Issues of Access, Diversity, Social Justice, and Community Leadership
Edited By Virginia Stead
In contrast to the traditional Ph.D., the Ed.D. typically attracts educational practitioners within school boards, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as standalone or internationally linked community associations. The greatest attraction of the Ed.D. is an assessment strategy that encourages graduate students to incorporate their own cultural and professional contexts into a capstone project instead of producing a classic dissertation.
This book features inclusive language, highlights everyday expressions from minoritized cultures, and clarifies new concepts to accommodate new scholars and English Language Learners. Readers will discover representative research on Ed.D. policy and practice from the United States, Canada, and a sprinkling of other countries. Renowned and emergent researchers represent multiple roles within the Ed.D. education process. Individual chapters contrast historical and contemporary issues, and raise awareness about many complexities and strategies that make the Ed.D. an ideal engine of professional empowerment and social justice leadership.
Chapter Seven: Supervising the Educational Doctorate Dual Award (Ed.D.D.A.): Juggling Truth, Relevance, and Economic Development
← 84 | 85 → CHAPTER SEVEN
Since 2007, the National Institute of Education (NIE) of the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, has offered, in collaboration with the Institute of Education (IOE), London, a Dual Award Doctorate in Education (Ed.D.D.A.). Students begin in either of the institutions—the “home institution”—where they complete their coursework and an Institution Focused Study (IFS) before they transfer over to the other—the “dual institution”—to complete their final dissertation. Supervisors are appointed at both institutions to oversee either the IFS or the final dissertation.
A challenge for the Ed.D.D.A. is that it is couched in environments favoring research perceived as relevant, and there can be a strong temptation to prescribe a narrow interpretation of relevance that is tightly coupled with the Singapore government’s or Ministry of Education’s (MOE’s) goals. From this also potentially follows a somewhat dwarfed appreciation of what good or quality supervision means, with potentially unhappy faculty appraisal policy implications. Clearly the concept of quality research is at the very center of any eventual tussle over equitable faculty appraisal: what it means and what counts toward it. Although there is not yet any sign of a brewing struggle over this concept, there is already the beginning of some posturing interpretations that warrant preemptive interrogations of what quality research needs to mean, if merely to diffuse future tensions. In this chapter, by way of reflecting philosophically on what quality supervision for the Ed.D.D.A. ← 85 | 86 → might entail, we hope to explore this and related challenges, identify some...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.