Talk:Doctor of Education

message: As a person currently doing an EdD at the third best (and third oldest) university in the UK, I find this article to be woefully biased and misleading. It is clear that many people editing this article do not have a lot of experience or knowledge about the topic. 
Overall, my general impression is that this article paints the EdD as inferior the PhD. This is not fair, accurate, or helpful to the general readership that uses Wikipedia as a source of information. There needs to be less emphasis on comparing the degree to the PhD. Writers also need to understand that America is not the world. Education systems in other countries approach the EdD and PhD differently. Also, many universities have different requirements for the EdD (just like the PhD). I get the general impression that the people editing this page are not really education scholars. I can say that I am a specialist in this field.PaterEst (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified Biased and Negative Angle on the EdD 

message: So, if you have an Ed. D, would you be bestowed the title of "Dr. ...."?
Yes, it is a full doctorate that tends to be issued by the school of education within univeristies. No difference, at all, from a PHD
:Yes, you get to be called Dr. But, see footnote 2 here: . JJL 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Doctor 

message: I do feel that an Ed.D. requires less research than a Ph.D., although I am aware that some Ed.D. students do perform an equivalent amount of research nonetheless. Looking here , for example, the degrees are at different levels ("Each refers to a different level of achievement"), and the Ed.D. is a professional doctorate for practitioners. Another very specific example, from a dept. offering both the Ed.D. and Ph.D. in the same subject, is here : "Both a proposal and a dissertation are required by all doctoral students. PhD students must defend their dissertation during an oral examination." Apparently, Ed.D. students need not defend their dissertation. From NYU again, this program  requires 6 more points (credits) of dissertation research and 6 more points of research courses for the Ph.D. than the Ed.D. This is exactly what I am talking about! The Ed.D. often requires a more project-sized investigation. Look here  for another example: An Ed.D. requires "the preparation and defense of a dissertation" whereas the Ph.D. requires "preparation and defense of a research dissertation" (emphasis added). These are on the same web page, contrasting the degrees. Look also here  and here  (same program, Ed.D. vs. Ph.D.); for the Ed.D., "The dissertation may involve research and evaluation and/or development of theory-based curriculum and staff development programs." (i.e., evaluation and development of programs are viable options). Here's a  3-year Ed.D. from the same school , showing the clear professional focus. I think it's clear that the Ed.D. requires, asa rule, less research, and allows a more project-based appraoch. I'm sure there are exceptions. JJL 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed.D. vs. Ph.D. 

message: As someone who will hopefully be pursuing a Ph.D. program (Fall 2007 – Higher Education Leadership), I would like to acknowledge a statement that was made by a previous person.
The 'Ed.D. Inaccuracies' author wrote, "Thus, Ed.D.s in Psychology are clearly recognized as being doctorally trained in the field of counseling psychology and not education."  Technically - this is a true statement.  However, I don’t care for it because most people pursuing that type of program generally end up working in an educational institution upon completion of the degree.  That is why it is an Ed.D. in Psychology.  An Ed.D. program in educational psychology focuses on how psychology works within the context of education, or its application within an educational institution. 
For the past two years, I have spent MANY hours researching Ed.D. and Ph.D. degree programs; primarily looking at the difference between their approaches to, and their application of research.  In my experience, I found that most Ed.D. websites in counseling psychology stress the importance of obtaining a job within the field of education (or educational related setting) when they finish their program.  
:[Counseling Psychology] and [Psychology] are are not the same at Virginia Commonwealth University.  Although psychology has become a catchall for various subsets, it is generally associated with clinical psychology.  Regarding Ed.D., see my comments above.--The Founders Intent 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment about Ed.D. inaccuracies 

message: Do EdD and PhD graduates have the same status when they are applying for the professor post in the university? Will PhD graduates always have a higher priority? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.126.253.120 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EdD vs PhD 

message: From the second paragraph onwards the article reads like a piece of propoganda. Don't compare PhD and EdD so much - it seems like this article is more of a defense of the legitimacy of an EdD in the face of claims that PhDs are more glorious, or whatever. If you want to compare the two, find some sources and put this argument in a section of its own. The freddinator 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The article doth protest too much, methinks.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This article needs to be cited throughout. Please add citations as possible, where possible; otherwise, feel free to remove uncited POV. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations missing

message: This is unusual in an article like this (compare other articles) and seems to conflict with WP:LIST. I think it should be removed. JJL (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of schools

message: The WP:NPOV problems do not seem to have resolved very much. The article immediately assumes an offensive posture relative to the PhD and maintains this theme in various places. It also makes statements that, while not outright false, are grossly misleading. For example, "the Ed.D. and Ph.D. are both recognized for appointment as a lecturer or professor in a university" omits the fact that the overwhelming majority in academia hold a PhD. The most glaring omission is the long-established and still ongoing debate about the degree's continued existence, which is well-documented in the literature e.g. Rethinking the EdD, Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates, the ESL report, Deering's 1998 paper (Eliminating the doctor of education degree: It’s the right thing to do. Educational Forum,  62(3), 243–248), various articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, among many such articles. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. JJL (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  --Lhakthong (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Problematic

message: "Like other doctorates, (e.g., the Ph.D., D.A., D.Sc., and so on), the Ed.D./D.Ed. is a terminal degree and is not recognized by the National Science Foundation (NSF) "as equivalent to the Ph.D.""
The way this reads is that the NSF does not consider a Ph.D. to be equivalent to a Ph.D.  I would suggest making the change that I indicated with a strike-through.  96.241.24.246 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in first paragraph 

message: IP 108 has language in the first paragraph that misrepresents the citations. The lanugage is, "The EdD...is recognized by the National Science Foundation as equivalent to the PhD." Following this are two citations. The first is from the NSF and states that the EdD is a research degree. The second is not from the NSF, but from the Department of Education and says that the NSF claims that the EdD is equivalent to a PhD. This second citation is second-hand information and cannot be used to support the sentence. Further, IP 108 keeps deleting sourced material claiming that the EdD is not equivalent to the PhD. Wikiant (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the NSF does say that the EdD is equivalent to the PhD, then provide the citation. What you have provided is a citation of what the DoE *claims* the NSF says. Further, universities in the US do not obtain authority to grant degrees from the government, and so the DoE and NSF claims carry as much weight (I would argue less weight) than claims by the universities themselves. The "Others claim..." sentence cites actual universities that grant the EdD and PhD degrees. These cites are at least as relevant as the DoE and NSF cites. Wikiant (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The NSF National Opinion Research Center does consider the Ed.D a "Research Doctoral Degree" in its survey of earned doctorates, the most recent version I could find.  In contradistinction, it does not consider the M.D., Psych.D, or D.D.S., research doctoral degrees, but rather professional doctoral degrees, as seen here.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: It seems the several federal agencies that sponsor the survey (like the NSF and DoE) are just that: sponsors.  The survey is actually headed by the National Opinion Research Center, a social research organization at the [University of Chicago]].  Certainly you aren't going to say that a research group at U of C has no authority to comment on the issue, are you?--Lhakthong (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Survey of Earned Doctorates, on the first page, says "Type of Research Doctoral Degree (e.g., Ph.D, Ed.D, etc.)".  Proof enough.  It also gives a description of the survey, which supports much of the other claims as well.--Lhakthong (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the First Paragraph 

message: A couple of users keep deleting sourced and referenced material without explanation. I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of the deletion, but simply deleting material isn't acceptable -- particularly when the deletions all involve counter claims to claims being made elsewhere in the paragraph. What you end up with is POV. Wikiant (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just posted a warning on User_talk:Onemoreforyou.  You might want to seek a WP:3PO.  However, if there is just more unexplained reverting of the same content, a WP:3PO would likely be useless, and you can report it here--Lhakthong (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The persistent edit-warring by Goodwillforyou and his/her multiple accounts are sock puppetry, plain and simple. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onemoreforyou. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: And for good measure the article has been edit-protected for two weeks in what is hopefully a reasonable state so no amount of new sockpuppet account creation will have an effect - during which time perhaps this person will get bored and move on to something else. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Setting aside your ad hominem attacks, I appreciate your personal opinion.  But it's a bit idealistic and it's definitely not shared by everyone.  If you read some of the sources you have tried to move around in this article you'll quickly see that many people do not believe that the EdD and PhD are equivalent.  ElKevbo (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I haven't wandered by in quite a while, but I see that matters haven't improved much since my last visit. While I understand that emotions can run high on this issue, Goodwill's points are all testimonial. The article still doesn't really reflect reality in that the EdD is, in fact, a beleaguered degree, whose elimination is frequently discussed within academic circles (see my above refs), and the fact that the overwhelming majority of academics hold a PhD or MD (in medical schools). It would help balance the article to add, for example, the Jacobson paper from the The Chronicle of Higher Education. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The Jacobson article about Levine's view you mentioned above is mainly about the doctorate in majors called "educational leadership" and "educational administration." You should also be reminded of the fact that there are some universities that offer 3-year 'PhD' programs in educational leadership or educational administration, all of which fall under Levine's criticism that such practial doctorates must be eliminated. At the same time, there are very rigorous research-focused EdD programs in academic subjects such as educational sociology, educational neuroscience or second language acquisition. At Teachers College, there are many research-oriented EdD programs in academic concentrations, and Levine (and also the article itself) continuously clarifies that his attack is on the doctorate in administration and leadership. Thus, the names of the degree, either the Ed.D. or the Ph.D., do not well clear out the target of Levine's attack, though he points to only one of them. Most Ed.D.s are not similar to the internship-based M.D. in any aspect. I agree with Levine and all the others that any doctoral degrees earned with credits and internship must be gone, but such an argument does not directly translate into an attack on a particular degree, as both the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. are installed in such practical concentrations depending on the universities. If there is anyone who wants to point this out, make sure to make it clear that 'both EdDs and PhDs in educational administration and leadership are under certain criticism' instead of the so far attempted inconsiderate blanket rejection of one particular degree regardless of its awarding institutions and/or majors. Exactbird (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another SPA jumps in. Let's not get bogged-down in minutiae. The point is that this article is a POV piece that strains to give an overly-rosy assessment of the EdD degree. It purposely excludes numerous sources that discuss the degree's beleaguered status and the fact that there are somewhat frequent debates within academia whether to eliminate it altogether. Until that side of the story is included (perhaps in a "criticisms" section, as is conventional in WP), the article will remain a POV-ish mess. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If anything is for certain, it's that there is no clear consensus on how an Ed.D compares to a Ph.D., because there is no categorical uniformity on what an Ed.D is.  In some programs it is a research degree (sometimes equivalent to a PhD and other times not), in others it is altogether different: a terminal professional practice degree.--Lhakthong (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  :) ElKevbo (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going back to the older and more balanced description.  

message: 1) The Redden article says, "A new project to re-envision the education doctorate, or the Ed.D., at 21 universities nationwide grows out of the basic premise that there’s no clear distinction between the Ed.D., in theory the professional practice degree, and the more research-oriented Ph.D. in education."  I read that as the project to re-envision the degree grows out of a premise, in part, of the theoretical distinction.  That does not mean the project is posing the premise as the theoretical distinction.  That would be a misread.  The project arises out of the fact that although in theory the two degrees should be different, in practice research has shown they are not; and so they argue we need to re-envision what the Ed.D is so that it can be what it is: different than the PhD.  What was in the WP article was not disingenuous.  It's what was in the article and is evidenced by their research.  From research published in Educational Researcher by Schulman, et.al: 
:"In theory, these two degrees are expected to occupy overlapping yet distinct categories. The Ed.D., intended as preparation for managerial and administrative leadership in education, focuses on preparing practitioners—from principals to curriculum specialists, to teacher–educators, to evaluators—who can use existing knowledge to solve educational problems. A Ph.D. in education, on the other hand, is assumed to be a traditional academic degree that prepares researchers, university faculty, and scholars in education, often from the perspective of a particular discipline. Research questions, techniques, and thesis requirements for the Ph.D. are expected to be more theoretical than for the Ed.D. and are similar to those in other academic disciplines (Anderson, 1983; Dill & Morrison, 1985)."
  
2)  Saying "Some have argued" is using  weasel words and should be avoided.
3)  I'm not sure why you are including some parts of the article and deleting the rest.  Whether we like it or not, whether justified or not, the Ed.D is not as respected as the Ph.D. in the United States.  It is considered--rightly or wrongly--"Ph.D. lite".  From the same published research by Schulman et.al: "This threat forced the faculty to answer
questions of purpose that challenged existing structures, including implicit biases that treated the Ed.D. as a 'low-end Ph.D.'"  Regardless, the writing was verifiable and should not have been deleted.  If you want to balance it out with other research/authoritative sources arguing that ion fact the Ed.D is just as respected as the Ph.D., then add balance, don't just delete verifiable information.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Redden Article 

message: Ph.D.s are not only *social science* degrees.  Many fields grant Ph.D.s.  This should be deleted.
Jim (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I missed it, the article does not claim that it's only a social science degree. ElKevbo (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 21 November 2011 

message: I think that this history section is relatively good. This is much better than what I first read. We need to head away from comparing the EdD to the PhD and presenting the EdD with an inferior-to-the-PhD spin.  I removed the biased language. Can we stick to facts without biased commentary?— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaterEst (talk • PaterEst (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the EdD 

message: Sources for this article are very weak.PaterEst (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the article 

message: I removed the section in the introduction that used the word "controversy" because that is clearly unqualified biased language. There is no real controversy. Many people have an EdD. Those people have written doctoral dissertation, published articles in scholarly journals, occupy faculty positions at major universities, and there is absolutely no sign that the EdD will be discontinued. In fact, higher education statistics point to the fact that more universities are offering this degree worldwide. I think mention of "controversy" can only be justified in the section on the EdD in America, and that bit should be clearly referenced and discussed to accurately portray Levine's comments that were directed to EdD in educational administration. On this point, it is important to point out that EdDs in the UK, for example, are not used as a stepping stone to administrative positions in the way that it is often the case in America. It is also important to point out that many EdDs have nothing to do with Educational Administration. For example, at Columbia many EdDs are in areas such as TESOL/Applied Linguistics, History of Education, and many other sub-areas in education. Definitely in the UK, if you were to scan the thesis databases from EdD students, one would find that topics are pretty much identical to what you would find in an American PhD thesis. Even when a PhD and EdD are offered by the same faculty in the UK, the only difference would be that the EdD thesis is shorter because prior work has been done in the coursework phase whereas the PhD student would only write a thesis without coursework. Clearly, the people who dominate here are not aware of the differences in the education systems worldwide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.233.110 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Language 

message: The is a line in the USA section that states some universities offer only the Ed.D and then lists Harvard as an example.  However, Harvard is discontinuing their Ed.D. program (see cited claim in History section).  Is there another university we can put in its place in that line? For now, I will just put a  tag there.--Lhakthong (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As a doctor, I am sure you can appreciate the guideline that Wikipedia editors verify claims by reliable sources. If you have any that examine the comparability of the Ed.D. to the Ph.D., please add them to the article!--Lhakthong (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American University that offers Only Ed.D 

message: The lead section does not even mention Ed.D. as an abbreviation for Doctor of Education, but Harvard Graduate School of Education uses Ed.D., as do many of the reference sources. Ed.D. is used in about four times as many WP articles as EdD, so I think the lead should list Ed.D. before EdD as possible abbreviations. Also, why not use Ed.D. throughout the article? Chris the speller yack 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed.D. vs. EdD 

message: Dmc213 has repeatedly removed Bill Cosby from the "Notable doctors of education" section of this article without any discussion or explanation. They recently wrote that "Cosby's EdD was rescinded when he was convicted, therefore he no longer belongs on the page. Many of Cosby's honorary degrees have been revoked but I cannot find any evidence that his EdD - earned, not honorary - from University of Massachusetts Amherst was also revoked. Am I missing something? If his doctorate has not been revoked, and arguably even if it has, Cosby is indisputably a notable holder of this degree. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am acquiescing to the inclusion of Dr. Cosby on the page of notable Doctors of Education. After conversations with a more experienced user, I agree that the content entry on Dr. Cosby should remain. I thank the user for their assistance. Since, I agree with your assessments, would you consider removing this comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmc213 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's already in the history of this Talk page (like nearly every other edit made in Wikipedia). And it's not a personal attack. It's a totally normal interaction between editors - someone made some edits that another editor didn't understand, a discussion was opened asking about those edits, and we've come to a resolution. It's really no big deal at all. ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I am updating my user as the former no longer points to anything, including signed comments. No content changes. Dmc213 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated removals of Bill Cosby