lomotey, 2021). By definition, "Practitioner researchers draw upon their identities and experiences to question established systems and create more equitable arrangements" (Simon et al, 2012, p. 9), yet EdD students and their mentors must balance institutional expectations for terminal degree-seekers with these guiding principles.…”

“…What next? This essay adopted a similar structure: we articulated the process through which we arrived at a shared understanding of EdD-activism, our ongoing efforts to implement that understanding in our everyday practice, and our clear-eyed view of our unfinished journey toward the social justice associated with high-quality EdD programs (Weiler & Lomotey, 2021).…”

Inquiry as Practice

“…Lastly, and most importantly, we were intentional in what content each redesigned seminar course would offer. Similar to the process of Weiler and Lomotey (2022), we utilized a "backward design to develop, align, and assess curriculum and pedagogy with those outcomes, including scholarly learning experiences (rigor in research) and the elicitation of students' critical thinking (rigor as complexity)" (p. 124). The intention was to develop the central themes for each newly redesigned research seminar course (Table 2).…”