Doctoral Study Seminar Course 1 Journey Log Part 1 Your J

Doctoral Study Seminar Course 1 Journey Lognamepart 1 Your Journey B

Summarize what you have learned from the discussion regarding your motivation to pursue a doctorate and become a scholar-practitioner. Explain how you can make an impact on positive social change with your degree. Explain your perspective on the difference between advocacy and inquiry. Describe the purpose of research training in a doctoral program. Identify how research guides practice.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Pursuing a doctorate is driven by a profound motivation to deepen knowledge, contribute meaningfully to the field, and initiate positive social change. My motivation stems from a desire to enhance healthcare systems and address disparities through scholarly inquiry and practical application. As a scholar-practitioner, I aim to integrate evidence-based research into practice, influencing policy and improving community health outcomes. This dual role allows me to bridge theory and action, fostering innovative solutions to complex health issues, which aligns with the broader goal of societal betterment (Miller, 2018). The doctoral journey empowers me to develop expertise and credibility to effect sustainable change in underserved populations and contribute to the development of equitable healthcare models.

The impact of earning a doctorate extends beyond personal achievement; it provides a platform to advocate for health equity, policy reform, and community empowerment. Through research, I can advocate for vulnerable populations, demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions, and influence stakeholders to adopt evidence-based practices. This advocacy, rooted in scientific inquiry, enables targeted action that can lead to systemic improvements and reduce health disparities (Brown & Turner, 2020). My professional goal is to harness my degree to serve as an agent of positive social change by promoting health justice and advocating for policies that address social determinants of health.

The distinction between advocacy and inquiry is fundamental to my approach as a scholar. Advocacy involves actively supporting specific causes or solutions, often influenced by personal values and societal needs. Inquiry, on the other hand, emphasizes systematic investigation, objective analysis, and evidence-based understanding. I view research as inquiry—an unbiased pursuit of truth that informs advocacy efforts. Effective advocacy, therefore, depends on rigorous inquiry to ensure that actions are justified and impactful. This distinction underscores the importance of maintaining scientific rigor in research endeavors while striving to influence policy and practice for societal benefits (Klein, 2019).

Research training in a doctoral program serves the purpose of cultivating rigorous inquiry, critical thinking, and methodological competence. It equips students with the skills to design, conduct, analyze, and interpret research that advances knowledge and informs practice. Through research training, doctoral candidates learn to address complex problems, evaluate evidence critically, and contribute original insights to their disciplines. Such training ensures that practitioners are not only consumers of evidence but also producers of credible, ethical scholarship capable of guiding effective practices and policy decisions (Johnson & Smith, 2021). Ultimately, research guides practice by providing the empirical foundation necessary for making informed decisions, improving programs, and shaping policies that foster positive social change.

Additional Sections (Brief Summaries)

Part 2 discusses the doctoral journey, emphasizing the importance of planning timelines, understanding key elements of a capstone, and the rationale behind residency timing. Part 3 involves identifying and explaining resources that support the capstone, including scholarly articles, databases, and community tools, with details on their application. Part 4 focuses on managing the doctoral journey, promoting work/life balance, avoiding procrastination, and outlining a preliminary study plan aligned with the DHA Process Overview. Part 5 explores selecting research topics relevant to the discipline, initial ideas for capstone projects, and identifying academic and professional communities for support and collaboration.

References

• Brown, L., & Turner, G. (2020). Evidence-Based Practice in Healthcare. Journal of Health Research, 34(2), 137-150.
• Johnson, P., & Smith, M. (2021). Methodological Approaches for Doctoral Research. Academic Publishing.
• Klein, G. (2019). The Role of Inquiry in Advocacy. Policy Studies Journal, 47(3), 560-575.
• Landers, R., et al. (2020). Cross-Sectoral Approaches to Social Change. Social Science & Medicine, 250, 112876.
• Malmqvist, J., et al. (2019). Conducting the pilot study: A neglected part of the research process? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 160940691987096.
• Miller, T. (2018). Scholarship and Practice in Public Health. Public Health Journal, 23(4), 245-256.
• Snowdon, C., et al. (2023). Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Healthcare. Quality in Health Care, 32(1), 41-47.
• Bashshur, R., et al. (2016). The State of Telehealth. Telemedicine and e-Health, 22(11), 813-836.
• Dawson, A., et al. (2019). Why research ethics should add retrospective review. BMC Medical Ethics, 20, 1-8.
• Kruse, C. S., et al. (2017). Telehealth and patient satisfaction in rural areas: A systematic review. Telemedicine and e-Health, 23(10), 758-764.