2017 Dissertation in Practice Award Committee Report Award is given to EdD graduate(s) whose DiP shows evidence of scholarly endeavors in impacting a complex problem of practice, and aligns with CPED Working Principles.  October 2017 CPED Convening CSU East Bay & San Jose State University

DiP Committee Co-chairs Kelly Summers, Northern Illinois University Thanks to Lorna Beckett, graduate assistant at the University of Denver Co-chairs Kelly Summers, Northern Illinois University Carol Kochar-Bryant, George Washington University Members James Bartlett, North Carolina State University Maida Finch, Salisbury University Bets Ann Smith, Michigan State University DiP Committee

Scope of Work and Timeline Virtual meetings April – September Prepare call for submissions Develop process and tools for reviewing initial synopses and then full dissertations Evaluate initial synopses (blind) and discuss them to identify finalist Two members read each finalist’s full dissertation and then compared evaluations before full committee meeting to select winner and honorable mention Scope of Work and Timeline Relied on online tools for our work – Google sheets and docs, Zoom, Skype

2017 Submissions Thirty-three submissions Five were group authored Eighteen used qualitative inquiry methods Three used quantitative inquiry methods Twelve used mixed methods 2017 Submissions

Historical and Current Data   2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Submissions 11 25 30 26 36 33 Institutions 17 21 Percent Individual Authorship 100% 93% 80.7% 85% 2013 report indicates 21 phase 1 institutions (14 submissions from 3 institutions) Found information in previous reports available on CPED website and in documents Kelly shared. Not all information was collected each year.

Each synopsis evaluated by two committee members on the following criteria: Statement of alignment with CPED working principles Statement of the study’s identified problem of practice Research question(s) Theoretical or conceptual framework that situations the problem in both the scholarly and practical contexts Research design and analysis Summary of key findings Impact on practice – impact on practice, policy, research; future work of scholarly practitioner; demonstrates ability to solve problems of practice; action pieces generated Synopsis Review

Average Scores the 33 submissions Criteria Average Score Alignment with CPED principles 3.54/5 Problem of practice 8.06/10 Research question(s) 6.49/8 Theoretical or conceptual framework 10.12/15 Research design and analysis 10.75/15 Summary of key findings 10.44/15 Impact on practice 12.22/20 Observations: alignment with CPED principles – would expect/hope this to be higher; identify problem of practice is strong; need to think about impact on practice

Finalists Five Dissertations emerged as finalists The full dissertations were read by two members of the committee. Scored on eleven criteria Finalists

We identified 5 finalists to submit full dissertations which were each reviewed by two committee members. Selected criteria and average scores Criteria Average Finalists Scores 1. Identifies a researchable, complex problem of practice. 9.86/10 2. Demonstrates the integration of theory and practice to advance professional knowledge. 8.42/10 3. Demonstrates use of rigorous and appropriate methods of critical inquiry to address the identified complex problem of practice. 4. Demonstrates reciprocity with the field. 7.29/10 5. Demonstrates the integration of both theory and practice to advance professional knowledge and to impact the field. 8.57/10 Finalists Selected criteria distinct from synopses criteria, emphasizing traits/ideas we discussed as particularly important to distinguish DiP from traditional dissertations Observations: stronger integration w/ theory among finalists than initial round of submissions; recognized that institutional constraints might affect extent to which DiP can be creative/interdisciplinary or alternative format so gave less weight here; still hope to see progress in several areas

Criteria Finalists Average Finalists Scores We identified 5 finalists to submit full dissertations which were each reviewed by two committee members. Selected criteria and average scores Criteria Average Finalists Scores 6. Demonstrates rigorous, appropriate and ethical methods of inquiry. 9/10 7. Demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to communicate effectively to an appropriate audience to advance professional knowledge and impact the field. 4.57/5 8. Demonstrates the goals of the problem-based thesis as involving decisions, changed practices, better organizational performances and application of a theory of change. 9.85/15 9. Engages in creative, innovative or interdisciplinary inquiry. 3.57/5 10. Experiments with distinctive designs or alternatives to traditional doctoral dissertation format or product. 2.43/5 11. Demonstrates potential for positive impact on the identified complex problem of practice or contribution to practice beyond the DiP itself. 8.43/10 Finalists Selected criteria distinct from synopses criteria, emphasizing traits/ideas we discussed as particularly important to distinguish DiP from traditional dissertations Observations: stronger integration w/ theory among finalists than initial round of submissions; recognized that institutional constraints might affect extent to which DiP can be creative/interdisciplinary or alternative format so gave less weight here; still hope to see progress in several areas

2017 Dissertation in Practice of the Year Award Winners Camela S. Diaz, Melody L. Strang, Amanda L. Unger, and Sarah G. Van’t Hof Utilizing the Design Thinking Process to Aid Educators in their Response to Childhood Lead Exposure Michigan State University 2017 Dissertation in Practice of the Year Award Winners http://www.cpedinitiative.org/page/dissertation

Refinement of scoring criteria Looking for new members! Moving Forward