Download - Learner’s Guide 2020/21

PhD in Leadership and Change Learner’s Guide 2020/21

900 Dayton Street

Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387

937.769.1360

Copyright© by Antioch University Graduate School of Leadership and Change, 2020. Please do not reproduce without permission.

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

A Word About Assessing Student Learning in an Outcomes-based Program ........................................................ 4

Chapter 1 - Navigating the Program: Balancing Structure and Self-directedness ................................................. 6

Conceptualizing the Core Curriculum’s Multi-year Learning Journey ............................................................ 7

Engaging Inquiry: The Inquiry/Research Path ................................................................................................. 7

Leading Change: The Leadership and Change Path ...................................................................................... 11

Individualized Curriculum: Depth Areas of Study ............................................................................................. 12

The Dissertation ................................................................................................................................................ 13

What Does the Path Through the Program Look Like? ..................................................................................... 13

Three Years to Candidacy (hypothetical timeline) ........................................................................................ 14

Four Years to Candidacy (hypothetical timeline) .......................................................................................... 15

Five Years to Candidacy (hypothetical timeline) ........................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2 - Structural Elements of the Curriculum .............................................................................................. 17

LEARNING MODULES ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Module 1: Reflective Leadership (2 credits) ................................................................................................. 18

Demonstration of Learning: Reflective Leadership Essay ............................................................................. 19

Module 2: Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry (1 credit) .................................................................................. 20

Demonstration of Learning: Professional Ethics Essay ................................................................................. 21

Demonstration of Learning: Complete CITIMODULES Online Course ........................................................... 21

Module 3: Case Studies of Leading Change (2 credits) ................................................................................. 22

Demonstration of Learning: Case Study in Leading Change ......................................................................... 23

Module 4: Reflective Learner (1 credit) ........................................................................................................ 24

Demonstration of Learning: First-year Learning Plan ................................................................................... 25

Module 5: Nature of Leadership (3 credits) .................................................................................................. 26

Demonstration of Learning: Nature of Leadership A - Outline ..................................................................... 27

Demonstration of Learning: Nature of Leadership B – The Essay ................................................................. 28

Module 6 – Understanding and Leading Change (6 credits)......................................................................... 29

Demonstration of Learning: Change Project A - The Proposal ..................................................................... 30

Demonstration of Learning: Change Project B – The Final Report ............................................................... 31

Module 7 – Cultural Dimensions of Leading Change (2 credits) ................................................................... 32

Demonstration of Learning: Global and Cultural Dimensions of Leading Change Essay .............................. 33

Module 8 – Understanding, Critiquing, and Redesigning Research (6 credits)............................................. 35

Demonstration of Learning: The Critical Review of Research A – Proposal (CRR-A)..................................... 37

Demonstration of Learning: The Critical Review of Research B – Final (CRR-B) ........................................... 38

3

Antioch University PhD in Leadership and Change Learner’s Guide 2020/21

Demonstration of Learning: Research Redesign Essay ................................................................................. 39

Module 9 – Individualized Curriculum – Two Depth Areas of Study (total of 10 credits)............................... 40

Module 10 – Reflective Learning and Leading (1 credit) ............................................................................... 39

Demonstration of Learning: Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay ........................................................... 40

THE PROSEMINARS ........................................................................................................................................... 41

Proseminar I: Reflections on Self as Leading Change .................................................................................. 42

Proseminar II: Reflections as Practitioners Leading Change ......................................................................... 45

Proseminar III: Reflective Scholar-Practitioner ............................................................................................. 47

ProCan: Year 4 and Beyond........................................................................................................................... 49

THE RESIDENCIES .............................................................................................................................................. 50

THE DISSERTATION............................................................................................................................................ 50

Chapter 3 - Creating Your Individualized Depth Study ......................................................................................... 52

Individualized Learning Agreements ................................................................................................................. 52

Seeking a Mentor .......................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix List ......................................................................................................................................................... 58

Appendix A - Library Engagement Across the Doctoral Journey . .................................................................... 59

Appendix B - Steps for Submission of a Learning Achievement ........................................................................ 61

Appendix C - First-year Learning Plan ............................................................................................................... 63

Appendix D – Policy on Trust and Confidentiality Within Our Learning Community ....................................... 64

Appendix E – Writing Guidelines for the PhD in Leadership and Change Program .......................................... 65

Appendix F – Faculty Evaluators for Learning Achievements, 2020-21 ............................................................ 67

4


Preface This Learner’s Guide 2020-21 is your learning map as you navigate through the PhD in Leadership and Change Program. The map metaphor is fitting because you are about to embark on a learning journey, and to navigate that exciting, rigorous, and sometimes stressful trek, you will need a guide; thus, this map.

In a more traditional graduate program, the learning journey is marked by course syllabi with weekly class meetings and assignments. In this learner-centered, outcomes-based program, the journey is marked by structured multi-year “learning modules” culminating in demonstrations of learning for which you earn credit, face-to-face residencies, online cohort- based proseminar discussions, and your own individualized reading, research, and study.

We believe such a model provides for expanded opportunities for intellectual creativity and freedom for the adult student. At the same time, that freedom is best realized within the context of well-defined program structures, requirements, and learning guidelines. There is a balance at play between program requirements and self-empowered learning, between being a member of a peer learning community and an independent scholar- practitioner, and between challenging faculty oversight and empowered student-driven initiative.

The Guide is designed to be learner-friendly. We hope you will study it carefully as you embark on your journey, and return to it throughout the months and years ahead. With this map, and in collaboration with faculty, you will be able to chart your unique path through this doctoral adventure.

The Learner’s Guide complements the program’s Handbook, which contains policies, procedures, and more program information. The program also produces a Dissertation Handbook with detailed information about the requirements and process for completion of dissertation studies. All documents are updated annually. All documents are available in digital format in the program’s virtual platform.

Please note: as we go to print with this Learner’s Guide we are still in the midst of the pandemic crisis and its fullest impact on the coming year is unknown. While no student’s doctoral studies will be interrupted by the scheduling of residencies may shift, and the nature of some of our venues, such as proseminars may shift to include additional synchronous and asynchronous activities. Please stay tuned and we will keep everyone fully posted.

A Word About Assessing Student Learning in an Outcomes-based Program One of the very distinctive characteristics of this program is that students are awarded credit for the successful demonstration of learning rather than “seat time” in a classroom.

The principle underlying the faculty evaluation of student learning in the program is the timely, iterative, and quality feedback on the demonstrations of learning for the learning modules. These demonstrations are called Learning Achievements because they demonstrate the students’ achievement of competency in the learning goals of the Core and Individualized Curriculum.

We know that many students are more accustomed to submitting an assignment and getting a grade. Period. While this is the more traditional model, we believe that the iterative process between faculty member and student as they work over several drafts of a Learning Achievement actually offers opportunities for profound learning to occur. This process is designed to help students to advance their thinking in order to satisfy the competency requirements and to master the skills necessary to successfully complete doctoral-level research and a Dissertation.

Learning Achievements in this program are evaluated by faculty before credit is awarded. First, the student works with the designated evaluator who is responsible for providing the student with an in-depth evaluation

5


regarding the achievement of the learning goals, content, and presentation of the specific Learning Achievement at hand.

Through this extensive and thorough evaluation process, the Program is able to assure that every Program graduate upon completing the program, students will have demonstrated both the ability and capability to:

1. Conduct an informed critique of theories, concepts and debates related to leading change in their profession, communities, and/or society at large;

2. Engage in and create positive change in an organization, community, and/or the larger society;

3. Reflect critically and responsibly as learners, leaders and scholars in the global context;

4. Pursue self-directed and lifelong learning;

5. Consider how knowledge is socially constructed and critically appraise research and other forms of scholarly communication in the fields of leading change;

6. Design and execute new research that meets the scholarly criteria of the candidate’s chosen field and has the potential to inform and improve practice.

6


Chapter 1 - Navigating the Program: Balancing Structure and Self-directedness The PhD in Leadership and Change is a hybrid, intensive-residency, cohort-based, interdisciplinary doctoral program designed for practitioners who engage in the study of, research about, and reflection on leading change in their fields of interest and professional practice. The program is outcomes-based. The curriculum follows multi-year learning paths related to the interdisciplinary study of leadership and change, and the acquisition of research and inquiry skills. These paths are developmentally designed into “learning modules” (think innovatively structured “courses”). These modules combine a mix of individual and peer activities including sessions at quarterly residencies, required readings as well as individually pursued readings, faculty-facilitated one-on-one and peer-based online and face-to-face conversations, and a set of sequentially designed assignments that demonstrate learning, known as Learning Achievements. Students are awarded credit for the demonstration of learning rather than seat time in a course.

Program Goals

• To maintain and continuously improve an academically rigorous, exemplary, non-traditional doctoral program in leadership and change, imbued with Antioch’s mission and values;

• To educate working professionals with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be scholar-practitioners and reflective change agents committed to leading change that furthers social, economic and environmental justice;

• To empower members of our learning community to be stewards of the common good by actively contributing to public debate and discourse.

Program Learning Outcomes

Upon completing the program, students will have demonstrated both the ability and capability to:

1. Conduct an informed critique of theories, concepts and debates related to leading change in their profession, communities, and/or society at large;

2. Engage in and create positive change in an organization, community, and/or the larger society;

3. Reflect critically and responsibly as learners, leaders and scholars in the global context;

4. Pursue self-directed and lifelong learning;

5. Consider how knowledge is socially constructed and critically appraise research and other forms of scholarly communication in the fields of leading change;

6. Design and execute new research that meets the scholarly criteria of the candidate’s chosen field and has the potential to inform and improve practice.

The curriculum has been designed as an integrated series of learning activities framed from the outset by these program’s goals. The purpose of this PhD in Leadership and Change is to prepare scholar-practitioners for lives of inquiry and change in their professions and their communities.

One of the fundamental principles of Antioch University’s PhD in Leadership and Change Program is its commitment to study, research, reflection, and engagement with leadership and change that is respectful and inclusive. The program is envisioned as paths of “prior action-reflection-theory- revised action” leading to the successful achievement of those Program outcomes. Our goal is that members of our learning community generate and pursue original research and engage in new and/or improved professional practices that extend the relevance of leadership and change to inclusive constituencies in a wide range of professional and civic environments.

7


We do this by creating and maintaining a program that honors each student’s interests and contributions within a collaborative learning environment. We think of “curriculum flow” as a set of integrated learning activities applied by the student to his/her professional practice, rather than a set of required discrete courses after which the student begins his/ her Dissertation.

The major elements of this holistic curriculum flow are:

• Developmentally designed Learning Modules.

• Learning Achievements that demonstrate the student’s accomplishment of specific learning outcomes.

• Trimester face-to-face residencies with required readings (pre- and post-) and cohort-sequenced sessions designed as part of the multi-year learning paths. Note: In this year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will continuously monitor to assess the possibilities of face-to-face physical residencies, always keeping the health and safety of our students, faculty and staff as the paramount consideration.

• Annual cohort-based peer learning groups, known as proseminars, which occur virtually and face-to-face.

• Regular required contact with one’s Core Faculty Advisor – by phone, Zoom, email, and of course, face-to-face at residencies (or virtual intensives during the COVID-19 pandemic) – to continuously assess progress and direction.

• Regular and required contact with faculty evaluators of Learning Achievements.

• Student learning occurs by, in, and as a result of all of these elements.

Conceptualizing the Core Curriculum’s Multi-year Learning Journey At the core of the program are two inter-related and integrated paths of learning – one focused on inquiry and the acquisition of research skills, and the other on the study of the theories, research, and practices of leadership and change. In both cases, students engage in the practices of scholarship (problem framing, question asking, research designing, analyzing and meaning making, and theory developing, as well as clear and frequent writing).

Students study and apply the theories and practices of leading change to their own professional fields and experiences as leaders. Simultaneously, they learn ways to inquire into the phenomena of leading change and develop the skills to engage in original research.

As students study the theories of leadership, for example, they also learn how scholars inquire into and research the field. As students develop research skills, they do so around the thematic focus of leadership and change coupled with their own professional curiosities. Students move from introduction to advanced critique of fields of leadership and change theories, and from introduction of ways of knowing through learning to critique research methods, then to their own original research study. These developmental paths are explained more fully below.

Engaging Inquiry: The Inquiry/Research Path The Inquiry/Research path develops and deepens students’ understanding of forms of inquiry and of research strategies for investigating questions of leading change. The path prepares students to do quality research in an original study addressing leadership and change in their field of interest. Students gain an understanding of scholarly inquiry that is both practice-based and theory-based, and acquire the knowledge and methodological tools with which to carry out original research. (See Appendix A).

Learning goals for this curricular path are:

• To understand and critique research and scholarly literature in leadership and organizational/community change.

8


• To design original research that adds to the knowledge base and has a generative impact on one’s own field of practice.

• To reflect and act on one’s own ideas, analyses, and values as a researcher- practitioner.

The hallmark of a quality PhD program, regardless of its disciplinary emphasis or interdisciplinary breadth, is its ability to cultivate in its students twin capacities: (1) to be practitioners capable of conducting excellent original research in their domain, and (2) to be educated users of the research of others. What is unique to our program is less about the core body of knowledge required of all researchers – fairly standard across all PhD programs – and more about the logic and order of presentation and our strong emphasis on embedding the learning of specific research tools within the broader context of learner- focused research design. Thus, our emphasis is on the cumulative structure of learning research across the pre-candidacy years and through multiple ways.

The traditional pattern in most research universities builds from the simple to the complex through lectures, readings, tests, and close apprenticeship to an experienced researcher. The student is assumed to need a firm hand guiding him or her into the largely unfamiliar world of research. The frame for the research is largely provided by the faculty, usually in the form of an ongoing project or program of basic or applied research into which the student is enlisted. Students are generally expected to master certain tools such as statistical procedures only in the context of research design; it is assumed that the application of these tools to the real world of experience comes well after their mastery as an academic exercise. While this approach has debatable pedagogical merit even for the “traditional” graduate student, it is almost certainly inappropriate for students having significant experience in the world of work, such as our students.

Our program is committed to the idea that research/inquiry training is not undertaken apart from the student-navigated content of the program. Our students are expected to arrive with a substantial body of professional experience and some, if not extensive, master’s level training in methodologies aimed at systematic analysis of that experience. In this context, our research training is aimed less at mastering a set of abstract tools in anticipation of their application, and more at the simultaneous acquisition of tools and their integration into systematic inquiry guided by the student’s interests. The research framework is determined largely by the student-generated priorities, not those of the faculty members.

So, how does this work in practice? Imagine an inquiry/research path over the pre- candidacy years moving students from identifying the perplexing questions of their professional practice through familiarity with a range of ways to explore those questions by developing competence in several research methods and, ultimately, to conducting a rigorous original study. Following the logic of this path, the first year’s research/inquiry emphasis – in residency sessions and readings, through Learning Modules and Learning Achievements and during the course of first-year proseminar – centers on ways of gathering information, Understanding Research, and four primary and basic dimensions of inquiry:

1. Ways of knowing – How is “research” different from other ways of knowing? What are Ways of Gathering Information?

2. The nature of evidence – how do we know when the information provided to us is good or bad? What criteria and evaluative mechanisms do we apply to determining what to believe and not to believe?

3. The implications of level of analysis – self, individual, group, organizational, societal, and global levels. How do phenomena change when we look at them at different levels of aggregation?

4. Sources of information – quantitative, qualitative, theoretical, etc. What is our understanding of the relationship between how information is assembled and its quality and usability? What are the social and ethical constraints on information acquisition and use?

Students are introduced to these foci through residency sessions, faculty-facilitated peer discussions, and core and individualized readings. A sample of first-year “inquiry” residency sessions is identified below, although it is important to remember that many sessions change from one year to the next. However, these are just examples of the types of sessions in which students in the first year will participate.

9


• Situating Research in Practice

• Introduction to Case Study

• Basic Descriptive Statistics

• Introduction to Interviewing

• Decision Tree: Positivist and Constructivist

• Critical Ways to Assess Change Effectiveness

• Ethics and Institutional Review Board (IRB) Training

The research/inquiry emphasis in the second year – in residency sessions, through Learning Achievements, second-year proseminar, and the like – is focused on Critiquing Research, including processes of using literature and scholarship in the formulation and management of one’s own research agenda, and on broadening the focus of reflection from one’s own experiences and those of one’s colleagues to the experiences of the professions and social systems. The focus on effective problem/question formulation is maintained and broadened by careful consideration of how different problem/question definitions shape and structure patterns of inquiry, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.

While students began to be introduced to different research paradigms in Year 1, during the second year they begin their exposure to specific research tools, including research design and operations, statistics, data analysis, and research presentation, within the context of research questions and problems. By the end of Year 2, our students have a basic familiarity with core statistical procedures as well as qualitative techniques.

As always, the emphasis is on students gaining a deep appreciation of the integral relationship between their own research questions with data acquisition and analytical methodologies.

A sample of second-year “inquiry” residency sessions typically includes:

• Introduction to Action Research

• Introduction to Correlational Design

• Introduction to Narrative

• Introduction to Grounded Theory

• Leadership: Scales and Surveys

• The Language of Mixed Methods

• Foundations of Inferential Statistics – Populations, Sampling, Hypothesis Testing, and Statistical Significance

• Bridging Research to Practice: Bridging Practice to Research

In the following years, the emphasis is on Doing Research; students learn the specific crafts of research as they work on developing their dissertation topic, and its building blocks, and the Individualized Learning Agreements (especially the one focused on the research method). Residencies feature advanced workshops on topics such as survey design, evaluation, semi-structured interviewing, grounded theory or any other topics identified earlier in the progression of the cohort as being needed by a significant number of students.

A sample of third-year “inquiry” residency sessions typically includes:

• Advanced Mixed Method Workshop

• Advanced Evaluation Research Workshop

• Advanced Narrative Workshop

• Advanced Grounded Theory & Situational Analysis Workshop

10


• Advanced Case Study Design Workshop

• Using NVivo and Dedoose for Coding

• Innovative Research That Makes a Difference

When the student is ready to study more intensively the methodological approach for the proposed dissertation study, specialized tutorials in grounded theory, narrative, action research, and survey and scales are available to augment their Individualized Learning Achievement in Methodology.

It is important at this point to share a few words on statistics. Many of our students come to us with math phobia and memories of negative experiences in prior schooling. We have worked hard to develop a way to develop our students’ competency in basic quantitative research and statistics with a combination of residency sessions and modules designed for independent self-paced learning. There are also specialized tutorials instructed by affiliate faculty and one-on-one communication with students and research faculty between residencies. And, several of the research-focused Learning Modules, such as “Understanding, Critiquing and Designing Research” with their Research Redesign Essay and the Critical Review of Research, help students develop comfort with quantitative approaches as well.

The program-designed, self-paced online statistics modules include self-assessments, a PowerPoint covering the substance of the topics, and book and website references for further study. Each of the three modules is covered in a cohort-based required residency session and in small group refresher sessions at the residencies. The three statistics modules are:

• Module 1: Basic Descriptive Statistics – Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Dispersion, and Graphic Displays

• Module 2: Foundations of Inferential Statistics – Populations, Sampling, Hypothesis Testing, and Statistical Significance

• Module 3: Reading and Understanding Statistics – Review of Frequently Used Statistics and Practice Reading Statistics in Academic Journal Articles

Other quantitative research topics are also covered for each cohort at the residencies. These other topics include correlations, mixed methods, data preparation, using and developing scales, and an array of types of quantitative study designs and analyses. All students participate in the cohort-based residency sessions.

In addition to these cohort-based sessions optional cross-cohort sessions are offered at each residency covering reviews of the statistics modules, survey research, SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), and other quantitative research topics requested by the students. These additional cross-cohort sessions are electives depending upon the student’s learning needs, with about 10 to 12 students in attendance at each residency.

A number of Learning Modules explicitly focus on research: Case Studies in Leading Change; Understanding, Critiquing, and Researching Research; Individualized Depth Study; and, of course, Conceptualizing Original Research. These Modules have an array of Learning Achievements that demonstrate the achievement qualitative and quantitative research and inquiry skills: the Case Study, the Critical Review of Research and the Research Redesign Essay, the Individualized Learning Agreement (method), and, ultimately, the Dissertation Proposal and completed Dissertation.

The program has tremendous breadth in terms of research methods and does not privilege quantitative over qualitative, or vice versa. We educate for both – and the Core Faculty are adept at teaching and chairing different types of research. As a whole, the program is intentionally research eclectic. We have expectations of research rigor and proficiency whatever the method, and once that is assured, the program encourages flexibility in terms of method and discourse to align with students’ passions as researchers engaged in the pursuit of their own questions.

11


Leading Change: The Leadership and Change Path The other Core Curriculum path is an interdisciplinary focus on leadership and change that introduces and deepens students’ exposure to and analysis of the scholarship from relevant fields including but not limited to management, organizational development, adult education, social psychology, critical race and gender studies, and leadership studies. The multi-year path intends to further the students’ abilities as reflective practitioners and, through their scholarship, to contribute to the practice of leading change. Toward those goals, the program aims to provide its students with a broad and deep understanding of both scholarly and practical engagement with issues of ethical, inclusive, and participatory leadership. Thus, a number of Learning Modules focus on leadership and change including Reflective Leadership, Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry, the Nature of Leadership, Understanding and Leading Organizational Change, and the Cultural Dimensions of Leading Change.

Similarly, the Learning Achievements related to these modules include theoretically based demonstrations of learning, such as the Nature of Leadership Essay, and an experientially based change intervention, the Change Project.

Learning goals for this Core Curriculum path are:

1. To understand the major theoretical perspectives in leadership and change literature.

2. To apply major theoretical perspectives in the leadership and change literature to real-life cases of leading change and to reflect on these applications.

3. To reflect, articulate, and act on one’s own ideas, analyses, values, and personal and professional interests in relation to issues of participatory leadership, new organizational forms, and institutional change strategies.

The curriculum tries to recognize that leading is both formal and informal, positional and relational. As well, individual, social identity, organizational, socio-economic, and political factors affect and construct the nature and effectiveness of leadership. Students are encouraged to explore the literature on leadership and change as an opportunity to reflect on their own experiences and practices, to challenge this literature based upon these experiences and practices, and to shape the field(s) of leadership and change in their professions to further democratic processes and goals of social justice.

Relevant at this point is an understanding of the program’s commitment to educating effective and reflective leaders. Remember, this is a program for scholar-practitioners. We believe that effective leaders (or, as some students prefer, “change agents” or “activists”) whether assigned or emergent, must know how to ask the right questions, diagnose the problems, and identify and implement strategies for change and resolution. Therefore, we have designed this program to educate theoretically grounded leaders who will be able to make use of scholarship and research to support their practice.

The program’s point of departure in the first year is to enable students to learn to place their leadership practice in the context of scholarship and reflection. First-year students are encouraged to reflect on their own leadership selves and the impact of social identity and organizational factors on leadership practice. They are drawn into the world of leadership theories including, but not limited to, transformative, adaptive, and servant leadership; and, they are exposed to a range of perspectives including, but not limited to, feminist, post-modern, and practitioner critiques, including their own. Students are introduced to these foci through residency sessions, faculty-facilitated peer discussions, and core and individualized readings. A sample of first-year “leadership and change” residency sessions is identified below.

First-year leadership and change residency sessions typically include:

• Transformational and Authentic Leadership: Exploring Own Identities and Authentic Leadership Voices

• Adaptive and Complexity Leadership

• Responsible Leadership

12


• Servant Leadership and Stewardship in Times of Uncertainty and Change

• Social Justice Leadership

While the first year highlights leadership theories and scholarship, with an introduction to change strategies and theories, the second year reverses the emphasis, with more of a focus on change strategies informed by theory. With its commitment to experiential and applied learning, the second-year “Understanding and Leading Change” Module with its Change Project is a central component of the leadership and change curriculum. The Change Project is yet another way that our program is distinguished from other PhD programs in that it expresses our commitment to being and doing as well as knowing and reflecting. The project requires students to apply what they have learned about leadership, social systems and change, professional cultures, and participatory methods of inquiry to a real-world endeavor. The Change Project is expected to embody the highest standards of responsibility and accountability to the organization/community and the participants involved in the change effort.

A sample of second-year residency “leadership and change” sessions typically include:

• Strategic Change in Social Systems

• Relational Practice in Organizations

• Social Injustices through Normative Practices

• Exploring Our Own Identities and Authentic Leadership Voices

• Interactive Leadership Dynamics in Situations of Complexity

• Power of Leadership Mistakes and Apology

As students progress through the program, the leadership and change focus of study becomes more fully driven by the student’s emerging dissertation topic.

Individualized Curriculum: Depth Areas of Study Whereas the student’s work in the first several years follows along the Core Curriculum paths just described, the student’s work in the Individualized Curriculum is guided by the student’s own individualized learning path toward his/her Dissertation, and the articulation of learning goals, learning strategies, and demonstrations of learning to get them there. The Individualized Curriculum takes the form of the design of two individualized learning plans, approved by faculty, each of which spans the course of 3-6 months. The demonstrations of learning take the form of two Individualized Learning Agreements (ILAs), a proposal, and then a final report. The program encourages students to design one of the individualized learning areas around a content area aligned with their possible Dissertation work; and the other individualized area to be designed around the research method to be employed in their Dissertation study.

Below is a sample of titles for “content” focused ILAs to give a feel for the range that follows students’ interests:

• Colorblind Reform or Racial Retrenchment: A Critical Inquiry into the History of Reform in America’s Public Schools

• Exploring the Ethics of Followership

• Understanding Family Engagement Through a Federally Funded GEAR UP Program in Chicago

• Working with Authenticity in Cross-Race Relationships

• Cuisine at a Crossroads: The Effect of Unplanned Change on Identity in Public and Private Space as Seen Through the Lens of Food

• Emotions of “Survivors” of Organizational Downsizing

13


• Understanding Current Issues in Cross-Generational Leadership Below is a sample of titles for “research”-focused ILAs:

• Narratives of Black Women in Resistance

• Exploring the Territory of Husserl’s Phenomenology

• Understanding the Theoretical Foundation of the Constructive-Developmental Framework (CDF) Assessment

• Futures Research Methodology

• From the Ground Up: A Review of the Foundations of Grounded Theory, Critical Incident and Critical Moment Methods

• Using Delphi Methodology To Explore Leadership Skills Required For Successful Supplier Diversity Professionals

A thorough discussion of the Individualized Depth Study Curriculum, and the selection and role of the Mentor Faculty, can be found in Chapter 3 of this Learner’s Guide.

Once students have advanced to candidacy – which in our program means completion of all demonstrations of learning, attendance at residencies until advancement (a total of 9), and completion of the three annual proseminars – the student begins the formal work on his/her Dissertation.

The Dissertation The Dissertation is the capstone of our PhD program. No matter how non-traditional the path through this program, the Core Faculty believe that its capstone must be an original piece of research that has application to practice, that meets doctoral standards, and that has potential for a generative impact on the field. This is our student’s calling card, so to speak. The purpose of the Dissertation is to produce new knowledge, new insights, new materials, or new methods in the candidate’s field of interest. A Dissertation may also replicate and extend an earlier study for the purpose of correcting errors, eliminating shortcomings, enhancing, or clarifying it. The project must be meaningful and provide evidence of familiarity with existing and relevant research in the field. Without going into detail in this Guide’s narrative, the process in our program is rigorous, involving a full three-chapter Dissertation Proposal, a Proposal Hearing (usually conducted between residencies in a technologically mediated fashion with the committee), the research study and completed Dissertation, and a Dissertation Defense which is held as a public event usually at residencies. More detail about Dissertations is provided in Chapter 4 of this Learner’s Guide, and a detailed Dissertation Handbook is given to all students as they enter the third year of study.

What Does the Path Through the Program Look Like? Students move through the program making satisfactory academic progress, advancing to Candidacy any time after completion of the third year but no later than the end of the fifth year. The following charts are “hypothetical.” One is the four-year to candidacy model (which tends to be the timeframe for the majority of students), and the other is the three-year to candidacy model (which is a popular and achievable timeline depending upon the student’s ability to devote the time to the tasks) and one is the five-year to candidacy model (which is the longest time to candidacy possible). As long as the student makes sound academic progress as defined by our Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy (see Program Handbook), the submission and, to some degree, the sequencing are based on the student’s rhythm, between three to five years.

Certainly, there are many choice points along the way, and each student’s path may differ from the one portrayed in the charts below. We will do everything possible to support your learning process and to encourage you to stay on track and focused, so that you can achieve your PhD goals in a timely way.

14


Three Years to Candidacy (hypothetical timeline)

Learning Activity Learning Achievement Credit(s)

YEAR ONE 11 Module 1: Reflective Leadership Reflective Leadership Essay 2 Module 2: Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry CitiModule

Professional Ethics Essay 1 Module 3: Case Studies in Leading Change Case Study 2 Module 4: Reflective Learner First Year Learning Plan 1 Module 5: Nature of Leadership A: The outline 1

B: The essay 2 Proseminar I 2 Three Residencies N/A

YEAR TWO 14 Module 6: Understanding and Leading Change A: The proposal 2

B: The report 4 Module 7: Cultural Dimensions of Change Global/Cultural Essay 2 Module 8: Understanding, Critiquing and

Redesigning Change Critical Review of Research Proposal 1 Critical Review of Research Final 3

Proseminar II 2 Three Residencies N/A

YEAR THREE 15 Module 8: Understanding, Critiquing and

Redesigning Change Research Redesign Essay 2

Module 9: Individualized Depth Study ILA-A – Content Proposal 1 ILA-A – Content Final 4 ILA-B – Research Proposal 1 ILA-B – Research Final 4

Module 10: Reflective Learning and Leading Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay

1

Proseminar III 2 Three Residencies N/A

YEARS FOUR/FIVE 23 Dissertation Dissertation Proposal 4

Dissertation 19

15


Four Years to Candidacy (hypothetical timeline) Learning Activity Learning Achievement Credit(s)

YEAR ONE 9 Module 1: Reflective Leadership Reflective Leadership Essay 2 Module 2: Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry CitiModule

Professional Ethics Essay 1 Module 3: Case Studies in Leading Change Case Study 2 Module 4: Reflective Learner First Year Learning Plan 1 Module 5: Nature of Leadership A: The outline 1 Proseminar I 2 Three Residencies N/A

YEAR TWO 10 Module 5: Nature of Leadership B: The Essay 2 Module 6: Understanding and Leading Change A: The proposal 2

B: The report 4 Proseminar II 2 Three Residencies N/A

YEAR THREE 10 Module 7: Cultural Dimensions of Change Global/Cultural Essay 2 Module 8: Understanding, Critiquing and

Redesigning Change Critical Review of Research Proposal 1 Critical Review of Research Final 3 Research Redesign Essay 2

Proseminar III 2 Three Residencies N/A

YEAR FOUR 11 Module 9: Individualized Depth Study ILA-A – Content Proposal 1

ILA-A – Content Final 4 ILA-B – Research Proposal 1 ILA-B – Research Final 4

Module 10: Reflective Learning and Leading Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay 1 Procan until Advancement N/A

YEARS FIVE/SIX 23 Dissertation Dissertation Proposal 4

Dissertation 19

16


Five Years to Candidacy (hypothetical timeline) Maximum time allowed for Satisfactory Academic Progress Learning Activity Learning Achievement Credit(s)

YEAR ONE 5 Module 1: Reflective Leadership Reflective Leadership Essay 2 Module 4: Reflective Learner First Year Learning Plan 1 Proseminar I 2 Three Residencies N/A Cumulative credits needed to maintain SAP 5

YEAR TWO 10 Module 2: Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry CitiModule

Professional Ethics Essay 1 Module 3: Case Studies in Leading Change Case Study 2 Module 5: Nature of Leadership A: The outline 1

B: The Essay 2 Module 6: Understanding and Leading Change A: The proposal 2 Proseminar II 2 Three Residencies N/A Cumulative credits needed to maintain SAP 15

YEAR THREE 8 Module 6: Understanding and Leading Change B: The report 4 Module 7: Cultural Dimensions of Change Global/Cultural Essay 2 Proseminar III 2 Three Residencies N/A Cumulative credits needed to maintain SAP 22

YEAR FOUR 7 Module 8: Understanding, Critiquing and

Redesigning Change Critical Review of Research – A Proposal 1 Critical Review of Research – B Final 3 Research Redesign Essay 2

Module 9: Individualized Depth Study ILA-A – Content Proposal 1 Procan until Advancement N/A Cumulative credits needed to maintain SAP 30

YEAR FIVE 10 Module 9: Individualized Depth Study ILA-A – Content Final 4

ILA-B – Research Proposal 1 ILA-B – Research Final 4

Module 10: Reflective Learning and Leading Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay 1 Procan until Advancement N/A Cumulative credits needed to maintain SAP 40

YEAR(S) SIX-SEVEN 23 Dissertation Dissertation Proposal 4

Dissertation 19 Cumulative credits needed to maintain SAP 63

17


Chapter 2 - Structural Elements of the Curriculum As described in the first chapter, the curriculum is made up of a set of integrated learning activities that align with the Core and Individualized curriculum. This chapter will describe each of these elements more fully. We will first start with a discussion of the 10 Learning Modules and their respective demonstrations of learning, the Learning Achievements. The chapter then discusses the annual cohort-based proseminars and, finally, the Residencies.

LEARNING MODULES As you know by now, this is not a course-based program. Instead, we have “learning modules” as semi-structured units of learning. These modules focus on different aspects of leading change and/or research and inquiry. The modules include specific learning goals that the students demonstrate in culminating assignments called Learning Achievements (see Appendix B). The modules also include residency sessions, individual and cohort readings, iterative work with faculty, and other components. It may be easy to think of the modules as “time specific,” meaning they run the course of an entire term, or half a year, or in some cases a few months.

In reality, learning doesn’t really start or stop. Here are two examples to make the point: In year one, Module 1 is “Reflective Leadership.” Students have readings, peer conversations, residency sessions, faculty-initiated proseminar discussions about this topic. All of these activities prompt and challenge students to think about and write about reflective leadership. At some point during the year, typically within the first 3-6 months, a student is sufficiently immersed in the work to tackle the Reflective Leadership Essay, engage in an iterative process with the faculty evaluator to improve the drafts of the assignment until it meets expectations, and then receive credit. But, that doesn’t mean reflecting on one’s own leadership ends; rather, over the course of the program, reflection continues and hopefully deepens over time.

Here’s another example: The demonstrations of learning for Module 8, “Understanding, Critiquing, and Redesigning Research,” are typically submitted during the student’s third and/or fourth year. However, from the very first residency in the first year, sessions are offered to develop the student’s understanding of research. The assignments submitted in the last pre-candidacy year are only possible because of the immersion in residency sessions, prior learning assignments, and the like. So, on the one hand, a specific module culminates with a Learning Achievement in a particular year; on the other hand, the learning starts at the outset of the doctoral journey and continues through one’s time in the program.

That said, let’s now look at the learning modules.

18


Module 1: Reflective Leadership (2 credits)

Learning Goals 1. To reflect on personal meaning of (past, present) roles in an organization and/or community setting. In

particular, the student has reflected on personal values, personal and professional interests, and the need for organizational and institutional change based upon their past, present, and prospective roles as a leader and has reflected upon their observation of leadership in a particular organization or profession.

2. To place one’s autobiographic leadership story within the context of significant and relevant leadership literature.

3. To draw lessons from theory and experience to inform future leadership practice.

Learning Strategies • Residency sessions include but are not limited to:

o How We Learn

o Ways of Knowing

o Stories of Leading Change Culture a Critical Reflection

o Immunity to Change

o Positive Identities

• Proseminar discussions

• Iterative guidance with evaluator

Readings may include but are not limited to those below (Note: Readings Change every year so this is simply a sample of what might be required and/or recommended):

Bell, E. L. J. E., & Nkomo, S. M. (2003). Our separate ways: Black and white women and the struggle for professional identity.

Sinclair, Bransford, J. D., & National Research Council Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.

Roberts, L. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation. New York: Routledge.

Sinclair, A. (2007). Leadership for the disillusioned: Moving beyond myths and heroes to leading that liberates. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.

Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

19


Demonstration of Learning: Reflective Leadership Essay The Reflective Leadership Essay is in the range of 7,500 words (20 pages).

The reflective essay is an autobiographical essay that relates the students’ professional and leadership experiences to relevant scholarship, their own values, and personal and professional development. Students reflect on the personal meanings of past and present roles in family, organizations, community, and other relevant settings; place their autobiographic leadership story within the context of significant and relevant scholarship; and draw lessons that inform future leadership practice.

Students demonstrate their ability to reflect in-depth on the personal meaning (e.g., personal values, personal and organizational interests) of their past, present, and prospective roles as a leader in an organization. They explore the roles and qualities of their own organizational leadership experience within the context of the significant literature in the field. While many Learning Achievements require reflection, this one speaks most directly to one of the program’s learning outcomes, “students will develop the ability to critically reflect on their own professional practices as learner, leader, and scholar.”

Evaluator: Program-assigned Faculty Evaluator of Essay (varies by student)

Timeframe: Typically up to half-term including at a minimum the first residency’s sessions and two to three months for focused writing.


20

Module 2: Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry (1 credit) We face ethical challenges as leaders and as researchers. This module requires students to focus on ethical challenges in their own professional practice. It also requires them to pass a certification to be a principal (and principled) researcher, which provides an understanding of ethical practice that involves human subjects. A wide array of residency sessions and self-paced ethics tutorials assist in the process.

Learning Goals 1. To reflect on the complex ethical challenges in leading change in one’s profession/community.

2. To reflect on the complex ethical challenges in engaging in inquiry into one’s professional and scholarly practice.

3. To learn requirements for certification to be a principal investigator.

4. To learn about responsible research philosophies, methodologies, and methods.

5. To reflect on one’s unique approach to ethics in today’s society.


o Ethics and Research

o Ethical Dilemmas in Decision-Making

o Institutional Review Board (IRB) and

o Research Learning Achievement Workshop


• Iterative guidance faculty evaluator

• Self-paced online CitiModule course in ethical research practice


The Belmont Report Common Rule

International Compliance of Human Subject Protections OHRP General Approach to Informed Consent International Guidelines for Research with Children

Andrade, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualising Whistleblowing in a Complex World. Journal of Business Ethics (2015) 128:321–335

Hirschman, A.O. Exit, Voice and Loyalty (1970)

Trimble, J.E. & Fisher, C.G. (ed.) (2006). The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations & communities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Ladkin, D. (2015). Mastering the Ethical Dimension of Organizations: A Self-Reflective Guide to Developing Ethical Astuteness. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W., & Dodds, S. (Eds.). (2014). Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford University Press.


21

Demonstration of Learning: Professional Ethics Essay The Professional Ethics Essay (5-10 pages) requires students to integrate their learning in this area and to reflect on some of the most profound aspects of their own position in terms of how they will express their individual ethical and moral obligations to their communities and to those they serve.

Evaluator: Philomena Essed

Timeframe: Over course of full term but approximately one month of focused writing.

Demonstration of Learning: Complete CITIMODULES Online Course The CITIMODULES is a comprehensive online research ethics course that orients students to the core principles and protocols for ethical research practice. Students are introduced to foundational documents for ethical research; the history of the development of Federal guidelines of the Office of Human Research Protections; protocols for informed consent; unique requirements for vulnerable populations; and a host of relevant issues surrounding the practice of ethical research.

Completion of CITIMODULE certification is required before the Case Study of Leading Change can be started, however, there is no credit awarded for completion of the online certification.

Evaluator: CitiModule Certification


22

Module 3: Case Studies of Leading Change (2 credits) Learning Goals

1. To develop the ability to provide sound rationale for the selection of leadership case studies.

2. To appropriately determine mode(s) of inquiry to explore the case study in leadership.

3. To understand a case study’s context, method of data collection, researcher positionality, case description and analysis.

4. To engage both descriptive and analytical skills in the development of a case study.

5. To demonstrate the ability to draw lessons from cases that allow for transferability and permit application to inform future leadership practice.


o Ethics and Research Cultures of Inquiry

o Situating Research and Practice

• Case Study Method Interviewing for Data

• Everyday Racism Servant Leadership

• Learning Achievement Workshop

• Review of Exemplars

• CitiModule Tutorials

• Modified Ethics application

Readings may include but are not limited to those below (Note: Readings Change every year so this is simply a sample of what might be required and/or recommended).

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN-13: 978-0761909613

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Learning the craft of qualitative research inquiry. (2nd Ed) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN-13: 978-0761925415

Stake, R. E. (1995). Art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN-13: 978-0803957671

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN:1412989167

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications. ISBN: 1412960991 Available electronically.


23

Demonstration of Learning: Case Study in Leading Change The Case Study is in the range of 9,000 words (25 pages) with a minimum of 10 citations.

The student demonstrates an ability to apply key issues and concepts to the complexities of real-life leadership and organizational change situations. The story told must be substantial enough to enable the student to apply the literature and explore change situations. This Learning Achievement (among others) addresses “understanding of theories, concepts, and issues related to leading change.”

The case study description and analysis is a context-bound study, focusing on a particular setting or an individual leader within a particular context. In the analysis, the student will describe how insights from the case might be transferable to other contexts. This happens when the student applies relevant literature on leadership and change to the empirical findings of the study.

This Learning Achievement (among others) addresses collection and analysis of gathered information, “understanding of theories, concepts, and issues related to leading change.”

Evaluator: Elizabeth Holloway

Timeframe: Up to full term with two to three months in focused writing.


24

Module 4: Reflective Learner (1 credit) Students in the PhD in Leadership and Change Program are required to develop a learning plan and submit it in May (see Appendix C). In the plan, students present their projected learning directions and estimated movement through the program. The final plan includes goals for the second year, including the intended focus of the organization change module and the request for a second-year advisor. It also includes areas of learning challenges and how these can be addressed. Finally, it includes the student’s projected timeline to candidacy (3, 4, or 5 years) and strategies for time management.

Learning Goals 1. To develop an anchoring pathway as students navigate the program.

2. To have students reflect deeply on how they learn and the challenges they face.

3. To have students reflect deeply on what they want to learn and the challenges they face.

Learning Strategies The Plan emerges from students’ involvement with their advisor in both face-to-face and virtual advising sessions over the course of the year. It takes further shape as students become familiar with all of the program’s faculty and work closely with several on Learning Modules and the demonstrations of learning (e.g., Reflective Leadership Essay and Case Study Analysis), as well as the time spent in writing, library, and stats tutorials. The Plan develops through conversations with their peers in proseminar and in residency sessions. And, it is the result of their own reflection on their learning over the course of the first year as they become more familiar with the program and more in touch with their scholarly interests.

(Sample) Timeline and Advising

Summer Residency

Half-day Program orientation

Three navigating sessions

How Adults Learn

Evaluation of Summer residency

August to October - Tasks:

• Develop personal goals for Year 1

• Develop draft of first-year time line and strategies to achieve it in discussion with advisor

• Individual advising sessions (@ 2 hours)

• Discussion of nature of Program

• Discussion of personal goals for first year

o Learning strategies student intends to pursue

o Discussion of Reflective Leadership module and approach to the Reflective Leadership Essay

o Discussion of Ethics Paper and sequencing

• Discussion of Reflective Leadership Essay focus in proseminar


25

Demonstration of Learning: First-year Learning Plan Successful and satisfactory completion of the online form in AUView.

Evaluator: First-year Advisor

Timeframe: Completion by end of May of the first year.

Fall Residency

Two advising sessions:

• Review learning strategies in small groups

• Discuss general Program issues in larger group

Evaluation of Fall residency in terms of learning strengths and challenges

Case Study Analysis Learning Achievement Workshop

November to March - Tasks:

• Identify learning and time management challenges based on first four months

• Develop and Complete for Case Study Analysis

• Develop and Complete Ethics Paper

• Individual Advising sessions - at least once a month (@ 5 hours)

o Review individual timelines

o Discuss progress on Reflective Leadership module

o Discuss ideas for Case Study

o Discuss student’s learning strategies

• At least one library search session with Program librarian

• Reflection on strengths/challenges from self-paced statistics tutorials

Spring Residency

• Group and individual advising

o Further development of learning plan

o Discussion of Year 2 faculty advisor

o General discussion of Program issues

Evaluation of Spring residency in terms of learning strengths and challenges

April to June - Tasks:

• Review, completion and submission of learning plan, credit awarded

• Develop and Complete Nature of Leadership Outline and Essay

• Assignment of second-year advisor

• Individual advising sessions - expectation of total of 3 hours Annual self-evaluation of learning


26

Module 5: Nature of Leadership (3 credits) Learning Goals

1. To engage in critical reflective learning by discussing theories, concepts, and themes drawn from the literature, analyzing and synthesizing them.

2. To understand the historical, social, cultural, and/or political contexts of these theories, concepts, and themes.

3. To understand the power dynamics underlying these theories, concepts, and themes, and that it may make some groups as the norm and others on the margin.

4. To apply significant and relevant theories, concepts, and themes to an area of interest and/or organizational/social context.

Learning Strategies • Residency sessions may include but are not limited to:

o Leadership Studies: Theory, Research, and Practice

o Positive Identities: Theory, Research, and Practice

o Transformative and Authentic Leadership

o Social Justice Leadership

o Change Models of Leadership Systems Thinking

o Sense of Self and Belonging in Global Context

o Everyday Racism

o Servant Leadership

o Responsible Leadership

o Ethical Leadership

o Learning Achievement Workshop



• Iterative guidance with faculty evaluator


Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (2009). Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from the struggle for social justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carroll. B, Ford, J., Taylor, S. (eds) (2015) Leadership: Contemporary critical perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Essed, P. (1996). Diversity : Gender, color, and culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.


27

Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Practice.

Gallos, J. V. (2006). Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Heifetz, R. A. (1998). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.

Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2018). Very short fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Keith, K. M. (2008). Case for servant leadership. Westfield, Ind.: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Ladkin, D. (2010) Rethinking leadership: A new look at old leadership questions. North Hampton: MA, Edward Elgar.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Raelin, Joseph. (Ed.) (2016). Leadership-as-Practice: Theory and Application. New York: Francis and Taylor.

Schein, E.H (2013). Humble Inquiry: The Gentle art of asking instead of telling. San Fransisco: CA, Berret-Koehler Publsihers Inc.

Schedlitzki, D., Edwards, G. (2015) Studying leadership: Traditional and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization (rev. ed.). New York: Currency, Doubleday


Uhl-Bien, M. & Ospina, S. (2012). Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives. Information Age Publishing.

Uhl-Bien, M. & Marion, R (2008). Complexity Leadership, Part 1: Conceptual Foundations. USA: Information Age Publishing. ISBN: 9781593117955

Vaill, P.B. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water. SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Demonstration of Learning: Nature of Leadership A - Outline Students demonstrate familiarity with and an understanding of leadership theories, concepts, and themes and apply them to an area of the student’s social system or professional interest. The concept paper is five to seven pages, including approximately six to eight scholarly citations. The outline should preferably use APA style for citations, formatting and references and students are expected to be fully familiar with the basic APA guidelines. As the student begins thinking about the NoL-A they should pay particular attention to both the required and recommended readings of relevant leadership theories, models, concepts and notion that resonate with and relevance for their paper. The NoL-A must be approved by the evaluator before the student proceeds to writing the NoL-B.

The student demonstrates competency in designing a concept outline with:

• A description of the aim and the focus of the Nature of Leadership Essay (Approximately one page)

• A description of the student’s motivation and area of interest in which the selected theories, concepts,


28

and themes will be applied (approximately one page)

• A description of the organizational context, social system(s) at work in their area of interest, and/or societal context, and how that affects leadership (approximately one page).

• A description of the selected theories, concepts, and themes that will be explored and discussed in the Nature of Leadership Essay (approximately one to two page(s)).

• A rationale for the proposed theories, concepts, and themes to be used in the Nature of Leadership Essay (Approximately one page)

Evaluator: Lize Booysen

Demonstration of Learning: Nature of Leadership B – The Essay The Nature of Leadership Essay is in the range of 10,000 words (25-30 pages) and a minimum of 25 scholarly citations.

Students demonstrate their familiarity with an understanding of leadership theories, concepts, and themes and their application to an area of the student’s interest. They demonstrate an ability to analyze, synthesize, generalize, and apply a significant and relevant body of leadership scholarship to an area of interest, or organization or social context. This is a conceptual paper that demonstrates a critical and reflective approach to learning that discusses ideas drawn from the literature, relates them to each other, makes generalizations, and applies them.

This particular assignment shows the student’s understanding of what is significant in the leadership theories, concepts and/or themes as they relate to the student’s area of professional and/or scholarly interest. In NOL-B, in addition to applying and integrating the selected theories, students need to critically examine these theories. This examination may include highlighting the importance of the historical, cultural, political, and/or other contexts in which these theories emerged; and the relevance of these theories, concepts, or themes for responsible leadership and change. In addition, the essay reflects upon what particular social groups become normative and which are marginalized by the theories, concepts, and themes. Finally, students need to reflect on the learning and insights gleaned from the NoL and how it might inform their own future practice in leading change.

Evaluator: Lize Booysen

Timeframe: Full term with three to four months in focused writing.


29

Module 6 – Understanding and Leading Change (6 credits)

Our program is designed for practitioner-scholars. As discussed in Chapter 1, a cycle of action-theory-reflection-action-theory-reflection is the underpinning of the curriculum.

In this particular Learning Module, students engage in real-world practice, employing and engaging theoretical constructs to enable reflection that contributes to improved practice.

Learning Goals 1. To engage theoretically and practically with issue(s) and dilemma(s) of ethical and participatory

leadership.

2. To design and implement leadership styles and strategies grounded in experience, theory, and reflection.

3. To explore and reflect upon one’s own personal and professional capabilities leading change in one’s profession.

Learning Strategies • In addition to the relevant first-year residency sessions, second-year residency sessions may

include but are not limited to:

o Change Models: Theories, Research, and Practice Large-scale Interventions for Change

o Strategic Change Evaluating Change Systems Thinking Toxic Leadership

o Organizational Culture Change Practices

o Creating Value Through Meaningful Engagement in Social Systems System Change and Disruptive Behavior

o Action Research

o Leadership Scales and Surveys Learning Achievement Workshops

• Proseminar II discussions



In addition to the relevant first-year readings (as noted in Learning Module 1, Reflective Leadership; Module 3, Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry; and Module 4, Nature of Leadership), second-year readings include but are not limited to:

Anderson, D.L (2010). Organization Development. The Process of Leading Organizational Change. Los Angeles: SAGE. ISBN: 1412950791 Price: 54.50

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2010). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(4th edition). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 0787987999 Price: 33.33

Bunker, B. B., & Alban, B., T. (2006). The handbook of large group methods: Creating systemic change in organizations and communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 0787981435 Cameron, K.S., J. E.

Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.


30

Dutton, J.E. & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory : Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives

Kusy, M. & Holloway, E. (2009). Toxic workplace! Managing toxic personalities and their systems of power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kusy, M. & McBain, R. (2000). Putting real value into strategic planning: Moving beyond never-never land. OD Practitioner, 32(2), 18-24.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Handbook of action research: The concise paperback edition. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.

Demonstration of Learning: Change Project A - The Proposal The student designs an organizational change initiative based on: an assessment of needs; understanding of theoretical and practical considerations in the field of leadership and organizational change; and a commitment to participatory leadership styles and ethical professional practice. This Learning Achievement (among others) addresses “Competence in the analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation of an intervention in a social system.” Students must cite on the cover page the academic writing style they are using for the Change Project Proposal.

The student demonstrates competency in designing a proposal with:

1. An understanding of the social system(s) at work in the proposed change.

2. An understanding of the complexity of planned change.

3. A strong rationale for the proposed change based on identified and substantiated need.

4. Concrete, specific goals for leadership and change for the organization and/or community.

5. Concrete, specific goals for the student as a leader of change that could enhance the student’s own professional and personal leadership goals.

6. A description of various learning strategies that the student will engage to develop an effective project.

7. A description of the range of change strategies that the student will engage to develop an effective project that is of sufficient scope to provide:

a. Scholarly and practical engagement with issues of ethical and participatory leadership.

b. In-depth exploration and reflection on student’s own personal and professional capabilities for leading a change initiative.

c. An understanding of how the strategies may privilege and/or marginalize different groups and individuals.

8. Inclusion of appropriate documentation of support for the planned change from key stakeholders as necessary.

Evaluator: Mitch Kusy


31

Demonstration of Learning: Change Project B – The Final Report Students must cite on the cover page the academic writing style they are using for the Final Report.

Student engages in and presents a final report:

1. Describes the work conducted on planning and managing a participatory change project and communication with key stakeholders.

2. Discusses adherence to or deviance from agreed-upon elements of the proposal and the rationale for changes to the plan.

3. Identifies and evaluates organization and/or community goals and whether or not these were successfully achieved and why or why not.

4. Identifies and evaluates leadership and change goals for the student’s own professional growth and whether or not these were successfully achieved and why or why not.

5. Reflects in-depth on the application of social systems in this project with a focus on:

a. How the actual change process related to the larger system(s), and

b. The role that leadership played or should have played in changing the social system(s).

6. Reflects in-depth on the:

a. Scholarly and practical engagement with issues of ethical and participatory leadership.

b. How the strategies privileged and/or marginalized different groups and individuals.

7. Presents a well-written final report that signals doctoral level writing.

Evaluator: Mitch Kusy

Timeframe: Full term with three to six months actively engaged in the actual Change Project


32

Module 7 – Cultural Dimensions of Leading Change (2 credits)

Learning Goals Student has demonstrated competency in presenting a conceptual paper, which demonstrates achievement of the following goals:

1. To develop a critical understanding of culture and of the cultural underpinnings of particular concepts in leadership and change practices and theories.

2. To develop the ability to think globally and/or beyond one’s own cultural contexts in reflecting upon local practices of leadership and leading change in social systems.

3. To develop the ability to articulate and apply a vision of ethical leadership including responsibility to address power differentials within social systems such as marginalization of certain groups.

Learning Strategies • In addition to the relevant first-year and second-year residency sessions, third-year sessions

include, but are not limited to:

o Reflections on Culture and Being Human

o Sense of Self, Human Rights and Belonging in a Global Context Inclusive Cultural Empathy

o Everyday Racism in Workplaces, Organizations and Communities Cross-Cultural Leadership and Research

o Global Conflict Resolution Ethical Dilemmas

o The Myth of Meritocracy

o Learning Achievement Workshops


• Iterative guidance with primary faculty evaluator

Readings may include but are not limited to: In addition to the relevant first-year readings (as noted especially in Learning Module 1, Reflective Leadership; Module 3, Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry, Learning Module 5, Nature of Leadership) other readings include but are not limited to:

Banks, S. P. (2008). Dissent and the failure of leadership. Cheltlenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. ISBN: 1849800235 Price: 40.00

Bell, D. (2002). Ethical Ambition: Living a life of meaning and worth. New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN: 1582342059

Bell, E. & Nkomo, S. (2001) Our separate ways: Black and white women and the struggle for identity. Boston: Harvard University Business School Press.

Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J., Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program. (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of indepth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 0805859977 Price: 152.00.

Cockburn, C. (1998). The space between us: Negotiating gender and national identities in conflict. London; New York; New York: Zed Books ; Distributed in the USA by St Martin’s Press. ISBN: 185649618X

Feldman, M.S., Khademian, A.M., Ingram, H. & Schneider, A.S. (2006). Ways of Knowing and Inclusive Management Practices. Public Administration Review, 66, 89 - 99


33

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations : The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.. ISBN: 0761924019 Price: 113.00

Howard, A. (2010). A new global ethic. Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 506-517.

Huggan, G., & Law, I. (2009). Racism postcolonialism Europe. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN: 1846312191 Price: 95.00

Jepson, D. (2009). Studying leadership at cross-country level: A critical analysis. Leadership, 5(1), 61-81.

Klein, F. K., Allers, K. S., & Mendoza, M. (2008). Giving notice: Why the best and the brightest leave the workplace and how you can help them stay. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. ISBN: 9780787998097

Lewis, E. & Cantor, N. (2016) Our Compelling Interests: The Value of Diversity for Democracy and a Prosperous Society. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nussbaum, Martha. 2011. Creating Capabilities: the Human Development Approach. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Oliner, S. P. (2004). Do unto others: Extraordinary acts of ordinary people. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. ISBN: 0813342872 Price 16.50

Pedersen, P. & Hugh C. Crethar, & Jon Carlson. (2008) Inclusive cultural empathy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Pless, N.M., and T. Maak. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethic, 54,129-147.

Thomas, K. M. (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations New York: Taylor and Francis.

Thalhammer, K. E. (2007). Courageous resistance: The power of ordinary people. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 1403984980 Price: 22.44.

Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice. 40(3), 197-214.

Demonstration of Learning: Global and Cultural Dimensions of Leading Change Essay This is a 6,500 to 7,500-word essay (minimum 22 pages excluding reference).

This Learning Achievement encourages students to critically examine, question, and synthesize ideas and concepts they have acquired and to prepare for the next stage of their development within the program and their practice. The specific focus of this essay invites students to reflect on a world of global interconnectedness, cultural similarities and differences, and unequal access to power. It extends the scope of a student’s development from reflective practice to scholarly reflection on one’s leadership for increased and improved forms of social justice. Thus, this essay requires concrete reflection on “some victory for humanity” and embodies the signature of an Antioch education “while we are learning to be effective, we should also be learning what is most worthwhile to be effective about.”

For this Learning Achievement, students should address in a comprehensive way an issue or topic in their area of interest, professional practice, organization or community, linked to concerns about unequal access to power, efforts towards nondiscriminatory practices, or social responsibility. In addressing the selected issue/topic, the student will bring in an international/cross-cultural perspective to inform their analysis and insights thus going beyond the limits of one’s group, community, or organization.

This conceptual essay may be related to the student’s intended Dissertation topic from a more global point of view. The essay may also be related to areas of the student’s professional development. It should show


34

familiarity with a breadth of relevant international literature or other sources and a depth of analysis. The essay should include a minimum of 20 scholarly citations.

The essay integrates knowledge as a practitioner and responsible citizen of the world, with relevant bodies of scholarly knowledge. Please send the evaluator a paragraph with your essay idea!

Suggested Outline for the Essay:

Importance of the chosen issue or topic (personally and professionally)

Dynamics of power and marginalization as they relate to the chosen issue

International perspective highlighting cultural similarities and differences

Integration of the above topics that may inform future research and practice

Evaluator: Aqeel Tirmizi

Timeframe: While residency sessions span the entire term, including sessions from year one and two, the actual writing of the essay is expected to take an average of two to three months of focused writing.


35

Module 8 – Understanding, Critiquing, and Redesigning Research (6 credits)

Learning Goals 1. To understand the epistemological and paradigmatic difference between research methods.

2. To develop competence in advanced library searching.

3. To understand research design and develop competence in designing new research.

4. To become proficient in reading and critically appraising research in one’s profession or field of practice.

5. To develop the habits of mind and practice as an ethical researcher.

Learning Strategies • Residency Sessions

In addition to the relevant first-year residency sessions (as noted in Learning Module 2, Case Studies in Leading Change; and Learning Module 3, Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry), many first-, second-, and third-year residency sessions include but are not limited to:

o Introduction to Research Appraisal Reading Research

o Experimental, Quasi, and Ex-Post Facto Research Design Introduction to Action Research

o Introduction to Correlational Design Introduction to Narrative Leadership: Scales and Surveys Mixed Method Design

o Foundations of Inferential Statistics – Populations, Sampling, Hypothesis Testing, and Statistical Significance

o Bridging Research to Practice: Bridging Practice to Research Advanced Mixed Method

o Advanced Evaluation Research Advanced Narrative

o Advanced Grounded Theory Advanced Case Study Design

o Grounded Theory: Interviewing and Coding



Readings may include but are not limited to: In addition to the relevant first-year readings (as noted in Learning Module 2, Case Studies in Leading Change; and Learning Module 3, Ethics in Leadership and Inquiry) other readings include but are not limited to:

Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry: Advancing knowledge (2nd ed.). Malden, MS: Polity Press

Blaikie, N. & Priest, J. (2019). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (3rd ed.)

Blaikie, N. & Priest, J. (2017). Social research: Paradigms in action. Malden, MS: Polity Press.

Blumer, H. (1986; 1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bruner, J. S. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, life (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. ISBN: 067401099X Price: 15.28

Brinkmann, S. & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, 3rd Ed. Sage.


36

Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (2007). The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN: 1849204780 Price: 46.32

Clarke, Adele. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clandinin, D. J. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN: 1412915627 Price: 120.33

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 1412975174 Price: 41.95

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc.

Edmondson, A. & Mcmanus, S. (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1246-1264/

Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill. ISBN: 0135314194 Price: 34.08 Flyberg, B. (2001).

Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. London: Cambridge University Press.

Girden, E. R. (2001). Evaluating research articles from start to finish. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. ISBN: 1412974461 Price: 44.77

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. NY: Aldine.

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context & method. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. ISBN: 9780761919513

Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. ISBN: 1412905311 Price: 120.33

Lieblich, Amia, Tuval-Mashiach, Rivka, & Zilber, Tamar. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications. Print ISBN: 9780761910428

McMillan, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (2010). Understanding and evaluating educational research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill. ISBN: 0135016789 Price: 35.68

Polkinghorne, Donald E. ((1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. New York: State University of New York Press ISBN: 9780887066238

Schwartzman, Helen B. (1993). Ethnography in organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Print ISBN: 9780803943797 |

Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372-1380. doi:10.1177/1049732307307031

Yin, R. K. (2011). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications. ISBN: 1412960991 Price: 32.51

The Critical Review of Research (Total 4 credits) The purpose of the Critical Review of Research is to help students to develop their skills at identifying, critiquing and synthesizing resources in relation to a specific research question.


37

Through the course of this Learning Achievement students demonstrate their ability to conduct a review and appraisal of the foundational, conceptual, and research studies in a chosen field of interest. The CRR includes a general research question (which may be underpinned by realist, interpretivist or humanist approaches), a fully-documented search process, a set of 15-30 sources that represent the knowledge base of the chosen field of study, and a methodological appraisal of both individual entries and the field at large. It is comprised of two parts – the CRR-A (Proposal) and the CRR-B (Final). The student must secure approval of the proposal and be awarded credit before proceeding to CRR-B.

Demonstration of Learning: The Critical Review of Research A – Proposal (CRR-A) The CRR-A Proposal, of no more than 10 pages in length, contains the following elements:

• A statement of the aim and focus of the CRR, including a working research question;

• A rationale for this focus;

• A description of the search process and general findings;

• A list of the articles, books, dissertations, or other works chosen for intensive analysis and appraisal, and the criteria used to select them. These may include may include foundational works, conceptual papers, books and dissertations, and empirical articles.

Before beginning the student should:

• Attend the Learning Achievement workshop to secure a fullest sense of the assignment, the two parts, what will be expected and required;

• Discuss your ideas, possible directions and opportunities for this assignment with your advisor;

• Review this Learning Achievement in the Learner’s Guide and on the PhDLC Program site (especially once exemplars in 2020-21 for CRR-A are posted);

• Have a preliminary discussion with the evaluator to secure their agreement that you are ready to proceed with the CRR-A;

• Set up a meeting with the Librarian to discuss your search strategy.

Milestones: There are a number of sequenced milestones as the student works on this Proposal and it is important to follow the sequence

• Permission from the evaluator to proceed with CRR-A;

• Development of a working research question;

• Development of a search strategy with the Librarian;

• Identification of sources for possible review;

• Selection of sources for full review and appraisal.

Student demonstrates competency in:

• Defining a research question that lends itself to a search of the literature of appropriate scope;

• Conducting an informed and documented search of the literature, including all relevant databases and how, if at all, the search resulted in a modification of the research question;

• Justifying the selection of sources for further review, in terms of range of epistemologies and methods.


38

Demonstration of Learning: The Critical Review of Research B – Final (CRR-B) The Critical Review of Research – Final (CRR-B) follows the completion and approval of the CRR-A. In this Learning Achievement, the student conducts a review of the foundational, conceptual, and research studies in a chosen field of interest. The CRR-B consists of a review and appraisal of the sources chosen for further study, and a general epistemological appraisal of the field at large, as represented by these studies. This CRR-B should be between 35-45 pages including references and written using the format and style of APA 7th edition (unless another format and style is relevant to the field of study and approved by the evaluator).

The first step is to create a matrix that summarizes each source included in the review. This matrix should identify each source’s: title; author(s); year; journal title (if appropriate); purpose or focus; primary question(s), method, and primary finding(s) (for empirical articles); appraisal; and future research indicated.

Based on the student’s analysis of the literature included in the matrix, the next step is to create a narrative review of what has been discovered. This review may be organized around topical areas or specific methodological approaches. Within each topical or method area each article is separately critiqued. Questions to be considered include: What types of questions is the article asking? Is the research method adequate to respond to the questions? What are the primary findings or contributions to knowledge in this particular area of interest? The student would then discuss the way the article aids their own thinking about their topic of interest.

The CRR-B should include a discussion of the implications of what has been found for further research, as well as consideration of the methodological fit between questions asked and methods applied to answer them. The conclusion should include the student’s reflections on how the project has helped them to refine or understand their topic area and how it will affect their potential dissertation focus and methodological approach.

In completing this Learning Achievement, students should demonstrate competency in:

1. Exploring a field of study that is relevant to leadership and change literature and critiquing the culture of inquiry around a specific question or set of questions of particular interest to their research.

2. Presenting a comprehensive scholarly search of a range of literature and carefully documenting the search process.

3. Understanding research design as it applies to a chosen area of interest and categorizing research in a table of each article reviewed [e.g., author, title, year, journal, research question(s),method, primary finding(s)].

4. Presenting the project with the quality of writing appropriate for doctoral level work and a review of literature.

Evaluator: Donna Ladkin

Timeframe: While residency sessions span the entire term, including sessions from year one and two, the actual writing of the proposal is expected to take an average of 6 weeks and then the writing of the final document 3 to 4 months of focused writing


39

Demonstration of Learning: Research Redesign Essay This essay is in the approximate range 7,500 words (20 pages).

In this Learning Achievement, the student demonstrates deep knowledge of at least two research methods by selecting two published, peer-reviewed studies in the student’s professional field, one qualitative and one quantitative, and redesigning them using the opposite paradigm with different methods, data collection strategies, and/ or analytical techniques. This will normally require some modification to the original study's purpose, but the altered purpose should be related to that of the original study. Students may choose a mixed method article, however, the redesign should be of the dominant method used in the original study. By critiquing each study and presenting an alternative, the student explores the epistemological differences of distinct research paradigms.

This Learning Achievement is evaluated along the following criteria in which the student demonstrates competency:

1. Demonstration of an awareness of the epistemological differences between quantitative and qualitative research.

2. The selection of two studies that meet the posted criteria: published, peer reviewed, empirical studies, one quantitative and one qualitative, both from the student’s professional field.

3. The identification of the appropriate research question, statement of the problem, and/or purpose of the study for both studies.

4. A critique of each study that identifies the key strengths and limitations of the study’s design.

5. The identification of and rationale for an alternative design for each study that is appropriate for the identified research question and is significantly different from the original.

6. Description of methods, data collection strategies, and/or analytical techniques that fit the selected redesigns.

Evaluator: Beth Mabry

Timeframe: While residency sessions span the entire term, including sessions from year one and two, the actual writing of the essay is expected to take an average of two to three months of focused writing.


40

Module 9 – Individualized Curriculum – Two Depth Areas of Study (total of 10 credits) Whereas the student’s work in the first several years has been along the Core Curriculum paths anchored in the program’s learning goals, the student’s work in the Individualized Curriculum is guided by the student’s own individualized learning path toward his/her Dissertation, and the articulation of learning goals, learning strategies, and demonstrations of learning to get them there. The Individualized Curriculum takes the form of Individualized Learning Agreements (ILAs). This is the opportunity for the student to study in-depth areas in which s/he desires content and research expertise. The program strongly encourages students to design one of the individualized learning areas around a content area aligned with their possible Dissertation work; and the other individualized area to be designed around the research method likely to be employed in their Dissertation study.

The individual ILAs only make sense within the context of an individual student’s path to his/her Dissertation and the learning needs s/he has at the time the ILA was developed.

See Chapter 3 on Individualized Learning for more detail.


39

Module 10 – Reflective Learning and Leading (1 credit) This Learning Achievement, done as the last in the program before the student advances to candidacy, is all about reflection. The Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay is the final and culminating program Learning Achievement prior to advancement to candidacy. This Learning Achievement (among others) addresses the program’s outcome of, “The ability to reflect critically on their own professional practices as learner, leader, and scholar.”

This Learning Achievement asks students to reflect back on their growth (if you prefer to think of this as progress that is fine too!) as self/learner, leader/change agent, and scholar-practitioner during the pre-candidacy years. Students may well find looking back to their first learning Achievement, the Reflective Leadership Essay, is a helpful linchpin to help remember their positioning and thoughts upon entering the program, although that is certainly not a requirement.

What is expected is that students reflect deeply on what growth in the three areas means to them and the ways in which they recognize that growth has occurred (or not). Students are expected to provide specific examples of what has facilitated or hindered their growth, including but not limited to components within the program, and/or aspects of professional or personal life during these years. The final aspect of the Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay asks the student to look back at his/her learning that has led the student to his/her dissertation direction including overarching topic, research direction, and significance.

The Learning Achievement will be evaluated based on its depth of reflection of the articulation of the growth in the three categories, not on an assessment of the growth itself. The first three questions must be sufficiently addressed for credit to be awarded. Question 4, reflecting on learning that has led to the dissertation direction, is not evaluated in terms of approval of the topic, the design, or the direction. The evaluator provides commentary on the strengths and suggestions for future work, which may help students as they proceed to further clarify their direction.

Note: The Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay is submitted to and is evaluated by the Core Faculty Advisor. While writing this essay may only take a few weeks, please submit a first draft to your Advisor with enough time that s/he can provide feedback for your final submission in sufficient time to be awarded credit by the end of the respective trimester. This means, please submit a first draft of the RICE no later than the first week of the last month of the trimester prior to advancing to candidacy. As always, credit will only be awarded for a submission that meets expectations and addresses any feedback; so while there is no guarantee that a month will be sufficient time to ensure this, such is typically the case.

The completed Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay should be in the ballpark of 10-15 pages. The elements of the Essay must include:

1. Please reflect on your growth as a learner over these past pre-candidacy years.

a. What have you learned about yourself as a learner that you feel you can carry forward into your dissertation, and into your professional life as a life-long learner?

b. What facilitated your growth as a learner?

c. What if anything hindered your growth as a learner?

2. Please reflect on your growth as a practitioner-leader-change agent over these past pre-candidacy years.

a. What have you learned about yourself that you feel you can carry forward into your life as a leader?

b. What facilitated your growth as a leader-change agent-practitioner?

c. What if anything hindered your growth as a leader-change agent-practitioner?

3. Please reflect on your growth as a scholar over these past pre-candidacy years.


40

a. What have you learned about yourself that you feel you can carry forward into the dissertation and beyond?

b. What facilitated your growth as a scholar?

c. What if anything hindered your growth as a scholar? (Optional)

4. As you now advance to candidacy and move to the stage of your dissertation work, please describe the following:

a. How learning in the program (e.g. learning achievements, specific scholars or readings, faculty impact, cohort conversations, residency sessions or the like) has led you to your dissertation direction, including the overall topic, overarching research curiosity, and why this direction is significant to you and the field.

Learning Goals 1. The student has sufficiently reflected on growth (progress) as a learner demonstrated by examples

evidenced in this integrative essay.

2. The student has sufficiently reflected on growth (progress) as a leader-change agent demonstrated by examples evidenced in this integrative essay.

3. The student has sufficiently reflected on growth (progress) as a scholar-practitioner demonstrated by examples evidenced in this integrative essay.

Demonstration of Learning: Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay Evaluator: Core Faculty Advisor

Timeframe: Several weeks


41

THE PROSEMINARS Another structural and essential element of the program’s curriculum is the cohort-based professional seminar, known as “prosem.” This is an annual faculty-facilitated, online, and face-to-face cohort-based “homeroom” within which cohort members are divided into smaller dialogue groups (6-10) to discuss, integrate, and make meaning of their learning. It is the formal venue where students debrief prior to residencies, converse about upcoming residencies, and share ideas about their learning between residencies. There may be required readings in proseminar, and the faculty often invite guest faculty to lead discussions.

In proseminar, students learn to engage in reflection and respectful group dialogue to promote their individual learning experience and goals. The proseminar’s overarching purposes are (a) to deepen the student’s experience of the learning cycle (activity, reflection, learning, application), and (b) to create an environment of self and group initiated learning experiences.

Students participate in the proseminar of their own cohort group throughout the first three years of the program. The proseminar for students entering in Summer 2020 is Proseminar I. When this cohort enters its second year, the students are enrolled in Proseminar II. When this cohort enters its third year, the students will be enrolled in Proseminar III.

Each proseminar has a slightly different focus: the first year tries to develop students as reflective learners and the creation of a respectful learning community; the second places emphasis on reflective practitioners able to read and appraise research critically to inform their practice; and the third places emphasis on the development of reflective scholars and the ability to conceptualize and design research.

The proseminars are vehicles to hold the cohorts together, especially during the many months between residencies. We continue to try to find the right balance of group process, content stimuli, and personal reflection to make proseminars as helpful to students’ progress as possible. Our intention is not to create another “class,” nor to force students to engage in work by simply posting for posting’s sake. The cohort proseminar is an anchor to and with peer learners.

Proseminar participation is a program requirement. Students are expected to spend approximately three hours a week for the proseminar participation. Failure to participate satisfactorily in a proseminar could result in failure to earn credit, which could jeopardize a student’s status in the program (see Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy in Program Handbook).


42

Proseminar I: Reflections on Self as Leading Change

Facilitator: Lize Booysen

The proseminar is the home of the cohort and provides the opportunity for students to deeply engage in their role as a reflective learner. Learning will center around self as a learner and as a leader, self as related to change, and professional ethics. As such, the proseminar is student-directed and facilitated within the Student Dialogue Groups. The instructor provides a forum for student interaction and acts as a facilitator for the cohort as a whole. The three books assigned to this proseminar (as listed below), as well as readings assigned to the leadership seminars, will be referred to throughout the year. Dr Harriet Schwartz will be joining us over the Proseminar year on a regular basis to build our relational learning community.

Participation

Proseminar I participation is a program requirement. Proseminar I meets throughout the academic term, face-to-face at residencies, and online between the residencies. Students are expected to spend approximately 3-5 hours a week on proseminar participation. Failure to participate satisfactorily in a proseminar could result in failure to earn credits, which could jeopardize a student’s status in the program (see Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy).

1. Requirement for weekly engagement through a “substantive” post 2x/week with assigned Dialogue Group.

a. The weekly engagement can be text posted online in Student Dialogue Group, podcast message, or video conferencing with the Prosem I group or student Zoom Account.

b. In the case of a group conferencing call, one member of the group will write up a report of those present and the content of the session. This report will be posted in the Dialogue Group area.

2. Nature of the proseminar discourse in student-facilitated processes

a. Establishing cohort’s values for respectful engagement.

b. Discussing prompts from readings prior to residencies.

c. Carrying forward conversations from residency seminars through the use of online prompts for comment.

3. Students will also reflect in the Dialogue groups on the Inquiry and Leadership and Change content sessions that will run parallel with Prosem I. The calendar of these content sessions will be posted prior to the start of the first Trimester and will continually be updated through the year.

Process

1. Establish and maintain dialogue ground rules for interaction.

2. Agree on nature of expectations of substantive engagement with each other.

3. Reflect on group process initiated by facilitators and at residencies.

Accountability

1. Accountability to program: Student activity level on the online Discussion Board for Dialogue Groups will be calculated at the end of each inter- residency period. The proseminar facilitator will review the number of postings per member in November and April.

2. Accountability to facilitator: Completion of a self-evaluation of participation in the group and growth over the term. These self-evaluations will be submitted two times during the term: the first at the end of November and the second the last week in April.


43

3. Accountability to peers: Students will provide feedback on contribution to learning in Dialogue Group discussion at the residency proseminar meetings.

Evaluation

1. Substantive contribution to the Dialogue Group discussions. This includes posts with substantive engagement a minimum of 2x/week.

2. Contribution to the learning experience of the Dialogue Group and cohort. This includes fulfillment of all course requirements at a satisfactory level.

Confidentiality

1. Adherence to principles of respect and confidentiality of Dialogue Group discussions to be kept within the group (see Appendix D).

2. Assignment of access to proseminar portal areas:

a. Dialogue Groups are specifically designed postings from members of the group, but can be read by all members of the cohort.

b. Open Forum, Documents and Images are open to all members of the cohort, guest faculty, and proseminar Facilitator.

c. Announcements and News is open to all members of the cohort and posting access restricted to proseminar Facilitator.

d. Cohort calendar is open to all members of the cohort and the proseminar Facilitator.

3. The Program Director will have access to the site and all areas of the program’s online platform for administrative oversight.

Progress Based on Proseminar Completion

A student must satisfactorily complete the three required annual proseminars. By December at the latest, the proseminar faculty will inform the student in writing if s/he is not making satisfactory progress in the proseminar. If the student is not making satisfactory progress, a course of action for the rest of the year will be determined. If the student fails to complete the agreed upon action, one of two actions may be chosen.

1. No credit will be awarded for the proseminar, and the student will not be allowed to continue in the program. A student cannot “retake” a proseminar. If a student is withdrawn from the program, s/he will be so informed by the Program Office. If withdrawn, no portion of tuition or fees is refunded. Withdrawal may be appealed using the Grievance Procedure.

2. If the proseminar faculty believes there were extenuating and extraordinary circumstances, the student will be placed on academic probation and remediation activities can be agreed to for a period of up to three months. This course of action would be chosen if the faculty member believes that the student is likely to be able to satisfy the work of the proseminar, and that the unsatisfactory work to date is not representative of larger academic issues. If this course of action is chosen, at the end of the designated period of supervised work, the proseminar instructor will make a determination about the awarding of credit and the student’s continuation in the program.

Readings (please read the following readings in this sequence):

Trimester 1: Complete before the summer residency


Roberts, L. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation. New York: Routledge.


44

Trimester 2: Complete after the Fall Residency and before the first Immunity to Change Prosem Exercise

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.


45

Proseminar II: Reflections as Practitioners Leading Change

Facilitators: Mitch Kusy

Prosem II is a vehicle to hold the cohort together, especially during the many months between residencies. We continue to try to evolve the balance between residencies and cohort group process, content stimuli, and personal reflection to make Prosem II as helpful to students’ progress as possible. Our intention is not to create another “class”—nor to force students to engage in work by simply posting for posting’s sake. The cohort Prosem II space is an anchor-sharing space with their peer learners. It is also a space where students can share their own practices, models, and research understanding with others.

The vision of Prosem II is to support students in their development as reflective practitioners leading change. This practitioner development is one of the inter-related themes of the program, learner-practitioner-scholar, and all enrich each other.

Given possible shifts of session delivery over the course of this year due to the unpredictability of the global/national health crisis, content-related, virtual seminars will be calendared throughout the year. These seminars will be related primarily to the development of practitioner growth. The calendar for these seminars will be posted in the C19 calendar located in the program’s site.

Each month will focus on a different theme related to these two critical skills. For example, one month may be related to need assessment; another on large-scale, team-based change; and another may be associated with evaluating change initiatives. These are examples to give students a flavor of how the themes relate to critical knowledge and skills of leading change and research skills applied to change.

Prosem II will be divided into monthly topic areas that are facilitated by a different dialogue group every month. Monthly focus areas address the following:

• Practices on leading change.

• Peer support on learning achievement progress.

• Research appraisal skills.

• Dialogue group facilitation of articles related to leading change.

Expectations for Prosem II:

• Students are expected to attend all Proseminar Zoom sessions (which are twice per month), unless they have a valid and significant reason for not attending. Approval of non-attendance must be obtained from one of the faculty facilitators.

• The required participation is 75% live attendance.

• At the end of the trimester, each student must submit no more than a one-paragraph summary of their engagement. Beuty in brevity – about one paragraph.

• Failure to participate satisfactorily in Prosem II could result in failure to earn credits, which could jeopardize a student’s status in the program (see Satisfactory Academic Progress in the Program Handbook).

Confidentiality

1. Adherence to principles of respect and confidentiality of Dialogue Group discussions to be kept within the group (see Appendix D).


a. Dialogue Group discussions are limited to members of the Dialogue Group and Proseminar Facilitators.


46

b. Open Forum, Documents and Images are open to all members of the cohort, guest faculty and Proseminar Facilitators.

c. Announcements and News is open to all members of the cohort and access restricted to Proseminar Facilitators.

d. Cohort calendar is open to all members of the cohort and the Proseminar Facilitators.


End of the year Proseminar II Reflections and Self-Assessment

1. At the end of the year, participants are asked to reflect on their Proseminar II learning and experience. Participants typically have to reflect on the following questions:

2. Participant’s own participation in terms of frequency and quality during the year.

3. The value participants found in Proseminar II during this year. What did they learn during Proseminar II, academically, professionally and personally?

4. Lastly, whether Proseminar II helped participants to focus their learning achievements and/or research interests/change leadership practices.

These reflections are confidential and will be submitted directly to the Proseminar II facilitators.


47

Proseminar III: Reflective Scholar-Practitioner

Facilitators: Philomena Essed & Beth Mabry

Whereas second-year proseminar focused heavily on leading change as a practitioner, Proseminar III is more concerned with students’ development as reflective and socially engaged scholars. The year is divided into three segments of roughly equal length. In Part 1 students begin to refine their research agendas from which will emerge their dissertation topics, and consider how these agendas might best be informed by upcoming learning achievements. In Part 2 students form groups and discuss published program dissertations in what we refer to as the Appreciative Dissertation Forum. In Part 3 students share emerging dissertation ideas, serving as a peer community, providing support, advice, and critique, leading to the final third-year residency in Santa Barbara.

Given possible shifts of session delivery over the course of this year due to the unpredictability of the global/national health crisis, content-related, virtual seminars will be calendared throughout the year. These seminars will be related primarily to the development of primarily research skillsDefinitely during Trimester 1, students should expect ‘residency’-related sessions on a monthly basis. This will likely be synchronous; however, given job responsibilities and time zone differences, the sessions will be recorded to ensure student access even if they cannot attend in real-time. The calendar for these seminars will be posted in the C18 calendar located in the program’s site.

Participation

Proseminar III participation is a program requirement. Proseminar III meets throughout the year, face-to-face at residencies and then online between the residencies. Students are expected to spend approximately 3-5 hours a week on proseminar participation. Failure to participate satisfactorily in a proseminar could result in failure to earn credits, which could jeopardize a student’s status in the program (see Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy in Program Handbook).

Confidentiality

1. Adherence to principles of respect and confidentiality of Dialogue Group discussions to be kept within the Cohort (see Appendix D).


a. Dialogue Group discussions are limited to members of the Cohort and Proseminar Facilitators.

b. Open Forum, Documents and Images are open to all members of the cohort, guest faculty and Proseminar Facilitators.

c. Announcements and News is open to all members of the cohort and access restricted to Proseminar Facilitators.

d. Cohort calendar is open to all members of the cohort and the Proseminar Facilitators.


End of the year Proseminar III Reflections and Self-Assessment

At the end of the year, participants are asked to reflect on their Proseminar III learning and experience. Participants typically have to reflect on the following questions:

1. Participant’s own participation in terms of frequency and quality during the year.

2. The value participants found in Proseminar III during this year. What did they learn during Proseminar III, academically, professionally and personally?

3. Lastly, whether Proseminar III helped participants to focus their learning achievements and/or research


48

interests/change leadership practices.

These reflections are confidential and will be submitted directly to the Proseminar III facilitators.


49

ProCan: Year 4 and Beyond Facilitators: Shana Hormann and Stephen Shaw

ProCan, something akin to a modified post-third-year Prosem, is the virtual, non-credit-bearing venue for students who have finished attending residencies at the conclusion of Year 3, and have not yet advanced to candidacy; in essence, those students who are on a 4- or 5-year to candidacy pacing. It is designed to help students make necessary satisfactory academic progress and move to candidacy. This is a faculty-facilitated, peer-supported space to share ideas, ask questions, and make progress on Learning Achievements. Based on the needs and credit-status of participants, a set of workshops – library, writing, learning achievements – will also be organized and offered specifically for those in ProCan; as well, a wide range of virtual workshops, academic support service tutorials and the like are offered throughout the year and ProCan students are encouraged to take advantage of those as well, based on consultation with one’s advisor.

All students who enter Year 4 and beyond, and have not advanced to candidacy, are strongly encouraged to attend at least one ProCan meeting per month. Students should expect to participate unless their advisor indicates otherwise. ProCan is a requirement for students on SAP Learning Plans. ProCan convenes every Wednesday, 4 - 5 pm PT / 7 - 8 pm ET, to allow flexibility for attendance. Students will be registered automatically in ProCan as they enter Year 4 and beyond.


50

THE RESIDENCIES The final structural element of the curriculum to be discussed in this chapter is the on-site residencies. These are intensive face-to-face gatherings held on a trimester basis, rotating among the Antioch campuses and locations. The residencies combine cohort-based seminars addressing a cohort’s stage along the continuum of the multi-year learning paths, Learning Achievement and skills workshops, cross-cohort sessions on topics of interest, guest presentations, one-on-one advisor meetings, peer discussions (planned and emergent), student presentations including Dissertation Defenses, and whole community gatherings such as receptions and dinners.

Dates of residencies for an academic term are posted one to two years in advance on the program’s online learning site in the Residency Information area. The full schedule of a residency’s sessions and recommended pre-reading assignments are posted several months in advance of each gathering.

As an intensive residency doctoral program, attendance at the residencies is essential. Students are required to attend three residencies per year during the first three years-–before a student is eligible for advancement to Candidacy.

As an intensive-residency Program (note, not an online degree!), we are committed to the power of these face-to-face interactions, and we have seen over the years how these trimester meetings are a great motivator for students. With its trimester residencies and vibrant online inter-residency learning community, our blended format is one of the hallmarks of the PhD in Leadership and Change Program!

As a note for 2020-21: As this Learner’s Guide to press, our country and world faces an unprecedented time health crisis that impacts cities, the nation and the entire world. How this all unfolds over the next 12-18 months is unpredictable. Please note, the health and safety of our students, faculty and staff will always be our paramount concern. If we need to hold some or all residencies virtually during 2020-21 dur to this health crisis we can, and will. No studies will be interrupted.

THE DISSERTATION As part of the PhD in Leadership and Change Program, students must complete a Dissertation demonstrating their ability to conduct scholarly research. The Doctoral Dissertation Proposal is equivalent to 4 units; the Dissertation itself is equivalent to 19 units. Once advanced to Candidacy, the student begins the formal process of writing and submitting the Dissertation Proposal for approval. A Dissertation Proposal hearing is usually held via a conference call or other technologically enabled meeting room. Once approved, the student engages in the research and analysis, culminating with writing the Dissertation.

A Dissertation begins with a well-designed question or issue meriting investigation. The issue should emerge from one’s own interests and passion within the context of the field and carry forward an existing body of theory and knowledge. The Dissertation should demonstrate scholarship, creativity, and originality and have implications for a particular issue in leadership and organizational change and have the potential for generative impact on the field.

The Dissertation’s purpose is to generate or confirm knowledge, to make a contribution to the field, and to have implications for theory and applications to practice. For example, the aim of research in leadership might be to reveal features that are as yet under-recognized or acknowledged, to present well-documented explorations of a phenomenon, and to contribute to a continuing re-evaluation of evidence-based practice. Other forms of inquiry, for example, case study, also do not necessarily contribute to theory formation. In generating or confirming knowledge, Doctoral Dissertation research may include empirical, interpretive, or critical inquiry.

We strongly encourage students to begin thinking about their Dissertation direction early in the program, even though the specific issue or “researchable question” is not clearly defined. Students will benefit most if they


51

can identify the overall area of interest around which they have passion and which merits investigation based on the context of the field, and then work backward to design Learning Achievements to help them make progress toward their ultimate goal.

Students have the freedom to explore a wide range of Dissertation possibilities in this program, from case studies, to descriptive studies, to empirical, qualitative, and quantitative studies, as well as hybrids of these and other approaches. Whatever modes of inquiry or methodology selected, it will be expected to be employed with rigor and relevance.

As of the writing of this Learner’s Guide 2020-21 over 225 Dissertations have been completed. The majority of our program’s dissertations are qualitative, with a wide array of others being mixed method, strictly quantitative, historical, action research, and/or theoretical research. Five of our Dissertations have won international awards as of the writing of this Learner’s Guide.

The program’s dissertations can all be viewed online at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu. Browse by Institution and Department, Antioch University, Leadership and Change.

Since the program has a detailed Dissertation Handbook, which is distributed to all third- year students, only this briefest sketch of the Dissertation is provided at this point.

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/


52

Chapter 3 - Creating Your Individualized Depth Study As discussed in Chapter I, the program’s multi-year curriculum flow traverses a Core Curriculum and an Individualized Curriculum. The latter is composed of two depth areas of study, referred to in the program as Individualized Learning Agreements (ILA). The ILAs are conceived of as building blocks of the Dissertation Proposal. We encourage students to design one of the ILAs around a content area related to their Dissertation work and the other around developing competence the research method of their Dissertation. While this is not a mandatory division, using the two learning areas as building blocks of one’s Dissertation is a planful approach that enables students to actually start deepening their understanding and preparedness for the Dissertation Proposal well before they actually advance to candidacy and, as well, to maximize their time and efforts in doctoral studies.

The Individualized Curriculum constitutes close to 20% of the total pre-Candidacy units. It is a substantive part of the student’s study, and it is both valued and evaluated with the same standards of academic rigor, integrative thought, and conceptual sophistication as the Core Curriculum. There is room for lots of creativity and originality in pursuing one’s individualized learning areas. It is extremely important that, as a student begins to seriously consider possible learning areas, s/he discuss these ideas with his/her Core Faculty Advisor. The student should also make use of the Individualized Learning Room and attend residency sessions designed to help students think out how to develop a complete Individualized Learning area from an idea or passion that s/he has.

Individualized Learning Agreements

Whereas the student’s work in the Core Curriculum learning areas is guided by the program’s predetermined learning goals and demonstrations of learning, the student’s work in the Individualized Curriculum is guided by the student’s own Individualized Learning Agreements and the articulation of learning goals, learning strategies, and demonstrations of mastery of goals. There are actually two parts to the Individualized Learning Curriculum:

• Individualized Learning Agreement – Content

o ILA – Content Proposal (1 credit)

o ILA – Content Final (4 credits)

• Individualized Learning Agreement – Research

o ILA – Research Proposal (1 credit)

o ILA – Research Final (4 credits)

In planning your ILA-Content, you should be in discussion with your advisor about where your learning journey is going in terms of your dissertation idea. Then working backwards from that, you and your advisor should identify content-area gaps and select one of those to be the focus of this ILA.

In planning your ILA-Research, you should be in discussion with your advisor about your learning journey in terms of the type(s) of research methods and research design that would be most appropriate to explore your dissertation questions. You would then want to construct this ILA to help you develop competence in that method and design.

For each Individualized Learning Agreement, students are required to identify the learning goals, learning strategies, demonstration and documentation of learning mastery, resources utilized, timeframe, and deadline. The learning outcomes, as well as strategies employed and nature of the demonstration, are determined by the student in consultation with his/her Mentor Faculty and approved by the Core Faculty Advisor. In the case of some research-focused ILAs, a well-developed template has already been created.


53

Each ILA spans a period of 3-6 months of active study, each is approximately 250-300 hours of student time, and each is guided by a Mentor Faculty in consultation with the student’s Core Faculty Advisor.

Each ILA requires the following:

• Learning goals – achievable and demonstrable – that reflect the standards of depth and breadth of doctoral-level study.

• Learning strategies such as extensive guided reading, independent and/or collaborative research, auditing courses, taking workshops, participating in conferences and the like.

• Doctoral-level demonstrations of learning that show achievement of the goals. Evidence of mastery might take the form of written essays, literature reviews, research papers, multi-media activities, community presentations, classroom lectures, annotated bibliographies, creative writing assignments, research experiments, video or photographic projects, logs and in-depth, integrative reflection pieces, journal entries, trade publication articles, artwork, collaborative projects, strategic work in professional associations, and the like.

Each Individualized Learning Agreement requires the following:

1. Title

2. Learning Goals

This section requires the student to present in detail the learning goals (generally a norm of three goals). These learning goals should reflect the standards of depth and breadth of doctoral-level study as established in previous Learning Achievements, and incorporate theory, practice, and reflection. They need to be achievable and demonstrable. For the ILA-A Content, the student’s last goal MUST be that the student will be able, by the completion of the ILA, to identify a preliminary statement for a potential research topic, a rationale, and the problem/issue being addressed.

3. Learning Strategies

This section requires the student to present in detail the actual strategies and activities for learning, such as extensive reading, venues of discussion, independent and/or collaborative research, courses, workshops, conferences, residencies and proseminars, and the like. In essence, this is where the student identifies HOW s/he will acquire this learning.

4. Evidence of Goal Mastery

This section requires the student to present in detail how the learning will actually be demonstrated; in other words, how the student intends to demonstrate mastery of the learning.

a. For each learning area, the student will need to demonstrate his/her competence or mastery of the relevant and agreed-upon learning goals. The nature and type of demonstration will depend upon such factors as the nature of the learning sought, the type of research, theory and information available and the forms in which it exists, the student’s learning styles and preferences, and even career or professional objectives.

b. Evidence of mastery might take the form of written essays, research papers, multi-media activities, community presentations, classroom lectures, annotated bibliographies, creative writing assignments, research experiments, video or photographic projects, logs and in-depth, integrative reflection pieces, journal entries, trade publication articles, artwork, collaborative projects, strategic work in professional associations, and the like.

c. In some cases, evidence of mastery of certain aspects or components of learning goals might include documentation from external sources, such as grades from a course taken elsewhere, test results completed, licensing awarded, certificates earned, and the like.


54

5. Bibliography and Other Resources

This section requires the student to identify in detail the books and articles to be read, as well as any other resources utilized, such as interviews, correspondence and the like. Resources are expected to incorporate both scholarly and practitioner oriented.

6. Time Period and Deadlines

Each learning agreement should have a duration of 3-6 months, with an equivalent of approximately 250-300 hours of student time. While each student and each competency will vary, this section requires students to detail the total time allocations as well as benchmarks for submission of drafts and demonstrations, and communication with faculty, both Mentor and Core Faculty Advisor.

7. Additional Documentation

This section requires the student to provide any documentation necessary to demonstrate that strategies and resources identified are feasible and that approvals have been granted where necessary.

ILA Proposal: Evaluation

The ILA Proposal will be evaluated by the Mentor along the following criteria:

1. The Learning Goals are specific, thoughtful, and precise.

2. Learning Strategies and activities are detailed and provide for the student’s ability to achieve the level of mastery necessary.

3. The selection of evidence of goal(s) accomplishment is coherent to the goals, consistent with the strategies, and provides for the demonstration of doctoral- level scholarship and reflection.

4. The time frame, deadlines, and benchmarks are appropriate and agreed to by both parties.

5. Coherence with student’s doctoral study.

ILA Final Report: Evaluation

The ILA Final will be evaluated by the Mentor along the following criteria:

1. Student has achieved the specified learning goals identified in the Agreement.

2. Demonstration(s) of learning was/were of high doctoral quality.

The final report will also be reviewed for coherence between goals, learning activities and demonstration of the learning, depth and breadth of reflection a range of literature reviewed and/or resources employed, and the level of clarity and quality of writing and/or presentation. The final report(s) should demonstrate achievement of all specified learning goals. It should also address any changes that were made from the original agreement.

Seeking a Mentor Students must secure a Mentor for each of the Individualized Agreements. The importance of finding the “right” Mentor cannot be overestimated. The Mentor Faculty must have the knowledge and skill set to advance the student’s learning in the particular area and, as importantly, must understand the nature of self-directed doctoral study and be able to guide and challenge the student from a place of respecting the student’s orientation and goals.

Students may select the same Mentor Faculty for both agreements if that individual has the knowledge and skills to guide both (this is rare!); or, more commonly, students may have a separate Mentor Faculty for each agreement.

A process has been developed (and described below) to secure approval of a Mentor.


55

It should also be noted that the PhDLC has begun creating a cadre of research-skilled mentors from among our alumni pool, who may be authorized to serve as mentors for particular method ILAs. Students should consult with their advisor is this is a possibility.

Mentor Responsibilities It is important for students to understand the work of the Mentor and to communicate their expectations clearly when they discuss their learning needs with potential Mentors.

Mentor Faculty are expected to:

• Participate in the program’s mentor orientation, which is a 30-60 minute phone orientation with the Program Director or her designate.

• Work closely with the student to develop the Individualized Learning Agreement (ILA) and its detailed work plan. Once completed, the ILA is approved by the Mentor.

• Provide timely and substantive feedback during the student’s course of study in ways that both challenge and guide the student. A successful Mentor relationship is one in which the Mentor is available and accessible and responds to emails and phone calls in a timely fashion, and provides substantive feedback to written drafts at agreed upon times throughout the process.

• Consult with the student’s Core Faculty Advisor regarding the student’s progress. The program believes that regular communication between the Mentor and the Advisor is essential for student success and program quality control.

• Provide a final substantive and timely narrative evaluation of the student’s completed work.

The program estimates that Mentor Faculty are likely to spend approximately 15 hours over the course of a particular learning agreement, from initial conversation, to regular communication, substantive feedback, and the final narrative evaluation. We expect Mentor Faculty to be accessible to our students and provide timely feedback.

In 2020-21 Mentors will be paid $1,500 per ILA in two installments – $750 upon submission of the Proposal Evaluation to the advisor, and $750 upon submission of the Final Evaluation to the advisor. Thus, if a Mentor were to oversee both Learning Agreements (with a signed Mentor Contract for each one) for a single student’s entire Individualized Learning Plan, they would receive a total of $3,000.

What to Look for in a Mentor?

Much of what a student will need in a Mentor depends upon the student’s own learning style, stage of intellectual and professional development, areas of interests, and long-term goals. That said, there are some generic elements that the program believes are essential.

• The Mentor should hold a PhD or other terminal degree in a relevant inter-disciplinary area for the chosen area of study. In certain cases, the Director may approve a Mentor who does not hold a terminal degree; however, students will need to provide a convincing rationale for the selection and need to understand that Mentors without a terminal degree would not be able to be “voting” members of the student’s Dissertation Committee should the student be interested in that possibility.

• Evidence of significant and senior-level experience in the scholarly, professional and/ or community environment in which the student is working. Students should be familiar with the individual’s work and feel that its focus adds to the learning that s/he wants to do. If the evidence is of professional and community activity, students should try to determine if that activity models the type of engagement, effectiveness, and democratic practice that they are interested in. We encourage students to examine Ernest Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990) to understand expanded ways of defining scholarly activity, professional contribution, and social involvement. Boyer uses notions of scholarship of


56

discovery, integration, application, and teaching in ways that model for students the active engagement of scholars in their communities of discourse and professional associations.

• Evidence, ability, and interest in working with self-directed graduate students in an individualized learning plan that requires Mentors who can both respect and challenge the student’s own intentionality in study while adhering to high program standards and expectations for doctoral-level learning. This is particularly important. Students should be sure that they do not simply select a “star” for star value, later to discover that the individual has no interest in the student’s own learning but, rather, is looking for someone to imitate the star’s interests and research agenda. Related to this, students should try to be clear with potential Mentors about issues of availability and responsiveness and assess their willingness to work online.

Getting a Mentor Approved

Many of you may have been thinking about your individualized learning areas and the “mentor of your dreams” since the time you applied to the program. We want to support your dreams and your ability to learn from and with excellent, capable Mentors wherever they are. So, once it is time to have a proposed Mentor approved by the program, here’s what you have to do:

Step 1: Talk it over with your Core Faculty Advisor. If she/he thinks the person you have in mind is a good fit for your learning goals and supports your idea, then it is fairly simple. Talk to them about your dreams, learning needs, and program goals. Encourage them to read through the website as well, so they have a better idea of how the program is designed.

Step 2: The Mentor must submit a complete and current CV and a preferred address to your advisor. If you are more comfortable, you may ask the Mentor to submit it to you and you can forward to your Core Faculty Advisor. Your advisor will forward that material to the Program Office, where we retain the information.

The Core Faculty Advisor will schedule an orientation call with the Mentor. Assuming that call and discussion are satisfactory, the Mentor will be approved to officially begin working with you. You will receive a copy of the email exchange confirming approval. The Program Office will then email a contract to the Mentor.

Step 3: After approval of the Mentor is secured, you and the Mentor will develop and formalize the ILA. When you have a final ILA that has been “vetted” by your Core Faculty advisor as well, then you will submit the ILA for approval and the awarding of credit.

Step 4: Once the ILA is approved, the Program Office will initiate payment to the Mentor.

Words of Caution

The temptation of leap-frogging

This is a self-paced, highly individualized learning journey WITHIN the context of three-year or four-year to candidacy design, which has been built on assumptions about doctoral- level learning. We understand that you may want to engage in individualized learning areas sooner than the third or fourth year, but our word of caution is to hold off, and build from the leadership and organizational change and inquiry/research skills and knowledge that you have developed over the first two years of study. Once you have worked through the program’s first years, and once you are closer to knowing your Dissertation direction, then you will have a better “feel” for the standards expected in the self-designed learning goals and competencies. And, you will have better skills to successfully complete the individualized learning areas in a timely and satisfying way.

The temptation of opportunism

Not every work opportunity is suited for an individualized learning area. The selection and development of an individualized learning area(s) should be much more than opportunism; it should have much to do with your long-term goals of study and your scholarly/professional directions. Advisors will be seeking your thoughtful


57

rationale for the proposed areas and will be encouraging you to link them to your Dissertation work in some fashion. Spending a year on individualized learning that does not further your doctoral study only extends your time in the program and impacts your ability to complete your studies in an in-depth and timely way.

The temptation of star power

We know that there are regionally, nationally and internationally renowned people in your fields and professions that you would love to work with and with whom you would like to be associated. Our caution here, as you approach prospective Mentors, is to be sure they have the time, ability and desire to support your learning and not their own agendas. Be alert to the Mentor who will want you to fit into their needs because they hold the authority of public renown. It is often difficult to refuse these requests and not feel professionally vulnerable due to the Mentor’s potential influence. In the long run, such a Mentor relationship will likely not be satisfying for you or end in success.


58

Appendix List Appendix A: Library Engagement Across the Doctoral Journey………………………………………………………………..59

Appendix B: Steps for Submission of a Learning Achievement………………………….………………………………………61

Appendix C: First-year Learning Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………….63

Appendix D: Policy on Trust and Confidentiality within our Learning Community……………………………………64

Appendix E: Writing Guidelines for the PhD in Leadership and Change Program………………………………...….65

Appendix F: Faculty Evaluators for Learning Achievements, 2020-21……………………….……………………..……...67


59

Appendix A - Library Engagement Across the Doctoral Journey* *based upon a 3-year to candidacy model

Year 1 Ph.D.: Reflective Learner Search Exploration

• Articulate a thesis / search topic • Subject (thesaurus) terms / keyword terms (esp. PsycINFO) • Boolean logic and application

Modules 1-5 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Onboarding, orientation, 1-1 consultations, Power Search workshop, Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, NoL presearch Format / Access

• Navigating the GSLC library to find readings / using citations • We Deliver / Inter-Library Loan • Use of different information formats / platforms • Google Scholar and other ‘outside’ information resources

Modules 1-5 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Onboarding, orientation, 1-1 consultations, Power Search workshop, NoL presearch Storage of research / information

• RefWorks / citation management • ‘My’ accounts in databases

Modules 1-5 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Onboarding, orientation, 1-1 consultations, Power Search workshop Ethical Considerations

• Use of scholar’s copy • Issues of scholarly communication (free vs. proprietary access, predatory sites, etc.) • Concept of peer-review • Attribution

Modules 1-5 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Orientation, 1-1 consultations, Power Search workshop

Year 2 Ph.D.: Reflective Practitioner Search Refinement

• Ulrich’s / Sage (going beyond PsycINFO and ABI Inform) • Synthesize and analyze ideas from multiple sources • Citation mining (backwards search) / Web of Science/ Google Scholar (forward search) • Methodology understanding

Modules 6-8 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Power Search workshop, Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, 1-1 consultations, method starter pages Appropriation

• Begin to understand the concept of your library space (your journals / searches / community of scholars)

• Role of authority in the information ecosystem Modules 6-8 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Power Search workshop, Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, 1-1 consultations, method starter pages

https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted







60

Year 3 Ph.D.: Reflective Scholar-Practitioner Search Trajectory

• Articulate your ongoing research plan • Identify gaps in your knowledge as well as potential areas for growth • Understand importance of ‘browsing’ in online environment

Modules 6-9 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, 1-1 consultations Appropriation in Practice

• Clearly identify your part of the library landscape (your databases / journals / authors / practitioner lit / foundational resources)

• Your contribution to the scholarly community • Questions for future research

Modules 6-9 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, 1-1 consultations, SB session

Year 4: Candidacy / Dissertation

Plan for candidacy • Set up an action plan for writing / research / editing • Self-organizing / self-motivation • Continue and revisit search structure and process as needed

Modules 6-9 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, 1-1 consultations, C2C orientation, YS and SB sessions, ProCan Integrity

• Permissions / copyright / fair use • Open access / self-publishing / ORCiD • Attribution / citation style

Modules 6-9 (module starter pages: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/getstarted) Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, 1-1 consultations, C2C orientation, Permissions workshop, YS and SB sessions, Last Steps workshop

Year 5+: Alumni

Scholar-Practitioner life after the Ph.D. • Stay connected with scholarly / Antioch community • Identify opportunities for lifelong learning • Identify directions and questions prompted by your dissertation • Apply critical information literacy skills developed in the program to everyday life

Alumni library page: https://gslc.antioch.edu/alumni-library/ Multi-Strategy (CRR) workshop, 1-1 consultations, SB session, C2C orientation, Alumni onboarding





https://gslc.antioch.edu/alumni-library/


61

Appendix B - Steps for Submission of a Learning Achievement Working on Drafts of Learning Achievements

Students work directly with the faculty evaluator, and usually talk with the faculty member at a residency or on phone about their ideas for the assignments. Typically, the student may be asked to submit a brief outline or paragraph summarizing her/his ideas. Then the student submits the first draft and works through an iterative process until the faculty evaluator is satisfied that the learning goals have been met and satisfactorily demonstrated. The student can submit up to three drafts of a Learning Achievement for review to the evaluator designated for this Learning Achievement. These versions should be submitted to the faculty evaluator electronically unless other arrangements have been made with the faculty. The student can expect review and feedback within two weeks from date of posting to the faculty in normal situations, although this cannot be assured in all cases. In rare situations and only with the Core Faculty Advisor’s guidance, the advisor may request that a faculty member other than the one designated conduct the first evaluation.

The advisor will email the requested evaluator and indicate s/he would like him/her to conduct the evaluation. The request doesn’t come from the student.

Once students begin their work on a Learning Achievement, the core faculty advisor is not directly involved in the review of content at this stage of the evaluation process. Since the advisor’s role is really to support the student’s intellectual and scholarly growth over time, the advisor is not involved in the review, proofreading, or editing of drafts of Learning Achievements. So, while students may certainly talk with their advisor about ideas and the like, primary input on a particular Learning Achievement MUST come from the evaluator.

Submitting the Final Learning Achievement

The student submits to the evaluator designated for this Learning Achievement. Once the evaluator lets the student know that the Learning Achievement meets the requirements and s/he doesn’t need to do any further work on it, the student submits the final copy of the Learning Achievement to the evaluator and sends a copy to the advisor. The evaluator then completes a narrative evaluation of the work in terms of the achievement of the learning goals and learning qualities including content, structure, and format. Then credit is awarded.

Awarding Credit

Credit Awarded Credit is awarded when the Learning Achievement has satisfactorily demonstrated the achievement of competency. Credit will usually be awarded within one month from the submission of the Learning Achievement in normal situations. The student will be able to view his/her unofficial credit report and narrative evaluations when she/he accesses AUView. This evaluation form also remains part of the student’s official file. Learning Achievements themselves are not retained by the program. Students, therefore, should keep copies of all of their work.

Credit Not Awarded If after three drafts going back and forth with the evaluator, the student’s work is still not satisfactory, the faculty evaluator will make an assessment whether sufficient progress is being made that there is likelihood that the student will be able to satisfy the requirement, and, if so, additional drafts may be accepted.

If the faculty member’s judgment is that the student has not satisfactorily demonstrated achievement of competency and is not likely to do so, and that credit will not be awarded, s/he will notify the student and the Program Director. At that point, the process would follow the steps outlined in the Academic Progress Policy as outlined in the Program Handbook.

Since NOT being awarded credit for a requirement constitutes failure to make satisfactory progress at the doctoral level, and there is no way to make a substitution for this requirement, the student will be withdrawn from the program.


62

OUTLINE OF STEPS FOR LEARNING ACHIEVEMENTS

1. Attend Learning Achievement workshop at residency prior to beginning that assignment so you understand the expectations; read the Learner’s Guide description of the assignment; look at exemplars posted in the Program’s online learner’s center.

2. Discuss your initial idea with your Faculty Advisor and confirm who the faculty evaluator will be – whether it is the one designated by the Program, or, in some cases, whether your advisor wants to suggest another evaluator. Your advisor will contact that faculty member if there is to be a change.

3. Work directly with the faculty evaluator on the assignment, submitting drafts until completion of the assignment.

4. Once the evaluator indicates that it is “approvable,” submit a copy of the document (as an attachment) to your advisor.

5. You will be able to view your completed evaluation in AUView. Within normal circumstances, the posting should be there no later than two weeks after you have been told by the primary evaluator that your work is approvable.

PLEASE KEEP COPIES OF ALL OF YOUR OWN LEARNING ACHIEVEMENTS.

It is also recommended that you keep copies of drafts and notes, should questions ever arise about the work’s authenticity.


63

Appendix C - First-year Learning Plan

Overarching Learning Goals

A. What areas are you most passionate about that may direct your learning activities? Why are these areas so important to you and how do they integrate with the program on leadership and change?

B. What are the thorny problems and/or perplexing questions that you think you would like to study? Why are they important to you? How do you feel they contribute to improving your workplace, community, or larger social system?

C. What will make this doctoral journey a success for you? Why?

D. What is your goal for progress to candidacy: four-year path, or do you hope to advance sooner (three years) or later (up to five years is allowed). Based on the one selected, complete a timeline with the major benchmarks for submission of Learning Achievements. Take into account times of heavy responsibility in work and personal life, opportunities for intense focus on studies, and, of course, the program’s structured residencies and requirements.

Challenges as a Learner

A. Based on your learning about yourself as a learner this past year, what challenges need to be met for you to be successful in year two and beyond?

B. Time management strategies

C. Quantitative skills improvement

D. Writing and presentation skills

E. Focus

F. Other?

Year Two Directions

A. What is your intended focus for your demonstration of learning organization change module? (based on participation in the Change Project Workshop at residency)

B. Identify your top three choices for a second-year advisor. Provide a reflection on the rationale for your selection.


64

Appendix D – Policy on Trust and Confidentiality Within Our Learning Community As more and more of our engagement will be online this year, we wanted to reiterate one of our learning community’s norms. The GSLC learning environment is designed as an academic network with both formal and informal channels. The key principles within this network are trust, respect, and confidentiality. We depend on this so that members of the learning community, especially peer learners, can have the comfort of knowing that they can share deeply and honestly with other peers, to grow together. Sharing your own scholarship is essential to your growth as a scholar/practitioner. You are encouraged to share your work and thoughts within and outside this academic network. One of the primary purposes of our internal environment is to support you as you hone that scholarly voice. However, Antioch University expects that all materials (e.g. research outputs, opinions, posts, individual assignments) by others remain within this learning community and not be reposted or otherwise shared outside its domain without explicit written authorization of the author. What is shared in any program online venue utilizing the GSLC site or Antioch email, whether it is residency session interactions, inter-residency required or elective sessions, ProSem discussions, or independent posts may not be shared outside our academic network. Note that in the particular instance of ProSem Dialogue group discussions, these may not be shared outside that small group unless discussed and changed as a norm of that year’s Proseminar. Adhering to these principles is a commitment of each member of the GSLC learning community; violating these can lead to program actions related to student unacceptable student conduct. We recognize the importance of these principles in creating trust and confidentiality within our graduate community so that personal and professional growth can occur.


65

Appendix E – Writing Guidelines for the PhD in Leadership and Change Program The program encourages you to become familiar with APA, MLA, or Chicago style. All three styles are acceptable in our interdisciplinary program, although APA is definitely the style most utilized by the majority of students in the program. We encourage you, if possible, to choose your preferred style in the first year in the program and stick with it throughout the program. It would be important to know what style is used most commonly in the publications of your field.

By the time you get to the Individualized Learning Agreements (typically Year 3 or 4 depending how you’ve paced your studies), you should consider making a commitment to one style because a great deal of this material you do for these ILAs will be put (hopefully) into your Dissertation. If you practice one style for all of your texts, by the time you get to your Dissertation, you will have developed your own writing/editing processes and can approach the Dissertation process with more confidence and skill.

Specific disciplines usually adhere to a particular style; for example, APA was and, for the most part, still is used in most psychology journals. Look at the journals in your discipline to get a sense of the style norms. Talk with your advisor about this as well. However, a choice in style is also somewhat of an individual choice although should be tied to your considerations of where you want your public voice once you leave the program.

There are many writing resources online, in addition to our own Writing Center and writing workshops at residencies. We have investigated many of the online materials. Here are the ones we recommend:

APA Writing Style: https://academicwriter-apa-org.antioch.idm.oclc.org/6/

https://apastyle.apa.org/Blog

MLA Writing Guidelines: Elaine, any link you’d want to put here? Steve said the one we had in here was d with owl, sold and now commercial.

The Chicago Style Manual Online: https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/cmos

Program Suggestions – Working with an Editor A. It is important to have up-to-date word-processing software. Sometimes you can corrupt your files

when they pass back and forth between you and your editor if you do not have the latest software.

B. Be sure to communicate with your editor about compatibility issues. Sometimes there are problems in crossing between Macs and PCs. It is best to have compatible systems to avoid problems.

C. If you pick an editor who is not familiar with our PhD program, be sure to share these Program Guidelines with your editor. A good editor will understand that s/he is not supposed to function as a Primary Faculty Evaluator or Dissertation Chair. Professional editors understand that institutional or program guidelines always trump standard guidelines like APA, MLA, and Chicago Style.

D. The editor should provide feedback to the student about his/her writing that is guided by the student’s need. This may include technical issues, style questions, grammar, and organizational issues. Content issues are not the purview of the editor.

E. Fees: We suggest that a fair hourly rate for your editor is $45-$65 per hour or $5-$8 per page.

https://academicwriter-apa-org.antioch.idm.oclc.org/6/

https://apastyle.apa.org/Blog

https://libguides-phd.antioch.edu/cmos


66

Different Roles for Different Types of Editors Always remember, your primary faculty evaluator of a paper and your Dissertation Chair have their own preferences for the writing of texts. The Primary Evaluator or Chair gives the final approval on your Learning Achievements and Dissertation. So be sure to discuss writing style and/or preferences with them.

PhD Program Writing Director Elaine Gale is available to help with writing. She will give advice on the first five pages of your text. You will be able to take these pages and continue to apply the feedback she offers to the rest of your paper. Elaine is also in charge of the program’s online Writing Center. She posts resources including the Writing Guidelines and a list of editors who are familiar with our program guidelines. Please seriously consider using these editors! They are familiar with our program. In addition to Elaine, Antioch University has a Virtual Writing Center, which can supplement the support provided by our program’s efforts.

Copy Editors, Editors, and Writing Coaches Elaine or your faculty chair might suggest you need to secure an editor to help you with your writing style. As well, you might need a copy editor to review final drafts of assignments to be sure all typos and grammatical errors are corrected. In these cases, you can secure editors either from the list provided in the program – or on your own. Remember, if the editor is working on a Learning Achievement or Dissertation draft and has concerns over content, the editor must be in communication with the faculty evaluator or chair of the student’s committee and not the student. It is important that the student not receive contradictory advice. The student pays for editors.

Dissertation Format Editor The Antioch Writer’s Exchange (WEX) provides an assigned editor to read your text to check for compliance with these program Guidelines and standard styles such as APA, MLA, and the Chicago Style. (See 2020-21 Dissertation Handbook for further details.)


67

Appendix F – Faculty Evaluators for Learning Achievements, 2020-21 Learning Achievement Evaluator

Reflective Leadership Essay Program-designated faculty

Ethics in Leadership Philomena Essed

Case Study in Leading Change Elizabeth Holloway

First-year Learning Plan Laurien Alexandre

Nature of Leadership Lize Booysen

Change Project Proposal and Final Report Mitch Kusy

Global/Cultural Dimensions of Change Aqeel Tirmizi

Critical Review of Research Proposal & Final Donna Ladkin

Research Redesign Beth Mabry

Individual Learning Agreement Content Approved Mentor

Individual Learning Agreement Research Approved Mentor

Reflective Integrative Candidacy Essay Core Faculty Advisor

Dissertation Proposal Chair and Committee

Dissertation Chair and Committee

Download - Learner’s Guide 2020/21

Top Related