Blog Index- October

 

Current to 10/31

 

Topic	Dates of Posts
Dissertation, general	7/5, 8/16, 8/19, 9/27, 10/2
Selecting a Topic	4/23, 7/8, 7/10
Organization	4/22, 10/2
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
Research questions	10/9
C. 1	5/6, 10/21, 10/23, 10/25, 10/28
C. 2 (literature related)	4/26, 5/29, 6/3, 6/12, 6/17, 6/28, 9/16, 10/11
C. 3	5/1, 10/16, 10/28
Defense	4/23, 5/8
IRB	5/10, 10/14
Data Collection	5/13, 5/15, 10/16
Quantitative Analysis	5/17, 7/24, 7/26, 7/29, 7/31, 8/2, 8/5, 10/4, 10/7
Qualitative Analysis	5/20
Mixed Methods	5/22
C. 4	517, 5/20, 5/22, 7/17
C. 5	5/24, 9/20, 10/11
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, 10/18
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, 10/18

 Next time we will look at chapter summaries. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Chapter 1: Nature of the Study

A section that students are often asked to revise is the one on the nature of the study. This section can be thought of as an overview of your project. It begins with a rationale for selecting the design or tradition that you will use; questions to ask yourself are: why is this the best method to use to answer my research question? Why are other methods not appropriate? 

You will then need to summarize your research methods. Go into some detail here, how will you recruit your participants? How many people will participate? In general, what will happen to them in your study? How will you analyze the data that you collect? 

Students have typically not written chapter 3 at this point, so it can be a difficult section to write. I suggest thinking of this section as a placeholder- put in what you think you will do and plan to revise after you have written chapter 3. This section should force you to begin thinking through your study, remember chapter 3 should be in enough detail that someone could replicate your study based on the description. Therefore, this is a good place to begin considering the details. You should try to imagine how each step will work: How will you recruit? Will you use a flyer or ad? What it will say and look like? Where will it be posted? What will people who wish to participate do, in order to be included in the study? What happens then? How will you get their consent to participate? Every detail will need to considered and addressed in chapter 3, so begin now to work through them. 

Next time I will post an updated index to the blog. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Chapter 1: Definitions

Part of Chapter 1 is a section on definitions, you would think this would be simple wouldn't you? However, even this section has some rules you need to know. First, every definition needs a citation. Do not use Wikipedia for your source. Second, you should not use the word that you are defining in its definition (e.g., "Older adult: an older adult is…"). Third, your definitions need to be in alphabetical order. 

Which words should you define? Any words or terms that are jargon and may not be known to the average reader (use the grandmother test - would she know this word?). Do not include statistical tests or theories here. This section is where you would define terms related to your population that may have multiple meanings ("older adult," "young adult," "baby boomer"). Terms you are using in a specific way should be listed here ("online education," "synchronous learning," "homelessness," domestic violence," "faculty mentor"). 

Do not define acronyms here- that should be done in the text, the first time it is used. An example: "The lexical decision task (LDT)…" Per APA 4.21, remember to italicize key terms on first usage, often this will occur in the definition section. 

Next time we will look at the nature of the study section in your paper. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Theoretical Foundation vs. Conceptual Framework

From Dawn: I have a question regarding the difference between theoretical orientation and conceptual framework. I know for qualitative research, generally speaking the framework is used. However, my chair thinks it is a good idea to use both. I am all for it, but try as I might, I am having difficulty wrapping my head around the two enough to articulate them.  Can you make clear the distinction between the two if you have not already done so in a previous blog? Please and thank you :-) 

Great question, Dawn! I had to do some research on this. A theory is usually found in the scholarly literature and has been formalized and tested by other researchers, it should explain relationships between variables. Theories are often multilayered and complex. A conceptual framework is a less developed form of a theory and consists of statements that link abstract concepts , in psychology it is often described by the term "model." Here is a great example I ran across in Wu, Viswanathan, and Ivy (2012). 

This is a way to lay out your variables and how you think they interact, as opposed to a theory, which is more refined and has aspects that have often been previously tested. 

If you would like more info on conceptual frameworks, take a look at Ravitch and Riggen's (2012) book Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. 

Next time we will look at definitions in your paper. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

Wu, J. M., Viswanathan, M., & Ivy, J. S. (2012). A conceptual framework for future research on mode of delivery. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(7), 1447-1454. doi:10.1007/s10995-011-0910-x

Chapter 1 Considerations: Intro

I have been spending a lot of time with students recently working on Chapter 1, so I thought it might be worth discussing it some. I think it helps to think of this first chapter of your proposal as an introduction to your study. It is not a continuation of your abstract- so you need to repeat info given in the abstract.  

The introduction to chapter 1 is one of the most important parts of your entire paper. This is where you grab your reader's attention and provide a map of where you are going. You need to explain very concisely the need for your study (the gap you are addressing). This is where you might want to include a few statistics showing the size and concern of the problem. Give enough background literature to put the study into context, and explain briefly what method you will use. By the end of the introduction, your reader should understand  what the gap is, how you will do it, and why your study is needed to fill the gap that you have mentioned.  

It is a difficult section to write, because it all needs to be around two pages. The language needs to be clear, without jargon, and to the point. Don't write in "academic" language; at least initially, write to your grandmother, explaining it in normal language. If you must use any terms that might not be known to your grandmother, define them. Avoid using acronyms if you can, I hate having to have a cheat sheet to translate a lot of abbreviations.  

Have some friends or family members read the section and ask them questions about it. Why am I doing the study? How am I doing it? Do you get the feeling that my study is needed? 

Next time we will look at theoretical foundation vs. conceptual framework in your paper. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Criticism

How do you deal with criticism? A few common examples are: being told that your writing needs help, that you have to do yet another revision, or that you are not going to be done this quarter, because the paper needs more work. There are a number of possible responses to such news. You can deny that there is a problem; you can argue with the critic; or you can pout and refuse to respond to them.  

A better solution is to take control and ask yourself what I can do to fix this? If writing help is suggested, listen to the comments and talk to the writing center. Form a plan of action. It may help to talk on the phone to the faculty member and talk through the issues that he or she is seeing in your paper (note, if it is the URR have a conference call that includes your chair).  

Criticism is always difficult, no one likes to be told bad news, and faculty do not like to give such news. However, both parties must keep the end goal in sight – to get you done. Think of it as doing whatever it takes. If it means working with an editor or rewriting that chapter one more time, do it. You do not need to feel embarrassed, it is not a failing of yours; it is simply one more step that must be taken on this long journey.  

Remember that you go into the dissertation process with an academic idea of what to do in order to complete a research project. The final dissertation is an applied proof of your research ability. Of course, you will not be great at everything -that is why you have faculty available to consult with you. It is why only experienced researchers are faculty mentors- this is a difficult process and everyone has problems along the way.  

Be tough, listen to the criticism and move on. Learn what you need to learn, after all someday you may also be a research mentor. You will need to be able to explain it!

Next time we will look at the introduction to your paper. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

To Pilot or Not to Pilot?

 

A question that you will need to consider when you are designing your study is whether to pilot the study on some test subjects. My recommendation is yes! Do it! I always pilot test my studies, and the reasoning is simple, I want to know that everything works in the way I have visualized, I want to check how long it takes, and I want to make sure everything is clear to the subject. Be aware that you must have IRB approval before conducting any pilot tests. 

Whom should you ask to be pilot subjects? There are a number of schools of thought on this. If there are concerns about the suitability of your questions, you may want to consider selecting people who are familiar with your topic but not necessarily eligible for your study. Let's use an example of a study on women who are currently in domestic violence relationships, I would recommend searching for women who were formerly in such relationships. They would be familiar with the topic but you are not using possible participants. You can them make any needed changes (and submit the changes to IRB through the Change in Procedure form), before you test real participants.

I would also recommend using the above procedure if you are using a technique with which you are unfamiliar. So if you have never conducted a qualitative interview (even if you have done other types of interviews), take the time to do some practice ones. You can get over your nervousness, learn how to pace yourself, and learn the value of being silent and waiting for the participant to think about their response. Plan to always debrief your pilot subjects by speaking to them about your study when you are done with their testing/ interview. Ask them how long it took to complete any surveys and how they felt about it (e.g., bored, annoyed, interested). Ask if any questions were vague or any words unclear. Also, ask if there were things they wished you had asked them (this is always a good last question for any interview). 

A second option is to have friends or family members be test subjects. This is best used for general surveys, when anyone is eligible to be in a study. It is not advisable to have someone pretend to fit a specific subgroup (e.g., domestic violence victims). You can use family or friends for trying out the technique, but I do not recommend this for any official pilot interviews; family and friends will not respond in the same way as people you do not know, so you really will not get the experience that you need. 

A third piloting option (if you have experience in the technique) is to consider having your first few "real" subjects be potential pilot subjects. Again, interview them after they are done and ask about the issues listed above. If no changes are needed, then you can count them as "real" subjects. However, if you need to make any changes in the materials, questions, or your techniques they may not be included in your official sample. 

Treat pilot testing seriously, record your interactions with the subject, go back and listen to the recording. Everyone hates to hear their own voice, but it is particularly important with any interviews that you make sure you are giving people sufficient time to answer. The tendency is for the new researcher to be worrying about asking the questions, the trick is to learn to worry about their response. Did they actually answer your question? Did you cut off their answer? 

Next time we will look at criticism. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

External IRBs*

I am sure that you are aware that you must submit an application to Walden's Institutional Review Board (IRB; see 5/10 post) for your study. Depending upon your study design, you may need to get permission from other IRBs or organizational gatekeepers. If you are working with another institution, for example a college, prison, military, or hospital you may need to work through their IRB.  

If your design includes another institution, begin your discussions early and find out their requirements. Often they will want you to secure Walden's ok before they review it. However, any guidelines will be helpful to you in understanding the procedures you must follow.  

If you are considering working with children, elderly, ill patients, prison, or military populations be aware that these are considered protected populations and special care must be taken. Prisons and the military are often very difficult to conduct research in, so be prepared for a long battle to secure approvals. A similar dilemma is faced for accessing Native Americans living on reservations through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Plan ahead for paperwork and dealing with bureaucracies. 

A few tips for approaching such entities, always be professional. It may become very frustrating but keep your cool; they are protecting their populations. There may be a ridiculous amount of redundant paperwork, but carefully fill each out and submit by the time indicated. This is not a time to show your independence! Keep a record of whom you talk to, the date of the conversation, and what was discussed. Keep all emails, in case they are needed later. One of the hallmarks of bureaucracies is being shuffled from person to person, so protect yourself with good records. 

*My thanks to Susan, for suggesting this topic Next time we will look at pilot testing. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

Theory

Bo asks: I am a bit unclear about the development of a theory for a dissertation. Is it required, or is the development of hypothesis(es) adequate? Also, when developing a theory, when should the theory be introduced—in the prospects, before the research, or after the research has been completed and analyzed? And finally, can a good theory in the social sciences still be probability based? For example, theories starting with "People will generally..." or "it is more likely that..."?  One more while I am on a roll :) For the purposes of a dissertation, does every aspect of a proposed theory have to be tested by past research or research in the dissertation? For example, can a dissertation theory make a prediction that might be suggested by research but has not been tested? 

Lots of questions, Bo! First, you are not required to develop your own theory in a dissertation, and I would strongly discourage a student from doing so. Developing a theory is difficult and requires validation with multiple studies. Instead, consider modifying an existing theory AFTER you have analyzed the data. So you could say something like " Theory X predicted A and B should have occurred in the present study. However, A and C occurred, perhaps theory X needs to be modified to allow for such outcomes."

A good theory should lead to predictions and be testable. This is the problem that we see with some of the older theories - they cannot directly be tested (an example is Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs). So, I am not sure how to answer your probability question, most theories could be considered probability ones in that they wouldn't be correct 100% of the time. 

The purpose of including theories in the dissertation is to see what they predict and how your results fit those predictions. Think of it as validity testing, if your results were totally different than the predictions, than we would question the validity of your study. And absolutely a dissertation can test aspects of a theory that have not been previously researched.

Bo, if you don't feel that I have really answered your questions, please let me know and I will try it again. J 

Next time we will look at external IRBs. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu

Research questions*

What are research questions? These are general questions about the topic in which you are interested and they should include your variables of interest. They are not interview questions and they are not hypotheses. The Writing Center (2011; slide 10) states that the "research question(s) form the foundation of the dissertation. Everything done in dissertation should relate to the research question(s). Research questions will generate hypotheses in quantitative studies, provide framework for methodology in qualitative studies." They then give some examples:

The research question should not be

Too narrow (“What is the mean number of …”)

Too broad (“What is the effect of discipline on children?”)

A question that is not researchable (“Is helping behavior selfishly or unselfishly motivated?”)

A yes-no question (Does parental divorce cause depression in children?) 

While this gives us an idea of what a research question is, it doesn’t help us form them. One way to develop research questions is to read the literature in your area of interest, and then to brainstorm (in your research journal) ideas about your topic and how variables might interact. Let's use an example of older adults (people over 65). I am interested in their satisfaction with their physicians. What might be factors that would affect the interaction? Perhaps length of time with the physician, maybe the physician's expression of empathy, and perhaps the age and gender of the physician could be factors. So let's write up some possible research questions about these:

             How does the amount of time spent with the physician affect patient satisfaction?

             How does physician empathy affect patient satisfaction?

             How does the physician's age and gender influence patient satisfaction? 

Some things to notice about these questions, they are not hypotheses (an hypothesis might be: as time with physician increases, patient satisfaction increases): they do not predict how we hypothesize the results will come out. They lead to some issues related to my research method- I will need a way to determine patient satisfaction and physician empathy.  

Rudestam and Newton (2007) provide three questions to determine if your research questions are appropriate (p. 20). 

1) Is the question clear and researchable, and will the answer to the question extend knowledge in your field of study?

2) Have you located your question within a context of previous study that demonstrates that you have mastered and taken into consideration the relevant background literature?

3) Is the proposed method suitable for exploring your question? 

*My thanks to Jamie, for suggesting this topic. Next time we will look at theory. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

Rudestram, J. E. & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process, 3^rd edition. Sage. 

Walden Writing Center (2011). Powerpoint: An Introduction to Writing the Methodology Chapters. Available on writing center website.

 

Regression, Part 2

Last time we ran a regression analysis, this time we will look at the output and interpretation. Your results should look like the following:

Descriptive Statistics
				Mean		Std. Deviation			N
perceived stress				69.60		17.063			10
Time to complete exam				43.20		12.925			10
exam grade				82.10		12.879			10
Model Summaryb Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .884a .781 .718 9.056 a. Predictors: (Constant), exam grade, Time to complete exam b. Dependent Variable: perceived stress   Correlations   perceived stress Time to complete exam exam grade Pearson Correlation perceived stress 1.000 -.868 -.874 Time to complete exam -.868 1.000 .943 exam grade -.874 .943 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) perceived stress . .001 .000 Time to complete exam .001 . .000 exam grade .000 .000 . N perceived stress 10 10 10 Time to complete exam 10 10 10 exam grade 10 10 10   ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2046.264 2 1023.132 12.474 .005b Residual 574.136 7 82.019     Total 2620.400 9       a. Dependent Variable: perceived stress b. Predictors: (Constant), exam grade, Time to complete exam   Coefficientsa
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients			Standardized Coefficients		t	Sig.		95.0% Confidence Interval for B			Correlations			Collinearity Statistics
		B	Std. Error		Beta					Lower Bound	Upper Bound		Zero-order	Partial	Part	Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	146.784	31.053				4.727	.002		73.354	220.214
	Time to complete exam	-.518	.702		-.393		-.739	.484		-2.177	1.141		-.868	-.269	-.131	.111	9.025
	exam grade	-.667	.704		-.504		-.948	.375		-2.332	.998		-.874	-.337	-.168	.111	9.025
a. Dependent Variable: perceived stress

There are many aspects that can be checked, based on the analyses we have run; however, I do not have the space to review them all. Please see Pallant (2013) for an in-depth discussion of them. 

Let's evaluate our model. Look in the Model Summary box and check the value under the heading R Square. This tells you how much of the variance in the DV (stress) is explained by the model (which includes the IVs exam time and grades). In this case, the value is .781 (see yellow highlight), so we can say that the model explains 78.1% of the variance in perceived stress. We had a very small sample, however, so it is best to use the adjusted R square .718 or 71.8%, which is a better estimate. To assess the statistical significance of the result, we need to look at the table labeled ANOVA. This tests the null hypothesis that multiple R in the population equals 0. In our example, the model reaches statistical significance of .005 (see blue text).  

Next, take a look at the table of Coefficients and the column labeled Beta. Ignoring any negative signs we can see that exam grade made the largest contribution (.504) to explaining the DV, when the variance explained by all other variables are controlled. The Beta value for exam time was slightly lower (.393) indicating it made less of a contribution (see red text) 

The results of the analyses allow us to the answer the two questions we posed at the beginning. The model, which includes the time to complete the exam and grade, explains 71.8% of the variance in perceived stress. Of these two variables, exam grade makes the largest contribution (beta = -.504), although exam time also made a statistically significant contribution (beta = -.393).

Next time we will look at the formation of research questions. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@waldenu.edu 

Pallant, J. (2013). The SPSS Survival Manual, 5^th edition. Open University Press.