0.10 Storms, b.a., prada, m. j., & Donahue, e. n. (september 2011  (Page 4/8)

The Joint Doctoral Program graduate was interested in studying middle schools in which eighth grade students succeed (score proficient on state tests) in Algebra. Neither middle school or math instruction were study areas within my research agenda. The other doctoral graduate was interested in studying exclusionary discipline and how a district’s organizational culture influenced administrators’ decisions related to student discipline. Again, my personal research agenda did not center on her specific areas of interest: organizational culture or student discipline.

However, using inquiry to improve schools has been central to my research and with that area of study comes a penchant for asking questions. The process of these dissertations became one where I would help the candidates identify questions and areas to explore, then s/he would seek out resources, and use that information to further their own inquiry. With both studies, the candidate and I both read and learned about areas of study we had not studied in depth, such as critical race theory, and how they related to the disertations topics. As an outsider on the candidates’ central study focus areas, I served as a real audience for their work, pushing each of them to explore and explain ideas in ways that other educators could access what they learned.

JDP graduate. For doctoral candidates, the relationship paradigm that exists for the doctoral candidate and the dissertation advisor is marked by remnants of medieval apprenticeship. Commonly, the chair of my dissertation committee should have been an expert in the field in which I was undertaking research. My professional relationship with my chair of a long-standing relationship of mentorship and guidance, served me well in that I was able to engage in authentic inquiry since each step along the research process was marked by mutual knowledge growth in the area. Both she and I read articles in common and discussed resource veins and research strategies. By learning together, my chairperson consistently acted as an external audience demanding clarity of thought, alignment of research methods and findings, and the connection of my research to the larger world of school improvement.

The focus on school improvement consistently lent urgency for relevance in my dissertation research. The “so what does this research have to do with improving schools for at-risk students” question pushed the quantitative phase of the research in a direction which forced a focus on the relevance of my research to touch upon issues of educational equity in schools across California that serve largely Latino students. I believe that the synchronicity our shared commitment to school improvement served as the bedrock of our professional relationship that nurtured the development of my research project.

ELSJ graduate. My dissertation advisor helped me to focus on my overall research question throughout the process by assisting me with the reorganization of my thoughts and ideas to arrive at one cohesive study. When I began the dissertation process, I was reluctant to study the topic even though I had a clear desire to learn more about it. Instead, I was feeling burned out by the topic since it was a subject I worked with on a daily basis in my professional life. After several conversations with my advisor about my study interests, it became clear that the topic I chose was the one she and I believed could contribute to the professional literature on school improvement and reform. Though my advisor was not considered an expert on my topic, her style of inquiry, her expertise in the research process and her genuine interest in my study, helped me to explain and develop my ideas into a solid dissertation document.