University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploration of innovation in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploration of innovation in higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN EXPLORATION OF INNOVATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
By
Kristin Joy Craun
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2021
Copyright 2021 Kristin Joy Craun

ii

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge Dr. Julie Slayton. Julie, you have been my
fearless leader, colleague, mentor, confident, and friend. Words will never be able to express the
level of pure gratitude I have for your unwavering support, guidance, brutal honesty, and
relentless encouragement. Thank you for being the brightest light guiding me through this
process. Thank you for giving me space when you knew I needed it. Thank you for calling me
out on my shit when you knew I needed it. This would have never happened without you. You
are a treasure.
I want to thank my other dissertation committee members, Dr. John Pascarella and Dr
Artineh Samkian, thank you for coming in at the last minute and being true angels to help see me
through this.
Thank you for everything mom! Everything I do, I do in the hopes to make you proud of
me.
To my children, Harper, and Camden, I hope you always pursue your goals and dreams at
any cost and know I will always support and love you.
To the love of my life, Thomas E. Rochford, you are my greatest privilege, and most
exceptional honor. Thank you for being my partner in life.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... vv

Chapter 1: An Overview..............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .....................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................8
Importance of the Study ...........................................................................................................8
Organization of Study ..............................................................................................................9

Chapter Two: Review of Literature ........................................................................................... 10
Leadership ............................................................................................................................. 11
Leadership as a Process ...................................................................................................... 13
Leadership Involves Influence ............................................................................................ 13
Leadership Occurs in Groups ............................................................................................. 13
Leadership Includes Attention to Common Goals ............................................................... 13
Power................................................................................................................................. 14
Adult Learning ...................................................................................................................... 15
Accelerated Learning ......................................................................................................... 15
Coaching ............................................................................................................................ 16
Guided Design ................................................................................................................... 16
Just-in-Time Training......................................................................................................... 16
The Innovator’s DNA ............................................................................................................ 17
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 18
The Five Discovery Skills .................................................................................................. 19
Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................. 25
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................... 25
Leadership and Adult Learning .......................................................................................... 26
The Five Discovery Skills .................................................................................................. 27

Chapter Three: Research Methods ............................................................................................. 31
Research Design .................................................................................................................... 31
Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 32
Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 32
Setting ............................................................................................................................... 32
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 33
Data Collection and Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 34
Observations ...................................................................................................................... 34
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 36
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 36

iv

Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................................. 41
Ethics .................................................................................................................................... 42
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................ 42
Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 42
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 43
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 44

Chapter Four: Findings.............................................................................................................. 45
Description of the Thematic Group ........................................................................................ 45
Findings ................................................................................................................................ 48

Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations ................................................ 74
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................ 76
Implications and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 78
Practice .............................................................................................................................. 79
Policy................................................................................................................................. 79
Research ............................................................................................................................ 80
Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................ 81

References ................................................................................................................................ 83

v

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine how one student demonstrated innovative
thinking—represented by the five skills described in the Innovators DNA (Dyer et al., 2011)—
through a thematic group dissertation process and how the dissertation chair fostered that
engagement in innovation through leadership and adult learning processes. The following
research questions informed the study: 1) How do the actions of the EdD dissertation group
leader shape students’ ability to engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation process
in the context of a group focused on innovation? 2) How does one member of an EdD
dissertation group use the five discovery skills in their dissertation process to engage in an
innovative dissertation?
The qualitative single-case study examined one thematic group dissertation chair and one
student member of the thematic group. Data consisted of one 45-minute semi-structured
interview of the student and observations of scheduled thematic group meetings from May
through October 2012. Three major findings emerged: 1) The structure of the thematic group did
not support the student’s ability to engage in the Discovery Skills; 2) The student acted
independently from the group and did not see this as a collective endeavor and did not believe
she could contribute to the rest of the group; and 3) She used the discovery skills but in a way
that is not consistent with the underlying assumptions about the purpose of the Innovator’s DNA
and Discovery Skills.

1

CHAPTER 1: AN OVERVIEW
Innovation is the foundation to global economic growth and social progress (Dyer et al.,
2011). Innovators and entrepreneurs need to develop specific skill sets such as technical,
thinking, and creativity skills, as well as social and behavioral skills to generate creative and
breakthrough ideas. According to Dyer et al. (2011), the most innovative companies such as
Google, Apple, and Virgin explicitly screen job candidates for creativity related skills and
innovation as part of the hiring process. This dissertation study focused on the extent to which
students in an educational doctorate program were offered opportunities to develop the thinking
skills associated with innovation. More specifically, the focus was on whether students who were
interested in engaging in creative and innovative dissertation topics or creating innovative
products for their dissertation were also afforded the opportunity to develop and practice the five
discovery skills that Dyer et al. (2011) argue are essential for innovators and entrepreneurs. The
remainder of this chapter provides the background and statement of the problem, the research
questions that guided this study, the significance of the study, and an overview of the
dissertation.
Background of the Problem
A 2013 survey of employers conducted by the Association of American colleges and
Universities provided a detailed analysis of employers’ priorities when hiring recent college
graduates. Nearly 95 percent of employers said they gave hiring preference to college graduates
with skills that allowed them to contribute to innovation in the workplace. The survey also
revealed that 92 percent agreed that innovation was essential to the organizations continued
success. In addition, 56 percent of employers expressed satisfaction with the job colleges and
universities were doing to prepare graduates for success in the workplace, but more than two in

2

five employers indicated room for improvement (Association of American Colleges and
Universities, 2013).
According to the Council of Graduate Schools (2014), the competitiveness of the United
States and our nation’s capacity for innovation hinge fundamentally on a strong system of
graduate schools. Graduate education programs are essential to the preparation of those who will
innovate and lead in the global economy (Council of Graduate Schools and Educational Testing
Service, 2010). Higher education plays in important role in providing people with and
strengthening the skills for mastering innovation. According to the National Academy of Science
report on Research Universities in the Future of America (2012), in the last 50 years, innovation
itself has been increasingly driven by educated people and the knowledge they produce. The
report details that the primary source of both new knowledge and graduates with advanced skills
continue to be research universities.
According to Baez (2002), the doctoral education started in Medieval universities to train
men in medicine, law, and theology. The term doctor derived from the Latin word “doceo,”
referred to a teacher, and the doctoral degree was given to those who would teach in universities
(Radford, 2001). Research soon became a critical component of the PhD in German universities
with the rise of the sciences in the nineteenth century. In the United States, Yale granted the first
PhD in 1861, however it was not until 1876 that Johns Hopkins University influenced the
American doctorate the most, structuring its PhD after the German universities. John Hopkins’s
PhD and M.A. were not considered separate degrees until 1909, when the M.A. was reserved for
college teachers and the PhD was awarded to those deemed exceptional at making contributions
to original research. Baez (2002) describes that by the middle of the twentieth century, the PhD
became the necessary degree for those who wanted to teach at a college level.

3

From the 1880s to the 1930s it was described as the formation of the American model of
doctoral education. During that period, separate disciplines with separate interest areas and
academic departments began to develop. It was during this period that there was movement from
general scholar, able to range freely among interests and fields, to scholar as a specialist.
Professions soon began requiring higher level credentials which required doctoral
education to be rethought (Brubacher & Rudy, 1958). Harvard was the first to respond to this
with the development of the EdD in 1920 for practicing educators. The Association of American
Colleges and Universities define the EdD as a terminal degree, presented as an opportunity to
prepare for academic, administrative, or specialized roles in education. The degree favorably
places graduates for leadership responsibilities or executive-level professional positions across
the education industry (National Science Foundation, 2011 as cited by Storey et al., 2015).
According to Osguthorpe and Wong (1993), at most academic institutions where education
doctorates are offered, the institution chooses to offer an EdD or PhD or perhaps often both. The
EdD however was seen as inferior to the PhD in the field of education as mediocre theses were
being accepted for the doctorate (MacDonald, 1943). This sentiment was also shared by
Shulman et al. (2006) who claimed that the EdD and PhD programs are not synonymous with
their distant theoretical purposes, and that poorly structured programs, marked by confusion of
purpose, caused the EdD to be viewed as “PhD light” rather than a separate degree for a separate
profession (as cited by Storey et al., 2015). The problem became more pronounced with the
increasing desire for doctoral degrees by high school teachers. Some colleges began offering the
Doctor of Education degree to meet the demands of this new market, requiring no original
contribution to new knowledge within the thesis (MacDonald, 1943). Baez (2002) argued that
the PhD is still seen as research oriented, while the EdD is practitioner oriented. Shulman et al

4

(2006), state the EdD is intended as preparation for school administrative leadership, and the
PhD is assumed to be an academic degree that prepares researchers, university faculty, and
education scholars. Most scholars would argue that EdDs are practitioner-scholar degrees
(Shulman et.al, 2006; Storey et al., 2015; Wergin, 2011;). The intention of the EdD is not to
produce scholars who focus on producing research but instead focuses on the production of
practitioners who will use research to inform their efforts (Shulman et al., 2006; Wergin, 2011.
This distinction is important because having college graduates, that will eventually occupy the
workforce, who have the ability to identify and solve problems of practice, to innovate, to
continually produce new ideas, is what drives economic success and solves real world problems.
As such, Doctor of Education programs have been reinventing themselves to not only
differentiate themselves from traditional PhD programs, but also to emphasize and enhance
innovation and solve the problems of practice (Shulman et al., 2006). This is important to do as
society needs leaders in education who are: (a) able to integrate knowledge related to the
educational process through disciplined inquiry, (b) innovative in their approach to solving
education challenges, and (c) productive team members in educational settings who strive to
enhance the quality of our nation’s educational system (Tucker, 2010). One such innovation in
these programs was the introduction of the thematic group dissertation model (Shulman et al.,
2006). The product of a thematic group model is similar to a traditional 5-chapter dissertation in
that each student produces their own original work. However, it differs from a traditional model
in that students work together as a group on related topics or themes under the direction of a
faculty member as they develop their research proposals (Marsh & Dembo, 2009). According to
Rueda et al., (2013) after a ten year retrospective in the development of an EdD program they
detail that the faculty administering and supporting the EdD program were committed to helping

5

all existing students in the EdD complete their degree in a reasonable period of time. One of the
processes to ensure timely completion was faculty organized dissertation work groups in which
faculty would take on clusters of students and work with them in an aggressively structured way
in order to get as many students to complete the degree as possible. This was the precursor to the
thematic dissertation group model. The thematic group dissertation model then evolved and
designed to emulate the type of collaboration and teamwork required in real world settings
(Rueda et al., 2013). Rueda et al., (2013) detailed that the EdD program anticipated that
approximately 80 percent of students would participate in the thematic group process and 20
percent would opt for an independent dissertation model. However, what they found was 93.3
percent chose the thematic dissertation model and that percentage remains constant since the
program started. According to the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (2008), the goals
of the thematic group dissertation model include:
• Resolving problems of practice,
• Moving to collaborative inquiry rather than one time research project (traditional
dissertation),
• Building executive leadership,
• Adding to professional leadership capacity in districts.
At the time of this study, the 4-year private university where this research took place
offered thematic dissertation groups where students worked collaboratively with faculty and
practitioners to study current problems in educational leadership. To introduce the path of
innovation, faculty were given wide latitude for topics to pursue with the thematic groups.
Further, EdD students were encouraged to explore innovative and creative dissertation topics.
Examining how innovation is operationalized with students and the dissertation chair in the EdD

6

thematic group served to illuminate if innovative practices were being utilized through the group
structure and process. Holders of an EdD are expected to be able to use existing knowledge and
innovation, to solve educational problems and to situate their profession in practice (Wergin,
2011).
My decision to examine this particular Ed.D. thematic group was based on the
topic/theme of Innovation and Creativity. It was reasonable to assume and expect that the
students participating in this thematic group would demonstrate collaborative work that
surrounded innovation and creativity, and that was where my interests lay. Another critical
component and expectation of the Ed.D. thematic group dissertation process was collaboration.
According to Marsh and Dembo (2009), the design of an Ed.D. program involved students
remaining with their entering cohort as they moved through the 3-year program. Marsh and
Dembo (2009) argued, “because collaboration is such an important skill in most education
positions in the real world, we wanted to model this element during the Ed.D. program” (p. 74).
Marsh and Dembo (2009) indicated that over 80% of students in the Ed.D. program would
participate in thematic, rather than traditional, dissertations. The make-up of the thematic group
dissertation entails each student researching and writing their own dissertation, but all student
work within a cohort will relate to common themes or education issues and challenges and done
in small groups of students directed by one or two faculty advisers. Marsh and Dembo (2009)
highlighted that they “chose this form of capstone experience because it fosters and is based on
the skills of inquiry and collaboration that we want graduates to carry with them as education
leaders” (p. 74). In the Ed.D. thematic group dissertation model, students met both formally and
informally in all stages of their projects. This model of collaboration was apparent throughout
the dissertation process. Students could assist each other in every aspect of the task and could

7

critique and learn from each other’s efforts. As a result, the thematic dissertation group increased
individual productivity and accountability and could produce robust studies that may make a
significant contribution. For the most part, the graduate students in the Ed.D. program were full-
time professionals who complete their program of study in the afternoon and evening. The
thematic approach to dissertations served many purposes for these students. First, it encouraged
collaboration, which is related to the tasks that students experience on the job. Second, it
emphasized inquiry training around practice. Third, it is more concerned with helping these
practitioners deal with field-based problems and, it emphasized inquiry training around practice.
Fourth, thematic dissertations have the potential to provide important research data for school
districts and higher education institutions (Marsh & Dembo, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
Little is known about the way that EdD thematic dissertation groups operate at large. The
writing about EdD programs is focused on the program level rather than on the inner workings of
coursework and dissertation groups (Shulman et al., 2006; Wergin, 2011). These pieces focus on
what a program should accomplish more than on what it does accomplish. In fact, Storey et al.
(2014) found that efforts to change the final dissertation in practice process led to few changes in
the actual final product (i.e., 5-chapter dissertation). They also found that more specifically, no
research has attended to the way that a thematic dissertation group operates or whether it
accomplishes the goals articulated by the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Thus,
there was a dearth of information about whether focusing on creativity and innovation in a
thematic dissertation group provided structures (i.e., leadership and adult learning attributes) that
promoted innovation and the acquisition of skills necessary to engage in innovation. Moreover,
not much is known about students’ experiences within the group and the ways in which the

8

students were positioned to engage their peers in innovative thinking or to do so within the
context of their own dissertation work. This process was important to examine as there is a need
for innovative graduate students who can employ critical thinking and problem-solving skills to
successfully address real-world challenges (Walker et al., 2008).
Purpose of the Study
As such the purpose of this case study was to examine how a thematic dissertation group
promoted the adoption of innovation related skills and whether one student within that group
demonstrated innovative thinking through the thematic group process. It was important to
discover if graduate students in a doctoral thematic group exhibited innovation in solving
problems of practice. The people and organization involved in the study were one doctoral
student and the chair of a dissertation group at a 4-year, private university in Southern California.
The research questions for the study were:
1) How do the actions of the EdD dissertation group leader shape students’ ability to
engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation process in the context of a
group focused on innovation?
2) How does one member of an EdD dissertation group use the five discovery skills in
their dissertation process to engage in an innovative dissertation?
Importance of the Study
This study is important because it can inform the approaches taken by other EdD
programs and higher education institutions that enact or are considering enacting a thematic
group model and who seek to develop graduate students’ innovation skills in order to solve
problems confronting education (K-12 and higher education) and society more broadly. The
ability to innovate, produce new ideas, and bring them to fruition drives economic success. To

9

continue to maintain global economic growth, the United States needs employees who are
capable of generating innovative ideas to solve business, social, and consumer problems (Behar-
Hornstein & Niu, 2011).
Organization of Study
Chapter One of the study has presented the introduction into the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered,
and the importance of the study.
Chapter Two provides a limited review of relevant literature on leadership, adult learning,
and the Innovator’s DNA. It also provides the conceptual framework that was used to analyze the
data collected to answer the research questions.
Chapter Three presents the methodology used in the study including the research design,
population and sampling procedures, the interview and observation protocols and the actions I
undertook to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the findings. Chapter Four offers the
findings of the study. Chapter Five offers implications and recommendations in relation to
policy, practice, and future research.

10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This study examined how the chair of a thematic dissertation group focused on creativity
and innovation fostered conditions for students to adopt and enact the five skills described in the
Innovators DNA (Dyer et al., 2011) through leadership and adult learning structures and how one
student demonstrated innovative thinking through the group dissertation process and asked the
following research questions:
3) How do the actions of the EdD dissertation group leader shape students’ ability to
engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation process in the context of a
group focused on innovation?
4) How does one member of an EdD dissertation group use the five discovery skills in
their dissertation process to engage in an innovative dissertation?
I drew upon three bodies of literature to answer these questions: Leadership, Adult
Learning, and the Innovators DNA. Each body of literature contributed to my ability to analyze
the data collected for this study.
i
Thus, the goal of this review of literature is to present the
relevant and limited literature related to leadership, adult learning, and the Innovator’s DNA.
Leadership was an important body of literature as it explained the attributes of leadership that
would be necessary for followers, in this case students, to accomplish goals established by the
leader. Adult learning literature provided insight into the instructional structures that would
support students’ acquisition and application of a set of skills. And finally, the literature related
to the Innovator’s DNA provided insight into the five discovery skills identified by Dyer et al.
(2011) as well as the ways in which these skills have been studied in a variety of settings. The
chapter ends with the conceptual framework that emerged as a result of data analysis.

11

Leadership
Leadership is a highly sought-after and highly valued commodity (Northouse, 2016).
There is continued public discussion and debate on what makes good leaders and individuals
continuously to seek out information on how to become effective leaders. Many individuals
believe that leadership is a way to improve their personal, social, and professional lives
(Northouse, 2016). Businesses seek out those with leadership capability, as they believe they
bring special assets to their organizations and will improve their bottom line (Northouse, 2016).
Academic institutions throughout the country provide programs and degrees in leadership
studies. In addition, leadership has also gained the attention of researchers across the world
(Northouse, 2016). Northouse (2016) illustrates that leadership has been studied using both
qualitative and quantitative methods in varying contexts, including small groups, therapeutic
groups, and large organizations and summarizes that collectively the research findings are quite
complex, rather than the overly simplistic view on leadership that is often presented.
In reviewing the literature on leadership, one would find a multitude of definitions of
leadership and the definitions have evolved almost every decade since the 1920s and have been
influenced by many factors from world affairs, politics, to perspectives of disciplines being
studied (Northouse, 2016). Not only are there multiple definitions of leadership, but there are
also multiple ways of conceptualizing leadership (Northouse, 2016). Some of these
classifications conceptualize leadership as the focus of group processes where in the leader is at
the center of group change and activity and embodies the will of the group (Northouse, 2016).
An alternative conception of leadership is that it is the product of one’s personality. This
conception suggests leadership has a combination of special traits or characteristic that some
individuals possess, and others do not. Those who have the characteristics are able to induce

12

others to accomplish tasks (Northouse, 2016). Elmore (2000) applies this general conception of
leadership to education in particular. He says,
Leadership tends to be romanticized in American culture especially in the culture of
schooling, both because we subscribe heavily to trait theories of success–people succeed
because of their personal characteristics, more than because of effort, skill, and
knowledge-and because we like our heroes to have qualities that we think we don’t have.
(p. 13)
One could argue that this is one of the widely misunderstood and adopted notions of leadership,
limiting leadership to individuals with a set of existing traits rather than conceptualizing
leadership as something that can be taught and a skill set and knowledge base that can be
acquired. Also, character traits are much less amenable to influence by education, training, and
practice than knowledge and skill (Elmore, 2000).
Another way of defining leadership is that it is an act/acts or behavior(s), things leaders
do bring about change to the group (Northouse, 2016). Others have defined leadership in terms
of power relationships between leaders and followers. In this definition, leaders have power to
wield change over or through followers (Northouse, 2016). Some scholars have viewed
leadership as a transformational process that moves followers to accomplish more than is usually
expected of them (Northouse, 2016). Lastly, other scholars have the viewpoint that leadership
stems from a skills perspective that stress the knowledge and skills that make an effective leader
possible (Northouse, 2016).
Regardless of the countless ways leadership has been defined and conceptualized,
Northouse (2016) defines Leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). Central to this definition, Northouse (2016)

13

identifies four components of leadership that include the following: (a) Leadership is a process,
(b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in groups, and (d) leadership involves
common goals. In the following section, I offer an explanation of each of these components.
Leadership as a Process
According to Northouse (2016), defining leadership as a process allows it to be
transactional events between the leader and the followers, and not a trait or characteristic.
Northouse (2016) states that, “Process implies that a leader affects and is affected by the
followers. It emphasizes that leadership is not a linear one-way event, but rather an interactive
event” (p. 6).
Leadership Involves Influence
Northouse (2016) argues that leadership is not possible if one does not have influence
over others. He suggests that leaders affect followers, and without influence, leadership does not
exist.
Leadership Occurs in Groups
Northouse (2016) asserts that leadership takes place within groups. It does not happen in
isolation and it does not happen when others are not around to be led. Additionally, leadership
involves influencing a group of individuals who have, or to have, a common purpose.
Leadership Includes Attention to Common Goals
Finally, Northouse (2016) identifies leaders directing their energy toward individuals
who are trying to achieve something together. Northouse states, “by common we mean that the
leaders and followers have a mutual purpose” (p. 6). Individuals are sometimes leaders due to
their formal position in an organization, whereas others are leaders because of the way other
group members respond to them. Northouse (2016) identifies these two types of leaders as

14

assigned versus emergent leaders. Leadership positions that are based on occupying a position in
an organization are assigned leaders, although being assigned to a leadership position does not
always make one a leader (Northouse, 2016). When others perceive an individual as the most
influential of a group, regardless of their position or title, that person is exhibiting emergent
leadership (Northouse, 2016). Individuals emerge as leaders as other group members support and
accept the leader’s communication behavior (Northouse, 2016). In addition to communication
behaviors, researchers have shown that personality is a factor of leadership emergent (Northouse,
2016).
Power
Northouse (2016) notes that although there are no explicit theories in the research
literature about power and leadership, power is a concept that people often associate with
leadership. Power is often thought of as synonymous with leadership (Northouse, 2016).
According to Kellerman (2012), there has been a shift in leadership power over the past 40 years.
Kellerman (2012) argues that power used to be in the domain of the leaders but given the change
in culture, growth and access to technology and information has resulted with more empowered
followers who have less respect for leaders. Northouse (2016) identifies two types of power:
personal power and positional power. Personal power is “the influence capacity a leader derives
from being seen by followers as likeable and knowledgeable” (p. 12). Positional power is “is the
power a person derives from a particular office or rank in a formal organization system” (p. 11).
The literature reviewed on leadership pointed to a set of essential concepts that were
relevant to the data analysis conducted to answer the two research questions of interest.
Leadership is a process. It is not a single act. It is ongoing. In addition, it requires the leader to
have the ability to influence a group of individuals towards a common goal. Power plays a role in

15

the extent to which one can lead. While one might have positional power, if that individual does
not engage in activities that enable members of the group to mobilize in a given direction, there
is a reasonable likelihood that members of the group will not follow. While leadership was
important in understanding the relationship between the chair and members of the dissertation
group, it was insufficient. Understanding the structures that needed to be in place to support the
successful enactment of leadership towards the acquisition and expression of the five discovery
skills required the inclusion of literature on adult learning.
Adult Learning
Adult learning refers to a collection of theories and methods for describing the conditions
under which the processes of learning are optimized (Trivette et al., 2009). According to Trivette
et al. (2009), there are four adult learning methods: accelerated learning, coaching, guided
design, and just-in-time training. In the remainder of this section, I offer an explanation of each
of these methods.
Accelerated Learning
This adult learning method includes procedures for creating a relaxed emotional state, an
orchestrated and multi-sensory learning environment, and active learner engagement in the
learning process (Meier, 2000 as cited by Trivette et al., 2009). A relaxed emotional state
includes breathing exercises, relaxation and a positive learning atmosphere. An orchestrated
environment includes imagery, dramatic readings, instructional videos, and peripherals such as
posters and visual displays. Active learning includes skits, plays, role-playing, group activities,
and journal writing (Trivette et al., 2009). This learning method is considered a holistic adult
learning method that is intended to promote creation, enhance retention, and quicken the learning
process (Trivette et al., 2009).

16

Coaching
This adult learning method includes procedures for joint planning and goal setting, coach
information sharing and modeling, learner information gathering and practicing, analysis of and
reflection on the learner’s experiences and coach feedback (Leat et al. as cited by Trivette et al.,
2009). Coaching is a learner driven process supported by a coach’s encouragement and use of
their knowledge and skills to promote learner understanding and use of newly acquired skills
(Gallacher, 1997 as cited by Trivette et al., 2009). Coaching is a conceptualized process that
improves knowledge and skills, self-confidence, and collegial relationships as a result of ongoing
coaching episodes (Trivette et al., 2009).
Guided Design
This adult learning method involves decision-making and problem-solving process that
includes procedures for using real world problems for mastering learning content using small
group or team processing and facilitator guidance and feedback (Wales & Stager as cited in
Trivette et al., 2009). This method was first used to teach decision making skills to engineering
students (Colvin et al. as cited by Trivette et al., 2009) but is now widely used in a number of
fields that involve decision making and problem-solving. (Trivette et al., 2009). The benefits of
this adult learning method include higher-order problem-solving and meta-cognitive thinking
abilities (Trivette et al., 2009).
Just-in-Time Training
This adult learning method provides individualized, tailored training in response to a
request specific to an immediate concern or need (Redding & Kam, 1999 as cited by Trivette et
al., 2009). The key characteristics of this adult learning method include access to or provision of
information needed to improve performance or complete a task, on-the-job use of the

17

information or guidance, and the availability of input from a mentor, supervisor, or coach on an
as-needed basis (Bersin & O’Leonard, 2005 as cited by Trivette et al., 2009). The main outcome
of just-in-time training is context specific improvement of knowledge and performance (Trivette
et al., 2009).
Literature on adult learning provided insight into the approaches that the dissertation
chair might have taken to promoting students’ acquisition and enactment of the five discovery
skills. Coaching, guided design, and just-in-time training provide techniques and strategies that
could be deployed to promote followership towards the collective goal of engaging in an
innovative and creative dissertation process. The remaining body of literature that was essential
to understanding the interactions between the dissertation chair and the students was the
Innovator’s DNA. This body provided the skills to be acquired and demonstrated by the students
within the group.
The Innovator’s DNA
In analyzing the data collected for this study, I examined how a dissertation chair fostered
the engagement of those skills by enacting leadership and adult learning techniques and how one
student demonstrated innovative thinking using the five discovery skills. Dyer et al. (2011)
clearly highlight that “one’s ability to generate innovative ideas is not merely a function of the
mind, but also a function of behaviors” (2011, p. 3). While engagement in the discovery skills of
associating, questioning, observing experimenting, and networking is the critical component of
the Innovators DNA, Dyer et al. (2011) contend while inherent, these five discovery skills can
also be honed and cultivated. In the remainder of this section, I offer an overview of the
Innovator’s DNA, the five discovery skills, and research that has examined the Innovator’s DNA
in a variety of settings.

18

Overview
The Innovator’s DNA is a concept that was developed based on an 8-year collaborative
research project aimed to better understand disruptive innovators. Clay Christensen defines
disruptive innovations as a “process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple
applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up the market, eventually
displacing established competitors” (https://claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/). The project
entailed interviewing approximately 100 inventors of revolutionary products and services as well
as executives of companies built on innovative business ideas. The authors of the Innovator’s
DNA concept wanted a comprehensive understanding of these individuals including the
moments of when and how they came up with their creative idea that established a new product
or business. In analyzing the interview responses, the authors noticed a consistent pattern of
actions that emerged from the data. The innovators and executives all exhibited similar behaviors
when discovering new ideas. Based on these findings the authors identified five discovery skills
that compose the concept of the Innovator’s DNA: Associating, Questioning, Observing,
Networking and Experimenting. Research by Dyer et al. (2011) confirmed others’ work that
creativity skills are not simply genetic traits, but they can be developed. Reznikoff et al. (1973)
studied creative abilities in 117 pairs of identical and fraternal twins (aged 15-22) and found that
only about 30% of the performance of identical twins on a battery of 10 creativity tests could be
attributed to genetics (Dyer et al., 2011). Conversely, approximately 80-85% of the twins’
performance on general intelligence (IQ) tests could be attributed to genetics. According to how
scientists measure general intelligence (IQ), it was considered a genetic endowment, but
creativity was not (Dyer et al., 2011). In addition, six other studies of identical twins by
Reznikoff et al. (1973) resulted in approximately 25-40% of what we do innovatively stems from

19

genetics (Dyer et al., 2011). What Dyer at al. (2011) argue is that roughly two-thirds of our
innovation skills come through learning–“from first understanding the skill, then practicing it,
and ultimately gaining confidence in our capacity to create” (Dyer et al., 2011, p. 22 ). The
combination of these five discovery skills—associating, questioning, observing, experimenting,
and networking—encompass the framework of the Innovator’s DNA.
The Five Discovery Skills
Associating
Associating is the first of the five discovery skills. Dyer et al. (2011) define associating as
the ability to successfully connect seemingly unrelated questions problems or ideas from
different fields” (p. 3). In essence to have the ability to make connections across areas of
knowledge, industries, and geographies. Dyer et al. (2011) detail that making connections is
central to innovation and requires the innovator to create the time and circumstances to
experience different ideas, individuals, and organizations. Dyer at al. (2011) writes that “When
the brain is actively absorbing new knowledge, it is more likely to trigger connections between
ideas” (p. 49). Associating is a cognitive skill at the core of the Innovator’s DNA Dyer at al.
(2011). According to Dyer et al. (2011) the best predictor of quality associating skills was how
often people engaged in the four discovery skills: questioning, observing, networking, and
experimenting. Dyer et al. (2011) also details that the key to having relevant associational
insights is “finding the right questions; making compelling observations; talking with diverse
people; and experimenting with the world” (p. 50). It is when different knowledge and
perspectives collide thorough the process of associative thinking where creativity develops Dyer
et al. (2011). Through the process of associative thinking, innovators use cognitive ability to

20

make meaning by making connections between ideas, problems and disciplines that others may
deem as unrelated. Dyer et al. (2011).
Questioning
Peter Drucker who has been affiliated with entrepreneurship and innovation for decades
described the power of provocative questions: “The important and difficult job is to never find
the right answer, it is to find the right question” (Dyer et al., 2011, p. 4). Dyer et al. (2011)
describe questioning as how Disruptive Innovators do their work and note it is the critical
catalyst to creative insights. Questioning the breaking the status quo and considering new
possibilities and ultimately is the creative catalyst for other discovery behaviors: observing,
networking, and experimenting. Innovators ask lots of questions to better understand what is and
what might be and disruptive innovators rely on crafting the right questions to accomplish their
work. The research conducted by Dyer et al. (2011) showed that innovators ask more questions
than non-innovators, and the questions they ask are more provocative. Among the different types
of innovators studies by Dyer et al. (2011), product inventors showed the highest reliance on
questioning to deliver results, followed by start-up and corporate entrepreneurs and finally
process innovators. In this research study, the unit of analysis was a doctoral student whose goal
was to invent a product in the form a learning application for early elementary students.
Observing
Dyer at al. (2011) found from their research that most innovators are intense observers
and they carefully watch the world around them, including customers, products, services,
technologies, and companies and their observations help them gain insight into and ideas for new
ways of doing things. They believe that innovators take themselves out of their routine
environments and create opportunities to see through the eyes of others; they are curious to see

21

firsthand how different stakeholders react to the same situation or how various organizations
handle similar problems. They detail that by observing what does and does not work and by
puzzling over differences from prior experiences, innovators shape their observational skills.
Dyer et al. (2011) further illustrate that innovators carefully, intentionally, and consistently look
out for small behavioral details in the activities of customers, suppliers, and other companies to
gain insights into new ways of doing things. Ultimately, observers try all sorts of techniques to
see the world in a different light.
Experimenting
Innovators view the world as an arena in which to explore and experiment, “constantly
trying out new experiences and piloting new ideas (Dyer et al., 2011, p. 24). The researchers
argue that innovators are relentlessly seeking new experiences, trying on new roles, and
exploring the world intellectually and experientially, holding convictions at bay and testing
hypotheses along the way. Their research also demonstrated that experimenting is the best way
to answer the “what-if” questions as they search for new solutions. Of the five discovery skills,
Dyer et al. (2011) found experimentation to be the best differentiator between innovators and
non-innovators. The research found that there were specifically three kinds of experimentation:
trying out new experiences, taking apart products, processes, and ideas, and testing ideas through
pilots and prototypes. According to Dyer et al. (2011), innovators are less likely to network for
resources or career progression and are more inclined to participate in “idea networking.”
Innovators want to talk to people who have different ideas and perspectives for new ideas and
insights. They found that one of the most powerful experiments innovators can engage in is
living and working overseas. Their research revealed that the more countries a person has lived

22

in, the more likely they are to leverage that experience to deliver innovative products, processes,
or businesses.
Networking
Dyer et al. (2011) define networking as finding and testing new ideas with individuals
from diverse backgrounds to gain radically different perspectives. Innovators engage in
deliberate and intentional interactions with other individuals from diverse backgrounds with
varying perspectives to expand upon their ideas (Dyer et al., 2011). Individuals who network to
meet people inside their field are typically seeking access to resources or ways to advance their
careers. In contrast, innovators or “idea networkers” seek out individuals who are not like them
in an effort to not only gain perspectives and learn new things but also test ideas. Dyer et al.
(2011) found that devoting time and energy to finding and testing ideas through a network of
diverse individuals gives innovators a radically different perspective.
How the Innovator’s DNA has been Studied and Used
Although a fairly new phenomenon, the Innovator’s DNA has been used as a conceptual
framework in a number of studies. Due to deficits in health care education, Armstrong and
Barison (2013), proposed that addressing the oft-cited problems in health care education required
faculty to develop “innovator’s skills” including the ability to facilitate organizational change.
The authors argued given increased social responsibilities and decreased financial resources, it is
imperative that more health care educators and health care delivery system leaders not only
become innovators themselves but also develop systems that support the next generation of
innovators (Armstrong & Barison, 2013). Armstrong and Barison’s research (2013) used the
prism of innovator’s DNA to examine a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program
for health care educators, whose overarching purpose was to develop innovation skills in

23

participants so that they can build their own educational models customized for implementing
changes in their home institutions. The study involved a retrospective review of Harvard Macy
Institute alumni from 1995 to 2010 and suggested that innovator skills can be taught and
applied. Findings from the Armstrong and Barison (2013) study suggested that continuing
professional development programs can develop the five innovator’s skills and can enable health
care educators to build capacity to successfully design and implement long-lasting organizational
change.
Torres Kompen, a leading proponent for, and researcher in personal learning
environments (PLEs) used the Innovator’s DNA (Dyer et al., 2011) to contextualize major
developments in the contributions to research and practice in PLEs. Torres Kompen elaborated
on experiences with implementing PLE initiatives, personal insights on using social media and
Web 2.0 technologies, and the role of PLEs in designing learning for an increasingly complex,
networked community in the digital age (Campbell, 2012).
Tobar-Munoz et al. (2020) identified newer and innovative educational means must be
adjusted for developing skills in innovation and entrepreneurship. Research by Tobar-Munoz et
al., (2020) examined whether and how videogames can develop innovation skills in students of
entrepreneurship and innovation in on-line learning environments by directly observing 23
participants during an interaction with a game specifically tailored for fostering the five
discovery skills of the Innovators DNA. The results from this study showed that participants
enact actions that may involve and develop innovator DNA skills, specifically observing,
associating, and experimenting (Tobar-Munoz et al., 2020).

24

Conceptual Framework
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to explain the main factors, concepts,
assumptions, expectations, and beliefs to be studied (Maxwell, 2013). In addition, a conceptual
framework demonstrates the relationships among the variables mentioned before. Maxwell
(2013) surmises that a conceptual framework is “something that is constructed, not found. It
incorporates pieces that are borrowed from elsewhere, but the structure…is something that you
build, not something that exists ready-made” (p. 41). The conceptual framework presented here
was constructed as a result of analysis of the data that was collected. The Innovator’s DNA was
proposed as an analytic framework to examine the ways in which members of the dissertation
group engaged in a process focused on creativity and innovation. In conjunction with the
Innovator’s DNA, leadership and adult learning emerged as essential to explain the phenomenon
of interest. The framework reveals the way that I came to understand the relationship between
the chair and the students in the thematic group in relation to their ability to acquire and enact the
five discovery skills.
Maxwell (2013) explains that a conceptual framework can be designed as a graphic as
well as in narrative form. Therefore, figure 1 demonstrates the relationships between the chair
and the members of the dissertation group that will lead to the acquisition and enactment of the
five discovery skills. Thus, I argue that, for a leader to move an individual or a group of
individuals towards a collective goal, the adoption of the five discovery skills, the leader must
act continuously as leadership is a process. The leader must be positioned to influence a group of
individuals towards the common goal of acquiring and enacting the five discovery skills.
Moreover, the leader’s ability to move members of the group will be conditioned on the power
the leader has. While the leader might have positional power, if that individual does not engage

25

in activities that enable members of the group to mobilize towards acquiring and enacting the
discover skills, there is a reasonable likelihood that members of the group will not follow. I
further argue that these acts of leadership must include attributes of adult learning. The leader
must understand when to deploy aspects of coaching, guided design, and just-in-time training.
Not only must the leader understand when to deploy the adult learning methods, the leader must
also influence, teach, and model the five discovery skills as constructs of the adult learning
methods. I offer an overview of the steps a leader can take to teach and model the five discovery
skills.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

In the remainder of this section, I briefly explain each component of the framework. I
begin by explaining the relationship between leadership and adult learning techniques and then
offer the way in which the five discovery skills would be exhibited by the chair and the students
if the chair supported their adoption and enactment through the techniques they employed.

STUDENTS LEARN AND EXHIBIT FIVE DISCOVERY SKILLS
Five Discovery Skills of the Innovator's DNA
Associating Questioning Observing Networking Experimenting
LEADERSHIP
Accelerated Learning Coaching Guided Design Just-In-Time Training

26

Leadership and Adult Learning
Drawing on Northouse (2016) and Elmore (2000) I argue that a dissertation chair who is
able to influence a group of students towards the adoption and enactment of the five discovery
skills will create conditions where members of the dissertation group can learn from the chair
and other group members and use the discovery skills to foster their own and their peers’ growth
and innovation. According to Elmore (2000), the task of learning from other people in other
contexts is an active one of analyzing similarities and differences, adapting what makes sense,
and leaving behind what does not. Elmore (2000) also argues that “organizing diverse
competencies requires understanding when the knowledge and skill possessed by the people
within the organization is not equal to the problem they are trying to solve, searching outside the
organization for new knowledge and skill, and bringing it to the organization” (p. 15) This
concept of leadership directly aligns with the discovery skill, networking.
For the dissertation chair to teach associating, the chair might recognize that there are
different topics and ideas being discussed by members of the group and prompt the group by
asking them (guided design) to make connections on the different topics and ideas. This might
trigger individuals to think about, create a logical connection between the different ideas and
topics, and figure out what they have in common.
For the chair to develop group members’ skill of questioning, the chair might first create
a safe space that encourages people to ask questions without judgment. The chair could then
model (coach and/or provide just-in-time training) how to ask the types of questions that would
gain more insights into the problem being discussed or prompt the group to engage in a
“QuestionStorming” approach, which is to brainstorm a number of questions related to a specific
problem. (Dyer et al., 2011).

27

For the chair to teach the skill of observing, the chair could encourage students to watch
people, processes, companies, or technologies in different circumstances outside of the group
context (guided design) and gain insight on what they do and how they do it and to think about it
in a different context. The chair could also instruct (coach) group members to keep a journal that
captures their observations.
The chair could teach group members the skill of networking by encouraging them to do
some idea networking together by socializing with a diversity of people (coaching). The chair
could influence the group members to build these skills by bringing a problem or question to
others in the group (guided design) and asking for their opinion as well as bringing in people
from different countries, different ethnic groups, different religions, different ages or unusual
occupations to explore together an see how other people, live, think and view the world in the
group setting.
Finally, the chair could teach the skill of experimenting by encouraging group members
(coach) to pursue new experiences meaning engaging in interactive learning experiences that
may not have obvious practical applications. Chairs might also encourage and model
experiencing with new opportunities. For example, the chair might encourage students to explore
multiple industries in order to gain insight into their topic. The chair might model experimenting
by mapping out a process or deconstructing an idea to see what works and what does not (just-in-
time training).
The Five Discovery Skills
A dissertation chair who promotes the acquisition and enactment of the five discovery
skills will focus on the way that the chair and the students are able to regularly engage in a series
of back-and-forth questions that are intended to investigate why, why not, how and what for a

28

deeper level of understanding in relation to the way members of the group are approaching their
dissertation topics and products. A chair and student who demonstrate questioning would be seen
engaging in a sequence of movement from abstract to concrete, pushing and probing below the
surface of what members of the group say so that they can help make meaning of something.
Additionally, if the chair and students are able to demonstrate questioning, they would be seen
crafting questions that no one in the group anticipates that yield unexpected insight into why
things are the way they are in relation to their dissertation topics and products.
A dissertation chair and students who engage in the act of associating will draw across
multiple domains and different areas of understanding bringing those things together in new and
different ways to construct new ways of understanding. For example, they might draw from the
literature they are reading for their specific dissertation topic and offer insights and connections
to other members of the group. The chair and students will intentionally seek out new ways of
understanding what is happening around them in order to construct new ways of making
meaning. They will be seen reaching outside of themselves to recast their understanding of the
topics under discussion in new and different ways and draw upon what other people in the group
are discovering through their own dissertation processes.
A dissertation chair and students who observe engage in the act of paying attention. They
are attentive to what is happening around them during dissertation group meetings and attend to
the extent to which they are absorbing information and making use of it to support the work of
members of the group. For example, evidence of observing would be sitting back, listening, note
taking, questioning, demonstrating the act of listening and watching carefully in pursuit of
something.

29

When the chair and students network, they leverage resources. They choose to
collaborate with each other as individuals who would otherwise be outside of their social or
professional network and see them as individuals who can push them beyond what they can do
by themselves. They use networking to build a bridge to a different area of knowledge by
interacting with an outside expert with the specific goal of engaging in innovative work for their
individual dissertations and for the collective efforts of the group.
A chair and students who experiment explore something for the first time. The student
might try a new experience in terms of the type of product the student seeks to produce for the
dissertation or might take on a different topic than one that seems more familiar. The student
might explore a new place or seek to understanding a new perspective offered by someone else
in the group or to suggest others explore a new direction. A chair who experiments might take a
student’s experience apart and create something new and test the ideas with the student or
members of the group.
When a dissertation chair provides leadership to influence members of the group using
adult learning techniques including coaching, guiding by design, and just-in-time training, the
leader can mobilize group members to demonstrate the five discovery skills. When the chair is
unable to provide leadership through positional power because the chair does not engage in the
five discovery skills or support the students’ acquisition and enactment of those skills, the
students are unable to use them for the group. Students might be able to apply the skills in
relation to their own dissertation process and product alone.
The next chapter will detail the methodology of the study including the nature and
appropriateness of a qualitative single case study design. Chapter three also presents the

30

population and sampling procedures, and the instruments in their selection of development
together with information on validity, credibility, and trustworthiness.

31

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
The literature review in Chapter Two provided a description of Leadership and adult
learning in conjunction with The Innovator’s DNA, which together form the conceptual
framework for this study. This chapter presents the methods used in the study and explains why a
qualitative design was the appropriate choice. An overview of the sample population and
sampling procedure is provided to articulate why the participants and the program were selected
to be studied. A review of data collection and instrumentation, together with the approach to
analysis and credibility and trustworthiness, are discussed as well.
Research Design
The use of qualitative design was appropriate as, consistent with Patton’s (2002)
suggestion, this method allowed me to capture and communicate participants’ stories,
experiences, and perspectives (Patton, 2002). Merriam defines a case study as “an intensive,
holistic description and analysis of a bounded phenomenon such as a program, an institution, a
person, a process, or a social unit (as cited in Yazan, 2015, p. xiii). Merriam further distinguishes
case studies as particularistic (focusing on a particular situation, event, program, or
phenomenon), descriptive (yielding a rich, thick description of the phenomenon under study),
and heuristic (illuminating the reader’s understanding of phenomenon under study) (as cited in
Yazan, 2015). A case study methodology was chosen as the fundamental goal of this research
was to conduct an in-depth analysis of an issue, how a thematic dissertation chair and one
member of the dissertation group demonstrated innovative thinking, within its context, through
the dissertation process, to understand the issue from the perspective of the participant, the
student.

32

For this qualitative case study, there were two data collection techniques, which
included: individual interviews, and observations of thematic dissertation group meetings. This
study utilized purposive sampling; six doctoral students and one dissertation chair in an
educational doctoral program in a 4-year private university in Southern California. This sample
was chosen as this was a group of doctoral students who were interested in constructing
something innovative through the concept of a non-traditional dissertation process. After initially
sampling six students, the sample was narrowed to one doctoral student and the dissertation
chair.
Research Questions
The research questions answered in this study were:
1) How do the actions of the EdD dissertation group leader shape doctoral students’
ability to engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation process in the
context of a group focused on innovation?
2) How does one member of an EdD dissertation group use the five discovery skills in
their dissertation process to engage in an innovative dissertation?
Sampling
Setting
This section describes the participant population and sampling strategy used in this study.
Purposeful sampling was employed for the selection of the setting. The logic and support behind
using purposeful sampling is that it allows for the strategic and focused selection of an
information-rich case to assess whether the phenomenon of interest exists among the sample
population (Patton, 2002). Purposeful sampling targets specific characteristics of the sample
population of interest which will offer the best answer to the research question (Patton, 2002).

33

The setting for the study was a thematic group focused on creativity and innovation in an
educational doctoral program in a 4-year private university in Southern California. This
purposive sample was chosen because this was the only thematic dissertation group that was
explicitly focused on creativity and innovation and was set up to afford doctoral students the
opportunity to create non-traditional dissertation products.
While the initial setting for this study was the dissertation group, including a focus on all
six doctoral students and the dissertation chair, ultimately setting was narrowed to focus
exclusively on a single doctoral student whose topic for her dissertation focused on learning,
creativity, innovation, and Universal Design (UD) and the dissertation chair of the thematic
group. This decision was made based on the determination that focusing on a single case study
would yield the richest findings as this particular doctoral student stood out from the rest of the
group as being determined to push forward to create an innovative dissertation that included the
development of a learning application.
Participants
The initial sample for this study included six doctoral students and the dissertation chair.
However, it became clear during analysis that focusing on a single case study would yield the
richest findings. I chose to study Mary as a unique case sample as she, in my opinion, completely
stood out from the reset of thematic group as one who was determined to pursue a non-traditional
dissertation representing the theme of innovation and creativity ultimately resulting in a learning
application for elementary school children. Mary’s professional background intrigued me, as she
was not in academia but an artist. The other five graduate students all worked in higher education
administrative/faculty positions. Mary was a Creative Director, Film Producer and
Filmmaker. Mary was known for creating animated short films and comic series. I was curious to

34

follow her dissertation journey, as I believed out of all the students, she was the one student who
had the potential and the drive to explore and demonstrate innovation and creativity in her
dissertation. Thus, this doctoral student and the dissertation chair were purposefully selected to
serve as the sample for analysis as a single case study.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The qualitative methods used for this study supported a naturalistic inquiry to understand
the process and experience (Patton, 2002) of the one doctoral student and a dissertation chair in
the thematic group. This study utilized qualitative data collection methods including
observations, and interviews. Following Patton’s (2002) guidance, I used a rich variety of data
collection approaches, allowing me to build on the strengths of each method and minimize the
weaknesses of a single method approach. A description as to why these research methods were
used will be discussed.
Observations
Participant observations of scheduled thematic group meetings were conducted once a
week from May-October of 2012. Participant observations allowed me, as, Patton suggests
(2002), an insider viewpoint to richer information than what I could have obtained through
systematic observation as an observer only. Participant observation also permitted me to
understand the workings of the dissertation group to an extent not fully possible using interviews
alone (Patton, 2002). According to Patton (2002), direct participation in and observation of the
topic of interest may be the best research method to fully understand the phenomenon.
According to Becker (as cited by Patton, 2002),
The most complete forms of the sociological datum, after all, is the form in which the
participant observer gathers it: an observation of some social event, the events which

35

precede and follow it, and explanations of its meanings by participants and spectators,
before, during, and after its occurrence. Such a datum gives us more information about
the event under study than data gathered by any other sociological method. (p. 21)
Each observation lasted approximately 2-hours in length, with a total of over 40 hours of
observation data collected. Because of the unique nature of this dissertation, a study of a
dissertation group in progress, I received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to collect
data prior to defending the proposal for this study. Observations focused on how doctoral
students and the dissertation chair interacted with each other. The conceptual framework guiding
the observations was grounded in Universal Design in Learning (UDL) and a different set of
research questions. This framework remained in place until just before the dissertation proposal
defense when a new conceptual framework was in place (the Innovator’s DNA). The structure of
the observations was guided by the observation protocol. Consistent with Merriam (2009), the
observation protocol contained a description of the meeting space, materials used, topics being
discussed, length of meetings, and the participants present. The meetings all took place in-
person, on campus, in a relatively small meeting room with one rectangular table with eight
chairs: three chairs on each side and one at each end of the table. A video camera was positioned
at the front of the classroom to capture audio and video of each of the six doctoral students and
the dissertation chair to fully capture the setting, participant behaviors, discussions, activities,
and setting of all scheduled thematic group meetings. I also utilized mapping, to detail the setting
and physical structure and surroundings of the group meeting and took handwritten notes from
each meeting being observed.

36

Interviews
A one-on-one in-depth, semi-structured, open-ended, interview was conducted with the
focal doctoral student. The interview was audio-recorded, and handwritten notes were taken. The
interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and was later transcribed for data analysis. I used the
interview to explore the experiences and perceptions of the participant. A semi-structured, open-
ended interview protocol allows for flexibility in the interview to facilitate a deeper
understanding of the participant’s experience (Patton, 2002). The advantages of using an open-
ended interview protocol allowed me, as the researcher, to understand the world as seen by the
participant, and capture and understand the participant’s thoughts, experiences, and perception
about what is occurring (Patton, 2002).
Because the interview took place after the dissertation proposal defense, the interview
protocol was developed based on the connection between the research questions and a
conceptual framework focusing exclusively on the Innovator’s DNA. The protocol included
questions to understand if and how the doctoral student and chair were utilizing the five
discovery skills (i.e., associating, questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting) in
their dissertation process. This approach allowed the participant to share her perspective and
experiences throughout the thematic group dissertation process.
Data Analysis
I originally joined the thematic group entitled Innovation and Creativity utilizing the
conceptual framework Universal Design in Learning. As we began writing Chapters 1-3, I
struggled with understanding how to apply Universal Design in Learning (UDL) as a conceptual
framework. As time passed, I was not progressing and the dissertation Chair recommended since
this was a thematic group with the theme of Innovation and Creativity that I change my

37

conceptual framework and use the Innovators DNA (2011) as a new conceptual framework. At
this point, given the timing of when the thematic group dissertation meetings were held, all of
that data had already been collected. Changing the conceptual framework meant essentially,
working backwards as the data was collected and rewriting chapters 1-3 and then then
strategizing how best to code and analyze data that already had been collected but now under the
guise of a new conceptual framework. The intention was to always focus on the students for the
dissertation and as time went on, we made the decision to have the study only include one unique
single case as we thought focusing on the one student provided the richest data. It was not until I
started data analysis where I hit what I would call an “Aha moment.” I believed there might be
something that was presenting itself in the data that was influencing the student’s ability to
demonstrate the five discovery skills. In continuing to analyze that data, that something I
identified as leadership. I kept going back through the data and I decided I could not ignore it
and had to analyze the data as it presented itself and the impact or lack thereof that leadership by
the dissertation chair had on the student. This concept of leadership emerged in an inductive
way and led me to adding an additional research question and additional findings.
Although I collected over 40-hours of observation data, I narrowed my focus down to
analyzing the interview data and three observations of thematic group meetings (approximately 6
hours). To ensure that the 6 hours were representative of the 40 hours, I randomly sampled from
the observational data collected. Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) analytic tools of making
connections and asking questions were the drivers in engaging in the analytic process. According
to Corbin and Strauss (2008), analytic tools are the mental strategies that the researcher uses
when coding. The data were analyzed by first engaging in open coding (Merriam, 2009) where I
used a combination of in vivo codes (codes that emerged from the data) and a priori codes

38

(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2009) derived from the five discovery skills (Dyer et al.,
2011). In this first phase of data analysis, the a prior codes served as a deductive approach
whereby I looked overtly for evidence of the five discovery skills both in the interview and
observation data. For example, as outlined in Chapter 2, one of the five skills, Questioning, was
defined as follows:
The act of questioning is a pattern of interaction with a series of back-and-forth questions
investigating why, why not, how and what for a deeper level of understanding.
Questioning is the sequence of movement from abstract to concrete pushing and probing
below the surface to order to help make meaning of something. Questioning is crafting
questions no one anticipates that yield unexpected insight into why things are the way
they are. For example, questions will begin with describing what is, who, what, when,
where and how then move deeper into exploring disruptive territory by asking what if or
how might questions.
I then went through all the interview and observation data to identify the interactions and
behaviors that would fall under the definition of questioning. An example of this is the following
interaction. When asked if they were someone who tended to ask a lot of questions, the focal
doctoral student responded with the following:
I asked a lot of questions about structure. About, what are we supposed to be doing?
About, how do I reach that next goal? I asked a lot of questions about, have you read my
dissertation? I asked that of the dissertation leader. I think I asked her that about five
times every week, have you read this? Have you read this? Have you read this? To which
she would kind of avoid answering. Then I asked how do I do certain things? What is
done here? I finally found them from a lot of the mentioned dissertation chairs who just

39

gave me blunt answers to this is how you ... to structure. Structure was my biggest
roadblock. I needed to understand what the structure was.
I coded this piece of data with the code “questioning.” I analyzed the interview and observation
data in the same fashion to identify language in the interviews and behaviors in the observations
that aligned with the definitions and descriptions of the remaining four skills.
Additionally, during this first phase of open coding, I also allowed words from the
interview and observations to emerge inductively (in vivo), revealing concepts that extended
beyond those found in the five discovery skills. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008), in vivo
coding involves concepts using the actual words of research participants rather than being named
by the person analyzing the data. An example of a concept that emerged in an inductive way was
the concept of leadership. Leadership was not originally part of the conceptual framework of this
dissertation, but in analyzing the data from the interactions of the two study participants, led to
evidence of a lack of structure in the dissertation process that I ultimately identified and defined
as a lack of leadership. An example of this is the focal doctoral student expressed in her
interviews that the dissertation meetings were “fast paced” with “no time for thinking or
digestion of information” or “connection” to her dissertation and ideas. She also noted in her
interview how she felt a lack of preparation that resulted in lack of participation in the
dissertation group. She said,
Had I more preparation as to what a dissertation was, I would have given a more forceful
presence because I did not feel we had a very forceful leadership guiding our
dissertations. Many of us were lost, and I would …I felt very empathetic towards anyone
falling behind, myself included. I would have been more forceful had I felt more
prepared.

40

This idea of inadequate support from the dissertation chair recurred in both the interview and
across the 6 hours of observation data to the point that it revealed additional codes related to
leadership and adult learning. I also developed a codebook to capture the codes associated with
the five skills, and in vivo codes like support, structure, feedback, road, leadership, lost, and
time.
In the second phase of coding (Miles et al., 2014), I used aggregation of the data to
identify bigger experiences and ideas of what was happening across the data. Aggregation
allowed me to identify patterns that were emerging and provide evidence of typicality on how
often the same themes were happening across the data. An example of patterns that were evident
across the data included the lack of structure. This was evidenced by the dissertation chair not
having consistent meeting topic agendas, the absence of relevant topic discussions and the
chair’s inability to steer conversations into discussions that supported doctoral students’ ability to
complete their dissertations. For example, the focal doctoral student described the dissertation
group as follows:
The group dynamics were focused, but a little bit lost. We were searching for the road.
That, I guess, was part of the process to figure out the nature of our dissertation where
that road was. We had to go overcome our own frustration. We bonded, in a way, over
that frustration and helped each other through it.
In vivo codes, or data chunks like this, led me to identify that group meetings did not have a
structure that lent itself to the students having clear expectations of what they were trying to
accomplish or how to harness the five discovery skills and led to the construction of the themes
related to leadership and adult learning.

41

Once themes were identified, by using Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) analytic tools of
making connections and asking questions, I further analyzed the data to ensure there was no
evidence of an alternative explanation for what I believed to be evident in the data and
determined that there were three findings.

Credibility and Trustworthiness
As described by Maxwell (2013), there are a variety of techniques that can be used to
ensure credibility. The following data methods utilized ensure the findings are credible:
triangulation and member checking. (Creswell, 2009). Triangulated data from multiple sources
enhances the credibility of the study (Creswell, 2009). Member checking was employed by
providing the participant with an opportunity to review and verify that transcript was an accurate
representation of the participant’s experiences and perspectives (Creswell, 2009). I spent
countless hours observing and recording meetings over a 6-month period. Although there are
limitations to using a qualitative research design, the data analysis methods employed reduced
the threats to the credibility of the study.
I was also a member of the dissertation group and a participant observer. Participant
observations allow the researcher an insider viewpoint to richer information than that obtained
through systematic observation (Patton, 2002). Although I had my own experience as group
member, I had to have a great deal of self-awareness and self-criticism so as to not misguide the
participant and introduce bias into the findings. I had to work hard to overcome my own personal
assumptions and prejudices as I had insider knowledge. I was able to separate my own
experience from the experience of the study participant and to not project my personal
experience in the analysis of the data. This was accomplished by delineating clear definitions of

42

the five discovery skills and the development of the codebook and coding schema. As a novice
qualitative researcher, I also practiced reflexivity to ensure that my presence did not alter the
behavior of others. Based on the research data, there is no evidence that study the participant
reacted differently with my presence. Reflexivity is essential because our own position might not
always be clear to us, and because we are sometimes unaware of our own prejudices and
relationship with our cultural contexts and settings (Maxwell, 2013).
Ethics
A human subjects research proposal, which included the interviews, observations, and
document analysis was submitted and approved by the Institutional Review Board. All research
participants were notified of the research and verbal informed consent was obtained prior to the
conduct of any observational and interview research activities. The interviews were conducted
over the phone and were audio-recorded and later transcribed. Handwritten notes were also taken
during the interview to ensure the research was collecting important themes that emerged. All
observational and interview data was transcribed and remain confidential according to
institutional policy.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
As a novice researcher there were a number of limitations to this research. Initially, I set
out to study something completely different and for reasons beyond my control, that research
idea was not supported by the doctoral program. I then had to pivot a few times to develop a
dissertation topic that was acceptable. An additional layer of having to change dissertation
topics, I also had to alter the research questions and conceptual framework after the data was
collected. This study was intended to be conducted under the conceptual framework of UDL. It

43

was not until after the observation data were collected that it became apparent that UDL was not
going to serve as the appropriate conceptual framework and as an inexperienced researcher, I
could not make sense of the data given the research questions and UDL as the conceptual
framework. Therefore, the research questions and the conceptual framework were altered during
the conduct of the study. Another limitation is participants only told me what they would want
me to know, therefore the data collected during the meeting observations and interviews are
inherently limited to only what participants wanted to share.
Delimitations
There are a number of delimitations of this research that bound what I was able to learn.
Although I am an experienced human subjects research regulatory professional, I am a novice
when it comes to being the creator of a research study including the development,
implementation, conduct, analysis, and publication of findings of a research study. As a doctoral
student, I did not feel the doctoral program itself included the level of scholarship and teaching
required for students to complete a research dissertation, therefore I did not feel adequately
prepared. This feeling of lack of preparation and knowledge carried over into the confusion and
lack of clarity on what the appropriate conceptual framework should be for the study and
ultimately what data should be collected for the study. On the other hand, this lack of clarity and
openness allowed me to discover the role leadership would play as a component of the
conceptual framework. My instrumentation was only as good as I could make it as I never had
any experience with the development or piloting of an interview and/or observational protocol.
There is a significant amount of training and study that is needed to understand what the right
qualitative interview questions are in order to yield the intended rich and informative data, and
those were not skills I possessed as I set out to conduct this study. Another delimitation of this
research is that the data and findings do not represent the Chair’s experience. As the researcher, I
chose not to interview the Dissertation Chair. There were a few reasons why I chose not to
interview the Chair. Firstly, the thematic group meeting observational data and the interview data
were collected years prior under a different conceptual framework and research questions. After
struggling with applying Universal Design in Learning as the original conceptual framework,
subsequently, the conceptual framework in conjunction with the research questions changed
since the initial data collection. Secondly, it was not until data analysis that the theme of
leadership and/or lack thereof emerged which I believed needed further exploration. Thirdly, I
believed that due to the power dynamic as their student and the findings of the study would cause
some vulnerability for the dissertation chair, I thought it would have been too hard to interview
her. Lastly, the intention was always to focus on the students. Choosing to not interview the
dissertation chair was an intentional decision that I knew would bound the study. This
delimitation is reflected in the recommendations for future research in Chapter 5.

44

Summary
This chapter has detailed the methodology of the study. It established the sample
population, the research site, and the instrumentation. Further methods of data collection and
analysis were discussed. This research was conducted in the form of a qualitative study. The
results are presented in Chapter Four. In Chapter Five the interpretation of the results will be
related back to the conceptual framework and the research that was established in Chapter Two.
Ultimately, the study describes how the dissertation chair demonstrated leadership and used adult
learning techniques to foster engagement in the five discovery skills and how one focal doctoral
student used those skills through the dissertation process.

45

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This dissertation was a qualitative study utilizing a case study framework. The case study
was comprised of one EdD dissertation chair and one doctoral student. The purpose was to
examine how a dissertation chair fostered the adoption and enactment of innovative thinking
through leadership and adult learning techniques and how one doctoral student demonstrated
innovative thinking through a thematic group dissertation process. Specifically, this study aimed
to understand the extent to which an EdD dissertation chair shaped a doctoral student’s ability to
engage in the five discovery skills and how the doctoral student used those five skills in her
dissertation process. The first three chapters discussed the background of the problem, the
relevant literature and the study design. I identified a thematic group focused on innovation and
creativity as the setting for the study and focused on one doctoral student’s participation in the
group. I completed observations of the thematic group meetings that took place once a week
from May-October of 2012. Each meeting was approximately 2-hours in length, and all were
audio/video recorded and transcribed for data analysis. I analyzed data in ways that were in
alignment with my research questions and the emergent conceptual framework combining the
dissertation chair’s leadership and use of adult learning techniques in shaping how the doctoral
student took up and used the five skills.
The following section includes a brief description of the university and the description of
the thematic group. In the subsequent sections I provide an analysis and discussion regarding the
findings of the case study.
Description of the Thematic Group
The population for the study were six doctoral students and one dissertation chair in an
educational doctoral program in a 4-year private University in Southern California. The thematic

46

group consisted of one cisgender male and five cisgender females. The six group members
represented two different core concentrations within the EdD program. Two group members
were in the Higher Education/leadership track and the other four pursued the Educational
Psychology track. The age range for all six members spanned from 32-50 years of age. All
members of the group were also employees of higher education institutions, two of whom were
faculty members, and the other four held administrative leadership positions at their respective
institutions. The thematic dissertation Chair was a cisgender female and a faculty member at the
institution for over two decades and had been successfully chairing thematic groups for a number
of years. The thematic dissertation chair also held academic leadership positions in specialized
centers focusing on learning and creativity at the institution. The goals of the group were to
learn, collaborate, share ideas with like-minded people, and network, with the overarching goal
of completing their dissertations in order to receive their doctoral degree. At the inception of the
thematic group meetings most of the group members had incredibly high hopes and aspirations
to create something that had never been done before. One group member had the goal of creating
a product in the form of a learning application for elementary aged children. This group
member, Mary, was the one chosen as the unit of analysis for this study. Mary was a married,
middle-aged cisgender female who had recently accepted a tenure track position at a local
community college and also adopted a new baby boy. Mary’s background was not as an
academic, but as an artist. Mary was a Creative Director, Film Producer and Filmmaker. Mary
was known for creating animated short films and comic series. When asked what Mary hoped to
accomplish, she stated:
I wanted to create a product that I could later market. I created a software, and then I
proved that the software worked. My goal was to create something useful. My goal was

47

purely statistics driven. I didn’t want to add ... I didn’t appreciate as much the fact I could
have added information to a larger universe of understanding. I wanted to create what I
understood, which was a product that could help kids learn more quickly. That’s what I
hoped to achieve.
This purposive sample was chosen as this was a specific group of doctoral students who were
interested and had the intention to construct something innovative through the concept of a non-
traditional dissertation. As mentioned in chapter three, although data were collected on all six
doctoral students, for purposes of this research, and after considerable evaluation of the data
collected, it was decided that focusing on a unique single case would yield the richest findings as
this doctoral student was the one who stood out and was determined to push forward to create an
innovative dissertation that included the development of a learning application.
For the remainder of this section, I present the findings that emerged in response to the
overarching research questions that asked: 1) How do the actions of the EdD dissertation Chair
shape doctoral students’ ability to engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation
process in the context of a group focused on innovation? 2) How does one member of an EdD
dissertation group use the five discovery skills in their dissertation process to engage in an
innovative dissertation?
I organized my analysis according to three findings that answer the two research
questions. First, with respect to research question 1—How do the actions of the EdD dissertation
Chair shape doctoral students’ ability to engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation
process in the context of a group focused on innovation?—I found that the dissertation chair did
not lead the thematic group using adult learning techniques in ways that enabled the doctoral
student to adopt and enact the five discovery skills associated with the Innovator’s DNA.

48

In response to research question two—How does one member of an EdD dissertation
group use the five discovery skills in their dissertation process to engage in an innovative
dissertation?—there were two findings. The first finding is that the doctoral student did not
believe she had the same goals as the rest of the group and she kept herself separate, not
operating as a contributing member. Her belief stemmed from her perception that, unlike her
peers, she did not have a straightforward research question that she was answering. Instead, she
was focused on creating a product. Given her orientation toward the group, she did not see the
work in the thematic group as a collective endeavor and she does not believe she could
contribute to the efforts being undertaken by the rest of the group.
The second finding in response to research question two is that the doctoral student did
use the discovery skills but did so in ways that were not consistent with the underlying
assumptions about the purpose of the Innovator’s DNA and discovery skills. Instead, she
engaged in the five skills in a self-serving manner or she leveraged the group resource and did
not use the five skills.
The subsequent sections address the research and provide a discussion of the findings.
Findings
Finding 1: The Dissertation Chair Did Not Lead the Thematic Group Using Adult
Learning Techniques in Ways That Enabled the Doctoral Student to Adopt and Enact the
Five Discovery Skills Associated with the Innovator’s DNA.
Across the 6 hours of observation data there were repeated instances of the chair
engaging the thematic group members in activities that were both related and unrelated to the
undertaking a dissertation focused on innovation and creativity. Throughout the interview and
observation data, there was evidence that the chair’s approach to facilitating the group was

49

relaxed and open-ended, without clear efforts to set a direction for the group and influence
members in that particular direction. The relaxed and open-ended approach was visible in the
way that the chair did not provide structure to the meetings. A consequence of this lack of
structure was that there few boundaries to guide the doctoral students towards productive
conversations. The absence of boundaries prevented the focal doctoral student, Mary, from
having the structure she needed to develop or enact the five discovery skills. Examples of the
absence of boundaries included: not having consistent meeting topic agendas, a lack of relevant
topic discussions, and the inability to steer conversations into discussions that directly related to
the process of researching and writing a dissertation. The absence of these structures resulted in
very free form conversations that did not allow for any depth of knowledge and understanding on
how to move through the dissertation process. Evidence of the lack of structure was observed in
all three of the thematic group meetings chosen for analysis. For example, meetings often started
off-topic and in conversation that did not orient the students towards the goals of the dissertation
group process. One instance of this can be seen at the beginning of a meeting where the first 2
minutes of the conversation were spent on topics besides the thematic group and appear
tangential:
Dr. Wynn: At least you have what? You have ... You all have Sunday and Monday
off, right?
Cindy: Hallelujah.
Mary: Hallelujah. That’s what I said. [crosstalk 00:00:12]
Mary: I have the whole summer. I’ve got two months off.
Cindy: You do? [crosstalk 00:00:14]
Mary Yes. [inaudible 00:00:19]

50

Cindy: Holy crap. Where? [crosstalk 00:00:29]
Mary It’s what I’ve always want to do, anything I want to do. Fine. I’ll sit my
butt there for the rest of eternity. [inaudible 00:00:39].
Cindy: Is it here locally?
Mary: It is 65 miles away from my house.
Cindy: You live in Pasadena?
Mary: Yeah, I live in the mountains. [crosstalk 00:00:49] It’s in Irvine. [inaudible
00:00:53] I know, but it’s [crosstalk 00:00:55] and once you get in the
community college, you can always shift closer [crosstalk 00:01:02] but
getting your foot in is hard. I want tough man. It’s very hard. I heard there
were over 312 applications for that position. [crosstalk 00:01:12] It’s
tough to get in. Just getting the interview was an honor.
Cindy: Does the assistant professorship in ...
Mary: [inaudible 00:01:23] Everyone around me is like, “That’s mixed stuff and
[crosstalk 00:01:28]
Dr. Wynn: You got the job that you wanted it. [inaudible 00:01:35] That’s good
because last time we saw you I think you were saying you were looking
for something. [crosstalk 00:01:39]
Mary: It was hard. Actually, for 10 years I’ve been looking for this job and I
accidentally found out I’ve been working in Industry for a while and
always been trying to find my way back here and the longer you spent in
Industry in managerial roles, the less relevant you are to academia. What I

51

had to do is chop myself down to a [inaudible 00:02:02] position to
actually get doing stuff again and then find my way in. It took me years.
Cindy: Congratulations.
Dr. Wynn: Let’s focus. Me included. Let’s see what will be the best thing? I know
one of the things I’ve been thinking about obviously is I need to get to you
all some examples of how in chapter three methodology that you’re going
to put the chart... Sorry. I had a little tussle with a squirrel and my dog.
In this example, Dr. Wynn did not establish a direction or structure for the meeting around their
dissertation topics. Instead, she entered into the conversation underway amongst members of the
dissertation group, extending a conversation about Mary’s recent hiring as a tenured professor a
community college. She said, “At least you have what? You have Saturdays and Sundays off.”
As doctoral students continued to talk with each other, Dr. Wynn listened, not guiding or
redirecting the doctoral students to an agenda for how their time was to be spent. After more than
a minute of back and forth between group members, she chimed in, again not pulling them to an
agenda but instead offering thoughts on Mary’s new position. Her actions contributed to doctoral
students continuing an off-task conversation and interfered with doctoral students’ ability to
focus on their dissertation topics as they chatted amongst themselves.
At a little over 2 minutes into the conversation, Dr. Wynn acknowledged her
responsibility to provide guidance to the students when she said, “Let’s focus. Me included.” At
this point it appeared that she was aware that their interactions were not consistent with those
necessary to support doctoral students towards the group’s goals of working on their
dissertations. Yet her next statement suggested she was not prepared to guide them in this work
as she said, “Let’s see, what will be the best thing?” Here she seemed to be reaching for how

52

they should be spending their time and did not suggest she recognized her role in influencing
their behavior towards the communal goal. Additionally, the lack of direction did not lend itself
to the students having an understanding of the role the five discovery skills might play in their
interactions with each other or their individual efforts. Instead, conversations were generally
superficial in nature mostly relating to events happening in the group members personal or
professional lives and did not center on discussions that directly related to the process of
researching and writing a dissertation or engaging in the five discovery skills.
In the same meeting, as the conversation was then momentarily redirected by Dr. Wynn,
stating to the group “Let’s focus. Me included,” and then by asking a question to herself and the
group on the best way to proceed she became immediately distracted into an off-topic
conversation on why she was not yet able to provide information on chapter 3:
Cindy: I’m sorry. [crosstalk 00:02:39]
Mary: My dog followed a snake yesterday but tell me your story first and I’ll tell
you mind.
Dr. Wynn: All right. Basically, I fell down after it [her dog] pulled me on the leash,
but I’m okay. It’s no big deal.
Mary: That could have done a lot of damage. You’re lucky.
Dr. Wynn: The thing is I’m glad I hit my head. I was in the driveway and I had my
other dog going in the car, but I have taken karate and [crosstalk 00:03:02]
so I knew how to fall [crosstalk 00:03:07] Anyway ...
Mary: I was working in my art studio this last week, because I was finishing out
my job and yesterday was my last day at doing this art stuff, so I was
working in my art studio. There’s this pathway to it and there was a rattle

53

snake out there and I have three dogs. I have two pit bull mutts and one
border collie about that big. One of them killed a snake, and it was a big
snake, and it was five feet away from where I was working, so it could
have followed me in my art studio.
Mary: The dog was really ...The dog saved my life or did something for me, but I
didn’t know which dog killed it. Three or 4 hours go by and I’m vigilantly
watching each dog thinking, dog must have done it. I’m praising her and I
bought them all chicken drumsticks from [inaudible 00:04:00] It was the
little border collie that did it. This little border collie, the one that sings
along to Johnny Cash killed the snake and brought it to the doorstep and I
didn’t even praise it and I felt so guilty and I was weeping so unconsolably
and I drove off to the emergency, because his head was swelling up
[crosstalk 00:04:22] The poor thing was running along with me. I should
have carried it in but it was like, “Wherever mommy is I’ll go.” I bring it
in and they give me this look like, oh.” I’m like, “No, it’s just a snake
bite.”
Paula: A rattle snake.
Mary: [crosstalk 00:04:39] They did, but they said they didn’t know. They didn’t
know. They didn’t know. Finally, I got a call that he stabilized at midnight
and I was like [crosstalk 00:04:50] Yeah. The next day [crosstalk
00:04:51] He was in the hospital three days. [inaudible 00:04:55] and
when I got him back, he didn’t even seem like he recognized me. I
thought, “Oh, my dog’s gone.” They gave him opiates or something like

54

that. [crosstalk 00:05:05] This morning, he shared my cereal with me
again. [crosstalk 00:05:09] All good. I know the drama that dogs cause,
but they’re great, aren’t they? Yes. [crosstalk 00:05:16]
Mary: There’s a squirrel behind the tree [crosstalk 00:05:19] bushy tail going ...
[crosstalk 00:05:21] and the other dog’s looking at me. We love our
animals. They’re great companions.
In this example, Dr. Wynn initially attempted to impose a goal on the group but almost
immediately after stating “Let’s focus, me included,” she initiated a personal conversation about
an event (non-dissertation related) and then permitted the conversation to ensue amongst the
group. Dr. Wynn shared with the group that she fell after her dog chased a squirrel and pulled her
on the leash. Dr. Wynn then mentioned how she hit her head, but knew how to fall, so she was
ok. The story of the tussle with her dog initiated by Dr. Wynn then parlayed into a 5 minute story
telling session from Mary about her dog following a rattle snake and the implications that
followed. Dr. Wynn allowed the conversation amongst the group to continue and at no point did
she interject or suggest the group get back on task. Here, Dr. Wynn did not provide direction to
the group or make an effort to influence (Northouse, 2016) their actions as she promoted the off-
topic conversation and interaction. It would be reasonable for one to argue that how absence of
structure is defined in this research, in that the direction and leadership of thematic group
meeting discussions did not foster any significant depth of knowledge and understanding, could
also represent rapport and relationship building. One would assume that most group discussions
would include niceties, and free-form personal conversations. However, after looking at the
corpus of evidence across the thematic group meeting discussions and the interview data, this
finding was representative of the types of interactions that took place during these meetings. The

55

off topic, free-form conversations were not just sprinkled into the meetings they were typical if
not the dominant type of interactions that occurred during the thematic group meetings. This
study was examining how a Dissertation chair fostered innovation as demonstrated by the
adoption of and engagement in five discovery skills described in the Innovators DNA (Dyer et
al., 2011) through leadership and the use of adult learning techniques. One could surmise that too
often the Dissertation Chair did not provide direction to the group or make an effort to influence
(Northouse, 2016) their actions as she promoted the off-topic conversation and interaction.
Although the dissertation chair did serve as a cheerleader for each of the students in the group
encouraging everyone to keep pushing forward and reassuring everyone they will finish their
dissertations, this was not the level and type of support the students needed to enable them to
accomplish their goals. Thematic group dissertation meetings were not a structured platform that
allowed for the time, attention and exploration of generating creative ideas and how they could
apply to the group member’s individual dissertations but more of a social gathering to hear
updates and progress on where each individual student was in their own personal life and
dissertation process.
At another thematic group meeting, the same absence of leadership was in evidence as
Dr. Wynn did not make an attempt to guide the students towards a group goal of any kind. Her
actions interfered with Mary’s ability to adopt or engage in the discovery skills. During the
meeting the following interaction between Dr. Wynn and Mary occurred:
Dr. Wynn: Well, let’s take a gander here, we know you brought us up to date about
where your at, IRB, everything’s fine, your all ... just collecting data at
this point. Mary?

56

Mary: You know my status, I just defended. Now I’m just, I sent notes out. I
haven’t gotten any feedback from anybody yet. I’m gonna pursue those
notes. I transcribed the video and everything and put it in the chapters on
the changes I gotta make. I’m gonna do some parts of that first. They
introduced something in motivation that I don’t remember studying, which
were certainly active choice persistence and mental effort. But the
variables that contribute to that, it’s leadingly referred to in Clark’s article
that Dr. Yates sent me. But I don’t see any other literature that clearly
talks about the variables on those three motivational aspects. Then I need
to partner that with the product more. That’s where my challenge is right
now.
Dr. Wynn: In Yates and Clark’s article, what is their reference section? Where are
they pulling some of the stuff?
Mary: That’s where their articles are sort of ... lose me overall. Because in their
reference sections, they make large statements in their articles saying that
there are only 18 studies on motivation that truly use measurements and
motivation, and then they never cite those 18 articles. In here, they say
multiple articles contribute to our understanding ... or there are different
description of motivations reflecting all those series into this triangle,
which they do. But then, a clear description of how everything contributes
to that triangle is not within that article. That’s what I’m trying to figure
out right now. Where are all these things pulling from so I can then take
those variables and apply them to that product I’m making.

57

Dr. Wynn: Okay, can you send me the article?
Mary: Yeah, please.
In this example, although Dr. Wynn had the opportunity to support by coaching Mary to delve
into and use the five discovery skills, and scaffold those skills, she did not do so. Dr. Wynn
started out by asking Mary “Well, let’s take a gander here, we know you brought us up to date
about where you’re at, IRB, everything’s fine, your all ... just collecting data at this point?” This
question was simply a request for an update on where Mary was in the dissertation process. Mary
responded, “You know my status, I just defended. Now I’m just, I sent notes out. I haven’t gotten
any feedback from anybody yet.” Here, the tone in Mary’s voice as she said, “You know my
status,” communicated her disappointment with the lack of feedback on her progress thus far.
Mary went on to state “But I don’t see any other literature that clearly talks about the variables
on those three motivational aspects. Then I need to partner that with the product more. That’s
where my challenge is right now.” In this statement Mary identified her current struggle and
where she needed direction and guidance from Dr. Wynn. Dr. Wynn responded by asking what
was in the reference section of the article that was sent to her. Mary responded again
acknowledging her confusion and frustration on what direction to take as she said,
That’s where their articles are sort of ... lose me overall. Because in their reference
sections, they make large statements in their articles saying that there are only 18 studies
on motivation that truly use measurements and motivation, and then they never cite those
18 articles. In here, they say multiple articles contribute to our understanding ... or there
are different description of motivations reflecting all those series into this triangle, which
they do. But then, a clear description of how everything contributes to that triangle is not
within that article. That’s what I’m trying to figure out right now. Where are all these

58

things pulling from so I can then take those variables and apply them to that product I’m
making.
Here one could infer Mary was yearning for direction and assistance on how to relate the three
variables of motivation to the use of the product she was developing for her dissertation. Dr.
Wynn responded by asking Mary to send her the article. In this example, Dr. Wynn did not
provide Mary with just-in-time training (Trivette et all., 2009) that would have allowed her to
use the information she was grappling with to answer her own questions or to adopt or engage in
five discovery skills. Instead, Dr. Wynn focused on doctoral students reporting their activities
rather than promoting their use of questions, critical thinking, or exploring new ideas. Dyer et al.
(2011) found in their research that almost all the disruptive innovators they interviewed
mentioned at least one adult in their lives who paid personal attention to their innovation skills
and helped nurture them as they grow into adulthood, which is why it is crucial for adults to
honor and amplify young people’s discovery skills. According to Elmore (2000), leaders must
lead by modeling the values and behaviors that represent collective goods. Elmore (2000) further
details that individual and collective learning is the central responsibility of leaders, and leaders
must be able to model the learning they expect of others. Ultimately, leaders should be doing,
and should be seen to be doing, that which they expect others to do. This data gleaned suggested
that the completion of a dissertation required that the chair lead by providing direction and
structure, however her approach was not approach to overtly model, develop or foster doctoral
students’ efforts towards a collective goal or engaging in the five discovery skills.
Evidence from the interview data also supported the data from the observations, which
suggested that Mary felt discouraged and disillusioned with the structure of the thematic group
meetings. The doctoral student shared the following:

59

Thematic group meetings felt more like a reportage ... the time for this report. Yes, ideas
came out, but it was such a concentrated period of time and things were written on this
big board in front of us that you could not digest. Personally, for me, to feel like it was a
creative idea generating time, I’d need to be able to digest what was thrown at me. That
was more where I would hear ... I would report I was going down a certain road and then
the whole message I was crafting was scrapped and I was told to look to the right and
there was quickly a road that was sort of trampled down for me to go down, without a
map. I quickly had to take a picture of this map and kind of try to remember it later. It
was disengaged from what I came in with. Ideas came out, but if they were memorable
and digestible, I would have to argue that no.
One could see from this data, Mary directly asked for assistance, direction, and feedback and felt
completely misguided and let down. Here the evidence is showing how Mary expressed how she
believed the thematic group meetings were merely a time to gather and for each individual
member of the group to update the group on where they were in the dissertation process. She did
not see Dr. Wynn as leading them towards a goal or exerting influence over them to reach that
goal together (Northouse, 2016). The interview data showed that the doctoral student believed
thematic group meetings were also not a time or place to discuss creative and innovate ideas
amongst the group as evidenced by the following statement:
ideas came out, but it was such a concentrated period of time and things were written on
this big board in front of us that you could not digest. Personally, for me, to feel like it
was a creative idea generating time, I’d need to be able to digest what was thrown at me.
These meetings were not a structured platform that allowed for the time, direction and
exploration of generating creative ideas and how they could apply to the group members’

60

individual dissertations. The interview data further demonstrated that Mary did not see these
meetings as a time when Dr. Wynn would teach her or other members of the group, where she
could learn and have the time to absorb new information and understand what to do and how to
move forward to make direct connections on how to work through the dissertation process as
evidenced by the following statement:
I would report I was going down a certain road and then the whole message I was
crafting was scrapped and I was told to look to the right and there was quickly a road that
was sort of trampled down for me to go down, without a map.
Mary expressed she really did not know what she was doing, and she would have what she
thought, was a potential plan to complete her dissertation but Dr. Wynn suggested a different
plan and would map it out on a white board without any scaffolding, explanation and guidance
that allowed her to understand how it applied to her dissertation. What Dyer at al. (2011) argue is
that roughly two-thirds of our innovation skills come through learning – “from first
understanding the skill, then practicing it, and ultimately gaining confidence in our capacity to
create” (Dyer et al, 2011, p. 22). Mary expressed discouragement and communicated a sense of
disappointment and defeat with the lack of leadership and an absence of adult learning
techniques during thematic group meetings. Dr. Wynn’s approach did not enable Mary to acquire
or engage in the five skills because there was no room for this level of engagement due to the
way the thematic group was led and operated.
The creation of the thematic group format was to improve efficiency and to build on the
social nature of learning and collaboration skills (http://dissertationedd.pseudonym.edu/different-
types-of-dissertations.html). There were multiple configurations to thematic groups; however,
the thematic group under study involved a single thematic group chair, a common theme for the

61

dissertation and then different research questions within that theme for individual members of
the group. The thematic group meetings should be a time for teaching, and learning and allowing
the opportunity for doctoral students to have an environment that fostered and supported doctoral
students to tap into the five discovery skills of the Innovators DNA. According to Bransford et
al. (as cited by Trivette et al. (2009), teachers, trainers, instructors, etc. play a “critical role in
assisting learners to engage their understanding, building on learners’ understanding, correcting
misconceptions, and observing and engaging with learners during the process of learning” (p.
238). Trivette et al. (2009) illustrate these conditions are what define the key features and
elements of the four adult learning methods. The four adult learning methods include:
accelerated learning, coaching, guided design, and just-in-time training. Accelerated learning
method includes procedures for creating a relaxed emotional state, an orchestrated and multi-
sensory learning environment, and active learner engagement in the learning process (Meier,
2000). Coaching includes procedures for joint planning and goal setting, coach information
sharing and modeling, learner information gathering and practicing, analysis of reflection on the
learner’s experience and coach feedback (Leat et al., 2006). Guided design is characterized by
decision-making and problem-solving process that includes procedures for using real world
problems for mastering learning content using small-group or team processing and facilitator
guidance and feedback (Wales & Stager, 1978). Just in time training entails providing
individualized, tailored training in response to a request specific to immediate concern or need
(Redding & Kamm, 1999). In reviewing the data from these thematic group meetings and the
interview data, the evidence shows that topics of discussions were superficial in nature, did not
promote learning, innovative thinking or an opportunity for discovery. The evidence
demonstrates that the Dissertation Chair was remiss in assisting the doctoral student to engage

62

their understanding, building on the doctoral student’s understanding, and observing and
engaging with the doctoral student’s process of learning. These meetings were a causal get
together, that filled two –hours of time with friendly but often irrelevant conversation that did not
engage the doctoral students in a way that supported the creation of a dissertation. These
thematic meetings simply checked the box regarding the obligation and responsibility for the role
of the dissertation chair but lacked the structure, leadership, and support needed in the
development of a research dissertation. The role of the dissertation chair appears to be irrelevant.
Finding 2: Mary Did not Operate as a Contributing Member to the Thematic Dissertation
Group. She Did not See the Work in the Thematic Group as a Collective endeavor and she
did not believe she could contribute to the efforts being undertaken by the rest of the
group.
Theme 1: Mary Did Not Believe She Could Contribute to the Rest of the Group.
The data demonstrated that Mary did not believe she had the knowledge, skill set, or
capability to contribute to the rest of the group. When asked what Mary expected to get out of
the group she responded, “I expected progress on my personal project and I felt very intimidated
in regards to helping others. I would try, maybe even overcompensate, to try to help, but not that
successful.” Here, Mary admitted what she anticipated to get out of the group meetings was the
ability to complete her dissertation, and her goal was solely self-serving. One could infer from
this statement, that it was more important for Mary to meet her own goals so she could graduate
then try to understand how or what to contribute or help other group members with their
dissertations. For Mary, it was “very intimidating in regard to helping others,” which
demonstrated that she did not believe in her knowledge base enough to help the rest of the group
with their dissertations.

63

In another example Mary stated,
I felt like I had the least amount of understanding compared to everybody else in the
room, of their own dissertation topic. Each person appeared to have a clear vision as to
what they wanted to do and they knew how to get to the end. I felt lost for quite a long
period of time thinking okay, they understand what they’re supposed to be doing, why
don’t I?
Again, the evidence reiterated how Mary believed she “had the least amount of understanding”
as it related to contributing to the group. The data showed due to Mary’s lack of confidence in
her understanding and knowledge, she took a step back when it came to being an active
contributor to other group members’ dissertations. This example also demonstrates Mary’s
inability to engage the skill of questioning. According to Dyer et al. (2011), questioning is the
critical catalyst to creative insights.
Mary further disclosed the following in her interview,
When we were in the dissertation groups, ideas weren’t formulated enough to that we
could hand one another our goals and say, “Can you help me with this area?” Or, “Is
there some topic area you know?” That would have been great idea, and had we some
leadership prior establishing that, I think we would have contributed to one another more.
I felt a little blind going in each week, and with the topics evolving outside of my
interactions with people, there was not much I contribute to anybody. There were other
dissertation groups that worked that way. It must have been great for everybody.
In this example, Mary expressed not only did she believe she could not contribute to the group
but if there was more concrete structure to the thematic group meetings that directed and
expected more planning and preparation from the group members, with stronger leadership, it

64

may have created a better idea generating and discussion space with more significant utility to
the entire group. Mary’s words, “There were other dissertation groups that worked that way. It
must have been great for everybody,” communicated her disappointment with her overall
experience of the thematic group. The concept of the thematic group could have been a
unique opportunity for Mary to engage in networking with individuals from other fields and
backgrounds. According to Dyer et al. (2011), networking is finding and testing new ideas
with individuals from diverse backgrounds in order to gain radically different perspectives.
Innovators go out of their way to meet people outside of their field. The data showed Mary
did not engage in the discovery skill of networking.
Theme 2: Mary Did Not See This as a Collective Endeavor.
As mentioned previously, the thematic group format for developing a dissertation was to
improve efficiency and to build on the social nature of learning and collaboration skills
(http://dissertationedd.pseudonym.edu/different-types-of-dissertations.html). This thematic group
involved a single thematic group chair, a common theme for the dissertation and then different
research questions within that theme for individual members of the group. The theme identified
for this group was “Creativity and Innovation” using Universal Design in Learning (UDL) as a
conceptual framework. This thematic group included six EdD doctoral students all interested in
developing dissertations under this theme and framework. As the evidence demonstrated, Mary
never saw this as a collective group endeavor. The following is Mary’s response in her interview
when asked what she saw her role was in the thematic group:
The role in the thematic group was as a doctoral student trying to get my thesis in order. I
did not think I had a role in a larger dissertation created by the group, but as an
individual, creating an individual topic.

65

In this example, Mary expressed that she did not see herself as a member of the thematic group
where there was going to be group effort and collaboration on completing the dissertation, she
saw herself as an individual doctoral student “trying to get her thesis in order.” She stated her
role was an “individual, creating an individual topic.” In this statement, she identified with the
topic/theme on Creativity and Innovation of the thematic group, but her intent was to learn and
absorb what she needed from the group to fulfill her own individual dissertation. According to
Dyer et al. (2011), creativity most often occurs when different knowledge and perspectives
collide through a process of associative thinking. Based on the following data, one can infer
Mary was attracted to this group as she presumed the other members would all have different
knowledge and perspectives that she could learn from to help her create her product/dissertation
and not that she would contribute to others’ efforts equally.
The following is another example that supports the conclusion that Mary did not see this
a group process. When asked what the groups typical interactions looked like she mentioned,
I’m trying to remember a typical interaction. I was not shy about talking, but I was not a
subject matter excerpt on anyone’s dissertation. My input was not really a contribution to
anyone’s piece, I do not think. Everyone was creating something so different from my
own. I don’t remember an interaction where I answered anyone’s question other than to
say, “This is a book I found. It has this in it,” and I don’t even remember doing that that
much.
In this example, Mary admits that she was not coy about talking during group meetings, but
typically what she shared was not relevant to anyone else’s dissertations. Mary also stated,
“everyone was creating something so different than my own” here she acknowledged because
she could not relate to what anyone else was doing and did not believe what they were doing

66

would somehow benefit her dissertation, she inevitably “checked out.” One could also infer from
this response, she did not care to try to help in collectively assisting any of the group members
through the dissertation process, as she did not see value in her role in the group process. This is
evidence of where she did not engage in the skill of associating. Dyer et al. (2001) define
associating as the ability to make connections across areas of knowledge, industries, and
geographies. Making unexpected connections is central to innovation and requires the
innovator to create the time and circumstances to experience different ideas, individuals, and
organizations.
The interview data further demonstrated Mary’s perception that this process did not
constitute a group effort. When asked what her expectations were of being part of thematic
group, Mary responded with the following:
On entering the thematic group, I had no expectation because I did not know what a
dissertation was about. I thought I would be finding some like-minded individuals who
wanted to do something creative. The idea of being creative, at that point of my studies,
was so exciting to me because I was not experiencing that much creativity yet. To explore
that topic from several viewpoints was exciting. The role I got from that group was to
bring forth ideas towards this topic. They did. My background is so different from
everybody else’s. I was just not entirely sure what I would be experiencing in my
dissertation group, but I looked to them mostly for support.
Based on the following statement “I thought I would be finding some like-minded individuals
who wanted to do something creative. The idea of being creative, at that point of my studies, was
so exciting to me because I was not experiencing that much creativity yet,” Mary’s words
implied she was attracted to people interested in pursuing the same theme for their dissertation.

67

She then committed herself to the idea and theme of Creativity and Innovation but become
quickly disillusioned and disconnected from playing a role in meaningful group collaboration as
she did not see the utility in her contributions to the group. These were also demonstrations
where Mary could have been utilized more associative thinking (Dyer et al., 2011). Through the
process of associative thinking, innovators use cognitive ability to construct meaning by making
connections between ideas, problems, and disciplines that others may deem unrelated.
The data further showed that Mary did not believe she could contribute to the group.
When asked what she believed her contributions were to the thematic group Mary responded,
Honestly, I don’t remember any worthwhile contribution other than a few dumb jokes
here and there. I think my contributions were trying to maybe help the person find an area
to study, like a performance study. Ah, gosh. It may be too far along ago for me to
provide anything. I’m thinking about universal design learning and Tara’s work. I
remember hearing many of the things she did. I didn’t really follow along as to what it
was enough to have any say...
In this example Mary openly admitted she thought she provided very little guidance and
assistance to the group. Mary stated, “I’m thinking about universal design learning and Tara’s
work. I remember hearing many of the things she did. I didn’t really follow along as to what it
was enough to have any say...” Here Mary is disclosing she had no idea what Universal Design
in Learning (UDL) was and could not comment or contribute, even though UDL was the
conceptual framework that the thematic group was expected to use for their dissertations. This
statement also speaks to evidence on how there was not the depth of teaching and preparation by
Dr. Wynn that fostered her ability to confidently contribute to the group. This was a thematic

68

group using UDL as a conceptual framework for their dissertation and Mary had no idea what it
was.
In another example of how Mary did not think she could contribute to the group Mary
stated in the interview,
When we were in the dissertation groups, ideas weren’t formulated enough to that we
could hand one another our goals and say, “Can you help me with this area?” Or, “Is
there some topic area you know?” That would have been great idea, and had we some
leadership prior establishing that, I think we would have contributed to one another more.
I felt a little blind going in each week, and with the topics evolving outside of my
interactions with people, there was not much I contribute to anybody. There were other
dissertation groups that worked that way. It must have been great for everybody.
Here in this statement, “That would have been great idea, and had we some leadership prior
establishing that, I think we would have contributed to one another more” Mary acknowledged
that the lack of leadership on behalf of the dissertation Chair, limited her and the group’s ability
to confidently contribute thoughts, ideas, suggestions to other group members dissertation topics.
Mary shared, “I felt a little blind going in each week, and with the topics evolving outside of my
interactions with people, there was not much I contributed to anybody.” In this example, the
evidence demonstrates, which also supports Finding 1, that there were inconsistent meeting topic
agendas, which did not allow for planning and preparation and subsequent learning for the
thematic group doctoral students.
Finding 3: Mary Did Use the Discovery Skills but Did So in Ways That Were not
Consistent with the Underlying Assumptions About the Purpose of the Innovator’s DNA.

69

Instead, She Engaged in the Five Skills in a Self-serving Manner or She Leveraged the
Group Resource and Did Not Use the Five Skills.
What this finding revealed is that there was evidence that Mary engaged in the discovery
skills, but with the sole intention of self-benefit. This was Mary’s response when asked what she
believed her contributions were to the group: “The contributions I made to the group were in
discussion group, contributing books and readings and contributing thoughts on my personal
progress. I felt I was more of a leech on the group than providing any guidance to anyone.” In
this example, Mary shared that she contributed minimal information to the group. In this
statement “I felt I was more of a leech on the group,” Mary acknowledged leveraging the
knowledge and different skill sets of the group for her own personal gain and did not think she
was a valuable resource or contributor to the group. However, this does align with the discovery
skill of observing. Dyer et al. (2011) believe that innovators take themselves out of their
routine environments and create opportunities to see through the eyes of others: they are
careful observers, curious to see firsthand how different stakeholders react to the same
situation or how various organizations handle similar problems. This example does show
evidence of Mary engaging in observing, by being more of a leech of the group one can
infer she observed the group and listened, took notes, asked questions, watched carefully in
pursuit of her own progress towards her dissertation. When asked, how much time Mary spent
proportionally listening to what others offered? Mary responded with “Proportionally 70% of the
time. I saw great deal of guidance from everyone.” In this example, the evidence demonstrates
Mary engaged in three of the discovery skills. She engaged in observing as she was paying
attention to what others received as guidance from each other, in addition, engaged in
networking and associating as she stated she “saw a great deal of guidance from everyone”

70

which one could infer she was drawing across multiple domains. To further support her
engagement in these skills Mary shared the following,
After the first couple of meetings, it came more clear who was good in what area. One
doctoral student was very good at finding atypical resources on the internet and providing
them to the group, very helpful organizational resources. Another member was very
skilled at organizing things and organizing thoughts. Helping a person to pull out what
their theme was. Other people were just very good at organizing their own group, so they
provided inspiration for others attending. There gradually evolved roles of experts in
different areas that were required in creating the dissertation.
In this example Mary spelled out how she drew information and resources from the group across
multiple domains, for example, “One doctoral student was very good at finding atypical
resources on the internet and providing them to the group” and “another member was very
skilled at organizing things and organizing thoughts.” As a follow-up question, Mary was asked:
What was it you would say prompted you to engage in that behavior (listening)? Mary responded
with the following: “I’m going to say that we, very often, did not get to hear everybody’s work,
so I’d say ... and I’m sometimes pushy. I would say I was listening maybe three quarters of the
time.” This evidence again showed Mary engaged in the discovery skill of observing (Dyer et al.,
2011). Mary observed by listening to the group ¾ of the time. Mary’s statement that “I’m
sometimes pushy” communicated that she would insert herself into the discussions and
conversations to get her questions answered or the information she felt she needed for her own
dissertation. This evidence demonstrates Mary engaged in the discovery skill of questioning.
Research by Dyer et al. (2011) showed that innovators ask lots of questions to better understand
what is and what might be.

71

The data shows that Mary routinely utilized a number of the discovery skills, she asked
group members for help (questioning) and leveraged their knowledge and resources (observing
and associating) although it was purely for her benefit and offered very little reciprocation to the
group. When asked, “What did you expect to get out of the group meetings?” Mary responded,
My expectations of my peers in that situation were to tell me if I was wrong or to regulate
my expectations of the experience. From those external interactions, I kind of ... I figured
out that I was in the same boat as other people. I was not as lost, I was ... I was not more
lost, I was as lost. Those external meetings allowed me to bond with other members and
say, “I need help,” and then they gave me the best help they could.
What the data shows was that people (from Mary’s perspective) were not well-positioned to be
successful and instead, there was a “we are all in the same sinking boat together” mentality so
people banded together to support each other. This is evidence that Mary intended to leverage
resources from the group, and for them to be a sounding board for her and her dissertation but
realized that her feelings of frustration with the lack of leadership and structure of the thematic
group were shared by other group members.
Additionally, when asked whom Mary listened to the most in the thematic group, Mary
acknowledged, I listened to Chad the most because Chad was extending ideas about a
structure and I was in need of that. I was too impatient to study other dissertations,
especially if they didn’t have anything close to what I did. Every time I met with my
dissertation chairs, they added another section or another area that I needed to do, when
there was ... when I felt that I was already doing two dissertations. He helped me to just
say, “No,” to everybody and carve out a small area. I needed that. I needed somebody to
help me just make it smaller and achievable.

72

This is an example where Mary was not observing or associating or networking when it came to
helping other people (she was not helping other people) but one could infer she was desperate for
help. She further detailed “Mine was so different than everybody’s work and I could not find
somebody to pattern after.” In this example one could infer Mary had the innate ability to use the
discovery skill of associating but struggled to connect her dissertation across different areas of
knowledge and with what other group members were doing for their dissertations.
Another example of where Mary utilized the discovery skills but in a self-serving manner
is also evidenced by the observation data. In one of the three thematic group meetings observed,
Mary spent 40 minutes discussing how she engaged in networking to help in the progress of her
dissertation. Here is an excerpt of the discussion:
I found also sitting at home yesterday and I had the Martha Stewart show on while I was
working on my stuff for this other job and I learned about this company she bought
herself onto the show by donating to something and she got a guest appearance on her
show, but she’s a former EVP at Leap Frog. She’s creating educational apps for kids that
are learning literacy and stuff too, but again knows data supporting it. I found another
company because I started interviewing a lot of people. I interviewed ... I tried to get
through to Nolan Bushnell. I wrote to him through LinkedIn. He was kind enough to
forward me to one of his head guys starting another company. I interviewed him and he
tried to pull me onto this project and he was somehow connected also to hybrid high.
[crosstalk 01:17:04] He was trying to get me to work. He thought, “This is serendipitous.
Maybe if you work with Professor Dwyer and bring us in and work this together.” See he
was trying to audition me for a job in some way with them and then I looked through his
stuff and he says, “Why don’t you play my games and give me your opinion of them?”

73

In this example Mary clearly demonstrated the discovery skill of networking. According to Dyer
et al. (2011), innovators go out of their way to meet people outside of their field with different
kinds of ideas and perspectives to extend their own. Here Mary, took the initiative to network
with multiple individuals outside of the EdD group and higher education.
The analysis of the observation and interview data resulted in three findings addressing
the following: how the absence of leadership and adult learning techniques by the thematic group
chair impeded Mary’s ability to adopt or engage in the five discovery skills of the Innovators
DNA; how Mary did not see herself as part of the group and instead used the discovery skills in a
self-serving manner where she leveraged the resources from the thematic group but did not use
the five skills to help her peers, and how Mary did not see the thematic group as a collective
endeavor.
The results of the case study analysis suggested that the absence of adequate leadership
and attention to adult learning techniques limited the Mary’s ability to demonstrate innovative
thinking through a thematic group dissertation process represented by the five skills described in
the Innovators DNA (Dyer et al., 2011).

74

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study examined how a dissertation chair fostered innovation as demonstrated by the
adoption of and engagement in five discovery skills described in the Innovators DNA (Dyer et
al., 2011) through leadership and the use of adult learning techniques and how one student
demonstrated the five discovery skills through a thematic group dissertation process. A
qualitative single-case study was used to examine the following research questions:
1) How do the actions of the EdD dissertation group leader shape doctoral students’
ability to engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation process in the
context of a group focused on innovation?
2) How does one member of an EdD dissertation group use the five discovery skills in
her dissertation process to engage in an innovative dissertation?
In order to answer these questions, I used purposeful sampling as this was a specific
group of doctoral students who were interested in and had the intention to construct something
innovative through the concept of a non-traditional dissertation. The sample for this study was a
single doctoral student whose topic for her dissertation focused on learning, creativity,
innovation and Universal Design in Learning (UDL) and the dissertation chair for the thematic
group. Although observation data was collected on six doctoral students, analysis was conducted
on the experience of one doctoral student and the dissertation chair. This decision was the result
of careful consideration of the data collected and the likelihood that analyzing all six doctoral
students experiences would better represent the way in which the five discovery skills were
supported and used. Moreover, the focal doctoral student was the only member of the group who
stood out as determined to push forward to create an innovative dissertation that included the
development of a truly non-traditional dissertation as she set out to create a learning application.

75

Thus, the total sample size was two participants. The data I collected to answer these research
questions included one 45-minute semi-structured interview of the student, and observations of
scheduled thematic group meetings that occurred once a week for approximately 2-hours from
May-October of 2012. The data provided insight into how the dissertation chair shaped students’
ability to engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation process and if the student used
the five discovery skills in her dissertation process.
As mentioned in chapter three, the research questions and conceptual framework for this
study were altered after the data was collected. This study was intended to be conducted under
the conceptual framework of UDL. It was not until after the collection of data that it became
apparent that UDL was not going to serve as the appropriate conceptual framework. Since this
was a thematic group developing dissertations under the theme of “Creativity and Innovation” it
was recommended that I pursue the dissertation using The Innovator’s DNA as the conceptual
framework. I analyzed the data the using a multi-phase approach. In the first phase I used Corbin
and Strauss’s analytic tools (2004) to interrogate the data while I engaged in open coding, using
a priori codes (Creswell, 2009) based on the five skills of an innovator (Dyer et al., 2011). I also
looked for in vivo codes, language from the data, that emerged inductively during my analysis.
During the first phase I developed a codebook that allowed me to aggregate codes into analytic
codes. During data analysis, both leadership and adult learning techniques emerged as critical to
my ability to make sense of the experiences of the focal doctoral student in the context of the
thematic group. Both of these concepts ultimately became a part of my final conceptual
framework.
Data analysis ultimately led to three major findings, further discussed in subsequent
sections, as well as the implications for practice, policy, and research.

76

Summary of Findings
Three findings emerged from this study, one in response to research question 1 and two
in response to research question 2.
Finding 1: The Dissertation Chair Did Not Lead the Thematic Group Using
Adult Learning Techniques in Ways That Enabled the Doctoral Student to
Adopt and Enact the Five Discovery Skills Associated with the Innovator’s DNA.
The findings suggested the chair did not lead the thematic group toward a common goal
(Northouse, 2016) using adult learning techniques (Trivette et al., 2009) that would have allowed
the doctoral student to engage in and demonstrate the five discovery skills. The findings also
suggested that the completion of a dissertation required leadership that offered direction and
structure. However, the dissertation chair approached the dissertation process in a more relaxed
and unbounded way that did not allow for overt modeling, or the development or fostering of
students’ engagement in the five discovery skills. The findings showed thematic group meetings
did not have protocols for the use of time or direction and exploration to generate creative ideas
and how they could apply to the group member’s individual dissertations. The finding further
demonstrated that Mary, doctoral student, did not see these meetings as a time of teaching by the
thematic group chair, in which, one could learn and have the time to absorb new information and
understand what to do and how to move forward to make direct connections on how to work
through the dissertation process.

77

Finding 2: Mary Did not Operate as a Contributing Member to the Thematic
Dissertation Group. She Did not See the Work in the Thematic Group as a
Collective endeavor and she did not believe she could contribute to the efforts being
undertaken by the rest of the group.
The findings for this theme showed Mary was attracted to a group all wanting to pursue a
dissertation under the theme of Creativity and Innovation as she presumed the members would
all have different knowledge and perspectives that she can learn from to help her create her
product/dissertation. The findings demonstrated that Mary became disillusioned and
disconnected from playing a role in meaningful group collaboration as she did not see the utility
in her contributions to the group, but did seek to use the knowledge, skills, and experience of the
other group members for her personal gain. The findings also demonstrated that Mary did not
believe she had the knowledge, skill set, or capability to contribute to the rest of the group. Mary
admitted what she anticipated to get out of the group meetings was the ability to complete her
dissertation, and her goal was solely self-serving. The findings detailed how it was more
important for Mary to meet her own goals so she could graduate then try to understand how to
contribute to the group. Findings also included if there was more concrete structure to the
thematic group meetings that directed and expected more planning and preparation from the
group members, with stronger leadership, it may have created a better idea generating and
discussion space with more significant utility to the entire group.

78

Finding 3: Mary Did Use the Discovery Skills but Did So in Ways That Were not
Consistent with the Underlying Assumptions About the Purpose of the Innovator’s
DNA. Instead, She Engaged in the Five Skills in a Self-serving Manner or She
Leveraged the Group Resource and Did Not Use the Five Skills.
The findings for this theme suggested Mary engaged in the discovery skills of
observing, associating, questioning, and networking by but in pursuit of her own progress
towards her dissertation. The data showed Mary observed the group and listened, took notes,
asked questions, paid attention to what others received as guidance from each other, in addition,
engaged in networking and associating. The finding showed that Mary routinely utilized the
discovery skills, she asked group members for help (questioning) and leveraged their knowledge
and resources (observing and associating) although it was purely for her benefit and offered very
little reciprocation to the group.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation examined how a thematic dissertation chair fostered innovation as
demonstrated by the adoption of and engagement in five discovery skills described in the
Innovators DNA (Dyer et al., 2011) through leadership and the use of adult learning techniques
and how one student demonstrated the five discovery skills through a thematic group dissertation
process. Findings from this study revealed that the leadership of the thematic group and
dissertation committee did not support the student’s ability to engage in the discovery skills
associated with the Innovator’s DNA. The findings also revealed that the doctoral student did
leverage the resources, knowledge and skills of the group and did engage in the use of the
discovery skills, although it was in a self-serving manner in her own pursuit to complete her

79

dissertation and graduate. In this section I will discuss the respective implications and
recommendation for practice, policy, and future research.
Practice
One implication that emerged from this study is that for a group to foster creative and
innovative thinking, the conditions for the group need to be established and supported. In
particular, the leader of the group needs to learn and understand the five discovery skills of the
Innovator’s DNA and to establish and reinforce these skills to members of the group. According
to Dyer et al. (2011), the most innovative organizations in the world have leaders who
understand innovation at a deeply personal level. A critical component for practice is creating a
safe space for others to innovate. Research conducting by Dyer et al. (2011), demonstrated that
team leaders thought they were significantly better at encouraging discovery activities in others
than did their managers, peers, or direct reports. According to Dyer et al. (2011), the most
important steps to creating a safe space is to encourage the group to ask questions, cheer them on
when they use the discovery skills, hear and support other ideas especially if the idea contradicts
an existing belief, and not devalue creative ideas. Another important component of establishing
innovative leaders in practice is to give people time to innovate (Dyer et al., 2011).
Policy
An implication of this study is if higher education institutions want to develop, support
and encourage innovation there needs to be greater organizational traction and commitment to
support a policy that supports the learning and encouragement of the five skills of the Innovators
DNA. The structure needs to be in place at the organization level, that supports leaders, and
expects leaders to actively teach, model, and encourage these discovery skills in students. And
hold the students accountable for it. According to Dyer et al. (2011), when the following policies

80

and expectations are in place there is greater organization traction and visibility to the philosophy
“innovation is everyone’s job:”
1. Leaders innovate and everyone sees and hears about it.
2. All employees receive real time and real resources to come up with innovative ideas.
3. Innovation is an explicit, consistent element of individual performance
(accountability).
4. Organizations allocate 25% human/financial resources to platform or breakthrough
innovation projects.
5. Organizations incorporate innovation, creativity, and curiosity into their core values.
Research
Given the limitations of this research, this study did not examine the perspective of
thematic dissertation chair. One recommendation would be to conduct a qualitative case study
analysis exploring the leader’s perspective on how they shape students’ ability to engage with the
five discovery skills in their dissertation process in the context of a group focused on creativity
and innovation. Another recommendation for future research would be to examine the way the
organization is structured and how the organization is situated to support, encourage, and expect
leaders to teach, nurture, and model discovery skills for students. In their study of the
environments of teachers who support the creation of innovators, Wagner and Compton
(2012) state that the underlying culture and assumptions in research universities may constitute
significant barriers to the production of innovators. Across multiple universities, Wagner and
Compton (2012) found that faculty who were viewed by their young innovator students as
mentors were often marginalized by university leaders and administration or by other faculty
because they did not conform to the content of an individual departmental domain, nor did they

81

do the highly specialized types of research needed to merit promotion in the traditional tracks (as
cited by Armstrong & Barsion, 2013). Lastly, another recommendation would be to conduct
further research on a leader and/or students who have successfully embraced, fostered and
shaped students’ ability to engage with the five discovery skills and examine how this individual
has approached doing this work.
Lessons Learned
Throughout this dissertation journey, I wanted to make a conscious effort to learn from
this process and from the experience. The Innovator’s DNA is not just this theoretical construct;
it is a body of work that has utility for everyday life. Using the Innovator’s DNA as a conceptual
framework for my dissertation not only required that I learn it and apply it to my dissertation but
also allowed me the opportunity to apply the concepts in my professional life. Below are
examples of how I have implemented the discovery skills in my professional life:
Associating: When faced with problems or issues, what I have learned and try to instill in
the staff I work with is to collect as many ideas from as many different sources as possible with
the intention of creating a foundation for problem solving and innovation in that process of
problem solving.
Questioning: When staff or even I are faced with problem or area of concern, I encourage
the team to have question storming sessions. These sessions involve identifying the problem,
then writing down a series of questions to ask about this problem. We then prioritize the most
important questions, and then begin to work on solutions.
I have also learned to keep a questions notebook. Based on ideas, problems/areas of
concerns, multiple conversations with various stakeholders, I log questions and review them
often to see what types of questions work well did we solve the issues based on the questions.

82

Observing: Typically, I believed this was a discovery skill that came easily and I had
many opportunities to constantly observe. In my professional role, I was constantly observing
interactions of staff, leadership, and other constituents. This has become a serious challenge in
the past year due to the Global Covid pandemic as it forced most of us to all work remotely,
which is quite isolating, and now there is less opportunity to have the ability to observe.
Networking: To fulfill this skill I have worked hard to expand my professional network. I
accept opportunities that allow me to be in the room with individuals from different countries,
states, organizations with the hope that I can learn from all of them and bring that knowledge
back to my team and institution. I also make a point to attend at least two conferences a year.
These conferences are typically within my profession so there is a limitation with the scope of
the networking.
Experimenting: This skill is often difficult in practice as a leader as I have to be mindful
of cost and time implications when it comes to experimenting, but what I do think about and ask
my team to think about is what hypothesis we can test to help us learn something new about a
problem.

83

References
Armstrong, E. G., & Barison, S. J., (2013) Creating “Innovator’s DNA” in health care
education. Academic Medicine, 88(3), 343-348.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2013). It takes more than a major:
Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Retrieved February 2, 2015
from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf
Baez, B. (2002). Degree of Distinction: The Ed.D. or the Ph.D. in education. Paper presented at
the Association for the Study of higher Education, Sacramento, CA
Behar-Hornstein, L., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical skills in higher education: A review of
the literature. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 25-41.
Brubacher, J.S., & Rudy, W. (1958). Higher education in transition: A history of American
colleges and universities, 1636-1956. Harper and Row Publishers.
Campbell, B. (2012). Innovative leadership: Insights from a leading technologist. The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 13(4), 233-240.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (2008). Retrieved February 9, 2015 from
http://cpedinitiative.org/convenings/october2008/capstone
Christensen, C. (2021) Disruptive Innovation. Retrieved March 3, 2021 from
https://claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/
Council on Graduate Education (2014). Retrieved February 2, 2015 from http://www.cgsnet.org/
Council of Graduate Schools and Educational Testing Service (2010). The path forward: The
future of graduate education in the United States. Report from the Commission on Future
of Graduate Education in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

84

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Drucker, Peter, The Practice of Management (New York: Wiley, 1954), 352-353.
Dyer, J., Gregerson. H., & Christensen, C. (2011) The innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills
of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Review Press.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington D.C. The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Kellerman, B. (2012) The end of leadership. Harper Business.
MacDonald, H.J. (1943). The doctorate in America. The Journal of higher Education, 14(4),
189-194.
Marsh, D., & Dembo, M. (2009). Rethinking school leadership programs: The USC Ed.D.
program in perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 69-85.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2
nd
ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
National Academies of Science (2012). Retrieved February 4, 2015 from
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record)_id=13396&page=R1

85

National Science Foundation. (2011). Numbers of doctorates awarded in the United States.
Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/inbrief/nsf12303/
Northouse, P. (2016) Leadership: Theory and practice (7
th
ed.). Sage.
Osguthorpe, R.T., & Wong, M.J. (1993). The PhD versus the EdD: Time for a decision.
Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 47-63.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3
rd
ed.). Sage.
Radford, J. (2001) Doctor of What? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 527-529.
Reznikoff, M., Domino, G., Bridges, C., Honeymoon, M. (1973). Creative abilities in identical
and fraternal twins. Behavior Genetics, 3(4), 365-377.
Rueda, R., Sundt, M., Picus, L. (2013). Developing scholarly practitioners: Lessons from a
decade long experiment. Planning and Changing. 44(4) 252-265.
Tobar-Munoz, H., & Carcamo, J.G., & Solarte, H., & Ventes, C., & Mesa, J. (2020).
Videogames and innovation: Fostering innovators’ skills in on-line learning
environments. Sustainability, 12 92-164.
Trivette, C.M., Dunst, C.J., Hamby, D.W., O’Herin, C.E. (2009). Characteristics and
consequences of adult learning methods and strategies, Research Brief, 3(1), 1-x.
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming
education’s doctorate: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.
Storey, V. A., Caskey, M. M., Hesbol, K. A., Marshall, J. E., Maughan, B., & Dolan, A. W.
(2014). Examining EdD dissertations in practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education
Doctorate. International HETL Review, 5(2), 1-x. https://www.hetl.org/examining-edd-
dissertations-in-practice-the-carnegie-project-on-the-education-doctorate

86

Wagner, T. (2012). Creating Innovators: The making of young people who will change the
world. Scribner.
Walker, G.E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of
scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Wergin, J. (2011) Rebooting the Ed.D. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 119-139.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and
Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 1340152. Retrieved from
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss2/12.
Zambo, R., Zambo, D., Buss., Perry, J.A., & Williams, T.R. (2014). Seven years after the call:
Students’ and graduates’ perceptions of the re-envisioned Ed.D. Innovative Higher
Education 39(2), 123-137 doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9262-3.

87

i
In the initial formulation of this study, I knew observations would be a method of data collection. Due to the timing
of the thematic group meetings, I was permitted to submit to the IRB to gain approval for the conduct of the
observations of thematic group meetings prior to flushing out the literature review and research methodology. ..
After observational data collection was completed, I was asked to change my conceptual framework and adopt the
Innovator’s DNA. As a result, I turned to the literature to examine the attributes of the Innovator’s DNA as well as
research where the Innovator’s DNA had been applied. During data analysis, it became clear that two additional
bodies of literature were necessary in order to explain the phenomenon of interest (the students’ experiences in the
dissertation group). These two additional bodies were leadership and adult learning. Thus, this literature review
presents the literature that was used to analyze the data rather than the literature that was originally reviewed in
order to inform the approach to conducting the study. Moreover, the literature represented here on leadership and
adult learning is limited to the literature that was used during analysis and is not a thorough review of the literature
on either topic. Such a review of literature would be appropriate for further research and does represent a limitation
of this study.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine how one student demonstrated innovative thinkingㅡrepresented by the five skills described in the Innovators DNA (Dyer et al., 2011)ㅡthrough a thematic group dissertation process and how the dissertation chair fostered that engagement in innovation through leadership and adult learning processes. The following research questions informed the study: 1) How do the actions of the EdD dissertation group leader shape students’ ability to engage with the five discovery skills in their dissertation process in the context of a group focused on innovation? 2) How does one member of an EdD dissertation group use the five discovery skills in their dissertation process to engage in an innovative dissertation? ❧ The qualitative single-case study examined one thematic group dissertation chair and one student member of the thematic group. Data consisted of one 45-minute semi-structured interview of the student and observations of scheduled thematic group meetings from May through October 2012. Three major findings emerged: 1) The structure of the thematic group did not support the student’s ability to engage in the Discovery Skills; 2) The student acted independently from the group and did not see this as a collective endeavor and did not believe she could contribute to the rest of the group; and 3) She used the discovery skills but in a way that is not consistent with the underlying assumptions about the purpose of the Innovator’s DNA and Discovery Skills.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Changing the story: an action research study on utilizing culturally relevant pedagogical practice to enact a movement toward liberatory curriculum and instruction

PDF

Critically reflective dialogue: an action research study on increasing the critical consciousness of ethnic studies teachers

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

PDF

Cross-cultural adjustment: examining how involvement in service-learning contributes to the adjustment experiences of undergraduate international students

PDF

Anti-racist adaptive leadership: an action research study on supporting principals in predominantly white schools to develop color consciousness and support future anti-racist practices

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Do you see you in me!? No, I do not. I other you.

PDF

The transference of continuous intergroup dialogue skills to the classroom by participating faculty: an evaluation study

PDF

Transformative learning: action research disrupting the status quo in literature in classrooms

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Perspectives of Native American community college students

PDF

Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

Cultivating a community of practice: an action research study on cultivating a community of practice that engages in trauma-informed dialogue and critical reflection

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Towards critical dialogue: an action research project building an awareness of an administrative team member’s role, identity, and deficit thinking

PDF

Transformative social-emotional learning: an action research study on supporting parents in a predominantly White community…

PDF

Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education

Asset Metadata

Creator Craun, Kristin Joy (author)

Core Title An exploration of innovation in higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/15/2021

Defense Date 03/23/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adult learning processes,five discovery skills,innovation,Innovators DNA,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,thematic dissertation groups

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Pascarella, John (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email kristija@usc.edu,kristincraun@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC17138300

Unique identifier UC17138300

Legacy Identifier etd-CraunKrist-10217

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Craun, Kristin Joy

Type texts

Source 20211115-wayne-usctheses-batch-896-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu