Your Focus vs. Your Locus
The following was shared at a hooding ceremony with the 2024 NJCU Ed.D. graduates in Educational Technology Leadership:
I want to begin my remarks this evening with a trigger warning. What I'm about to say may cause some level of PTSD among our recent graduates. Frankly, if anyone in the room recently graduated with their doctoral degree, this talk may cause PTSD for you as well. You see, I want to share with you tonight the guidance that I often share with doctoral students as they begin their dissertation work. For the past 23 plus years, I've had the privilege of working with more than 100 doctoral students as they began their dissertations or when they had to shift to me as their advisor somewhere in the midst of their dissertation process. What I found time and time again was that one of the most challenging steps in the process of writing a dissertation was determining the purpose of the study. How many of you in the room remember that struggle?
Often, students would have very wide interests and would have to spend extensive time drilling down to find a clear and manageable problem to solve. How many of you in this room recall that process? Often, in this process, when I saw students struggle with their dissertation proposals, it would be due to problems setting up the study from the beginning. Students struggled because they did not set up their studies in a way that would lead to success. In instances where students struggled the most with their proposals, it was almost always because they confused the focus of their study with the locus of the study. The focus of a study is the purpose of the study. It is what drives the inquiry process. It is the WHY. The locus of a study is the stuff, the context; what someone looks at in order to engage in the study. While the focus is the WHY, the locus is the WHAT.
I will share an example of what I mean. I had to step in with one doctoral student when her dissertation chair lost his bid for tenure. She had finished writing her proposal, and she sent it to me to review. Her proposal was, for lack of a better term, a hot mess. The three chapters meandered through various aspects of a school's dress code policy. Nothing made sense, and there was no way that I could let her present this proposal to her committee. I spoke with the student to try to get a better understanding of what it was she wanted to study. She told me that she had worked at the same school for many years. During her tenure at the school, she had seen different principals come and go. What she noticed with the different principals was that faculty and staff would hold students accountable regarding the dress code policy for one administrator while they failed to do so for another. She was curious why under one leader, faculty and staff would adhere to the dress code policy and under another they didn't. As we spoke, it dawned on me that this student wasn't really looking at dress code. She thought she was. But in fact, she was trying to understand the relationship between something in leadership and adherence to or compliance with policies. What we were finally able to develop for her proposal in terms of a focus, was the relationship between leadership style and policy compliance. I explained to her that the dress code policy was her locus. It was what she was examining, or more precisely that she was studying how faculty and staff supported and reinforced a specific policy.
Perhaps other examples may help. In her 2005 dissertation, The Relationship between Student Orientation Programs that Support Community Building and Retention of Distance Learners, Dr. Laura Zieger looked at a mandatory week-long student orientation program for an online Ed.D. program in Educational Technology. (Does that sound familiar?). While the orientation and its curriculum were the locus. Her focus was the relationship between a sense of belonging and student retention. I have another example, in his 2001 dissertation, Eclectic Practice to Reflective Practice, Dr. Christopher Shamburg examined his implementation of a learner-centered approach in his English classroom at Hudson County Schools of Technology, and. In particular, he examined his use of technology. But, again, his classroom and his use of technology to engage students was the locus. His focus was the creation and implementation of a sociocultural educational philosophy. In my own experience, I traveled all over Georgia interviewing stakeholders in school and university partnerships, but those partnerships were the locus. My focus? I wanted to know the necessary conditions for inquiry within the context of school and university partnerships. In each of these examples, you can see work that was very important to Dr. Zieger, Dr. Shamburg, and me. But, the stuff is just stuff without purpose, without a driving force or a compelling question.
Why would I share these examples with you? Because I believe the same distinction applies in our lives, and within our professional lives. As we move forward in our professional work, particularly those of us who are involved in educational leadership, it is essential that we can distinguish between the focus of our work and the locus of our work. It is far too easy to get caught up in the stuff. It is also far too easy to become overwhelmed by or distracted by the context in which we work and the challenges inherent within any context. Now that you can step away from the fog of a doctoral program, now that you are able to see life past that dissertation, you are in a position as newly credentialed doctors to have an even greater impact within the context in which you work. You are also in a position with your new credentials to explore new professional opportunities. It is important to recognize that for you to truly have an impact, to truly make a difference with your new credentials, you must always keep the focus in mind.
Simon Sinek makes a vital point when discussing his framework of the Golden Circle. Picture, if you will, a bullseye. In the very center is the word “why””. The next circle surrounding it says “how”. And the third circle asks what. This is Sinek’s model of the golden circle. According to Sinek, people do not buy what you do; they buy why you do it. He uses Apple as an example of a company that leads with WHY. He points out that they are driven by a commitment to challenge the status quo – to think differently. The How? They make products that are beautifully designed, simple to use, and user friendly. They just happen to make computers (and phones). If Apple put the machine first, then they would lose what makes them unique, what makes them successful. Their Why – challenging the status quo and thinking differently - is what causes them to stand out.
The why is what matters. The why is what sustains us both as individuals and as a collective. NJCU is moving ahead stronger than it has been in years because we are driven by our why – by our mission. We are paying attention to the focus, not the locus.
As you move forward beyond graduation, I encourage you to do the same. Pay attention to your focus, not your locus. Be driven by purpose, not distracted by context. As with our undergraduate students and our master students, you came to NJCU where you entered to learn and now exit to serve. Your service will have greater impact when you keep the focus first. Do not be distracted by nor overwhelmed by the stuff, the context, the challenges. Know your purpose, and let it drive what you do moving ahead.
Congratulations, doctors. We are so proud of your accomplishments, and we know with a clear focus and a determined, spirit, you will be able to change the world. Thank you.