MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY - Faculty of ...

Doctor of Education and MA Professional Studies in Education 

Definitive Programme Document 

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION 

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION 

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION: Early Years Education 

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION: Health Care Studies 

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION: Inclusive Education 

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION: Leading and Managing Learning 

Institutions 

MASTER OF ARTS: Professional Studies in Education 

DEFINITIVE DOCUMENT 

Approved at Review on 31 March 2009 

With effect from intakes in year 2009 

Document last modified June 2012 

1



TYPE OF 

MODIFICATION 

(Eg, ADC, Major 

or Minor) 

Review 

Minor Faculty 

Modification 

HISTORY OF MODIFICATIONS 

DESCRIPTION 

New Definitive document produced after Review 

Changes to Thesis (to incorporate a performance 

element) 

APPROVAL 

(DATE) 

31 March 

2009 

Approved 

Faculty 

Research 

Degrees 

Committee 

24th May 

2012 

2



CONTENTS 

Page 

Part One – Programme Specification 

Programme Specification 

iii 

iii 

Part Two – Programme Regulations 1 

1 Admissions Regulations 1 

Standard Entry Requirements 1 

Admission with Exemption 1 

Admission with Specific Credit 1 

Accreditation of Prior (Experiential) Learning (AP(E)L) 2 

2 Curriculum Design and Organisation 2 

Curriculum Design Overview 2 

Relationship to Subject Benchmark Statement(s) 4 

Assessment Criteria for Marking Summative Assessments 4 

Arrangements for Anonymous Marking of Summative Assessments 6 

Arrangements for the Quality Management of Placement Learning 6 

Academic Partnership Activity 7 

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Links 7 

Flexible and Distributed Learning (including e-learning) 7 

3 Assessment Regulations 7 

Statement on MMU Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate or 

Postgraduate Programmes of Study 7 

Programme-specific Regulations 8 

4 Programme Management and Student Support 17 

Programme Committee 18 

Board of Examiners 19 

Programme Leader(s) 21 

Other Staff Responsibilities 22 

Student Support Strategy 23 

Student Participation in Quality Management 25 

Programme Student Information 25 

Engagement with Employers 26 

Part Three – Curriculum Content 27 

Unit Syllabus Proformas 29 

Appendices 59 

Appendix 1: Ethics 

i



ii



PART ONE 

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY 

PS/1 

PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION 

0 Brief Descriptive Summary 

The Manchester Metropolitan University EdD Programme(s) are designed to promote the 

professionalism of educators. It differs from the PhD provision in its emphasis on 

intervention in policy, practice and debate. This does not mean that it is ‘practical’ rather 

than ‘theoretical’; rather its focus is on theory in and through practice. The Programmes 

aim, therefore to promote a research-based practice in education, but without making the 

assumption that research can determine practice. 

It follows that the programme (s) focus(es) on the meaning and practice of professional 

behaviour that addresses educational ends. Central concerns are the meaning, criticism, or 

promotion of terms such as education, quality, accountability, empowerment, reflective 

practitioner, autonomy, and evidence-based practice. There is a core substantive curriculum 

surrounding these concerns that draws variously on the disciplines of philosophy, sociology 

and cultural theory. 

Basic Programme Details 

1 Overarching Programme 

Network/Title and 

programme specification 

code(s) 

2 Final award(s)/title(s) 

(including any PSRB final awards 

conferred as an automatic result 

of successful completion of the 

programme) 

3 Combined Honours 

Subject(s) offered through 

programme specification 

together with associated 

final award(s) (where 

relevant) 

Doctor of Education 

Doctor of Education: Early Years Education 

Doctor of Education: Health Care Studies 

Doctor of Education: Inclusive Education 

Doctor of Education: Leading and Managing 

Learning Institutions 

Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education 

Doctor of Education 

Doctor of Education: Early Years Education 

Doctor of Education: Health Care Studies 

Doctor of Education: Inclusive Education 

Doctor of Education: Leading and Managing 

Learning Institutions 

Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education 

Subject(s): 

Final Awards: 

4 Interim Exit Award(s) / 

Title(s) (including Combined 

Honours interim exit awards) 

The Master of Arts: Professional Studies in 

Education 

iii



5 Mode(s) and duration FT minimum 42 months maximum 60 months 

PT minimum 54 months maximum 90 months 

6 FHEQ Position of Final 

Award(s) 

7 Awarding Institution (include 

PSRBs which confer a joint or 

additional qualification on 

successful completion of 

programme 

Masters (Level 7)* 

Doctoral (Level 8)* 

MMU 

8 Teaching Institution(s) MMU 

9 Relationship with 

Foundation Year 

Administrative Details 

10 Home Department/School/ 

Institute 

EDUCATION AND SOCIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

11 Home Faculty INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION 

12 UCAS code(s) n/a 

Collaborative Arrangements (where relevant) 

13 Approved Collaborative 

Partner(s) 

14 Description of type of 

collaborative provision or 

academic partnership 

n/a 

None 

Approval Status 

15 Date/outcome of most 

recent MMU 

Review/Approval 

Reviewed on 31 March 2009 

16 Next Scheduled Review Date 2014 

17 PS/1 effective date: (ie, date 

from which the outcome of 

approval or last review is 

effective OR the date from 

September 2009 

iv



which amendments to the 

programme specification are 

effective) 

External References/Relationships 

18 QAA Benchmark 

Statement(s) 

19 Date/outcome of last QAA 

engagement (or equivalent) 

20 PSRB(s) associated with 

final award of programme 

(eg, those which offer 

professional status/ 

membership/license to practice 

as result of successful 

completion of the final award 

21 Date/outcome of last PSRB 

approval(s) 

This EdD is benchmarked against Joint Research 

Councils/AHRB joint statement on postgraduate 

skills (September 2002), QAA Framework for 

Higher Education Qualifications and QAA 

Educational Studies Benchmarks. 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Programme Information 

22 University and Programme Educational Aims 

University Educational Aims: 

• To develop flexible approaches to programme delivery and student support which 

reflect the needs and expectations of our students. 

• To provide a learning experience and support for our learners that encourages and 

properly sustains a diverse learning community. 

• To provide a learning environment that is free from discrimination and focussed on 

success for all learners. 

• To enable the development of students’ skills and personal attributes that will 

enhance employment opportunities on graduation in all programmes. 

• To establish a culture of quality enhancement and progressive innovation in learning, 

teaching and assessment that is anticipatory, enabling, supportive, rewarding and 

fully aligned with the institution’s strategic goals. 

• To provide a learning experience that is informed by research, scholarship and 

reflective practice. 

Programme Educational Aims: 


professionalism of educators. It differs from the PhD provision in its emphasis on 

v



intervention in policy, practice, and debate. This does not mean that it is ‘practical’ rather 

than ‘theoretical’; rather its focus is on theory in and through practice. The Programmes 

aim, therefore, to promote a research-based professional practice in education, but without 

making the assumption that research can determine practice. 

It follows that the Programme(s) focus(es) on the meaning and practice of professional 

behaviour that addresses educational ends. Central concerns are the meaning, criticism, or 

promotion of terms such as education, quality, accountability, empowerment, reflective 

practitioner-hood, autonomy, and evidence-based practice. There is a core substantive 

curriculum surrounding these concerns that draws variously on the disciplines of philosophy, 

sociology and cultural theory. 

Another way of defining the aims of the Programmes is to ask the question: If the EdD 

Programme(s) are the solution, what is the problem Our answer would be that the 

education profession, in many disciplines, is often trapped between routinised practices and 

cultures and populist or managerialist prescriptions. The arena of the ‘professional’ is a 

highly contested and confused debate, in which the voice of the professional is by no means 

the most powerful. This can be seen vividly in the ways in which politicians and media 

define professional agendas, manipulate public perceptions and propose simplistic solutions. 

Accordingly, we want our EdD graduands to develop their own answers to questions like: 

• What is the nature and quality of the various debates that inform educational 

discourse(s) in the UK and elsewhere 

• How are such discourses on education formed, transmitted, challenged and 

legitimated 

• How do they relate to broader developments in society, such as globalisation and 

sustainability 

• What is ‘professionalism’ and how does it relate to the identity and role of the 

educator, the learner and society more generally 

• What counts as a professional and educational response in contemporary conditions 

These concerns seek to place the student in a more critically informed relationship with 

current educational debates, particularly as they impact on notions of the ‘professional’. It is 

intended that such a critical platform will help them come to their own conclusions about 

what the implications are for their practice as professionals, and intervene in educational 

debates appropriately. Thus, we expect them to take their programme personally and 

question: 

• What is the purpose of the EdD in relation to their own professional development 

and that of their profession 

• What does professional behaviour mean to them 

• How do they diagnose the nature of the educational discourses with which they 

work 

• What is the most fruitful form of intervention and with whom should it be made 

Finally, theory and practice in education need to be related to each other much more closely 

than is normal in the UK. The EdD Programme(s) will help students articulate theory and 

practice in new and imaginative ways. Such an ambition means, of course, that the 

preceding discussion and the following programme(s) features are themselves open to 

continuing discussion and revision. 

vi



In their thesis students are required to demonstrate that they understand the principles of 

research, how to formulate research questions, select appropriate methods, design and 

carry out a study, and present the outcomes in an appropriate way. They are introduced to 

these integrated theories and competencies, fundamental to the conduct of educational 

research, in the first taught Unit and, thereafter, they form part of the teaching of all other 

Units. Students also develop understanding of different concepts of education, their 

implications for research, and the educative nature of educational research. Specific 

theoretical and epistemological issues and the philosophical underpinnings of educational 

research are presented and assessed in the taught programme Units. 

The programme of study aims to enable successful students to develop and demonstrate 

transferable intellectual skills, in particular, to be able to: 

• communicate clearly in speech, writing and other appropriate modes of expression; 

• argue rationally and draw independent conclusions based on a rigorous, analytical and 

critical approach to data, demonstration and argument; 

• apply what has been learned; 

• demonstrate an awareness of the programme of study in a wider context; 

• demonstrate an understanding of the principles of research; 

• demonstrate an ability to formulate research questions; 

• demonstrate an ability to select appropriate methods of enquiry; 

• demonstrate an ability to design and carry out a study, including practical skills in data 

collection and analysis, such as interviewing, observing, using electronic recording 

equipment, use of open coding, use of computer-assisted packages for analysis; 

• demonstrate the ability to present the outcomes of research in a lively, readable, 

scholarly document; and 

• demonstrate a range of employment-related skills in addition to the above, including 

those relating to teaching and assessment ability and the use of e-communications. 

23 Programme Learning Outcomes 

MMU Educational Outcomes: 

Successful students will be able to develop and demonstrate transferable intellectual skills, 

in particular their ability to: 

• communicate clearly in speech, writing and other appropriate modes of expression 

• argue rationally and draw independent conclusions based on a rigorous, analytical 

and critical approach to data, demonstration and argument 

• apply what has been learned 

• demonstrate an awareness of the programme of study in a wider context 

1 Programme Learning Outcomes: include all final learning outcomes for all named 

routes/exit awards 

The general learning objectives that the Programme(s) set(s) out to achieve and that 

will be examined in the assessment of the Programme(s) include: 

Research Skills and Techniques 

• the ability to recognise and validate problems 

• the ability to be original, independent and critical thinking, and the ability to develop 

vii



theoretical concepts 

• to develop a knowledge of recent advances within their own field and in related 

areas 

• to develop an understanding of relevant research methodologies and techniques and 

their appropriate application within their research field 

• the ability to critically analyse and evaluate their own findings and those of others 

• an ability to summarise, document, report and reflect on progress. 

Research Environment 

• to be able to show a broad understanding of the context, at national and 

international level, in which research takes place 

• to be able to demonstrate awareness of issues relating to the rights of other 

researchers, of research subjects, and of others who may be affected by the 

research, eg confidentiality, ethical issues, attribution, copyright, malpractice, 

ownership of data and the requirements of the Data Protection Act 

• to be able to demonstrate appreciation of standards of good research practice in 

their institution and/or discipline 

• to develop an understanding of relevant health and safety issues and demonstrate 

responsible working practices 

• to understand the processes for funding and evaluation of research 

• to be able to justify the principles and methodological techniques used in their own 

research 

• to understand the process of academic or commercial exploitation of research 

results. 

Research Management 

• to be able to apply effective project management through the setting of research 

goals, intermediate milestones and the prioritisation of activities 

• to be able to design and execute systems for the acquisition and collation of 

information through the effective use of appropriate resources and equipment 

• to be able to identify and access appropriate bibliographical resources, archives and 

other sources of relevant information 

• to be able to use information technology appropriately for database management, 

recording and presenting information 

Personal Effectiveness 

• to be able to demonstrate a willingness and ability to learn and acquire knowledge 

• to be creative, innovative and original in their approach to research 

• to be able to demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness 

• to be able to demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to identify their own 

training needs 

• to be able to demonstrate self-discipline, motivation and thoroughness 

• to be able to recognise boundaries and draw upon/use sources of support as 

appropriate 

• to show initiative, work independently and be self-reliant 

Communication Skills 

• to be able to write clearly and in a style appropriate to purpose, eg progress reports, 

published documents, thesis 

• to be able to construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to a range of 

audiences, formally and informally through a variety of techniques 

• to constructively defend research outcomes at seminars, student conferences and 

viii



viva examination 

• to be able to contribute to promoting the public understanding of their research field 

• to be able to effectively support the learning of others when involved in teaching, 

mentoring or demonstrating activities 

Networking and Teamworking 

• to develop and maintain co-operative networks and working relationships with 

supervisors, colleagues and peers, within the institution and the wider research 

community 

• to understand that their own behaviours impacts on others when working in and 

contributing to the success of formal and informal teams. 

• to listen, give and receive feedback and respond perceptively to others 

Career Management 

• to be able to appreciate the need for and show commitment to continuing 

professional development 

• to be able to take ownership for and manage their career progression, set realistic 

and achievable career goals, and identify and develop ways to improve employability 

• to be able to demonstrate an insight into the transferable nature of research skills to 

other work environments and the range of career opportunities within and outside 

academia 

• to be able to present their skills, personal attributes and experiences effectively. 

24 Interim Award Learning Outcomes 

n/a 

25 Teaching/Learning and Assessment Strategies 

Teaching is provided through a combination of methods. In all, there are seven intensive 

weekend sessions (Friday evening till Sunday afternoon) plus a further six one-day sessions 

(all day Saturday) comprising a total of 130 hours of teaching. These sessions provide a 

combination of lectures (to map out the territory and explain key concepts), practical 

workshops (to explore and practice specific skills such as interviewing or computer-based 

analysis) and interactive seminars (at which either a tutor or a student provides an initial 

input followed by small group work and/or plenary discussion). 

Teaching is delivered both by Institute of Education staff and colleagues drawn from the 

Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care. The teaching team has a substantial number 

of members with considerable experience of teaching at doctorial level and who are also 

active researchers. Additionally, opportunities for staff development are created where 

highly suitable but less experienced staff work with more experienced members. 

Teaching for Phase A of the programme centres on five units: 

ix



I. Professionalism; 

II. Research Methodology and Methods I; 

III. Intervening as Professionals; 

IV. Research Methodology and Methods II; and 

V. Research Proposal/RD1 

Each of these units will be assessed via 4000 - 5000 word assignments (blind double 

marked). In addition to contact time in groups there will be substantial demands by way of 

private study, supported by course readings and study-packs, and practice-based task 

activity. 

The ‘Professionalism’ Units (Units I and III) take a number of recent or current 

controversial initiatives or debates as a pedagogical device for pursuing its purpose, with 

cases chosen so as to allow for engagement with matters of both policy and practice at 

various levels, and so as to locate issues surrounding notions of professionalism within 

historical and national (and at times international) contexts. As the units progress and as 

cases are considered students will encounter, revisit and deepen their capacity to address 

notions such as effectiveness/ accountability; reflective practice/competence; 

partnership/mentorship; quality/standards; empowerment/autonomy. Additionally, the units 

explore the notion of, and possibility for, practical intervention and the forms intervention 

might take concerning personal, professional and systemic change. Intervention is perceived 

as an integral part of what being a professional is –in order to critique and understand 

professionalism, the scope and nature of professional intervention must be explored; 

engagement with acts of intervention raises issues concerning professionalism. 

The Research Methodology and Methods I and II Units (Units II and IV) comprise the 

following research themes and processes, with a particular emphasis on (Educational) Action 

Research. These are chronologically discrete, but inter-related – and not necessarily covered 

in the order given below: 

a). Paradigms and Educational Research; 

b). Subjectivity, Objectivity, Reflexivity and the Self; 

c). Research Design (qualitative and quantitative); 

d). Research Methods 1: creating and constructing data (qualitative and quantitative); 

e). Research Methods 2: analyzing, relating theory (qualitative and quantitative); and 

f). Writing Texts, Reading/Meaning, Communicating. 

Issues of ethics and values permeate each of the core elements of the research process and 

are addressed accordingly. Similarly, the relation between research, policy and practice is a 

recurring theme as is the continuing inter-relation with professionalism. Student guidance on 

ethical issues that need to be addressed in their research is detailed in Appendix 

The Research Proposal /RD1 Unit comprises of a structured research proposal supported 

by a ‘writing frame’ and will comprise of a 4000 – 5000 word narrative assignment. The 

proposal will show: 

• that the area of work chosen is capable of rigorous treatment appropriate to doctoral 

level work; 

• the location of, and argument for, the proposal vis-à-vis the student’s own professional 

position and standpoint/s; and 

• a specific articulation of the proposal in relation to arguments interrelating with the 

x



taught Units. 

The research proposal will form the research degree proposal, accompanied by form RD1, 

for scrutiny by the Faculty Research and Enterprise Committee (FREC) and, thus, form the 

basis of the registration of the student’s research degree programme with FREC. 

The Thesis 

The nature and presentation of, and procedures regarding, the thesis are as described in the 

‘Regulations for Research Degrees of the University’. The purpose of the thesis is to enable 

substantive knowledge relating to professional concerns to be deployed in a methodological 

design that will enable the student to select from, and accomplish, a number of learning 

outcomes as described in para. 19 above, namely to be able to: 

• communicate clearly in speech, writing and other appropriate modes of expression; 

• argue rationally and draw independent conclusions based on a rigorous, analytical and 

critical approach to data, demonstration and argument; 






• demonstrate an ability to design and carry out a study, including practical skills in data 

collection and analysis, such as interviewing, observing, using electronic recording 

equipment, use of open coding, use of computer-assisted packages for analysis; 



• demonstrate a range of employment-related skills in addition to the above, including 

those relating to teaching and assessment ability and the use of e-communications. 

Overall, the students will be expected to show, as appropriate to their professional focus, 

that they can: 

• clearly understand and assimilate relevant literature and have a thorough knowledge 

of, and are able to critically appraise, such literature; 

• relate their reading to key professional issues in their field, including ethical issues, 

and to relate theory to practice in their professional field; 

• discuss and evaluate, with fluency and consistency, evidence and theories drawn 

from a wide range of sources; 

• analyse problems and issues related to their professional contexts of action; 

• critique and reflectively engage with particular topics; 

• conduct and report empirical research properly, as necessary, and with appropriate 

reflexivity; and 

• present and discuss the implications of their analyses with respect to changes in 

policy and practice. 

The Assessment Diet 

The assessment diet comprises five assignments for Phase A of the Programme(s), all of 

which must be completed successfully before candidates can proceed to Phase B of the 

Programme(s). The assessment diet for Phase B of the Programme(s) comprises just two 

elements: the thesis (40000 to 60000 words) and its oral examination (viva voce). All Phase 

A components will be blind double marked on a pass/refer basis based on the threshold pass 

criteria identified in the Unit descriptions(as outlined in the Unit Syllabus Proformas). In the 

xi



event of one marker passing the work whilst the other deeming it a refer, the assignment 

will be marked, again on a pass/refer (blind marking) basis, by a third marker. The thesis 

(normally between 40-60,000 words) will be marked according to criteria set out above in 

accordance with the procedures laid down in the regulations for Research Degrees of the 

University (amended January 2009). As with Phase A assignments, the thesis will be 

assessed with reference to pass criteria (as set out in the Unit Syllabus Proformas). 

The Timing of the Units, time commitment and workload. 

The professional and research units will stretch over 24 months, the research proposal unit 

being undertaken in the latter part of the second year. (Tutorials regarding the proposal 

work and the dissertation will be arranged on a negotiated basis as is normally the case with 

such activities.) Full-time students can complete Phase A in 12 months, but part-time 

students are required to complete Phase A in 24 months. 

Each of the seven teaching weekends will be preceded by and followed up by readings and 

tasks, as determined by tutors responsible for particular topics. Those tutors will then be 

responsible for following weekend work associated with these activities. To exemplify: 

a. reading and tasks will be set by the tutors responsible for work on both the nature, 

creation and construction of data, and contrasting views on professionalism in advance 

of weekend 1; 

b. these readings and tasks will then be the focus for discussion, led by the same tutors, on 

the Friday evening of weekend 1 and during the weekend - and at times, depending on 

their nature, in personal tutorials; 

c. preparatory readings and tasks will be set on weekend 1 by the tutors responsible for 

the topics of research design and forms of professional intervention; these will then be 

followed up on the Saturday and Sunday of weekend 2; 

d. follow up work from weekend 1 will be the focus for discussion for the Friday evening of 

weekend 2 and will be facilitated by the tutors from weekend 1. 

This pattern will pertain throughout the taught part of the course. It is anticipated that the 

student effort required between taught sessions will be in the order of 6 hours weekly. 

Note: units do not equal weekends. 

In addition to the study outlined above – the weekends and intervening readings and tasks 

– students will: 

• attend mandatory tutorials with their Personal Tutor (and/or other tutors as appropriate) 

in Phase A in each period between taught sessions, in a set week (normally), relating to 

weekend follow-up work and assignment writing as appropriate; 

• negotiate further tutorials as circumstances demand; 

• as a group, attend additional, occasional half days, the time to be negotiated with the 

group, for the purposes of student-led activity as members of an Action Learning Set; 

• be invited to attend any other research-related sessions mounted by the Institute of 

Education, including the Institute’s visiting speaker programme. 

xii



26 Programme Structures, Levels, Credits, Awards and Curriculum Map 

including specific progression arrangements for Foundation degrees 

The logic underlying the overall structure and organisation of the programme of study 

The EdD focuses on professionality and associated notions such as quality, accountability, 

empowerment, autonomy, reflective practitionerhood, evidence-based practice and so on. 

Essentially, the degree addresses the relation between such discourses of professionality 

and their practical implication, as well as their implications for development in educational 

settings and policy initiatives. The programme encourages critical reflection on: 

• the nature and meaning of professional values, theirs and practices and their 

implications for the student’s autonomous development as professionals; 

• the identification of individual or group research agendas addressing and testing those 

values. 

There will be a ‘core’ substantive curriculum based on philosophical, sociological and 

practical knowledge relating to practical issues. These will address personal, institutional and 

systemic features of professionality in a wide range of socially-oriented practice. The 

professional focus instigates an interdisciplinary inquiry into the nature of professional 

discourses in education, and is also cross-professional, in that it is relevant to, and draws 

upon, a wide range of professions engaged in education and training. The programme 

actively encourages students to articulate theory and practice in new and imaginative ways 

How structure and content relate to the programme’s aims and deliver the learning 

outcomes 

Research into professionalism and its component features is conducted through a multidisciplinary 

approach, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches and action 

research. Key foci in this area includes reflexivity, theories of management and change and 

the hermeneutics of inquiry as well as addressing broader issues concerning the nature of 

research-based knowledge. 

Phase A constitutes the taught component. This comprises: 

• Professionalism – 40 Credits at Level 8/D; 

• Research Methodology and Methods (1) – 40 credits at Level 8/D; 

• Intervening as Professionals – 40 Credits at Level 8/D; 

• Research Methodology and Methods (2) – 40 Credits at Level 8/D; and 

• Independent Study/Outline Thesis proposal – 40 Credits at Level 8/D. 

Phase B constitutes the supported independent research component. This comprises: 

• The thesis – 340 Credits at Level 8/D. 

Students may elect to be awarded one of five different named outcomes, depending on the 

focus of their thesis. These are: 

• Doctor of Education; 

• Doctor of Education: Early Years Education; 

• Doctor of Education: Health Care Studies; 

• Doctor of Education: Inclusive Education; or 

• Doctor of Education: Leading and Managing Learning Institutions. 

Teaching for each of these named pathways through the programme will be in common, 

xiii



and the outcome will be differentiated through the nature of the assignments which the 

students produce. Students will be awarded their chosen named outcome provided that at 

least 80% (including the thesis) of their written work focuses on a substantive area which 

the examiners and the Board of Examiners agree falls within the named field of study. 

27 Personal Development Planning 

Upon enrolment to the Programme(s) every student is issued with a Personal Learning 

Development Portfolio that has been developed by the Research, Enterprise and 

Development Office (electronic copy available at www.red.mmu.ac.uk). In addition to 

supplying students with project-specific documentation, e.g. copies of the Registration Form 

(RD1); Annual Review, it also allows them to record formal meetings with Personal 

Tutor/Supervisor as well as undertake a skills audit where students can analyse their own 

training and developmental needs. The Personal and Development Portfolio is an integral 

component of the Annual Review. 

Students are strongly encouraged to instigate regular meetings/tutorials with their personal 

tutor/supervisory team so as to ensure that their progression through Phases A & B of the 

Programme(s) is as productive as is possible. 

It is a requirement of the University that students keep specific records of any formal 

meetings or activities that are related to the EdD. Such forms can be used by personal 

tutors/supervisors as mechanisms for monitoring progress. They can also be used as part of 

the Annual Panel Review of Progress. 

At Phase A of the Programme(s) academic development is monitored through the 

mechanism of the five assessed assignments. All assignments are marked by two markers, 

one of whom is the student’s personal tutor. Students are strongly recommended to read 

carefully tutor comments and to discuss with their personal tutor any issues that are raised 

on the Assessment comment sheet so that these might be addressed in order to assist the 

student’s overall academic development. 

At Phase B of the Programme (s) students are allocated a supervisory team ordinarily 

consisting of a Director of Studies [DoS] and a supporting second supervisor. Students are 

encouraged to meet with the supervisory team to review draft writing and discuss their 

progress to set agreed targets for subsequent meetings. As in Phase A, students complete a 

written record of their tutorial meetings which is kept on file for future reference. There is a 

student conference held in June where students are expected to present their research. This 

is intended as an opportunity to celebrate their achievement whilst at the same time 

providing some feedback from an independent reviewer as to their progress. In this process 

the students also have opportunity to discuss any concerns regarding their research and 

supervision. This information is collated and forms a basis for setting targets for the 

following academic year. 

28 Placement Learning 


xiv



professionalism of educators. The Programme’s aim, therefore, is to promote a researchbased 

professional practice in education, but without making the assumption that research 

can determine practice. The Programme(s) seek to place the student in a more critically 

informed relationship with current educational debates, particularly as they impact on 

notions of the ‘professional’. It is intended that such a critical platform will help them come 

to their own conclusions about what the implications are for their practice as professionals, 

and intervene in educational debates appropriately. Thus, we expect them to take the 

programme personally and question: 

• What is the purpose of the EdD in relation to their professional development and that 

of their profession 

• What does professional behaviour mean to them 

• How do they diagnose the nature of the educational discourses with which they 

work 

• What is the most fruitful form of intervention and with whom should it be made 

29 Points of Reference 

Internal 

• University Mission and Strategic Aims 

• Regulations for the Academic Awards of the University 

• University Regulations for Undergraduate or Taught Postgraduate Programmes of Study 

• Academic Regulations and Procedures Handbook 

• Faculty Programme Approval/Review/Modification Report (22 June 2004) 

• University Learning and Teaching Strategy 

• Staff research 

• Departmental Professional/Industrial Advisory Committee 

• Higher Education Awards for the Teaching Profession, UCET, January 2003. 

• Code of Practice and Regulations for Postgraduate Research Programmes of the 

University (January 2009) 

• Approval of Master of Research in Management and Business in the Business School 

(August 2001). 

• MMU Guidance to supervisors 

• MMU Research Students’ Handbook 

• MMU Guidelines for Research Supervisors 

• MMU Guidelines on Good Research Practice 

• MMU Action Plan for implementation of the Special Needs and Disability Act, 2001 

• MMU Guide for Students with Disabilities 

• MMU Guide to Library Services (www.mmu.ac.uk/services/library) 

External 

• QAA Subject Benchmark statement 

• QAA Framework for HE Qualifications 

• QAA Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher 

Education 

• QAA Subject Review report 

xv



• External examiner reports 

• Joint Research Councils/AHRB joint statement on postgraduate skills (September 2002) 

• QCA Framework for Higher Education Qualification in England, Wales and Northern 

Ireland. 

• QAA Academic Standards for Education Studies 

This Programme Specification provides a concise summary of the main features of a 

Programme and the learning outcomes that a typical student might reasonably be expected 

to achieve and demonstrate if s/he take full advantage of the learning opportunities 

provided. More detailed information on the learning outcomes, curriculum content, 

teaching/learning, assessment methods for each unit and on the Programme’s relationship 

to QAA Subject Benchmark Statements may be found in the definitive document and student 

handbook for the Programme. The accuracy of the information in this document is reviewed 

periodically by the University and may be subject to verification by the Quality Assurance 

Agency for Higher Education. 

xvi



PART TWO 

PROGRAMME REGULATIONS 

1 ADMISSION REGULATIONS 

1.1 Standard Entry Requirements 

1.1.1 Entry to Year 1 

Admission to the Doctor of Education Programme(s) would normally require a good 

Honours degree (or equivalent) and a Masters Degree in a relevant subject area 

(usually within the five year period prior to entry). Students from overseas are 

required to have achieved the Cambridge IELTS qualification at level 7 or above, 

unless special arrangements are made for them to enroll for a preliminary English 

language course on arrival at MMU before embarking on the Doctor of Education 

Programme(s). 

1.1.2 Entry to Subsequent Years (full-time and part-time programmes) 

Doctor of Education students would normally be required to have passed all the 

assessments for all Units or to have received exemption, other than in the 

circumstances allowed for in 3.4.2 below. 

1.1.3 Relationship between the EdD and the Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education 

The Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education is an alternative award 

available to students who complete Phase A of the Programme(s) with AP(E)L for no 

more than two of the five units in Phase A and who, for whatever reason, either do 

not wish to continue in to Phase B, or begin Phase B and subsequently withdraw. 

Students who, in the opinion of the Programme(s) tutorial team, are unlikely to 

achieve the required standard and/or the necessary breadth of study required for the 

EdD will be counselled by the Programme(s) Leader(s) to exit with this award on 

satisfactory completion of Phase A. 

1.2 Admission with Exemption 

No exemption will be available for the Thesis phase (Phase B) of the Programme(s). 

See below with admission with specific credit for Phase A of the Programme. 

1.3 Admission with Specific Credit 

Students who have completed Units or followed a programme of study and passed 

assessments and obtained credits that is substantially equivalent to the Unit of study 

on the EdD may, at the discretion of the Research Degrees Programme subcommittee, 

be admitted with credit for those Units where equivalence has been 

established and be deemed to have passed those Units of the Programme(s). 

Normally a student will not be allowed specific credit amounting to more than the 

total credit for Phase A of the Programme(s). Note: students who are admitted with 

specific credit will still be expected to conform with the university regulation 12.9.3 

1



1.4 Accreditation of Prior (Experiential) Learning (AP(E)L) 

Students who have considerable prior experience of research activity gained through 

employment on funded research projects in universities or recognised research 

centres may, at the discretion of the Research Degrees Programme sub-committee, 

be admitted with (additional) prior credit. The maximum prior credit that can be 

allocated to any student shall not normally amount to more than the total credit for 

Phase A of the Programme(s) (see 1.2 above). 

Criteria for the award of credit are the Unit Learning Outcomes for the five Phase A 

Units of the Programme(s). The Research Degrees Programme sub-committee shall 

consider the award of credit for each Unit. The applicant will be required to submit a 

500-word statement indicating how their prior experience meets these criteria, 

together with any publications or unpublished reports of which s/he was the author 

or co-author, indicating the percentage of contribution in the case of co-authorship. 

References will also be required from employers and/or others who are in a position 

to vouch for the quality of the applicant’s prior research practice, and these 

references should outline the extent to which this prior research practice meets the 

requirements of the Unit criteria for which credit is being sought. 

2 CURRICULUM DESIGN AND ORGANISATION 

2.1 Curriculum Design Overview 

Provide a descriptive overview of how the programme design addressed the 

following overarching themes: 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

Flexibility 

Diversity 

Inclusivity 

Employability 

Quality Enhancement 

Research, Scholarship and Reflective Practice 

2.1.1 Broad Research Training 

Students will be instructed in the main research methods and resulting types of data 

collection which are used by professional researchers from the specialisms which 

characterise the field. These will include an appreciation of the potential and 

relevance of a variety of methods and approaches within the context of the aims of 

the degree programme, and will focus on the methodologies and approaches of 

intervening through action to improve action. It follows that the Programme(s) 

focus(e)s on the meaning and practice of professional behaviour that addresses 

educational ends. Central concerns are the meaning, criticism, or promotion of 

terms such as education, quality, accountability, empowerment, reflective 

practitioner-hood, autonomy, and evidence-based practice. There is a core 

substantive curriculum surrounding these concerns that draws variously on the 

disciplines of philosophy, sociology and cultural theory. Both qualitative and 

quantitative methods are covered, as well as the way these may be deployed in 

relation to different types of research questions or within separate phases of a 

project. Students will be trained to be able to distinguish and assess the merits of: 

questionnaires, interviews, participant observation, action research, textual and 

2



discourse techniques, simulation and secondary data processing. The training will 

also cover specific awareness of the current IT and internet-based software packages 

for ordering processing both qualitative and quantitative data. Understanding the 

ethical dimensions and associated epistemological issues of the research process is 

also included as are the relationships that exist between all types of respondents and 

stakeholders, as well as the problems associated with access, confidentiality and 

publishing. Instruction is also provided in the techniques of research project 

management as well as instruction in how to present data and disseminate results to 

different audiences throughout a research project. Students also learn how to relate 

the results of data analysis to other research in Education and the wider Social 

Sciences, and how to judge what thereby constitutes a contribution to knowledge. 

2.1.2 Progression, flexibility, balance, coherence and integrity 

The structure of the programme provides students with a rigorous, critical overview 

of a range of aspects relating to research within the Social Sciences as they impinge 

on issues relating to professionalism, professional practice and intervening in 

professional practice. The EdD provides the essential knowledge and skills to prepare 

students for thesis phase of their programme of study. The programme aims to 

support students and has been designed to help deliver and consolidate a student’s 

knowledge around a number of phased assessments. Students are provided with a 

Personal Tutor from the commencement of the programme, who advises on all 

aspects of the programme(s). The Personal Tutor is responsible for supervising the 

preparation of the thesis proposal. Programme tutors provide feedback on 

assignments and additional support when required. An important element of the 

learning strategy is students’ mutual support through Action Learning Sets. The EdD 

thesis is the culmination of the programme and takes the form of a 40000 to 60000 

word research thesis. The thesis will be expected to follow the Guidelines for 

Research Degrees of the University. Students are expected to demonstrate the 

descriptors outlined in the QAA Framework for higher education qualifications (see 

section 2.2.1 below). 

2.1.3 Management of a student’s passage through the programme 

2.1.4 Skills 

The overall responsibility for a student’s passage through the EdD programme(s) will 

rest with the Programme Leader(s) and a team of experienced researchers who 

share with her responsibility for teaching and assessment. The student’s Personal 

Tutor is kept informed of progress in the assessed units and, normally, with the 

additional supervisor(s), takes over responsibility for supervising the EdD thesis as 

the Director of Studies. The supervisory team will include a tutor who is a specialist 

in the substantive area of the students research programme (which may lead to the 

award of a named attribution, see paragraph 23, PS1 above). 

The skills students will be expected to acquire are technical, behavioural and 

cognitive. Technical skills are both general (for example, project management and 

information technology) and specific (the use of computer packages such as SPSS). 

Students will also develop skills within each unit, through practical workshop 

sessions, as well as cognitive skills associated with critical thinking, appraising as well 

as skills associated to particular methodologies. Writing skills necessary for the thesis 

3



are developed through the five 4000 - 5000 word written assignments required in 

Phase A of the Programme(s). 

Behavioral skills include the practical application of problem solving, taking action, 

intervening in a professional setting, acting as a change agent, and becoming a 

better professional. 

Clearly these technical, behavioural and cognitive skills are interpenetrated. 

A skills audit for all higher degrees students is compulsory for all research degree 

students at the commencement of their studies together with a requirement for them 

to review these on an annual basis as part of the Annual Academic Monitoring and 

Evaluation Review procedures (see Research Degree Students’ Handbook, Section 

11). 

2.2 Relationship to Subject Benchmark Statement(s) 

The thesis is required to demonstrate potential to meet Doctoral level criteria over an 

more extended period of study. The scheme has been designed to meet the Joint 

Research Councils/AHRB joint statement on postgraduate skills (September 2002) 

Education. 

2.3 Assessment Criteria for Marking Summative Assessments 

Descriptor for qualifications at Doctoral (D) level: Doctoral degree 

Doctorates are awarded to students who have demonstrated: 

i) the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or 

other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront 

of the discipline, and merit publication; 

ii) a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge 

which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice; 

iii) the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the 

generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the 

discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems; 

iv) a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced 

academic enquiry. 

Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to: 

a) make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in the 

absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions 

clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences; 

b) continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an 

advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, 

ideas, or approaches; 

4



and will have: 

c) the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the 

exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and 

unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments. 

Programme Aims 

The programme of study aims to enable successful students to develop and 

demonstrate transferable intellectual skills, in particular the ability to: 

• communicate clearly in speech, writing and other appropriate modes of 

expression; 

• argue rationally and draw independent conclusions based on a rigorous, 

analytical and critical approach to data, demonstration and argument; 






• demonstrate an ability to design and carry out a study, including practical skills in 

data collection and analysis, such as interviewing, observing, using electronic 

recording equipment, use of open coding, use of computer-assisted packages for 

analysis; 



• demonstrate a range of employment-related skills in addition to the above, 

including those relating to teaching and assessment ability and the use of e- 

communications. 

2.3.1 Generic Criteria 

These have been mapped against the QAA Framework (M level) and the joint 

Research Councils/AHRB joint statement (September 2002) and include: 

• the systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current 

problems and/or new insights relating to educational policy and research, in the 

UK and internationally; 

• a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research; 

• a conceptual understanding of their substantive field of enquiry; 

• originality in the application of knowledge and practical understanding of how 

educational knowledge is created and interpreted; 

• a critical evaluation of a body of literature relevant to their own research; and 

• an ability to evaluate methodologies and demonstrate reflexivity in the design 

and conduct of their research 

2.3.2 Programme Specific Criteria 

The Programme-Specific Descriptors are taken from the Programme Aims in section 

20 of the Programme Specification (PS1), namely: 

5



• the ability to present and defend arguments based on theories, concepts and 

empirical evidence in matters relating to educational research; 

• the ability to demonstrate the capacity for reflective and analytical thought; 

• the ability to draw together relevant concepts and theories from a range of social 

science disciplines in order to gain a better understanding of particular problems 

and issues arising from educational research; 

• the ability to incorporate theoretical, conceptual and empirical data and forms of 

analysis in a holistic process of educational research; 

• the ability to engage reflexively with issues of research design and methodology; 

• the ability to negotiate entry to a field of inquiry; 

• the ability to conduct small scale empirical studies; 

• the ability to undertake a range of data collection activities; 

• the ability to undertake a range of approaches to data analysis; and 

• the ability to present small scale research reports both in writing (including 

electronic publishing) and orally. 

2.4 Arrangements for Marking of Summative Assessments 

Anonymous assessment of student work is not possible within the structure of tutor 

support mechanisms of the taught element of the Programme. In order to ensure a 

fair and consistent assessment process, at Phase A of the EdD programme(s) 

students’ work is assessed by two markers who work independently (marking blind) 

to assess on a pass/refer basis in the first instance. One of the assessors will be the 

student’s Personal Tutor. Where they are not in agreement the Programme(s) 

Leader(s) will invite a third marker to give an opinion and will take the final decision 

on the basis of the three separate assessments. 

In Phase B of the Programme students are allocated a supervisory team ordinarily 

consisting of a Director of Studies [DoS] and a supporting second supervisor. 

Students are encouraged to meet with the supervisory team to review draft writing 

and discuss their progress to set agreed targets for subsequent meetings. As in 

Phase A, students complete a written record of their tutorial meetings which is kept 

on file for future reference. There is a student conference held in June where 

students are expected to present their research. This is intended as an opportunity to 

celebrate their achievement whilst at the same time providing some feedback from 

an independent reviewer as to their progress. In this process the students also have 

opportunity to discuss any concerns regarding their research and supervision. This 

information is collated and forms a basis for setting target for the following academic 

year. 

2.5 Arrangements for the Quality Management of Placement Learning 

The quality management of placement learning is undertaken by the mechanism of 

the Annual Panel Review of Progress as described below: 

Annual Panel Review of Progress (Research Students’ Conference) (Phase B) 

The annual panel review for post-graduate research degree students aims to monitor 

their progress. It is based upon the university procedures for Annual Academic 

Monitoring and Evaluation Review procedures outlined in section 11 of the Research 

Students’ Handbook, but extends these to provide an opportunity for a formal 

presentation of each student’s work to a panel of senior academics in the Institute of 

6



Education and to peers. This two-day event is organised as a mini-conference. 

Students present a part of their work to date, which will normally be material in 

preparation for their thesis such as an account of preliminary research, a critical 

reflection on their methodological framework and methods or a review of the 

literature in the areas in which they will be working. The timing of this event is such 

that it enables both full-time and part-time students to participate and allows the 

majority of students to try out ideas developed from the formal programme of 

research training. Tutor feedback on the presentation together with the outcomes of 

the student’s Progress Review is formalised in the completion of the RDAAMER form 

after the Annual Panel Review. Students are informed about the University’s generic 

research training programme but are not required to attend it as Phase A of the EdD 

Programme(s) provide the appropriate research training benchmarked against the 

Joint Research Councils/AHRB joint statement on postgraduate skills (September 

2002). 

2.6 Academic Partnership Activity 

Not applicable at this point in time but will continue to be reviewed in light of 

developments within the faculty. 

2.7 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Links 

There are no specific Professional or Statutory Body expectations which relate to the 

EdD, although the ESRC Research Training Guidelines indicate an approval of 

Professional Doctorates without providing any specific training guidelines. The EdD 

Programme(s) have, therefore, taken account of the Joint Research Councils/AHRB 

joint statement on postgraduate skills (September 2002). 

2.8 Flexible and Distributed Learning (including e-learning) 

In addition to full library and on site ICT facilities, students have access to WebCT to 

support their learning. The students have access to e-learning resources via the 

library Web page. In advance of the taught sessions at Phase A of the programme(s) 

students are sent preparatory reading material most of which is digitised for 

electronic access. The material is used as a basis for seminar work in Action Learning 

Sets as well as being capitalised upon during teaching sessions. Additional reading 

material is available electronically. The Programme team works in close conjunction 

with the library to promote student use of e-learning resources. This includes 

discussion pages and communication forums between staff and students. The site is 

regularly monitored and updated. Lecture notes, handouts and other relevant 

documentation are made available to students through the site. Students are also 

encouraged to exchange work in progress both amongst the whole cohort and within 

their Action Learning Sets. 

3 ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS 

3.1 Statement on MMU Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate or 

Postgraduate Programmes of Study 

Phase A of the Doctor of Education Programmes conform to the Regulations for 

Taught Postgraduate Programmes of Study and Phase B conform to the Code of 

Practice and Regulations for Postgraduate Research Programmes of the University 

7



(revised January 2009), with the exception of Regulation E, 1.2 (all elements of 

summative assessment to be marked out of 100). 

3.2 Programme-specific Regulations 

3.2.1 Student Attendance and absence 

It shall be the responsibility of students to attend the programme of study, to attend 

any specified examinations and to submit work for assessment as specified in the 

programme regulations, and to provide the examiners in advance of the meeting 

with any relevant information on personal circumstances which may have affected 

their attendance or performance and which they wish the examiners to take into 

account. The University’s Regulations for Student Attendance and Absence shall 

apply in respect thereof. 

If a student fails to submit work for assessment without good cause, or to attend an 

exceptional examination, the examiners shall have the authority to deem the student 

to have failed the assessments concerned. 

If a student fails without good cause to provide the examiners in advance of the their 

meeting with information about any personal circumstances that may have affected 

attendance at or performance in assessments, anybody authorized by the Academic 

Board to consider requests for the examiners’ decisions(s) to be reviewed shall be 

empowered to reject any such request on those grounds. 

3.2.2 Assessment Strategy 

The purpose of assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have 

fulfilled the objectives of the programme, in accordance with the Joint Research 

Councils/AHRB joint statement on postgraduate skills (September 2002), by 

acquiring the skills and knowledge necessary to undertake a doctoral level work in 

the field of educational research. 

3.2.3 Assessment Principles 

Assessment regulations are based on a programme structure of 5 units, each worth 

40 Credits and a thesis worth 340 Credits, to achieve a total of 540 Level 8/D Level 

Credits. 

Each Unit is given an equal weighting of approximately 8% giving an aggregate total 

of approximately 40% and a further 60% weighting approximately is attached to the 

thesis element of the award. 

Units will be assessed individually involving an assessment diet of written 

assignments within the range of 4000 to 5000 words per assignment. 

The elements of assessment are: 

• course work completion of practical tasks and reading; 

• tutor assessment; 

• Research Degree Registration proposal; and 

• the thesis assessment and viva voce examination. 

8



The assignments and related assessment sheets and record sheets are contained in 

the Programme(s) Handbook. 

All assessed work (Phase A) shall normally be returned to the student within four 

weeks of submission. 

Assessment of the Thesis: The 40000 to 60000 word assignment is assessed against 

specific EdD Thesis Criteria which are provided as guidelines for the Viva Voce 

Examination Board. Examiners will also have available to them all the written 

assignments from the candidate’s Phase A of the Programme(s). Examiners for the 

Thesis Phase of the award (Phase B) will be appointed in accordance with Regulation 

12.8 of the Regulations for Research Degrees of the University (revised January 

2009). 

3.2.4 Assessment Procedures 

The award of the Doctor of Education/ Doctor of Education: Early Years Education/ 

Doctor of Education: Health Care Studies/Doctor of Education: Inclusive Education/ 

Doctor of Education: Leading and Managing Learning Institutions will be based on 

successful completion of all elements of assessment, at pass standard. The elements 

are: 

1. all components of all the assignments for all 5 Units in Phase A 

2. the thesis, comprising 40000 to 60000 words. 

Students’ work is assessed by two markers (marking blind) on a pass/refer basis in 

the first instance. One of the assessors will be the student’s Personal Tutor (Phase 

A). Where they are not in agreement the Programme(s) Leader(s) will invite a third 

marker to give an opinion and will take the final decision on the basis of the three 

separate assessments. 

Students are permitted to be reassessed on any component of any Unit assignments, 

after further individual tuition, if they fail to achieve a pass standard. Students will 

normally be expected to achieve a pass standard on the second attempt and, if they 

fail to do so may only proceed with the Programme(s) with the agreement of the 

Examination Board. 

Students who, in the judgment of the Viva Voce Examination Board, fail to meet the 

required Doctoral level in the thesis and/or the Viva Voce Examination may proceed 

in accordance with Regulation 12.36 of the Regulations for Research Degrees of the 

University (revised January 2009). 

3.2.5 Stage Progressions and Awards 

Registration Procedures 

All candidates who have been accepted for the EdD Programme(s) of the Institute of 

Education will be enrolled on the Programme(s). On successful completion of the 5 

assessment elements of Phase A of the Programme(s) they will be required to submit 

for approval their Research Degree Programme Proposal to the Faculty Research and 

Enterprise Committee in accordance with regulation 12.9 of the Regulations for 

Research Degrees of the University (revised January 2009) and the modification to 

9



that Regulation approved by FREC at the time (see Faculty Research and Enterprise 

Committee Research Degree Processes and Procedures for detail). On the approval 

of FREC the student will be registered on a Research Degree programme. 

Registration with FREC should normally be completed within 6 months of the 

commencement of Phase B of the Programme(s). 

Students who apply for the EdD Programme(s) must complete the University 

application form and have a formal interview. Overseas students will be interviewed 

by telephone and their ability to conduct an interview on this basis will provide 

additional evidence of their competence in English. 

Eligibility to Proceed to the Thesis Stage of the Programme 

Before being allowed to progress to the Thesis stage of the Programme(s), 

candidates must complete satisfactorily all 5 Units of the taught programme of study 

(Phase A) and present their work to the Progression Board for approval. Students 

who fail to meet the approved standard at the end of Year Two may be permitted 

one further year of study, with the recommendation of the Progression Board and 

the approval of the Examination Board, in order to achieve the required standard. In 

such cases the Examination Board will ‘refer’ the appropriate assignment(s) back to 

the student for one further attempt to achieve the required standard. Students who 

have their work referred back to them by the Examination Board must still complete 

the programme(s) within the maximum time period for their mode of study. Students 

who have completed Phase A satisfactorily, including Assignment 5, will normally 

proceed to registering their research programme with the Faculty Research and 

Enterprise Committee (FREC). This process should be completed within six months 

on enrolling on Phase B of the Programme(s). In order to register their research 

programme with FREC students will present their Assignment 5 research proposal 

together with Form RD1 to FREC for scrutiny and registration. Students following the 

EdD Programme(s) will not be required to submit an additional 1000 word research 

degree proposal (except in the circumstances in 3.4.3 below). 

The relationship between ‘Preparing a research proposal’ (Unit 5) and ‘Preparing a 

research degree registration proposal’ (RD1) 

In the event of a student requiring one further year of study to achieve the required 

standard in Phase A to progress to Phase B (see 3.4.2.above), and where the 

Examination Board has not referred Assignment 5 back to the student, the student 

will be required to ‘update’ Assignment 5 in order that FREC can approve the RD1, by 

providing an additional 1000 word research degree registration proposal (RD1) (as 

for MPhil/PhD candidates) which indicates how the Assignment 5 proposal has been 

updated. 

The Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education 

Students who do not demonstrate to the Examination Board their ability to reach the 

standard required for the Doctor of Education Programme(s) at the end of Phase A 

will not be permitted to continue study for the EdD award. Students who opt to leave 

the Programme(s) at the end of Phase A may be awarded the Master of Arts: 

Professional Studies in Education, provided they have achieved 200 level D Credits 

(ie, they have successfully completed all five assignments of Phase A of the 

Programme(s)). 

10



3.2.6 Eligibility for the Award of Doctor of Education /Doctor of Education: Early Years 

Education/Doctor of Education: Health Care Studies/Doctor of Education: Inclusive 

Education/Doctor of Education: Leading and Managing Learning Institutions 

There are five possible named outcome awards related to this programme of study: 

• Doctor of Education; 

• Doctor of Education: Early Years Education; 

• Doctor of Education: Health Care Studies; 

• Doctor of Education: Inclusive Education; or 

• Doctor of Education: Leading and Managing Learning Institutions. 

Candidates will enrol on the Doctor of Education Programme. They may elect to be 

registered for the award of Doctor of Education, or for the award of Doctor of 

Education with one of the four named awards outcomes listed above. Candidates 

who register for the award of Doctor of Education with a named award outcome will 

receive that named award outcome if, in the opinion of the internal and external 

examiners, their thesis (comprising 60% of their written work) focuses on an area of 

professional policy and/or practice within the substantive area indicated by the 

named award title and they have passed all the elements of the assessment and who 

have satisfied the Board of Examiners that they have achieved the programme 

objectives for the award at Doctoral Level, and the examiners recommend the 

candidate for the award of Doctor of Education: Early Years Education or Doctor of 

Education: Health Care Studies or Doctor of Education: Inclusive Education or Doctor 

of Education: Leading and Managing Learning Institutions to the Faculty Research 

and Enterprise Degrees Sub-committee (FREC) of the Academic Board Research and 

Enterprise Committee. The named award title will normally be reflected in the title of 

the thesis approved by FREC through the RD1 process. However, it is possible that, 

during Phase B of the programme of study, the candidate may change the focus of 

their research programme to a different attribution. In this event the candidate, 

through their Director of Studies, will notify FREC of the changes to the title of their 

thesis. If, in the opinion of the examiners, a candidate has achieved the standard 

required for the award of the degree of Doctor of Education but his/her thesis does 

not have sufficient focus on an area of professional policy and/or practice within the 

substantive area indicated by his/her chosen award title, the examiners may 

recommend the award of the degree of Doctor of Education without a named award 

title. 

Candidates who are awarded the EdD achieve success at Doctoral level. FREC has 

already drawn up a procedure for assessment of the EdD Thesis to be the equivalent 

of Ph D standards. 

In the case of a candidate whose Thesis and/or Viva Voce Examination fails to 

achieve the pass level, the Board of Examiners may recommend to RDSC (in 

accordance with Regulation 12.36 of the Regulations for Research Degrees of the 

University (revised January 2009)) that: 

• the candidate be offered the opportunity to re-submit the work entirely; or 

• the candidate be offered the opportunity to re-work designated major sections of 

the work before re-submitting it for examination; or 

• the candidate be offered the opportunity to re-work designated minor elements 

of the work before re-submitting it for examination; or 

• be awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy (MPhil); or 

11



• be awarded the degree of Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education. 

In the event that the Board of Examiners judge that the work presented for 

examination at the Viva Voce fails to meet the required standard for the award of 

MPhil, the Board of Examiners may recommend to RDSC that the candidate be 

awarded the degree of Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education. 

In the event of a candidate failing to complete Phase B of the programme of study, 

for whatever reason, the Programme Committee may request that RDSC award the 

candidate the degree of Master of Arts: Professional Studies in Education. 

A candidate who is offered to re-submit his/her Thesis may do so only once, and the 

work must normally be re-submitted within one month of the date of which the 

result of the first submission is communicated to the candidate for minor alterations 

or within twelve months for major alterations. 

A candidate who is offered the opportunity to re-submit his/her Thesis will be 

supplied with a written critique of the chief failings in their original submission. 

Viva Voce Examinations (Phase A) 

In exceptional circumstances, the Board of Examiners may require a candidate to 

submit him/herself to a viva voce examination in order to determine the 

recommendation of the award to be made. In such cases, the composition of the 

viva voce panel shall be approved by FREC, but will normally comprise: 

• two independent internal examiners who have not been involved in the 

assessment of the candidate’s work prior to the establishment of the viva 

voce panel 

• the Head of the Research Degree Programme of the Institute (or his or her 

nominee) who will act as Chair 

Viva Voce examinations (Phase B) (see Regulation 12.31 of the Regulations for 

Research Degrees of the University (revised January 2009)) 

All candidates for the award of EdD will normally be required to be examined orally 

on their programme of study and on the field of study in which their work lies. The 

oral examination will be conducted by a Viva Voce Examination Board appointed by 

the RDSC. The Viva Voce Examination Board will normally comprise: 

• one External Examiner (or two in the case of the candidate being a member 

of staff of Manchester Metropolitan University); or 

• two independent internal examiners (or one in the case of the candidate 

being a member of staff of Manchester Metropolitan University). 

The first named internal examiner shall act as Chair of the examination. 

Members of the candidate’s supervisory team and/or students registered for the 

award of EdD may observe the Viva Voce examination with the approval of the 

candidate but they may take no part in the proceedings. 

After the Viva Voce Examination, the examiners may recommend to RDSC that: 

12



• the candidate be awarded the degree with the appropriate designation; or 

• the candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments to the 

thesis; or 

• the candidate be required to undertake major amendments; or 

• the candidate be required to resubmit the thesis for re-examination; or 

• the candidate be awarded the degree of MPhil; 

• the candidate be awarded the degree of MA: Professional Studies in 

Education; or 

• the candidate be not awarded the degree and be not permitted to be reexamined. 

3.2.7 Re-Assessment 

Subject to the provisions of the University Regulations, the re-assessment of a 

student shall be at the discretion of the Progression Board and/or the Board of 

Examiners (Phase A) or on the recommendation by the Viva Voce Examination Board 

to RDSC (Phase B). The Progression Board nor Board of Examiners nor the Viva 

Voce Examination Board shall not unreasonably withhold permission and/or 

recommendation for a student to be re-assessed in accordance with these 

Programme regulations. 

A candidate for re-assessment may not demand re-assessment in elements which 

are no longer current in the programme. The Progression Board or the Board of 

Examiners may, at its discretion, make such special arrangements as it deems 

appropriate in cases where it is not practicable for students to be re-assessed in the 

same elements and by the same methods as at the first attempt. 

3.2.8 Special Circumstances 

If it is established to the satisfaction of the Progression Board or Board of Examiners 

(as appropriate) that a student’s absence, failure to submit work or poor 

performance in all or part of an assessment for an award was due to illness or other 

cause found valid on production of acceptable evidence, the Board shall take action 

as below: 

A student whose case falls under this Regulation has the right to be re-assessed as if 

for the first time in any or all of the elements of the assessment, as specified by the 

Progression Board or the Board of Examiners (as appropriate). If an assessment 

affected by illness was itself a second attempt the student shall be permitted to re-sit 

as if for the second time. 

Where the Board of Examiners is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of the 

student’s achievement, or this evidence is subsequently obtained, the student may 

be recommended for approval of completion of Phase A of the Programme. In order 

to reach a decision a Board of Examiners may assess the candidate by whatever 

means it considers appropriate. Where the RDSC feel that there is just cause to 

believe that an oral examination at the end of Phase B of the programme would 

place the candidate at a serious disadvantage an alternative form of examination 

may be approved (see regulation12.31.1 of the Regulations for Research Degrees of 

the University (revised January 2009)). In the case of Phase B a Posthumous award 

may be recommended to the RDSC in accordance with Regulation 12.34 of the 

Regulations for Research Degrees of the University (revised January 2009). 

13



3.2.9 Disability 

In compliance with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001), if a 

student is unable, through disability, to be assessed by the normal methods, the 

Board of Examiners will vary the methods as appropriate, bearing in mind the 

objectives of the programme and the need to assess the student on equal terms with 

other students. The Chairperson of the relevant Board of Examiners may vary the 

methods of assessment on the Board’s behalf where circumstances make it desirable 

that he/she should do so. 

3.2.10 The Period of Registration 

The programme of study for the awards will normally be completed within the 

following periods. 

Full-time Programme: 

Doctor of Education Minimum 42 calendar months, maximum 60 

calendar months, 540 Level 8/ D Level Credits, 

all Units plus the thesis. 

Master of Arts Minimum 16 calendar months, maximum 24 

calendar months, 200 Level 8/D Level Credits. 

Part-time Programme: 

Doctor of Education Minimum 54 calendar months, maximum 90 

calendar months, 540 Level 8/ D Level Credits, 

all Units plus the thesis. 

Master of Arts Minimum 21 calendar months, maximum 36 

calendar months, 200 Level 8/D Level Credits. 

In exceptional circumstances and at the discretion of the Progression Board or the 

Board of Examiners in respect of Phase A of the Programme or FREC in respect of 

Phase B of the Programme, a student may be allowed to extend the time for 

completion of the programme to a date that the Board shall prescribe in order to 

complete deferred assessments, examinations, or the thesis. However, such an 

extension for the completion of outstanding assessments, examinations or the thesis 

shall not normally be granted beyond the maximum period of registration for the 

programme – ie 60 months for the full-time programme, 90 months for the part-time 

programme, although a student who has successfully achieved approved registration 

for the thesis element of the award by FREC may apply to FREC for an extension of 

up to twelve months of their programme of study up to a maximum of twenty four 

months extension. 

External Examiners (Phase A) 

At least one external examiner shall be nominated by the Faculty Research and 

Enterprise Committee for approval by the RDSC. Once their nomination has been 

approved the External Examiners shall be appointed by letter from the Vice- 

14



Chancellor or the Academic Director. External Examiners’ normal term of office will 

be normally mean four calendar years. 

The Chairman of the Board of Examiners may invite one of the External Examiners to 

accept the appointment of Chief External Examiner. 

The role of the External Examiners shall be to ensure that justice is done to the 

individual student, that the standard of the University’s awards is maintained and to 

ensure that the assessments with which they are concerned are carried out in 

accordance with the University’s Regulations and these programme regulations. 

Duties of the External Examiners 

The External Examiners shall be required to attend meetings of the Board of 

Examiners at which decisions on recommendations for awards in respect of 

assessments with which they are involved are made and to ensure those 

recommendations are reached by means according to the University’s Regulations, 

these programme regulations are normal practice in higher education. 

The External Examiners shall participate as required in reviews of decisions about 

individual students’ awards. 

The External Examiners shall report annually to the RDSC, through arrangements 

made by the RDSC, on the conduct of assessments just concluded and on, inter alia, 

the following matters related to assessment: 

a. the overall performance of the students in relation to their peers on comparable 

programmes; 

b. the strengths and weaknesses of students; 

c. the quality of knowledge and skills demonstrated by the students; 

d. the structure, organization, design and marking of all assessments; 

e. the quality of teaching as indicated by student performance; 

f. the lessons of the assessments for the curriculum, syllabus, and teaching 

methods of the programme; and 

g. any other matters they may deem appropriate arising from the assessments and 

such other matters as they may be specifically requested to report on. 

The External Examiners shall have the authority to report direct to the Chairman of 

the RDSC of the University if they are concerned about standards of assessment and 

performance, particularly where they consider that assessments are being conducted 

in a way that jeopardises either the fair treatment of individual students or the 

standard of the University’s awards. 

As part of their duties, the External Examiners shall: 

a. approve the form and content of the proposed examinations papers, course 

work and other assessments counting towards the award, in order to ensure 

that all students will be assessed fairly in relation to the programme syllabus 

and regulations and in such a way that the External Examiners will be able to 

judge whether they have fulfilled the objectives of the programme and 

reached the required standard; 

15



b. see the work of all students proposed for the highest available category of the 

award and for failure, and samples of the work of students proposed for each 

category of award, in order to ensure that each student is fairly placed in 

relation to the rest of the cohort; and 

c. attend examiners’ meetings. 

The External Examiners shall have the right to: 

a. have access to all assessed work of students in whose assessments they are 

involved; 

b. moderate the assessments carried out by the internal examiners; 

c. conduct a viva voce examination of any candidate in accordance with the 

Assessment and Reassessment provisions of the University’s Regulations; and 

d. be consulted about any proposed changes to the approved assessment 

regulations which will directly affect students currently on the programme. 

No recommendation by the Board of Examiners for the conferment of an award will 

be valid without the written consent of the External Examiners. 

On any matter which the External Examiners declare to be a matter of principle, the 

decision of the External Examiners shall either be accepted as final by the Board of 

Examiners, or upon direction from the Chairman of the Board, be referred to the 

RDSC, as shall any unresolved disagreement between the External Examiners. 

Internal and External Examiners (Phase B) 

Internal and External examiners for Phase B (the thesis) of the Programme shall be 

appointed and act in accordance with Regulation 12.28 of the Regulations for 

Research Degrees of the University (2009). 

3.2.11 Reconsideration of Decisions 

The RDSC may, in the following circumstances, require the Board of Examiners to 

reconsider its decision(s); 

a. if a candidate requests such a reconsideration and establishes to the 

satisfaction of the RDSC that his or her performance in the assessment was 

adversely affected by illness or other factors which he or she was unable, or 

for valid reasons, unwilling, to divulge before the Board of Examiners reached 

its decision. The candidate’s request must be supported by medical 

certificates or other documentary evidence acceptable to the RDSC; or 

b. if the RDSC is satisfied on evidence produced by a candidate or any other 

person that there has been a material administrative error, or that the 

assessments were not conducted in accordance with the regulations for the 

programme, or that some other material irregularity relevant to the 

assessments has occurred. 

A copy of such procedures as the RDSC may establish under the University’s 

Regulations for the Review of Decisions shall be issued to students at the 

commencement of the programme. 

16



3.2.12 Student Attendance and Absence 

It shall be the responsibility of students to attend the programme of study, to attend 

any specified examinations and to submit work for assessment as specified in the 

programme regulations, and to provide the examiners in advance of the meeting 

with any relevant information on personal circumstances which may have affected 

their attendance or performance and which they wish the examiners to take into 

account. The University’s Regulations for Student Attendance and Absence shall 

apply in respect thereof. 

If a student fails to submit work for assessment without good cause, or to attend an 

exceptional examination, the examiners shall have the authority to deem the student 

to have failed the assessments concerned. 

If a student fails without good cause to provide the examiners in advance of the their 

meeting with information about any personal circumstances that may have affected 

attendance at or performance in assessments, anybody authorized by the RDSC to 

consider requests for the examiners’ decisions(s) to be reviewed shall be empowered 

to reject any such request on those grounds. 

3.2.13 Expulsion of Students for Academic Reasons 

If the internal examiners suspect that a student has plagiarized from the Internet or 

from any other source, or has gained an unfair advantage, then the internal 

examiners will report this matter to the Programme Leader(s) and the Head of the 

Research Degree Programme in the Institute of Education. The Programme 

Leader(s) and the Head of the Research Degree Programme in the Institute of 

Education will request an interview with the student to investigate the circumstances. 

Such a request does not constitute an accusation of plagiarism as it may be that a 

student has produced an exceptional piece of work. If the Programme Leader(s) and 

the Head of the Research Degree Programme are not satisfied with the student's 

response then they may require the student to sit a written examination and/or 

specify (an) appropriate written task(s). If the internal examiners are satisfied with 

the student’s performance at the written examination and/or written task(s) both the 

original coursework and the additional examination paper and/or written task(s) will 

be deemed to have contributed to the award of credit. 

If a student is found to have cheated, plagiarized or attempted to gain an unfair 

advantage, the examiners shall have the authority to deem the student to have failed 

part or all of the assessments and the authority to determine whether or not the 

student shall be permitted to be reassessed. Additionally, such a student may be 

recommended for expulsion for academic reasons in accordance with the relevant 

provisions of the University’s Regulations. 

4 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT AND STUDENT SUPPORT 

The Programme will be managed through a sub-committee of the Faculty Research 

and Enterprise Committee called the Doctor of Education Programme Committee. 

The Programme Leader(s) will be responsible for assembling the resources necessary 

to effectively run the programme. 

17



Student representation will be through the Institute Research Development 

Committee: representatives both full-time and part-time will form part of this 

committee. The committee will meet once a term to discuss issues raised by staff 

and students. 

4.1 Programme Committee 

4.1.1 Membership 

The Doctor of Education Programme Committee will consist of the following 

members: 

• the Programme Leader(s), Doctor of Education Programme (Chair); 

• the Head of The Research Degree Programme of the Institute; 

• the Early Years Education pathway leader; 

• the Health Care Studies pathway leader; 

• the Inclusive Education pathway leader; 

• the Leading and Managing Learning Institutions pathway leader; 

• all the Unit Leaders; 

• members of full-time and part-time staff teaching on the programme; 

• student representatives elected from full-time, part-time and overseas 

constituencies, one at least from both the full-time and part-time programmes 

(as appropriate); 

• a representative of the University Library; and 

• a representative of Information Systems. 

4.1.2 Responsibilities 

The Committee will meet once a term, or more frequently if necessary. It will be 

responsible for: 

• the maintenance and enhancement of the academic standards of the 

Programme; 

• the monitoring and evaluation of the Programme and in particular evaluating its 

operation, its delivery and standard, its teaching methods, its curriculum aims 

and students’ needs; 

• ensuring the Programme operates in accordance with the approved Programme 

scheme; 

• agreeing recommendations for changes to the Programme (content and 

structure) and on any matter affecting the operation of the Programme; 

• considering and implementing at Programme level such policies as may be 

determined by the RDSC of the University and the Faculty Research and 

Enterprise Committee in relation to: 

a. programmes, teaching and learning, the content of the curriculum; 

b. the assessment of students (in conjunction with Board of Examiners); 

c. criteria for the admission of students; and 

d. research, scholarship and programme-related staff development; 

• advising the Faculty Research and Enterprise Committee on such matters as the 

above; 

• ensuring the academic development of the Programme; 

18



• advising the Director of the Institute of Education through the Head of the 

Research Degree Programme on the resources needed to support the 

Programme; 

• contributing to the formulation of institutional academic policy and considering 

such other matters as may be appropriate to the operation of the Programme or 

as may be referred to the Committee by the Faculty Research and Enterprise 

Committee or RDSC; and 

• overseeing the Annual Academic Monitoring and Evaluation Review procedures 

for students on the Doctor of Education Programme using form RDAAMER of the 

university and the skills audit. 

4.2 Board of Examiners 

A Board of Examiners shall be constituted under the authority of the RDSC of the 

University. 

The Board of Examiners shall be called the Doctor of Education Programme Board of 

Examiners of the Institute of Education (thereinafter referred to as the ‘Board of 

Examiners’ or the ‘Board’ where the context so admits) and shall, in accordance with 

these regulations and the scheme of assessment, be responsible for all matters 

relating to the assessment and examination of students undertaking the Doctor of 

Education Programme (Phase A). 

4.2.1 Membership 

The Board of Examiners shall comprise: 

o the Vice Chancellor (or her nominee); 

o the Chair of the RDSC (ex-officio); 

o the Dean of the Institute of Education (ex-officio); 

o the Director of the Institute of Education (ex-officio) 

o the Chair of the Faculty Research and Enterprise Committee (ex officio) 

o the Head of the Institute Research Degree Programme (ex officio); 

o the Programme Leader(s): EdD; 

o the Internal Examiners, who shall be all staff associated with the assessments 

which are the responsibility of the Board; 

o the External Examiner(s) approved by the RDSC; 

o the Personal Tutor (Phase A)/Director(s) of Studies (Phase B) of candidates 

being presented to the Board; 

o such other co-opted members of the Board as the Board may determine 

necessary; such members shall normally be co-opted for specific meetings of 

the Board; and 

o the Academic Registrar (ex officio) 

The Academic Registrar shall have the right to attend the Board and address 

meetings of the Board of Examiners. 

The Chair of the Board of Examiners shall be the Dean of the Institute of Education 

or his or her nominee. The membership of the Board shall ensure that the EdD is 

directly accountable to FREC in the same manner as the M Phil and Ph D 

programmes. (See Regulation 12.6 of Regulations for Research Degrees of the 

University (2009).) The approval of the RDSC shall be sought for any other 

nomination. 

19



No student shall be a member of the Board of Examiners, or attend an examiners’ 

meeting other than as a candidate for assessment. If, however, a person who is 

otherwise qualified to be an examiner for the programme is coincidentally registered 

as a student on another programme, that shall not in itself disqualify that person 

from carrying out normal examining commitments. 

The relevant Head of Faculty and Campus Student and Academic Services (or his/her 

nominee) shall be secretary to the Board and shall be responsible for maintaining 

detailed and accurate records of the Board’s proceedings in accordance with such 

requirement as may be laid down for this purpose. 

4.2.2 Responsibilities and Functions 

The Board of Examiners shall be responsible for all assessments that contribute to 

the granting of an academic award in accordance with these programme regulations. 

The functions of the Board of Examiners shall include: 

a. assessing students in accordance with the programme assessment regulations; 

b. recommending the conferment of an award upon a student who, in the 

judgment of the Board, has fulfilled the objectives of the approved programme 

of studies and achieved the standard required for the award; 

c. determining the award to be recommended under b above; 

d. controlling all examination and assessment regulations for the programme; 

e. considering, moderating and approving examination papers, and marking 

schemes, if any, for all assessed examinations relating to the programme; 

f. considering and approving any assignments or theses which form part of the 

scheme of assessment; 

g. assessing written or oral examinations; 

h. assessing any theses or course work which forms part of the scheme of 

assessment; 

i. determining which of its decisions and recommendations other than Pass Lists 

shall be communicated to the students with the agreement of the RDSC; 

j. receiving and considering any communication relevant to its functions; and 

k. reporting matters of policy and significance to the RDSC. 

4.2.3 Sub-committees of the Examination Board 

The Board of Examiners may appoint sub-committees to deal with special aspects of 

its work and may delegate to the appropriate sub-committee such duties as 

preparing draft examination papers and assignments, marking scripts, considering 

and approving the titles and outlines of projects and theses, assessing course work 

and presenting evidence to the Board of Examiners, subject to the overriding 

authority of the Board of Examiners and the rights and responsibilities of individual 

examiners. 

The sub-committees shall include a Progression Board comprising: 

• The Programme Leader(s) 

• The relevant internal examiners. 

• The Personal Tutor of candidates being presented to the progression Board. 

20



The Progression Board will receive the internal examiners reports for each 

assignment completed by the candidates being presented to the Progression Board 

and recommend to the Board of Examiners which candidates may proceed to the 

following year in their programme of study (Phase A) or other action as deemed 

appropriate in accordance with these regulations. The Progression Board shall 

transmit to the Board of Examiners the outcomes of these decisions on an annual 

basis or otherwise as requested by the Board of Examiners. 

4.2.4 Duties of Board Members 

Duties of the Chair of the Board of Examiners shall include convening meetings, 

corresponding and communicating with External Examiners between meetings and 

accepting the responsibility for the correct recording of decisions and 

recommendations of the Board. 

The duties of the Internal Examiners shall include preparation of schemes, marking 

scripts, assessing assignments, oral presentations and theses, drawing up and 

presenting to the Board of Examiners such reports as may be required and attending 

meetings of the Board. 

The Head of Faculty and Campus Student and Academic Services shall have a duty 

to discharge the responsibilities stated above and for advising the Board, through the 

Chair, on all procedural matters including the proper interpretation of the programme 

and examination regulations. 

4.2.5 Treatment of Extenuating Circumstances 

It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that student extenuating/mitigating 

circumstances are addressed according to University regulations. Normally, such 

cases should be dealt with in confidence, usually by a pre-Board considering 

individual cases and making recommendations to the Board. Only in exceptional 

cases should details be revealed to the full Board and only with the student’s written 

permission. The programme will follow standard faculty protocol for exceptional 

cases. 

In addition to addressing extenuating/mitigating circumstances, the programme also 

adheres to university regulations for examination and assessment of students with 

disabilities. (see Appendix 4 of the Regulations for Taught Postgraduate 

Programmes, which covers the regulations, guidelines and procedures on 

examination and assessment arrangements for disabled students as defined by the 

Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005). 

4.3 Programme Leader(s) 

The EdD Programme Leader(s) will have day-to-day operational responsibilities; 

these include: 

• chairing the Doctor of Education Programme Committee; 

• drawing up the agenda for the EdD Programme Committee meetings; 

• managing student progression through the EdD Programme; 

21



• student recruitment; overseeing the review of student applications and selection 

interviews; 

• liaising with the Head of Research Degree Programme in order to accept onto the 

EdD Programme appropriately qualified and suitable applicants; 

• liaising with the Faculty Research and Enterprise Committee on matters relating 

to EdD Programme; 

• monitoring and review of programme development, both internal considerations 

and external developments; 

• managing student evaluations of the Programme; 

• managing quality assurance processes as they relate to the Programme; and 

• ensuring the election of student representatives for the EdD Programme 

Committee. 

The joint Programme Leaders will decide which of these duties they will take 

responsibility for and notify the EdD Programme Committee on an annual basis. 

The appointment and duration of office of the EdD Programme Leader shall be 

determined by the Faculty Research and Enterprise Committee in consultation with 

the Director of the Institute. EdD Programme Committee recommendations shall be 

addressed through the Programme Leader(s) to the Faculty Research and Enterprise 

Committee which body in turn shall report to the relevant Dean of Faculty and to the 

RDSC. 

4.4 Other Staff Responsibilities 

Responsibilities of staff and students 

The EdD Programme Leader(s) is/are responsible for liasing with students on all 

matters concerned with the Programme and Programme assessment. 

The Programme Tutors working with the Programme Leader(s) on the Units are all 

active researchers in the Education and Social Research Institute or the Research 

Institute for Health and Social Change. Their teaching, supplemented by the 

programme materials, inducts students into the research community by 

demonstrating how the knowledge and skills contained in each Unit are actually used 

in practice. 

The Director of Studies and supervisory team: 

• provide specialist teaching related to the student’s field of study; 

• assists students in preparing the Research Proposal for FREC registration; and 

• supervises the student’s work for the Thesis. 

The Student is responsible for taking all the major decisions on the conduct of 

her/his doctoral research, with the support and guidance of Programme tutors, a 

Personal Tutor/Director of Studies and supervisors. They are responsible for ensuring 

that they see their Director of Studies at least once a month. 

22



4.5 Student Support Strategy 

Learning support 

To ensure that students achieve the learning outcomes, despite the complexity and 

wide-ranging nature of the programme material, each Unit is supported by a ‘study 

companion’ pack of materials. 

Supervision 

Students receive individual tuition from a Personal Tutor (Phase A) and a Director of 

Studies (Phase B) and one or more additional supervisors. The Director of Studies is 

always an experienced teacher of post-graduate research students, knowledgeable in 

the proposed field of study. The second supervisor is chosen to complement the 

knowledge and expertise of the Director of Studies. A third supervisor or adviser may 

be chosen for his/her specialist knowledge of education in the area of study, to 

facilitate access to the field (e.g. to schools) and to ensure that students have the 

maximum opportunity to work closely with practitioners. 

Facilities for Students 

There are dedicated Research Students’ Rooms on both the Didsbury and Crewe 

campuses. Each has computers with internet/email access and the essential software 

tools for researchers (Office 2007, SPSS, NVIVO and EndNote). Full time students 

have desks in these rooms and are provided with keys. Part time students are 

encouraged to use them and are able to book the use of computers in advance. 

• Telephones are provided in the rooms and fax, photocopying and scanning 

facilities are available in the nearby main research offices. 

• Students also have access to the ICT facilities on each campus. Drop-in centres 

provide PCs, with Office 2007 and full internet/web access. 

• Technical help is available from trained staff on the Information Services Help 

Desk located in these centres. Students are given MMU email addresses. 

• The libraries on both the Crewe and Didsbury Campuses, the latter recently 

refurbished, are well stocked and on-line access to a wide range of journals and 

data bases (e.g. ERIC) is provided. In addition, the MMU library card gives 

automatic access to other academic libraries in Manchester through the CALIM 

agreement. Together with the library loan services this gives our students first 

class library resources. The British Library journals store in Yorkshire is also 

within reach by the M62. 

• Both the Research Students’ Rooms are spacious and provide a meeting place for 

students. They are located alongside the rooms of active researchers, which also 

ensures maximum opportunities for networking with these colleagues. Research 

students are regarded as part of the community of researchers. 

• Language support and training are provided through a central university service 

for students for whom English is a second language. 

Student Support 

Student learning in the taught phase of the Programme is predicated on the notion 

of Action Learning Sets (ALS) in which, during taught sessions, the cohort of 

students is divided into groups for the purposes of seminar focused work. This is 

intended to explicitly acknowledge the expertise of the group as a rich resource for 

23



learning in which research issues in relation to professional experience can be 

considered in depth. The ALS remains throughout Phase A of the taught Programme 

affording the students an opportunity to develop a critical audience for their work. 

The ALS is responsible for providing its members with mutual support. This is the 

main support mechanism for preparation of programme assignments. The Facilitator 

of the ALS is responsible for facilitating the group’s work when time is set aside in 

the teaching programme and for making sure that the group keeps in contact 

between week-ends. The role of Facilitator is rotated within the set and the skills in 

team-work and leadership involved in working within an ALS contribute to the 

development of employment-related skills (see the Joint Research Councils/AHRB 

joint statement on postgraduate skills (September 2002). 

To ensure that students achieve the learning outcomes, despite the complexity and 

wide-ranging nature of the programme material, each Unit is supported by a ‘study 

companion’ pack of materials. The students have access to e-learning resources via 

the library Web page. In advance of the taught sessions students are sent 

preparatory reading material which most of which is digitised for electronic access. 

The material is used as a basis for seminar work in AL sets. Additional reading 

material is available electronically and the Programme team has worked closely with 

the library to promote student use of e-learning resources and MMU Library provides 

support for electronic resources within the EdD Programme in the following ways: 

Reading List: The reading list for the EdD programme has been made available 

online through the Online Reading List option on the Library Website (a direct link 

can be found at http://149.170.166.1:8080/ talislist/rl_content.jsplistID=16103# 

L16103). This makes the full list of recommended resources visible off campus and 

wherever the library subscribes to a recommended e-journal or e-book, the full text 

of these can be accessed through this list. The Reading list also brings together in 

one place any recommended web pages, free government reports etc, allowing easy 

full text access within a few mouse clicks. 

The purchase of additional e-book titles have also been a priority recently, since the 

library has been able to purchase individual e-book titles rather than being restricted 

to less flexible packages. This means that many more e-books are now available, 

making off campus access to the resources needed much easier. 

In addition, where book chapters or journal articles have been recommended by 

tutors (which are not currently available electronically) the library has utilised the 

University CLA Digitisation licence to scan in print articles and make the full text 

available online (within copyright regulations). This means that much of the 

recommended material is now available online to the students of this course, at the 

point of need, from their home PC. 

Induction and InfoSkills: A brief introduction to the library services is given at the 

beginning of the year to students on this course. This session also takes them 

through searching databases for journals articles as well as the basics of catalogue 

and e-book searching. 

Endnote Training Sessions: A weekend workshop is provided on request for this 

course on the use of the Endnote bibliographic package. This session includes 

exporting journal and book references from databases and catalogues to their 

24



Endnote library, as well as covering Cite while you write, where the references are 

imported direct into their word document, and a bibliography automatically created 

at the end of the piece of research package. 

Help and Support: Help and support is available in person, via e-mail or at the end of 

a phone whenever the library is open. This has proved particularly important in 

providing help to off campus to users having difficulties access e-resources from 

home, or needing some advice, on where to start. 

In addition to full library and on site ICT facilities, students have access to WebCT to 

support their learning. This includes discussion pages and communication forums 

between staff and students. The site is regularly monitored and updated. 

The ALS is a core learning resource in which the professional experience and 

expertise of the group is optimised in the learning process. There are specific times 

set aside for ALS work in all teaching sessions and this has proved a valuable 

learning resource and supportive network for students during the taught element of 

the programme that often continues into the Phase B thesis stage of study. 

4.6 Student Participation in Quality Management 

The student evaluations for Phase A of the taught Programme are reviewed after 

each teaching session by the Programme Leaders. The data is also available to the 

individual tutor(s) responsible for the particular taught session. The student 

evaluations are in the main very positive and where minor problems have been 

identified in respect of specific taught sessions, these have been dealt with in 

discussion with the Programme Leaders and tutors. There has been a number of 

minor adjustments to the Programme as a consequence including an upgrading of 

room facilities, a change in the sequence of taught content and the inclusion of an 

additional day at the end of Phase A of the Programme in order to support student in 

the transition to the Thesis stage of their work. 

4.7 Programme Student Information 

At the start of Phase A of the programme, each student receives a Student 

Handbook, a programme of teaching sessions and a Personal Development Portfolio 

for Postgraduate Research Students. They are also informed about the Research 

Student Development Programme booklet which is downloadable from the Research, 

Enterprise & Development Office website. At the start of Phase B, students are sent 

a copy of the Code of Practice and Regulations for Postgraduate Research 

Programmes of the University. 

4.8 Engagement with Employers 

The Institute of Education, as faculty of Manchester Metropolitan University, is 

committed to the professional development of its staff in order to further the 

strategic development of the organisation and the career development of its staff. 

The University and faculty are concerned to take forward three main strands of 

activity and contribution at regional, national and international level, those being 

teaching and learning, research and academic enterprise. The faculty has recently 

undergone a substantial change to its staffing base triggered by around of voluntary 

severances and retirements accompanied by growth in some areas. This has enabled 

25



the recruitment of a ‘new wave’ of colleagues that will, over a 5 or 6 year period, 

result in a third to half of the staff being new to the IoE. Most new colleagues join 

from practice with a good proportion being qualified at Master’s level and some to 

doctoral level. 

The IoE is committed to all academic staff being qualified to M level with an 

increasing proportion to doctoral level. The Ed Doc, provided by ESRI with the IoE 

offers a part-time, taught /research route that combines the rigour and demand of 

PhD study with the peer support of taught post graduate degrees. This blend is 

helpful as colleagues do this study alongside their day jobs. The programme gives 

staff an opportunity to benefit from the input of ESRI’s internationally recognised 

researchers in an ESRC accredited study environment. The programme’s focus on 

professionalism and professional formation is highly relevant to all our staff, who are 

engaged with education and training as it relates to schools and the wider children’s 

workforce. 

The IoE is currently recommending the Ed Doc as a mainstay of the IoE’s 

professional development plan and, subject to evaluation of quality and impact 

meeting the IoE’s requirements and the future affordability of course fees, we intend 

to continue to do so. 

26



PART THREE 

CURRICULUM CONTENT 

27



28



SUMMARY OF PROGRAMME UNITS 

TEACHING TOPIC ASSESSMENT 

YEAR 1, 2008-09 

Session 1 

Sept, 2008 

Library and IT Induction 

INDUCTION 

Accessing resources for research projects 

Web-CT 

Research paradigms and educational research. 

Research Ethics 

Task: Students exit with the task of collecting interview 

data and conducting some observation of practice. 

Session 2 

Oct, 2008 

INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE INQUIRY 

Engaging with data [using data collected from previous 

session--e.g., grounded theory] 

Introduction to open coding and NVIVO 

Developing a framework grounded in literature 

Theoretical Perspectives [e.g. postpositivism; 

interpretivism; critical theory; poststructuralism] 

Locating yourself as researcher [e.g. Relationships and 

tensions between professionalism and other rival 

discourses] 

Action Research [Research and Professionalism in the 

workplace] 

Reflexivity in action 

Working in Action Learning Sets 

Session 3 

Nov, 2008 

Presentations 

LANGUAGE AND REPRESENTATION (1) 

Crisis of representation: language, meaning and truth 

Discourse analysis 

Text / image / film 

Issues of representation in quantitative research 

Introduction to tools for quantitative data analysis [SPSS] 

Assignment Preparation 

ASSIGNMENT 1 

(Professionalism) 

due 9 th Jan, 2009 

29



Session 4 

Jan, 2009 

INTRODUCTION TO QUANTITATIVE INQUIRY 

Guest speaker 

The foundations of experimental and empirical research 

and the nature of scientific thinking. 

Research design: sampling and questionnaires. 

Challenging research claims [e.g. sponsored evaluation]. 

Exploring quantitative data: statistical analysis 

Session 5 

March, 

2009 

Session 6 

April, 2009 

Session 7 

ADVANCED QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 

OPTIONAL 

LANGUAGE AND REPRESENTATION (2) 

From Hermeneutics to Deconstruction 

Post-structuralism 

Deconstruction 

Post-modernism 

Preparation for assignment 

THEORETICAL FRAMINGS 

ASSIGNMENT 2 

(Research 

Methodology and 

Methods 1) due 1 st 

June, 2009 

May, 2009 Data Analysis & Theoretical Underpinnings 

Feminist methodologies 

Critical race theory 

Philosophy, hermeneutics, discourse analysis 

Setting up intervention in the workplace 

Writing Practices 

June, 2009 - Student research conference (attendance only) 

September, 2009 - Progress Board for Year 1 Assignments 

30



Session 8 

Sept, 2009 

Session 9 

Nov, 2009 

Session 10 

May, 2010 

YEAR 2, 2009-2010 

Action Learning sets: Group presentations of 

workplace intervention 

Intervening as a professional: models of 

intervention and theories of change 

Preparation for assignment 

Practitioner Research methodology: stories 

from the field – making research claims 

Research Methods: Analysing and relating 

data to theory and practice (qualitative) 

Research Methods: Analysing and relating 

data to theory and practice (quantitative) 

Preparation for Assignment 5 (RD1) 

Framing the work theoretically 

Hearing from past students 

Sharing proposals (Assignment 5) – Action 

Learning Sets 

ASSIGNMENT 3 

(Intervening as 

Professionals) due 

20 th November, 2009 

ASSIGNMENT 4 

(Research Methods 

and Methodology 2) 

due 9 th April, 2010 

ASSIGNMENT 5 

(Research Proposal 

[RD1]) due 24 th 

September, 2010 

June 2010 - Student conference (presentations) 

Autumn 2010 - Examination Board for Year 2 Assignments 

PHASE B 

Please note RD1 must be submitted within six months 

from enrolment for Phase B 

31



32



UNIT TITLE 

BRIEF SUMMARY 

UNIT CODE NUMBER 

HOME PROGRAMME 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

SUBJECT AREA 

UNIT LEADER(S) 

Professionalism 

Students will develop different theoretical perspectives on 

professionalism, and the ways in which these articulate with 

the student’s own professional identity. 

Doctorate of Education (EdD) 

Institute of Education 

Education Studies 

Professor Liz Jones and Dr Dave Heywood 

CREDIT VALUE 40 CREDITS AT LEVEL: D/8 

TOTAL AMOUNT OF 

STUDENT LEARNING 

(NOTIONAL HOURS OF 

LEARNING) 

UNIT STATUS 

374 (nominal) 

MANDATORY CORE 

PRE-REQUISITES 

CO-REQUISITES 

UNIT LEARNING 

OUTCOMES 

To enable students to: 

• understand different theoretical perspectives on 

professionalism, and the ways in which they articulate 

with the student’s own professional identity and 

practice; 

• make judgements about the value and appropriateness 

of the discourse of professionalism in a wide range of 

educational settings, including their own; 

• understand the relationships and tensions between 

professionalism and other rival discourses, such as 

those of competence and the new managerialism; 

• understand the relationship between professional 

practice and wider contextual issues of politics, 

economics and social structures. 

CURRICULUM OUTLINE 

Knowledge and awareness of debates around the concept 

of professionalism: 

• interpretations of professionalism; 

• implications of these interpretations in relation to selfperception 

and practice of the students themselves; 

• considerations between changes in notions of 

professionalism and the relationship between of these 

notions to broader socio-political changes; 

33



• addressing notions such as effectiveness/accountability; 

reflective practice/competence; 

partnership/mentorship; quality/standards; 

empowerment/autonomy. 

TEACHING AND 

LEARNING STRATEGIES 

The teaching and learning strategies for the unit will be 

drawn from the following: 

• Lectures 

• Tutor and student led seminars 

• Tutorials 

• Action Learning Sets (critical community groupings) 

supported by WebCT 

All teaching is consistent with the University Learning and 

Teaching Strategy (2002). 

ASSESSMENT 

STRATEGIES 

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 

FOR UNIT/ ELEMENTS OF 

ASSESSMENT 

(Indicative) Assignment. 

Either a negotiated essay or a paper submitted to a 

(negotiated) journal, concerning notions/features of 

professionalism and implications for practice: 4-5,000 

words. 

Candidates might wish to base this on a negotiated and 

collaborative case-in-professionalism seminar presentation. 

(Essay) Discuss how any recent or current national 

education initiative, of your own choice, raises issues 

connected with notions of professionalism. Illustrate with 

reference to implementation of the initiative in a context 

with which you are familiar and consider some of the 

possible implications of the above regarding your own and 

(where appropriate) others’ roles as educator/s. 

Assessment comprises: 

4-5,000 word assignment (double blind marked) 

The student will demonstrate: 

• knowledge and critical awareness of debates around 

the concept of professionalism 

• an ability to identify and explore associated issues 

raised by an education initiative 

• an ability to ground these issues in practice/relate 

practice to the issues 

• an ability to reflect on practice in relation to the 

issues. 

INDICATIVE STUDENT 

LEARNING RESOURCES 

As this Unit is inextricably linked with the Unit ‘Intervening 

as Professionals’, a combined reading list is offered under 

the latter. 

34



ADDITIONAL NOTES AND 

COMMENTS 

DATE OF APPROVAL 31 March 2009 

DATE OF MOST RECENT 

CONSIDERATION 

35



UNIT TITLE Research Methodology and Methods 1 

BRIEF SUMMARY 

Students will develop critical understanding of the nature of 

knowledge, truth and meaning and to relate this to issues of 

educational theory and practice. 




SUBJECT AREA 

UNIT LEADER 









LEARNING) 

UNIT STATUS 

374(nominal) 



CO-REQUISITES 

UNIT LEARNING 

OUTCOMES 


• develop understanding of the problematic nature of 

knowledge, truth and meaning in relation to 

different paradigmatic positions such as realism, 

constructivism, post-structuralism, and to relate such 

understanding to issues of educational 

theory/practice; 

• develop a critical and creative engagement with such 

theories and their implications for methodology and 

procedure in relation to different notions of 

‘education’ and educational inquiry; 

• develop knowledge of different methodological 

approaches to constructing knowledge, both 

qualitative and quantitative, and to be able to offer 

reasoned criticism at philosophical, procedural and 

practical levels; 

• to offer a critical engagement with research issues in 

general that will enable them to develop their own 

rationale for the conduct and justification of 

educational inquiries in general and their own 

research in particular. 

36




This Unit comprises the following research themes and 

processes. These are chronologically discrete, but interrelated 

– and not necessarily covered in the order given 

below: 

• Paradigms and Educational Research; 

• Research Design (qualitative and quantitative) 

• Research methods 1: creating and constructing data 

(qualitative and quantitative). 

Issues of ethics and values permeate each of the core 

elements of the research process and are addressed 

accordingly. Similarly, the relation between research, policy 

and practice is a recurring theme as is the continuing 

interrelation with professionalism. 

TEACHING AND 


The teaching and learning strategies for the unit will be 

drawn from the following: 

• Lectures 

• Tutor and student led seminars 

• Tutorials 




teaching Strategy (2002). 

ASSESSMENT 

STRATEGIES 

Participants will be required to complete: 


Either a negotiated essay or a paper submitted to a 

(negotiated) journal. 

(Essay) What do you consider to be meant by ‘paradigms’ of 

research Offer a critique of two contrasting paradigms and 

indicate the implications for the practice of educational 

research, drawing on your own professional and research 

experiences. 


FOR UNIT/ELEMENTS OF 

ASSESSMENT 


The written assignment provides a demonstration of the 

student’s ability to demonstrate: 

• knowledge and critical awareness of issues 

pertaining to practitioner-orientated research 

methodology; 

• a theoretically sound understanding of how research 

claims are made; 

• an ability to provide an appropriate contextual 

analysis of issues being examined in relation to 

institutional constraints and the writer’s own 

37



professional standpoints. 



Paradigms and Educational Research 

Altrichter, H., Posch, P., and Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers 

investigating their work: an introduction to the methods of 

action research. Routledge 

Bassey, M. (1996) Creating Education Through Research. 

Kirklington: Kirklington Moor Press. 

Blommaert, J. 2005 Discourse: a Critical Introduction, 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Bowling, A. (1997) Research Methods in Health: 

investigating health and health promotion. Milton Keynes: 

Open University Press. 

Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research. 

London: Routledge. 

Denzin, N. & Giardina, M. (2006) Qualitative Inquiry and the 

Conservative Challenge. Left Coast Press. 

Dunne M., Pryor, J. & Yates, P. (2005) Becoming a 

Researcher. Open University Press. 

Cresswell, J. (2002) Research Design: Qualitative, 

Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 2 nd edition. 

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. 

Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 

Flewitt, R., Hauck, M., Hampel, R., Lancaster, L., 2009 What 

are multimodal data and transcription In Jewitt, C. (ed.) 

Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, London: Routledge. 

Gage, N.L. (1996) ‘Confronting Counsels of Despair for the 

Behavioural Sciences’, Educational Researcher, 25 (3): 3-15. 

Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004) Combining Methods in 

Educational and Social Research. Open University Press. 

Guba, E.G. (1990) (ed.) The Paradigm Dialogue. London: 

Sage. 

Hick, P. and Thomas, G. (2008) Inclusion and Diversity in 

Education: Volume 1, Inclusive Education as Social Justice; 

Volume 2, Developing Inclusive Schools and School 

Systems; Volume 3, Inclusive Pedagogy in Curricula and 

Classrooms; Volume 4, Learning from Diverse Voices in 

Inclusive Education. London: SAGE. 

Hick, P., Kershner, R. and Farrell, P. (2008) Psychology for 

Inclusive Education: New Directions in Theory and Practice. 


Hughes, P. (2001) ‘Paradigms, methods and knowledge’ in 

G. MacNaughton, S.A. Rolfe and I. Siraj-Blatchford (eds.) 

Doing Early Childhood Research: International Perspectives 

on Theory and Practice. Buckingham: Open University 

Press. 

Jackson, A.Y. & Mazzei, L.A. (Eds.). (2009). Voice in 

qualitative inquiry: Challenging conventional, interpretive, 

and critical 

conceptions in qualitative research. London: Routledge. 

38



Jewitt, C. (ed.) 2009 Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 


Mazzei, L.A. (2007). Inhabited silence in qualitative 

research: Putting poststructural theory to work. New York: 

Peter Lang. 

Murray, L. and Lawrence, B. (2000) Practitioner Based 

Enquiry: Principles for Postgraduate Research, especially 

Chapter 4 ‘Ologies and analogies: tuning the mind to 

research design’. London: Falmer Press. 

O’Connell Rust, F. (1999) ‘Professional conversations: new 

teachers explore teaching through conversation, story and 

narrative’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 367-380. 

Oliver, S. and Peersman, G. (eds) (2001) Using Research for 

Effective Health Promotion. Milton Keynes: Open University 

Press. 

Robinson-Pant, A. (2005) Cross-cultural Perspectives on 

Educational Research. Open University Press. 

Smith, J.K. (1989) The Nature of Social and Educational 

Inquiry: Empiricism versus Interpretation. Norwood, New 

Jersey: Ablex. 

Sparkes, A.C. (1992) ‘The Paradigms Debate: an Extended 

Review and a Celebration of Different’, in A.C. Sparkes (ed.) 

Research in Physical Education and Sport. London: Falmer. 

Research Design 

Bell, J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project: a Guide for 

First-Time Researchers, 4th Edition. Milton Keynes: Open 

University Press. 

Bernard, R. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative 

and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (1990) Quantitative Data 

Analysis for Social Scientists. London: Routledge. 

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in 

Education. London: Routledge. 

Cormac,k D. (2000) The Research Process in Nursing. (4th 

edition) Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 

Edwards, A. and Talbot, R. (1994) The Hard Pressed 

Researcher: a research handbook for the caring professions. 

London: Longman. 

Henry, G.T. (1990) Practical Sampling. London: Sage. 

Hopkins, D. (1989) Evaluation for School Development. 


Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, K. (1988) The Action Research 

Planner. Deakin University: Deakin University Press. 

Layder, D. (1993) New Strategies in Social Research: an 

introduction and guide. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

Leedy, P. (1993) Practical Research Planning and Design. 

London: Macmillan. 

Lewis, I. and Munn, P. (1987) So You Want To Do 

Research Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in 

Education. 

39



Parahoo, K. (1997) Nursing Research: principles, process 

and issues. London: Macmillan Press. 

Polit, D. and Hungler, B. (1993) Essentials of Nursing 

Research: Methods Appraisal and Utilization. (3rd edition). 

Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company. 

Research Methods 1: Creating and Constructing Data 

Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (1998) ‘Ethnography and 

participant observation’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) 

Strategies of Qualitative Enquiry, pp. 110-36. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage. 

BERA guidelines and BPS ethical principles. 

Brown, T. (1996) Creating data within practitioner research, 

Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 3, 261-270. 

Brown, T and Jones, L. (2001) Action Research and Post- 

Modernism: 

congruence and critique, London: Open University Press. 

Clandinin, J. and Connelly, F. (1998) ‘Personal experience 

methods’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and 

Interpreting Qualitative Materials, pp. 150-78. Thousand 


Clandinin, J. and Connelly, F. (2000) Narrative Inquiry: 

Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San 

Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. 

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research 

Methods in Education, 5 th edn. London: Routledge Falmer. 

Croll, P. (1986) Systematic Classroom Observation. Lewes: 

Falmer Press. 

Dunn, K. (2000) ‘Interviewing’, in I. Hay (ed.) Qualitative 

research methods in Human Geography, pp. 50-82. 

Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (1998) ‘Interviewing: the art of 

science’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) Collecting and 

Interpreting Qualitative Materials, pp. 47-78. Thousand 


Foster, P. (1996) Observing schools: a methodological 

guide. London: Paul Chapman. 

Fowler, F.J. (1992) Survey Research Methods, 2nd Edition. 

London: Sage. 

Gomm, R. and Davis, C. (eds.) (2000) Using Evidence in 

Health and Social Care. Milton Keynes: Open University 

Press/London: Sage Publications. 

Hammersley, M. (1993) ‘On the teacher as researcher’, in 

M. Hammersley (ed.) Educational Research: Current Issues. 

Open University/Paul Chapman. 

Hart, E. and Bond, M. (1995) Action Research for Health 

and Social Care: a guide to practice. Milton Keynes: Open 


Heyl, B. (2001) ‘Ethnographic interview’, in P. Atkinson, A. 

Coffey, S. Delamont and L. Lofland (eds.) Handbook of 

Ethnography, pp. 369-83. London: Sage. 

40



ADDITIONAL NOTES AND 

COMMENTS 

DATE OF APPROVAL 

Powney, J. and Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in 

Educational Research. London: Routledge. 

Schensul, S., Schensul, J. and LeCompte, M. (1999) 

Essential 

Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews and 

Questionnaires (Ethnographer’s Toolkit, Vol. 2). Walnut 

Creek, CA: Altamira Press. 

Schostak, J. (2006) Interviewing and Representation in 

Qualitative Research. Open University Press. 

Schostak, J. (2002) Understanding, Designing and 

Conducting Qualitative Research in Education. Buckingham: 


Stevens A., Abraham K., Brazier J., Fitzpatrick R. and Lilford 

R.(2001) The Advanced Handbook of Methods in Evidence 

Based Healthcare. London: Sage Publications. 

Webb, R. (1990) Practitioner Research in the Primary 

School. Lewes: Falmer Press. 

Williamson G.R. and Prosser S. (2002) Action Research: 

politics, ethics and participation. Journal of Advanced 

Nursing, 40(5):587-593. 

Wolcott, H.F. (1995) The Art of Fieldwork. London: Sage. 

31 March 2009 


CONSIDERATION 

41



UNIT TITLE 

BRIEF SUMMARY 

Intervening as Professionals 

Students will develop an awareness of differing models of 

professional intervention and associated theories of 

personal/professional/ systemic change. Students will critically 

evaluate specific interventions. 




SUBJECT AREA 

UNIT LEADER 








(NOTIONAL HOURS 

OF LEARNING) 

UNIT STATUS 

374 (nominal) 



CO-REQUISITES 

UNIT LEARNING 

OUTCOMES 


• develop their awareness of differing models of professional 

intervention and associated theories of personal, professional 

and systemic change; 

• critically engage with and develop their own individual or 

group research agendas for intervention; 

• develop their understandings of intervention as a practical 

activity in relation to intervention models and contextual 

features bearing on preferred intervention strategies; 

• contribute significantly to institutional and professional selfdevelopment; 

• critically evaluate specific interventions 

CURRICULUM 

OUTLINE 

The purpose of this Unit is to explore the notion of, and 

possibility for, practical intervention and the forms intervention 

might take concerning personal, professional and systematic 

change. This Unit will run concurrently with that on 

‘Professionalism’ with which it is inextricably linked and with 

which there will be continuing cross referencing. Here, our view 

is that intervention is an integral part of what being a 

42



professional is – in order to critique and understand 

professionalism, the scope and nature of professional 

intervention must be explored; engagements with acts of 

intervention effectively raises issues concerning professionalism. 

The Unit will also examine and problematise particular versions of 

intervention models, e.g., varieties of action research, evidencebased 

practice, formative evaluation, practitioner research, action 

learning. In pursuance of this, matters of personal and 

professional values, of collaborative or individualistic approaches, 

of life history, organisational contexts, of audience etc. will be 

both objects for scrutiny and devices for reformulating general 

and personal meanings of professional activities. The Unit will 

also involve participants in revisiting forms of practical 

intervention which they have participated in, relating to: notions 

of innovation and sustainability; management of change models 

and prescriptions; professional career interests and ethical issues. 

TEACHING AND 

LEARNING 

STRATEGIES 

The teaching and learning strategies for the unit will be drawn 

from the following: 

• lectures 

• tutor and student led seminars 

• tutorials 





ASSESSMENT 

STRATEGIES 

Either a report or a paper submitted to a (negotiated) journal 

concerning an intervention undertaken by the candidate to do 

with his/her own practice, the work of his/her own institution or a 

wider policy debate. The work will be research-based, it will 

engage with a specific issue of policy or practice, it should 

include a deliberate attempt to improve or change something, 

and there should be a critical evaluation of the intervention 

including an attempt to deconstruct the agendas and parameters 

which it assumed. 

4-5,000 word assignment (double blind marked). 

ASSESSMENT 

CRITERIA FOR 

UNIT/ELEMENTS OF 

ASSESSMENT 


• clear and accessible description and critical evaluation of a 

specific intervention; 

• location of the intervention with reference to a variety of 

models of intervention and theories of change; 

• contextualization of the intervention vis-a-vie the 

institutional/policy setting and the writer’s own 

professional standpoint/s; 

43



• articulation of the research basis for the intervention; 

• appropriate report/paper form and construction in the 

light of the specified journal/audience. 

INDICATIVE 


RESOURCES 

Indicative Reading (across both ‘Professional’ Units) 

Avis, J. (1996) ‘The Enemy Within: Quality and Managerialism in 

Education’, in J. Avis et al. Knowledge and Nationhood: Education 

Politics and Work. London: Cassell. 

Avis, J., Bloomer, M., Esland, G., Gleeson, D. and Hodkinson, P. 

(1996) Knowledge and Nationhood (ibid). 

Ball, S.J. (1990) ‘Management as Moral Technology: a Luddite 

analysis, in S.J. Ball (ed.) Foucault and Education: Discipline and 

Knowledge. London: Routledge. 

Ball, S. (1994) Education and Reform: a Critical and 

Poststructuralist Account. Milton Keynes: Open University. 

Barton, L. et al. (1994) ‘Teacher education and teacher 

professionalism in England: some emerging issues’, British Journal 

of Sociology of Education, 15 (4): 520 – 44. 

Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity. 

Brechin, A., Brown, H., and Eby, M.A. (eds.) (2000) Critical 

Practice in Health and Social Care. Milton Keynes: Open University 

Press /London: Sage Publications. 

Brown, P. and Lauder, H. (eds.) (1992) Education for Economic 

Survival. London: Routledge. 

Brown, T. and Jones, L. (2001) Action Research and 

Postmodernism: Congruence and Critique. Buckingham: Open 


Brown, T. and McNamara, O. (2005) New teacher identity and 

regulative government, The discursive formation of mathematics 

teacher education. New York: Springer. 

Brown, T. (2008) Comforting narratives of compliance: 

psychoanalytic 

perspectives on new teacher responses to mathematics policy, in 

K. Nolan and E. deFreitas Opening the research text: Critical 

insights and in(ter)ventions into mathematics education. Springer: 

New York. 

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1983) Becoming Critical: Knowing 

Through Action Research. Lewes: Falmer Press. 

Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Clandinin, D.J. and Connelly, F.M. (1996). ‘Teachers’ Professional 

Knowledge Landscapes: Teacher Stories – Stories of Teachers – 

School Stories – Stories of Schools’, Educational Researcher, 25 

(3): 24 – 30. 

Clandinin, J. and Connelly, F. (2000) Narrative Inquiry: Experience 

and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (1993) Inside/Outside: Teacher 

Research and Knowledge. New York: Teachers’ College Press. 

Davis, C. (1995) Gender and the Professional Predicament in 

Nursing. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 

Delamont, S. and Atkinson, P.A. (1990) Professions and 

Powerlessness, The Sociological Review, 38 (1) pp. 90-110. 

44



Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and 

Competence. Falmer Press. 

Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G., and Senker, P. (2002) ‘Learning 

from other people at work’, in R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson 

and Clarke, J. (eds.) Supporting Lifelong Learning, Vol 1, 

Perspectives on Learning. London: Open University with 

Routledge/Falmer. 

Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G., and Senker, P. (2002) ‘The 

impact of the manager on learning in the workplace’, in F. Reeve, 

M. Cartwright, and R. Edwards (eds) Supporting Lifelong Learning, 

Vol 2, Organising Learning. London: Open University with 

Routledge/Falmer. 

Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1991) What’s Worth Fighting for: 

Working Together for your School. Milton Keynes: Open University 

Press. 

Gerwitz, S. and Ball, S. (1995) Markets,Choice and Equity in 

Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 

Goodson, I. and Hargreaves, A (eds.) (1996) Teachers’ 

Professional Lives. Lewes: Falmer Press. 

Goodson, I. and Walker, R. (1991) Biography, Identity and 

Sociology. London: Falmer Press. 

Green, A. (1997) Education, Globalisation and the Nation State. 

London: Macmillan. 

Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: 

Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. London: 

Cassell. 

Hargreaves, D. (1994) ‘The New Professionalism’, Teaching and 

Teacher Education, 10 (4): 423 – 38. 

Hodkinson, P. (1997) ‘Neo-Fordism and Teacher Professionalism’, 

Development, 1 (1): 69 – 81. 

Hodkinson, P. and Issitt, M. (1995) (eds.) The Challenge of 

Competence: Professionalism through Vocational Education and 

Training. London: Cassell. 

Kenway, J. (ed.) (1994) Economising Education: Post-Fordist 

Directions. Geelong: Deakin University Press. 

Leathard A. (ed.) (1994) Going Inter-Professional: Working 

Together for Health and Welfare. London and New York: 

Routledge. 

Lieberman, A. (ed.) (1988) Building a Professional Culture in 

Schools. New York: Teachers’ College Press. 

Macdonald, K. (1995) The Sociology of the Professions. London: 

Sage. 

Mackay, L., Soothill, K., and Melia, K. (1998) Classic Texts in 

Healthcare. London: Butterworth Heinemann. 

Ozga, J. and Lawn, M. (1998) ‘School Work: interpreting the 

labour process of teaching’, British Journal of Sociology of 

Education (9), pp. 323-326. 

Pollard, A. and Tann, S. (1987) Reflective Teaching in the Primary 

School. London: Cassell. 

Rafferty, A.M. (1996) The Politics of Nursing Knowledge. London 

and New York: Routledge. 

Richardson, L. (1990) Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse 

45



Audiences. London: Sage. 

Rosenholtz, S. (1989) Teachers’ Workplace. New York: Longman. 

Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic 

Books. 

Schon, D.A. (1991) The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On 

Educational Practice. New York: Teachers’ College Press. 

Shaw, K.E. (1990) ‘Ideology, control and the teaching profession’, 

Policy and Politics 18 (4): 269 – 278. 

Sparkes, A.C., Templin, T.J. and Schempp, P.G. (1990) ‘The 

Problematic Nature of a Career in a Marginal Subject: some 

implications for teacher education programmes’. Journal of 

Education for Teaching, 18 (1): 3-8. 

Thomas, G. and Pring, R. (eds.) (2004) Evidence Based Practice in 

Education. Open University Press. 

Wagner, J. (1997) ‘The unavoidable intervention of educational 

research’, Educational Researcher, 26 (7): 13 – 22. 

Witz, A. (1992) Professions and Patriarchy, London: Routledge. 

ADDITIONAL NOTES 

AND COMMENTS 


31 March 2009 

DATE OF MOST 

RECENT 

CONSIDERATION 

46



UNIT TITLE Research Methodology and Methods 2 

BRIEF SUMMARY 

Further understanding of different methodological approaches 

to constructing knowledge (qualitative/quantitative) will be 

developed. Students will offer reasoned criticism at 

philosophical, procedural and practical levels. 




SUBJECT AREA 

UNIT LEADER 









LEARNING) 

UNIT STATUS 

374 (nominal) 



CO-REQUISITES 

UNIT LEARNING 

OUTCOMES 


• develop further understanding of different 

methodological approaches to constructing knowledge, 

both qualitative and quantitative, and to be able to 

offer reasoned criticism at philosophical, procedural 

and practical levels; 

• develop a critical and creative engagement with a 

number of theoretical areas (e.g. realism, 

constructivism, post-structuralism) and to consider 

their implications for methodology and procedure in 

relation to different notions of ‘education’ and 

educational inquiry; 

• offer a critical engagement with research issues that 

will enable them to develop their own rationale for the 

conduct and justification of educational inquiries in 

general and their own research in particular; 

• consider the role of the researcher in ethical and 

reflective terms, including issues of standpoint, 

objectivity, subjectivity, and empathy and research 

ideals such as social justice and validity; 

• create, interpret and communicate research-based 

knowledge in professional contexts and practice; 

47




This Unit comprises the following research themes and 

processes. These are chronologically discrete, but inter-related 

– and not necessarily covered in the order given below: 

• Subjectivity, Objectivity, Reflexivity and the Self; 

• Research Methods 2: analysing and relating data to 

theory and practice (qualitative and quantitative); 

• Writing Texts, Reading/Meaning, Communicating. 

Issues of ethics and values permeate each of the core 

elements of the research process and are addressed 

accordingly. Similarly, the relation between research, policy 

and practice is a recurring theme as is the continuing 

interrelation with professionalism. 

TEACHING AND 




• lectures 


• tutorials 

• Action Learning sets (critical community groupings) 

supported by WebCT seminar 


Teaching strategy (2002). 

ASSESSMENT 

STRATEGIES 

Participants will be required to complete: 


Either a negotiated essay or a paper essay submitted to a 

(negotiated) journal. 

(Essay) Discuss any research work carried out in support of 

some aspect of your own professional task. This should 

include the enactment of appropriate research strategies 

designed to address the issues being raised. It is likely that 

this will draw on issues introduced in the EdD sessions on the 

nature of data and on research design. It might be seen as an 

initial attempt at adopting an interventionist practitioner focus 

within professionally related research prior to more developed 

work in subsequent assignments. 



FOR UNIT/ELEMENTS 

OF ASSESSMENT 


• knowledge and critical awareness of issues pertaining 

to practitioner-orientated research methodology; 

• an ability to identify and explore professionally related 

issues through appropriate interventionist research 

strategies; 

48



• a theoretically sound understanding of how research 

claims are made; 

• an ability to provide an appropriate contextual analysis 

of issues being examined in relation to institutional 

constraints and the writer’s own professional 

standpoints; 

• an ability to craft research strategies around specific 

professional concerns. 



Subjectivity, Objectivity, Reflexivity and the Self 

Atkinson, D. (2002) Art in education: identity and practice. 

Dordrecht: Kluwer. 

Atkinson, D. (2004) ‘Theorising how student teachers form 

their identities in Initial Teacher Education’, British Education 

Research Journal, 30(3), 379 - 394. 

Ball, S. (1993) ‘Self Doubt and Soft Data: social and technical 

trajectories in ethnographic fieldwork’, in M. Hammersley (ed.) 

Educational Research: current issues. Milton Keynes: Open 


Blommaert, J. 2005 Discourse: a Critical Introduction, 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Brechin, A., Brown, H., and Eby, M.A. (eds.) (2000) Critical 

Practice in Health and Social Care. Milton Keynes: Open 

University Press/London: Sage Publications. 

Brown, T. (2008) Desire and drive in researcher subjectivity: 

The broken mirror of Lacan, Qualitative Inquiry, 14(3), 402- 

423. 

Brown, T., Atkinson, D. and England, J. (2006) Regulative 

Discourses in Education: a Lacanian perspective. Bern 

Switzerland; Peter Lang Publishers. 

Brown, T. and England, J. (2005) ‘Identity, Narrative and 

Practitioner Research’, Discourse: studies in the cultural 

politics of education, 26(4), 443-458. 

Brown, T. and England, J. (2004) ‘Revisiting emancipatory 

teacher research: a psychoanalytic perspective’, British Journal 

of Sociology of Education, 25(1), pp. 67-80. 


regulative government, The discursive formation of 

mathematics teacher education. New York, Springer. 

Convery, A. (1999) ‘Listening to teachers' stories: are we 

sitting too comfortably’ International Journal of Qualitative 

Studies in Education, 12(2), 131-146. 

Davis, C. (1995) Gender and the Professional Predicament in 

Nursing. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 

Ely, M. (1991) Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within 

Circles. London: Falmer Press. 

England, J. and Brown, T. (2001) ‘Inclusion, exclusion and 

marginalisation’, Educational Action Research, 9(3) 335- 

371.Flewitt, R., Hauck, M., Hampel, R., Lancaster, L., 2009 

What are multimodal data and transcription In Jewitt, C. (ed.) 

Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, London: Routledge. 

49



Halpin, D. and Troyna, B. (1994) Researching Education 

Policy: Ethical and Methodological Issues. London: Falmer 

Press. 

Hick, P. and Thomas, G. (2008) Inclusion and Diversity in 

Education: Volume 1, Inclusive Education as Social Justice; 

Volume 2, Developing Inclusive Schools and School Systems; 

Volume 3, Inclusive Pedagogy in Curricula and Classrooms; 

Volume 4, Learning from Diverse Voices in Inclusive 

Education. London: Sage. 

Hick, P., Kershner, R. and Farrell, P. (2008) Psychology for 

Inclusive Education: New Directions in Theory and Practice. 


Jackson, A.Y. & Mazzei, L.A. (Eds.). (2009). Voice in qualitative 

inquiry: Challenging conventional, interpretive, and critical 

conceptions in qualitative research. London: Routledge. 

Jewitt, C. (ed.) 2009 Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 


Leathard, A. (ed.) (1994) Going Inter-Professional: Working 

Together for Health and Welfare. London and New York: 

Routledge. 

Mazzei, L.A. (2007). Inhabited silence in qualitative research: 

Putting poststructural theory to work. New York: Peter Lang. 

McRobbie, A. (1993) ‘Feminism, postmodernism and the real 

me’, Theory Culture Society, 10: 127-142. 

Pitt, A. and Britzman, D. (2003) ‘Speculations on qualities of 

difficult knowledge in teaching and learning; an experiment in 

psychoanalytic research’, International Journal of Qualitative 

Studies in Education, 16(6), 755-776. 

Rafferty, A.M. (1996) The Politics of Nursing Knowledge. 

London and New York: Routledge. 

Sparkes, A.C. (1995) ‘Writing people: reflections on the dual 

crisis of representation and legitimisation in qualitative 

Inquiry’, Quest, 47: 158-195. 

Stronach, I. and MacLure, M. (1997) Educational Research 

Undone: the post-modern embrace. Milton Keynes: Open 

University. 

Research Methods 2: Analysing and Relating Data to 

Theory and Practice 

Brown, T., Atkinson, D. and England, J. (2006) Regulative 

Discourses in Education: a Lacanian perspective. Bern 

Switzerland: Peter Lang publishers. 


regulative government, The discursive formation of 

mathematics teacher education. New York: Springer. 

Brown, T. Desire and drive in researcher subjectivity: The 

broken mirror of Lacan, Qualitative Inquiry, 2008, 14(3), 402- 

423. 

Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (1998) (eds.) Analysing 

Qualitative Data. London: Routledge. 

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (1990) Quantitative Data Analysis 

50



for Social Scientists. London: Routledge. 

Burgess, R.G. (1989) (ed.) The Ethics of Educational Research. 

Lewes: Falmer Press. 

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research 

Methods in Education, 5 th edition. London: Routledge Falmer. 

Dey, I. (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Routledge. 

Hage, J. and Meeker, B.F. (1988) Social Causality, Unwin 

Hyman. 

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography 

Principles in Practice, 2nd edition. 

Hollway, W. and T. Jefferson (2001) Doing qualitative research 

differently. London: Sage. 

Malhotra, N. and Birks, D. (2002) Marketing Research: An 

Applied Approach (European Edition), second edition. London: 

Prentice Hall. 

Parahoo K. (1997) Nursing Research: principles, process and 

issues. London: Macmillan Press. 

Rose, D. and Sullivan, O. (1993) Introducing Data Analysis for 

Social Scientists, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 

Somekh, B. and Lewin, C. (2005) Research Methods in Social 

Sciences. London: Sage. 

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative 

Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. 

Sage. 

Wolcott, H.F. (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: 

Description, Analysis and Interpretation. London: Sage. 

Woods, P (1996) Researching the Art of Teaching. Routledge. 

Writing Texts, Reading Meaning, Communicating 

Atkinson, P.A. (1992) Understanding Ethnographic Texts. 

Sage. 

Barone, T. (1995) ‘Persuasive writings, vigilant readings and 

reconstructed characters: the paradox of trust in educational 

storytelling’, in A. Hatch and R. Wisnieewski (eds.) Life History 

and Narrative. London: Falmer Press. 

Becker, H. (1986) Writing for Social Scientists: how to start 

and finish your thesis, book or article. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Black, T. (1993) Evaluating Social Science Research: a critical 

guide. London: Sage. 

Brown, T. (2008) Signifying “learner”, “teacher” and 

“mathematics”: a response to a special issue, Educational 

Studies in Mathematics. 

Ewing, M. et al. (1998) ‘The hard work of remembering: 

memory work as narrative research’, in J. Addison, J. and S. 

McGee (eds.) Feminist Empirical Research: Emerging 

Perspectives on Qualitative and Teacher Research, pp. 112-26. 

Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann. 

Foster, P., Gomm, R. and Hammersley, M. (1996) Constructing 

Educational Inequality: an assessment of research on school 

progress. London: Falmer Press. 

51



Hammersley, M. (1990) Reading Ethnographic Research: a 

critical guide. London: Longman. 

MacLure, M. (2003) Discourse in Educational and Social 

Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. 

Richardson, L. (1990) Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse 

Audiences. London: Sage. 

Richardson, L. (1992) ‘The poetic representation of lives: 

writing postmodernist sociology’, Studies in Symbolic 

Interaction, 13: 19-27. 

Sparkes, A.C. (1992) ‘Writing and the Textual Construction of 

Realities: Some Challenges for Alternative Research Paradigms 

in Physical Education’, in A.C. Sparkes (ed.) Research in 

Education and Sport. London: Falmer Press. 

Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field: on writing 

ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Wolcott, H. (1990) Writing up Qualitative Research. Sage. 


AND COMMENTS 


31 March 2009 


CONSIDERATION 

52



UNIT TITLE 

BRIEF SUMMARY 

Research Proposal/RD1 

By drawing on the preceding taught Units students will 

develop a Research Proposal that is capable of rigorous 

treatment appropriate to doctoral level work. 




SUBJECT AREA 

UNIT LEADER 









LEARNING) 

UNIT STATUS 

374 (nominal) 



CO-REQUISITES 

UNIT LEARNING 

OUTCOMES 


TEACHING AND 


Students will be further enabled to: 

• reflect on their own location, identity and commitment as 

persons and professionals undertaking research; 

• identify learning from the preceding, taught modules that 

may inform and justify their choice of research topic; 

• design, justify and publicly defend to their peers a 

research intention and research design, both in terms of 

research and as a professional contribution; 

• produce and submit an outline doctorial proposal (which 

after being assessed by the course team and possibly 

modified in the light of further thoughts – will eventually 

be submitted to the Faculty Research and Enterprise 

Committee for registration). 

This independent study unit will draw on the content of Phase 

A of the programme. 



• lectures 


• tutorials 

53





ASSESSMENT 

STRATEGIES 



An outline proposal for the thesis. This will comprise its 

location in the context of a range of key literature (including 

methodology literature), the students proposed research 

design and associated professional and research rationales. 

This will be underpinned by arguments for the proposal with 

reference to the student’s professional practice and their 

experience of the taught units. 

Word length: 4-5,000words (blind double marked) 


FOR UNIT/ELEMENTS 

OF ASSESSMENT 

The students will demonstrate via the proposal that: 

• the area of work chosen is capable of rigorous treatment 

appropriate to doctoral level work; 

• there is reference to and appropriate knowledge of a 

range of key literature (including methodology literature); 

• there is clear argument and justification in terms of their 

own professional position and context as well as 

recognition of personal theoretical and methodological 

standpoint/s; 

• there is specific articulation in relation to arguments 

interrelating with the taught units of Phase A of the 

programme. 



Students should refer to the indicative reading lists for Phase 

A units. 


AND COMMENTS 


31 March 2009 


CONSIDERATION 

54



UNIT TITLE 

The Thesis 




SUBJECT AREA 

UNIT LEADER 




Professor John Schostak 





LEARNING) 

3385 (nominal) 

UNIT STATUS 



CO-REQUISITES 

UNIT LEARNING 

OUTCOMES 

The purpose of the thesis is to enable substantive knowledge 

relating to professional concerns to be deployed in a 

methodological design that will enable the student to select 

from and accomplish, a number of objectives: 

• create original knowledge relating to the focus of 

inquiry; 

• further integrate knowledge of research with the 

nature of professionalism; 

• act and reflect critically within a context of 

professional inquiry; 

• contribute originally or creatively to research 

methodology or methods; 

• demonstrate the capacity to relate their reading to key 

professional issues in their field, including ethical 

issues; 

• relate theory to practice and where applicable to 

apply theory performatively to their professional 

practice 


TEACHING AND 


ASSESSMENT 

STRATEGIES 

N/A 

Personal tutorials with the Research Programme Supervisory 

team. 

40-60,000 words Thesis. 

55




FOR UNIT/ELEMENTS OF 

ASSESSMENT 

The examiners should be satisfied that, at the end of the 

period of study, the thesis makes a substantial and original 

contribution to knowledge or understanding, and that the 

candidate can demonstrate the development of their 

understanding of research issues by reference to their 

coursework assignments if relevant and necessary to 

discussion within the viva voce examination. The candidate 

may choose to submit a permanent record (eg audio or digital 

recording) of a performative element of their research as 

evidence of this development, which can be integrated with 

the thesis to constitute, in combination, 100% of the 

assessed work. 

Whilst the viva voce examination should focus on the thesis 

element of the EdD Programme, assessed work in Phases A & 

B of the EdD Programme should demonstrate that the 

candidate has, as appropriate to their professional focus, that 

they have*: 

• clearly understood and assimilated relevant literature 

and have a thorough knowledge of, and are able to 

critically appraise, such literature; 

• the capacity to relate their reading to key professional 

issues in their field, including ethical issues, and to 

relate theory to practice, and where appropriate, to 

performance, in their professional field; 

• the capacity to discuss and evaluate, with fluency and 

consistency, evidence and theories drawn from a wide 

range of sources; 

• the capacity to analyse problems and issues related to 

their professional contexts of action; 

• the capacity for critique and reflective engagement 

with particular topics; 

• the capacity to conduct and report empirical research 

properly, as necessary, and with appropriate 

reflexivity; 

• the capacity to present and discuss the implications of 

their analyses with respect to changes in policy and 

practice. 



Anderson, G. (1990) Fundamentals of Educational Research. 

Lewes: Falmer Press. 

Bell, J. (1993) Doing Your Own Research Project, 2 nd edition. 


Britzman, D. (1998) Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: 

Towards a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning. Albany, NY: 

State University of New York Press. 

Britzman, D. and Dippo, D. (2003) ‘Admitting ‘a perhaps’: 

Maxine Greene and the project of critical theory’, in M. Peters, 

C. Lankshear and M. Olsen (eds.) Critical Theory and the 

Human Condition; Founders and Praxis. New York: Peter 

Lang. 

Brown, T. and Jones, L. (2001) Action Research and 

56



Postmodernism: Congruence and Critique. Buckingham: Open 


Burgess, R.G. (ed.) (1989) The Ethics of Educational 

Research. London: Falmer Press. 

Caldas-Coulthard, R. and Coulthard, M. (eds) (1996) Texts 

and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. 


Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: 

educational knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer 

Press. 

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in 

Education. London: Routledge. 

Delamont, S. (2001) Fieldwork in Educational Settings: 

Methods, Pitfalls and Perspectives, 2 nd edition. London: 

Routledge. 

Denzin, N. (1997) Interpretive Ethnography: ethnographic 

practices for the 21 st century. London: Sage. 

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) The Handbook for 

Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. 


Fetterman, D. (1998) Ethnography: Step by Step, 2 nd edition. 

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Foster, P. (1996) Observing Schools: a methodological guide. 

London: Paul Chapman. 

Gomm, R. and Woods, P. (eds.) (1993) Educational Research 

in Action. London: Paul Chapman. 

Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004) Combining Methods in 

Educational and Social Research. Buckingham: Open 


Hammersley, M. (ed.) (1993) Educational Research: current 

issues. London: Paul Chapman. 

Harding, S. (1987) Feminism and Methodology. Milton 

Keynes: Open University Press. 

Hart, E. and Bond, M. (1995) Action Research for Health and 

Social Care: a guide to practice. Milton Keynes: Open 


Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage. 

Hoggart, K., Lees, L. and Davies, A. (2002) Researching 

Human Geography. London: Arnold. 

Hopkins, D. (1993) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. 


Kincheloe, J. and Berry, K. (2004) Rigour and Complexity in 

Educational Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. 

Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: an introduction to qualitative 

research interviewing. London: Sage. 

Layder, D. (1993) New Strategies in Social Research: an 

Introduction and Guide. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

MacLure, M. (2003) Discourse in Educational and Social 

Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. 

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data 

Analysis: An Expanded Source Book, 2 nd edition. London: 

57



Sage. 

Moustakas, C. (1990) Heuristic Research: Design, 

Methodology and Applications. London: Sage. 

Parahoo, K. (1997) Nursing Research: principles, process and 

issues. London: Macmillan Press. 

Polit, D. and Hungler, B. (1993) Essentials of Nursing 

Research: Methods Appraisal and Utilization. (3rd edition) 

Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company. 

Richardson, L. (1990) Writing Strategies: Research for 

Diverse Audiences. London: Sage. 

Salmon, P. (1992) Achieving a PhD: Ten Students’ 

Experiences. Trentham. 

Schostak, J. (2002) Understanding, Designing and Conducting 

Qualitative Research in Education: Framing the Project. 

Buckingham: Open University Press. 

Smilt, J. (1993) After the Demise of Empiricism: the problem 

of judging social and educational enquiry. Norwood, NJ: 

Ablex. 

Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. London: 

Sage. 

Thomas, G. and Pring, R. (2004) Evidence-based Practice in 

Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. 

Stronach, I. and MacLure, M. (1999) Educational Research 

Undone. Buckingham: Open University Press. 

Walford, G (ed.) (1991) Doing Educational Research. London: 

Routledge. 

Williamson, G.R. and Prosser, S. (2002) ‘Action Research: 

politics, ethics and participation’, Journal of Advanced 

Nursing, 40(5):587-593. 

Wolcott, H.F. (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: 

Description, Analysis and Interpretation. London: Sage. 

Wolf, A. (1995) Competence-based Assessment. Buckingham: 


Yates, L. (2004) What Does Good Education Research Look 

Like Buckingham: Open University Press. 


AND COMMENTS 



* During Phase A of the Doctorate of Education Programme 

candidates are assessed on five written elements. Two 

assignments focus on issues relating to professionalism and 

intervening as professionals and two focus on research 

methods and methodologies, the final assignment focusing on 

preparing for the thesis. All these assessed pieces of work 

have been confirmed by the Phase A Examination Board as 

successful in order for the candidate to proceed to Phase B 

(the thesis phase). 

31 March 2009 

Minor mod approved Faculty Research Degrees Committee 

24 th May 2012 

58



CONSIDERATION 

59



APPENDIX 1: ETHICS 

Ethics Text for Ed Doc/MRes Handbook 

In undertaking any research whether for assignments, for the thesis, (Ed. D) or the final 

dissertation, (MRes) care has to be taken that appropriate ethical procedures are followed. 

General MMU ethics and research governance advice and procedures can be seen on-line at: 

http://www.red.mmu.ac.uk/pageparent=3&page_id=80 . In summary, consent for the 

gathering and use of data should be obtained and the safeguards that will be employed to 

ensure that data is not misused should be explained and agreed with the subjects of the 

research. All data collected within the context of workplace based research should also be 

subjected to appropriate ethical protocols – for example, minutes, memos, e-mails, letters, 

reports. 

In general you must consider the following issues: 

• the freedom of participants to be involved or to decline to be involved in the research 

• confidentiality of the data and of the identity of participants in any subsequent 

written reports 

• how to anonymise data 

• safeguards to be used in recording, transcribing and storing data 

• gaining the consent of the subjects of the research 

• agreements concerning the use of the data 

In most professional contexts – e.g., a school, a hospital, a community centre – it is 

advisable to adopt a formal approach in obtaining consent from participants. 

An illustrative draft letter asking for consent as well as an information project/assignment 

sheet and consent form is to be found in appendix/section … These drafts may be modified 

for the circumstances under which they are to be used. Advice concerning their use for your 

particular assignment/project should be sought from your supervisor. 

There may be particular cases or unique circumstances where these general guidelines may 

not suffice. In such circumstances you must consult with your supervisor/personal tutor as 

well as personnel within the research context. 

60



Sample Letter 

Dear 

I am currently undertaking a research project/assignment to investigate ……… . I 

would value your input and would like to invite you to take part in ………… on 

. I would also ask you to consider granting us permission to use audio and/or 

video recording for the interview/observation/focus group/….. 

Before you decide if you would like to take part in this research, it is important for you 

to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take 

time to read the attached information sheet carefully and discuss it with others if you 

wish. Please ask if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more 

information. 

Thank you for your time and co-operation. 

Yours sincerely 

(name 

61



Sample Information Sheet 

Study title: 

…….. 

The purpose of the study is to investigate: 

• ……….. 

Why have I been asked to take part 

You have been invited to take part because………… . 

Do I have to take part 

It is up to you to decide whether or not you take part. If you do decide to take part, 

you will be given an information sheet to keep and be asked to sign a consent form. 

If you do decide to take part you are still free to withdraw at any time and without 

giving a reason. 

What will I have to do 

If you agree to take part in the study you will be invited to take part in an 

interview/observation/focus group/questionnaire which will take approximately 

minutes. During this time you will be asked about ….. Or observed doing ….. 

Will my name appear in any written reports of this study 

All information that is collected about you during the course of the study will be kept 

strictly confidential. Any information about you which leaves the Manchester 

Metropolitan University will have your name removed so that you cannot be 

recognised. When the results of the research are published direct quotes from the 

interviews may be used. These will all be anonymised. 

What will happen to the data generated 

Each interview/observation/focus group/questionnaire will be recorded in xxx format 

and analysed to draw out themes and issues. All paper documents will be kept in a 

locked filing cabinet, computer records will be password protected. 

62



I would like to audio/video record. Data will be included in the data analysis and 

small sections may also be used to illustrate project findings for 

assignments/dissertation/other (e.g., seminars and online). If you would prefer not to 

be recorded you can indicate this on the consent form. The material will be used only 

for the purposes of this research dissertation/assignment and it will be stored in a 

secure locked cabinet in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Please note that, 

in a small number of cases, I may wish to include video clips or still images in 

publications or conference presentations, but I would only do so after informing you 

of this 

If you would like to take part in the research please read and complete the attached 

consent form. Thank you for taking the time to read this information. 

Yours sincerely, 

….name…. 

63



Sample Consent Form 

Title of project: ………………… 

Researcher: 

I have read the research information sheet and I am aware of the 

purpose of this research study. I am willing to be part of this study and have been 

given the researcher’s contact details if I need any further information. 

My signature confirms that I have decided to participate having read and understood 

the information given and had an opportunity to ask questions. 

I ………………………………………………………….give my permission for my data 

to be used as part of this study and understand that I can withdraw at any time and 

my data will be destroyed. 

Signature……………………………………………Date……………………….. 

Direct quotes 

I ………………………………………………………….give my permission for direct 

quotes from my interview to be used as part of this study. 


Video recording 

I ………………………………………………………….give my permission for my 

interview to be video recorded and used as part of this study. 


I have explained the nature of the study to the subject and in my opinion the subject 

is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed consent to participate. 

researcher……………………………………………………Date………………… 

64

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY - Faculty of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?