Self-Imposed Deadline

Today, August 31st, is my self-imposed deadline for getting the revised (and revised again) proposal to Dr. S for his final approval.  I've just done that.  Yay!

This weekend is a long one in North America, so the rest of it is dedicated to a 7-mile run and reading more articles for the literature review - that self-imposed deadline is October 13.  

I'm reminded of a quote I found earlier in the year from Dissertation Research and Success:

You have to throw out all the creative writing strategies you’ve learned since elementary school and become comfortable with the redundancy and specificity necessary in scholarly writing.

It bruises the ego badly.  I can do it, but becoming comfortable with redundancy and specificity is a tough ask!  

Damn the Torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

I turned in my 3rd proposal version yesterday morning, and at 11:30 last night, I heard from Dr. Z that he approved it and to send it along to Dr. S for final approval.  That means that I'm good to go!

I'm traveling this week so I didn't have the wisdom of my proofreader (my hubby) before I sent it, so there were some typos.  Oh well.

I need to do some "deep revisions" of it, but I can send it on to Dr. S when the typos are corrected and when I revise a bit.

Dr. Z is worried that I've come to my conclusions before the research is done.  That's probably true, but I have to tell you:  it's very hard to keep the personal bias out of it.

I was at an academic conference today.  I told a colleague (a doctoral student at the Sorbonne) about my approval and Dr. Z's concern of my bias.  She said:  "Everybody has a conclusion.  It's impossible to be impartial."  She went on to say that most people write their abstracts first before they even get into the study!  Ha!

I just need to figure out how to not have strong language in my literature review and study significance.  But I see the end.  At last!

Journal Quality

Dr. Z spent a lot of time yesterday on my article selection and short-version proposal.  He said that version 2 was better, but I wasn't working with the best articles.  So far in my literature search, I've found 317 different pieces of literature - and have felt overwhelmed by that number.

So I asked him what "best articles" meant.  He sent me the "Academic Journal Quality Guide, version 4" by the Association of Business Schools (UK).  It grades all the academic journals from Grade 4 (the best) to Grade 1 (the not-as-good).

Last night and continued this morning, I went through my list of 317 and put the ABS's grades next to each journal in my EndNote library.  Then I saved a copy of my EndNote library and deleted all non-graded articles.  

The result?  I had only 112 graded articles in my library - much more manageable than 317 (duh!).  


Next steps:

1. Start version 3 of the proposal.
2. Review the better articles for this next version.
3. Revisit title and purpose statement - which will probably mean adjusting/tweaking research problems and hypotheses, but probably not too much (at least, I hope so!).
4. Then, do another literature search.

It's moving along.

Justification of the Study...again

Going back almost four months now (my, this is taking a while), I review my March 31 post on Justification of the Study.  Dr. S told me that I really needed to beef this up.  Naturally, I see that the proposal assignment requires a full page of text for this justification (and I didn't take this to heart the first time around why?) - I only wrote about three paragraphs in version 1.  

Dr. S explained that this is the "so what?" of the research proposal.  Leedy and Ormrod, page 57 (2005) ask "Of what use is it? What practical value does the study have?"  From How to Write a Research Proposal (cited in the 31 March post), I get the following:

• Concise and clear outline of the objectives I want to achieve through the dissertation.
• Show why the intended research is important.
• Show why the research justifies the search effort.
• Outline the significance/relevance of the topic.  The justification can be either:

1. empirical in nature, i.e., what I hope to add to an existing body of knowledge, or
2. theoretical in nature, i.e., what I hope to make easier to understand by giving more information on contentious areas in a body of knowledge or provide new conceptual insights into that knowledge.

"All research is part of a larger scholarly enterprise."  I "should be able to argue for the value and positioning of [my] work."  

In The Importance of Research by a group called "Unite for Sight" (a global health delivery organization that supports eye clinics worldwide) - with my adaptations in black:

The purpose of research is to inform action.  Thus, my study should seek to contextualize its findings within the larger body of research.  Research must always be high quality in order to produce knowledge that is applicable outside of the research setting with implications that go beyond the group/sample that I targeted in my research.  Furthermore, the results of my study should have implications for policy and project implementation.  

Light at the End of a Tunnel

When I get/make the time, I continue to work on the second version of the proposal.  This morning, I was able to rewrite my study Limitations/Delimitations section and pared down my Operational Definitions of Key Terms.

This dissertation almost seems doable now.  Let's hope that this light at the end of the tunnel isn't the headlight of an oncoming train! 

Title, Purpose, Research Problems and Hypotheses - Away!

After a lot of work over the 3-day holiday weekend, I finally got the first four sections of my proposal out to Dr. Z for his review:

1. Title
2. Purpose Statement
3. Research Problems
4. Hypotheses

Things are finally seeming to come together, and I'm not so overwhelmed as I once was.  

As I mentioned in a previous post, I mapped out the problems, subproblems, and hypotheses using Inspiration software.  My map looks like this:

I know it looks complicated, but better to have a map in order to get this thing done and convert myself from ABD to PhD!

Needing that Vacation

All of the energy from last week's morning of inspiration was lost due to house guests for the weekend.  Don't get me wrong; balance in life has to happen and I do appreciate my friends!

Just having difficulty finding a way to tap into that vein from last Saturday.  It was priceless.

Two weeks' vacation is coming up.  I'll be taking a holiday not only from my real job but also from this process.  In order to truly "rest" from it all, I need to get my proposal rework to Dr. Z and then blessed by Dr. S.  Tall order in the next three weeks.

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.  

Dr. Z!

No, Heather, that's not you (not yet, anyway).  Dr. Z is the prof that has agreed to work with me on the next version of the proposal.

I have found him on this video.  I assume he speaks English - as I certainly don't speak Portuguese - else, I'm in a heap of trouble!

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.

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.

20%

As you know from a previous blog post, Dr. S told me that he'd get back to me the first week of May, so when I saw an email from him this morning, I was thrilled that he contacted me a week early.  His email, however, said that he read through my proposal and that "we should talk"...on May 14th!

At his suggestion and endorsement, I requested another extension.  I just realized that once this is done, I'll have spent 20% of my life on this degree.

Proposal Part 10: References

Before now, I didn't write anything on Part 10 (References) of the proposal I submitted last week.  The reason?  It's rather a no-brainer once you have citation software.  

I've been using a program called "Endnote" for many years, ever since a classmate (Laura E.) told me about it in the summer of 2006.  Once you get your references loaded, you can "cite while you write" - putting in end notes, footnotes, or in-text references all according to the style required (e.g., Chicago 16B, APA 6th, etc.) as you write the thought.  Then, the program automatically inserts your bibliography at the end...and alphabetizes it for you.

It works with literature search software which is typically found in a library.  My school gives me access to it as well as to the full-text articles (if the library has them, of course).  Once you select the articles you want to use, you import the citations from the search software to the Endnote program.  And viola! you have your citations already loaded to use while you're writing.

My school also gives me access to Endnote-like software, but didn't start doing that until I was well into the PhD program.  By then, I got used to Endnote, and really like it (Thompson-Reuters gives a student rate, too).  Last night, I upgraded to the latest version - X7 - that is quite the improvement over previous versions.  And with my three-monitor set-up (and 24" monitors), the new reference pane is clearly visible.  I like it.

My proposal cited 57 references.  I've actually got 293 references in my Endnote library so far.  I'm sure about 20-30% of those will be 86'd before I'm done, but being old enough to remember the manual literature searches and stack of index cards, I'm quite thankful to be writing this paper in 2014, not 1985.

And we wait...

Got a note from Dr. S this morning.  His feedback will come the first week of MAY!!!

So as to not lose too much time, I think I'm going to continue with the literature review.  That takes so much time and it may shift some of the research problems and hypotheses in the proposal.

Proposal Complete - Sent to Dr. S

PEI's Tartan

I just hit "send" on the email to Dr. S with my proposal attached.  Thanks to my sweet hubby for proofing it for me.  

He tells me that it's National Tartan Day - so I may celebrate this milestone with him and a small shot of Oban.

Cheers!

Proposal Part 5 (REDUX): Mini-Literature Review

I found a few items on the literature review previously (see blog post from March 31st).  This is the only part of the Proposal I haven't completed yet.  I've struggled with this one for several reasons:

1. I have nearly 300 scholarly works in the literature search I did over the holidays, including those that I have picked up while writing the proposal.  So much material!  Where to find the time to read then synthesize it all?!  
2. The real literature review for the dissertation will be 40 to 50 pages long; the one for the proposal is to be only 5 pages long.  I find myself venturing on the all-or-nothing precipice. Where to begin a mini-review?
3. As you can probably tell from my blog entries, I suffer a bit from "scope creep."  I like to write, so I find myself going down various rabbit trails with particular works - whether they have any merit on the topic at hand or not.

I spoke with a colleague of mine the other day (Susan K.) who earned her PhD some time ago.  She suggested that I organize my review around the research questions.

Well...duh.  That's so obvious!  I didn't see that at all until she mentioned it.  Thank you, Susan!

Proposal Part 9: Operational Definitions of Key Terms

The Proposal assignment is looking for clear and full definitions of each key research variables, not just general definitions of key terms.

I've compiled definitions from previous works--many that now seem a bit out-of-date.  I worked on those this morning, culling out a few and put in a bit more this morning on research variables.  

Now, all of the sections of the proposal are complete except for the mini-literature review in Step 5.  I'm getting a bit excited about moving forward now. ...like this doctorate degree might actually become a reality this year.