1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Refinement of scoring criteria
Looking for new members!
Moving Forward