what is a dissertation in practice

How To Write A Dissertation Or Thesis

8 straightforward steps to craft an a-grade dissertation.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

Writing a dissertation or thesis is not a simple task. It takes time, energy and a lot of will power to get you across the finish line. It’s not easy – but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a painful process. If you understand the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis, your research journey will be a lot smoother.  

In this post, I’m going to outline the big-picture process of how to write a high-quality dissertation or thesis, without losing your mind along the way. If you’re just starting your research, this post is perfect for you. Alternatively, if you’ve already submitted your proposal, this article which covers how to structure a dissertation might be more helpful.

How To Write A Dissertation: 8 Steps

• Clearly understand what a dissertation (or thesis) is
• Find a unique and valuable research topic
• Craft a convincing research proposal
• Write up a strong introduction chapter
• Review the existing literature and compile a literature review
• Design a rigorous research strategy and undertake your own research
• Present the findings of your research
• Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications

Step 1: Understand exactly what a dissertation is

This probably sounds like a no-brainer, but all too often, students come to us for help with their research and the underlying issue is that they don’t fully understand what a dissertation (or thesis) actually is.

So, what is a dissertation?

At its simplest, a dissertation or thesis is a formal piece of research , reflecting the standard research process . But what is the standard research process, you ask? The research process involves 4 key steps:

• Ask a very specific, well-articulated question (s) (your research topic)
• See what other researchers have said about it (if they’ve already answered it)
• If they haven’t answered it adequately, undertake your own data collection and analysis in a scientifically rigorous fashion
• Answer your original question(s), based on your analysis findings

In short, the research process is simply about asking and answering questions in a systematic fashion . This probably sounds pretty obvious, but people often think they’ve done “research”, when in fact what they have done is:

• Started with a vague, poorly articulated question
• Not taken the time to see what research has already been done regarding the question
• Collected data and opinions that support their gut and undertaken a flimsy analysis
• Drawn a shaky conclusion, based on that analysis

If you want to see the perfect example of this in action, look out for the next Facebook post where someone claims they’ve done “research”… All too often, people consider reading a few blog posts to constitute research. Its no surprise then that what they end up with is an opinion piece, not research. Okay, okay – I’ll climb off my soapbox now.

The key takeaway here is that a dissertation (or thesis) is a formal piece of research, reflecting the research process. It’s not an opinion piece , nor a place to push your agenda or try to convince someone of your position. Writing a good dissertation involves asking a question and taking a systematic, rigorous approach to answering it.

If you understand this and are comfortable leaving your opinions or preconceived ideas at the door, you’re already off to a good start!

Step 2: Find a unique, valuable research topic

As we saw, the first step of the research process is to ask a specific, well-articulated question. In other words, you need to find a research topic that asks a specific question or set of questions (these are called research questions ). Sounds easy enough, right? All you’ve got to do is identify a question or two and you’ve got a winning research topic. Well, not quite…

A good dissertation or thesis topic has a few important attributes. Specifically, a solid research topic should be:

Let’s take a closer look at these:

Attribute #1: Clear

Your research topic needs to be crystal clear about what you’re planning to research, what you want to know, and within what context. There shouldn’t be any ambiguity or vagueness about what you’ll research.

Here’s an example of a clearly articulated research topic:

An analysis of consumer-based factors influencing organisational trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms.

As you can see in the example, its crystal clear what will be analysed (factors impacting organisational trust), amongst who (consumers) and in what context (British low-cost equity brokerage firms, based online).

Need a helping hand?

Attribute #2:   Unique

Your research should be asking a question(s) that hasn’t been asked before, or that hasn’t been asked in a specific context (for example, in a specific country or industry).

For example, sticking organisational trust topic above, it’s quite likely that organisational trust factors in the UK have been investigated before, but the context (online low-cost equity brokerages) could make this research unique. Therefore, the context makes this research original.

One caveat when using context as the basis for originality – you need to have a good reason to suspect that your findings in this context might be different from the existing research – otherwise, there’s no reason to warrant researching it.

Attribute #3: Important

Simply asking a unique or original question is not enough – the question needs to create value. In other words, successfully answering your research questions should provide some value to the field of research or the industry. You can’t research something just to satisfy your curiosity. It needs to make some form of contribution either to research or industry.

For example, researching the factors influencing consumer trust would create value by enabling businesses to tailor their operations and marketing to leverage factors that promote trust. In other words, it would have a clear benefit to industry.

So, how do you go about finding a unique and valuable research topic? We explain that in detail in this video post – How To Find A Research Topic . Yeah, we’ve got you covered 😊

Step 3: Write a convincing research proposal

Once you’ve pinned down a high-quality research topic, the next step is to convince your university to let you research it. No matter how awesome you think your topic is, it still needs to get the rubber stamp before you can move forward with your research. The research proposal is the tool you’ll use for this job.

So, what’s in a research proposal?

The main “job” of a research proposal is to convince your university, advisor or committee that your research topic is worthy of approval. But convince them of what? Well, this varies from university to university, but generally, they want to see that:

• You have a clearly articulated, unique and important topic (this might sound familiar…)
• You’ve done some initial reading of the existing literature relevant to your topic (i.e. a literature review)
• You have a provisional plan in terms of how you will collect data and analyse it (i.e. a methodology)

At the proposal stage, it’s (generally) not expected that you’ve extensively reviewed the existing literature , but you will need to show that you’ve done enough reading to identify a clear gap for original (unique) research. Similarly, they generally don’t expect that you have a rock-solid research methodology mapped out, but you should have an idea of whether you’ll be undertaking qualitative or quantitative analysis , and how you’ll collect your data (we’ll discuss this in more detail later).

Long story short – don’t stress about having every detail of your research meticulously thought out at the proposal stage – this will develop as you progress through your research. However, you do need to show that you’ve “done your homework” and that your research is worthy of approval .

So, how do you go about crafting a high-quality, convincing proposal? We cover that in detail in this video post – How To Write A Top-Class Research Proposal . We’ve also got a video walkthrough of two proposal examples here .

Step 4: Craft a strong introduction chapter

Once your proposal’s been approved, its time to get writing your actual dissertation or thesis! The good news is that if you put the time into crafting a high-quality proposal, you’ve already got a head start on your first three chapters – introduction, literature review and methodology – as you can use your proposal as the basis for these.

Handy sidenote – our free dissertation & thesis template is a great way to speed up your dissertation writing journey.

What’s the introduction chapter all about?

The purpose of the introduction chapter is to set the scene for your research (dare I say, to introduce it…) so that the reader understands what you’ll be researching and why it’s important. In other words, it covers the same ground as the research proposal in that it justifies your research topic.

What goes into the introduction chapter?

This can vary slightly between universities and degrees, but generally, the introduction chapter will include the following:

• A brief background to the study, explaining the overall area of research
• A problem statement , explaining what the problem is with the current state of research (in other words, where the knowledge gap exists)
• Your research questions – in other words, the specific questions your study will seek to answer (based on the knowledge gap)
• The significance of your study – in other words, why it’s important and how its findings will be useful in the world

As you can see, this all about explaining the “what” and the “why” of your research (as opposed to the “how”). So, your introduction chapter is basically the salesman of your study, “selling” your research to the first-time reader and (hopefully) getting them interested to read more.

How do I write the introduction chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this post .

Step 5: Undertake an in-depth literature review

As I mentioned earlier, you’ll need to do some initial review of the literature in Steps 2 and 3 to find your research gap and craft a convincing research proposal – but that’s just scratching the surface. Once you reach the literature review stage of your dissertation or thesis, you need to dig a lot deeper into the existing research and write up a comprehensive literature review chapter.

What’s the literature review all about?

There are two main stages in the literature review process:

Literature Review Step 1: Reading up

The first stage is for you to deep dive into the existing literature (journal articles, textbook chapters, industry reports, etc) to gain an in-depth understanding of the current state of research regarding your topic. While you don’t need to read every single article, you do need to ensure that you cover all literature that is related to your core research questions, and create a comprehensive catalogue of that literature , which you’ll use in the next step.

Reading and digesting all the relevant literature is a time consuming and intellectually demanding process. Many students underestimate just how much work goes into this step, so make sure that you allocate a good amount of time for this when planning out your research. Thankfully, there are ways to fast track the process – be sure to check out this article covering how to read journal articles quickly .

Literature Review Step 2: Writing up

Once you’ve worked through the literature and digested it all, you’ll need to write up your literature review chapter. Many students make the mistake of thinking that the literature review chapter is simply a summary of what other researchers have said. While this is partly true, a literature review is much more than just a summary. To pull off a good literature review chapter, you’ll need to achieve at least 3 things:

• You need to synthesise the existing research , not just summarise it. In other words, you need to show how different pieces of theory fit together, what’s agreed on by researchers, what’s not.
• You need to highlight a research gap that your research is going to fill. In other words, you’ve got to outline the problem so that your research topic can provide a solution.
• You need to use the existing research to inform your methodology and approach to your own research design. For example, you might use questions or Likert scales from previous studies in your your own survey design .

As you can see, a good literature review is more than just a summary of the published research. It’s the foundation on which your own research is built, so it deserves a lot of love and attention. Take the time to craft a comprehensive literature review with a suitable structure .

But, how do I actually write the literature review chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this video post .

Step 6: Carry out your own research

Once you’ve completed your literature review and have a sound understanding of the existing research, its time to develop your own research (finally!). You’ll design this research specifically so that you can find the answers to your unique research question.

There are two steps here – designing your research strategy and executing on it:

1 – Design your research strategy

The first step is to design your research strategy and craft a methodology chapter . I won’t get into the technicalities of the methodology chapter here, but in simple terms, this chapter is about explaining the “how” of your research. If you recall, the introduction and literature review chapters discussed the “what” and the “why”, so it makes sense that the next point to cover is the “how” –that’s what the methodology chapter is all about.

In this section, you’ll need to make firm decisions about your research design. This includes things like:

• Your research philosophy (e.g. positivism or interpretivism )
• Your overall methodology (e.g. qualitative , quantitative or mixed methods)
• Your data collection strategy (e.g. interviews , focus groups, surveys)
• Your data analysis strategy (e.g. content analysis , correlation analysis, regression)

If these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these in plain language in other posts. It’s not essential that you understand the intricacies of research design (yet!). The key takeaway here is that you’ll need to make decisions about how you’ll design your own research, and you’ll need to describe (and justify) your decisions in your methodology chapter.

2 – Execute: Collect and analyse your data

Once you’ve worked out your research design, you’ll put it into action and start collecting your data. This might mean undertaking interviews, hosting an online survey or any other data collection method. Data collection can take quite a bit of time (especially if you host in-person interviews), so be sure to factor sufficient time into your project plan for this. Oftentimes, things don’t go 100% to plan (for example, you don’t get as many survey responses as you hoped for), so bake a little extra time into your budget here.

Once you’ve collected your data, you’ll need to do some data preparation before you can sink your teeth into the analysis. For example:

• If you carry out interviews or focus groups, you’ll need to transcribe your audio data to text (i.e. a Word document).
• If you collect quantitative survey data, you’ll need to clean up your data and get it into the right format for whichever analysis software you use (for example, SPSS, R or STATA).

Once you’ve completed your data prep, you’ll undertake your analysis, using the techniques that you described in your methodology. Depending on what you find in your analysis, you might also do some additional forms of analysis that you hadn’t planned for. For example, you might see something in the data that raises new questions or that requires clarification with further analysis.

The type(s) of analysis that you’ll use depend entirely on the nature of your research and your research questions. For example:

• If your research if exploratory in nature, you’ll often use qualitative analysis techniques .
• If your research is confirmatory in nature, you’ll often use quantitative analysis techniques
• If your research involves a mix of both, you might use a mixed methods approach

Again, if these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these concepts and techniques in other posts. The key takeaway is simply that there’s no “one size fits all” for research design and methodology – it all depends on your topic, your research questions and your data. So, don’t be surprised if your study colleagues take a completely different approach to yours.

Step 7: Present your findings

Once you’ve completed your analysis, it’s time to present your findings (finally!). In a dissertation or thesis, you’ll typically present your findings in two chapters – the results chapter and the discussion chapter .

What’s the difference between the results chapter and the discussion chapter?

While these two chapters are similar, the results chapter generally just presents the processed data neatly and clearly without interpretation, while the discussion chapter explains the story the data are telling  – in other words, it provides your interpretation of the results.

For example, if you were researching the factors that influence consumer trust, you might have used a quantitative approach to identify the relationship between potential factors (e.g. perceived integrity and competence of the organisation) and consumer trust. In this case:

• Your results chapter would just present the results of the statistical tests. For example, correlation results or differences between groups. In other words, the processed numbers.
• Your discussion chapter would explain what the numbers mean in relation to your research question(s). For example, Factor 1 has a weak relationship with consumer trust, while Factor 2 has a strong relationship.

Depending on the university and degree, these two chapters (results and discussion) are sometimes merged into one , so be sure to check with your institution what their preference is. Regardless of the chapter structure, this section is about presenting the findings of your research in a clear, easy to understand fashion.

Importantly, your discussion here needs to link back to your research questions (which you outlined in the introduction or literature review chapter). In other words, it needs to answer the key questions you asked (or at least attempt to answer them).

For example, if we look at the sample research topic:

In this case, the discussion section would clearly outline which factors seem to have a noteworthy influence on organisational trust. By doing so, they are answering the overarching question and fulfilling the purpose of the research .

For more information about the results chapter , check out this post for qualitative studies and this post for quantitative studies .

Step 8: The Final Step Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications

Last but not least, you’ll need to wrap up your research with the conclusion chapter . In this chapter, you’ll bring your research full circle by highlighting the key findings of your study and explaining what the implications of these findings are.

What exactly are key findings? The key findings are those findings which directly relate to your original research questions and overall research objectives (which you discussed in your introduction chapter). The implications, on the other hand, explain what your findings mean for industry, or for research in your area.

Sticking with the consumer trust topic example, the conclusion might look something like this:

Key findings

This study set out to identify which factors influence consumer-based trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms. The results suggest that the following factors have a large impact on consumer trust:

While the following factors have a very limited impact on consumer trust:

Notably, within the 25-30 age groups, Factors E had a noticeably larger impact, which may be explained by…

Implications

The findings having noteworthy implications for British low-cost online equity brokers. Specifically:

The large impact of Factors X and Y implies that brokers need to consider….

The limited impact of Factor E implies that brokers need to…

As you can see, the conclusion chapter is basically explaining the “what” (what your study found) and the “so what?” (what the findings mean for the industry or research). This brings the study full circle and closes off the document.

Let’s recap – how to write a dissertation or thesis

You’re still with me? Impressive! I know that this post was a long one, but hopefully you’ve learnt a thing or two about how to write a dissertation or thesis, and are now better equipped to start your own research.

To recap, the 8 steps to writing a quality dissertation (or thesis) are as follows:

• Understand what a dissertation (or thesis) is – a research project that follows the research process.
• Find a unique (original) and important research topic
• Craft a convincing dissertation or thesis research proposal
• Write a clear, compelling introduction chapter
• Undertake a thorough review of the existing research and write up a literature review
• Undertake your own research
• Present and interpret your findings

Once you’ve wrapped up the core chapters, all that’s typically left is the abstract , reference list and appendices. As always, be sure to check with your university if they have any additional requirements in terms of structure or content.  

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

20 Comments

thankfull >>>this is very useful

Thank you, it was really helpful

unquestionably, this amazing simplified way of teaching. Really , I couldn’t find in the literature words that fully explicit my great thanks to you. However, I could only say thanks a-lot.

Great to hear that – thanks for the feedback. Good luck writing your dissertation/thesis.

This is the most comprehensive explanation of how to write a dissertation. Many thanks for sharing it free of charge.

Very rich presentation. Thank you

Thanks Derek Jansen|GRADCOACH, I find it very useful guide to arrange my activities and proceed to research!

Thank you so much for such a marvelous teaching .I am so convinced that am going to write a comprehensive and a distinct masters dissertation

It is an amazing comprehensive explanation

This was straightforward. Thank you!

I can say that your explanations are simple and enlightening – understanding what you have done here is easy for me. Could you write more about the different types of research methods specific to the three methodologies: quan, qual and MM. I look forward to interacting with this website more in the future.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions 🙂

Hello, your write ups is quite educative. However, l have challenges in going about my research questions which is below; *Building the enablers of organisational growth through effective governance and purposeful leadership.*

Very educating.

Just listening to the name of the dissertation makes the student nervous. As writing a top-quality dissertation is a difficult task as it is a lengthy topic, requires a lot of research and understanding and is usually around 10,000 to 15000 words. Sometimes due to studies, unbalanced workload or lack of research and writing skill students look for dissertation submission from professional writers.

Thank you 💕😊 very much. I was confused but your comprehensive explanation has cleared my doubts of ever presenting a good thesis. Thank you.

thank you so much, that was so useful

Hi. Where is the excel spread sheet ark?

could you please help me look at your thesis paper to enable me to do the portion that has to do with the specification

my topic is “the impact of domestic revenue mobilization.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Franklin University |
• Help & Support |
• Locations & Maps |

• | Research Guides

To access Safari eBooks,

• Select not listed in the Select Your Institution drop down menu.
• Enter your Franklin email address and click Go
• click "Already a user? Click here" link
• Enter your Franklin email and the password you used to create your Safari account.

Continue Close

Ed.D.: Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership

• Education Research
• Scholarly Research
• GoogleScholar
• Doctoral Writing Guide This link opens in a new window
• Annotated Bibliography Resources
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• APA Style Guide This link opens in a new window
• Research Methods

Dissertation Databases

Dip resources, citi training.

• Dissertation
• RefWorks This link opens in a new window
• Doctoral FAQs

Franklin Dissertation Resources

• Franklin University Doctoral Resources Doctoral Studies Resource documents, including the dissertation handbook and guide to submitting your dissertation are available on the Office of Academic Scholarship page.
• Franklin University Student Dissertations View former Franklin student's dissertations in the OhioLINK ETD Center.

• Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center (OhioLINK) This link opens in a new window Online theses and dissertations from Ohio graduate students.
• Open Access Theses and Dissertations This link opens in a new window Information about and links to freely-available full-text to almost almost 3.5 million graduate theses and dissertations from over 1,100 colleges, universities, and research institutions.
• Open Dissertations This link opens in a new window Open access database providing both historic and contemporary dissertations and theses. Includes content of the American Doctoral Dissertations database, which provides more than 153,000 theses and dissertations from 1902 to the present, as well as additional dissertation information provided by colleges and universities from around the world. Includes links to full-text from free platforms where available.
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global This link opens in a new window Doctoral dissertations and theses from around the world, spanning from 1743 to the present day and offering full text for graduate works added since 1997, along with selected full text for works written prior to 1997. It contains a significant amount of new international dissertations and theses both in citations and in full text.
• WorldCat Dissertations and Theses This link opens in a new window Catalog of dissertations, theses and published material based on theses, worldwide.
• CPED Dissertation in Practice Find sample dissertations in practice from institutions that are members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED)

Doctoral students are required to prepare a research proposal for their dissertation study. All doctoral projects that involve human subjects must be reviewed and approved by Franklin University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure the rights and welfare of human participants are protected. The research proposal will be included in the IRB application.

Anyone who conducts human subjects research at Franklin University must complete training before any research activities commence and before submitting a research proposal to the IRB for review. The Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) provides an online training course to satisfy this requirement and must be completed by all faculty, staff, and students involved in human subjects research. CITI educational courses help researchers to understand their obligations to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects in research. 

Please take the following steps to complete your CITI training: 

• Log on to the CITI homepage: www.citiprogram.org and click on the Register link. You will register with Franklin University in this seven-step process. Please use your Franklin University email address, which will link your CITI record to Cayuse IRB.
• Franklin learners must complete the Social and Behavioral Research (SBE) course. Additional elective courses are available but not required to conduct human subjects research at the University. The SBE course will take a few hours to complete, but you are not required to complete all modules in one sitting. 

Completing the CITI course will keep your training current for three years, after which time you will be required to complete a refresher course that updates your training for another three years. You will receive an email reminder from CITI when it is time to refresh your training. If your training expires during any human subjects research project, you must cease all research activities until your training has been updated.

• Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office For questions or issues with CITI Training, please contact the Franklin University IRB Office. Email: [email protected] Phone: 614.947.6037
• << Previous: Research Methods
• Next: RefWorks >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://guides.franklin.edu/EdD

EdDPrograms.org

What is an Ed.D. Dissertation? Complete Guide & Support Resources

Wondering how to tackle the biggest doctoral challenge of all? Use our guide to the Ed.D. dissertation to get started! Learn about the purpose of a Doctor of Education dissertation and typical topics for education students. Read through step-by-step descriptions of the dissertation process and the 5-chapter format. Get answers to Ed.D. dissertation FAQs . Or skip to the chase and find real-world examples of Doctor of Education dissertations and websites & resources for Ed.D. dissertation research.

What is an Ed.D. Dissertation?

Definition of an ed.d. dissertation.

An Ed.D. dissertation is a 5-chapter scholarly document that brings together years of original research to address a problem of practice in education. To complete a dissertation, you will need to go through a number of scholarly steps , including a final defense to justify your findings.

Purpose of an Ed.D. Dissertation

In a Doctor of Education dissertation, you will be challenged to apply high-level research & creative problem-solving to real-world educational challenges. You may be asked to:

• Take a critical look at current educational & administrative practices
• Address urgent issues in the modern education system
• Propose original & practical solutions for improvements
• Expand the knowledge base for educational practitioners

Topics of Ed.D. Dissertations

An Ed.D. dissertation is “customizable.” You’re allowed to chose a topic that relates to your choice of specialty (e.g. elementary education), field of interest (e.g. curriculum development), and environment (e.g. urban schools).

Think about current problems of practice that need to be addressed in your field. You’ll notice that Ed.D. dissertation topics often address one of the following:

• Academic performance
• Teaching methods
• Access to resources
• Social challenges
• Legislative impacts
• System effectiveness

Wondering how others have done it? Browse through Examples of Ed.D. Dissertations and read the titles & abstracts. You’ll see how current educators are addressing their own problems of practice.

Ed.D. Dissertation Process

1. propose a dissertation topic.

Near the beginning of a Doctor of Education program, you’ll be expected to identify a dissertation topic that will require substantial research. This topic should revolve around a unique issue in education.

Universities will often ask you to provide an idea for your topic when you’re applying to the doctoral program. You don’t necessarily need to stick to this idea, but you should be prepared to explain why it interests you. If you need inspiration, see our section on Examples of Ed.D. Dissertations .

You’ll be expected to solidify your dissertation topic in the first few semesters. Talking to faculty and fellow Ed.D. students can help in this process. Better yet, your educational peers will often be able to provide unique perspectives on the topic (e.g. cultural differences in teaching methods).

2. Meet Your Dissertation Chair & Committee

You won’t be going through the Ed.D. dissertation process alone! Universities will help you to select a number of experienced mentors. These include:

• Dissertation Chair/Faculty Advisor: The Chair of the Dissertation Committee acts as your primary advisor. You’ll often see them referred to as the Supervising Professor, Faculty Advisor, or the like. You’ll rely on this “Obi Wan” for their knowledge of the field, research advice & guidance, editorial input on drafts, and more. They can also assist with shaping & refining your dissertation topic.
• Dissertation Committee:  The Dissertation Committee is made up of ~3 faculty members, instructors and/or adjuncts with advanced expertise in your field of study. The Committee will offer advice, provide feedback on your research progress, and review your work & progress reports. When you defend your proposal and give your final defense , you’ll be addressing the Dissertation Committee.

3. Study for Ed.D. Courses

Doctor of Education coursework is designed to help you: a) learn how to conduct original research; and b) give you a broader perspective on your field of interest. If you take a look at the curriculum in any Ed.D. program, you’ll see that students have to complete credits in:

• Practical Research Methods (e.g. Quantitative Design & Analysis for Educational Leaders)
• Real-World Educational Issues (e.g. Educational Policy, Law & Practice)

When you’re evaluating possible Ed.D. programs, pay attention to the coursework in real-world educational issues. You’ll want to pick an education doctorate with courses that complement your dissertation topic.

4. Complete a Literature Review

A literature review is an evaluation of existing materials & research work that relate to your dissertation topic. It’s a written synthesis that:

• Grounds your project within the field
• Explains how your work relates to previous research & theoretical frameworks
• Helps to identify gaps in the existing research

Have a look at Literature Review Guides if you’d like to know more about the process. Our section on Resources for Ed.D. Dissertation Research also has useful links to journals & databases.

5. Craft a Dissertation Proposal

During the first two years of your Doctor of Education, you’ll use the knowledge you’ve learned from your coursework & discussions to write the opening chapters of your dissertation, including an:

• Introduction  that defines your chosen topic
• Literature Review of existing research in the field
• Proposed Research Methodology for finding the answer to your problem

When you’re putting together these elements, think about the practicals. Is the topic too big to address in one dissertation? How much time will your research take and how will you conduct it? Will your dissertation be relevant to your current job? If in doubt, ask your faculty advisor.

6. Defend Your Dissertation Proposal

About midway through the Ed.D. program, you will need to present your proposal to your Dissertation Committee. They will review your work and offer feedback. For example, the Committee will want to see that:

• Your research topic is significant.
• Your research methodology & timeline make sense.
• Relevant works are included in the literature review.

After the Committee approves your proposal, you can get stuck into conducting original research and writing up your findings. These two important tasks will take up the final years of your doctorate.

7. Conduct Original Research into Your Topic

As a Doctor of Education student, you will be expected to conduct your own research. Ed.D. students often use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods (quantitative/qualitative) approach in this process.

• Quantitative Research: Collection & analysis of numerical data to identify characteristics, discover correlations, and/or test hypotheses.
• Qualitative Research: Collection & analysis of non-numerical data to understand & explain phenomena (e.g. questionnaires, in-depth interviews, focus groups, video artifacts, etc.).

Your Ed.D. coursework will ground you in research methods & tools, so you’ll be prepared to design your own project and seek IRB approval for any work involving human subjects.

Note: Occasionally, universities can get creative. For example, the Ed.D. program at San Jose State University asks students to produce a documentary film instead of conducting traditional research.

8. Write the Rest of Your Dissertation

Once you have written up the first few chapters of your dissertation (Intro, Literature Review & Proposed Methodology) and completed your research work, you’ll be able to complete the final chapters of your dissertation.

• Chapter 4 will detail your research findings.
• Chapter 5 is a conclusion that summarizes solutions to your problem of practice/topic.

This is where you and your faculty advisor will often have a lot of interaction! For example, you may need to rework the first few chapters of your dissertation after you’ve drafted the final chapters. Faculty advisors are extremely busy people, so be sure to budget in ample time for revisions and final edits.

9. Defend Your Dissertation

The final defense/candidacy exam is a formal presentation of your work to the Dissertation Committee. In many cases, the defense is an oral presentation with visual aides. You’ll be able to explain your research findings, go through your conclusions, and highlight new ideas & solutions.

At any time, the Committee can challenge you with questions, so you should be prepared to defend your conclusions. But this process is not as frightening as it sounds!

• If you’ve been in close contact with the Committee throughout the dissertation, they will be aware of your work.
• Your faculty advisor will help you decide when you’re ready for the final defense.
• You can also attend the defenses of other Ed.D. students to learn what questions may be asked.

Be aware that the Committee has the option to ask for changes before they approve your dissertation. After you have incorporated any notes from the Committee and addressed their concerns, you will finalize the draft, submit your dissertation for a formal review, and graduate.

Ed.D. Dissertation Format: 5 Chapters

Chapter 1: introduction.

Your Doctor of Education dissertation will begin with an introduction. In it, you’ll be expected to:

• Provide an overview of your educational landscape
• Explain important definitions & key concepts
• Define a real-world topic/problem of practice
• Outline the need for new studies on this topic

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The literature review is a summary of existing research in the field. However, it is not an annotated bibliography. Instead, it’s a critical analysis of current research (e.g. trends, themes, debates & current practices). While you’re evaluating the literature, you’re also looking for the gaps where you can conduct original research.

Sources for a literature review can include books, articles, reports, websites, dissertations, and more. Our section on Resources for Ed.D. Dissertation Research has plenty of places to start.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

In the research methodology, you’ll be expected to explain:

• The purpose of your research
• What tools & methods you plan to use to research your topic/problem of practice
• The design of the study
• Your timeline for gathering quantitative & qualitative data
• How you plan to analyze that data
• Any limitations you foresee

Chapter 4: Results & Analysis

Chapter 4 is the place where you can share the results of your original research and present key findings from the data. In your analysis, you may also be highlighting new patterns, relationships, and themes that other scholars have failed to discover. Have a look at real-life Examples of Ed.D. Dissertations to see how this section is structured.

Chapter 5: Discussions & Conclusions

The final chapter of your Ed.D. dissertation brings all of your work together in a detailed summary. You’ll be expected to:

• Reiterate the objectives of your dissertation
• Explain the significance of your research findings
• Outline the implications of your ideas on existing practices
• Propose solutions for a problem of practice
• Make suggestions & recommendations for future improvements

Ed.D. Dissertation FAQs

What’s the difference between a dissertation and a thesis.

• Dissertation: A dissertation is a 5-chapter written work that must be completed in order to earn a doctoral degree (e.g. Ph.D., Ed.D., etc.). It’s often focused on original research.
• Thesis: A thesis is a written work that must be completed in order to earn a master’s degree. It’s typically shorter than a dissertation and based on existing research.

How Long is a Ed.D. Dissertation?

It depends. Most Ed.D. dissertations end up being between 80-200 pages. The length will depend on a number of factors, including the depth of your literature review, the way you collect & present your research data, and any appendices you might need to include.

How Long Does it Take to Finish an Ed.D. Dissertation?

It depends. If you’re in an accelerated program , you may be able to finish your dissertation in 2-3 years. If you’re in a part-time program and need to conduct a lot of complex research work, your timeline will be much longer.

What’s a Strong Ed.D. Dissertation Topic?

Experts always say that Doctor of Education students should be passionate about their dissertation topic and eager to explore uncharted territory. When you’re crafting your Ed.D. dissertation topic , find one that will be:

• Significant

See the section on Examples of Ed.D. Dissertations for inspiration.

Do I Have to Complete a Traditional Dissertation for an Ed.D.?

No. If you’re struggling with the idea of a traditional dissertation, check out this guide to Online Ed.D. Programs with No Dissertation . Some Schools of Education give Ed.D. students the opportunity to complete a Capstone Project or Dissertation in Practice (DiP) instead of a 5-chapter written work.

These alternatives aren’t easy! You’ll still be challenged at the same level as you would be for a dissertation. However, Capstone Projects & DiPs often involve more group work and an emphasis on applied theory & research.

What’s the Difference Between a Ph.D. Dissertation and Ed.D. Dissertation?

Have a look at our Ed.D. vs. Ph.D. Guide to get a sense of the differences between the two degrees. In a nutshell:

• Ed.D. dissertations tend to focus on addressing current & real-world topics/problems of practice in the workplace.
• Ph.D. dissertations usually put more emphasis on creating new theories & concepts and even completely rethinking educational practices.

How Can I Learn More About Ed.D. Dissertations?

Start with the section on Examples of Ed.D. Dissertations . You can browse through titles, abstracts, and even complete dissertations from a large number of universities.

If you have a few Doctor of Education programs on your shortlist, we also recommend that you skim through the program’s Dissertation Handbook . It can usually be found on the School of Education’s website. You’ll be able to see how the School likes to structure the dissertation process from start to finish.

Ed.D. Dissertation Support

University & campus resources, dissertation chair & committee.

The first port of call for any questions about the Ed.D. dissertation is your Dissertation Chair. If you get stuck with a terrible faculty advisor, talk to members of the Dissertation Committee. They are there to support your journey.

University Library

An Ed.D. dissertation is a massive research project. So before you choose a Doctor of Education program, ask the School of Education about its libraries & library resources (e.g. free online access to subscription-based journals).

Writing Center

Many universities have a Writing Center. If you’re struggling with any elements of your dissertation (e.g. editing), you can ask the staff about:

• Individual tutoring
• Editorial assistance
• Outside resources

Mental Health Support

It’s well-known that doctoral students often face a lot of stress & isolation during their studies. Ask your faculty advisor about mental health services at the university. Staff in the School of Education and the Graduate School will also have information about on-campus counselors, free or discounted therapy sessions, and more.

Independent Dissertation Services

Dissertation editing services: potentially helpful.

There are scores of independent providers who offer dissertation editing services. But they can be expensive. And many of these editors have zero expertise in educational fields.

If you need help with editing & proofreading, proceed with caution:

• Start by asking your Dissertation Chair about what’s permitted for third party involvement (e.g. you may need to note any editor’s contribution in your dissertation acknowledgments) and whether they have any suggestions.
• The Graduate School is another useful resource. For example, Cornell’s Graduate School maintains a list of Editing, Typing, and Proofreading Services for graduate students.

Dissertation Coaches: Not Worth It

Dissertation coaches are defined as people who offer academic & mental support, guidance, and editorial input.

• That means the person who should be your coach is your Dissertation Chair/Faculty Advisor. Remember that faculty members on the Dissertation Committee can also provide assistance.
• If you’re looking for extra support, you might consider consulting a mentor in your line of work and collaborating with fellow Ed.D. students.

But hiring an independent Ed.D. dissertation coach is going to be an absolute waste of money.

Dissertation Writing Services: Just Don’t!

Universities take the dissertation process  very seriously . An Ed.D. dissertation is supposed to be the culmination of years of original thought and research. You’re going to be responsible for the final product. You’re going to be defending your written work in front of a phalanx of experienced faculty members. You’re going to be putting this credential on your résumé for everyone to see.

If you cheat the process by having someone else write up your work, you will get caught.

Ed.D. Dissertation Resources

Examples of ed.d. dissertations, dissertation databases.

• Open Access Theses and Dissertations
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
• EBSCO Open Dissertations

Ed.D. Dissertations

• USF Scholarship Repository: Ed.D. Dissertations
• George Fox University: Doctor of Education
• UW Tacoma: Ed.D. Dissertations in Practice
• Liberty University: School of Education Doctoral Dissertations
• University of Mary Hardin-Baylor: Dissertation Collection

Ed.D. Dissertation Abstracts

• Michigan State University: Ed.D. Dissertation Abstracts

Ed.D. Dissertation Guides & Tools

General ed.d. guides.

• SNHU: Educational Leadership Ed.D./Ph.D. Guide

Dissertation Style Manuals

• Chicago Manual of Style

Style manuals are designed to ensure that every Ed.D. student follows the same set of writing guidelines for their dissertation (e.g. grammatical rules, footnote & quotation formats, abbreviation conventions, etc.). Check with the School of Education to learn which style manual they use.

Examples of Ed.D. Dissertation Templates

• Purdue University: Dissertation Template
• Walden University: Ed.D. Dissertation Template

Each School of Education has a standard dissertation template. We’ve highlighted a couple of examples so you can see how they’re formatted, but you will need to acquire the template from your own university.

Literature Review Guides

• UNC Chapel Hill: Writing Guide for Literature Reviews
• University of Alabama: How to Conduct a Literature Review

Resources for Ed.D. Dissertation Research

Journal articles.

• EBSCO Education Research Databases
• Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
• Emerald Education eJournal Collection
• Gale OneFile: Educator’s Reference Complete
• Google Scholar
• NCES Bibliography Search Tool
• ProQuest Education Database
• SAGE Journals: Education

Useful Websites

• Harvard Gutman Library: Websites for Educators
• EduRef: Lesson Plans

Educational Data & Statistics

• Digest of Education Statistics
• Education Policy Data Center (EPDC)
• ICPSR Data Archive
• National Assessment of Educational Progress
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

What Is a Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started

Published on 26 March 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on 5 May 2022.

A dissertation is a large research project undertaken at the end of a degree. It involves in-depth consideration of a problem or question chosen by the student. It is usually the largest (and final) piece of written work produced during a degree.

The length and structure of a dissertation vary widely depending on the level and field of study. However, there are some key questions that can help you understand the requirements and get started on your dissertation project.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

When and why do you have to write a dissertation, who will supervise your dissertation, what type of research will you do, how should your dissertation be structured, what formatting and referencing rules do you have to follow, frequently asked questions about dissertations.

A dissertation, sometimes called a thesis, comes at the end of an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. It is a larger project than the other essays you’ve written, requiring a higher word count and a greater depth of research.

You’ll generally work on your dissertation during the final year of your degree, over a longer period than you would take for a standard essay . For example, the dissertation might be your main focus for the last six months of your degree.

Why is the dissertation important?

The dissertation is a test of your capacity for independent research. You are given a lot of autonomy in writing your dissertation: you come up with your own ideas, conduct your own research, and write and structure the text by yourself.

This means that it is an important preparation for your future, whether you continue in academia or not: it teaches you to manage your own time, generate original ideas, and work independently.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

During the planning and writing of your dissertation, you’ll work with a supervisor from your department. The supervisor’s job is to give you feedback and advice throughout the process.

The dissertation supervisor is often assigned by the department, but you might be allowed to indicate preferences or approach potential supervisors. If so, try to pick someone who is familiar with your chosen topic, whom you get along with on a personal level, and whose feedback you’ve found useful in the past.

How will your supervisor help you?

Your supervisor is there to guide you through the dissertation project, but you’re still working independently. They can give feedback on your ideas, but not come up with ideas for you.

You may need to take the initiative to request an initial meeting with your supervisor. Then you can plan out your future meetings and set reasonable deadlines for things like completion of data collection, a structure outline, a first chapter, a first draft, and so on.

Make sure to prepare in advance for your meetings. Formulate your ideas as fully as you can, and determine where exactly you’re having difficulties so you can ask your supervisor for specific advice.

Your approach to your dissertation will vary depending on your field of study. The first thing to consider is whether you will do empirical research , which involves collecting original data, or non-empirical research , which involves analysing sources.

Empirical dissertations (sciences)

An empirical dissertation focuses on collecting and analysing original data. You’ll usually write this type of dissertation if you are studying a subject in the sciences or social sciences.

• What are airline workers’ attitudes towards the challenges posed for their industry by climate change?
• How effective is cognitive behavioural therapy in treating depression in young adults?
• What are the short-term health effects of switching from smoking cigarettes to e-cigarettes?

There are many different empirical research methods you can use to answer these questions – for example, experiments , observations, surveys , and interviews.

When doing empirical research, you need to consider things like the variables you will investigate, the reliability and validity of your measurements, and your sampling method . The aim is to produce robust, reproducible scientific knowledge.

Non-empirical dissertations (arts and humanities)

A non-empirical dissertation works with existing research or other texts, presenting original analysis, critique and argumentation, but no original data. This approach is typical of arts and humanities subjects.

• What attitudes did commentators in the British press take towards the French Revolution in 1789–1792?
• How do the themes of gender and inheritance intersect in Shakespeare’s Macbeth ?
• How did Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia influence nineteenth century utopian socialist thought?

The first steps in this type of dissertation are to decide on your topic and begin collecting your primary and secondary sources .

Primary sources are the direct objects of your research. They give you first-hand evidence about your subject. Examples of primary sources include novels, artworks and historical documents.

Secondary sources provide information that informs your analysis. They describe, interpret, or evaluate information from primary sources. For example, you might consider previous analyses of the novel or author you are working on, or theoretical texts that you plan to apply to your primary sources.

Dissertations are divided into chapters and sections. Empirical dissertations usually follow a standard structure, while non-empirical dissertations are more flexible.

Structure of an empirical dissertation

Empirical dissertations generally include these chapters:

• Introduction : An explanation of your topic and the research question(s) you want to answer.
• Literature review : A survey and evaluation of previous research on your topic.
• Methodology : An explanation of how you collected and analysed your data.
• Results : A brief description of what you found.
• Discussion : Interpretation of what these results reveal.
• Conclusion : Answers to your research question(s) and summary of what your findings contribute to knowledge in your field.

Sometimes the order or naming of chapters might be slightly different, but all of the above information must be included in order to produce thorough, valid scientific research.

Other dissertation structures

If your dissertation doesn’t involve data collection, your structure is more flexible. You can think of it like an extended essay – the text should be logically organised in a way that serves your argument:

• Introduction: An explanation of your topic and the question(s) you want to answer.
• Main body: The development of your analysis, usually divided into 2–4 chapters.
• Conclusion: Answers to your research question(s) and summary of what your analysis contributes to knowledge in your field.

The chapters of the main body can be organised around different themes, time periods, or texts. Below you can see some example structures for dissertations in different subjects.

• Political philosophy

This example, on the topic of the British press’s coverage of the French Revolution, shows how you might structure each chapter around a specific theme.

This example, on the topic of Plato’s and More’s influences on utopian socialist thought, shows a different approach to dividing the chapters by theme.

This example, a master’s dissertation on the topic of how writers respond to persecution, shows how you can also use section headings within each chapter. Each of the three chapters deals with a specific text, while the sections are organised thematically.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Like other academic texts, it’s important that your dissertation follows the formatting guidelines set out by your university. You can lose marks unnecessarily over mistakes, so it’s worth taking the time to get all these elements right.

Formatting guidelines concern things like:

• line spacing
• page numbers
• punctuation
• title pages
• presentation of tables and figures

If you’re unsure about the formatting requirements, check with your supervisor or department. You can lose marks unnecessarily over mistakes, so it’s worth taking the time to get all these elements right.

How will you reference your sources?

Referencing means properly listing the sources you cite and refer to in your dissertation, so that the reader can find them. This avoids plagiarism by acknowledging where you’ve used the work of others.

Keep track of everything you read as you prepare your dissertation. The key information to note down for a reference is:

• The publication date
• Page numbers for the parts you refer to (especially when using direct quotes)

Different referencing styles each have their own specific rules for how to reference. The most commonly used styles in UK universities are listed below.

You can use the free APA Reference Generator to automatically create and store your references.

APA Reference Generator

The words ‘ dissertation ’ and ‘thesis’ both refer to a large written research project undertaken to complete a degree, but they are used differently depending on the country:

• In the UK, you write a dissertation at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a thesis to complete a PhD.
• In the US, it’s the other way around: you may write a thesis at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a dissertation to complete a PhD.

The main difference is in terms of scale – a dissertation is usually much longer than the other essays you complete during your degree.

Another key difference is that you are given much more independence when working on a dissertation. You choose your own dissertation topic , and you have to conduct the research and write the dissertation yourself (with some assistance from your supervisor).

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

• An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
• A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
• A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

At the bachelor’s and master’s levels, the dissertation is usually the main focus of your final year. You might work on it (alongside other classes) for the entirety of the final year, or for the last six months. This includes formulating an idea, doing the research, and writing up.

A PhD thesis takes a longer time, as the thesis is the main focus of the degree. A PhD thesis might be being formulated and worked on for the whole four years of the degree program. The writing process alone can take around 18 months.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2022, May 05). What Is a Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/what-is-a-dissertation/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples.

Dissertation in Practice: Reconceptualizing the Nature and Role of the Practitioner-Scholar

Cite this chapter.

• Valerie A. Storey &
• Bryan D. Maughan  

446 Accesses

3 Citations

The richness of dialog about the differing approaches to doctoral educational research from the viewpoint of a scholar and from the viewpoint of the professional has been inspiring and continues to shed new light on the role of the practitioner who performs research under the aegis of the academe (Butlerman-Bos, 2008; Drake & Heath, 2011; Hochbein & Perry, 2013; Jarvis, 1999b; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006). However, there continues to be a curious lack of understanding about the signature product of a practitioner performing scholarly research who must satisfy the demands of both viewpoints (Dawson & Kumar, 2014; Willis, Inman, & Valenti, 2010). Accountability to traditionally disparate institutions—the academe and professional practice stakeholders (decision-makers)—decries innovative approaches to the capstone product—the dissertation. We will continue this discussion by outlining the unique characteristics of the dissertation produced by a practitioner who performed educational research. We refer to a dissertation produced by a practitioner while in practice as the Dissertation in Practice (DiP) (ProDEL, 2012; Storey & Maughan, 2014). We continue the discussion about how methodologies of applied or practice-oriented research assists the researcher in professional preparation, public service, outreach, and organizational change (Shulman, 2010).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Archbald, D. (2010). “Breaking the mold” in the dissertation: Implementing a problem based, decision-oriented thesis project. Journal of Continuing Higher Education , 58 (2), 99–107.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and interpreters . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Google Scholar  

Beebe, J. (2001). Rapid assessment process: An introduction . Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bhoyrub, J., Hurley, J., Neilson, G. R., Ramsay, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Heutagogy: An alternative practice based learning approach. Nurse Education in Practice , 10 , 322–326.

Bouck, B. M. (2011). Scholar-practitioner identity: A liminal perspective. Scholar Practitioner Quarterly , 5 (2), 201–210.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Butlerman-Bos, J. A. (2008). Will a clinical approach make education research more relevant for practice? Educational Researcher , 37 (7), 412–420.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher , 28 (7), 15–25.

Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Christensen, C., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership , 51 (2), 49–51.

Costley, C., & Lester, S. (2012). Work-based doctorates: Professional extension at the highest levels. Studies in Higher Education , 37 (3), 257–269. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.503344

Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). CGS task force report on the professional doctorate . Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Learning professional ways of being: Ambiguities of becoming. Educational Philosophy & Theory41 (1), 34–45.

Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning . Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education, Oryx.

Dawson, K., & Kumar, S. (2014). An analysis of professional practice Ed.D. dissertations in educational technology. TechTrends , 58 (4), 62–72.

De Jong, M. J., Moser, D. K., & Hall, L. A. (2005). The manuscript option dissertation: Multiple perspectives. Nurse Author & Editor , 15 (3), 7–9.

Donovan, G. T. (2013). MyDigitalFootprint.ORG: Young people and proprietary ecology of everyday data . Retrieved from: http://mydigitalfootprint.org /dissertation/.

Drake, P., & Heath, L. (2011). Practitioner research at doctoral level: Developing coherent research methodologies . New York: Routledge.

Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the dissertation. Educational Research , 28 (3), 31–36.

Erwin, E. J., Brotherson, M., & Summers, J. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention , 33 (3), 186–200.

Finch, B. (1998). Developing the skills for evidence-based practice. Nurse Education Today , 18 (1), 46–51.

Fulton, J., Kuit, J., Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2012). The role of the Professional Doctorate in developing professional practice. Journal of Nursing Management , 20 (1), 130–139.

Gross, D., Alhusen, J., & Jennings, B. M. (2012). Authorship ethics with the dissertation manuscript option. Research in Nursing & Health , 35 (5), 431–434.

Guthrie, J. W. (2009). The case for a modern doctor of education degree (EdD): Multipurpose education doctorates no longer appropriate. Peabody Journal of Education , 84 (1), 3–8.

Gutierrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education , 61 (1/2), 100–117.

Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning & Changing , 44 (3/4), 181–195.

Holmes, B. D., Seay, A. D., & Wilson, K. N. (2009). Re-envisioning the dissertation stage of doctoral study: Traditional mistakes with non-traditional learners. Journal of College Teaching and Learning , 6 (8), 9–13.

Jarvis, P. (1999a). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jarvis, P. (1999b). Global trends in lifelong learning and the response of the universities. Comparative Education , 35 (2), 249–257. Retrieved from r0/docview/195149382?accountid=98

Klein, J. T. (2005). Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Shunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 23–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. E, & Swanson, R. A. (2012). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development . Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Kram, K. E., Wasserman, I. C., & Yip, J. (2012). Metaphors of identity and professional practice: Learning from the scholar-practitioner. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 48 (3), 304–341.

Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvementguide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Margolin, V. (2010). Doctoral education in design: Problems and prospects. Design Issues , 26 (3), 70–78.

Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2005). Developing professionally anchored dissertations: Lessons from innovative programs. School Leadership Review , 1 (1), 33–57. Retrieved from http://www.tcpea.org /slr/2005/murphy.pdf

Patton, S. (2013). The dissertation can no longer be defended. Chronicles of Higher Education . Retrieved from: http://ida.lib.uidaho.edu:2282 /article/The-DissertationCan-No-Longer/137215/

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension . Chicago, IL: Random House.

Prewitt, K. (2006). Who should do what? Implications for institutional and national leaders. In C. Golde & G. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education (pp. 23–33). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Professional Doctorate in Educational Leadership [ProDEL]. (2012). Dissertation in practice guidelines (DP-2.2-Fa12). Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

QAA. (2011). Doctoral degree qualifications . London, UK: QAA.

Reid, W. M. (1978). Will the future generations of biologists write a dissertation? Bioscience , 28 , 651–654.

Reardon, R. M., & Shakeshaft, C. (2013). Criterion-inspired, emergent design in doctoral education: A critical friend perspective. In V. A. Storey (Ed.), Redesigning professional education doctorates: Application of critical friendship theory to the EdD (pp. 177–194). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Robinson, S., & Dracup, K. (2008). Innovative options for the doctoral dissertation in nursing. Nursing Outlook , 56 (4), 174–178.

Shulman, L. S. (2010, April 4). Doctoral education shouldn’t be a marathon. The Chronicle of Higher Education , 56 (30), B9–B12.

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher , 35 (3), 25–32.

Smith, S. (2014). Beyond the dissertation monograph. Reprinted from the Spring 2010 MLA Newsletter . Retrieved from http://www.mla.org /blog&topic=133

Smith, S., Sanders, G., Fulton, J., & Kuit, J. (2014). An alternative approach to the final assessment of professional doctorate candidates. Paper presented at 4th International Conference on Professional Doctorates , April 10–11, 2014, Cardiff, Wales: United Kingdom Council on Graduate Education.

Sousanis, N. (2015). Unflattening: A visual-verbal inquiry into learning in many dimensions . Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hup.harvard.edu /catalog.php?isbn=9780674744431.

Stevens, D. A. (2010). A comparison of non-traditional capstone experiences in Ed.D. programs at three highly selective private research universities (Order No. 3418175). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: Social Sciences; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: Social Sciences (750445117). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com /docview/750445117?accountid=9817

Storey, V. A., & Hartwick, P. (2010). Critical friends: Supporting a small, private university face the challenges of crafting an innovative scholar-practitioner doctorate. In G. Jean-Marie & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education (pp. 111–133). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan Publishers.

Storey, V. A., & Maughan, B. D. (2014). Beyond a definition: Designing and specifying Dissertation in Practice (DiP) models . Pittsburgh, PA: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Retrieved from: http://cpedinitiative.org /findings

Storey, V. A., & Richard, B. (2013). Critical friend groups: Moving beyond mentoring. In V. A. Storey (Ed.), Redesigning professional education doctorates: Application of critical friendship theory to the EdD (pp. 9–25). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Swaffield, S. (2004). Critical friends: Supporting leadership, improving learning. Improving Schools , 7 (3), 267–278.

Thomas, R. (2015). The effectiveness of alternative dissertation models in graduate education . Unpublished master’s thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Thomas, R., West, R., & Rich, P. (2015). The effectiveness ofalternative dissertation models in graduate education . Under Review. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Vanderbilt University Peabody College (2015). Ed.D. Capstone Experience. Retrieved from http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu /departments/lpo/graduate_and_professional_programs/edd/capstone_experience/index.php

Willis, J., Inman, D., & Valenti, R. (2010). Completing a professional practice dissertation: A guide for doctoral students and faculty . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311–318.

Zusman, A. (2013). How new kinds of professional doctorates are changing higher education institutions . Research & Occasional Paper Series: 8.13. Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 2016 Valerie A. Storey and Bryan D. Maughan

About this chapter

Storey, V.A., Maughan, B.D. (2016). Dissertation in Practice: Reconceptualizing the Nature and Role of the Practitioner-Scholar. In: Storey, V.A. (eds) International Perspectives on Designing Professional Practice Doctorates. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137527066_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137527066_13

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-56385-2

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-52706-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

At Marymount University, we aim to elevate your Online Doctorate in Education (Ed.D.) experience and empower you to make a meaningful impact. You will grow professionally and personally as you delve into meaningful research and leadership topics that will propel your career trajectory.

Gain an advanced understanding of the theory and skills required to become a more confident and strategic leader. Our renowned team of professors and faculty mentors will give you the tools and guidance you need to design solutions for a real-world problem you are passionate about solving. Upon graduation, you will be a published author contributing to the academic and research community for years to come.

Learn more about our innovative Online Ed.D. program that gives you scaffolded support, an embedded dissertation experience and a high-impact community to guide you every step of the way.

Complete The Form to Connect With an Advisor

Dissertation in Practice

Unlike a traditional dissertation, Marymount Online Ed.D. students complete a dissertation in practice (DiP) that emphasizes the application of research and theory to provide a solution to a problem of practice that your organization or industry is facing. A DiP provides a practical and applied focus to actively solve problems in your community or organization. This is in comparison to a traditional dissertation grounded in academic theory, usually associated with prolonged programs and Ph.D. degrees.

The chart below outlines general and key distinctions between each type of dissertation.

Your own research journey may take unexpected and inspiring turns. To give you a glimpse of the exciting possibilities that await, here are some of the dissertation topics Marymount students have completed:  

• Empowering Leaders for Effective Organizational Change: Unveiling the SPY2 Methodology  
• Leadership Matters: Affecting Social Transformation in Africa
• The Lack of Hispanic Leadership in Higher Education: A Qualitative Study of Current Leaders at U.S. Universities
• The Relationship Between English Language Proficiency Level and Growth in Reading: A Quantitative Analysis of English Learners in First, Second, and Third Grade

Next application deadline:

• July 26, 2024 Fall 2024

Next start date:

• September 3, 2024 Fall 2024

Access Program Guide For Full Curriculum

One of the biggest advantages of studying online with Marymount is the exceptional faculty support. The dissertation process is embedded into course assignments and scaffolded throughout the Online Ed.D. program, allowing you to receive feedback from distinguished faculty and your committee. This also allows for an expedited timeline for completion as you are working on your dissertation while you are completing relevant courses.

Play the video to hear more details about the Dissertation in Practice, Lead Doctoral Faculty Mentor program and high-impact online community at Marymount.

View Faculty Profiles

What’s a Lead Doctoral Faculty Mentor? 

You are strategically paired with a Lead Doctoral Faculty Mentor (LDFM) in Semester 4, prior to your Applied Methods course. Your LDFM will not only be your dissertation chair but also a mentor and guide throughout the dissertation process. LDFMs are highly trained through Marymount and introduced earlier than dissertation chairs in other programs to ensure that sufficient progress can be made on your dissertation alongside your coursework.

All LDFM’s are practicing scholars with diverse backgrounds specifically assigned to students through an in-depth matching process based on personal working styles, research design, topic and methodology. Throughout the program, you will connect with your LDFM, discuss your intended topic and continuously map out the next stages of your dissertation journey. You may even attend the same virtual events together, like sync sessions, office hours, professional writing labs, retreats, seminars —and more.

View All LDFM Faculty Profiles

How do we help leaders in business, healthcare, education, the non-profit sector, and government achieve their goal of becoming doctors in their fields? We equip them with the skills to produce scholarly writing.

Come to FOCUS. Come to WRITE. Leave INSPIRED. This is the mission and the pulse of the Write Up! Institute. Dissertations, academic journal articles, and research papers fall into their own genre of writing. People who are looking to obtain their EdD are committed professionals ready to excel in their fields as scholars, but often find themselves intimidated by conducting their own research and by academic writing. And for good reason, the transition to academic writing seems to be one of the biggest hurdles faced in doctoral programs and is a supporting cause of the high attrition rates associated with EdD programs.

We have addressed this perceived barrier to success through the creation of the Write Up! Institute, a strong pillar of support for students in our program that provides the acute support needed to grow their practice in academic writing and achieve their goal of obtaining their doctorate. By honing this skill through live workshops with authors, methodologists, faculty, and experts in research design, who are all committed to providing scaffolded supports, students leave our program not only as thoughtful and innovative organizational leaders, but individuals equipped with the skills to give back to their respective fields as scholarly-practitioners and research-based institutional professionals. Choose the program that includes the dissertation, knowing that you will have the utmost support in achieving your goals.

There are two types of offerings in the Write Up! Institute.

The Write Up! Lab is available to all doctoral students, regardless of where the student is in their program of study. The Lab provides virtual live workshops on topics related to research and academic writing throughout the year. You’ll have an opportunity to learn outside of the classroom from various professors and guests, engage in conversation with your peers across cohorts about their research, and much more. The live Labs are then recreated into asynchronous learning modules and added to the Write Up! online resource center, always available to students in their moment of need. In addition, the Write Up! Lab hosts “Scholar Block Parties,” where students have time to concentrate on writing in community with faculty, other doctoral students, and alumni. The Block Parties will also include structured time to debrief, ask questions, and receive feedback on the writing process and your work.

The annual Write Up! Retreat is an optional multi-day event that provides participants who are in semesters 6 or 7 of the EdD program the space, time, support, and guidance to hone their Dissertation in Practice (DiP). This event is offered in-person with virtual pre- and post-sessions, exclusive to retreat attendees that are intended to extend the retreat experience into the attendees' daily writing practice allowing for a richer integration of what it means to be a scholar-practitioner. This experience includes one-on-one sessions with faculty, optional workshops, and a co-created safe, mindful, heart-centered space to be curious, make mistakes, engage in intellectual conversations, and write in community.

See a culmination of offerings this year here .

Read words from the founder of the Write Up! Institute here .

A Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate 

Marymount is a proud member of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). Our LDFM program is proactively designed to encompass CPED’s mentorship best practices that include: 

• Mutual respect 
• Equity and inclusion 
• Dynamic learning 
• Empathy and flexibility 
• Individualized attention 
• Continuous improvement

Request More Information

Frequently Asked Questions

A DiP is an alternative to the traditional research-based dissertation. It emphasizes addressing real-world problems in a practical context.

Yes — a DiP showcases your practical problem-solving skills, collaboration with practitioners and real-world impact. This gives you applied expertise that is valued in academia, organizations and in leadership roles.

Supporting you is our top priority. You will be paired with a Lead Doctoral Faculty Mentor (LDFM) who will guide, mentor and coach you throughout your dissertation and doctoral journey.  

Any field with practical challenges that require real-world solutions will work. Your lead doctoral faculty mentor will help you narrow in on a suitable topic that is important to you.

Methodologies may include focus groups, phenomenological studies, content analysis, surveys, participatory research, case studies and mixed methods.     These methodologies facilitate a close connection between research and practice.

Yes, you are required to publish your dissertation.     After a successful Final Presentation, you will submit your manuscript to ProQuest where it becomes a published document that will further the academic community and your field of study.

Connect With Us

Complete the form to access our comprehensive program guide with more details about our:

• World-class faculty
• Application process
• Unique student support

An admissions advisor will be in touch to answer your questions and help determine if Marymount is right for you.

Complete The Form

Requirements Not Met

To proceed with either the BSN to MSN FNP or the BSN to DNP FNP or the BSN to DNP PMHNP or the MSN PMHNP, you are required to have a bachelor’s degree and hold your RN license.

To proceed with either the PMC-FNP or the PMC-DNP or the PMC-PMHNP, you are required to have a master's degree and hold your RN license.

To proceed with the ABSN, you are required to have a bachelor's degree.

If you don’t meet these requirements but would still like further information, please contact us .

To proceed with the EdD in Educational Leadership and Organizational Leadership degree, you are required to have a master’s degree.

If you don’t meet this requirement but would still like further information, please contact us .

To proceed with the Doctor of Business Administration - Business Intelligence degree, you are required to have a master’s degree.

X Close Box

© 2024 Marymount University • All Rights Reserved • Privacy Policy • California Privacy Notice

• Schedule an Appointment
• Request Info

Evolution of the Dissertation in Practice

This article introduces the special issue on the evolution of the dissertation in practice, presenting a brief overview of the history of the EdD cand the concerns raised over professional doctorates, that triggered efforts to redefine the education doctorate through the leading role of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate.

Adams, A., Bondy, E., Ross, D., Dana, N., & Kennedy-Lewis, B. L. (2014). Implementing an online professional practice doctoral program in a PhD environment: Managing the dilemmas. Journal of School Public Relations, 35(3), 363 - 382.

Adams, A., Bondy, E., Ross, D., Dana, N., & Kennedy-Lewis, B. L. (2014). Implementing an online professional practice doctoral program in a PhD environment: Managing the dilemmas. Journal of School Public Relations, 35(3), 363-382.

Archbald, D. (2011). The emergence of the nontraditional doctorate: A historical overview. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,129(Spring), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace

Boyce, B. A. (2012). Redefining the EdD: Seeking a separate identity. Quest, 64(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2012.653260

CPED (2021). Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). https://www.cpedinitiative.org/cped-improvement-groups

Dill, D. D., & Morrison, J. L. (1985). EdD and PhD research training in the field of higher education: A survey and a proposal. The Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1985.0027

Hawkes, D., & Yerrabati, S. (2018). A systematic review of research on professional doctorates. London Review of Education, 16(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.1.03

Kot, F. C., & Hendel, D. D. (2012). Emergence and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: A comparative analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 345-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.516356

Leist, J., & Scott, J. (2011). Differentiation ... but to what degree? The Ed.D. and Ph.D. in higher education programs. Academic Leadership (15337812), 9(3), 1-15.

Lester, S. (2004). Conceptualizing the practitioner doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 757-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000287249

Perry, J. A. (2016). The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Perry, J. A., Zambo, D., & Crow, R. (2020). The improvement science dissertation in practice: A guide for faculty, committee members, and their students. Myers Education Press.

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035003025

Storey, V. A., & Hesbol, K. A. (2014). Can the dissertation in practice bridge the researcher-practitioner gap? The Education Professional Practice Doctorate and the impact of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate Consortium. Journal of School Public Relations, 35(3), 324-347. https://doi.org/10.3138/jspr.35.3.324

Taysum, A. (2006). The distinctiveness of the EdD within the university tradition. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 38(3), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620600984255

Dill, D. D., & Morrison, J. L. (1985). EdD and PhD research training in the field of higher education: A survey and a proposal. The Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1985.0027

Kot, F. C., & Hendel, D. D. (2012). Emergence and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: A comparative analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.516356

Leist, J., & Scott, J. (2011). Differentiation ... but to what degree? The Ed.D. and Ph.D. in higher education programs. Academic Leadership (15337812), 9(3), 1–15.

Lester, S. (2004). Conceptualizing the practitioner doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 757–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000287249

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035003025

Storey, V. A., & Hesbol, K. A. (2014). Can the dissertation in practice bridge the researcher-practitioner gap? The Education Professional Practice Doctorate and the impact of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate Consortium. Journal of School Public Relations, 35(3), 324–347. https://doi.org/10.3138/jspr.35.3.324

Taysum, A. (2006). The distinctiveness of the EdD within the university tradition. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 38(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620600984255

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

• The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
• Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
• Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
• The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
• Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
• the Work is the Author’s original work;
• the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
• the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
• the Work has not previously been published;
• the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
• the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
• The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Yasha J. Becton, Christopher Bogiages, Leigh D'Amico, Todd Lilly, Elizabeth Currin, Rhonda Jeffries, Suha Tamim, An Emerging Framework for the EdD Activist , Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice: Vol. 5 No. 2 (2020): Activating Activism: Promoting Activism within EdD Programs
• Aubrey L. C. Statti, Kelly M. Torres, Creating Agents of Change through Doctoral Learning , Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice: Vol. 6 No. 1 (2021): Energizing Activism: Motivating Activism within EdD Programs
• Stephen J. Pape, Camille L. Bryant, Ranjini Mahinda JohnBull, Karen S. Karp, Rhonda Jeffries, Suha Tamim, Erratum to: Pape, S. J., Bryant, C. L., JohnBull, R. M., & Karp, K. S. (2022). Improvement Science as a Frame for the Dissertation in Practice: The Johns Hopkins Experience. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 7(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2022.241 , Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice: Vol. 7 No. 4 (2022): EdD Student Research for Scholarly Practice
• Elizabeth Currin, Suha Tamim, Yasha Becton, Consensus Is a Journey , Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice: Vol. 8 No. 1 (2023): Regular Issue
• Suha Tamim, Rhonda Jeffries, Erratum to: , Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice: Vol. 6 No. 2 (2021): COVID-19 IN THE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT
• Suha Tamim, Rhonda Jeffries, Erratum to , Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice: Vol. 8 No. 2 (2023): Themed - Reimagining Research Methods Coursework for the Preparation of Scholar-Practitioners

Make a Submission

ISSN 2472-5889 (online)

Examining EdD Dissertations in Practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate

IHR Note:  We are proud to present this second article in the fifth annual volume of the  International HETL Review  (IHR) with the academic article contributed to the February issue of IHR by  Drs. Valerie Storey, Mickey Caskey, Kristina Hesbol, James Marshall, Bryan Maughan and Amy Dolan . In this action research study, the authors, members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) Dissertation in Practice Awards Committee have examined the format and design of dissertations submitted as a part of the reform of the educational doctorate. Twenty-five dissertations submitted as part of this project were examined through surveys, interviews and analysis to determine if the dissertations had changed as a result of the project and re-design with the participating programs. Their results raise questions about distinctiveness of Educational and professional doctorates, as compared to PhDs and the criteria to “demonstrate new knowledge” in the dissertation process.

Valerie A. Storey University of Central Florida, U.S.A.

Micki M. Caskey Portland State University, U.S.A.

Kristina A. Hesbol University of Denver, U.S.A.

James E. Marshall California State University, Fresno, U.S.A.

Bryan Maughan University of Idaho, U.S.A.

Amy Wells Dolan University of Mississippi, U.S.A.

In 2007, 25 colleges and schools of education (Phase I) came together under the aegis of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) to transform doctoral education for education practitioners. A challenging aspect of the reform of the educational doctorate is the role and design of the dissertation or Dissertation in Practice. In response to consortium concerns, members of the CPED Dissertation in Practice Awards Committee conducted this action research study to examine the format and design of Dissertations in Practice submitted by (re) designed programs. Data were gathered with an online survey, interviews, analyses of 25 Dissertations in Practice submitted in 2013 to the Committee. Results indicated few changes occurred in the final product, despite evidence of change in the Dissertation in Practice process. Findings contribute to debates about the distinctive nature of EdDs (and of professional doctorates generally) as distinct from PhDs, and how about the key criteria for demonstrating “new knowledge to solve significant problems of practice” are demonstrated through the dissertation submission.

Keywords : Dissertation in Practice, Professional Doctorate, Doctoral Thesis, Education Doctorate

Introduction

During the past decade, epistemological and philosophical debates have surrounded the EdD (Caboni & Proper, 2009; Guthrie, 2009; Shulman 2005, 2007; Zambo, 2011). These debates focus on the source, depth, and type of knowledge doctoral students need to become reflective practitioners and effective school leaders (Andrews & Grogan 2005; Evans 2007; Shulman 2005, 2007; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006), and the different roles of the EdD (Doctor of Education) and PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) programs failing in delivering these outcomes (Caboni & Proper, 2009; Guthrie, 2009). Some postulated that the programs were indistinguishable in some higher education institutions (Guthrie, 2009; Shulman 2005, 2007; Shulman et al., 2006). Levine (2005) observed that the EdD lacked its own identity, failing to prepare school leaders who understand real school problems with the ability to take action and make effective, lasting change. Additionally EdD graduates often fail to impact students and teachers in their schools (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2005), declining to turn theory into practice, change practice, or challenge the status quo (Evans, 2007).

In 2007, institutional members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) came together to re-imagine and redesign the EdD (Perry & Imig, 2008), clearly differentiating the Professional Practice Doctorate (EdD) from the PhD. A major outcome was the culminating EdD experience, validating the scholarly practitioner’s ability to solve Problems of Practice, and demonstrating the doctoral candidate’s ability “to think, to perform, and to act with integrity” (Shulman, 2005, p. 52).

In this article, we first set the study context, illustrating the epistemological and philosophical debates relating to the EdD, focusing on Dissertations in Practice (DiPs). Next, we discuss the developing design of DiPs, reflecting new models of educational research that emerge from Problems of Practice (PoPs). Finally, we report an action research study in which we investigated exemplar DiPs, nominated by 54 Phase I and II institutions, for the annual Dissertation in Practice Award. The purpose of the study was to generate valuable insights about the nature of professional practice doctorate dissertations.

The Association of American Colleges and Universities define the EdD as a terminal degree, presented as an opportunity to prepare for academic, administrative, or specialized positions in education. The degree favorably places graduates for leadership responsibilities or executive-level professional positions across the education industry (National Science Foundation, 2011). At most academic institutions where education doctorates are offered, the college or university chooses to offer an EdD, a PhD, or both (Osguthorpe & Wong, 1993). However, Shulman et al. (2006) contended that EdD and PhD programs are not aligned with their distinct theoretical purposes, and that poorly structured programs, marked by confusion of purpose, caused the EdD to be viewed as “PhD Light,” rather than a separate degree for a separate profession (p. 26).

Expanding Role of Influence

CPED encourages Schools of Education to reclaim the education doctorate (Shulman et al., 2006; Perry & Imig, 2008; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008) by developing EdD programs with scholarly practitioner graduates. The program design includes a set of courses, socialization experiences, and emphases that are distinct from those conventionally offered in PhD programs (Caboni & Proper, 2009; Guthrie, 2009). Bi-annual, three-day CPED convenings include graduate students, college deans, clinical faculty, teachers, college professors, and school administrators from member institutions. The first convening in Palo Alto, CA (June 2007), attended by 25 invited institutions, set the tone for future convenings by orchestrating an exchange of information with colleagues, grounded in a spirit of scholarly generosity, ethical responsibility, and integrity.

CPED Institutions, Phase 1, 2007-2010

A second group of institutions responded to a call for CPED membership in 2010. The call, open members of the Council for Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions (CADREI), included institutional commitments outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding. Identified as Phase II institutions, 26 new universities joined the consortium, beginning their work of EdD re-design at the fall convening held at Burlington, Vermont in 2011.

CPED Institutions, Phase II, 2011-2013

An ongoing discussion has centered on the nature of the final capstone of CPED influenced programs which Hamilton et al., (2010) suggest helps invigorate the use of a traditionalacademic tool. Many Phase 1 institutional members are farther into their programmatic implementation, with cohorts who have graduated and completed a DiP. Still, iterative questions abound among CPED institutions regarding the nature, scope, impact, and format of the DiP (Sands et al., 2013), as institutions learn from graduating cohorts (Harris, 2011).

CPED Institutions, Phase III, 2014

In April 2014, the consortium’s membership increased to 84, including two universities from Canada and one from New Zealand.CPED’s commitment to support institutional flexibility in the DiP design presents difficulty sorting out issues of rigor, and advancing common understandings about the nature of problems of practice (Sands et al., 2013). An informal survey of current CPED institutions (CPED, 2013) identified culminating projects including white papers, articles for publication, monographs, electronic portfolios, and the traditional five chapter dissertation document.

Not surprisingly, the consortium has struggled to reach consensus on a DiP definition. Several drafts have been distributed on the consortium’s web site inviting feedback and comment. The current version is, “The Dissertation in Practice is a scholarly endeavor that impacts a complex problem of practice” (CPED, 2014). What is agreed upon by the consortium is that the DiP is focused on practice, and that local context matters. Faculty in EdD programs must have a clear sense of the nature of problems in practice among their constituent base, appropriate types of inquiry used to address those issues, and the manner in which results can be conveyed in authentic, productive ways (Sands et al., 2013).

Key Principles and Components of an Innovative DiP

The nature and format of the DiP diverge (Archbald, 2008; CPED, 2012; Sands et al., 2013). The first major discussion about the attributes of the CPED DiP occurred at the second convening (Fall, 2007), at Vanderbilt University (Storey & Hartwick, 2010). Peabody College faculty and recent program graduates described their DiP’s client-based process. Faculty expressed that the DiP’s primary objective is to provide a program candidate with an opportunity to show they are informed and have the critical skills and knowledge to address complex educational problems (Smrekar & McGraner, 2009). They indicated that the EdD candidate could exemplify a skill set including deep knowledge and understanding of inquiry, organizational theory, resource deployment, leadership studies, and the broad social context associated with problems of educational policy and practice (Caboni & Proper, 2009). Faculty asserted that while DiPs may vary by focus area, geographical location, institutions (school, district, agency, association), and scope (case study, systematic review, program assessment, program proposal), all share common characteristics related to rigorous analysis in a realistic operational context (Smrekar & McGraner, 2009). In the convening’s keynote speech, Guthrie (2009) argued that if capstone requirements for research and practice are the same in EdD and PhD programs, then program purposes, research preparation, and practitioner professional training have been woefully compromised.

During the Fall 2012 convening, consortium members tackled the development of a set of standards and criteria to assess the DiP. Questions regarding the requirements of DiP remained, however. In response to a proposed standard that the DiP “is expected to have generative impact on the future work and agendas of the scholar practitioner” (CPED, 2012), members asked, “What is meant by generative impact? Is this doable in a dissertation capstone?” Members wondered if APA was the appropriate stylistic guide for the formatting of final products, and whether blogs, websites, graphic novel, or YouTube videos were appropriate products (Sands et al., 2013).

Participants at the 2009 convening developed six Working Principles to guide the consortium’s work (Perry & Imig, 2010):

The professional doctorate in education:

• Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice.
• Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities.
• Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships.
• Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions.
• Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry.
• Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice.

These principles guide institutions as they develop the DiP’s conceptual foundation. Scholarly practitioners blend practical wisdom with professional skills and knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of practice. They disseminate work in multiple ways, with an obligation to resolve problems of practice by collaborating with key stakeholders, including the partners from schools, community, and the university. The second CPED principle, inquiry as practice, poses significant questions focused on complex problems of practice. By using various research, theories, and professional wisdom, scholarly practitioners design innovative solutions to improve problems of practice. Inquiry of Practice requires the ability to gather, organize, judge, aggregate, and analyze situations, literature, and data with a critical lens (Sands et al., 2013). The final CPED principle relates directly to the DiP as the culminating experience that demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to solve problems of practice and exhibit the doctoral candidate’s ability “to think, to perform, and to act with integrity” (Shulman, 2005, p. 5).

In 2012, CPED formed a DiP Award Committee to develop assessment criteria for DiPs nominated for the CPED DiP of the Year Award, and to review submitted DiPs for the award. To develop the assessment criteria, the committee drew on Archbald’s (2008) work, which specified four qualities that a reimagined EdD doctoral thesis should address: (a) developmental efficacy, (b) community benefit, (c) stewardship of doctoral values, and (d) distinctiveness of design. In arguing for a problem solving study, Archbald advised that unlike a research dissertation, findings are not the goal. Rather, the problem-based thesis’ goals are decisions, changed practices, and better organizational performances.

At the June 2012 convening, hosted by California State University (Fresno), the DiP committee guided members in a Critical Friends activity, “Defining Criteria for a Dissertation in Practice”. Subsequently, the 2012 DiP Committee developed and circulated the draft criteria, inviting feedback from CPED members.

At the October 2012 convening, hosted by at The College of William and Mary, the DiP Award Committee proposed their assessment criteria and requested additional feedback from CPED colleagues (CPED, 2013). The assessment rubric was revised, responsive to the feedback, and was circulated to a wider consortium membership for public comment on CPED’s website. Review of this feedback led to item criteria refinement along with performance indicators:

• Demonstrates an understanding of, and possible solution to, the problem of practice. (Indicators: Demonstrates an ability to address and/or resolve a problem of practice and/or generate new practices.)
• Demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to act ethically and with integrity. (Indicators: Findings, conclusions and recommendations align with the data.)
• Demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to communicate effectively in writing to an appropriate audience in a way that addresses scholarly practice. (Indicators: Style is appropriate for the intended audience.)
• Integrates both theory and practice to advance practical knowledge. (Indicators: Integrates practical and research-based knowledge to contribute to practical knowledge base; Frames the study in existing research on both theory and practice.)
• Provides evidence of the potential for impact on practice, policy, and/or future research in the field. (Indicators: Dissertation indicates how its findings are expected to impact professional field or problem.)
• Uses methods of inquiry that are appropriate to the problem of practice. (Indicators: Identifies rationale for method of inquiry that is appropriate to the dissertation in practice; effectively uses method of inquiry to address problem of practice.)

The DiP Award Committee conducted two rounds of review for the DiP Annual Award, applying the above assessment criteria.

What Makes a Professional Practice DiP?

In this section, we turn to the international community for guidance in answering two major issues concerning the CPED Award Committee as they wrestled with the assessment criteria. First, what should a DiP look like? Second, how should DiP potential impact be measured?

Numerous national and international bodies govern qualifications and specifications for what doctoral level work should look like, e.g., European University Association (2005), Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies, Australia (2007), Council of Graduate Schools (2008), Quality Assurance Agency (2012). Common to all is the emphasis on critical assessment of the originality of findings presented in the dissertation in the context of the literature and the research. Fulton, Kuit, Sanders and Smith (2013) drew on their experience teaching in a Professional Practice Doctoral program at the University of Sunderland in England, concluding that the “ability to design research objectively and logically, and then to critically review and evaluate findings, is what makes it doctoral level, not the actual findings themselves” (p.152). In their view, the difference between a PhD and a Professional Practice Doctorate is the demonstration of knowledge production that makes a significant contribution to the profession. O’Mullane (2005) noted that while the structure of a DiP may be similar to that of a PhD dissertation, it should contain additional reflective elements relating to personal reflections on the learning journey. But the question remains, what should a DiP look like? O’Mullane (2005) identified six outputs currently used by universities to demonstrate a significant contribution to the profession:

• Thesis or dissertation alone;
• Portfolio and/or professional practice and analysis;
• A reflection and analysis of a significant contribution to knowledge over time or from one major work;
• Published scholarly works recognized as a significant and original contribution to knowledge;
• Portfolio and presentation (performance in music, visual arts, drama); and
• Professional practice and internship with mentors.

These six DiP designs can be found within CPED; a group DiP design is also being explored. Universities are offering several DiP design choices: (a) Baylor University’s DiP can be thematic, assessment, action research, or three articles; (b) California State University San Marcos’ DiP can be a policy brief, executive summary, or series of articles; (c) Rutgers University’s DiP can be thematic, assessment, three article, action research, portfolio, or 3 “products” tied together with an introduction and conclusion; and (d) the University of Arkansas’ DiP can be an executive summary and article submission for publication in a peer reviewed scholarly journal (CPED data, 2013). O’Mullane (2005) also identified the essentials of a DiP:

• Create new knowledge.
• Make a significant contribution to your profession.
• Explicit conceptual framework.
• Literature review should provide the context to the research question, and should demonstrate that the question is worth asking.
• Demonstrable evidence of how ideas have been synthesized in the light of experience and in the context of academic literature, and how this has created new knowledge.
• Demonstration that findings have been reflected on, logically planned, and progressed through the research.
• Independently construct arguments for and against the findings and use evidence to support your interpretation.
• A distinctive voice should be clearly heard although what is said should be supported by evidence.
• Use the university’s designated reference style consistently. (pp.149-150)

Fulton et al. (2013) suggested that “the creation of new knowledge and significant contribution” are critical, and likely to give any DiP assessor the most difficulty. Not only does “the creation of new knowledge and significant contribution” vary between professions, but the opportunity to influence a profession also tends to be based on position and length of service. To bring clarity to the problem of “significant contribution,” O’Mullane (2005) suggested two classifications, active or inactive, in terms of contribution to the profession. An active contribution generates new significant knowledge, which results in significant improvement in practice. An inactive contribution generates significant knowledge that has not yet been disseminated.

Current Rhetoric and Reality of DiPs: An Action Research Study Methods of the Study

For this action research study (Lewin, 1944; Stringer, 2007), we gathered data from an online survey from the eight member DiP Award Committee. Members came from a variety of institutions; four had previous Dissertation Award Committee experience with American Education Research Association special interest groups. The authors of this paper were among those who provided data.

Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using a Qualtrics administered survey with Likert responses and assessors’ comments. Each survey item was scored 1 to 4, with 1 indicating “unacceptable,” 2 “developing,” 3 “target,” and 4 “exceptional”.

Each member of the committee responded to an email invitation to complete a blind review of four DiP synopses submitted by the nominated candidate. Two committee members assessed each synopsis against the assessment item criteria, with a third assessment by the committee chair, as needed. Based on the quantitative scores and qualitative comments of the synopses, the pool was narrowed from 25 to 6 DiPs. A second blind review of the full text of the six DiPs was conducted with each committee member reading the full DiP and submitting criteria assessment data in Qualtrics.

Limitations

The authors of this paper are DiP Award Committee members, which could cause bias in interpretation. The committee members’ initial judgments were based on the submitted synopses; some may not have adequately represented the overall DiPs quality. The sample was neither random nor sufficiently large to draw generalizable conclusions. 14 DiPs came from three Phase 1 institutions. While not surprising that most submissions came from Phase 1 institutions, multiple submissions from any institution was unexpected.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each DiP synopsis assessed on the six CPED assessment items (Table 1). Item means ranged from 2.78 to 2.94 with an overall mean of 2.86. The median was 3 (“Target”) for each of the six items and the mode was 3 (“Target”) for all items except item #5, where the mode was 2.

Table 1. Item Statistics for the DiP Award Assessment Survey

Across the range of 300 individual responses (2 reviewers x 25 dissertations x 6 survey items), a 1 (Unacceptable) was selected only four times, while 4 (Exceptional) was selected 50 times. The remaining 246 responses were either a 2 (Developing) or 3 (Target), indicating considerable restriction of range at both ends of the scale. As for measures of central tendency, the median of 3 (Target), and a grand mean of 2.86, indicate that overall, reviewers found the DiP to be near “Target” based on the review criteria.

Figure 1 shows a frequency distribution of total scores for the 25 DiPs submitted for review. The numbers on the X-axis represent a unique identifier for the 25 reviewed DiPs. The scale ranged from 0-48 possible points (6 items of the survey x 4 maximum points allowed x 2 reviewers). The observed scores ranged from 25 to 45 with no obvious natural breaks in the distribution.

Figure 1 . Frequency distribution of scores across 25 DiPs synopses. Prior to scoring, the DiP Award Committee predicted that an analysis of the score distribution might reveal a natural break that could be useful to narrow the pool for further review. Because there were no obvious natural breaks, the committee, after careful review of both the quantitative and the qualitative data, agreed that the top six scoring DiPs would move forward for a full text review.

The format of 24 DiPs was the traditional (five chapter) dissertation, with one non-traditional chapter. All had single authors. Two submissions implemented results of their study and showed immediate impact. The average page length of the 25 DiPs was 212, with a range of 85-377 pages. Four studies used quantitative methods, 17 used qualitative methods, and four used mixed methods. The methodology used in 10 studies was action research, case studies, grounded theory, and phenomenology.

In additional to numerical rating, the DiP Committee members commented on quality and overall alignment with the DiP assessment criteria. For DiPs that received similar, or identical marks, committee members reviewed the reflective comments, re-read the synopses, and continued meetings via Skype, Adobe Connect, or by phone. The inclusion of quality data provided a point of reference to triangulate perspectives regarding the eventual five finalists.

Critical reflections and subsequent comments can often appear somewhat tenuous. Elements of ambiguity may exist in such reviews, and reviewers may be guilty of overgeneralizing. As the process continued, a clear inter-rater agreement (Creswell, 2013) was evident among committee members.

The qualitative data confirmed the quantitative findings. Regarding those dissertations where the mean was closer to the “exceptional” category, some reviewers stated:

• A timely paper and excellent report
• Good example of an important problem of practice
• High potential for impact
• Meaningful and insightful
• Well-developed
• Important examples of a problem of practice
• Good interdisciplinary foundation

A characteristic of all submitted DiPs was addressing immediate needs in practice. Some were assessments of existing programs; others delved into theoretical constructs and inquired about their applicability to educational issues within the local, regional, or national context. Among these studies, a few took their inquiry directly into the classroom. While the DiPs that rose to the top during the review process were regarded by their submitting institutions as exemplary, not all addressed all of the assessment criteria in their synopsis.

Critical assessment of the DiPs indicated that most CPED member institutions remain unclear about what constitutes an exemplary DiP. While the conclusions drawn from the 2009 Peabody convening asserted that all share a set of common characteristics related to rigorous analysis in a realistic operational setting (Smrekar & McGraner, 2009), the DiP Award Committee’s analysis of 25 submissions revealed a continuum of alignment to the Working Principles for Professional Practice Programs.

Discrepancy in alignment to the Working Principles may be indicative of an analogous disconnect between the central principles that were developed by the consortium to guide all programs in 2009 and what is, in reality, being practiced currently among Phase I and II CPED institutions. The assumption that these principles would be tested during Phase II seems to be flawed, borne out by the analysis of the 2013 data.   Alternately, the discrepancy in alignment to the Working Principles may also reflect the need for additional refinement and discussion around the rubric used for review by the DiP Award Committee. Again, because the rubric evolved from a community-based process, further refinements may require similar processes of discussion and recommendation from the broader constituency.

Many of the DiP submissions lacked clear evidence of impact on practice, a characteristic that is foundational to the Working Principles. While submissions demonstrate the author’s ability to generate solutions, whether a complex problem of practice had been identified in the studies was unclear in a majority of the submissions. Additionally, it was unclear in most submissions whether the author included implications for generative solutions at the local and/or broad context. Drawing on the work of Bryk, Gomez, and Grunow (2010), the six Core Principles of Improvement Science suggest the following:

• Make the work problem-specific and user-centered.
• Variation in performance is the core problem to address.
• See the system that produces the current outcomes.
• We cannot improve at scale what we cannot measure.
• Anchor practice improvement in disciplined inquiry.
• Accelerate improvements through networked communities.

Concluding Remarks

The analysis of DiPs and the narrative presented is indicative of both the challenges institutions face and their pervasiveness, as faculty wrestle with the design of a professional practice doctorate program. While challenging, the identification of common issues provides an opportunity for institutions to engage in conversation with others that appear to have found solutions to some of the challenges. Such conversation is a start to ensuring program rigor and consistency at both a national and international level. Learning in situ develops praxis in education. At the core, the creation of generative knowledge forms a substantive epistemology that guides the construction of meaning and builds confidence in decision makers.

To re-imagine and redesign the EdD will require innovation, a commitment that has now been made by the growing membership of CPED, now collaborating on a global stage to rethink the fundamental purpose of doctoral education with specific focus on the professional practice doctorate, the EdD.

Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005). Form should follow function: Removing the EdD. dissertation from Ph.D. straightjacket. UCEA Review , 46(2), 10–13.

Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the Education Leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 704–739.

Bryk A. S., Gomez L. M. & Grunow A. (2010). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Caboni, T., & Proper, E. (2009). Re-envisioning the professional doctorate for educational leadership and higher educational leadership: Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College EdD. program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (1), 61­–68.

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2012). Consortium members . Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/consortium-members

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2013). Dissertation in Practice of the Year Award . Retrieved from http://cpedinitiative.org/dissertation-practice-year-award

Council of Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. (2007). Guidelines on professional doctorates. Adelaide, Australia: Council of Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. Retrieved from https://www.gs.unsw.edu.au/policy/findapolicy/abapproved/policydocuments/05_07_professional_doctorates_guidelines.pdf

Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Task force report of the professional doctora te. Washington, DC: Author.

European University Association. (2005). Salzburg Principles, as set out in the European Universities’ Association’s (EUA) Bologna Seminar report. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Conclusions.1108990538850.pdf

European University Association. (2005). Salzburg principles, as set out in the European Universities’ Association’s (EUA) Bologna seminar report. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Conclusions.1108990538850.pdf

Evans, R. (2007). Comments on Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, and Garabedian: Existing practice is not the template. Educational Researcher, 36 (6), 553–559. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X07313149 in S.I.

Fulton, J., Kuit, J., Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2013). The professional doctorate: A practical guide. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Guthrie, J. (2009). The case for a modern Doctor of Education Degree (EdD.): Multipurpose education doctorates no longer appropriate. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (1), 2–7.

Hamilton, P., Johnson, R., & Poudrier, C. (2010). Measuring educational quality by appraising theses and dissertations: Pitfalls and remedies. Teaching in Higher Education, 15 (5), 567–577.

Harris, S. L. (2011). Reflections on the first 2 years of a doctoral program in educational leadership. In S. Harris (Ed.). The NCPEA handbook on doctoral programs in educational leadership: Issues and challenges. Retrieved from Open Educational Resources Commons website: http://www.oercommons.org/courses/reflections-on-the-first-2-years-of-a-doctoral-program-in-educational-leadership.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders . Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Retrieved from www.edschools.org .

Lewin, K. (1944). The solution of a chronic conflict in industry. Proceedings of the Second Brief Psychotherapy Council. Reprinted in B. Cooke & J. F. Cox (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research , volume I, pp. 3–17. London: Sage.

Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2005). Developing professionally anchored dissertations: Lessons from innovative programs. School Leadership Reviews, 1 (1), 33–57.

National Science Foundation. (2011). Numbers of doctorates awarded in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf12303/

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Wong, M. J. (1993). The PhD versus the EdD: Time for a decision. Innovative Higher Education, 18 (1), 47–63.

O’Mullane, M. (2005). Demonstrating significance of contribution to professional knowledge and practice in Australian professional doctorate programs: Impacts in the workplace and professions. In T.W. Maxwell, C. Hickey, & T. Evans (Eds), Working doctorates: The impact of professional doctorates in the workplace and professions. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.

Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2008, November/December). A stewardship of practice in education. Change, 42­–48.

Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2010, May). Interrogation of outcomes of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Quality Assurance Agency. (2012). UK quality code for higher education. Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality, Chapter B11: Research degrees . Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Quality-Code-Chapter-B11.pdf

Rivera, N. (2013).  Cooperative Learning in a community college setting: Developmental coursework in mathematics . Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved from CPED Dissertation in Practice Award Winner website: http://cpedinitiative.org/news-item/2013-dissertation-practice-year-award-winners-honorable-mentions-announced

Sands, D., Fulmer, C., Davis, A., Zion, S., Shanklin, N., Blunck, R. Ruiz-Primo, M. (2013). Critical Friends’ perspectives on problems of practice and inquiry in an EdD program. In V.A. Storey (Ed.), Redesigning professional education doctorates: Applications of critical friendship theory to the EdD (pp. 63­–81). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134 (3), 52–59. Doi: 10.1162/0011526054622015

Shulman, L. S. (2007). Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher , 36, 560–563. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X07313150

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorate: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35 (2), 25–32.

Smrekar, C., & McGraner, K. (2009). From curricular alignment to the culminating project: The Peabody College EdD capstone. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (1), 48–60.

Storey, V. A., & Hartwick, P. (2010). Critical friends: Supporting a small, private university face the challenges of crafting an innovative scholar-practitioner doctorate. In G. Jean-Marie & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education . New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Stringer, E.T. (2007). Action research (3 rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publication.

Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctorial education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Zambo, D. (2011). Action research as signature pedagogy in an Education Doctorate program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education . 36(4), DOI: 10.1007/s10755-010-9171-7.

This feature article was accepted for publication in the International HETL Review (IHR) after a double-blind peer review involving three independent members of the IHR Board of Reviewers and two revision cycles. Accepted for publication in July 2014 by Dr. Lorraine Stefani (University of Auckland, New Zealand), IHR Senior Editor.

Suggested citation:

Storey, V. A., Caskey, M. M., Hesbol, K. A., Marshall, J. E., Maughan, B., & Dolan, A. W. (2014). Examining EdD dissertations in practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. International HETL Review , Volume 5, Article 2. https://www.hetl.org/examining-edd-dissertations-in-practice-the-carnegie-project-on-the-education-doctorate

Copyright [2015] V. A. Storey, M. M. Caskey, K. A. Hesbol, J. E. Marshall, B. Maughan and A. W. Dolan.

The authors assert their right to be named as the sole authors of this article and to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third party’s rights including copyright. The authors assign to HETL Portal and to educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this article for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to HETL Portal to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the HETL Review . Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position of other professionals or any institution. By publishing this article, the author affirms that any original research involving human participants conducted by the author and described in the article was carried out in accordance with all relevant and appropriate ethical guidelines, policies and regulations concerning human research subjects and that where applicable a formal ethical approval was obtained.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the author: patrick blessinger.

Related Posts

The Smartphone project: Digital tools to promote university students’ psychological well-being

Emotional dialogue via video-mediated communications technologies: A network analysis of influencing factors

Online collaborations extending reflective deliberations in the virtual hallway

Mapping the Transformative Journey of Graduate Students

Question: What is a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) Dissertation in Practice (DiP) and what does it entail? What research approaches does an EdD Dissertation in Practice use?

Answer: An EdD Dissertation in Practice features impact-focused research, with the goal of using scholarly inquiry to improve problems of practice in real academic and/or professional settings. Unlike traditional dissertations which may focus more on investigating and analyzing a problem or phenomena within education with the intent of broadening or deepening scholarly literature on said phenomena, the goal of a DiP is to directly change practice. As a result, many DiPs use applied research approaches, such as action research, improvement science, and evaluation. On the other hand, traditional dissertations may use methods such as appreciative inquiry, case study, ethnography, or grounded theory.

As a practitioner’s doctorate, the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) prepares educators to enact concrete changes in their place of work to improve education outcomes, using scholarly inquiry and rigorous research methodologies to identify, examine, and address barriers to success within their spheres of influence. The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), an organization that is dedicated to distinguishing the Ed.D. as a practice doctorate (as opposed to a Ph.D. in Education), invented the Dissertation in Practice (DiP), which is a scholarly research project that aims to identify and solve a concrete problem that the Ed.D. student has encountered in their place of work.

In a conversation with CPED’s Executive Director, Dr. Jill A. Perry, she explained how CPED defines the DiP specifically as “A scholarly endeavor that impacts a complex Problem of Practice (PoP).” A Problem of Practice, according to Dr. Perry, is defined as “a persistent, contextualized, and specific issue embedded in the work of a professional practitioner, the addressing of which has the potential to result in improved understanding, experience, and outcomes.” A central feature of the DiP is how the Problem of Practice drives the structure and research methodology that students use for their dissertation.

While many DiPs still take the form of a standard five-chapter dissertation, others may not follow this format. Depending on the Ed.D. program, students may be able to format their dissertation in a way that aligns better with the problem they are trying to solve. For example, a practitioner may want to incorporate a training module, alternative lesson plan, or other concrete deliverable into their DiP, along with collected data on and discussion of the impact of this deliverable and where the practitioner wishes to take their efforts in the future. Some Ed.D. programs allow or even encourage students to complete a group dissertation to collaboratively tackle a larger problem of practice; in such cases, students may submit a joint DiP or write their own DiP on their findings from the collaborative project. CPED emphasizes that the DiP is a continually evolving form of practitioner research and action, and as such it should have the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs and concerns of students and educators.

For the DiP, there are three primary scholarly approaches that focus on direct change and improvement of Problems of Practice: action research, improvement science, and evaluation. Below is an in-depth exploration of each of these approaches and their utility for educators and scholar-practitioners.

Applied Research Approaches

In their work to differentiate the Ed.D. from the Ph.D. in Education, CPED established a CPED Improvement Group (CIG) devoted to discussing and defining new research methods and paradigms specifically for Dissertations in Practice. According to CPED, a Dissertation in Practice should advance knowledge in the practitioner’s field of work, while also, as mentioned previously, directly addressing a complex Problem of Practice. In contrast, a traditional dissertation such as the ones written in Ph.D. programs seek to expand the scholarly literature on a particular topic through methodologies that are more observational in nature and less oriented around enacting change in one’s place of work.

Action research, improvement science, and evaluation are three applied research approaches that the CPED favors for EdD students completing a DiP, as they are geared towards enacting change directly in one’s place of employment. While these three approaches have similarities, the CPED considers each approach as distinct with its own types of research methodologies. It is important to note that not all EdD programs (even those that are members of the CPED consortium) or EdD students use one of these approaches for their dissertation. There are a number of traditional research approaches such as appreciative inquiry, case study, ethnography, grounded theory, etc. that students might use. However, this FAQ focuses on the applied approaches advocated for by the CPED, which connect research insights to directly facilitating educational improvements.

Action Research

Action research involves directly investigating and attempting to solve problems in one’s professional practice. It is a highly student-focused research approach wherein scholar-practitioners identify an area of concern or interest, evaluate its effects on their target population – whether that is a classroom of students, a team of fellow educators, or a department within an organization – and then develop and test potential solutions or optimizations that can help their target population. Action research is inherently iterative in that practitioners design and implement initiatives and then evaluate the efficacy of those initiatives as part of their research process. In doing so, action research combines action with scholarly inquiry, enabling educators to conduct rigorous studies that directly impact their work environment, while also providing strong evidence-based best practices for educators and leaders in other contexts.

Examples of actions research might include developing an interactive reading proficiency program that incorporates education technology into the classroom, and gathering qualitative and quantitative data on the impact of this program on student learning outcomes. Another example could be the design and subsequent assessment of a professional development program for teachers that provides certification opportunities or training on important topics such as supporting students with special needs or addressing systemic discrimination in the school system.

Improvement Science

Improvement science is similar to action research in that it is focused on identifying and addressing real problems in one’s work environment. However, improvement science is more iterative in nature, involving rapid cycles of solutions development, implementation, and evaluation. It is a systems-oriented approach wherein practitioners implement small changes and evaluate the efficacy and overall impact of these changes in a continuous way. Enacting this cycle repeatedly allows educators to better understand the systems of learning that their students encounter, the challenges students face, and the optimal processes to achieve reform.

In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Education, one of the key components of improvement science is the “Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) inquiry cycle.” The PDSA cycle empowers educators to design and enact changes in their educational setting, record their observations of the results, and continually revise their implemented changes in order to work towards their goals for the population they wish to help. Improvement science is characterized by small-scale experiments or tests so that educators can move quickly. Rather than implementing a large project once and evaluating the results, improvement science breaks up the process into smaller cycles of change, observation, analysis, and further change.

An example of improvement science includes coordinating a writing skills development program for students wherein teachers continually assess students’ progress and use this data to further tailor lessons and activities to students’ needs. Another example could be testing a teacher support program where teachers get access to mentors and advisors and continually complete qualitative surveys on how this mentorship helps and how their needs evolve over time.

Evaluation research is a form of systematic inquiry that seeks to determine the feasibility, efficacy, and overall impact of a particular program, practice, and/or policy. It can be conducted prior, during, and after the implementation of an initiative, and plays an important role in helping practitioners determine whether a program should be enacted, continued, modified, or discontinued. Evaluation research incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, such as surveys, interviews, assessment scores, statistical modeling, and direct observation, and is used in the social, medical, and behavioral sciences, as well as in the education space. For example, in the medical field evaluation is used to assess the effectiveness of particular smoking cessation programs, STD prevention initiatives, and similar efforts.

In education, evaluation research is used to determine whether certain academic programs are returning on their required investments in terms of time and budget. Simply put, evaluation helps education leaders and stakeholders decide: 1) if a program is worth implementing, 2) the populations this program affects, and in what ways, and 3) what is working and not working for a program that has been implemented. Examples of evaluation research include student surveys asking about the aspects of learning that challenge them the most, teacher interviews to identify pain points with a particular education program or initiative, and analysis of standardized test scores to determine the efficacy of a math or reading proficiency program. Gathering and analyzing this relevant data empowers practitioners to then design or modify their educational programming to better serve their students and/or colleagues.

For more information on dissertations in practice and the kinds of research approaches and methodologies they use, please refer to our Ed.D. Dissertation Interview Series as well as our CPED Ed.D. Innovation Interview Series .

To learn more about the CPED, we conducted an interview with Dr. Jill Perry in which she discusses the history of CPED and how it has reshaped the EdD degree and brought schools of education nationwide together to discuss the continued advancement of the education doctorate towards a more socially impactful and professionally effective degree. Furthermore, our exclusive interview with Dr. Kimberlee Everson , Chair of CPED’s Dissertation in Practice Award Committee, offers a wealth of information about the evolution of the Dissertation in Practice and how Problems of Practice should drive students’ research methodologies and approaches.

• Evolution of the Dissertation in Practice, Impacting Education , Journal on Transforming Professional Practice
• EdD Research Guide: Improvement Science , University of Pittsburgh
• Evaluation Research: An Overview , ScienceDirect
• Introduction to Improvement Science , Regional Educational Laboratory Program
• What is Action Research , Scribbr

General Doctorate of Education FAQs

• What is an EdD degree? Is an EdD a terminal degree?
• What is an EdD in organizational leadership?
• What is the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED)?
• What is the difference between an EdD and a PhD in Education?
• What is the difference between an EdD and an EdS degree?
• What is the Difference between an EdD in Nursing Education and a DNP in Nursing Education?
• What is the difference between campus, online, and hybrid EdD programs?

• Academic Proofreading
• Business Proofreading
• Content Creation
• Application Review
• Express Service
• Microsoft Track Changes
• Testimonials
• Areas of Expertise
• Our Editors
• Join Our Team
• English Writing Guides
• Academic Referencing Guides
• English Blog
• Instant Quote
• Your basket is currently empty.

How To Write A Professional Practice Dissertation

What is a professional practice dissertation.

A professional practice dissertation is a dissertation that has a practical focus and is often used in practice focussed Masters Courses. The aim of it is to give you the opportunity to demonstrate originality in tackling and solving problems taking into account practical considerations, acting autonomously in planning and implementing tasks, whilst advancing your own knowledge and understanding. It is also aimed to develop independent learning and research skills that are required for continuing professional development.

Key considerations

The first thing to consider is what your title will be, it is important to pick a topic that will enable you to adequately consider the subject from a practical perspective and ultimately provide insightful recommendations to practitioners. As a professional practice dissertation is typically in the form of a report its contents should be practically focussed with recommendations that would assist those practising in the field. For this reason you should choose a topic which you think has a reasonable amount of literature and content that you can use for research. You should also consider people who practice in those areas and see what they are writing about in their blogs.

Research your Dissertation

A professional practice dissertation just like any type of dissertation will require extensive research. You should consider a wide range of different types of sources. It is important not to over rely on any one source or type of source.

It is also important that you show familiarity with, and engagement with, the range of academic writing and content that is relevant to your project, as well as contextualising these into a practical context. It is important that you go beyond relying on a small number of textbooks. Crucially you will need to show that you have sought out journal articles, especially from peer reviewed journals. Material published in peer reviewed journals may well be more up to date and more focused than some other sources. Also if the journal is peer reviewed then the article will have been examined by one or two experts anonymously prior to publication, so there is a guarantee of quality.

A professional practice dissertation like other types of dissertations will normally be structured around chapters (or maybe sections), including introductory and concluding chapters. Within chapters headings and even sub-headings may be used. A table of contents, a title page, an abstract page and an acknowledgements page. If there are no University guidelines as to formatting then see if you can obtain a copy of a good quality dissertation example to see how it is set out.

It is also a good idea to use signalling to help the reader understand how the chapters, sections, paragraphs are linked. Thus the beginning of a chapter may refer back to the previous chapter and the overall argument; the end of a chapter might want to refer to the next stage of the argument. Moreover, check each paragraph: Does it link to the next paragraph?

Bibliography

You will usually be expected to include a bibliography. Again each institution may have its own version of how this should be presented. A few matters to bear in mind: Any bibliography should distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Most importantly, make sure you use the citation system precisely and consistently.

Obtain an Instant Quote for our Proofreading Service

At Express Proofreading we offer a professional dissertation proofreading service . We are able to ensure that your work is not only free from spelling mistakes and grammatical errors but we also check syntax, sentence structure and are able to recommend improvements and suggestions that may be relevant to your work. We will also check that your tables and footnotes are accurate and consistent with your bibliography.

To obtain an instant quote for us to proofread your work, click the Instant Quote button below and upload your document and our Quote Generator will calculate an instant quote based upon the word count of your document. Once you are happy with your quote, you can then proceed to our secure checkout page.

UW Tacoma Digital Commons

A service of the UW Tacoma Library

Home > Education > EdD Dissertations in Practice

Ed.D. Dissertations in Practice

Dissertation in practice from 2023 2023.

Transforming Learning Spaces: Decentering Whiteness to Dream of a Liberatory Education , Kimberly Booker

Subversive Self-Care: Black Women Faculty and the (Im)possibilities of Healing in Higher Education , Hermenia Butler

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) NO FRACTIONS HERE: NAVIGATING BLOOD QUANTUM-BASED COLORISM SETTLER IDEOLOGY WITHIN TRIBAL COMMUNITIES , DeAnn Dillon

We are Stronger Together: Faculty Reflections on Competency-Based High School Completion for Adults in Washington State , Elizabeth J. Flanagan

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) Preparing the Future, Healing the Past, & Being in the Moment with Teachers as they Indigenize the Way They Teach , Ramona Halcomb

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) Off the Rez: Witnessing Indigenous Knowledges Through Social Media , Deborah Hales

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu & Mental Resilience , Brendan Hanley

(4) A Post Pandemic Analysis of COVID-19 and the Impact on Mental Health of High School Student-Athletes—Today, more than ever minds matter , Pastora Hernandez Barbee

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) “Tienes Que Ser Bien Educada”: A Call for Art, Reconciliation, and Justice in Education , Eileen Jimenez

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) Educational Sovereignty: Creating Community by Ensuring Belonging , Merisa K. Jones

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) Indigenous-based Mindful Activities for Students with Test Anxiety , Amy Maharaj

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) The One Drop Rule While Being a Black Indigenous Woman , Ada McDaniel

(4) Creating and Maintaining High-Quality Educational Spaces for Black Children: Challenges and Strategies , Darius B. Mensah

Women With Student Loans: Relational Impacts on Self, Family, and Work , Annie Pocklington

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) Heart Story Curation: Indigenous Feminist Justice Leadership & The Philanthropic Call to Action , Joannie M. Suina

(UWT-Muckleshoot Cohort Doctoral Program) Indigenizing Education: Universal Design for Learning and Indigenous Leadership Frameworks , Jennifer Vasilez

(4) Start with Self: Considerations of Being in Relationship , Alison O. Pugh

(4) Effective Professional Development and Lesson Study , Kylie Danielson

You are another me: Public schooling testimonios de lugares nepantleras , E. R. Álvarez

Re-establishing Public School Curriculum Adoption Process for Grades Six Through Eight , Alicia Mendez

Dissertation in Practice from 2022 2022

Fostering Communities for BIPOC Students in Higher Education Spaces: The Impacts of Targeted Student Supports Services on Racially Hostile Campuses , Kenderick Wilson

Dissertation in Practice from 2021 2021

University Staff: Indigenous Sovereignty and Justice Online , Star Berry

Mechanisms of Biases and Cultural Literacy in International Language Education: One Such Story to Carry , Yukari Birkett

Recommendations for Creating Inclusive Classroom Andragogy: Perspectives of Graduate Students with Learning Disabilities , Marcee Boggs

Examining Strategies that Promote Success for Adult Basic Education Students: A Professional Development Seminar for Educators , Andrew Brottlund

Equity by Design and Delivery Model in Online Learning: Educator and Student Perceptions and Behaviors as Leading Indicators of Systemic Change , Miebeth Bustillo-Booth

A Qualitative Study: Exploring the Connection Between Therapeutic Foster Parent Training and Placement Disruption , Emmanuel Camarillo

Improving Homeless Student Identification in an Urban High School , Donald Crider

COVID-19 School Closures: Professional and Personal Impacts on Building Principals , Paula R. Dawson and Alicia M. Nosworthy

Still Just white-Framed: Continued Coloniality, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Latin@/x Students , Ilda Guzman

Diversity in Community College Registered Nursing Education , Sergio Hernández Del Cid

Experiences of Contemporary Dance Choreographers of Color in the Pacific Northwest , Sue Ann Huang

Latinx Students' Sense of Belonging in a Comprehensive Suburban High School , Samantha Ketover

Disrupting Racial Segregation in Special Education: An Evaluability Assessment of Washington State’s Inclusionary Practices Project , Tania May

Barriers Impacting LPNs Academic Progression , M Dianne Nauer

Examining Social Capital and Whiteness in a University Community Engagement Network , Bonnie Nelson

Asian American Community College Presidents: Their Leadership Practices, Insights, and Attributes , Michael Pham

Institutional Accreditation: Making the Process More Efficient, Effective, and Meaningful to Colleges and Universities , Cynthia J. Requa

Community College Student Completion Rates and Strategies for Improvement , Norma Whitacre

Dissertation in Practice from 2019 2019

Corporate E-learning: Perceptions of Persistence and Satisfaction , Staci Bain

Reflections on Reentry: A Qualitative Study of Cross-Cultural Reentry Experiences of International Cultural Exchange Students , Christina Lynn Cox

Asian American Teachers in Predominantly White Education Systems , Candis Lee Eckert

Examining Campus Racial Climate for Faculty and Staff , Sherri Fujita

Let's be Blunt: Substance Use Among Black Male Student-Athletes , Elizabeth Griffin

Asian American Community College Presidents: An AsianCrit Analysis of their Approaches to Leadership , Johnny Hu

Professional Development and Self-Efficacy: Their Impact on the Advancement of Latinas in Higher Education Leadership , Olga Torres Inglebritson

Online Learning Within an Open-Door Program , Adriana Julian

SLOW PROGRESS TOWARDS EQUITY AT A HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTION (HSI): A Case Study , Paulette Lopez

Social Constructivism: An Andragogical Praxis for Critical Thinking Instruction and Evaluation with Graduate Social Work Students , Luella Loudenback

Experiences of African American Women in Washington State’s Applied Baccalaureate Programs: A Mixed Methods Study , Stefanie McIrvin

STUDENT VOICE IN SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING , Angelo Mills

Understanding the Impacts of Campus Racial Climate on Southeast Asian College Students’ Experiences , Chanira Reang Sperry

Expanding Educational Potential through Multisector Partnership , Maija Thiel

Reframing Internationalization: Faculty Beliefs and Teaching Practices , Marco Tulluck

Where Did My Black Folk Go? The Exclusion of Black Males From American K-12 Classrooms , conrad webster

Improving the Leadership of P-12 Administrative Teams , Joshua Zarling

Examining the Human Experience of Moral Distress: A Narrative Inquiry , Allison Wareham

Dissertation in Practice from 2018 2018

Its Okay For Us to Be Students, but Not Leaders: African American Women in Executive Leadership within the Community College , La Shemia C. Hanebutte

Dissertation in Practice from 2017 2017

Barriers for Pseudo School District’s College Bound Scholars’ Scholarship Attainment , Annette Burnett

Dissertation in Practice from 2016 2016

Responding to their Voice: The Needs of Postsecondary Students with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disability , Lucretia A. Berg

Youth Empowerment for Environmental Justice , Mattie B. Brickle

The Principal's Voice: Supports Critical to a School Principal's Effectiveness , Rita Chaudhuri

Writing Equity Policy for a K-12 Public School District: An Insider's Perspective , Louanne H. Decker

From Isolation to Collaboration: School Principals , Allison B. Drago and Vincent Pecchia

Sustained Implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports through Continuous Regeneration , Thomas A. Edwards

Building on Community: A Community-Built Pipeline of Community College-Educated Secondary Mathematics Teachers of Color , Maria J. Gross

Gifted and Unserved: Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Promise Scholar Program on Reducing the Racial Segregation of Gifted Education , Reby Helland

Harnessing Emotions: The Critical Role of Emotional Intelligence for Community College Leaders , Lauren Hibbs and Valerie M. Sundby-Thorp

Attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Process of Tacoma’s Globalization , Yi Hui

Surviving or Thriving: Educator Change Following School-Based Trauma , Mona M. Johnson

Utilizing Assessment Resources to Support Classroom Instruction in Mathematics , Jennifer A. Judkins

Online Onboarding of Community College Mid-Level Administrators , Heather F. Lukashin

The Cultural Isolation of Providers and Educators Caused by Stigma and Compassion Fatigue when Serving Survivors of Invisible Wounds , Bronwyn G. Pughe

Images of DREAMers: Using Photovoice to Explore the Experiences of Undocumented Latinxs in a Washington State Community College , Theresa R. Ramos Ed.D.

Using Student and Staff Perceptions to Guide Training and Practice , Cynthia Sherrod

Change Management and Guided Pathways: Creating a Plan for Implementation at a Washington State Community College , Sandra Spadoni and Saovra Ear

An Opportunity for Community: Building a Community College Center for Community Engagement in a “Distressed” Suburb , Jeffrey L. Wagnitz

Race Matters: Occupational Therapy as a Career Choice by High School Students of Color , Kirsten L. Wilbur

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Submit Research
• UW Tacoma Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Dissertation Formatting Guidance

The following resource shares some best practice guidance for dissertation formatting. 

USEFUL LINKS

Share this page.

The following resource shares some best practice guidance for dissertation formatting. Please note that some of the elements outlined below are required and will be reviewed by the FAS Registrar's Office as part of Harvard Griffin GSAS policies on formatting . 

Language of the Dissertation

The language of the dissertation is ordinarily English, although some departments whose subject matter involves foreign languages may accept a dissertation written in a language other than English.

Most dissertations are 100 to 300 pages in length. All dissertations should be divided into appropriate sections, and long dissertations may need chapters, main divisions, and subdivisions.

Page and Text Requirements

• 8½ x 11 inches, unless a musical score is included
• At least 1 inch for all margins
• Body of text: double spacing
• Block quotations, footnotes, and bibliographies: single spacing within each entry but double spacing between each entry
• Table of contents, list of tables, list of figures or illustrations, and lengthy tables: single spacing may be used

Fonts and Point Size

Use 10-12 point size. Fonts must be embedded in the PDF file to ensure all characters display correctly. 

Recommended Fonts

If you are unsure whether your chosen font will display correctly, use one of the following fonts: 

If fonts are not embedded, non-English characters may not appear as intended. Fonts embedded improperly will be published to DASH as is. It is the student’s responsibility to make sure that fonts are embedded properly prior to submission. 

Instructions for Embedding Fonts

To embed your fonts in recent versions of Word, follow these instructions from Microsoft:

• Click the File tab and then click Options .
• In the left column, select the Save tab.
• Clear the Do not embed common system fonts check box.

For reference, below are some instructions from ProQuest UMI for embedding fonts in older file formats:

To embed your fonts in Microsoft Word 2010:

• In the File pull-down menu, click on Options .
• Choose Save on the left sidebar.
• Check the box next to Embed fonts in the file.
• Click the OK button.
• Save the document.

Note that when saving as a PDF, make sure to go to “more options” and save as “PDF/A compliant”

To embed your fonts in Microsoft Word 2007:

• Click the circular Office button in the upper left corner of Microsoft Word.
• A new window will display. In the bottom right corner select Word Options . 
• Choose Save from the left sidebar.

Using Microsoft Word on a Mac:

Microsoft Word 2008 on a Mac OS X computer will automatically embed your fonts while converting your document to a PDF file.

If you are converting to PDF using Acrobat Professional (instructions courtesy of the Graduate Thesis Office at Iowa State University):  

• Open your document in Microsoft Word. 
• Click on the Adobe PDF tab at the top. Select "Change Conversion Settings." 
• Click on Advanced Settings. 
• Click on the Fonts folder on the left side of the new window. In the lower box on the right, delete any fonts that appear in the "Never Embed" box. Then click "OK." 
• If prompted to save these new settings, save them as "Embed all fonts." 
• Now the Change Conversion Settings window should show "embed all fonts" in the Conversion Settings drop-down list and it should be selected. Click "OK" again. 
• Click on the Adobe PDF link at the top again. This time select Convert to Adobe PDF. Depending on the size of your document and the speed of your computer, this process can take 1-15 minutes. 
• After your document is converted, select the "File" tab at the top of the page. Then select "Document Properties." 
• Click on the "Fonts" tab. Carefully check all of your fonts. They should all show "(Embedded Subset)" after the font name. 
•  If you see "(Embedded Subset)" after all fonts, you have succeeded.

Body of Text, Tables, Figures, and Captions

The font used in the body of the text must also be used in headers, page numbers, and footnotes. Exceptions are made only for tables and figures created with different software and inserted into the document.

Tables and figures must be placed as close as possible to their first mention in the text. They may be placed on a page with no text above or below, or they may be placed directly into the text. If a table or a figure is alone on a page (with no narrative), it should be centered within the margins on the page. Tables may take up more than one page as long as they obey all rules about margins. Tables and figures referred to in the text may not be placed at the end of the chapter or at the end of the dissertation.

• Given the standards of the discipline, dissertations in the Department of History of Art and Architecture and the Department of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Urban Planning often place illustrations at the end of the dissertation.

Figure and table numbering must be continuous throughout the dissertation or by chapter (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, etc.). Two figures or tables cannot be designated with the same number. If you have repeating images that you need to cite more than once, label them with their number and A, B, etc. 

Headings should be placed at the top of tables. While no specific rules for the format of table headings and figure captions are required, a consistent format must be used throughout the dissertation (contact your department for style manuals appropriate to the field).

Captions should appear at the bottom of any figures. If the figure takes up the entire page, the caption should be placed alone on the preceding page, centered vertically and horizontally within the margins.

Each page receives a separate page number. When a figure or table title is on a preceding page, the second and subsequent pages of the figure or table should say, for example, “Figure 5 (Continued).” In such an instance, the list of figures or tables will list the page number containing the title. The word “figure” should be written in full (not abbreviated), and the “F” should be capitalized (e.g., Figure 5). In instances where the caption continues on a second page, the “(Continued)” notation should appear on the second and any subsequent page. The figure/table and the caption are viewed as one entity and the numbering should show correlation between all pages. Each page must include a header.

Landscape orientation figures and tables must be positioned correctly and bound at the top so that the top of the figure or table will be at the left margin. Figure and table headings/captions are placed with the same orientation as the figure or table when on the same page. When on a separate page, headings/captions are always placed in portrait orientation, regardless of the orientation of the figure or table. Page numbers are always placed as if the figure were vertical on the page.

If a graphic artist does the figures, Harvard Griffin GSAS will accept lettering done by the artist only within the figure. Figures done with software are acceptable if the figures are clear and legible. Legends and titles done by the same process as the figures will be accepted if they too are clear, legible, and run at least 10 or 12 characters per inch. Otherwise, legends and captions should be printed with the same font used in the text.

Original illustrations, photographs, and fine arts prints may be scanned and included, centered between the margins on a page with no text above or below.

Pages should be assigned a number except for the Thesis Acceptance Certificate. Preliminary pages (abstract, table of contents, list of tables, graphs, illustrations, and preface) should use small Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, iv, v, etc.). All pages must contain text or images.  

Count the title page as page i and the copyright page as page ii, but do not print page numbers on either page .

For the body of text, use Arabic numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) starting with page 1 on the first page of text. Page numbers must be centered throughout the manuscript at the top or bottom. Every numbered page must be consecutively ordered, including tables, graphs, illustrations, and bibliography/index (if included); letter suffixes (such as 10a, 10b, etc.) are not allowed. It is customary not to have a page number on the page containing a chapter heading.

Check pagination carefully. Account for all pages.

Thesis Acceptance Certificate

A copy of the Thesis Acceptance Certificate should appear as the first page. This page should not be counted or numbered. The DAC will appear in the online version of the published dissertation. The author name and date on the DAC and title page should be the same. 

The dissertation begins with the title page; the title should be as concise as possible and should provide an accurate description of the dissertation. The author name and date on the DAC and title page should be the same. 

Do not print a page number on the title page. It is understood to be page  i  for counting purposes only.

Copyright Statement

A copyright notice should appear on a separate page immediately following the title page and include the copyright symbol ©, the year of first publication of the work, and the name of the author:

© [ year ] [ Author’s Name ] All rights reserved.

Alternatively, students may choose to license their work openly under a  Creative Commons  license. The author remains the copyright holder while at the same time granting up-front permission to others to read, share, and (depending on the license) adapt the work, so long as proper attribution is given. (By default, under copyright law, the author reserves all rights; under a Creative Commons license, the author reserves some rights.)

Do  not  print a page number on the copyright page. It is understood to be page  ii  for counting purposes only.

An abstract, numbered as page  iii , should immediately follow the copyright page and should state the problem, describe the methods and procedures used, and give the main results or conclusions of the research. The abstract will appear in the online and bound versions of the dissertation and will be published by ProQuest. There is no maximum word count for the abstract. 

• double-spaced
• left-justified
• indented on the first line of each paragraph
• The author’s name, right justified
• The words “Dissertation Advisor:” followed by the advisor’s name, left-justified (a maximum of two advisors is allowed)
• Title of the dissertation, centered, several lines below author and advisor
• Table of Contents

Dissertations divided into sections must contain a table of contents that lists, at minimum, the major headings in the following order:

• Front Matter
• Body of Text
• Back Matter

Front and Back Matter

Front matter includes (if applicable):

• acknowledgements of help or encouragement from individuals or institutions
• a dedication
• a list of illustrations or tables
• a glossary of terms
• one or more epigraphs.

Back matter includes (if applicable):

• bibliography
• supplemental materials, including figures and tables
• an index (in rare instances).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental figures and tables must be placed at the end of the dissertation in an appendix, not within or at the end of a chapter. If additional digital information (including audio, video, image, or datasets) will accompany the main body of the dissertation, it should be uploaded as a supplemental file through ProQuest ETD . Supplemental material will be available in DASH and ProQuest and preserved digitally in the Harvard University Archives.

Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication

IMPLEMENTING ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE (ACE) SCREENING IN A PRIMARY CARE FAMILY PRACTICE SETTING

Add to collection, downloadable content.

• Affiliation: School of Nursing
• Background: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are thought to lead to poor health outcomes through the toxic stress response (Ortiz et al., 2022). Major professional organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have called for routine ACE screening and trauma-informed response interventions (Marie-Mitchell et al., 2019; Sherin et al., 2022). Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences during pediatric appointments provides opportunity for intervention at the earliest stages. Objective: To improve healthcare delivery by implementing an ACE screening and intervention process in a busy family practice clinic in the post COVID-19 era. Methods: This quality improvement (QI) project took place over five months and used consecutive Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to make iterative changes to processes, minimize barriers, and optimize facilitation for ACE screening at Well Child Checks (WCC) at Avance Care Cary (ACC), a busy suburban family practice in central North Carolina. Providers either provided anticipatory guidance or placed a referral to supportive services based on the patient's ACE score and ACE-associated symptoms according to the ACEs Aware algorithm (Burke-Harris & Mark, 2021). Results: One hundred twelve children were screened for ACEs out of a total 149 WCCs (75.2%). Facilitators to consistent screening included front desk staff preparing forms the night before and reminders from leadership. When examining provider action based on fidelity to the ACEs Aware algorithm, 48.2% of WCCs that received a screen were correctly risk stratified and intervened upon. If looking at provider action as a whole, regardless of algorithmic risk level, 65.5% of screened patients received anticipatory guidance and 6.5% of visits resulted in referral.Conclusions: It is feasible to consistently perform ACE screening during Well Child Checks at a family practice similar to ACC, but additional considerations must be made for responding to positive screens. The ACEs Aware algorithm was ultimately not utilized by providers in practice. Clinics considering ACE screening should be prepared with a standardized way of documenting interventions, tracking referrals, and following up with patients, and ensure that staff are prepared to deliver trauma-informed care (TIC).
• Social research
• Adverse Childhood Experience
• Developmental psychology
• Trauma-Informed Care
• https://doi.org/10.17615/x3dr-2914
• Dissertation
• In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
• Rankin, Audra
• Catchings, Susan
• Hodges, Eric
• Doctor of Nursing Practice
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School

This work has no parents.

Select type of work

Master's papers.

Deposit your masters paper, project or other capstone work. Theses will be sent to the CDR automatically via ProQuest and do not need to be deposited.

Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters

Deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter. If you would like to deposit a poster, presentation, conference paper or white paper, use the “Scholarly Works” deposit form.

Undergraduate Honors Theses

Deposit your senior honors thesis.

Scholarly Journal, Newsletter or Book

Deposit a complete issue of a scholarly journal, newsletter or book. If you would like to deposit an article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.

Deposit your dataset. Datasets may be associated with an article or deposited separately.

Deposit your 3D objects, audio, images or video.

Poster, Presentation, Protocol or Paper

Deposit scholarly works such as posters, presentations, research protocols, conference papers or white papers. If you would like to deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.