Index

I will be posting an index of all of the blog posts once a month, in order for it to be easier to find specific topics.

 

Current to 9/27

Topic	Dates of Posts
Dissertation, general	7/5, 8/16, 8/19, 9/27
Selecting a Topic	4/23, 7/8, 7/10
Organization	4/22
Committee Members	4/17, 5/3, 6/10, 7/19, 8/21
URR	5/8, 5/27
Overview of Process	4/19, 9/18
Premise	4/17, 9/6
Proposal	4/22, 9/9
C. 1	5/6
C. 2 (literature related)	4/26, 5/29, 6/3, 6/12, 6/17, 6/28, 9/16
C. 3	5/1
Defense	4/23, 5/8
IRB	5/10
Data Collection	5/13, 5/15
Quantitative Analysis	5/17, 7/24, 7/26, 7/29, 7/31, 8/2, 8/5
Qualitative Analysis	5/20
Mixed Methods	5/22
C. 4	517, 5/20, 5/22, 7/17
C. 5	5/24, 9/20
Final Defense	4/23, 5/27/ 9/11
Career	7/12
Goal Form	8/12
Motivation	6/5, 6/26, 7/1, 8/16, 8/23, 9/2, 9/18
Secondary Data	5/31
Support, Getting	4/26, 6/5, 6/24, 8/16
Writing	4/26, 4/29, 6/12, 6/21, 7/3, 8/9, 8/14, 9/4, 9/23,9/25
Other	4/18, 6/7, 6/14, 6/19, 6/24, 6/26, 7/1, 7/8, 7/15, 7/19, 7/22, 8/7, 8/16, 8/19, 8/26, 8/28, 8/30, 9/2, 9/13, 9/18

 

Next time, we will take a look at alignment. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

 

Scientific method

Psychological research is based on the scientific method and an understanding of the method allows for a better grasp of the requirements for your dissertation research. What are the parts of the scientific method? 1) Formulation of a question. 2) Hypotheses. 3) Prediction. 4) Testing. 5) Analysis. Let's take a look at how these fit within the dissertation requirements. 

1) Formulation of a question. This step is why are required to do a thorough literature review, so you understand where the gap exists in the literature and why the study is needed. This step forms the basis of your problem statement and research questions. 

2) Hypotheses. Notice that these are formed before you do the study, this is an important aspect because you are laying out where you are going before the study is ever started. You are not allowed to change these once the proposal is approved- so spend some time on them.  

3) Prediction. In the dissertation this is done through your theoretical framework. Your theory should lead to specific predictions, which may or may not be the same as the hypotheses. 

4) Testing. This is first related to your research method, which you must lay out in advance, and you must have permission to change once the proposal has been approved. A key issue here is that it must be replicable, meaning someone else should be able to do the study based on your detailed description. The second part of this step is when you go out and collect your data.  

5) Analysis. Merely collecting the data is not enough, you must also make sense of it- this is the analyses portion. Along with this comes fitting your results in to the literature and making sense of it based on your theory – did it come out as predicted? If not, why not? 

Next time, I will post an index for all of the posts to date. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Outlines

I have had several questions on how to do outlines of dissertation chapters. My approach is to think of the outline in terms of headings or main topics. What are the main issues that you want to discuss in the chapter? A great way to start, if you are staring at blank piece of paper, is with the dissertation checklist. Write down all of the parts that are required. Then go back through each part and think about what do you want to discuss in that section? Let's try an example together. Let's use my oldest old and opinions about their primary health provider (PHP) paper (Stadtlander et al., 2013) as the basis for an outline of c. 2. 

This is a mixed method study, so let's begin with the mixed method template and write down the headings from that checklist, I am also going to put in an outline format. 

Chapter 2 (Mixed Methods)

A. Introduction

B. Literature Search Strategy

C. Theoretical Foundation

D. Literature Review of Key Variables

             1. Qual

             2. Quant

E. Summary & Conclusions 

Now I will think about my study and what needs to be discussed. I plan to conduct interviews (the qual portion) and locus of control (LOC), resilience, and self-efficacy surveys (the quant portion). I will now add in the main topics under each heading (I am also using the checklist to determine the topics, this info is in italics. 

Chapter 2 (Mixed Methods)

 

A. Introduction

1. Restate the problem and the purpose.

2. Provide a concise synopsis of the current literature that establishes the relevance of the problem.

             a. Who are Oldest old

             b. Oldest Old and health costs

             c. Oldest old and PHP

3. Preview major sections of the chapter. 

B. Literature Search Strategy

1. List accessed library databases and search engines used.

2. List key search terms and combinations of search terms

3. Describe scope of literature review  

C. Theoretical Foundation

             1. Patient-by treatment interactive model

a. Provide origin or source of the theory.

b. Describe major theoretical propositions

c. Provide a literature- and research-based analysis of how the theory has been applied previously in ways similar to the current study.

d. Provide the rationale for the choice of this theory. 

e. Describe how and why the selected theory relates to the present study and how the research questions relate to, challenge, or build upon existing theory.   

D. Literature Review of Key Variables

1. Describe studies related to the constructs of interest and chosen methodology and methods

             a. Aging and oldest old

             b. Aging and health care

2. Describe ways researchers in the discipline have approached the problem and the strengths and weakness inherent in their approaches.

             3. Quantitative

                           a. Locus of control (LOC)

                                        1) LOC and aging

                                        2) LOC and health care

                                        3) LOC, aging, health care

b. Resilience

1) Resilience and aging

                                        2) Resilience and health care

                                        3) Resilience, aging, health care

c. Self-efficacy

1) Self-efficacy and aging

                                        2) Self-efficacy and health care

                                        3) Self-efficacy, aging, health care

4. Qualitative

             a. Review and synthesize studies related to the key concepts and/or phenomena under investigation

                           1) Oldest old and relationships with PHP

                           2) Oldest old and health care practices

b. Review and synthesize studies related to the research questions and why the approach selected is meaningful. 

E. Summary & Conclusions

1. Concisely summarize the major themes in the literature.

2. Summarize what is known as well as what is not known in the discipline related to the topic of study.

3. Describe how the present study fills at least one of the gaps in the literature and will extend knowledge in the discipline.

4. Provide transitional material to connect the gap in the literature to the methods described in chapter 3. 

Next time, we will take a look at the scientific method. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

Stadtlander, L., Giles, M., Sickel, A., Brooks, E., Brown, C., Cormell, M., Ewing, L., Hart, D., Koons, D., Olson, C., Parker, P., Semenova, V., & Stoneking, S. (2013). Independent Living Oldest-Old and Their Primary Health Provider: A Mixed Method Examination of the Influence of Patient Personality Characteristics. Journal of Applied Gerontology. (Available in Walden Library's Psychology/ Sage database)

Writing help

I recently attended a webinar on doctoral writing resources put on by the writing center. I thought I would share some of these great resources. 

Capstone writing community. This is online community for students in the proposal stage and beyond. There is an opportunity to interact asynchronously (as in facebook, or class discussions) and through weekly meetings online with the writing center faculty member, Kevin Schwandt. This community is only for students- no faculty have access. So you can complain and seek help without any concern that your chair or committee member will see what you have written. If you are interested in this, contact kevin.schwandt@waldenu.edu 

Developmental editing. This service is designed for students that are not progressing due to their writing issues. There is the opportunity to work one-on-one with an editor for 4 consecutive weeks. Every week you are given very specific weekly goals and the editor offers help on the writing issues. The chair must submit an application for the student to be considered for this service, it is available at http://libraryguides.waldenu.edu/capstonefaculty If your chair has questions about the service, he or she can contact tobias.ball@waldenu.edu 

Dissertation editing questions. There is also a separate email account for question just about the dissertation: editor@waldenu.edu

There are other great resources available in the writing center – check them out! 

Next time, we will take a look at outlines. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

Chapter 5 Issues*

Chapter 5 is the final chapter and discussion of your dissertation. One question that students ask me is "can I introduce new literature in chapter 5?" Any new literature should only be related to new topics that have arisen through the analyses of the data. I will use as an example, a recent study of mine (Stadtlander et al., 2013). We found that people over 85 who had escorts when they visited their physician, tended to indicate they liked their physician more and considered them more kind than people who went alone. Assuming that this had not been previously discussed in the literature review, in chapter 5 it would be appropriate to report any research related to this finding. 

Also in chapter 5, you will need to relate your findings to your theories that you discussed in your proposal. Questions to ask yourself are: What does the theory predict should happen in the study? How are my results similar or different from the predictions? If your findings are different from the theory's predictions, why do you think that might be the case? If there a way to modify the theory to incorporate your results? 

You must also think through the implications and explanations of your results. Given that the findings are correct, what does this mean for the population? How could such findings be explained? Let's return to the example I gave earlier that  people over 85 who had escorts when they visited their physician, tended to indicate they liked their physician more and considered them more kind than people who went alone. What are the explanations of such a finding? Some that we suggested are: it may be that escorts encourage patients to change physicians if they do not approve of them. On the other hand, having someone else approve of the physician may cause a halo effect (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995), improving the oldest-olds' perception of the physician. An alternative, is those who like their physician may be more motivated to get treatment, and thus more likely to secure an escort. Are there further ideas that you have thought of? An implication is that physicians might want to encourage their older patients to bring a family member or friend with them to their visits.

Notice that the reference given (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) has probably not been previously discussed in the literature review. There would have been no reason to discuss halo effects before we had the results from the study. 

*My thanks to Susan, for suggesting this issue. Next time, we will take a look at where to get some help with writing. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

Greenwald, A. & Banaji, M.R. (1995). Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27.

Stadtlander, L., Giles, M., Sickel, A., Brooks, E., Brown, C., Cormell, M., Ewing, L., Hart, D., Koons, D., Olson, C., Parker, P., Semenova, V., & Stoneking, S. (2013). Independent Living Oldest-Old and Their Primary Health Provider: A Mixed Method Examination of the Influence of Patient Personality Characteristics. Journal of Applied Gerontology. (Available in Walden Library's Psychology/ Sage database)

 

Who is impressed?

 

I love this cartoon because I think it reflects the feeling that so many students have with their dissertations. I have been asked "why all the fuss about a dissertation? It is just another paper." But the reality is that it is not "just another paper." I have talked previously about the reasons for doing a dissertation (see 7/5 post), today I want to talk about whom at Walden sees your paper (and is hopefully impressed). 

First, of course, is your chair. He or she is responsible for monitoring the quality of your paper. Your chair is not an unbiased reader: others will evaluate him or her as to your performance. Also, your chair will read your drafts many times, after a while they probably will no long see the details. Ideally, you can impress him or her with your writing skills, research knowledge, and persistence. 

Second, is your committee member. This person also checks the quality of your paper but has more distance from you and has a less biased perspective. He or she reviews the paper fresh, and has less personal investment in it. They will also be impressed with your writing ability and knowledge of the subject. 

Third, the University Research Reviewer (URR) reviews your paper for consistency and accuracy. He or she will have totally fresh eyes and be able to offer an unbiased opinion. Clear, concise writing, with a clear relationship between your research questions and research methods will impress them, as well as inclusion of the required elements on the dissertation checklist. 

Fourth, is the Institutional Review Board (IRB). This committee reviews your project from an ethical viewpoint. They will be impressed if you have clearly stated your research questions, and have clearly outlined your research method. Be sure to check their web site for info on common ethical concerns.  

Fifth, is the CAO when your final abstract is reviewed. Make sure that you follow the template guidelines and include the necessary elements. 

Finally, future students and researchers will read your paper through the Dissertation databases and be impressed with your final paper's careful attention to detail and complete literature review! 

Next time, we will take a look at some issues that arise in Chapter 5. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Searching

One question I am frequently asked "is how do I know that I have found all relevant articles in the library?" You really don't know- new literature is added every day. So searching should continue even after you have written the literature review.  

However, I can give you some additional suggestions. Check the keywords on relevant articles that you find – and use those for additional searches. Check the references on all relevant articles and look for ones that you may not be aware of yet. Look at those articles' references and keywords. Think of it as being a detective- you are searching for that elusive clue! 

Try searching without "full text" turned on – you may pull up articles that you have not seen before. You can request up to 20 articles (total at Walden) from the library's document delivery service – see the library home page for info on this.

 

Keep track in your research notebook (see April 22 post for info on this) all the searches you conduct, the database used, and the keywords used. You will need this info in c. 2; it also cuts down on the time for future searches. 

There are a number of special features in the Walden library that I want to mention, that can help your search. When you have found an abstract that appears relevant, look to the left of it and you will see a green box labeled: "Find Similar Results using SmartText Searching." It is worth checking this to see if it gives you any help. Another resource is to look right above the green box at "Times cited in this database." This shows you every article that cited the one you are looking at. Often they will be related in topic. 

Also a hint, if you find a reference you want to use – look at the right side of the screen and click "Cite." It will provide the full reference in APA format, this can be copied into your reference section. 

Finally, if you are having a great deal of difficulty finding literature, contact the librarian. They are able to come up with many ideas for keywords and search terms that you have probably not considered. 

Next time, we will take a look at who is impressed with your dissertation at Walden. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Walden Dissertation Trivia

 

Some Walden dissertation trivia, in honor of Friday the 13^th! 

There have been 4948 dissertations completed at Walden University, as listed in the dissertation database. The first one was in 1972 by William D. Isaacson, entitled: Jose Marti on American Life and Literature. 

A total of 644 psychology dissertations have been completed at Walden. The first was in 1983 by Paula Torly, entitled: Early Personality Formation as a Determinant of Mid-Life Crisis in Professional Women. 

Of the 644 psychology dissertations, 222 were in clinical psychology. A total of 496 of the psychology papers mentioned the word health, and 172 listed developmental psychology as a subject. Five mentioned the word animal in the title. 

A total of 112 psychology dissertations were completed this year so far. There were 204 in 2012, 159 in 2011, and 143 in 2010 

I am listed as the chair for 13 dissertations and committee member for 18, my first name is spelled 4 different ways in them! 

Next time, we will take a look at searching in the library. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

The Final Dissertation- from a Faculty View

In my inbox I have received all five chapters of the dissertation from a student, what am I looking for? First, I will carefully read the abstract; this is all that the CAO will see, so it has to be written as well and as complete as possible. I will make sure that the student mentions the theory used, details about participants, analysis, some results, and ends with social change. 

I will review c. 1-3 to make sure anything about the study is now in the past tense. I will carefully read c. 3 the methods and then read c.4, the results. First, I double-check the consistency between what they said they would do in c. 3 and what they actually did in c. 4. Any changes must be detailed and explained.  

Chapter 4 should review the methods actually used and any problems that arose. It should also fully explain the analyses, and the results. Chapter 5 should explain the results by linking them back to the literature and to theory. This is where the student should show that they understand what they found and that they understand the implications. They also should discuss what the next steps should be in research in this area and the social change implications. 

Of course, there should be no misspellings and the APA should be correct throughout.  

Next time, we will take a look at some Walden dissertation trivia in honor of Friday the 13th. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

The Proposal- from a Faculty View

As a faculty member when I receive a complete proposal, I am looking at a number of things. First, I look at the writing- is it clear and does it make sense? Is the grammar correct? Are there misspellings? It is always surprising how many students cannot pass this initial test. 

Second, I look at the APA formatting. Are citations used correctly? Are there citations for every fact? Are there no contractions nor are there colloquial comments (e.g., "kids")? Are references written correctly and are they from primary sources? 

Third, I look at the content. Does the student's logic make sense? Have they discussed all of their variables and made a strong case as to why their study is needed? By the end of c. 1, I should feel convinced that the student's study is needed and is an appropriate answer to that need. By the end of c 2, I should feel convinced that the student has a good understanding of the literature and the variables in his or her study. 

In c. 3, I am looking for a complete description of the study in enough detail that I could go out and do the study based on the description. I want to know who will be the participants, how they will be recruited, what will happen to them during the study, and what they will be told. I expect to see any surveys or interview questions that will be in the study given in the appendixes (and referred to in c. 3). Similarly, the consent form(s), demographic surveys, and permission agreements should all be in the appendixes. I will take a close look at the methodology and see if it is described correctly, given the population. I will also consider whether any ethical issues will arise when the student goes through the IRB. 

I should be able to print out the references and read through the paper crossing off each the reference when it is cited in the paper- and have no citations without references and vice versa. Citations with 3+ authors should be using et al. after the first citation. All references should be in correct APA format. 

Finally, I will take one more look at the study as a whole- is it consistent through the three chapters? Are all variables described and addressed in the study? Are the research questions consistent with the methodology? Does the theory make sense given the study as a whole? 

Next time, we will take a look at the final dissertation from the faculty view. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

The Prospectus – from a Faculty View

A prospectus shows up in my inbox, what do I look for? First, I read through the paper making general notes in track changes. Is the APA correct? Are there misspellings? Does the general topic make sense? Is the topic area original or has it been done before?  

Then I go through the paper again reading more carefully. Does the literature make sense? Is there a logical flow to how the rationale is described? The student should be making a case that his or her study is needed through citations of literature and previous research. By the time, I finish the Background section I should be nodding and thinking, yes, this study is needed.  

Another consideration is if the topic is one that student has either been trained in at Walden or demonstrated he or she has a previous background in the topic. Therefore, if you want to examine the deaf, you must show that you have outside experience in this area. Save yourself revisions by including a sentence or two documenting your experience. 

Do the theories discussed in the Framework section make sense with the topic? Has the student provided enough detail that I am convinced he or she understands the theories? Will the theories provide interesting areas to discuss when the student has results?

Do the research questions fit with the research methods? These two sections must fit together well. A common error here is to have a quantitative wording for a qualitative study; an example, Is there a correlation between X and Y? This is not a qualitative question. Will the student be able to answer the research questions given their methods? Sometimes I see students wanting to know about a variable, but do not indicate that they will be measuring/ asking about it. Alternatively, it may be a variable that it isn’t possible to realistically examine- for example, how people learn a language. I suppose you could watch a child for 24 hrs. a day for several years, and know what words he or she learns, but you still will not really know how he or she learned them.  

Save yourself revisions and go into detail with your research methods. How many participants are you thinking of having? How did you arrive at that number? How will you recruit them? What measures/ surveys will you use? It is ok to say that the specific instrument is to be determined- but at least have an idea of the variable. If you are doing a qualitative study, give a couple of example interview questions. Talk about where and how you will do the interviews. I will consider whether ethically, you will be allowed to do the study- for example, interviewing your own students or subordinates is not ethical. 

Briefly, discuss the analysis, what statistics or qualitative techniques will you use. The idea is to give the reader an awareness that you have thought about these topics.

Finally, I look at the references. Are they in APA format? Are they primary sources? The best prospectus has all of the elements I have discussed. Everything is consistent and pieces build upon each other. 

Next time, we will take a look at the proposal from a faculty viewpoint. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu