Disrupting the Status Quo

The academic distinctions associated with the Ed.D. and Ph.D., such as the distinctions between research & practice, and practice & theory, have resulted from the cultural fields of education and employment, which faced challenges within themselves to impose their power to distinguish and dominate. According to Lane (2000), “Distinctions are the effects of power relations among classes, but they appear in a misrecognized form because their logic is that of distinction” (p.134). They take place, however, in particular cultural fields, which mark and reinforce class relations by establishing differences and positions. Thus, “education signifies a cultural field in which the power of individuals and institutions is largely (but not completely) determined by the cultural capital they own” (Knight, 2004).

Between Ed.D. & Ph.D. not many differences can be noticed. Ed.D. students receive the same level of tuition as those in Ph.D. but the tuition is simply not based strictly on research techniques as they are being prepared to promote and challenge social changes not to use research results to achieve a social change.“The EdD can become the degree in which the tension between theory and practice can be put to generative use in the production of knowledge that is valid, useable, and transformative in local, context-bound settings” (Grogan, Donaldson, & Simmons, 2007). Nonetheless, the academic preparation could easily be compared; the only exception is the workplace where they will ultimately perform their duties. “to account for its non-research uses, can be read as defending a notion of the university as also preparing individuals for the workplace, or at least for something other than research” (Smith, 2000). There are other variations to this struggle over the purposes of higher education. Some educational leaders suggest that the title of the degree is less important than the content of its program. For example, Iannone (1992) argues that, “the key measure of an Ed.D. programs is whether it encourages students to become more reflexive, more critical of the status quo, and more prepared to initiate social change”. However, the universities should promote social change, “rather than merely further knowledge for its own sake or simply prepare individuals to reproduce the status quo” (Zhao, 2010). The status quo is being challenged the idea of what counts as knowledge. Winter, Griffiths, and Green suggest that “the Ed.D. forces universities to deal with the conflict between knowledge which is reliable and unbiased and knowledge which can be used wisely toward a good purpose”(“Routledge,” 2000). These arguments all suggest struggle over the purposes of higher education as either furthering social utility or pursuing disinterested knowledge.

The Ph.D. and Ed.D. debate reflect the struggle between the education and employment fields, each incorporating aspects of the other, in order to dominate or at least, to thwart the threat to its legitimacy by the other. The Ed.D. “exists as a practice oriented degree is in some way a reflection that the University is losing its absolute authority to dictate what counts as valuable knowledge and cultural practice, and that it must accommodate the world of work if it is to continue to have dominance in the cultural field”(Iannone,1992). According to Brennan (1995), “the Ed.D. may reflect a necessary pragmatic reaction to the pressure for increased credentials among professional groups”, thereby enabling the university to live up to its commitments to develop professional groups and attract students for funding faculty in times of competitive pressures. Although, within the field of higher education, the Ed.D. is treated as second-class degree, a compromise that allows for the necessary expansion in higher degrees but does not compete with the central function of the Ph.D. as an induction into research.

Distinctions between degrees carry the elements of power and politics. Each degree, being more or less worthy than the other, depending on the privilege given, maintains its definition and authority by its degree of distinction from the other. Indeed, it is the degree of distinction itself that is marketable. The Ed.D. signifying the privilege given to practical knowledge and social utility allows one to market the claim that the theoretical knowledge provided by the Ph.D. is unimportant, and the point of educational institutions is to train people for the world of work. But for the holder of the Ph.D., signifying the primacy of the research function and theoretical knowledge can market the opposite claim. Individuals however, are regulated by either position and by the distinction. They incorporate the distinctions as being “what they are” and “what they are not.” Each degree, therefore, may signify struggles over the power to differentiate and legitimate, and thereby dominate.

References

Brennan, M. (1995). Education Doctorate: Reconstructing Professional Partnership Around Research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov

Grogan, M., Donaldson, J., & Simmons, J. (2007). Disrupting the Status Quo: The Action
Research Dissertation as a Transformative Strategy. Retrieved from http:cnx.org/content/ m145/1.2/ Iannone, Ron. (1992). A critical perspective reform paradigm for Ed.D. programs. Retrieved from http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/5384001953840019

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Definition of Professionals Values. 8 (1), 5-31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832

Lane, J. (2000). Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press

Smith, P. (2000). A Meeting of Cultures: Part Time Students in an Ed.D. Program. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 3 (4), 359-380. doi:10.1080/136031200750035978

Winter, R., Griffiths, M., & Green, K. (2000). The Academic Qualities of Practice: What are the Criteria for a Practice-Based Ph.D.? Studies in Higher Education. 25 (1), 25-37. doi:10.1080/030750700115993

Zhao, Y. (2006, May 1). Challenging the Status Quo. Educational Leadership, 63 (8), 28-31.