Best Practices for Dissertation Development

Best Practices for Dissertation Development Northcentral University - School of Education Version 1, released March, 2010 Navigate to a best practices list by clicking on a link below. Introductory Concepts Chapter One Chapter Two Using this Document - Learners Introduction Start Search Immediately Using this Document - Mentors Background Clarifying Expectations Outstanding Dissertations Problem Statement Introduction Purpose Developing Themes Front Matter Theoretical Framework Critically Analyzing Sources Title Research Questions Creating a Synthesis Abstract Hypotheses Organizing Table of Contents Nature of the Study Finding Sources List of Tables Significance of the Study Identifying Scholarly Sources List of Figures Definitions Keeping Track of Sources Summary Scholarly Tone, Style, and Voice Summarizing Literature Review Chapter Three Chapter Four Chapter Five Introduction Introduction Introduction Research Method and Design(s) Results Implications Participants Evaluation of Findings Recommendations Materials/Instruments Summary Conclusions Operational Def. of Variables Data Collection Processing, Anal. Assumptions, Limitations Ethical Assurances Summary

Special Topics Helpful Links Advocacy and similar writing problems Dissertation Center Aligning Dissertation Components Learner Portal Assertions - unsupported Library Literature Search- why you must start immediately! NCU dissertations Proof - why it cannot be achieved ProQuest Dissertations Theory/Theoretical Framework - Varying Views Writing Center

TOC Best Practices for Learners Using this Document Menu

1. To get the most benefit from this Best Practices guide, review the appropriate best practices list before beginning each section of your dissertation to insure you are off to a good start. Begin with a thoughtful review of the official blue text under each section and then examine the best practices list that follows in black text. Bear in mind that the best practices lists do not carry the same weight of authority as the blue text. Also your committee will have specific feedback based on your unique dissertation that may supersede the general guidance offered in this document. Most of the best practices listed in this document emerged from the feedback offered by mentors and reviewers to learners who took this journey before you. This document is intended to help you avoid common errors and accelerate your progress through the dissertation process. It is a sensible investment of your time to review it carefully.

2. Review the blue text and best practices list a second time after completing each section of your dissertation and edit accordingly. The list of best practices can serve as an effective editing checklist.

3. Although every effort has been made to offer clear and consistent guidance throughout this document that is aligned with NCU’s research curriculum, the guidance offered by the NCU Academic Review Team (ART) supersedes the best practices listed in this document.

4. The document has been created to make navigation easy and straightforward.

Below every best practices list is a link that will take you back to the main menu so that another best practices list can be accessed. Look for hot links within the text of the best practices lists that will take you to related topics.

TOC Best Practices for Mentors Using this Document Menu

1. Many best practices can be cut and pasted in comment balloons to draw learners to key issues at the appropriate “teachable moment” as they are developing their dissertations. You may wish to elaborate on some of the best practices to create a personal list of commonly used comments to make your mentoring practices more

ii efficient and effective. Or you may wish to ask learners to review the best practices list for a section of the dissertation as you review their work.

2. Every effort has been made to align the best practices lists with the NCU research curriculum and other guiding documents associated with dissertation development. If you notice a misalignment, please see point 4 below.

3. You may recognize some of the phrasing for various best practices as very familiar. This document was developed after an extensive review of a number of NCU dissertations that were in development. The most common points of feedback were incorporated into the best practices list.

4. If you have suggestions for amendments or additions to the multiple lists of best practices found in this document, please e-mail them to Gordon Graham PhD at [email protected].

TOC What do Outstanding Dissertations Look Like? Menu

In 2005 the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published a study involving 276 faculty members in 74 departments across 10 disciplines at nine research universities. During focus groups, participants were asked to characterize dissertations and their components (the problem statement, the literature review, theory, methods, analysis, and discussion or conclusion) at four different quality levels— outstanding, very good, acceptable, and unacceptable. They were also asked what it means to make an original and significant contribution in their disciplines and what the purpose of the dissertation is. Together, the 272 participants had 6,129 years of experience, had advised authors of approximately 3,470 dissertations, and had sat on about 9,890 dissertation committees. The average focus group participant had been a

iii professor for 22 years, advised 13 dissertations, and served on 36 dissertation committees. The following descriptors of outstanding, very good, acceptable and unacceptable dissertations emerged from this study.

Outstanding

• Is original and significant, ambitious, brilliant, clear, clever, coherent, compelling, concise, creative, elegant, engaging, exciting, interesting, insightful, persuasive, sophisticated, surprising, and thoughtful • Is very well written and organized • Is well synthesized and interdisciplinary • Connects components in a seamless way • Exhibits mature, independent thinking • Has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice • Asks new questions or addresses an important question or problem • Clearly states the problem and why it is important • Displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature • Exhibits command and authority over the material • Offers a focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained argument • Is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep understanding of theory • Has a brilliant research design • Uses or develops new tools, methods, approaches, or types of analyses • Is thoroughly researched • Has rich data from multiple sources • Offers a comprehensive, complete, sophisticated, and convincing analysis • Generates significant results • Ties the whole thing together in its conclusion • Is publishable in top-tier journals • Is of interest to a larger community and changes the way people think • Pushes the discipline’s boundaries and opens new areas for research

Very Good

• Is solid • Is well written and organized • Has some original ideas, insights, and observations • Addresses a good question or problem that tends to be small and traditional • Is the next step in a research program (good normal science) • Shows understanding and mastery of the subject matter • Has a strong, comprehensive, and coherent argument • Includes well-executed research • Demonstrates technical competence • Uses appropriate (standard) theory, methods, and techniques • Obtains solid, expected results or answers

iv • Misses opportunities to completely explore interesting issues and connections • Makes a modest contribution to the field following earlier work in the area

Acceptable

• Is workmanlike • Demonstrates technical competence • Shows the ability to do research • Is not very original or significant • Is not interesting, exciting, or surprising • Displays little creativity, imagination, or insight • Is written in a pedestrian style • Has a weak structure and organization • Is narrow in scope • Has a question or problem that is not exciting—is often highly derivative or an extension of the adviser’s work • Displays a narrow understanding of the field • Reviews the literature adequately—knows the literature but is not critical of it or does not discuss what is important • Can sustain an argument, but the argument is not imaginative, complex, or convincing • Demonstrates an understanding of theory at a simple level, and theory is minimally to competently applied to the problem • Uses standard methods • Offers unsophisticated analysis—does not explore all possibilities and misses connections • Has predictable results that are not exciting • Makes a small contribution

Unacceptable

• Offers a sloppy presentation and is poorly written • Contains spelling and grammatical errors • Contains methodological and other errors or mistakes • Plagiarizes or deliberately misreads or misuses sources • Does not understand basic concepts, processes, or conventions of the discipline • Lacks careful thought • Looks at a question or problem that is trivial, weak, unoriginal, or already solved • Does not understand or misses relevant literature • Has a weak, inconsistent, self-contradictory, unconvincing, or invalid argument • Does not handle theory well, or theory is missing or wrong • Relies on inappropriate or incorrect methods • Has data that are flawed, wrong, false, fudged, or misinterpreted • Has wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused analysis • Includes results that are obvious, already known, unexplained, or misinterpreted • Offers an unsupported or exaggerated interpretation of the results • Does not make a contribution

v AAUP (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Retrieved February 23rd, 2010 from:

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/ND/Feat/lovi.htm

vi Title

(see best practices for title development below)

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of XXXXXXXXXXXXX in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF XXXXXXXX

Prescott Valley, Arizona Month Year

vii Title

The Title is indicative of the contents of the study and should be from 10-15 words in length.

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Title of a Dissertation Menu

1. Use a working title and develop your final title as you finish your dissertation.

2. Summarize the main idea of the dissertation simply and, if possible, “with style” (Publication Manual of the APA, 2010, p. 23).

3. Use a title that concisely describes the topic addressed in the studyand includes the variables or theoretical issues under investigation as well as the relationship between them.

4. Develop a title that makes sense standing alone without explanation. Keep in mind that the title is often used as a statement of content for abstracting and reference purposes in various databases.

5. Avoid words that serve no useful purpose since they can mislead indexers.

Examples of words and phrases to avoid include method, results, A Study of, and an

Experimental Investigation of.

6. Do not use abbreviations in a title.

7. Be concise. Use as few words as possible to accomplish the various objectives when constructing a title—never more than 15 words and, preferably, fewer.

8. Helpful resources for developing your final title include:

(a) page 23 of The 6th Edition of the APA Publication Manual (2010)

(b) pages 201 to 203 of Surviving your Dissertation by Rudestam and Newton

(2007) (c) pages 286 - 287 of Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research by Creswell (2008)

(d) Tips for Writing an Effective Title and Abstract for your Dissertation

APPROVAL PAGE

Learner Name

Approved by:

______Chair: Name, Ph.D. Date

Member: Name, Ph.D.

Certified by:

______School Dean: Name, Ph.D. Date Abstract

Guidelines: Use a block text format. No indents.

1. Maximum length is 350 words. A final dissertation includes all items and is

written in past tense.

2. Introduce the research area briefly. Do not include citations in the abstract.

3. Clearly articulate the problem statement.

4. State the general methodology (quantitative, qualitative, mixed method).

Quantitative research identifies the design.

Qualitative research identifies the typology/strategy of inquiry.

Mixed Method research identifies both design (for quantitative aspect) and typology/strategy (for qualitative aspect).

5. Identify the participants.

6. Present key results (for quantitative studies include relevant test statistics and p

values).

7. Present conclusions and recommendations for future research.

TOC Best Practices for Developing a Dissertation Abstract Menu

1. Write your abstract after developing the other components of your proposal.

After writing your abstract, revise it to insure that all seven points mentioned in the blue text above are addressed.

2. Look for meaningful, clear, and cogent expressions and insights you created as you were developing your proposal or dissertation. They will be the building blocks that help you construct an abstract which will attract a larger readership and give you a more compelling voice among the community of scholars interested in your topic.

iv 3. Invest significant time developing your abstract. Rudestam and Newton (2007) point out that the abstract is often reproduced in computerized databases and is usually the first and sometimes the only thing scholars will read about your work. The abstract therefore plays a major role in determining how extensive your reading audience will become.

4. Review the abstracts of dissertations addressing a similar topic. Bear in mind scholars will most likely be comparing your abstract to dozens of others as they settle on which documents they will invest time and energy exploring. Your abstract should clearly express the unique contribution your work has made to the field of knowledge it addresses.

5. Each sentence should be as informative as possible, particularly the lead sentence. Not only must scholars make decisions about where to invest their reading time based on reviewing dozens of abstracts, they must make decisions about which abstracts they will read based on their first sentence.

6. Your abstract must accurately present the purpose and content of your dissertation.

7. Your abstract should accurately reflect the content of your dissertation and should not include information or commentary that is not part of the body of your dissertation. If you develop an abstract that attracts the interest of scholars, they should emerge from reading your dissertation completely satisfied that you delivered on what you promised.

8. Summarize the ramifications of the findings, the implications for practice and directions for future research.

v 9. Helpful resources for developing your abstract include:

(a) pages 25 - 27 of The Publication Manual of the APA (2010)

(b) pages 199 - 201 of Surviving your Dissertation by Rudestam an,d Newton

(2007)

(c) page 36 of Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches by Creswell (2009)

(d) Tips for Writing an Effective Title and Abstract for your Dissertation

(e) Handouts and Links: Abstracts

(f) OWL: Abstracts.

vi Table of Contents

List of Tables x

List of Figures xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Background 5 Problem Statement 7 Purpose 9 Theoretical Framework 14 Research Questions 18 Hypotheses (Quantitative/Mixed Studies Only) 23 Nature of the Study 24 Significance of the Study 25 Definitions 26 Summary 27

Chapter 2: Literature Review 28

Theme/Subtopic [repeat as needed] 33 Summary 45

Chapter 3: Research Method 46

Research Methods and Design(s) 46 Participants 49 Materials/Instruments 51 Operational Definition of Variables (Quantitative/Mixed Studies Only)53 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis 54 Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 55 Ethical Assurances 57 Summary 58

Chapter 4: Findings 59

Results 59 Evaluation of Findings 65 Summary 67

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions 68

Implications 68

vii Recommendations70 Conclusions 72

Appendixes 74

Appendix A: Title 75 Appendix B: Title 76

TOC Best Practices for Developing a Table of Contents Menu

1. View your table of contents as a valuable resource during dissertation development. It is an evolving outline that helps you organize your thoughts. In its final form it will help the reader understand at a glance the contents and how the argument is made. Keep in mind that many informed readers will review the table of contents to assess the value of the dissertation to decide if they wish to read further.

2. Most emerging scholars would do well to spend time learning some of the advanced features of Microsoft Word particularly those relating to the creation of a dynamic table of contents such as the one included in NCU dissertation template. A dynamic table of contents allows you to move to related parts of the document by clicking on headings or subheadings within the table of contents. It can be used to great advantage as your dissertation grows to several hundred pages and you need to swiftly navigate from one part to the other. In order to create this type of table of contents, you need to develop two sets of skills. First, you will have to learn how to automatically format headings using the Styles menu in Microsoft Word. Second, you will have to learn how to automatically create and format a table of contents in Microsoft Word. You will find the help you need for this by pressing the “?” button in the upper right corner of

Word 2007. Use the following search phrases to locate the guidance you need: “style basics in Word” and “create a table of contents.” You may find the following demo helpful. viii Demo: Let Word manage your table of contents

3. Creating your table of contents using Microsoft Word's advanced features gives you the opportunity to review your heading and subheading structure. In addition to examining them for proper APA formatting and clarity, reflect on the organizational issues to which they draw your attention. You may discover there are ways to improve the order of headings and subheadings in your literature review.

4. As you extend the subheading structure of the literature review, you can automatically update your Table of Contents to include the new headings and the revised page numbers as your dissertation grows. If you are using Microsoft Word 2007 all you have to do is right click on the table of contents (assuming it is a dynamic table of contents as described above), select the Update Field option and then select Update Entire

Table. If you are using an earlier version of Word, use the help function to learn how to do this in the program you are using. If you discover that text that is not part of your headings and subheadings appears in your table of contents, it is because that text has been formatted as a heading instead of normal text. If you reformat the offending text as normal text and update your table of contents, it will disappear.

ix List of Tables

[Use Word’s Table of Figures feature (using caption style = “table”) to create this section. Note that each table title needs to be created as a caption style format above the table. The List of Tables entries should mirror the APA format of table titles within the body of the paper.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing a List of Tables Menu

1. After reviewing the blue text above, refer to the following websites that contain helpful guidance for using Word 2007’s Table of Figures feature.

Microsoft Word Tutorial - Table of Figures

Word: Automated tables of figures

Microsoft Word Table / Figure Captions

If you are using Word 2003, the Dissertation Center contains a document entitled

“Building a List of Tables/Figures using Word 2003.”

2. The fifth chapter of the 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the APA (also referred to as the APA Manual), “Displaying Results,” contains extensive details on how to format Tables including a helpful checklist on page 150.

3. Rudestam and Newton (2007) offer some important reflections on presenting tables and graphs. They suggest that “The first question an author should ask is ‘Should these results be presented in a table, in a figure, or simply a part of the text,’” (p. 126) and then help you explore the answer to this important question in the next several pages of their book.

4. Corty (2007) offers the following helpful advice about developing titles for tables.

Make sure that the title is sufficient so that if someone comes on the table by

itself, without any other explanatory information, he or she will know what the

x table is about. As I am fond of telling my classes, the three most important words for tables and graphs are 'Label, label, label.' When you make a table or a graph, be sure that you have a clear title, that the column and axes are labeled, and that there is a note explaining the labels if they are not self-evident. It is always better to err on the side of overtitling, overlabeling and overexplaining. (pp. 45-46)

xi List of Figures

[Use Word’s Table of Figures feature (using caption style = “figure”) to create this section. Note that each figure caption needs to be created as a caption style format below the figure. The List of Figures entries should mirror the APA format of figure captions within the body of the paper.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the List of Figures Menu

1. The difference between a table and a figure in a dissertation is not always clear.

Typically, tables consist of information arranged in rows and columns while figures are items such as photos, drawings, maps, charts and graphs.

2. The advantages of a figure over a table are described by Corty (2007). One picture is worth a thousand words is as true in statistics as in other areas, so it follows that information in a figure is often easer to see. Sometimes things that leap out of a figure are not as evident in a table, even though they may be present. (p. 60)

3. However, this is not to suggest that you should turn your dissertation into a picture book. Review the cautionary guidance offered in the 6th Edition of the

Publication Manual of the APA beginning on page 150. Some of the more important cautions include the following. The figure should add substantively to the understanding of the dissertation, and it should not duplicate other elements or content. It should not contain visually distracting detail. The principle of information value should guide all decisions related to including and developing tables and figures in a dissertation.

Chapter 1: Introduction

[Introduce the dissertation topic in one or more paragraphs (2 pages maximum).

Briefly describe the study topic to establish the main ideas and context. Include appropriate scholarly source citations for each assertion. Provide an overview of what is contained in chapter 1.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Introduction to Chapter 1 Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the guidance offered in the blue text above including the margin comment. Note the following points.

(a) The length range for this section is from a few paragraphs to two pages.

(b) The focus of the introduction is to be the “dissertation topic” also called the

“study topic.” That may seem obvious, but it is easy to include material that is off target and inappropriate for this or any other section of a dissertation. After you finish this section or any other section of your dissertation, you should look at each piece of information to determine what it contributes to a discussion of the focal point of your study. Use the guidance in this document as an editing checklist to insure you have included all material that is required to frame your study and eliminated all material that is not.. Providing extraneous material is a particular problem for both emerging and established scholars. Careful editing and rewriting is the best approach to dealing with this challenge.

(c) The content offered must establish the main ideas and context of the study.

(d) Each assertion is to be backed by scholarly sources.

(e) The introduction section is to wrap up with an overview of what is contained in chapter one. 2

2. An assertion is a statement or declaration that something is true or correct presented without sufficient supporting evidence. In everyday talk, we often make assertions that are without support as a part of normal communication based on “facts” that “everybody knows.” One of the many challenges faced by emerging scholars learning the art of academic writing is to break out of the habit of communicating beliefs in favor of arguments for which supporting evidence is available. Reviewers will often challenge assertions with comments like: “how do you know this is true,” “sources please,” “do not make unfounded assertions,” “this is a bold claim, how can you back it up with evidence” and so on. Before you submit any documents for review, reflect on each sentence you wrote to insure that either the views offered are universally understood

(though few are) or are supportable with evidence from scholarly sources or data.

3. Do not describe the mechanics of your study in the introduction. Notice you are asked to introduce the dissertation topic, not discuss your purpose statement, the research design you have chosen and so on. As noted above, it is very difficult to avoid including extraneous material in each section of a dissertation.

4. The APA Manual (2010) offers the following comment: “The introduction to a manuscript does not carry a heading that labels it as the introduction. (The first part of a manuscript is assumed to be the introduction)” (p. 63). As you will note, the chapter one heading contains the word Introduction, and you will be creating a brief introduction to your study here; however, you will not include a subheading that introduces the introduction under the chapter heading.

5. Creswell (2009) offers the following guidance to help us gauge how much information to include in the initial sections of a dissertation. 3

I use the metaphor of the writer lowering a barrel into a well. The beginning

writer plunges the barrel (the reader) into the depths of the well (the article). The

reader sees only unfamiliar material. The experienced writer lowers the barrel (the

reader, again) slowly, allowing the reader to acclimate to the depths (the study). p.

6. A dissertation should be about inquiry, not advocacy. If you are an advocate for a particular school of thought or for some hoped for findings in your research, it means that you believe in them strongly as you begin the work and that you are convinced they form a correct interpretation or outcome even before data is generated. Often, however, the data generated does not support these preconceived notions. When this happens, you must be prepared to revise your early drafts to reduce the appearance of an agenda or bias in your perspective as a researcher. While you can try to explain this discrepancy between what is expected and the actual results, it is your obligation to present evidence, not passion, to convince your reading audience.

It may help to examine why many dissertation authors find it challenging to maintain an open mind toward whatever findings emerge from their investigation. By the time data collection begins, the researchers have identified a topic they feel passionate about, clarified a research problem, developed a research purpose and related questions, conducted an intense literature search, and developed an extensive and in depth literature review. The researchers may have a powerful sense their future may be significantly impacted by the findings that emerge. To invest this degree of energy in a process requires passion, and a level of advocacy will often emerge as the study comes together based on the author’s allegiance to a particular interpretation or outcome and the opinions 4 of others as represented in the literature. Writing will naturally express advocacy early in the process and it will require a determined effort on the part of the researchers to return to objectivity as the study proceeds.

The dissertation committee members can be a great help in identifying expressions of advocacy because they are not as close to the study and provide guidance on appropriate modifications designed to tease them out. They may also identify gaps in the argument to be filled to establish your credibility as an expert in your area of interest.

If you find that your committee or the NCU Academic Review Team draws your attention to instances of unwarranted advocacy in your dissertation, it is important that you do more than just edit the offending sections. Acknowledge any biases that you bring to the study, and reflect on why you are inwardly hoping for a particular result.

Foregrounding these motivations in your own mind will help you recognize when your work is in danger of losing its objectivity, and you will be able to make the appropriate adjustments before sending it for review.

7. Attempting to create a narrative hook in the introduction is usually a mistake in academic writing. An academic audience becomes intrigued if there is clear evidence that your dissertation represents a high level of scholarship that is worth investing the time required to read it. Creating the kind of narrative hook that would be appropriate for a novel can backfire and cause your audience to conclude you are not offering a scholarly piece of work.

8. Avoid hyperbole throughout your dissertation. Hyperbole is a literary device that uses exaggeration for emphasis or effect and is often used to create a narrative hook in several forms of writing. However, it should be avoided in scholarly writing. This can 5 be more challenging than you think for the same reasons that avoiding advocacy is so challenging. You may be very passionate about your topic, and hyperbole comes all too easily as you write about it. Always remember that understatement is far more effective in this context, so make sure that all of the statements included are supported by compelling evidence presented in a well ordered manner. Broad generalizations about things that “everybody knows” will be frowned upon at every level of review.

9. Avoid colloquialisms and jargon throughout your dissertation. Colloquialisms are expressions that are typically not used in formal speech or writing and are more appropriate in casual and informal conversation. They present two problems. First, they tend to be regional in nature and do not mean the same thing to all readers; second, they date very quickly, falling out of usage over time. As a result, they can undermine the credibility of the researcher. The 6th Edition of the APA Publication Manual discusses colloquialisms and jargon on page 68.

Background

[Present an overview of why this research topic is currently of interest. Focus on the area of research interest, briefly laying the groundwork for what has been done in the area and why the area is of important social or practical concern, or of theoretical interest.

Include appropriate, recent, scholarly sources to support each assertion.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Background Section Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the guidance offered in the blue text above.

Note the following points.

(a) The fundamental questions you are to answer in this section are “why is this research topic currently of interest” and “why is the area of important social or practical 6 concern, or of theoretical interest.” Special attention should be paid to the words currently and important. In most cases, currently refers to the last five years.

(b) The focus of the background section is to be “the area of research interest.”

Always keep the heading you are writing under in mind. Do not include a discussion of your research design in this section, only discuss the research topic.

(c) Briefly lay a foundation for your study by summarizing what has been done in the area. Cite only the most important sources that provide a well ordered overview of the topic. If this is a topic that is worthy of being researched, most likely a community of scholars have been investigating it or at least investigating areas directly related to your work. Your task is to provide a thumbnail sketch of what has happened to date during their collective inquiry efforts that can provide an intellectual context for your research, identify research territory that has not been explored, and tell the reader how previous research will influence your work. You will fill in this sketch during the literature review.

Keep Creswell’s metaphor of lowering a barrel into a well in mind as you move from the introduction to the background and eventually to the later chapters in your proposal.

(d) Each assertion is to be backed by appropriate, recent and scholarly sources.

See the best practices list under the literature review for guidance on identifying scholarly sources.

2. One way to understand what is to be achieved in this section is to compare your research to the red “you are here” dot on a mall map. Your goal is to help your readers know where to place your study in the knowledge base associated with your general field of inquiry. 7

3. When your audience finishes reading this section, they should clearly understand why this study is being done. Often, scholars will struggle with this objective.

A clearer focus for the study may emerge if you ask yourself why the study should be done. You may find that working on this section and those relating to the problem statement and the purpose will create a productive synergy. However, it is important to keep these sections from flowing into one another. The key is to focus on the heading you are writing under in each case to avoid unwarranted repetition and so that important material is not misplaced.

4. If you are having difficulty getting started in defining your topic and moving forward to your research problem and purpose, be sure to review the article Defining

Your Topic located in the NCU Dissertation Center.

Problem Statement

[Approximately 250 to 300 words. Note: Articulation of a concise problem statement is essential to a successful dissertation manuscript. The problem statement is a brief discussion of a problem or observation succinctly identifying and documenting the need for and importance of the study.

1. Present the general issue/observation that in theory or practice leads to the need for the study (unless considered seminal, citations within the last 5 years are included).

2. Present a focused problem that led to the need for a research response. For some professional degree programs (e.g., the DBA and EdD) the problem identified may be a practical problem or issue.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Problem Statement Menu 8

Note the following points in particular.

(a) The length guideline for this section is 250 to 300 words. This is a fairly narrow range so some careful editing will be required.

(b) Articulation of a concise problem statement is essential to the development of a successful dissertation manuscript. This problem statement is the first part in the chain of alignment you must achieve in your dissertation. This requires that each section of your work build on what came before it. The problem description must align with the purpose statement which must align with the research questions, which must in turn align with the methodology and so on. Without a clear articulation of the problem, alignment will not be possible. The chain of alignment that begins with a description of the research problem and continues on to the research purpose, research questions, and methodology must be respected at all times during dissertation development.

(c) The purpose of this section is to succinctly identify and document the need for and importance of the study. The name problem statement might be misleading to emerging scholars. Think of the name of this section as the Need for the Study. Ask yourself, for what problem does this research offer a solution?

2. In this section, avoid talking about your study and how you plan to research the problem, focusing on the problem itself, not what you hope to achieve in responding to it. Again, stay focused on the heading under which you are writing for every part of your dissertation.

3. Include appropriate scholarly sources to document the existence of a problem worthy of doctoral level research. 9

4. One of the common ways researchers justify a research problem is by pointing out where there is a gap in the literature associated with the issue. Keep in mind that the lack of research alone is not necessarily sufficient to define a problem in and of itself.

There are lots of topics that lack a compelling reason to be investigated. If there is a lack of research relative to the issue you are focusing on, it could suggest a need for your study or it could suggest the gap does not deserve to be filled. Consider both possibilities and develop a rationale for continuing your study for your reader before proceeding.

5. The following list of questions may help to expand your thinking about the research problem and develop a more robust elaboration.

(a) What is the nature of the problem; is it an economic problem, social problem, organizational problem or some other type of problem?

(b) Whose problem is it?

(c) Who is affected by this problem?

(d) What are the potential negative consequences if the study is never conducted?

(e) Have other scholars identified this issue as both important and researchable?

6. You should develop this section concurrently with the significance of the study section in order to insure alignment and avoid unwarranted repetition and duplication.

Purpose

[The purpose statement is a concise paragraph that describes the intent of the study, and it should flow directly from the problem statement, specifically address the reason for conducting the study, and reflect the research questions. Identify the research method as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed (i.e., “The purpose of this

[qualitative/quantitative/mixed] study is to ... (succinctly describe the overarching study 10 goal that reflects the research questions). Follow with a brief overview of how, with what instruments/data, with whom and where (as applicable). Identify variables/constructs and/or phenomenon/concept/idea:

1. Quantitative research variables/constructs are briefly identified (including

potential confounding variables, covariates, mediating variables, etc.).

Research variables/constructs from valid and reliable instruments are

identified and cited, if appropriate.

2. Qualitative research identifies a single phenomenon, concept, or idea that was

studied.

3. Mixed Method research includes all of the above.

Identify the specific population of study, including an estimate of the number of participants who served as the sample, based on a power analysis (quantitative/mixed method) or conventions (qualitative) as detailed in chapter 3. Finally, identify the geographic location of study (as applicable).]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Purpose Statement Menu

(a) The purpose statement should flow directly from the problem statement. There should be clear and obvious alignment between the two.

(b) The purpose statement should specifically address the reason for conducting the study, with emphasis on the word specifically. There should not be any doubt in your readers’ minds as to the purpose of your study. To achieve this level of clarity you will need to also insure there is no doubt in your mind as to the purpose of your study. 11

Achieving this level of clarity is usually based on a process that includes extensive reading of research reports related to your topic and discussions with your committee chair. It should be a concise, clear statement that frames the study that follows.

(c) The purpose statement should reflect the research questions. The chain of alignment that began with the research problem description and continues on to the research purpose, research questions, and methodology must be respected at all times during dissertation development.

(d) You are to succinctly describe the overarching goal of the study that reflects the research questions. Each research question narrows and focuses the purpose statement

(Creswell, 2008, p. 135). Conversely, the purpose statement encompasses all of the research questions.

(e) Identify the research method as quantitative, qualitative or mixed (i.e., “The purpose of this [qualitative/quantitative/mixed] study is to ... Some authors feel the phrase “the purpose of this ___ study…” is a bit too obvious. However, a queuing phrase like this is very helpful to your readers. There are other places to demonstrate creativity in the way you express yourself. Avoid the use of the phrase “research study” since the two words together are redundant.

(f) Follow with a brief overview of how, with what instruments/data, with whom and where (as applicable) the study will be conducted. Since this section is to be a concise paragraph, emphasis must be placed on the word brief.

(g) Identify variables/constructs and/or phenomenon/concept/idea.

(h) Note that qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods purpose statements are given specific guidance in the blue text above. 12

2. Developing your purpose statement is usually not achieved in a single flash of insight. It is more often accomplished through an iterative process that fluctuates back and forth between the research problem statement, the hypotheses and the research question list. The process involves a great deal of reading to find out what other scholars have done to address the research topic and problem you have identified. The process also involves an ongoing exchange of ideas between you and your committee chair. It could well be the most important paragraph you write during your academic career, and every word should be carefully selected. Think of it as the DNA of your dissertation.

Everything else you write should emerge directly and clearly from this purpose statement. Therefore, it is good practice to print out your purpose statement and keep it before you as you begin working on each part of your dissertation in order to insure alignment.

3. It is always wise to collect several dissertations similar to the one you envision creating. Extract their purpose statements and compare them in order to sharpen your thinking about your purpose statement. Keep in mind that individual universities use their own tailored protocols for presenting key components of the dissertation so your review of these purpose statements should focus on content rather than form.

4. Once your purpose statement is set it must be consistently presented throughout the dissertation. This may require some recursive editing because the way you articulate your purpose may evolve as you work on various aspects of your dissertation. Whenever you make an adjustment to your purpose statement you should carefully consider the editing and conceptual ramifications throughout the entire document. 13

5. In establishing your purpose you should NOT advocate for a particular outcome. As a researcher, you are to inquire with an open mind, and even when you come to the work with clear assumptions, your job is to prove the validity of the conclusions reached. For example, you would not say the purpose of your research project is to demonstrate that there is a relationship between two variables. Such a statement presupposes you know the answer before your research is conducted and promotes or supports (advocates on behalf of) a particular outcome. A more appropriate purpose statement would be to examine or explore the relationship between two variables.

6. Your purpose statement should not imply that you are going to prove something. You may be surprised to learn that we cannot prove anything in scholarly research for two reasons. First, in quantitative analyses, statistical tests calculate the probability that something is true rather than establishing it as true. Second, in qualitative research, the study can only purport to describe what is occurring from the perspective of the participants. Whether or not the phenomenon they are describing is true in a larger context is not knowable. We cannot observe the phenomenon in all settings and in all circumstances.

We can provide evidence to support a theory or interpretation of a complex process unfolding in the social world. We can isolate and operationally define an individual variable and determine if a null hypothesis can be accepted or rejected. We can gradually build up the knowledge base in a particular field of inquiry. However, there are many potentially confounding variables in all studies in the social sciences that cannot be 14 controlled for, particularly in the social sciences, a reality that makes proof an elusive goal.

7. Creswell’s book, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches (2009), is a particularly beneficial resource for helping you develop your purpose statement. His discussion of quantitative purpose statements begins on page

112, his discussion of qualitative purpose statements begins on page 116, and his discussion of mixed methods purpose statements begins on page 120.

Theoretical Framework

[Discussion reflects an overview of the broad conceptual and/or theoretical area under which the research falls (e.g., social psychology, organizational behavior, experiential learning), and how the research fits within other research in the field.

Discussion specifically includes important issues, perspectives, and, if appropriate, controversies in the field. Discussion reflects the author’s knowledge and familiarity with both the historical and current literature. Include appropriate scholarly citations to support the theoretical foundations. Note: For DBA or EdD dissertations, the framework may be applied rather than theoretical.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Theoretical Framework Menu

(a) As you develop the theoretical framework section of your dissertation, offer an overview of the broad conceptual and/or theoretical area under which the research falls

(e.g., social psychology, organizational behavior, experiential learning) and so on. The parameters of the area are not always easy to establish nor is it always easy to select the 15 most appropriate label for the area of inquiry that you are selecting within the entire landscape of all human knowledge. If you examine the examples offered above, you will see that social psychology is a very broad area with nebulous boundaries, while organizational behavior and experiential learning are more clearly and narrowly defined.

However, each of these areas encompass thousands of scholars who are constantly adding to the knowledge base and theoretical underpinnings of their area of inquiry.

Other examples of broad conceptual and/or theoretical areas under which your research might fall include: andragogy, attribution theory, cognitive dissonance theory, cognitive load theory, multiple intelligences, situated learning, transformational learning, transfer of learning, and so on. For all practical purposes the list is endless, and it is up to you to place your study within that part of human inquiry to which it relates and provide the most appropriate label for it. This is important both for grounding the study for the researcher and helping those interested in this area of scholarship to find it.

(b) In this section you are to explain how your research fits with other research in your area of inquiry. As you work on your literature review, you will become familiar with the names and publications of theorists and scholars working in the area you have identified. You will also become aware of the current research agendas that are being pursued in this area and will be required to make thoughtful decisions about how your research will make a contribution in this context, tying together themes within the field that influenced your work.

(c) Your discussion is to include an elaboration of “important issues, perspectives, and, if appropriate, controversies in the field.” All fields of inquiry contain scholarly tensions, and some of the primary authors writing about the field may have clearly 16 diverging perspectives. Illuminating existing scholarly tensions and clearly stating your view of the issues involved demonstrates that you have a good grasp of current trends surrounding your area of study as they relate to your topic. By the time you reach this level of understanding of current activity in the broad conceptual and/or theoretical area under which your research falls, you will be well prepared to clarify for yourself and others how you will make a contribution to your field through this study.

(d) Use this opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge and familiarity with both the historical and current literature in your area of inquiry. You need to offer more than a snap shot of what the current scholarly activity in the field looks like and must illustrate the historical developments that have led to the current state. Each of these elements should be building blocks in establishing your capacity to frame your study and should align in a way that makes it obvious to the reader why each of the pieces contributes to your study.

(e) As in all parts of your dissertation, you are to include appropriate scholarly citations to support your content.

2. Review the document entitled Theoretical Framework located in the

Dissertation Center. It offers an important elaboration on the expectations for this section.

It is located under Dissertation Review Form.

3. Whenever you stall while working on one part of your dissertation, shift to another section for a while and then return later with new ideas and perspectives. The description offered above of what you are to achieve in this section may seem quite intimidating. It helps to realize that developing a dissertation is not usually a linear process. Your work on your literature review will help you develop this section, and 17 developing this section will help you focus your literature review. This section will help you refine your research problem and purpose and vice versa.

4. Bell offers helpful insight into understanding theoretical frameworks in her book Doing your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education,

Health and Social Science, 4th edition (2005), which is available as an e-book in the ebrary in the NCU Library. If you are not yet familiar with how to navigate within the ebrary Reader, now is a good time to change that. Bell’s discussion of theoretical frameworks begins on page 101. She makes the following helpful points.

(a) The term theory can be defined as a set of interrelated abstract propositions about the social world (or the physical world depending on whether or not we are discussing social science research or physical science research) that explains their regularities and relationships. However, Bell (2005) makes it clear that the word theory and the phrase theoretical framework are used in various ways within the academy, and there are a variety of understandings of them among scholars. She points out that the word theory is often used to refer to the current state of knowledge in the subject as derived from the published literature. That is a better way to understand the term in the context of developing your theoretical framework than most interpretations that have been offered.

(b) Bell (2005) offers the following to help us grasp what constitutes a theoretical framework:

Theory building relies on a few general constructs that subsume a mountain of

particulars. Terms such as "stress" or "role conflict" are typically labels we put on

bins containing a lot of discrete events and behaviors. When we assign a label to a 18

bin, we may or may not know how all the contents of the bin fit together, or how

this bin relates to another. But any researcher, no matter how inductive in

approach, knows which bins to start with and what their general contents are

likely to be. Bins come from theory and experience and (often) from the general

objectives of the study envisioned. Laying out those bins, giving each a

descriptive or inferential name, and getting some clarity about their

interrelationships is what a conceptual framework is all about. (Miles &

Huberman as cited in Bell, 2005, p. 102)

(c) Bell summarizes the nature of a theoretical framework by describing it as an explanatory device which explains either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied - the key factors, constructs or variables - and the presumed relationships among them.

5. What is a Theoretical Framework: A Practical Answer is a brief and enlightening online article well worth the five minutes it takes to read.

6. There is no stipulated length for your theoretical framework section although most of these range from one to ten pages in length. You will be able to elaborate on the concepts you introduce here in your Literature Review.

7. It would be helpful to develop this section concurrently with the significance of the study section in order to ensure you avoid unwarranted repetition.

8. You can find examples of theoretical frameworks by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations. 19

Research Questions

[Provide some introductory discussion context followed by a list of the research questions. Research questions are distinct and answerable, given the identified constructs/phenomenon and population. The research questions must directly align with the study purpose. For quantitative and mixed studies, follow with corresponding null and alternative hypotheses.

Q2.….]

1. Quantitative

a. Include the research questions, and if appropriate based on the research

design, include the hypothesis(es) and the rationale for the hypothesis(es).

b. Research questions and hypothesis(es) are aligned with the problem

statement.

c. State both the null and alternative hypotheses.

d. State the hypotheses in testable, potentially negatable, form with each

variable operationalized. Note: Each hypothesis represents one distinct

testable prediction. The phrasing of each hypothesis clearly reflects the

nature of the statistical analysis used to test each hypothesis (i.e.,

comparisons, relationships, associations, model prediction).

2. Qualitative

a. State the research questions as they relate to the phenomenon under

investigation.

b. Align the research questions with the problem statement. 20

c. Include the qualitative method(s) by which the research questions were

answered.

3. Mixed Method includes all of the above.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Research Questions Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the guidance offered in the blue text above

2. Throughout this document the concept of alignment has been referred to repeatedly. The word align literally means to arrange in a straight line. The term is used in this document to refer to achieving logical consistency between all components of the dissertation. The following points elaborate on this important concept.

(a) Although every aspect of a dissertation should be in alignment, there are certain key components of a dissertation for which this is more critical than others in this regard. These include the research problem, research purpose, research questions and hypotheses, literature review topics, data collection methods, data analysis processes, findings, recommendations and conclusions.

(b) Ironically, achieving alignment is usually not a linear process. If you had ten flags to align in a row across an open field, you would most likely walk across the field in as straight a line is you could and plant the flags as you went. After reaching the other side you would look back and determine which flags need to be moved. After adjusting a few flags that were the most misaligned you would look down the row again and repeat the process as many times as necessary. This is very similar to the process used in writing a dissertation. Perhaps there are some scholars who are efficient enough to do this on their first try, but most have to move back and forth through the various components of the dissertation and make adjustments as necessary to ensure logical consistency 21 throughout, adding to areas that are weak and deleting extraneous information. Achieving alignment is a creative and iterative process involving major and minor adjustments to all parts of the dissertation until logical consistency is clearly and obviously achieved.

(c) A good way to come to understand alignment is to consider an example of misalignment. Please reflect on the lack of logical consistency between the following components of a hypothetical study.

Research problem: Persistence rates among first year students at Community

College ABC are significantly lower than the persistence rates for similar institutions in the same state.

The research purpose: The purpose of this case study is to identify key factors leading to social isolation among first year students a College.

Research questions: Is gender a significant variable affecting college success? Are the number of hours spent reading course materials related to GPA?

To return to our flag analogy, these three components are at least in the same field but are poorly aligned. As you develop your dissertation you may well look back on what you have written, most likely after your chair draws your attention to problems with alignment, and discover various components of your work that are not logically consistent with other parts. The question becomes, which of the flags that you have already planted do you intend to realign? Perhaps your interests have shifted a little as you learned more about your topic. In the example above, three interesting but loosely related research foci have been identified: persistence, social isolation, and the relationship between hours spent reading course materials and GPA. After careful reflection as you engage in the struggle to achieve alignment, you might decide that you 22 are most interested in exploring the relationship between social isolation and persistence among college students. You would then go back and insure that your problem statement, purpose, and questions are tightly aligned with this concept.

(d) You may find it helpful to examine the alignment of the key components of recently published NCU dissertations.

3. Creswell (2009) devotes his seventh chapter to research questions and hypotheses. You will find it helpful to thoughtfully review this chapter before developing this section.

4. The Dissertation Center has a helpful article entitled “Crafting a Research

Question” which you should review before developing this section. The same article also discusses writing hypotheses.

5. Your research questions should NOT be answerable by merely doing a literature review. While you are expected to build on previous scholarship, you will have to revise your research questions if they have been precisely answered by work done in an earlier study. At minimum, you may duplicate a previous study in a different context than that in which the original study took place to reinforce and generalize on earlier results.

It is not easy to determine which questions have already been answered by the numerous scholars interested in your topic although a literature review should give you assurance that you will be adding something new to the knowledge base. As you continue to work on your literature review you will most likely discover you will need to refine your research questions to insure that this is accomplished. 23

6. Your research questions should not be phrased in such a way that they can be answered with a “yes” or “no.”

7. If you are doing a quantitative study, each of your research questions should tap into each of the variables in your hypotheses.

8. You will find it helpful to review the research questions and hypotheses used in recently published NCU dissertations. While the topics addressed may be different from yours, these can provide examples of appropriately formatted questions that have been accepted by university reviewers and dissertation committees. There is very little that is theoretical about writing a dissertation, and using previous work for guidance about the path to be taken can be more useful than any explanation or course you have taken.

Hypotheses (Quantitative/Mixed Studies Only)

[Hypotheses stated in testable, potentially negatable form with each variable operationalized. Note: Each hypothesis represents one distinct testable prediction. The phrasing of each hypothesis clearly reflects the nature of the statistical analysis used to test each hypothesis (i.e., comparisons, relationships, associations, model prediction).]

H10. [Null Hypothesis Text…]

H1a. [Alternative Hypothesis Text…]

TOC Best Practices for Developing Hypotheses Menu

Your hypotheses are to have the following qualities, characteristics or content:

(a) hypotheses must be testable

(b) they should be presented in a potentially negatable form (i.e. it can be proven wrong) 24

(c) each variable is operationalized

(d) each hypotheses represents one distinct testable prediction

(e) their phrasing reflects the nature of the statistical analysis that will be used to test the hypothesis (i.e., comparisons, relationships, associations, model prediction).

2. They must be clearly and obviously aligned with the research purpose statement and other key components of the dissertation.

3. They should be supported in the literature related to your topic.

4. Qualitative studies generally do not have hypotheses. Research hypotheses are the researcher’s best guess about the direction of the findings. Since qualitative studies are most often exploratory in nature without predetermined direction, it is not possible to offer hypotheses for the descriptive research questions used to guide this research.

5. It is beyond the scope of this document to offer statistical guidance. There are numerous publications devoted to this topic. A good intermediate source is:

Field’s Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed. (2009).

It can be obtained with SPSS 17.0 Student Version, and it has a companion website available at http://www.sagepub.com/field3e/.

6. You will find that it is a valuable exercise to review the hypotheses found in recently published NCU dissertations with an eye to these qualities, characteristics and content.

Nature of the Study

[Present a brief overview of the study design, variables/constructs, instruments and analyses (as applicable).]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Nature of the Study Section Menu 25

2. Consider this section to be a snap shot of your methodology.

3. Here, as in other sections offering a discussion of your methodology, do not include tutoring comments and generic discussions of research methodology. It is best to assume that your reading audience understands the basic tenets of research methodology and statistics so this should not be used as an opportunity to display your knowledge of research methodology in general. Focus on methods used in your research project. Do not discuss methods that you chose not to use.

4. You will have an opportunity later to provide a rationale for your choice of methods, so this should be a simple statement of what method will be used to get the needed data. Keep Creswell's (2009) metaphor of lowering a barrel into a well in mind.

Just as you previously gradually introduced your readers to your research topic, you are now going to gradually introduce your readers to your research design. The barrel will not be lowered all the way into the well until chapter three. You may find it helpful to work out most of Chapter 3 and then returned to the section to offer a concise thumbnail sketch of how your research project will unfold.

Significance of the Study

[Demonstrate why the study was important and describe the contribution(s) to the field of study.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Significance of the Study Section Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the guidance offered in the blue text above. 26

2. Here are some questions that may help you develop this section. Depending on the nature of your study, not all of these questions will be answered in this section, but they provide a good checklist of things to be considered as you organize it.

(a) Who will benefit from this study?

(b) In what ways will they benefit?

(c) How will the study contribute to the knowledge base related to your topic?

(d) What will be lost if the study is not conducted?

(e) What are the practical ramifications of the findings for policy, best practices, service delivery, and/or the professional field and discipline?

3. All claims regarding the significance of the study need to be grounded in the literature and supported with references to scholarly sources.

4. Avoid the common problem of advocacy and projecting the findings of your study as you develop the section. Maintain an objective and open stance as to what will be discovered.

5. You should develop this section concurrently with the research problem section in order to avoid unwarranted repetition.

6. This section discusses the “So what?” and “Who cares” of the findings of your research project.

7. You need to use literature to substantiate your claims.

8. Be brief. You can expand the points made here in the literature review later.

Definitions

[Provide definitions for (a) key operational terms, (b) words used in a unique way, and/or (c) words not commonly used or understood. Definitions might include terms 27 related to your research design, qualitative inquiry, and/or analytical strategy. Support definitions with citations and/or note when definitions are those of the researcher.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the List of Definitions Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the guidance offered in the blue text above which presents important details on how to identify which terms should be included in this section.

2. You will most likely use terminology in your dissertation which has been defined and used in a variety of ways by different researchers in your field. It is important that you do not assume a common agreement about the meaning of all the words and phrases that you include in the section. Clarify precisely how you will be using the term in your dissertation.

3. Do not use dictionary definitions for these terms. Offer definitions and elaborations that come from a variety of scholarly sources. Provide appropriate references.

4. You will find it is a valuable exercise to review the definition lists found in recently published NCU dissertations.

Summary

[Summarize key points presented in chapter 1 and include supporting citations.]

TOC Best Practices for developing the Summary of Chapter 1 Menu

1. Writing a summary of key points in chapter one is not as easy as it may seem especially if you keep your readers in mind. You do not want to provide tedious copy in your dissertation, but, at the same time you want them to be prepared to enter into your next chapter. Strive to keep your summary clear, concise, and fresh. Be brief. 28

2. Note in the blue text above that you are to include supporting citations. 29

Chapter 2: Literature Review

[Begin with a summary of the purpose statement that leads to a brief explanation of the logical organization of the literature review. Include a paragraph that explains the literature search strategy and describes the sources. Note: Conduct a thorough literature search based on a variety of relevant key words and databases. It is extremely rare for there to be no literature on a topic worthy of doctoral level study.]

TOC Why you must start your literature search immediately! Menu

Ridley (2008) offers the following reasons why you should begin a literature search immediately and make it an ongoing part of your dissertation development throughout the process.

1. It will enable you to position your own research topic, problem, purpose, and questions clearly on the academic map of knowledge creation. In the beginning your literature search will be exploratory. You will have some sense of what you want to investigate, but you have to read around the subject until you become more certain about your exact focus. As the literature review progresses, the boundaries of your theoretical framework will become clear as your understanding of the area of study sharpens. As your work progresses, you move from an exploration of a large field of knowledge to an investigation of a tightly defined problem within that field.

2. An ongoing literature search will expand your understanding of the key concepts, theories and methodologies in the field. This will enable you to make informed choices about important research related issues. You will come to understand how other scholars have tackled research problems in the area you have identified, what research designs they used, and what findings they produced. Ideas about the type of data you will 30 collect, how you will collect it, who your participants will be, and how data will be analyzed will become clearer. This will be essential for developing your chapter one and chapter three.

3. An ongoing and rigorous literature search will ensure the originality of your work. By exploring previous research in the field you can identify areas where research hasn't been undertaken, how the work of others could be extended, how questions which previous research has left unanswered can be answered.

4. An ongoing literature search will show you how to avoid repeating mistakes that others have made. You will review many research reports that yield minimal results and that reflect on how the research could have been improved. This will increase the chances your research project will uncover meaningful and compelling findings.

5. An ongoing literature search will enable you to identify key people, organizations and texts which are relevant to your research. You will become familiar with the key journals in your field where peer-reviewed articles of interest are published.

You will begin to find familiar names and thereby identify key researchers in your area of interest. You may wish to contact some of the leading scholars in your field of inquiry with a view to discussing various data collection instruments and other issues.

TOC Clarifying Expectations for the Literature Review Menu

1. The goal of the literature review is to familiarize readers with the state of the knowledge base associated with your topic, how this knowledge base developed, and where this study fits within the literature. Therefore, it is important to weave in a review of studies that have been conducted in your topic area. For each study reviewed, provide a methodological context to the study as well as the findings so readers have a way to 31 evaluate the quality of the study. For example, findings from a quantitative survey study with a sample size of 500 will be judged very different from a qualitative phenomenological study with a sample size of five.

2. A literature review is very specific to the research topic. The research questions and the variables being examined ultimately influence what is to be covered in the review and what is omitted. Knowing what to omit is nearly as important as knowing what to include.

3. The acceptable length range for your literature review is from 40 to 80 pages.

Generally, reviews for qualitative studies are longer and range a little more widely than do quantitative studies because of the exploratory nature of this work. Some emerging scholars find the length expectations for the literature review to be overwhelming at first, especially when they discover the scholarly depth that is expected. It helps to approach your work on the literature review in stages. It doesn't have to be and probably could not be completed all at once. As noted above, you are expected to become an expert in a clearly defined field of inquiry. To do so, you will have to work very hard, harder than anyone could convince you of at the beginning of the process. Your hard work will lay the foundation for establishing you as an author who deserves a voice in the ongoing conversation about the research problem you have identified, so it is expected that much energy will be spent on this chapter.

4. About eighty five percent of references should be published within the last five years. Exceptions to this principle include seminal sources and sources used to help establish the historical development of various themes. As you do your literature search, be sure to keep an eye on publication dates. Also keep in mind that turning to secondary 32 sources is not a solution to achieving currency in the sources you use. You will have to continue your literature search until you find an adequate number of current primary sources. That said, it is also important to trace significant developments of theory from their roots.

5. The literature review will contain several sub-headings that will be specific to the dissertation. The idea is to adequately survey the literature that relates to all facets of your area of study. It is your responsibility to identify sources that bring something of value to your work and tell the reader how they relate to your work and what their importance is in your study and the general area under study. The researcher is responsible for connecting the items cited to the current study. A common problem noted by dissertation reviewers is finding irrelevant and extraneous material in the literature review. The literature review is a synthesis of ideas forming the basis of your work. It is not an attempt to tell the reader how much you have read, but rather shows that you understand what is important in the literature and why each article contributes to understanding relevant issues. You will find you will have to edit the literature review carefully after you have completed your first draft to remove the material that is not directly and obviously related to your dissertation topic.

6. Randolph (2009) in A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review offers a helpful overview of the expectations for this section as well as good advice on how to proceed. Of particular help is his list of common problems found in the first attempt at a dissertation literature review.

(a) The review does not clearly relate the findings of the literature review to the researcher’s own study. 33

(b) The author does not take sufficient time to define the best descriptors and identify the best sources to use.

(c) The author relies on secondary sources (i.e. as cited in…) rather than on primary sources in reviewing the literature.

(d) The author uncritically accepts another researcher’s findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis.

(e) The author does not report the research procedures that were used during each study discussed in the literature review.

(f) The author reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them by chi-square or meta- analytic methods.

(g) The author does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations in synthesizing quantitative literature.

Strive to avoid these problems.

1. Do not use “Introduction” as a heading, see page 63 of the 6th Edition of the

Publication Manual of the APA. The first part of the chapter is assumed to be the introduction. You may begin writing immediately after the chapter heading.

2. Start the introduction to chapter two with a statement that describes the purpose of the chapter. You will find it helpful to review how this and other aspects of the literature review were developed in recently published NCU dissertations.

3. The summary of your purpose is to lead to a brief explanation of the logic behind the organization of the literature review. Since arriving at the final organizational 34 structure of your literature review is an iterative and dynamic process that will be unstable until the review is complete, you will most likely have to revise this section when you do your final editing.

4. In your introductory materials, you will provide a paragraph that explains the literature search strategy and describes the sources. This description should not attempt to cover everything you did. Instead it describes the things you did that worked. This is a courtesy to other scholars who are reading your work and desirous of conducing their own exploration. In turn, you will find it helpful to look for similar guidance from scholars who have previously investigated your topic.

Theme/Subtopic [repeat as needed]

[Present the theoretical or conceptual framework(s) related to the study. Present historical research as well as research related to the topic of study published within the last 5 years. Include appropriate scholarly source citations for each assertion. Ensure the discussion has depth and presents a critical analysis and synthesis of the literature that provides a context for the dissertation study. Discuss conflicting findings and/or theoretical positions causing intellectual tension in the field. Ensure the discussion is comprehensive, organized, and flows logically. Use themes and/or subtopics as headings.

Note: A literature review is discursive prose, not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another. Avoid stringing together articles and beginning every paragraph with the name of a researcher. Instead, organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. One should not attempt to list all the material published, but rather synthesize and evaluate the relevant scholarly research according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.] 35

TOC Best Practices for Developing Themes in your Literature Review Menu

1. You are to present the theoretical or conceptual framework(s) related to the study. Chapter one will offer a thumbnail sketch of this framework. Be sure to review the explanations and best practices listed for that section by clicking on the link above. There you will find a clear explanation of what is meant by a theoretical or conceptual framework. In chapter two, this framework will be fully developed.

2. Present historical research as well as research related to the topic of study produced within the last five years. Be sure to review the Clarifying Expectations for the

Literature Review for a discussion of the importance of current sources. Keep in mind that you are also to show the historical development of various trends related to your theoretical or conceptual framework. It is not enough to paint a picture of the current achievements and interests of scholars in your area of inquiry; also, you are to show how the current state of affairs came to be.

3. Include appropriate scholarly source citations for each assertion. The scholarly source link above leads to helpful insight that will help to raise the quality of your work.

4. Ensure the discussion has depth. This is not as easy to do as might be assumed.

Some scholars are gifted enough to write with appropriate depth the first time they discuss a topic. For most achieving the kind of depth expected in a doctoral dissertation is an iterative process. Even when the literature review comes together, it is critical that you continually review the literature as you write looking for additions to the literature that can appear at any time. Be sure to visit the writing center and review the following articles.

 Revising the Draft for Focus 36

 Revising the Draft for Development

 Revising the Draft for Organization

 Revising the Draft for Style

 Revising the Draft for Conventions

The Revising the Draft for Development article will be of particular help in enabling you to achieve increasingly greater depth in your dissertation.

5. Ensure the discussion presents a critical analysis of the literature that provides a context for the dissertation study. See best practices for critically analyzing sources.

6. Discuss conflicting findings and/or theoretical positions causing intellectual tension in the field. When scholars investigate a complex topic, they seldom all agree, and you will find evidence of differing perspectives and conclusions in the literature.

Take special note of these, and foreground them as you develop your literature review.

By demonstrating your awareness of different scholarly perspectives, you demonstrate an awareness of complexities and acknowledge that key decisions about further research will be made as you advance your inquiry. These differences can also help refine your perspective and understanding of the nuances in the field, and it is important that you relate your conclusions about the various sides of the arguments, less as your opinion but rather as criticism of earlier studies. Research that follows yours may or may not agree with your conclusions, and that is to be expected. The important thing is that you register your biases so that your voice will be heard and appreciated as you intended it to be and you will make a robust contribution to the ongoing conversation.

7. Ensure the discussion is comprehensive. Here are some guidelines to help you determine if a literature review is adequate. 37

 In the expectations discussion of doctoral dissertation literature reviews, it was

pointed out that your literature review should be between 40 and 80 pages.

 The rate at which you find suitable sources usually starts out slowly and then

accelerates as one source leads to the next and then it begins to slow down once

again. When the rate at which you are finding additional relevant and appropriate

sources slows significantly or when new articles that you find simply reinforce

material published earlier, that is an indicator that your literature search is

adequate. However, it is incumbent on the learner to continually scan the

literature throughout the course of the study for new sources to insure that nothing

emerges between the time the study is initiated and the time it is published. You

are the expert, and your status as such depends on currency.

 Your committee members will most likely comment if they feel that your

literature review is inadequate, often with suggestions about sources not cited.

When those comments are no longer being made, you will have additional

evidence that your literature review is suitably comprehensive.

 When you have worked your way through the entire heading and subheading

outline that you developed in the initial stages of writing your literature review

and you have robustly developed each, you will have additional evidence you

have completed a comprehensive review.

 Be sure that each section and subsection includes comment on why the literature

cited adds something to the study and how what you have drawn from the work.

 When you have followed up on all the best practices in this guide you will have

additional evidence your literature review is approaching completion. 38

TOC Best Practices for Critically Analyzing Sources Menu

1. Scholars often find that critically analyzing sources is one of the most demanding expectations of the entire dissertation process because it requires considerable insight and academic capacity to write about the quality of and perspective presented in an article or book. Fortunately, the process of developing a critical analysis of a source is a well developed art. The following Internet sites and articles will be of assistance to you.

 Critically Analyzing Information Sources

 Guidelines for a Critical Analysis

 How to Write a Critical Article Review

2. Aveyard’s (2007) book Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care:

A Practical Guide is helpful, particularly since it is available as an e-book from the NCU ebrary. Navigate to chapter five: “How do I critically appraise the literature?” If critical writing is new to you, this is a must-read chapter.

3. Ridley (2008) provides the following strategies to help you develop a critical approach to writing your literature review.

 Compare and contrast different theories concepts and terminology from the

related literature and indicate the position you are taking as you develop your own

research project.

 Provide strategic and selective referencing to support the underpinning arguments

that form the basis of your research.

 Synthesize and reformat arguments from two or more sources to create a new or

more developed point of view. 39

 Concede that an existing point of view has some strengths but qualify your

support for the position by highlighting certain weaknesses. Being critical does

not mean that you must demolish someone else's work but rather that you

understand the position taken and are prepared to join the critical debate in your

field surrounding your topic.

 Criticism can be positive or negative. When you find a point of value, you have a

responsibility to say why. When you reject a point, give reasons for the rejection

such as inadequacy, lack of evidence, fallacies in the argument, or weaknesses in

the research. The point here is to insure that your readers appreciate that you

understand the arguments being made and that they understand your biases.

Ridley (2008, pp. 120-129) provides illustrations of how various authors approach being critical in their writing. If the concept of critical writing is new to you, you will find these illustrations very helpful.

4. When including an empirical study in your review, provide a brief summary of the study design, the method and sampling used by its authors, and the results so that readers can make their own judgment about the validity and generalizability of the findings.

TOC Best Practices for Creating a Synthesis Menu

In the end, the reader of the literature review should understand not only the importance of sources cited, but also how each of these building blocks fits into the foundation of your study. Most emerging scholars find it is far easier to summarize the content of each source they select for a literature review than to offer a synthesis of various themes that run through multiple sources. Fortunately, developing a synthesis of 40 important themes found in a variety of sources is a well developed art form in academia.

The following best practices help make this challenge manageable.

1. Create a synthesis matrix. Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis

Matrix is a must read article that illustrates what a synthesis matrix looks like. Most emerging scholars find using this tool to be a simple and effective technique for raising the academic quality of their literature review.

2. Aveyard’s (2007) book Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care:

A Practical Guide, which is available as an e-book from the NCU ebrary, provides a thorough explanation of how to achieve a meaningful synthesis of a variety of sources.

Navigate to chapter six: “How do I synthesize my findings?” In it, Aveyard points out that the goal of synthesizing the literature is to produce a new and integrative interpretation of findings that is more substantive than that found in the individual sources. Following the guidance offered in chapter six will raise the quality of your work significantly and enable you to offer content that supplements or even in some cases supersedes that found in your original sources.

TOC Best Practices for Organizing the Literature Review Menu

1. There is no standard outline for creating a literature review because what constitutes an appropriate organizational structure for a literature review varies depending on the topic chosen, the nature of the dissertation, and the approach taken by the author.

However, here are some common subheadings that are found in many dissertation literature reviews in addition to the headings used for each theme.

Historical Background 41

Virtually all topics explored in a dissertation fit within a historical context. This section of the literature review will include items such as seminal works, policy changes, developments in the research field and an explanation of how knowledge has progressed and perspectives have changed as scholars have continued to work in the area. It may also include references to the development of what has become “classic” literature in the area and will describe early work in the field of study.

Contemporary Context

This section of the literature review looks at current topics and debate in the field and the direction that recent and ongoing research is taking as scholars continue its exploration. There will be a close connection between this section of your literature review and your discussion of the significance of your study as a continuation of their work.

Theoretical Underpinnings

In this section you would discuss any theories and concepts which you intend to draw on to provide direction for your research and analyze your data. Often there are scholarly tensions associated with most theories and you should illuminate these and show where the approach you have chosen stands among them.

Models and examples of how to develop these sections of a literature review can be found in Ridley (2008). Her book is a valuable resource for doctoral learners developing a literature review and provides a more extensive grounding in most related issues than is appropriate for this document. 42

2. A number of essential headings or subheadings can be identified by considering your research questions. Each variable or concept referred to in your research questions should be thoroughly addressed.

3. Each relevant and significant theme that emerged as you searched through the literature search should be presented under an appropriate heading or subheading.

However, the word relevant is very important. Including extraneous and irrelevant material that is not clearly and obviously related to your research project greatly diminishes the quality of your work. It is harder to resist doing this than you might realize. After many weeks of reviewing literature you may be tempted to demonstrate how much information you have found or to include favorite pieces regardless of relevancy. As a result, it is common for learners to be asked to remove irrelevant sections from their literature review.

TOC Best Practices for Finding Sources Menu

1. If you are not intimately familiar with the NCU library you will save significant time and effort by participating in one of the regularly scheduled Library Workshops.

2. Search like an Expert is a very helpful library module that only takes a few minutes to view but will increase your search power tenfold.

3. Do not hesitate to use the Ask a Librarian function.

4. Review the reference sections of the sources you find in order to identify others. Following citations from important sources can be one of the most effective techniques used by scholars to trace ideas back to their origins and expand their list of relevant sources. Recent dissertations on topics similar to your own can be particularly helpful. 43

TOC Best Practices for Identifying Scholarly Sources Menu

1. Review the article Distinguishing Scholarly Journals from Other Periodicals.

2. Look for sources that have been published within the last five years. Older,

“seminal” sources that were pioneering work in their fields are important no matter how old they are in that a knowledge of them provides a foundation for scholars working in a field. For example, Glaser and Strauss introduced scholars to Grounded Theory

Methodology in 1967, and it continues to be discussed and elaborated on to this day.

When referencing a seminal source for the first time you may wish to identify it as such in your writing.

Another exception to the five year rule occurs when it is important to develop a historical perspective on a particular topic. As long as the context makes it clear that is what you are doing, older sources are appropriate. However, as a general rule, the requirement is that you show mastery of research in your field over the last five years, citing older sources only when they continue to be referenced in those sources or when terms defined in those studies continue to be used.

3. Look for primary sources. The following websites elaborate on the distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

 Primary and Secondary Sources

 Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources

 Primary vs. Secondary Sources

TOC Best Practices for Keeping Track of Sources Menu

RefWorks - an online research management, writing and collaboration tool which is available through the NCU library is designed to help researchers easily gather, 44 manage, store and share all types of information, as well as generate citations and bibliographies. This tool, can, among other things, help you to properly format citations and bibliographical entries in accordance with the APA Manual, saving you a lot of time and aggravation. If using Write N Cite, please view the Library KnowledgeBase entry to learn how to configure your computer settings correctly. For assistance with RefWorks, either contact the library at [email protected] or view the online tutorial at http://www.refworks.com/tutorial/.

TOC Developing a Scholarly Tone, Style, and Voice Menu

1. Develop a personal writing checklist, and use it to review all your documents before submitting them. All writers have strengths and weaknesses. Each time one of your weaknesses is pointed out, put it on your checklist. It could be something as simple as properly citing in-text sources or as challenging as maintaining an active voice in your writing. Your check list should grow as you work on your dissertation and receive feedback from your committee. Remember, once you have a doctorate, you will be expected to be a very good academic writer. Your checklist will insure that you continue to make steady progress in this regard.

2. The APA Manual has a must read section on writing style beginning on page

65. Topics covered include continuity in the presentation of ideas, smoothness of expression, tone, economy of expression, precision and clarity, linguistic devices and strategies to improve writing style.

3. Use direct quotes very sparingly. You should only use them when their wording has particular impact or the thought is stated in a unique way that is difficult to recapture (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). Some dissertation reviewers feel there should 45 only be about one direct quote for every 10 pages. Most definitely, averaging one direct quote per page or two is far too many. The overuse of direct quotes causes you to lose your voice in the dissertation. It also indicates that you may be offering a summary of what other scholars are saying instead of developing a synthesis that includes your perception of what you have read. Paraphrasing rather than quoting can make for a more economical writing style and a more readable text.

4. When presenting a paraphrase, do not begin the sentence by naming the author you are paraphrasing. The focus of the sentence should not be on the author but rather on the important thoughts offered in the paraphrase. Also, by beginning sentences with the authors’ names, your voice can be lost or dominated by the scholars you are paraphrasing. Here is an incorrect example. Creswell (2009) points out that there are three major forms of research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed. Here is the correct example. There are three major forms of research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed

(Creswell, 2009). In the second version your voice is heard and is given support by

Creswell.

5. Avoid using first-person constructions mask as third person. Typical examples include "this researcher," "this learner," "this observer" and so on. Here is an incorrect example. This researcher examined the data and drew the following conclusions. Here is a correct example. The data was examined in order to reach the following conclusions.

The assumption is always made that anything in the document represents your thoughts or opinions, so references of this sort are considered redundant. 46

Summary

[Summarize key points presented in chapter 2 and include supporting citations for key points. Highlight contradictions and uncertainties that support the need for the study.]

TOC Best Practices for Summarizing the Literature Review Menu

1. Please note that you should include appropriate citations in your summary.

2. Your summary should highlight contradictions and uncertainties that emerge from your review of the work of other scholars who are interested in your topic.

3. Your summary should clearly demonstrate the need for your study. 47

Chapter 3: Research Method

[Begin with an introduction and/or restatement of the research problem and purpose. Conclude the introduction with a brief overview of the chapter. Restate the research question(s)/hypotheses.

1. Quantitative – research questions and hypothesis(es) clearly stated and clearly

aligned with each other and with the problem statement.

2. Qualitative - research questions clearly stated and aligned with problem

statement.

3. Mixed Method - includes all of the above.

Note: This section should be identical to wording used in chapter 1.]

1. Begin with a careful examination of the blue text above.

2. Do not use “Introduction” as a heading (see page 63 of the 6th Edition of the

Publication Manual of the APA). The first part of the chapter is assumed to be the introduction. You may begin writing immediately after the chapter heading.

3. You can find examples of introducing chapter three by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations.

Research Methods and Design(s)

[Accurately describe the research method and design(s). Substantiate the appropriateness of the method and design(s); include a statement about why the method/design(s) was/were chosen over others. 48

1. Elaborate on the research design (e.g., case study, phenomenology, grounded

theory, causal-comparative, correlational, quasi-experimental, etc.)

appropriateness to respond to the study purpose.

2. Clearly describe the design steps. Ensure the discussion is not simply a listing

and description of research designs. Provide appropriate support for the use

and application of the chosen design.

3. Demonstrate why the design accomplished the study goals and why design

was the optimum choice for the research.

Describe in enough detail so that the study could be replicated.]

TOC Best Practices for Presenting Research Methods and Designs(s) Menu

1. The order of presentation for this section is established in the blue text above.

 An accurate description of the research method and design(s)

 A substantiation of the appropriateness of the method and design(s)

 A statement of why the method/design(s) was/were chosen over others.

2. The criterion used to judge the thoroughness of these sections is whether or not a reader would have enough information to duplicate the study.

3. Of particular importance is insuring that the research design is in alignment with the research problem and purpose. See a discussion of alignment by clicking the link above.

4. Descriptions of your research design should be referenced to authoritative sources devoted to your design, not just general research texts such as Creswell (2009) or

Gall, Gall and Borg (2007). For example, if you are using a case study research design your description should be grounded in the works of Yin (2009) and Stake (1995). 49

5. Avoid generic descriptions of and tutorial comments about your research design. Assume that your readers understand the general tenets of research methodology! Your description should be specific to the proposed study and should make the case for using the methodology chosen and illustrate the specifics of how your research design will be applied to fulfill the purpose of your study.

6. Keep in mind that you are not setting out to prove something but rather you are trying to establish probable relationships.

7. When considering methodologies, the learner is encouraged to first consider quantitative methods. The object here is to create new knowledge based on the establishment of probable relationships between variables and that is best done quantitatively. As a result, quantitative studies generally allow for a more focused literature review and less justification relating to the fit of the methodology to the problem addressed. It also makes it easier to write chapter 4 of the dissertation in that the relationships between variables outlined in the hypotheses and research questions are either proven or not, so the write up requires only that you provide the results after using tools like SPSS to analyze the data.

However, some problems are more complex than others and require that you use qualitative methods. However, when you choose these methods, you should understand that applications of the results are very limited outside of the context of the study; therefore, more justification is required to convince the reader of the value of the study within the knowledge base. Among other things, you should explain why a quantitative study was not reasonable and why a qualitative study provided a more reasonable approach. 50

Mixed research studies are also possible, and they can provide more depth to quantitative findings than might otherwise be possible. When a mixed methods approach is taken, it is usually best to start with an explanation of the goals of the quantitative portion of the research, offer a discussion of the limitations of that kind of study and your rationale for supplementing it with qualitative data gathering. When done properly, this can provide an understanding of the nuances of the problem under study but it adds additional work and should be used only when it is believed that the results of the quantitative part of the studies will be ambiguous.

With the exception of action research, research is not expected to solve problems.

Both qualitative and quantitative research is designed to provide valid information about what “is” and not what “should be.” The results of your study can define a problem or identify solutions that may be implemented in various contexts to address issues. But research results, in and of themselves, do not solve problems.

8. You can find examples of the research methods and designs section by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations.

Participants

[Provide a description of the population (as appropriate), its estimated size and relevant characteristics with appropriate support. Identify the sampling method and explain selection of participants, including known population characteristics and recruitment strategy. Describe participant characteristics. Describe and justify the sampling method and minimum sample size:

1. Quantitative studies include probabilistic selection approaches and a

supporting power analysis for statistical significance of responses. The 51

minimum sample size must be based on a variety of factors including

statistical power, sampling error, representativeness and the assumptions of

the statistical tests.

2. Qualitative studies include references that support the value of having a set

number of participants.

3. Mixed Method studies include both of the above.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Participants Section Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the guidance offered in the blue text above. Be sure to address the following topics.

 Description of the population

 Estimate of size

 Sampling method

 Selection of participants

 Recruitment strategy

2. In addressing the above topics, you should provide enough detail so that your study could be replicated by another researcher. For example, your readers should be able to answer the following questions after reviewing this section.

 Will you use a probability or a non-probability sampling design?

 Is your specific sampling method convenience, snowball, random or

something else?

 What is your sampling frame, i.e. who is in the subset of the entire population

that you are targeting?

 How will you go about recruiting participants? 52

 What inclusion criteria will you establish to identify potential participants?

 What is the proposed sample size?

3. It is not enough to only describe your sampling approach, include a detailed and well referenced rationale and support for the sampling methods and sizes.

4. If doing a quantitative study, sample size should be based on a statistical power analysis. See Gall, Gall and Borg (2003, 2007). A brief introduction to power analysis is found at Getting the Sample Size Right: A Brief Introduction to Power Analysis. Also,

G*Power is a convenient general power analysis program which performs statistical power analyses for the most common statistical tests in behavioral research.

5. You can find examples of Participants sections by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations.

Materials/Instruments

[In this section, include a description of (a) published instruments (adequately describe constructs measured, coding schemes, and psychometric properties (include both indices of reliability and validity) – include as an appendix, if possible, or include sample items); (b) materials (including survey/instruments) developed for study (adequately describe the development process and final product (include as an appendix); (c) apparatus (adequately describe any apparatus including model/make, how it was used, and outcome(s) it provided). If a self-developed instrument was used, describe the measures used to demonstrate validity and reliability.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Materials/Instruments Section Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the blue text above. 53

2. Offer a detailed and complete description of instruments, materials or apparatus with careful attention to the information requested in the blue text above. Your description should cover issues such as, how many question items the instrument contains, how many subscales, what is the response format, how it is scored, what the scores mean and so on. A good place to find unbiased information about existing measures is in Tests In Print published by the Buros Institute at the University of

Nebraska. You can also access this information online at the Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements. Another helpful source is ETS TestLink. Also, exploring other dissertations can point you toward helpful instruments.

3. If you are using an instrument developed by other researchers, you must gain permission from those who developed the instrument to use it, and you must include a statement declaring that you have been granted permission to use it by its authors.

4. If you are doing a quantitative project, there should be a clear and obvious link between the instruments you are using and the variable(s) you are measuring. This should be supported with research based evidence.

5. Choosing to develop your own instrument is a significant challenge; give careful thought to your research design before embarking on this ambitious process. You should first conduct an exhaustive search for an existing, validated instrument prior to considering self-development. If no existing, validated instrument is available, you must describe the multi-step process of survey and item development, pilot procedures, and survey and construct validation procedures. Consult survey design resources, such as

Dillman (2008), for more information. 54

6. If you are doing a qualitative study involving interviews, offer a detailed description of your interview guide(s) that covers issues such as how the interview questions were developed, how many open-ended questions are included, how the data will be recorded and stored, how long you estimate the interviews will last and so on.

7. Offer a clear rationale for the purpose of all surveys or questionnaires. Include an explanation of how they will be analyzed.

8. You can find examples of materials/instruments sections by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations.

Operational Definition of Variables (Quantitative/Mixed Studies Only)

[Text (optional)… Identify each of the primary constructs associated with the topic, problem, research question(s), and hypotheses. Include a brief overview of how each were operationally defined for the study.

Describe the nature of each variable and how it was measured and collected. The nature of the data must be consistent with and appropriate to the purpose, research design and statistical analyses.]

Construct/Variable 1. Description/Operational Definition.

TOC Best Practices for Operational Definition of Variables Menu

1. Begin with a careful review of the blue text above.

2. Keep in mind that o perational definitions are not the same as the definitions of key terms found in chapter one.

3. Operational definitions should align with each variable in the hypotheses.

4. You can find examples of operational definitions of variables by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations. 55

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

Describe the collection, processing and analyses in enough detail so that the study could be replicated. Describe the steps taken in carrying out the study. Provide specific details relative to the execution of the design in each appropriate section.

[Describe the types of data to be collected, and how the data were coded, and what statistical analysis and software were used.

1. Quantitative: restate each hypothesis and fully describe the analysis strategy

used to test each hypothesis. Present a valid argument for the choice of the

analytical strategy.

2. Qualitative: fully describe how the data were processed and analyzed

(including any efforts for triangulation). Present a valid argument for the

choice of the analytical strategy. Explain the role of the researcher.

3. Mixed Method: include all of the above.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis Menu

1. Examine the blue text above with great care.

2. This section must provide enough detail so your study could be replicated.

Remember, science is systematic and replicable.

3. Make sure there is alignment between the data you collect and your research questions. It should be clear and obvious that the data answers the research questions.

4. Describe the sequence of events that will transpire once participants are recruited, focusing specifically on how the data is collected. 56

5. Keep in mind that this section is expected to offer a detailed explanation of how the research purpose statement is fulfilled and how the research questions will be addressed in a logical and systematic manner.

7. How you process the data will depend on the variables, units of analysis, levels of measurement and so on. These factors will determine which statistical tests you run.

8. Testing a hypothesis is a very formal event that must be designed carefully in advance. It will be critical for you to read dissertations using the method you intend to use so you have a fair understanding of what is required to carry out a method. The analysis strategy used to test the hypothesis must be fully described. The argument for why the proposed analytical strategy is valid should also be presented. Insure enough detail for replication has been provided.

9. You can find examples of data collection, processing and analysis sections by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations. Other dissertations are available through ProQuest.

Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

[Thoroughly discuss the assumptions about the population and design (and rationale/support for assumptions).

Provide a thorough discussion of the study limitations (potential weaknesses to interpretation and validity). Discuss any measures taken to mitigate limitations in this section.

Review any potential threats to the internal and external validity (specific to the study design) and how they were addressed. 57

Describe the study delimitations (specific choices made to narrow the scope of the study). Discuss the scope of data used in the study in this section.]

TOC Best Practices Methodological Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations Menu

2. Methodological assumptions often emerge from the research design. For example, Dodge, Ospina, and Foldy (2005, pp. 290-291) convey three assumptions implicit in a narrative research design. Keep in mind that these are only examples of what mythological assumptions look like and they only apply to their research design as it was used in this particular research project.

3. Limitations are potential weaknesses or problems with the study identified by the researcher. These weaknesses often relate to inadequate measurement of variables, loss or lack of participants, small sample sizes, errors in measurement, and other factors related to data collection and analysis. Identifying the limitations helps other potential researchers conduct a similar study or replicate your study. Identifying the limitations also helps readers judge to what extent the findings can or cannot be generalized to other contexts (Creswell, 2008, p. 208).

4. Often limitations emerge from various aspects of the research design. For example, a descriptive design does not allow for a determination of cause and effect.

Another example would be using a convenience sampling strategy as opposed to a random sample. Review any potential threats to the internal and external validity that are specific to the study design and be sure to state how they were addressed in the study. 58

5. You should discuss the implications of each limitation, for example, what does a small sample size mean for the study, how to do the study’s limitations affect the generalizability of the findings and so on.

6. Delimitations refer to limitations imposed deliberately by the researcher to narrow the scope of the study. Typical delimitations include establishing boundaries for the topic being studied, the number of participants, the research site(s), the duration of the study, the type of data collected, and so on.

7. You can find examples of methodological assumptions, limitations, and delimitations by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations.

Ethical Assurances

[There are four categories of ethical issues in research including protection from harm, informed consent, right to privacy, and honesty with professional colleagues.

When research involves human beings, ethical issues may occur. Discuss compliance with the standards for conducting research as appropriate to the study design. Describe the informed consent procedures and how you maintained confidentiality of the participants as appropriate. Describe how you obtained assurances for formal approval of the study.

State that IRB approval was obtained prior to any data collection conducted.

TOC Best Practices for developing the Ethical Assurances Section Menu

2. Discuss all four categories of ethical issues as they pertain to your study as well as the other issues identified in the blue text. Describe the NRB procedures that were conducted and include all approval documentation. 59

3. You can find examples of ethical assurances by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations.

Summary

[Summarize key points presented in chapter 3 and provide supporting citations for key points.]

TOC Best Practices for developing the Summary of chapter three. Menu

2. Note the requirement to provide supporting citations.

3. You can find examples of summarizing chapter three by examining the most recently published NCU dissertations. 60

Chapter 4: Findings

[Begin the discussion with a brief overview of the purpose of the research study and provide a brief overview of the chapter. Organize the chapter around the research question(s)/hypotheses.]

TOC Best Practices for Beginning Chapter Four Menu

Note in particular that the chapter is to be organized around the research questions(s)/hypotheses. This is relatively easy when a quantitative methodology is chosen, but can be more problematic when qualitative methods are used. For instance, case studies may be best developed historically first. In either case, however, a framework has to be developed that allows the researcher to answer the questions asked using the data generated in a reasonable way.

2. Develop this first section of chapter 4 last after the final organizational framework for the chapter has been developed and can be appropriately overviewed in the introduction.

3. Review recently published NCU dissertations to discover how other scholars have begun chapter 4.

Results

[Data analyses – Report results without discussion (interpretation, speculation, etc. appears in the next section): 61

1. For Quantitative analyses,

a. Give appropriate descriptive information,

b. Present the results in a logical fashion, answering the research

question(s)/hypotheses as stated and appropriate to the type of data

collected,

c. Identify assumptions of statistical tests and address any violation of

assumptions,

d. Make decisions based on the results of the statistical analysis (for

example: Are the results statistically significant?). Include relevant test

statistic and p values.

e. See the APA manual regarding how to present results in text, tables and

figures.

f. Present sufficient information so the reader can make an independent

judgment about what you have found.

2. For Qualitative analyses

a. Present results logically and in a way that answers the research question(s)

by distillation steps of the discernment process,

b. Present sufficient information so the reader can make an independent

judgment about what you have found,

c. It is helpful to review published articles that use similar designs for

examples of how to present qualitative, thematic findings,

d. Ensure that no potentially indentifying information is published.

3. Mixed Method include all of the above. 62

Note: Table and figures, where appropriate, are necessary and referred to in the text. Ensure compliance with APA format of tables, table titles, figures and figure captions. See APA, 6th ed, chapter 5 for guidelines on displaying results.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Results Section Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the guidance offered in the blue text above, adjusting it to reflect the specific method used. Each point is of particular importance for this chapter depending on the specific qualitative, quantitative or mixed research design that was used.. Note in particular the guiding principle that you are to present sufficient information so the reader can make an independent judgment about what you have found.

2. You may find it helpful to work on chapters 4 and 5 simultaneously so that chapter four is clearly reserved for presenting your results and chapter five is clearly reserved for presenting an evaluation of those results. Using this approach can limit unnecessary redundancy.

3. As noted in the blue text above, you will find it helpful to review the discussion of how to present results offered in the 6th Edition of the APA Publication Manual beginning on page 32. This section is a must read before you begin work on this part of your dissertation.

4. If you are using a quantitative design, one of the best organizational strategies is to arrange the chapter by research questions/hypotheses. Each hypothesis should be one testable prediction and the findings for each hypothesis should address this one tested prediction. If you are using research questions as your organizational structure, ensure that you have the data to answer each question but avoid including superfluous content. 63

5. When developing headings for each research question/hypothesis use terms that denote their content rather than just numbering the questions.

6. Provide a demographic profile of your sample. Discuss the response rate and the actual sample size. Offer this information in a readable presentation that tells the story of the sample. Below are two illustrations. The first example presents information about the sample in an easy to read and interesting format. The second example presents the same information but without thought given to making it readable or interesting.

The sample was comprised of more females (69%) than males (31%). This sample

composition was most likely the result of the sampling design that targeted

specific courses. The majority (84%) of the respondents were juniors and seniors.

The mean age of the respondents was approximately 22 years. About half

reported being currently involved in a relationship and almost all (90%) of this

group described their relationship as serious. The mean age at first date was 16

years, which indicates that respondents have been dating for an average of 6

years. Males and females were similar across all variables with no significant

differences found. Demographic and dating profile findings are displayed in

Table 1.

The second example below is poorly written and does not take into consideration the reader.

Of the sample, 69% were female and 31% were men. Five percent were freshman,

10% were sophomore, 15% were juniors and 70% were seniors. Twenty students

said they were 18 years old, while 15% fell in the 19-20 year age category. 64

Seventy percent were 21 years old. Five percent dated at an early age at 13years.

Twenty seven percent started dating at 14 years.

7. The results should be reported with similar concern for readability and appropriate presentation as demonstrated above. Note the following illustration of the proper way to present a finding. The presentation is logical and flows smoothly. At this stage of developing your dissertation it is easy to get lost in content without concern for its readability.

The relationship between attitudes towards women and perpetuating verbal

aggression among college students in dating relationships was examined during

the study. It was hypothesized that there would be no relationship between the

two variables. Pearson correlations were performed to assess attitudes toward

women associated with perpetrating verbal aggression in dating relationships.

The results of the study indicated there was a statistically significant positive

relationship between traditional attitudes toward women and perpetrating verbal

aggression (r = .85, p < .05). In other words, those who had more traditional

views toward women were more likely to use verbal types of aggression to deal

with conflict in a dating relationship.

Note that the presentation is precise and relies directly on the data generated in the study. It avoids hyperbole and presents the facts and just the facts in an easy to follow format.

8. Tables and figures should be used judiciously in order to illustrate a point or summarize information. If a table is used, do not repeat the information in the text. Do not simply cut and paste every table or graph from your SPSS output for each variable, 65 selecting only the ones that provide clearer insight into the problem being studied that could be delivered in narrative. Review examples of published empirical research to gain a sense of how to effectively use tables to summarize data, and make reasoned decisions about what you report and how you report it.

9. When presenting quantitative data, assumptions associated with statistical tests are to be identified and any violation of these assumptions should be addressed.

10. Be concise and make your presentation to the point. Do not present a table, followed by a graph of the same data, followed by text that presents the same data in narrative form. Choose the one that most economically and effectively presents the case made by the data and then move on.

11. As is the case when presenting quantitative data, the presentation of qualitative data should be succinct, relevant, and flow logically and smoothly. Present a general framework of the results that tells the story from the participants’ perspectives and emphasizes the key aspects of the data supported by particularly expressive and or illustrative quotes from the participants.

12. When reporting on a qualitative study the research questions are used to organize and guide the presentation of the findings. Keep in mind there is a big difference between research questions and a list of interview questions. You do not necessarily present the findings associated with each interview question. Analyze the responses to the interview questions and extrapolate themes that emerge so as to align them with your research questions.

13. Utilize a few carefully selected direct quotes from your participants to illustrate the themes. Make the narrative work. Paraphrase can often be equally useful, 66 particularly when you are establishing that a consensus exists within your interview pool.

Do not attempt to report all of the qualitative data, much of which will be in the form of interview transcripts. You will have to make carefully considered decisions about how many direct quotes to include while paraphrasing/summarizing other findings.

14. When presenting qualitative data, include a description of the data itself; for example, you could describe the number of transcribed pages that were produced, the number of participants that were interviewed and contributed to the data pool, and so on.

15. When presenting qualitative data, avoid using terms like significance which are generally associated with and have specialized meanings in relation to quantitative data. Using these terms can confuse readers and undermine the value of the research in their eyes.

16. For both qualitative and quantitative studies, text related to data collection methods should be included in chapter 3 and repeated in chapter 4 only as necessary. Be cautious about repeating anything in your dissertation. Repetition should only occur after careful consideration.

17. Review recently published NCU dissertations to discover how other scholars have presented their results. This will be a particularly advantageous exercise for preparing this section of your dissertation, and you may wish to expand your exploration to other dissertations and research reports.

Evaluation of Findings

[This section is used to report what your findings mean. Interpret results in light of the theory (or theories) and/or the conceptual framework(s) you have identified. 67

Compare and contrast findings to other studies. Make sure it is clear as to the how the field(s) of study is/are affected by your inquiry.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Evaluation of Findings Section Menu

2. Review recently published NCU dissertations to discover how other scholars have developed this section.

3. In the previous section, you will have developed a running commentary on the data and you will have developed and offered some insight as to the importance of individual data points generated. In this section, you are expected to provide an analysis of the aggregated data, drawing more general conclusions. The first step is to interpret results in light of the theory (or theories) and/or the conceptual framework(s) you have identified and elaborated on in your literature review. They form the lenses you are to use to more fully understand and elaborate on your results.

4. Draw your reader’s attention to how your results compare and contrast with the results of other studies. At this point you may find it is appropriate to add additional sources to your literature review that came to light during your data collection and analysis phases and that you intend to use to help you evaluate your results.

5. Elaborate on how your field of study is impacted by your findings. You may find that refreshing yourself on your literature review will help you develop this section more meaningfully. This process will also offer you an opportunity to tighten and reorganize in subtle ways the literature review to reflect your experiences in organizing the data generated by the study. 68

6. Stay mindful of the chapter structure of your dissertation. Make careful distinctions between what belongs in chapter four and what belongs in chapter five. Most scholars find that they must revise chapter four and five after their first drafts to insure appropriate placement of content.

Summary

[Discussion summarizes key points presented in chapter 4]

TOC Best Practices for Summarizing Chapter Four Menu

1. Remember, the summary is your last chance to emphasize the important findings of your study. Make it a thoughtful presentation of your findings.

2. Review recently published NCU dissertations to discover how other scholars have developed this section. 69

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

[Begin the discussion with a brief review of the problem statement, purpose, method, limitations, and ethical dimensions, and conclude the introduction with a brief overview of the chapter.]

TOC Best Practices for Beginning Chapter Five Menu

1. Begin with a careful review of the blue text above with particular attention paid to the six components required for this section.

Implications

[Discuss each research question and (when appropriate) hypothesis individually, and draw logical conclusions. Note: support all conclusions with the research findings and avoid drawing conclusions that are beyond the scope of the study results. Discuss how any potential limitations may have affected the interpretation of the results. Describe how the results fit with the purpose, significance, and existing literature in chapter 2.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Implications Section Menu

1. Carefully review the blue text above. There are three important principles that deserve special consideration:

 draw logical conclusions

 support all conclusions with research findings 70

 avoid drawing conclusions that are beyond the scope of the study results.

2. Some scholars find the third principle mentioned above to be particularly challenging to adhere to; however, it is an important hallmark of good scholarship. It may help if you anticipate opposition to your discussion of your study’s implications. Being conservative is important because readers evaluate the validity of the design, data, analysis and conclusions based on their perceptions of the study’s adherence to rigorous scientific inquiry standards. Claims that are perceived as beyond the scope of the study tend to engender a bias towards invalidating the entire study and can undermine the credibility of the study in the eyes of readers.

3. You may wish to develop a subheading for each research question/hypothesis to help you systematically develop your content and help your readers follow your writing. Give these headings meaningful labels instead of merely numbering the questions.

4. Include a discussion of how limitations to your research design and research project have affected the interpretation of results. Possible limitations include establishing parameters for the study (i.e. only one school), participant selection (i.e. only females between the ages of 20 and 30); geography (i.e. only one county), study design issues (i.e. participants only responded to survey questions without the opportunity to elaborate) and so on. This is not at all a comprehensive list of possible limitations you should identify.

5. As noted in the blue text above, you must assure alignment between your research purpose and the implications of your study. An implication is a meaning that has not yet been stated but which is logically suggested by the results. The implications you 71 foreground in this section should clearly emerge from the chain of alignment you have established throughout your dissertation including your literature review.

6. The implications section of your dissertatioin is where you explain to your readers how your study fits into the knowledge base within your field of study. What is unique about the research project you conducted? What have you discovered that other scholars were not aware of? Building on your results, you should discuss what the impact of your results is likely to be and what further information needs to be known in your area. If the findings differ from what you expected them to be or what the literature indicated you should expect, you should note that, and indicate any possible causes for that disparity identified in the course of or as a result of the study.

Recommendations

[Present all recommendations for practical applications of the study. Note: support all recommendations with the research findings. Present recommendations for future research.]

TOC Best Practices for Developing the Recommendations Section Menu

1. Begin with a careful analysis of the blue text above. Note there are two classes of recommendations you are to make: practical applications and future research. You may wish to devote a sub heading to each.

2. Discuss how the insights developed in your study can be put to good use by other scholar/practitioners both in the context of the population studied and in the entire field of study. What are the implications for developing programs and theory that are 72 derived from your findings? Keep in mind that you are to support your recommendations with your research findings.

3. In order to develop a list of recommendations for future research, reflect back over the limitations of your study and how future studies could move beyond them. As questions are answered (or not) by research studies, more tend to surface, so, after completing this journey you may have a number of ideas for advancing the research.

What should researchers do next? If you rejected null hypotheses in a quantitative study, it might be reasonable to suggest that the results be validated by replicating the study in additional populations and settings, asking new questions that build on your results, using different research designs, collecting additional types of data and so on. If you did not reject the null hypothesis you might ask that similar or modified studies be conducted to determine why the results were not as expected.

4. Qualitative studies are often exploratory in nature and are designed to more tightly define problems that were previously too vague to test statistically. They often are used to develop a credible, nuanced theory that can be used as a basis for practice or further study, lead to a call for replication of the study on a larger scale in a similar setting to see if the results can be confirmed, and/or help develop testable questions/hypotheses that can be tested using quantifiable methods.

5. One of your responsibilities in the recommendations section is to insure that whatever you concluded about how you might increase confidence in your results or correct mistakes made in the process of your research should be discussed so that other scholars can carry on where you left off. 73

Conclusions

[In this section, summarize all key points in chapter 5.]

TOC Best Practices Developing the Conclusions Section Menu

1. Maintain the chain of alignment for your dissertation as you develop your conclusions. They should clearly and obviously emerge from your research findings.

2. Discuss your conclusions within the framework of the larger data base that constitutes your topic and which you covered during your literature review. 74

References

[All references listed in text appear in reference section. Use a .5 inch hanging indent, single-spacing, with a blank line between references.]

Corty, E. W. (2007). Using and interpreting statistics: A practical text for the health, behavioral, and social sciences. China: Elsevier.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Ridley, D. (2009). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Rudestam, K. E. & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Appendixes

[Each Appendix referenced in text should appear in this section at the end of the manuscript] 76

Appendix A:

[Insert/type Appendix A content here] Appendix B:

[Insert/type Appendix B content here]