Making Commitments Visible

Abstract

Doctor of Education programs often articulate guiding commitments through mission statements, program values, and, for Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) member institutions, the CPED Framework©. Yet, the presence of commitments in program routines and practices does not guarantee that they remain visible in a program's everyday experiences. This study examined how CPED principles and design concepts were embedded, enacted, and made visible within the Leadership and Innovation EdD program at Arizona State University, a founding CPED member institution. Using a self-study design, data included artifact collection and focus groups with students and faculty. Artifacts were analyzed through deductive coding aligned with the CPED principles and design concepts, while focus group transcripts were inductively coded using in vivo coding. Artifact analysis showed that the CPED Framework© was deeply embedded in the program's architecture, and focus group analysis revealed alignment between participants' experiences and the CPED ideas. However, CPED language was not used consistently in program community discourse. This suggests that our program’s commitment to the CPED Framework© operated as tacit theory-in-use rather than as an explicitly articulated one. Drawing on Argyris and Schon’s (1974) distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-use, this study highlighted the importance of making guiding commitments visible within program dialogue. The findings suggest that self-study can serve as both a methodology and a pedagogical practice through which EdD programs examine and intentionally cultivate the visibility of their guiding commitments.