Chapter 7: The Practitioner-Scholar Doctorate: Not a PhD Lite

In this chapter, the authors reason that the practitioner-scholar doctorate in leadership is a degree that differs radically from the PhD/EdD traditions of the past. It is distinctive because it integrates three equally important elements that, the authors contend, are the essential ingredients for effective practitioner-scholar leaders: knowledge of theory and research, application of best practices and skills, and the dispositions to lead, or human elements that inspire and magnify the first two.

Defining, let alone bringing into existence, a terminal “degree of practice” is a herculean task made even more difficult because it has to be conceived in an environment dominated by century-old, PhD-type thinking. However, for over a decade, conversations among an expanding number of higher education institutions in the United States and Europe have begun under the umbrellas of the Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate (2015) and the UK Council for Graduate Education (2015), with the intent of creating a framework for such a degree. Agreement regarding everything from the theoretical and philosophical basis for a practitioner-scholar degree to the elements and requirements that make up such a degree is fraught with near-intractable hindrances. These issues stem from both sides of the hyphen—practitioners and scholars—with long histories and emotional contexts making it even more complicated. Examples include the conflicts that have come from “town-gown” relations to the old arguments about “ivory towers” verses the “real world” learning and application. From the practitioner viewpoint, purely academic degrees may be held suspect as being just “academic” having little utility in the daily lived experiences of leaders. One does not need an extensive literature review to learn that many people succeed in careers without college degrees (e.g., Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.) or, on the flipside, that a college degree necessarily brings with it a higher level of accomplishment or increased ethical practice. “Doers,” practitioners might say, don’t have time to argue if a cited volume in a reference should be italicized to meet APA guidelines. Those who can, they argue, do, and those who cannot, teach (like many in higher education).