78
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Being written: Thinking the normative in the EdD

      London Review of Education

      IOE Press

      DOCTORATE, TEMPORALITY, ETHICS, HEIDEGGER, FINNIS

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this paper, I give various reasons why the doctorate in education (EdD) programme helpfully heightens our normative senses. The writing of a thesis in time, and hence the realization that the same time – that window of opportunity – to do other things and enjoy other experiences is traded off, comports the student in a manner that heightens his or her sense of his or her own temporality and invites reflexive consideration of what it is that truly matters. Thus, embarking on a graduate programme and writing an EdD is an invitation to theorize, no doubt – we are invited to read, think, reason, discuss and write down our thoughts. But at the end of the day, it is the EdD that writes us. Amid our scholarly striving, it shapes us and graces us with the keen sense of what it is that ultimately matters. Such a grasp of what truly matters ought then to inform our own reform of our scholarly and professional discourses in our field.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          10430
          London Review of Education
          IOE Press
          1474-8460
          27 March 2018
          : 16
          : 1
          : 56-62
          Article
          1474-8460(20180327)16:1L.56;1- s6.phd /ioep/clre/2018/00000016/00000001/art00006
          10.18546/LRE.16.1.06
          Product
          Categories
          Articles - The EdD at 20: Lessons learned from professional doctorates

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          London Review of Education
          Volume 16, Issue 1

          Similar content 40