Pedagogical questions for the Professional Doctorate in Education: understanding the epistemological shift as part of the EdD doctoral journey Julie Shaughnessy, University of Roehampton and Nick Pratt, Plymouth University

Background Our shared experience Assumptions about ease of transfer and transformation Challenges for the professional – navigating spaces (workplace and university) How is criticality developed through the doctoral process?

Context Supervisory needs of professional doctoral students do differ from those of traditional route PhD students (Poultney, 2008) Wellington and Sikes (2006) and Wellington (2012) identify diversity of doctoral provision and that the experiences of students cannot be simplistically divided into traditional PhD routes and professional doctorate routes. Neumann (2005) identifies that the supposed differences between professional doctorates and more traditional PhD routes are often not as great in practice as might be supposed.

Methodology A pilot study: – 6 supervisors, 3 from each institution. Semi-structured interviews: – Account of / Account for Three areas of interest: – Students’ relationship with professional practice; including how supervisors support critique of this practice. – The role of theory/theorising. – Students’ shifts in understanding. Inductive analysis: partial transcription; discussion between us; constructing themes.

Overview WorkplaceUniversity Common-sense discourse Critical, social- constructionist discourse Evaluative research frame Explanatory research frame Student challenges: Epistemological and methodological shift Developing sound judgement Emotional and professional challenge Pedagogical relations: Making critical discourse visible The role of theory Reading Writing and critiquing

Making critical discourse visible: reading, writing, critiquing Being directive to start with – offering ‘extensive feedback’ (J) … ‘So that they know from the beginning hopefully what it is that makes something acceptable and makes something not good enough’ (J) I start with the reading and I try to direct them to existing research that has got and is written from the insider perspective and show them how you can be critical. I encourage them to challenge taken for granted assumptions and things that become normalised (you know) and trying to get them to look with fresh eyes at that, at what is normal and question and challenge it. I also try to engage them theoretically, noting the limitations of theories but as a lens to apply to the research that they are doing. Theory and existing literature are important. (K)

Developing theory Talking about how other people have used the theory to analyse problems. Testing the analysis of data, using theory to help, then writing to see if it works. ‘How can the theory steer me through?’, ‘Data analysis grounds the theoretical conversation’ (A) There are stages of resistance, or repulsion [laughs] and then they put their toe in the water to try to start to engage. And then there can be real excitement, particularly if they can find a theory which helps them with their research question. And that’s the thing that I try to tie the theory to. What is it you want to find out? What theory is going to help you? (J)

Developing sound judgement I think there are a lot of people who see supervision as facilitation, and I think that’s a mistake. I… It’s not a very nice phrase, but it is a kind of quality assurance approach. So when the pots come off the shelf you are checking they aren’t crap pots, and if they are you are telling them they are crap. So being a facilitator is too wet for me. I’m not here just to support them, I’m here to tell them when it’s a crap pot, you know, and that’s when you have to know your pots, whether they are crap or not! (P)

Emotional and Professional Challenge ‘they have to submit to a different kind of interrogation’ and they sometimes ‘revert back’ to at the end when the thesis demands that they take it back into the world of recommendations for work. (J) ‘having the confidence to position themselves alongside the bearded gits [theorists].’ And that ‘It’s the confidence to change their focus as they go, but then that they don’t have to include everything. It’s the confidence to let go.’ (T)

Concluding statements The EdD and its role in workplace problem solving: Carol Bacchi – Policy as Discourse: it is inappropriate to see governments as responding to ‘problems’ that exist ‘out there’ in the community. Rather problems are ‘created’ or ‘given shape’ in the very policy proposals that are offered as ‘responses’. (2000) PaD is interested in ‘problematisations’ and asks how problems are represented (2009) ‘There’s a common-sense discourse in teaching over which there is no point in resisting because you have no choice. … So [for example] they can’t accept that there is no good way of interpreting [say] ‘standards’ because all the ways are socially constructed, they are always looking for the ‘right’ way of interpreting it. That for me is an epistemological problem. They don’t understand how language and problems are constructed to serve people’s interests.’ (P)

Concluding statements What do we assume about transfer? What does it mean to let go of practical discourse and buy into critical discourse? What risks and challenges are there for the student? What implications are there for doctoral process?