Educational leaders are increasingly encouraged to engage in practitioner inquiry to drive school improvement and advance equity. However, when such inquiry is conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation, particularly within Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) programs, it often collides with district research and conflict of interest policies not designed for embedded, improvement-focused studies. This paper analyzes policies from 13 large urban school districts, collectively serving over 3 million students, to examine how these systems enable or constrain employees’ ability to conduct dissertation in practice (DIP) research in their own settings. The findings reveal substantial variation in district guidance, reflecting underlying tensions between ethical oversight, institutional risk, and support for practitioner-led inquiry. These competing values and underlying institutional logics shape whether and how districts recognize the potential of embedded research to contribute to continuous improvement and equity. The study highlights how coherent, transparent policies can uphold ethical standards while fostering conditions for meaningful practitioner dissertation scholarship.
Orr et al. (Fri,) studied this question.