Redesigning Professional Education Doctorates

Applications of Critical Friendship Theory to the EdD

Valerie A. Storey

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137358295
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Administración de la educación

This volume demonstrates that Critical Friendship Theory can help distinguish education doctorate (EdD) programs from research doctorates (education PhDs). Drawing on multiple, detailed case studies of CFT implementation at universities, it covers curriculum and implementation, online and in-person education, challenges, and strategies for success.

P A R T I

---

Theory and Action Framework, Opportunities and Threats to the Developing Role of Critical Friendship Groups

C H A P T E R 1

---

Critical Friends Groups: Moving beyond Mentoring

Valerie A. Storey and Brendan M. Richard

Since 2001, many scholars (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Shulman, 2005; Murphy, 2006; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchins, 2008) have been urging schools of education to take on the demanding task of developing a distinct Professional Practice Doctorate that provides demanding, rigorous, respectable, high-level academic experience to prepare students for service as leading practitioners in the field of education (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006). Shulman et al. challenged members of the Council of Deans from Research Education Institutions (CADREI) to think about how schools of education could unite to reclaim the EdD (Perry, 2012).

In 2007, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) was established to pilot efforts to (re)design the Professional Practice Doctorate. Consortium members “commit resources to work together to undertake a critical examination of the doctorate in education through dialog, experimentation, critical feedback and evaluation. The intent of the project is to collaboratively (re)design the EdD and to make it a stronger and more relevant degree for the advanced preparation of school practitioners and clinical faculty, academic leaders and professional staff for the nation’s schools and colleges and the learning organizations that support them” (CPED website, 2013). The first 25 institutions in Phase I of the project were very much in the forefront of the field as they struggled to envision a new Professional Practice Doctorate in education (Imig & Perry, 2008). Initial conversation focused on program design principles, components, strategies, and outcomes with further discussion as to how institutions would communicate progress updates. There was an institutional consortium consensus that biannual convenings would be the signature activity of CPED enabling the multiple voices of consortium members to come together to display and discuss demonstration proofs of their progress in professional practice program (re)design grounded on CPED principles (Imig & Perry, 2008). Between convenings, institutions were encouraged to converse online.

In the early convenings the emphasis was on a “bottom up” process (Shulman et al., 2005) thereby ensuring that defined themes, directions, and processes met perceived need rather than being a prescribed top-down standardized approach (Fullan, 2006; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). As convenings progressed there became an emerging necessity for effective institutional support to ensure that innovative program (re)design was sustainable and embedded in educational practice. Following the third CPED convening in Palo Alto (June 2008), CPED codirectors Imig and Perry observed that finding effective ways to maintain engagement of CPED institutions once they left the convening and faced the challenges of engaging home-institution faculty in the change process was a common problem for all consortium members. Consortium members needed to be externally supported on an ongoing basis which was not a role that could be filled simultaneously by the CPED codirectors for 25 member institutions. In seeking a support mechanism peer mentoring was first discussed. The consortium’s dialogue extended to embrace the concept of Critical Friends and of Critical Friends Groups (CFGs) (Storey & Hartwick, 2010) in an attempt to move beyond colleague interaction to a particular form of relationship characterized by trust, provocative questioning, an alternative perspective, constructive critique, and advocacy (Swaffield, 2003, 2005).

In this, the opening chapter of the book, the authors purposefully develop the foundations for the ensuing chapters by first describing to the reader the theory, application, and role of a Critical Friend. Benefits of Critical Friends over traditional mentoring relationships are described and the challenges of applying a Critical Friend approach to doctoral program (re)design are examined. Second, the authors develop a Critical Friends framework to enhance the work of CPED institutions as the consortium continues to grow expanding from the original 25 institutions in Phase I (2007–2010) to over 50 institutions in Phase II (2010–2013). Consortium growth is likely to continue as funding is sought for Phase III of the project. The chapter concludes with some final reflections on the role of Critical Friends in facilitating program change.

CPED EXPANSION: THE NEED FOR SUPPORT

Why did CPED explore both mentoring and Critical Friends? To answer this question it is important to understand not only Critical Friends itself, the “what,” but also the “why.” CPED, an organization which during Phase I initially had 25 member institutions in its ranks, added 8 new California State University campuses and 27 new universities in Phase II, all committed to continuing the work of the consortium in an evaluative discussion of the EdD (CPED website). Just as an organization finds it difficult in managing the integration of a new acquisition, or the European Union has growing pains integrating new member states, so too does the integration of new member institutions into CPED present challenges to be faced and overcome. CPED faced the daunting task of doubling the size of its organization over the course of a year. It can be seen that CPED therefore was facing both organizational growth and rapid integration issues.

In order for Phase I and Phase II institutions to become a cohesive body, two barriers needed to be addressed. First, integration issues focused on whole group interaction, that is when members of Phase I (insiders) are present, Phase II (outsiders) are likely to behave differently due to identifying differencing institutional characteristics (Abrams & Hogg, 2004). Second, the consortium’s culture may be negatively affected as Phase I (insiders) have not developed the same degree of trust with Phase II (outsiders), which may impact the consortium’s professional practice doctorate (re)design program.

Anticipating integration issues as a potential barrier to CPED cohesiveness, Phase I institutional members began to plan for the “joining” of 25 additional institutions to the consortium. Phase I (insiders) had a common and agreed-upon vocabulary and could be perceived by nonmembers or CPED outsiders as having privileged knowledge or a prescribed status (Merton, 1972). CPED working principles (October, 2009) and conceptual definitions on which the work of the consortium is grounded had been crafted by Phase I institutions (insiders) after considerable intellectual inquiry and reflection. While history can be shared, the lens for viewing the past differs depending on experience. The richness of the process becomes less important to new consortium members more focused on the outcome, six CPED working principles. The insider/outsider doctrine explains the impact of differing member experience by suggesting that no matter how talented the outsiders (Phase II), insiders believe their group to be superior to all other cognate groups. Caplow (1964) called this the aggrandizement affect: the distortion upward of the prestige of an organization by its members. Outsiders (Phase II) perceive that the insiders (CPED consortium) hold knowledge to cultural truths that they are unable to access and believe is desirable. While Phase I institutions looked forward to the anticipated intellectual interchange with new institutions, and the opportunity to learn from each other, there was an understanding that agreed CPED norms were likely to be questioned. The complex processes that had contributed to consensual decision making, and the introspective shared meanings of experience within Phase I institutions for three years, would not be understood or effectively communicated to Phase II institutional members, despite plentiful information available on the CPED website.

The second identified barrier to CPED cohesiveness was concern with the state of its culture, the culture of the acquisition, and the fit between the two. Research has detailed how poor culture-fit or low cultural compatibility is an antecedent to poor performance postacquisition (Hambrick & Cannella, 1993; Nahavandi & Malekzedah, 1988; Weber & Schweiger, 1992). Every group, in these case institutions of higher education, has a unique culture that is comprised of the history and experiences of its members (Schien, 1985). The result is a set of assumptions that the members share in common. Culture is not only unique; it is embedded, and difficult to change. It is for this reason that when two cultures interact, in this case the integration of Phase II institutions to CPED, they are going to clash.

Research of organizational culture and climate has studied the integration of acquisitions into host organizations (Nahavandi & Malekzedah, 1988). Researchers have proposed that when two differing cultures interact, the similarities between the two cultures and the degree of congruence between the preferred modes of cultural integration are related to the success of the merger. In relation to CPED, it is therefore important to ascertain what the respective cultures of the two phases (I and II) were, how different they were from each other, and their relative strengths. Phase I institutions faced several challenges, revolving specifically around the relative size of the two groups, the inherent strength of the existing culture, and the distance between the two cultures.

CPED’s composition during late Phase I (2007–2010) consisted of 25 institutions of higher education (22 public, 3 private), which collectively represented 18 unique states geographically positioned in every region within the United States. Of these 25 institutions, 18 (72%) were members of the CADREI, and 18 (72%) were National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accredited institutions. In contrast, the institutions integrated into CPED during Phase II (2010–2013) numbered 32 (26 public, 6 private), collectively representing 17 unique states, also representing every region within the United States. Of these 32 institutions, 25 (78%) were NCATE accredited institutions (Consortium Members, 2013). Comparing the members added during Phases I and II, it can be seen that they were in fact very similar, both representing a geographically diverse group of predominantly public, NCATE accredited institutions. One area in which the two groups diverge is their average graduate rankings. Using a trusted and long-standing ranking system, US News and World Reports’ ranking of graduate educational programs, the average rank of Phase I institutions was 59, relative to the Phase II institutions average rank of 91 (Best Education Schools, 2012).

Program rankings indicate that Phase I (insider) institutions possess a higher level of prestige than Phase II (outsider) institutions. Understanding this unique situation CPED found itself in circa 2010, underscores the impetus for CPED’s efforts to put in place a support structure to further the integration process, develop cohesion, and foster a common identity amongst its member institutions. With the understanding that these goals would not achieve themselves on their own, or would take too long to achieve naturally given CPED’s timelines and funding constraints, CPED pursued a process to help achieve their goals.

SUPPORTING CONSORTIUM MEMBERS

CPED, desiring to become a cohesive unit, with a strong unified culture, sought out means by which to foster the acculturation process between its far-flung members. In determining which method or methods was the best course of action, specific to CPED’s unique circumstances, CPED relied on its members, their knowledge, and their professional experiences. One implemented strategy was the development of Critical Friendships, through Critical Friends Groups (CFGs), as it was perceived that this method would bring together members, develop trust, and bring about the program (re)design that was sought after. At the same time other strategies such as mentoring were also being implemented within the consortium. Why is the Critical Friends method appealing to some institutions and not others? Is the Critical Friends method a beneficial way of bringing together the members, transferring member knowledge and experiences, and fostering program (re)design? To answer these questions we must first explore mentoring practices, both in detail and from a historical perspective.

MENTORING

Mentoring is a process that consists traditionally of two members, the mentor and the protégé. The mentor possesses a greater level of wisdom, knowledge, and experience, whereas the protégé is attempting to advance his or her career, identity, and/or status. The responsibilities of the mentor include being advisor, guide, resource, friend, role model, motivator, and listener (Gold & Pepin, 1987). While the practice of mentoring has been in use for quite some time, the term having come from Greek Mythology, and being first used in the modern age in the seventeenth century (Roberts, 1999), no standard definition has been agreed upon (Galvez-Hjornevik 1986; Stevens 1995; Murphy 1995).

Ehrich, Hansford, and Tennant (2001) explored 151 educational mentoring studies and 159 business mentoring studies conducting a meta-analysis of mentoring literature within the fields of business and education. The study’s raison d’être was to establish whether or not mentoring was in fact grounded within a wider theoretical framework. This was in response to Jacobi’s (1991) comprehensive review of mentoring in which it was indicated that mentoring research was weakened by a lack of a theoretical and conceptual base. Ehrich et al.’s meta-analysis (2001) found only 15 percent of empirical education studies and 35 percent of business studies included theoretical perspectives on, or contained a definition and/or meaning of, mentoring. Over 40 different definitions of mentoring were identified by Haggard et al. (2011) within empirical literature on mentoring since 1980. The lack of a theoretical framework and an agreed-upon definition make it difficult to study and report on the benefits of mentoring. Hattie (2009), researching the antecedents of student achievement, conducted a meta-analysis, offers a definition of mentoring, “a form of peer tutoring, although it normally involved older persons (often adults) providing academic or social assistance, or both . . . but it also occurs throughout adult work situations to facilitate career development,” (p. 187). In this definition, the relationship is hierarchical, consists of a pair, and has the primary purpose of providing assistance in one direction, from one participant to the other.

While CPED might not be concerned with the lack of a unifying definition in the mentoring literature, it is understandably interested in the effectiveness of the method, the outcomes and implications of its usage. Protégé development research has found relationships between the mentoring process and job satisfaction, salary level, and promotion rate (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Fagenson, 1989; Scandura, 1992; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). More recently, researcher efforts have focused on amalgamating existing research, factoring in boundary conditions and generalizability, to provide a better understanding of mentoring and its effects. Allen et al. (2004) combining existing empirical research, conducted a meta-analysis on the career benefits obtained by the protégé. The results were “generally supportive of claims associated with the benefits of mentoring but also reveal that the effect size associated with objective career outcomes is small” (Allen et al., 2004, p. 132). Furthermore, the author recommends that pursuing mentoring in order to achieve career success can’t be su...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction: Critical Friendship: Facilitating Innovative Doctoral Program Adoption1
• Part I   Theory and Action Framework, Opportunities and Threats to the Developing Role of Critical Friendship Groups
• Part II   Role of Critical Friends Groups on EdD Program (Re)design
• Part III   Applying the Critical Friends Group Model to the EdD Program
• Epilogue
• About the Contributors
• Index