Symbiotic Space: Exploring the Nexus of Rigor, Problems of Practice and Implementation

Abstract

Across the United States, doctoral programs in education are in deep reflection about their purpose, content, and expected outcomes for graduates. Many are in the throes of redesign and testing to better differentiate between two pathways to the doctorate-one for scholars preparing for research and academic roles and one for scholar-practitioners who wish to focus on problems of practice and implementation. This paper explores a major source of challenge among faculty as they engineer both research-oriented and practitioner-oriented degrees, and that is the interconnections among the constructs of rigor, problems of practice, and implementation. The paper examines the tension between the "gold standard" of random assignment studies and causal inferences, and the more recent frames of inquiry in which research is translated to practice through shared pathways that engage multiple stakeholders. Several questions are explored: Are "rigor" and "relevance" opposing constructs? What is rigor and should there be a new standard for scholars navigating within a symbiotic space -the arena in which they seek to impact highly complex social problems within authentic field-based settings? Is rigor subjective, or can it be measured? These questions are examined within the context of implementation science and through the lens of the lived experience of Education faculty who find themselves in a creative crucible as they navigate the redesign process.

Complexities of Practitioner Research: Seeking Hallmarks of Quality

“…Similarly, although discourse about appropriate research skills for education doctorate programs is quite prevalent (e.g. Buss, 2018;Hochbein & Perry, 2013;Kochhar-Bryant, 2017), these discussions are largely conceptual and lack empirical evidence. An exception here is Hochbein and Smeaton's (2018) study of the quantitative methods school leaders need to understand in order to apply research-based findings to their work improving schools.…”

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

“…Rigor must be redefined as it relates to practitioner-oriented programs. This is critical, Kochhar-Bryant (2017) contends, because it provides “an important opportunity for the development and longevity of a true professional practice degree (PPD) in education” (p. 9).…”

“…In some descriptions, rigor is used interchangeably or loosely coupled with the term quality . For example, “Several dimensions of quality and rigor can be defined as core elements of ‘laboratories of practice’…” (Kochhar-Bryant, 2017, p. 9). Kumar states, “The documentation of such impact as well as the systematic collection of data during an online program is invaluable to maintain program quality and to communicate the rigor and quality of a program to administrators and prospective students” (Kumar, 2014, p. 19–20).…”

“…Kochhar-Bryant (2017) connects rigor to EdD programs that work to address complex social problems as described above:The definition of “rigor” as a key standard for innovative PPD programs encompasses a set of transformative developmental skills that reach beyond the aims and capacities of most traditional research-oriented programs. These transformative skills enable scholars to harness their creativity to solve crucial and highly complex social problems.…”

“…University leaders and program directors, faculty, scholar-practitioners, 1 and alumni of EdD programs, consistently seek to demonstrate and defend the rigor of our programs. Few EdD program directors would acknowledge a lack of rigor knowing that the perception of rigorous programming by our stakeholders provides several benefits including (a) student and faculty applicant pools of higher quality and greater quantity, (b) community partnerships, (c) institutional resource support, and (d) satisfying accreditation agencies, associations, and consortiums (Kochhar-Bryant, 2017).…”