If you look at the list of doctoral programs related to the study of leadership (note: by "related to the study of leadership" I am referring only to doctoral programs specifically in Leadership, Leadership Studies, and Organizational Leadership), you will find that some programs offer the Ed.D. while others offer the Ph.D. But what is the difference?
Traditionally, the Ed.D. degree (Doctorate of Education) has been thought of as more of a "practitioner-friendly" degree , while the Ph.D. (Doctorate of Philosophy) has historically been considered more of a "research-oriented" degree. Several academic programs outside of Education offer Ed.D. degrees: Psychology and Counseling are just two such programs.
The Ed.D. originated at Harvard University during the 1920s, hence: Harvard's School of Education only offers the Ed.D.
From a Leadership stand-point, there are obvious and logical connections between Education and Leadership... Under the assumption that all organizations are "learning organizations," we are continuously learning within organizational settings. In addition, under the assumption that humans are "life-long learners," leaders must continuously search for, and add to, their knowledge.
In a practical sense however, many organizations (outside of education) fail to recognize the value of an Ed.D degree (even though many Ed.D. programs rival, if not surpass, the academic rigor of Ph.D. programs). This is largely due to perception, as the Ph.D. has a much longer history than the Ed.D.
As a result, for students in Leadership related doctoral programs, the Ed.D. degree may not carry as much "capital" when applying for positions outside of academia. And, even within academia in departments such as Business and Law, the Ph.D. degree is simply the degree of choice for professors in these fields.
All of this said, the ultimate decision on whether or not to pursue the Ed.D or the Ph.D. resides with the prospective student. Nelson and Coorough (1994) conducted a content analysis of doctoral dissertations and found that very few differences existed between dissertations written for Ed.D. programs, and those written for Ph.D. programs. So, content wise the programs may not differ by much, if at all.
What you must consider is whether you would prefer an Ed.D. at the end of your name... or a Ph.D. Either way though, you will still be called "Dr."
Traditionally, the Ed.D. degree (Doctorate of Education) has been thought of as more of a "practitioner-friendly" degree , while the Ph.D. (Doctorate of Philosophy) has historically been considered more of a "research-oriented" degree. Several academic programs outside of Education offer Ed.D. degrees: Psychology and Counseling are just two such programs.
The Ed.D. originated at Harvard University during the 1920s, hence: Harvard's School of Education only offers the Ed.D.
From a Leadership stand-point, there are obvious and logical connections between Education and Leadership... Under the assumption that all organizations are "learning organizations," we are continuously learning within organizational settings. In addition, under the assumption that humans are "life-long learners," leaders must continuously search for, and add to, their knowledge.
In a practical sense however, many organizations (outside of education) fail to recognize the value of an Ed.D degree (even though many Ed.D. programs rival, if not surpass, the academic rigor of Ph.D. programs). This is largely due to perception, as the Ph.D. has a much longer history than the Ed.D.
As a result, for students in Leadership related doctoral programs, the Ed.D. degree may not carry as much "capital" when applying for positions outside of academia. And, even within academia in departments such as Business and Law, the Ph.D. degree is simply the degree of choice for professors in these fields.
All of this said, the ultimate decision on whether or not to pursue the Ed.D or the Ph.D. resides with the prospective student. Nelson and Coorough (1994) conducted a content analysis of doctoral dissertations and found that very few differences existed between dissertations written for Ed.D. programs, and those written for Ph.D. programs. So, content wise the programs may not differ by much, if at all.
What you must consider is whether you would prefer an Ed.D. at the end of your name... or a Ph.D. Either way though, you will still be called "Dr."
8 comments:
Lindsey, many thanks for compiling all of this helpful information. I was wondering if know of any sources that support the claim that organizations outside of education tend to devalue the Ed.D./value the PhD more highly, or if this is just common knowledge/experience speaking. Again, thanks!
Thanks for stopping my blog! Much of what I know about the Ed.D. in areas outside of education is anecdotal. So for instance, I know that when I was working in "the corporate world," not many people knew what the Ed.D. was, or what the qualifications for an Ed.D. were. Additionally, the University of San Diego's Ph.D. program in Leadership Studies was once an Ed.D. in Leadership Studies; however, given that they have a number of different concentration areas (nonprofit & philanthropic studies, organizational leadership, k-12 leadership, higher education leadership, and individualized) program administrators were finding that some students & non-educationally affiliated employers were questioning what exactly the program was focused on. As such, USD transitioned from an Ed.D. program to a Ph.D. program.
Although I do not know of any sources that specifically support the claim, there have been numerous calls for improving the quality of education Ph.D. programs overall... and in many cases completely doing away with the Ed.D. degree (not due to the reason that I stated in the blog post, but due to inherent quality concerns with both degrees).
See for example: http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/x6843.xml
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/04/10/education
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=52216.0
I realize that many Leadership, Organizational Leadership & Leadership Studies program only offer an Ed.D. degree. Which is fine. However, I would recommend that you at least be aware that in theory the degrees are intended to serve two distinct purposes. The Ed.D. being more "applied and practitioner oriented" for educators, and the Ph.D. being more "research and scholar oriented." That said, with an Ed.D. I am unsure how likely it is for someone to get a faculty position in a school or college other than Education.
Great post! I wish I'd seen it two months ago when it was first posted.
The fact that some Universities offer both the Ed.D. and the Ph.D., with the former being geared toward practicioners and the latter catering to researchers, has caused confusion and ultimately devalued the Ed.D. overall.
As a candidate in the Harvard Graduate School of Education's Education Policy, Leadership, and Instructional Practice program, I'm not overly concerned with the Ed.D. vs. Ph.D. debate. Ultimately, I think (read: hope!) factors such as the quality of your dissertation, research you were a part of during your studies, and the general strength of your program hold as much weight as the letters after your name.
Michael,
Thanks for the comment! I agree wholeheartedly. The reputation of the institution, the quality of the program, and the structure of the dissertation all play a role in terms of academic (and even non-academic) career mobility.
The EdD has been devalued (as you mention), and there have been several calls for reform in Education doctoral programs. But, its not only the EdD. It's the PhD as well. (See the links in the above comment). But, this is no surprise to many in academia.
So, if you have reputation, quality, and/or a good structure on your side, then things are much more in your favor. You should (I'm sure) do fine!
Best wishes!
I am in my second year of a three year EdD program in Organizational Leadership at Argosy University. I looked at PhD and EdD programs at several schools - online and traditional bricks and mortar. All appears to be very similar in terms of content. I attended Southern Methodist University for half of a master's an online school for my MBA and a state school for my bachelor's degree. Honestly the online schools are actually more rigorous. They require substantially more work because the assumption somewhere along the line is that an online education is inferior. I believe that at some level some schools are trying to overcome an inferiority complex. I think many schools go overboard. There are also always accreditation issues - online schools are simply obsessed with making sure their online programs exceed expectations. Argosy and Walden Universities in particular are simply NUTS about standards. I must admit that bricks and mortar schools seem to have grading rubrics that are more ambiguous than online schools. Professors I had at my bricks and mortar schools often abused their discretion in grading because of ambiguous rubric.
On a related note...What boggles my mind - EdD, PhD - you name it - no matter the discipline - except of course for education - we assume that doctors of (fill in the discipline) can teach - at least in the US. There is little expectation that the doctoral learner must study either androgogy or pedagogy. This is astounding because the expectation is that many PhD and EdD candidates will teach. One would assume they completed formal pedagogy and androgogy courses in their master's program - but alas - this is not the case. I have looked at a smattering of programs and was amazed that many expected folks to to teach - but did not require they learned anything about teaching or learning. Little wonder we see folks who are superb teachers in the classroom or online in some cases but just abysmal in others.
Kevin,
Thank you for your response! I agree with you whole-heartedly that training students to teach has often come secondary (or even tertiary) to other goals in many doctoral programs. However, there are many post-docs that are now meant exclusively to help PhDs gain teaching experience that they may not have received as a PhD student. Again, thanks for the comment!
Great Blog Lindsey,
Any thoughts on Columbia's Ed.D. in leadership?
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/o&l/index.asp
Thanks,
James
Hi James,
I think that the program @Columbia is actually quite good. I had looked into applying there myself, but at the time (2006) the application deadline was somewhere around mid-December (it may still be the same) and I was still in school at the time preparing for finals. Needless to say, I wasn't prepared to apply for any programs at that time. I wasn't ready until January in fact and I knew that I didn't want to wait an entire year to apply to TC. But, it's definitely a program that I've looked at many-a-times... and from what I can tell from all of my research, it's pretty good!
Post a Comment