Research Problems REDUX

In reviewing Practical Research by Leedy and Ormrod (2005, 9th edition), I think (hope!) I see some light regarding the research problems.

1. The main research problem is in the Purpose of the Study statement.
2. The other four research problems are simply subproblems of the main problem.

Leedy and Ormrod say this about subproblems (pages 51 and 52).  Each subproblem:

1. Should be a completely researchable unit (hence, why a subproblem is really a research problem).
2. Must be clearly tied to the interpretation of the data.

Further,

1. The subproblems must add up to the totality of the problem.
2. Subproblems should be small in number (as per the requirements of the proposal, no more than four).

Leedy and Ormrod also suggest the use of "Brainstorming Software" to identify subproblems.  They have an illustration of output on page 72.  There, the software they use is something called Inspiration.  I found it here:  http://www.inspiration.com/Inspiration

It's pretty cool - and inexpensive (US$40).  I downloaded it this morning.  My weekend plans are set, apparently.

Missing Socks and Alien Burglary - Null Hypotheses

In the May 14 conversation with Dr. S, he pointed out that my hypotheses weren't written in a consistent form.  He said that I needed "null" hypotheses.  Oddly (or maybe, fortuitously), I found a website called www.null-hypotheses.co.uk by a group called the Journal of Unlikely Science.  In it, the null hypothesis is explained in comical terms:  What is a Null Hypothesis?  The example is:  the loss of my socks is nothing to do with alien burglary.

So two things to do this long Memorial Day weekend:

1. Rewrite my research problems (tightening up the scope of the ones I've written previously), and
2. Write new hypotheses - ensuring that they are null hypotheses.

The Process is Working...

Got a note from Dr. S this morning.  He found a recently published article from McKinsey & Company on my topic.  So, he really understands what I've proposed.

Better news is that though consultants and professionals are thinking about what I'm thinking about, the academics are remaining silent...that means that my dissertation will appropriately add to the body of knowledge on the topic (what a dissertation is supposed to do).  It also means that the business world is leaning in the direction I think it should.  So, good dissertation topic.  The process is working.

Round 1 - OK

I had my proposal (version 1) review with Dr. S Wednesday.  Few surprises as I had already figured out a lot of what he commented on.

The take-aways:

1. As I've written before in this blog, my research problems really need some attention.  Dr. S says (and I agree!) that as outlined, the research behind the problems would, in his words, "take about 75 years."  OK, well (I suppose), better to have too many rather than too few.  My research problems are more themes of problems rather than individual ones.  I just need to drill down on one or two, then "discover" the problems from those themes.
2. Subsequently, my hypotheses need to be re-worked, based on the new set of research problems, of course.  Besides, Dr. S pointed out that my first round of them are written in inconsistent form.  I didn't see that, so that was new.

Biggest issue:  I don't have primary, but secondary, data for my study.  What that means is that the data I have has been gathered by others (secondary data).  That's a problem.  I need to gather data myself (primary). But we are both scratching our heads a bit on this one. Dr. S is a qualitative guy and can counsel on surveys, interviews, etc.  But any surveying I could do would be of current or potential customers, and that would be a no-no professionally.

So, with that revelation, Dr. S decided to check in with a man who I think will be my thesis adviser.  He earned his PhD at Northwestern but is a professional in finance in Manhattan not an academician.  He thinks that this man - Dr. H - will be able to guide me better than he can.

In the meantime, Dr. S said to not trouble with another proposal draft until I've spoken to Dr. H.  But he agreed that it wouldn't hurt to continue with the literature review.

Traveling for work this week, but that's what I'll do next week.

Thinking Too Much?

This is the week that I'll be talking with Dr. S about version #1 of my proposal.  In the meantime, I continue to work (re-work, and re-work) my research problems.  At this revision stage (and no telling what Dr. S will say about the research problems), I've written and rewritten the research problems...now on my third major revision.  My conclusions, thus far, are these:

1. Research PROBLEMS arise from the literature review; while
2. Research HYPOTHESES are solved by the analysis.

Now, I have absolutely NO idea if this is correct or not, but it essentially means that the literature review (Chapter 2 of five total chapters) has to be complete before the research problems are "fully cooked."  And the analysis done in Chapters 3 and 4 has to be finished in order to prove the hypotheses.  As Chapter 1 is just a write-up of the proposal outline, there's a circular problem:  I have to do all of the analysis and literature review for the dissertation in order to get my proposal outline approved.  So I'm writing a dissertation before I even know that the thing is approved?  This doesn't make any sense.  Or maybe I'm thinking too much.

No Worries!

Just got an email from a friend who reads this blog.  Evidently, my April 28 and 29 posts painted a bad picture about the May 14th call with Dr. S.  That was not my intent.  The May 14th call is all part of the process.  My classmate is on her 4th proposal submission.  As I've mentioned, I anticipate that I'll have to submit the proposal at least one more time before it's approved.


Any angst you infer from these two posts is over the time in between proposal cycles.  I had planned to be finished with the thing by late July - but obviously, that won't happen.  That doesn't mean that my proposal is crap.  It's good, and Dr. S has to come back with something - otherwise, he's not doing his job.

Chapter 1, Perhaps?

With the step back, I've looked over two of the documents that Dr. S gave me as guides for this process:  Chapter 1 of a dissertation (called a proposal) and the entire dissertation done by a previous student - not at ISM but another university.  The latter was approved/accepted, and given that Dr. S forwarded it, presumably a good example of what I'm supposed to do myself.

Observations:

1. Chapter 1 is really the Dissertation Proposal in text form (rather than the outline I submitted last month).
2. Though the Proposal requires five research problems, the accepted dissertation just has one.  The Chapter 1 proposal just has two.

For those PhD students from a traditional doctoral program reading this, you're probably thinking, "well, duh," but understand that I rarely actually meet any of my professors and converse with most only through email.  Mine is a European doctoral program where things are much more of a "do-it-yourself" nature.  That's fairly dangerous for someone like me who "suffers" from something called an "Unrelenting Standards Life Trap."  The propensity to spin one's wheels and waste time is more reality than fantasy.

And one other observation:  I think my the research problems and hypothesis are a bit "off."  So I'm rearranging the proposal into Chapter 1 and addressing that.  Seeing 80% of Chapter 1 come together (less the research problem[s] right now) is encouraging.  The rest of the week will be devoted to working on better articulating the research problems.