What motivates EdD students to pursue a professional doctorate: a mixed methods international study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is more than one ‘terminal degree’ in education: one is the PhD, typically understood as preparing future researchers; another is the EdD, the professional doctorate which prepares educators to be leaders in their field. Interest and enrollment in EdD programs are high but student motivations for pursuing the degree remain little understood and underexplored. Previous studies have examined doctoral students’ motivations broadly, focusing on extrinsic and intrinsic factors. However, the unique motivations of EdD students, who often balance academics with professional responsibilities, have been less thoroughly investigated. This paper addresses this gap through an international, mixed methods study. Phase one surveyed 581 current EdD students from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Phase two involved semi-structured interviews to probe the survey findings in greater depth. Analysis included quantitative statistical analysis and qualitative coding using a conceptual framework of four primary motivations: personal satisfaction/love of learning, knowledge and skills development, career advancement, and contributions to the profession. Results showed that motivations were multifaceted and varied with demographic and geographic groups. Overall, respondents primarily choose to take the EdD for personal satisfaction/love of learning; however, motivation was influenced by age, career stage, career field, and country. Findings further emphasized that core motivations are interconnected, and additional external factors – relational support and program structure – also influenced decision-making. This research offers new insights into why students pursue this practical degree and aids institutions and policymakers to design programs that better meet EdD students’ diverse expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".