Pedagogical questions for the Professional Doctorate in Education: understanding the epistemologica - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Pedagogical questions for the Professional Doctorate in Education: understanding the epistemological shift as part of the EdD doctoral journey

Julie

Shaughnessy, University of Roehampton

and

Nick Pratt, Plymouth University Slide2

BackgroundOur

shared experience

Assumptions about ease of transfer

and

transformation

Challenges for the professional – navigating spaces (workplace and university)

How is criticality developed through the doctoral process? Slide3

Context

Supervisory

needs of professional doctoral

students do

differ from those of traditional route PhD students (

Poultney

,

2008)

Wellington and Sikes (2006) and

Wellington

(2012) identify diversity of doctoral provision and that the experiences of students cannot be simplistically divided into traditional PhD routes and professional doctorate routes.

Neumann (2005)

identifies

that the supposed differences between professional doctorates and more traditional PhD routes are often not as great in practice as might be

supposed.Slide4

Methodology

A pilot

study:

6

supervisors, 3 from each

institution.

Semi-structured

interviews:

Account of / Account for

Three areas of interest:

Students’ relationship

with professional

practice;

including how supervisors support

critique

of this practice.

The role of

theory/theorising.

Students’ shifts in understanding.

Inductive analysis

: partial transcription

; discussion between us

; constructing themes.Slide5

Overview

Workplace

University

Common-sense discourse

Critical, social-constructionist discourse

Evaluative research frame

Explanatory research frame

Student challenges:

Epistemological

and methodological shift

Developing sound judgement

Emotional and professional challenge

Pedagogical

relations:

Making critical discourse visible

The role of theory

Reading

Writing and

critiquingSlide6

Making critical discourse visible:

reading,

writing, critiquing

B

eing

directive to start with –

offering ‘

extensive

feedback

’ (J)

… ‘

So that they know from the beginning hopefully what it is that makes something acceptable and makes something not good enough

’ (J)I start with the reading and I try to direct them to existing research that has got and is written from the insider perspective and show them how you can be critical. I encourage them to challenge taken for granted assumptions and things that become

normalised (you know) and trying to get them to look with fresh eyes at

that, at what is normal and question and challenge it. I also try to engage them theoretically, noting the limitations of theories but as a lens to apply to the research that they are doing . Theory and existing literature are important. (K)Slide7

Developing theory

Talking about how other people have used the theory to analyse problems. Testing

the analysis of data, using theory to help, then writing to see if it works. ‘

How can the theory steer me through?

’, ‘

Data analysis grounds the theoretical conversation

’ (A

)

There

are stages of resistance, or repulsion [laughs] and then they put their toe in the water to try to start to engage. And then there can be real excitement, particularly if they can find a theory which helps them with their research question. And that’s the thing that I try to tie the theory to. What is it you want to find out? What theory is going to help you

? (J)Slide8

Developing sound judgement

I

think there are a lot of people who see supervision as facilitation, and I think that’s a mistake.

I… It’s

not a very nice phrase, but it is a kind of quality assurance approach. So when the pots come off the shelf you are checking they aren’t crap pots, and if they are you are telling them they are crap. So being a facilitator is too wet for me. I’m not here just to support them, I’m here to tell them when it’s a crap pot, you know, and that’s when you have to know your pots, whether they are crap or not

!

(P)Slide9

Emotional and Professional Challenge

‘

they

have to

submit

to a different kind of

interrogation

’ and they

sometimes

‘revert back’

to at the end when the thesis demands that they take it back into the world of recommendations for work.

(J)

‘having the confidence to position themselves alongside the bearded gits [theorists].’ And that ‘It’s the confidence to change their focus as they go, but then that they don’t have to include everything. It’s the confidence to let go.’

(T)Slide10

Concluding statements

The EdD and its role in workplace problem solving:

Carol Bacchi – Policy as Discourse:

it

is inappropriate to see governments as responding to ‘problems’ that exist ‘out there’ in the community. Rather problems are ‘created’ or ‘given shape’ in the very policy proposals

that are

offered as ‘responses

’. (2000)

PaD

is interested

in ‘

problematisations

’ and asks how problems are represented (2009)

‘There’s a common-sense discourse in teaching over which there is no point in resisting because you have no choice. … So [for example] they can’t accept that there is no good way of interpreting [say] ‘standards’

because all the ways are socially constructed, they are always looking for the ‘right’ way of interpreting it. That for me is an epistemological problem. They don’t understand how language and problems are constructed to serve people’s interests

.’ (P)Slide11

Concluding statements

What do we assume about transfer?

What does it mean to let go of practical discourse and buy into critical discourse?

What risks and challenges are there for the student?

What implications

are there

for doctoral process?