Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Action-Research-In-EdD-Programs-In-Educ

1. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education
2014, Vol. 9(1) 85–105
© The University Council for
Educational Administration 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1942775113498378
jrl.sagepub.com
Article
Action Research in EdD
Programs in Educational
Leadership
Karen Osterman1, Gail Furman2, and Kathleen Sernak3
Abstract
This exploratory study gathered information about the use of action research
within doctor of education programs in educational leadership and explored faculty
understanding of and perspectives on action research. Survey data established that action
research is used infrequently to meet dissertation requirements. Contributing factors
include lack of clarity regarding the nature of action research (AR) and concerns about
methodological legitimacy. Because the development of collaborative leadership skills
and the pursuit of social justice objectives are inherent to the action research process,
these results call for additional discussion regarding this distinctive methodology and its
role in the preparation of educational leaders at the doctoral level.
Keywords
methods, diversity and/or social justice, graduate programs, professional development,
instruction/pedagogy
Action research is a research strategy that, according to some, is eminently suitable for
preparation of educational leaders and the development of effective leadership skills,
especially at the doctoral level of study (Anderson, 2002; Andrews & Grogan, 2005;
Furman, 2011; Grogan, Donaldson, & Simmons, 2007; Herr & Anderson, 2005).
Andrews and Grogan (2005), noting that the doctor of education (EdD) was originally
designed for applied research rather than original research, argued that EdD programs
1Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
2Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA
3Rowan University, Collingswood, NJ, USA
Corresponding Author:
Karen Osterman, Educational and Policy Leadership, 119 Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY 11549-1190, USA.
Email: karen.s.osterman@hofstra.edu
498378JRL9110.1177/1942775113498378Journal of Research on Leadership EducationOsterman et al.
research-article2013

2. 86 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
in leadership should be organized around problems of practice, creating opportunities
for inquiry and reflection. At the heart of the program must be “a component based
upon action learning and action research” focused on “what educators need to value,
know and be able to do” (p. 10). Anderson (2002), Herr and Anderson (2005), and
Riehl, Larson, Short, and Reitzug (2000) urged greater reliance on forms of practitio-
ner research, including action research, to meet the pressing demands for improvement
in student learning. Furman (2011, 2012) makes an even more specific argument for
action research in the context of educational leadership, explaining how the principles
and processes inherent to action research (emphasis on problems of practice, equity,
collaboration, data-based decision-making, and reflective analysis) directly align with
principles of effective leadership and, more specifically, leadership for social justice.
Engaging in action research, then, not only supports educational change but also con-
tributes to the development of important leadership competencies and fosters social
justice, according to these authors.
Action research, as traditionally defined, is distinct in that it focuses on a problem
of practice; is conducted by practitioners in their own organizational settings; and aims
at generating, implementing, and assessing an action plan to address the problem.
Although there are forms of action research that are limited to examining and improv-
ing individual practice, at the organizational level action research is typically a col-
laborative effort, including as part of the research team individuals with a direct
involvement in and commitment to addressing the problem under investigation.1
Within the action research framework are multiple steps or cycles that, while described
differently in the literature (Argyris, 1993; Coghlan & Brannick, 2010; Herr &
Anderson, 2005; Stringer, 2007), require the researchers to develop a deeper under-
standing of a problem and to utilize that information and new understanding to design
an appropriate action plan. With a concerted focus on the problem, the research cycle
continues as the team members implement the planned change and systematically
assess their actions and the effects of their efforts. These critical findings provide the
basis for refining and improving the action agenda.
In educational leadership EdD programs, the majority of students are preparing for
continued professional careers in schools and districts. Ideally, their participation in
the EdD program should enable them to not simply advance in their careers but to
enact leadership that will be effective in pursuing an “ambitious agenda for change in
schools and teaching and learning of students” (http://cpedinitiative.org/about). To
meet that goal, the doctoral program, including their training in research, should be
designed in ways that directly enhance their leadership competencies and enable them
to more fully address educational inequities and realize social justice goals. If the pur-
pose of EdD programs in educational leadership is to prepare leaders who are compe-
tent and effective in identifying and solving complex problems in education, action
research seems to be an appropriate research methodology.
These arguments regarding the value of action research in leadership preparation,
and specifically within EdD programs, reflect the recent work of the Carnegie Project
on the Education Doctorate (CPED; http://cpedinitiative.org/). CPED is a national
project engaging a consortium of university representatives in redefining the EdD as a

3. Osterman et al. 87
“professional practice” doctorate, distinct from the PhD. Influenced by the critiques of
Lee Shulman, Chris Golde, and others (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian,
2006), CPED participants have adopted a definition for the EdD along with a set of
principles and “design concepts” for EdD programs, maintaining that the professional
doctorate in education should prepare educators “for the application of appropriate and
specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the
profession” (http://cpedinitiative.org/about). Prominent among the design principles is
that the EdD should provide “field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice
and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions.” The CPED goes further,
however, and recommends that EdD student research should be a “dissertation in prac-
tice” that “demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to solve problems of prac-
tice” (http://cpedinitiative.org/design-concept-definitions). Again, action research is a
method that is ideally suited to these important objectives.
Obstacles to the Use of Action Research
Despite the logic of these arguments, this perspective on the value of action research
in leadership preparation is neither dominant nor unchallenged in the academic com-
munity. Although critics of educational leadership preparation have long urged the
field to move away from what is essentially a PhD format imposed on the EdD, this
argument has not been accepted widely, let alone widely integrated into EdD programs
for educational leaders (Shulman et al., 2006). Within the field, there is still disagree-
ment about the expectations for EdD graduates. While a number of EdD programs,
with the support of foundation initiatives like CPED, have introduced completion
requirements that are alternatives to the traditional dissertation, not all utilize action
research and many institutions still require a formal dissertation grounded in the prin-
ciples of the major research paradigms.
Among those that require the dissertation, there are debates about what graduates
should be expected to know and do, arguments that essentially revolve around the
question of what constitutes good research. For some, good research is defined by its
contribution to valued outcomes, such as individual well-being or social justice
(Hostetler, 2005; Pyrch, 2007, Riehl et al., 2000; Stringer, 2007). For others, the qual-
ity of research is determined largely by the use of rigorous methods. While some
maintain that EdD programs should prepare people for practitioner research by empha-
sizing the mixed methodologies that are most useful in the field—applied research and
action research (Johnsen, 2010; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Maurer & Githens,
2010; Mills, 2007; Young, 2006)—still others maintain that EdD programs, like the
PhD, should train students in traditional research methodologies. Even here, however,
there are differences of opinion about what this preparation should look like. Some
academicians, for example, equate good research with a positivist perspective and
recommend an emphasis on quantitative skills and method (Gay, Mills, & Airasian,
2006; Torff, 2011). Others maintain the need for preparation in quantitative and quali-
tative methods, regardless of career aspirations (Greene, 2007; Page, 2001). There is
little discussion, however, about the need to offer formal preparation in action research.

4. 88 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
While the paradigm war pitting positivist and hermeneutic perspectives continues,
there are also questions about the legitimacy of any form of practitioner research,
including action research. Despite Boyer’s (1990) efforts to expand notions of schol-
arly inquiry to include “Scholarship of Application,” or the use of existing knowledge
to address problems in society, it is clear that academia, in general, places a far greater
value on “Scholarship of Discovery,” original research leading to the discovery of new
theories, principles, or knowledge.
Attitudes toward action research within academia may also be complicated by a
lack of conceptual clarity about action research as a research method in education.
While there is general agreement that action research is problem oriented, there are
different interpretations of what this means. Some authors, drawing on the founda-
tional work of Kurt Lewin, describe action research as problem-solving interven-
tions, grounded in research, systematically developed, implemented, and assessed.
Others present a broader view that emphasizes inquiry to inform practice and provide
direction for change that may or may not involve an intentional change effort. Herr
and Anderson (2005), for example, describe it as “inquiry that is done by or with
insiders to an organization or community, but never to or on them” (p. 3) and as a
process that may lead to changes “within the setting and/or within the researchers
themselves” (p. 4). This emphasis on inquiry, like that of Cochran-Smith and Lytle
(2009), would incorporate a range of studies involving self-reflection, organizational
assessment, or even the generation of plans or knowledge that lead to greater under-
standing and would theoretically support improvements in practice. Coghlan and
Brannick (2010), too, recognized this diversity and identify a wide array of research
approaches characterized as action research that, while designed to enhance under-
standing of problems and practice, are not necessarily initiated or conducted by prac-
titioners and do not always incorporate the development, implementation, and
assessment of an action plan. Included in this array are action learning, action sci-
ence, developmental action inquiry, cooperative inquiry, clinical inquiry, appreciative
inquiry, learning history, collaborative management research, reflective practice, and
evaluative inquiry.
Purpose of the Study
Although there are numerous proponents of action research as an appropriate—and
preferred—research method for EdD programs in educational leadership, much of the
literature about action research focuses primarily on research conducted by teachers in
their own classrooms (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Zeichner, 2001) either as inde-
pendent projects or associated with a master’s program. In contrast, there is little infor-
mation about action research conducted by educational leaders in their work settings,
whether as individual efforts or as part of their doctoral studies, and little information
available about the use of action research within EdD programs, particularly to satisfy
dissertation requirements. While there are proponents of action research as a means to
develop leadership competencies and advance a social justice agenda, there is no evi-
dence to determine if action research has become widely integrated at the doctoral

5. Osterman et al. 89
level and little information on how programs that utilize action research design these
experiences for students. Furthermore, while program requirements and expectations
as well as doctoral students’ choices in study design and methods are undoubtedly
shaped by the philosophy and perspectives of university faculty, there is no published
information on faculty attitudes toward action research. If the potential for action
research as an effective method of inquiry for educational leaders is to be realized,
more information is needed with regard to these issues to serve as a baseline for advo-
cacy efforts and educational leadership program development.
The purpose of this exploratory study, then, was to gather information about the
use of action research for the dissertation within EdD programs in Educational
Leadership and to explore understanding of and perspectives on action research
among faculty. Specifically, we wanted to know the extent to which doctoral candi-
dates utilized action research to meet completion requirements and to understand
procedural expectations regarding the development of these studies. Given the wide
variation in definitions of action research, we were also interested in learning how
faculty understood action research: Did they adopt the traditional definition of action
research as a change process or did they incorporate other models aimed to develop a
deeper understanding of practice at individual or organizational level? To better
understand factors influencing the use of action research, we wanted to know faculty
perceptions of the effectiveness of action research in supporting various learning out-
comes and we also hoped to learn more about sources of support and resistance from
the academic and school communities.
As Educational Leadership professors who advocate for action research within our
own doctoral programs and chair action research dissertations, we were keenly inter-
ested in these topics. Our approach to the study and the analysis of data were influ-
enced by our deeply held convictions about the value of action research and by our
own “conceptual framework” for the nature of action research. We espouse a “partici-
patory” model of action research as a collaborative, problem-solving process, in which
interested parties seek greater understanding of an issue, engage in appropriate
research methods to gather and analyze data, and develop and implement action plans
or interventions to address the issue. In this model, action research is judged not only
by the rigor of its methodology, but also by criteria related to inclusivity, equitable
participation, and the usefulness of outcomes within the particular setting (Herr &
Anderson, 2005; Stringer, 2007).
Method
To explore our questions about action research, we designed a survey instrument that
was distributed on-line to faculty in University Council for EducationalAdministration
(UCEA) member institutions that offer the EdD in the area of educational leadership
and/or administration.2 To choose the sample for the study, we relied on the UCEA list
as a readily available population of doctoral-granting institutions that, through UCEA
membership, had indicated a commitment to educational leadership preparation and
were also geographically dispersed throughout the United States. We decided to limit

6. 90 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
the sample to U.S. institutions because action research traditions as well as models for
doctoral study differ across countries, and our purpose was not to compare across
systems but to explore commonalities within the U.S. context. The UCEA member-
ship list (May 2011) included 85 universities based in the United States. Of these,
12 offered only PhDs, and seven offered educational leadership programs but did not
offer the EdD or any other doctoral degree, leaving a sample of 66 EdD granting insti-
tutions.Atotal of 82 faculty3 from 54 (82%) of the EdD granting institutions responded:
11 assistant professors (13%), 30 associate professors (37%), 37 professors (45%), and
four (5%) in other roles.
The survey included 34 items organized in three sections. The first set of items
gathered information about the EdD program (numbers, mission, and practices
regarding the use of action research for the final degree requirement) and informa-
tion about the respondent’s rank and experience with action research. Only faculty
who had actually served on an action research committee as chair or committee
member (N = 42) completed the second set of questions about the institution’s guide-
lines regarding preparation and completion of action research studies and purpose
and perceived effectiveness of AR studies completed under their direction as chair.
A final section, completed by all respondents (N = 82), examined perceptions about
the understanding of action research and attitudes by faculty within the higher edu-
cation community and by school practitioners. Depending on the nature of the spe-
cific questions, the response options included yes/no items and Likert-type scale
items (ranging from 1 to 5), as well as three open-ended items that solicited com-
ments regarding effectiveness of action research, support and resistance to action
research, and the use of action research within the EdD program in their institution.
The survey was distributed on-line using the Qualtrics survey package and given the
exploratory purpose of the study, the item analysis utilized descriptive statistics gen-
erated as part of the survey package. In addition, we did a thematic analysis of all of
the open-ended comments, and excerpts included in the “Results” section illustrate
those themes.
Results
In alignment with general perceptions about the purpose of the EdD degree (Andrews
& Grogan, 2005), the majority of the faculty respondents (87%) strongly agreed (on
a five-point scale) that the mission of their EdD programs was to prepare practitio-
ners for roles as educational leaders (M = 4.51). While 10% of the respondents indi-
cated that their programs require a “capstone or alternative project,” the majority
(78%) indicated that students must complete a dissertation prior to completion of the
degree. An additional 12% said that either an alternative project or dissertation
would be acceptable. According to 76% of the faculty, action research was an option
for the final degree requirement, but only 47% reported frequent (17%) or occa-
sional (30%) use, and 44% reported that students never or seldom utilized action
research. On the positive side, 10% noted that action research is required as a final
dissertation requirement, but 24% indicated that it is not an acceptable option.

7. Osterman et al. 91
Regarding formal preparation, approximately half (42%) reported that their institu-
tions offered a specific course in action research, with 23% indicating that the course
was required for all EdD students and 39% that the course is required for students
who utilize action research.
Using Action Research
Of the 82 faculty respondents, 72 (89%) indicated that they serve as a chair on doctoral
research studies, but only 43 (53%) of these had served as either a chair or a committee
member on an action research study in the last 5 years. The findings in the following
sections are based on the responses of only those faculty (N = 42) who had chaired
action research studies.
Purpose of action research. Asked to characterize the primary purpose of their students’
completed action research studies, 79% of the responses emphasized two options:
(a) to enhance understanding of classroom, school, or district practice as basis for
future action (needs assessment), and (b) to understand and take action to address
specific problems (action intervention). Only 48% selected a third purpose, to under-
stand and improve one’s own practice as an educational leader (self-study). Some of
the open-ended responses offered alternate perspectives that defined the purpose of
action research in ways ranging from gathering information about practice to those
involving change efforts:
•
• To provide a replicable study of common issues of practice and build knowl-
edge about addressing those issues,
•
• To leverage collective work for reform/change,
•
• Change theory and group behavior and decision-making,
•
• To try a new innovation.
What is unclear from these responses is whether the studies were individual or col-
laborative action research efforts.
Effectiveness of action research. Based on their experience, faculty were asked to rate
on a Likert-type scale the effectiveness of the action research dissertation in support-
ing a number of learning outcomes (1 = not very effective, 5 = very effective). As Table 1
indicates, the overall assessment of effectiveness is positive, with mean scores ranging
from 3.37 (improved teaching practice) to 4.26 (individual learning). Items related
more directly to leadership also received moderately high ratings: development of
professional knowledge (4.15), improved leadership practice (3.95), and development
of leadership competency (3.85). If those studies coded as action research by respon-
dents were not conducted as a collaborative effort to plan, implement, and assess an
action plan to address a defined organizational problem, that might very well account
for somewhat lower ratings regarding the perceived effects on leadership practice and
competency.

8. 92 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
Open-ended comments on effectiveness focused on the relationship between action
research and leadership:
•
• Action research puts leadership into action.
•
• Learning to lead from an inquiry stance.
They also focused on the lack of experience with action research:
•
• I rarely see action research used at the building level to study/implement reform.
I think it would be particularly useful for doing that, but I don’t see many stu-
dents using it that way.
These respondents thus tended to view action research as more effective for individ-
ual learning than for solving organizational problems, but the final comment suggests
that this disconnect between action research and organizational improvement may be
related to the fact that the critical action component may be missing from these studies.
Action research procedures. Despite the relatively high level of interest and involve-
ment in action research, only nine of the 42 respondents (21%) indicated that their
institutions have written guidelines for preparation and completion of action research
studies. Regarding procedures, the majority (88%) reported that students select their
own topics; and all reported that students must prepare a proposal before beginning the
study. For almost all (98%), the proposal must be approved prior to the study. All pro-
posals include purpose, rationale, and methods, and most (92%) include a literature
review and a statement on researcher perspective (83%).
Additional comments indicated that the proposal may also include a conceptual
framework and perspective on the problem of practice. Some respondents emphasized
the importance of including information on the research design, instruments, context,
and background. The proposals are always reviewed by the doctoral committee, and a
majority of respondents (86%) indicated that proposals are always reviewed by the
university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Table 1. Perceptions of Effectiveness of Action Research to Support Learning Outcomes.
Item M SD
Individual learning 4.26 0.89
Development of professional knowledge 4.15 0.85
Development of leadership competency 3.86 1.00
Development of research competency 3.52 0.97
Organizational learning 3.79 0.95
Improved teaching practice 3.37 1.02
Improved leadership practice 3.95 1.06
Improved organizational effectiveness 3.80 1.10
Improved student learning 3.52 1.11

9. Osterman et al. 93
The students’ doctoral committees range in size from two to five members, most
frequently three (50%) or four (33%). On a scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5),
mean item responses indicate that the committees include faculty from the leadership
program (4.81) and other programs or departments within the school (4.05). To a lesser
extent, committees may include faculty from other schools in the university (2.90),
educational practitioners (2.76), and infrequently, faculty from other universities (2.21).
There is less involvement of district and/or school officials in proposal review (3.66).
Following completion of the action research project, the final research report is
always (5.0) reviewed by the doctoral committee but less frequently by action research
participants (3.18) or district and/or school officials (2.85). While a majority of respon-
dents indicate that these final reports are submitted to the university library (82%) or
a national dissertation database (80%), only a small percentage (8%) is submitted
directly to the cooperating school or district.
Information, Support, and Resistance
All respondents indicated the extent to which various groups within the university and
school communities were well informed about action research and were supportive or
resistant (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 5). For each question, faculty in the
leadership program were perceived as most informed and supportive, while faculty in
the university as a whole were perceived as least informed and most resistant.
Information and understanding. Asked if members of the various groups are well
informed about action research (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree), as noted in
Table 2, there was greater agreement regarding faculty in the educational leadership
program (3.82) and lowest agreement regarding faculty members in the university
(2.88) but outside of the school.
At the same time, the open-ended comments challenged the overall assessment of
the level of understanding among educational leadership faculty. Some emphasized
the need for definition: “I think it’s misunderstood,” said one, while another asked,
“Please define it . . . our definitions may be different.” While there was general agree-
ment that action research involved action in some way, others raised questions about
the nature of action research and its distinction from other forms of research. As one
commented, “All empirical research in the social sciences is ‘action’ as it relates to
human behavior, so would a comparative study of two schools constitute action
research?” Others queried about the relationship between applied research, transla-
tional research, practitioner research, practitioner inquiry, program evaluation, and
action research.
Confirming the lack of clarity, another respondent suggested that action research
“means different things to different people, in different settings!!” That diversity in
meaning was apparent in various comments and examples provided by respondents.
Posing a nontraditional perspective, one indicated that “action research projects [at
this institution] mostly consist of describing archival data that exist on the (State)

10. 94 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
website.” Another focused on the problem as the heart of action research and also
emphasized a rigorous scientific method:
If you are saying action research is determining a problem in education, researching and
doing background knowledge search of all available research literature and then carrying out
an investigation either by survey, case study, or personal interviews and writing it as a
dissertation type report with an introduction to the problem, background knowledge of
literature, instrument development and deployment, analysis, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations- then our projects (problem-based learning, policy analysis or product
development) might very well qualify.
Another indicated that some students complete change projects, contracted for by
local school districts, educational organizations, state departments of education, and so
on, but reported that they don’t call it action research, so I don’t think folks code it that
way. While these comments all identify a common focus on problems of practice, it is
also apparent that faculty are classifying multiple research methods as action research.
Support for action research. Regarding support for action research, the respondents
(Table 3) strongly agreed that faculty in the educational leadership program were sup-
portive (4.66) but characterized area schools and districts as more supportive (4.84).
One cautioned, however, that “because of the use of ‘action research’as a professional
development strategy, school districts often think they ‘know’ about action research
but do not really have a good understanding.”
The survey included one open-ended item that elicited comments regarding sup-
port and resistance. Interestingly, comments identifying challenges to the use of
action research far exceed those of support. Sources of support, however, referred to
the power of action research as a means to facilitate awareness and change and, more
generally, to establish a link between research and practice. Several argued that
action research improves leadership, is consistent with the goal of preparing scholar–
practitioners, and is well received by students, faculty, and local school districts.
Several offered pragmatic reasons, suggesting that the use of action research con-
tributed to higher rates of completion; others emphasized its value to support leader-
ship development and change:
Table 2. Perceived Information About Action Research.
Group M SD
Faculty in this educational leadership program 3.82 1.08
Faculty in this school 3.61 0.96
Faculty in this university 2.88 1.17
IRB 3.37 1.43
Area schools/districts 3.28 1.20
Note. IRB = Institutional Review Board.

11. Osterman et al. 95
•
• Action research can be a very powerful source in bringing about change.
•
• Supports are frequently based on the potentially authentic research-practice
link and the potential for advancing reflective practice, awareness of issues of
social justice, access, and equity.
•
• Action research is a good fit with the scholarly practitioner EdD degree . . . it
has the potential to positively influence the student’s leadership practice and
subsequent leadership behavior.
•
• Action research puts leadership into action
•
• Learning to lead from an inquiry status.
•
• Action research has been very well received by students, faculty, and local
school districts
•
• The majority of my dissertations are problem-based. Developing a product for
the improvement of practice is my orientation. Until I adopted this approach,
many students were stuck or stalled at the dissertation stage.
Resistance to action research. Overall, faculty did not identify any strong resistance to
action research by any group (see Table 4). On a scale of 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to
strongly agree), groups perceived as least resistant were faculty in the educational
leadership program (M = 2.55) and faculty in the school (2.90). Perceived as more
resistant were faculty in the university (3.95), and members of the IRB (3.65).Although
schools and school districts were perceived as most supportive (4.84, see Table 3), this
group was also perceived as moderately resistant (3.43).
The open-ended comments included several explanations for the infrequent use of
action research at the dissertation level in the EdD program. While some challenged
the rigor of the methodology and felt it was inappropriate at the doctoral level (whether
PhD or EdD), others felt that the demands of the process excluded some students.
Some attributed resistance to competing demands on faculty from academia, and some
had experienced difficulty in getting approval through the IRB process.
It’s not good research! Some respondents simply dismissed action research as a
form of research: “It’s not good research! Not a good idea.” Others characterized
it as inferior to traditional quantitative research: “Action research is subpar to basic
Table 3. Perceived Support for Action Research by Group.
Group M SD
Faculty in this educational leadership program 4.66 1.61
Faculty in this school 4.50 1.25
Faculty in this university 3.54 1.49
IRB 4.11 1.59
Area schools/districts 4.84 1.04
Note. IRB = Institutional Review Board.

12. 96 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
or advanced research necessary in doctoral programs. It falls outside of traditional
research and stats sequence; peer-reviewed research is the gold standard.”
It doesn’t meet faculty needs! Some argued that resistance to action research is
grounded in the culture of academia. Action research can distract faculty from their
own research agenda and need to publish: “If dissertations have no hope of being pub-
lished, which is largely the case with action research, action research is a distraction.”
It’s okay in its place! Faculty also distinguished between the expectations of PhD
and EdD programs, suggesting that while action research may be appropriate for EdD
students, it is definitely not acceptable for PhD candidates. Even within EdD pro-
grams, there was lack of consensus. Resting largely on the belief that action research
does not meet standards of rigor, some indicated that it was appropriate for principal
preparation programs but not at the doctoral level. Reflecting a continuing dialogue
about distinguishing characteristics, one noted that,
•
• It is a norm in the college that an EdD requires a dissertation that is, by and
large, indistinguishable from a PhD dissertation.
Even when institutions incorporate action research, it may be limited to the princi-
pal preparation program.
•
• While the principal preparation program . . . has a practical inquiry and action
research component, the doctoral program does not typically incorporate action
research . . . There is less a sense of resistance/concern (about) action research
as a model for dissertation research and more of a sense that the action research
paradigm isn’t viewed as having as much scholarly currency in terms of fin-
ished product, that is, the dissertation. In many cases, in visiting with doctoral
faculty and other faculty members who serve on the dissertation committees, I
believe that the model of research for dissertation is thought to reflect a level of
rigor and quality. Therefore, action research is perhaps not viewed as adding to
rigor or quality . . . Since we require a dissertation study for completion of the
EdD program, an action research project isn’t typically viewed as viable.
Table 4. Perceived Resistance to Action Research by Group.
Group M SD
Faculty in this educational leadership program 2.55 1.57
Faculty in this school 2.90 1.55
Faculty in this university 3.95 1.76
IRB 3.65 1.94
Schools/districts in the area 3.43 1.89
Note. IRB = Institutional Review Board.

13. Osterman et al. 97
•
• Action research courses are offered at the master’s level in many educational
degree and certificate programs within the College of Education. The doctoral
program seeking to advance student understanding and proficiency commensu-
rate with a terminal degree does not support action research for dissertation
studies.
While some faculty indicated that students were introduced to action research at the
doctoral level, for some it was still not an acceptable option for the dissertation.
•
• Action research may be carried out by practitioners in research projects within
and/or outside of the doctoral courses, but is not allowed as a research design
for dissertation research. Our educational leadership program for the EdD
degree is founded upon principles of scholar–practitioner leadership. As such,
action research is a valuable inquiry tool and medium for the scholar–practitio-
ner leader.
It’s too difficult for students! As one person noted, action research might not fit the
student’s concerns, but resistance was also grounded in beliefs that action research
was too challenging for some students, either because of the politics of their posi-
tion or because of the demands of the methodology. One suggested, for example, that
action research is easier for teacher leaders but more problematic for school leaders
and particularly for district leaders:
I think the action research dissertation design is helpful for teacher leaders. For school
leaders, depending on their context, they may not be able to conduct an action research
dissertation because of the politics of their school, district, or relationships with staff and
their supervisor. I think it’s even more problematic for senior/district level leaders to do
action research. The Board politics and things make it difficult for them to do this without
repercussions.
Other responses suggested that resistance or simply frequency of use is linked to
the nature of action research studies as challenging and even more complex than other
types of studies, with students having difficulty being self-aware, taking broad per-
spectives, investing the amount of time needed to complete an AR study, or acquiring
support from the school district where the study will take place.
•
• Few of my doctoral students conduct action research studies . . . [because] They
are hard to do well.
•
• Not all students are able to negotiate the terrain of an action research study. In
many ways, it is much more complex. It also requires support from the school
district where the study will take place.
•
• Resistance is frequently based on individual students having difficulty being
self-aware, taking broad perspectives, as well as their role on site.

14. 98 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
•
• We would like to have students complete more than one cycle in an AR study.
Many students are reluctant to extend their time to degree to complete multiple
cycles.
•
• Political issues within an organization often prevent a good study for many
students
The IRB. Although mean item responses regarding the extent to which the IRB mem-
bers are well informed about action research and supportive were moderately high
(3.37and 4.11, respectively), one person commented that it was “not an easy sell
through IRB,” at least partially because of the researcher’s position as leader in his or
her own work setting:
•
• We have received push back from IRB to conduct studies in a work setting
where the doctoral student is a leader in that setting.
Lack of active support. Several faculty suggested that the limited use of action research
did not reflect resistance as much as a lack of information and perhaps inertia within
the field. As one mentioned, “We don’t tend to hear much about action research rela-
tive to the EdD.” Another commented, We just don’t do it in EDLDR. My sense is that
it’s done more in C&I.” The comment continued emphasizing the importance of (and
absence of) advocates: “At my previous institution, we included it in our qualitative
research course, and we had one particular person who championed it in EDLDR. Our
program now doesn’t have a course . . . nor a faculty member who pushes for it. If we
had such a person, she [sic] would probably be supported.” Another faculty member
also highlighted the importance of individual advocacy: “With the recent retirement of
a faculty member who was the primary advocate for action research, its utilization has
begun to diminish . . . Ultimately, we may see very few such studies unless we are able
to hire someone with the same methodological skill set and orientation.”
Summary and Discussion
This exploratory survey study provides information on the current “state of the field”
with regard to the use of action research in EdD dissertations in Educational Leadership
programs, as represented in UCEA member institutions. It was not our intent, and the
methodology did not allow deeper exploration of the sources of respondents’ attitudes
toward action research or the specific nature of the action research dissertations they
chaired. Rather, the results suggest a number of conclusions that can serve as the basis
for further research as well as advocacy efforts to promote the use of action research.
Despite arguments in the literature that action research is eminently suitable to
leadership preparation (Anderson, 2002; Andrews & Grogan, 2005; Furman, 2011;
Grogan et al., 2007; Herr & Anderson, 2005), and the relative unanimity among the
faculty respondents that the mission of their EdD programs is to prepare practitioners
for their role as educational leaders, findings here indicate that the use of action
research as a culminating product for the EdD in educational leadership is limited. The

15. Osterman et al. 99
findings offer some possible explanations for this limited use. While the majority of
educational leadership faculty (75%) characterized peers as generally informed and
supportive of action research, approximately 25% to 30% perceived colleagues as
nonsupportive or resistant. Levels of support and resistance were similar for faculty
within the school or college, but faculty within the university as a whole were charac-
terized as less informed and more resistant. In addition, there was lack of clarity about
the nature of action research and concerns about its quality and rigor as a methodology
and the legitimacy of that methodology within the academic community. Open-ended
responses confirmed that there is uncertainty about how action research differs from
traditional methodologies and a belief that action research lacks legitimacy as a rigor-
ous approach to research. Some faculty pointed out that action research dissertations
did not lead to publications that benefited the faculty member’s own research agenda.
The lack of a shared understanding about the nature of action research is not sur-
prising. The literature includes multiple approaches to inquiry that are characterized as
action research, such as participatory action research, action learning, action science,
cooperative inquiry, and appreciative inquiry (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). In addi-
tion, because so much of the literature regarding action research within education
focuses almost exclusively on its use by teachers within the classroom, there is little
information available to the field about the use of action research by educational lead-
ers, let alone the use of action research to meet dissertation requirements.4 Given this
lack of consistency within the field, ambivalence among faculty is understandable, but
nonetheless, a condition that affects the wider use of action research.
As advocates for a particular model of action research, we are concerned that this
lack of understanding undermines the value placed on action research and the fre-
quency of its use. As mentioned earlier, our argument for the use of action research in
educational leadership preparation programs is grounded in a specific definition of
action research as a collaborative problem-solving process that is consistent with equi-
table and effective leadership practice. In this approach, the researcher engages with
others to address a specific organizational problem, and there are two main questions
that address the overall effectiveness of the process: (a) Did the action plan work as
intended? and (b) was the research process consistent with action research principles
(Stringer, 2007)? Specifically, was the process characterized by positive and support-
ive relationships among the research team? Was communication characterized as
truthful, open, and attentive? Was there equitable and active participation by members
of the team? Finally, was the process inclusive? To implement this form of action
research clearly requires the doctoral candidate to utilize organizational problem-solving
skills that are consistent with our understanding of effective leadership competencies.
While it is important to note that this is not an argument for (or against) elimination of
the dissertation requirement, we believe that EdD dissertation research conducted
according to this model would soon demonstrate to faculty and to the broader field the
effectiveness of action research in addressing real problems and its value as a leader-
ship development experience for candidates.
However, the findings of the study suggest that this definition of action research is
neither widely understood nor utilized within educational leadership programs. To the

16. 100 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
contrary, it would seem that an operational definition characterizing many of the
responses would be simply research that helps us develop a deeper understanding of
problems of practice. While that is a valuable purpose of research and may contribute
to eventual change, in our opinion, it falls short of a research model that directly
engages the doctoral candidate in a change effort. We argue that these limited under-
standings of action research among faculty should be addressed if action research is to
be utilized effectively within doctoral programs.
Of equal concern is the characterization of action research as inferior. Here, too, the
lack of information about action research as a formal research methodology is likely
an important contributing factor. These concerns, however, also raise questions about
our standards for good research.
As noted previously, for some, an essential feature of good research is its contribu-
tion to valued outcomes, such as individual well-being or social justice (Hostetler,
2005; Pyrch, 2007; Riehl et al., 2000; Stringer, 2007). As action research directly
addresses problems of practice, including those related to social justice, and aims to
create positive change, it certainly meets this criterion for “good” research.
A valued purpose, however, must also be complemented by rigorous methods.
Within the scientific community, however, there is disagreement about what consti-
tutes rigor. Some equate rigor with scientific method. Explaining scientific method,
Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff (1997), for example, focus on phases of scholarship
beginning with a review of the literature, definition of measurable objectives, and
choice of appropriate methods, with an analytic perspective that involves challenging
assumptions and critical reflection. Similarly, almost every research text, regardless of
methodological orientation, defines the scientific approach in common terms. Hoy
(2010), for example, drawing on John Dewey (1933), identified four basic steps:
Identification and definition of a problem, formulation of a hypothesis to solve the
problem, the logical analysis of the implications of the hypothesis, and testing to cor-
roborate or reject the hypothesis. While action research is distinctly different from
other methodologies in a number of ways, well-designed action research clearly meets
these basic standards for scientific rigor, in that it defines and interprets problems
within the context of previous research and literature, uses rigorous methods for data
collection and analysis, and tests and evaluates the action outcomes of the study.
At the same time, action research includes characteristics that are decidedly incon-
sistent with other deeply held beliefs about the nature of scientific research. From a
positivist perspective, good research is “theoretical, empirical, controlled, and repli-
cable” (Hoy, 2010, p. 16). Maintaining that there is an external reality that can be
discovered through systematic controlled inquiry by an independent and objective
researcher, this perspective on scientific method is most distant from action research.
In this regard, action research is in closer alignment with qualitative inquiry, which is
generally based in a different view of the world—that there is no single reality “out
there” to be discovered, and that the researcher cannot be fully objective but inter-
prets the data through a particular conceptual perspective or cultural stance. Given
this similarity in philosophical assumptions, action research is sometimes viewed as
a type of qualitative research (Stringer, 2007), but this characterization belies

17. Osterman et al. 101
important paradigmatic differences. In qualitative inquiry, the researcher’s primary
aim is to generate knowledge, although this knowledge is particular or idiographic
rather than generalizable. While an integral part of the research process, the qualita-
tive researcher usually attempts to achieve credibility by a careful deconstruction of
the data and analysis to account for personal bias. The qualitative researcher perspec-
tive is, then, like that of the positivist, “on-action” rather than the “in-action” perspec-
tive that distinguishes action research.
Action research is distinctly different in its purpose, and this purpose in turn creates
differences in research processes and standards for establishing methodological rigor
(Coghlan & Brannick, 2010; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Stringer, 2007). Its purpose, to
address problems of practice, is grounded in the need for social action and the need to
address social justice issues. To fulfill this purpose, action research relies on research
processes that tend to be collaborative and inclusive, strategies that have the potential
to shift power relationships and facilitate joint efforts that cross lines of organizational
hierarchy. Thus, while action research meets many conventional standards for method-
ological rigor, including qualitative research standards for transparency and trustwor-
thiness (Stringer, 2007), its value or rigor is also judged by additional “indicators of
quality,” including “the achievement of action-oriented outcomes” and “the education
of both researcher and participants” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, pp. 54-55). In this sense,
action research is held to even higher standards than conventional research and is, in
our view, “good” research.
In sum, while we recognize legitimate concerns and debates about research rigor at
the doctoral level, we argue that well-designed action research studies meet and exceed
most conventional standards for good research and should be encouraged for EdD dis-
sertations in Educational Leadership. Action research would engage doctoral students
in organizational change efforts, utilizing leadership practices and principles that are
associated with the development of organizational learning communities. Essentially,
the completion of an action research study would constitute an authentic performance,
demonstrating the ability to exercise effective—and collaborative—leadership and to
utilize systematic and rigorous research methods to improve practice. Thus, action
research is consistent with the widely shared mission of EdD programs to improve
educational leadership. At the same time, there is a pressing need for educational lead-
ers who can engage in collaborative efforts to address problems, create school envi-
ronments that support student learning, and advance an important social justice agenda,
reducing a growing economic and social inequity between the haves and the have-
nots. This need demands that we reconsider our understanding of good research at the
doctoral level and seek to more closely align the culminating requirement of the dis-
sertation to the program mission.
Implications
The findings of this study raise important questions for the professoriate regarding the
design and implementation of EdD programs in educational leadership. If action
research advocates are correct in their claims about its usefulness and effectiveness in

18. 102 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
addressing “problems of practice,” including those related to social justice issues and
its role in developing effective leadership practices, then what needs to be done to
increase its use for the EdD dissertation or culminating project? Barriers identified in
this study include lack of understanding about the nature of action research, inertia,
and concerns about the legitimacy of action research as a methodology. To address
these issues, it is important that educational leadership faculty develop a deeper under-
standing of action research as a methodology and a deeper understanding of how that
design can be utilized by educational leaders to meet learning objectives and to satisfy
the dissertation or completion requirements for the EdD. It is also important that we
develop an explicit awareness of the extent to which our attitudes toward research are
shaped by dominant research paradigms in the field.
As a start, it is clear that advocates of action research need to be more proactive in
disseminating information and research about action research, and specifically about
action research for educational leaders. What is particularly important here is informa-
tion about action research as a change process and as a research methodology, focus-
ing on its use to meet EdD completion requirements.5 In a sense, what is needed are
opportunities for dialogue and learning, provided through professional organizations
and national conferences. In addition, action research advocates can do a better job
within their home institutions with regard to helping their colleagues within the pro-
gram, the school and the university to understand the value of the action research
approach. Furthermore, faculty with action research expertise could develop better
models and materials for teaching action research within the context of educational
leadership doctoral programs and disseminate these instructional models through pub-
lications and presentations. Finally, to address concerns about rigor and effectiveness,
the field needs more published action research studies that feature this methodology
within educational settings. To date, much of this research, in the form of doctoral dis-
sertations, remains unpublished.6
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. Coghlan and Brannick (2010) helpfully distinguish between “first person” action research
that focuses on individual practice and “second person” action research that focuses on a
shared problem or shared practices.
2. The University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) is consortium of higher
education institutions who offer doctoral programs in educational leadership and whose
mission statement emphasizes its commitment to enhancing the preparation and practice

19. Osterman et al. 103
of educational leaders for the benefit of students. We selected UCEA member institutions
as a representative sample of universities that offer doctoral programs in Educational
Administration or Leadership.
3. UCEA initially distributed the survey to faculty members on its distribution list. Because
of a low rate of response and the fact that the distribution list included numerous faculty
who were not affiliated with K-12 leadership programs, we reviewed current data from
each of the 66 EdD granting institutions to identify one or more faculty members with
specific responsibilities in the educational leadership programs in an effort to get at least
one response from each EdD granting institution.
4. A notable exception is the book by Herr and Anderson (2005) on the action research
dissertation.
5. Coghlan and Brannick (2010), for example, clearly differentiate between the action
research project and the dissertation, framing the action research project as a second per-
son inquiry that focuses on the group’s ability to “inquiry into and work with others on
issues of mutual concern” (p. 6) while the dissertation itself is characterized as third person
inquiry, preparation of a report that is designed for publication, and includes an analysis of
the data that moves from “concrete to the general” (p. 6), contributing to the advancement
of knowledge.
6. One example of an article that provides descriptive and analytic information about action
research dissertations is by Debby Zambo (2010). Interestingly, the article appeared in a
publication targeted at Higher Education (Innovative Higher Education) rather than in one
targeted toward educational leadership faculty.
References
Anderson, G. L. (2002). Reflecting on research for doctoral students in education. Educational
Researcher, 31(7), 22-25.
Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005). Form should follow function: Removing the Ed.D. disserta-
tion from the Ph.D. strait jacket. UCEA Review, 47(2), 10-13.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Furman, G. (2011, November). School leadership, social justice, and action research. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through prepara-
tion programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 191-229.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analy-
sis and application (8th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.
Glassick, C., Huber, M., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the profes-
soriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grogan, M., Donaldson, J., & Simmons, J. M. (2007). Disrupting the status quo: The action
research dissertation as a transformative strategy. In C. A. Mullen, T. Creighton, F. L.

20. 104 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 9(1)
Dembowski, & S. Harris (Eds.), The handbook of doctoral programs in educational leader-
ship: Issues and challenges (pp. 76-89). Houston, TX: The NCPEA Press.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and
faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “good” education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), 16-21.
Hoy, W. K. (2010). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Johnsen, H. C. G. (2010). Scientific knowledge through involvement—How to do respectful
othering. International Journal of Action Research, 6, 43-74. doi:10.1688/1861-9916_
IJAR_2010_01_Johnsen
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Maurer, M., & Githens, R. P. (2010). Toward a reframing of action research for human resource
and organization development: Moving beyond problem solving and toward dialogue.
Action Research, 8, 267-292. Retrieved from http://arj.sagepub.com./content/8/3/267
Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.
Page, R. J. (2001). Reshaping graduate preparation in educational research methods: One
school’s experience. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 19-25.
Pyrch, T. (2007). Participatory action research and the culture of fear: Resistance, community,
hope and courage. Action Research, 5, 199-216. Retrieved from http://arj.sagepub.com/
content/5/2/199
Riehl, C., Larson, C. L., Short, P. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Reconceptualizing research and
scholarship in educational administration: Learning to know, knowing to do, doing to learn.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 391-427.
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming educa-
tion’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Torff, B. (2011). Preparing the educational researchers the world needs. Teachers College
Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16285
Young, M. D. (2006). From the director: The M.Ed., Ed.D. and Ph.D. in educational leadership.
UCEA Review, 45(2), 6-9.
Zambo, D. (2010). Action research as signature pedagogy in an education doctoral program:
The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 261-271. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-
9171-7
Zeichner, K. (2001). Educational action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook
of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 273-283). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Author Biographies
Karen Osterman is a professor of educational and policy leadership at Hofstra University.
Former department chair and doctoral director, her research interests and publications have
focused on utilizing reflective practice for professional development and student motivation in
the school context, with particular attention to students’ need for belonging in the school
community.
Gail Furman is a professor of educational leadership at Washington State University and
interim academic director for College of Education programs at the WSU Spokane campus. A
former president of UCEA, she is the author of numerous articles, book chapters, and books

21. Osterman et al. 105
related to school community, ethics, and social justice leadership. Her recent article appeared in
Educational Administration Quarterly (April, 2012), “Social Justice Leadership as Praxis:
Developing Capacities Through Preparation Programs.”
Kathleen Sernak is a retired professor of educational leadership. With experience as a high
school English teacher, a consultant to school administrators, a director of Teacher Education
for 10 years, and recently retired from Rowan University, Kathleen spent the past 13 years
teaching and researching educational leadership with an emphasis on ethics, particularly ethics
of caring and justice, and social justice.