Back to the Research Problems

I spoke with Dr. Z this morning.  (And yes, he speaks English quite well!)  I really think I will enjoy working with him. 

He referred me to an article entitled "Writing Tips for PhD Students" by John H. Cochrane (University of Chicago) found at this link.  It's a nice guide - written in plain language (and is somewhat light and comical).

I have two things to do:

1. Send Dr. Z the top three (or two or four) articles - published in top journals - that are the closest that I want to do.
2. Meanwhile, using the Cochrane article, revise the proposal and the main research question/problem.

We are both concluding that it will be quite difficult - if not impossible - to find the primary data around what I'd like to do.  But Dr. Z said, "First things, first."  Let's get the main research problem out there, then we'll both find what data we can find.  Just take it one day at a time.

Like I said, I really think I will enjoy working with him.  

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.

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.

Proposal Part 4: Research Objectives/Hypotheses Related to Research Problems

I really love YouTube.  

A simple four-minute video explains how to write research questions and hypotheses from "MsLemmonsClass."  I assume this was written for high school kids (though I never saw anything like this in high school).

I like it.  This really makes the task look a bit less daunting.

So basically, you take each individual research problem and find the independent and dependent variables.

Hypothesis:

The hypothesis is my prediction, my claim.  It is what I think is going to happen based upon my prior information and my prior observations.

Written Format:  IF-THEN-BECAUSE

IF:  If the IV does something (increases, decreases), 

THEN:  then DV is going to (increase, decrease)

BECAUSE:  because ___________.  Why do I think this?  What led me to this claim or hypothesis?

This made writing the hypotheses fairly easy to do.  Got them done in a couple hours.

Proposal Part 3: Research Problems

I've structured my five research problems around the methodology by Associate Professor (Australian Catholic University) Denis McLaughlin's "Identifying the Research Problem" ppt.  Wish Dr. McLaughlin would publish a video on this...it would make it easier to follow.  I'm sure that his actual presentation is worth seeing.

Summarized:

In business, a research problem is a concern to managers that exists in business settings.  To find them, ask yourself:

What was the issue/problem you want to study?

What is the concern being addressed “behind” this study?

Why do you want to undertake this study?

Why is this study important to the scholarly community?