Blog Index- March

2014, Current to 3/28

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

 2013

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
Center for Research Quality	12/9
Overview of Process	4/19, 9/18, 12/13
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, 11/1
C. 2 (literature related)	4/26, 5/29, 6/3, 6/12, 6/17, 6/28, 9/16, 10/11, 11/4, 11/6, 11/9, 11/15
C. 3	5/1, 10/16, 10/28, 11/18, 11/20, 11/22, 11/25, 12/2, 12/4, 12/6, 12/11, 12/16, 12/18, 12/20, 12/23, 12/27
Defense	4/23, 5/8
IRB	5/10, 10/14
Data Collection	5/13, 5/15, 10/16
Quantitative	5/17, 7/24, 7/26, 7/29, 7/31, 8/2, 8/5, 10/4, 10/7, 11/20, 12/2, 12/4, 12/6, 12/18, 12/23, 12/27
Qualitative	5/20, 11/20, 11/22, 11/25, 12/11, 12/16
Mixed Methods	5/22, 11/18, 11/20, 11/22, 11/25, 12/11, 12/20, 12/23, 12/27
C. 4	5/17, 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, 11/8, 11/27
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, 11/27, 12/13, 12/25

 Next time we will begin an examination of the prospectus. 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 5- Implications and Conclusions

The final sections of Chapter 5 are your chance to wrap up your study for the reader and leave them with the most important points. In the Implications section, you should first examine the potential impact for positive social change at the appropriate level for your study (individual, family, organizational, and societal/policy). Be careful that implications for social change do not exceed the study boundaries. In other words, be realistic, your study won't change the world, but it may have an impact in some small area. 

Next, you should describe methodological, theoretical, and/or empirical implications, as appropriate. Consider what we have learned from your study in terms of new methodology. Have you added to a theory or made some aspect clearer? Have your data provided an insight into your population that wasn't known previously? Finally, are there recommendations that you can make for practice, for example, for clinicians or health care providers? 

The final section of your dissertation is the Conclusions. You need to provide a strong “take home” message that captures the key essence of the study. What do you want people to remember about your study? These are your final words on your study, make them memorable and clear! 

Next time I will post an updated blog index. 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 5- Limitations and Recommendations

The next two sections in Chapter 5 are Limitations and Recommendations. These sections ask you to take a step back and evaluate your study. Keep in mind that all studies have limitations; it is just part of the process. Describe the limitations to generalizability and/or trustworthiness that arose from execution of the study. Resist the temptation to simply copy from Chapter 1, carefully think about who participated in your study and what that means in terms of generalizability. An example might be if you did your study in a rural area, it may not be generalizable to urban areas. Again, this is fine – but you need to recognize it.  Your new limitations should be used to rethink what was written in chapter 1 for the proposal. 

The Recommendations section asks you to think through what the next research steps may be. Remember that science is based upon building upon others' research – this is your chance to influence the future! Describe recommendations for further research that are grounded in the strengths and limitations of the current study as well as the literature reviewed in chapter 2. Think about your research methods, what alterations do you suggest for future researchers? What aspects still need to be studied? Are there changes in theory that you think need to be made? Your study is now part of the literature in the field, what areas are left to explore? Think of this section as a time capsule that you are leaving for future researchers/ students, leave them with a good picture of what you see as needing additional study. 

Next time we finish our exploration of Chapter 5- Implications and Conclusions. 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 5- Interpretation of Findings

The section of Chapter 5, Interpretation of Findings is one of the most important ones in the entire paper. You should take your time and carefully consider this section. It is here that you put your study in the context of the greater literature- what have you added to the literature? What do we know now that we didn't know before? 

Begin this section with a description of the ways in which your findings confirm, disconfirm, or extend knowledge in the discipline. You will need to do this by comparing your findings with what has been found in the peer-reviewed literature described in Chapter 2. Yes, you will have to go back to Chapter 2 and see what other studies reported- describe how yours are the same or different. This is not something that can be done in a paragraph or even a page. Discuss each of your themes/ findings and determine how they fit in the literature. 

Next, you turn to your theories, analyze, and interpret your study's findings in the context of the theoretical and/or conceptual framework, as appropriate. This section needs to be in-depth, what did your theory predict? How do your findings relate to the predictions? Do we need to rethink the theory? How? What needs to be added? Just be very sure that your interpretations do not exceed the data, findings, and scope. You can always mention areas that still need to be studied. 

What do you do if your study did not work as expected? For example, you got non-significant results or your interviewees did not say what you expected them to. Discuss what was expected based upon the literature, and then speculate as to why your results may not have come out as expected. Did you have a small sample? Were your subjects from a different area/population than previous studies? Think about theoretical implications of your findings- what does it mean to the theory that things didn’t work out? Should we consider changes in the theory? Any advice for future researchers in this topic area? 

Next time we will examine Chapter 5- Limitations and Recommendations. 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 4 – Summary and Chapter 5- Introduction

As with the other chapters in your dissertation, Chapter 4 ends with a summary. This summary should be structured around your research questions. So list each question and summarize the answers you found in your study. You will then end with a transition to Chapter 5. 

Chapter 5 is the final chapter of your dissertation, while the end is in sight, the work is not yet done! The chapter begins with a summary of the purpose of your study and why it was conducted. Resist the temptation to simply copy from earlier sections! You now have a very different view of the study then you did before you started, so take some time to rethink why you did it this specific study and summarize it. Next, you will summarize the findings from Chapter 4, again it should not simply be copied- reword it. 

Take a moment and think through what your results mean in the context of the literature. What have you added that we didn’t know before? Even if your study didn’t work, we know things that we didn’t know before you did it- whatever you tried doesn't apparently work. Keep these thoughts in mind and next time we will go on to Interpretation of Findings. 

Next time we will examine Chapter 5- Interpretation of Findings. 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 4: Results - Qualitative and Mixed Methods

Today we will examine the results section of chapter 4 for qualitative and mixed methods. You have two options for organizing this section, either by research question or patterns or themes. The most common way that I have seen is through the research questions. 

For each research question / theme, present the data to support each finding, using participant quotes. It is a good idea to identify each person through a pseudonym, number or letter- so the reader can track each person's responses through the research questions/ themes. You may also want to include other important identifying variables, such as age and marital status (these will vary based upon your study). Thus, after each quote you would have something like: (Mary, age 87, widow). 

Next, you would discuss any discrepant cases or non-confirming data. Indicate how the data differ from the rest of the participants and any rationale as to why you think this is the case. 

Finally, you may wish to clarify your results with tables and figures, include those as specified in the APA manual. There is very specific formatting for these- so check it out in the manual. 

Next time we will complete Chapter 4 – Summary and move on to Chapter 5- Introduction. 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 4: Evidence of Trustworthiness: Qualitative and Mixed Methods

An important element of qualitative studies is trustworthiness. In this section of c. 4, you will describe how you went about implementing the strategies and plans that you laid out in c. 3. Let's review the commonly used methods. 

Credibility, which is comparable to internal validity. This is getting at the credibility of your data, common methods used are triangulation, prolonged contact, member checks, and saturation. You want to show that your data are as accurate as possible. 

Transferability, which is comparable to external validity. This is getting at the generabilizability of your data to other groups. Common methods used are thick description and a variation in participant selection. 

Dependability, comparable to reliability. You want to show the accuracy of your data methods, common methods are audit trails and triangulation. Triangulation is accomplished by asking the same research questions of different study participants and by collecting data from different sources and by using different methods to answer those research questions. Member checks occur when the researcher asks participants to review both the data collected by the interviewer and the researchers' interpretation of that interview data. Participants are generally appreciative of the member check process, and knowing that they will have a chance to verify their statements tends to cause study participants to fill in any gaps from earlier interviews.  

Confirmability, comparable to objectivity. This is the degree to which the findings are the product of the focus of the study and not of the biases of the researcher One way to do this is through an audit trail. An adequate trail (or records) should be left to enable the auditor to determine if the conclusions, interpretations, and recommendations can be traced to their sources and if they are supported by the inquiry. 

Next time we will continue our review - Chapter 4: Results - Qualitative and Mixed Methods. 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 4: Data Analyses: Qualitative and Mixed Methods

Today we will examine the section of c.4 in qualitative studies and mixed methods: Data Analyses. This section asks that you clearly describe how you went about analyzing your qualitative data. To begin, you will outline the overall process that you used to move inductively from coded units to larger representations including categories and themes. If you followed a specific methodologist's methods (e.g., Creswell) cite him or her.  

Next, you move into the specifics of your data by describing the specific codes, categories, and themes that emerged from the data using quotations as needed to emphasize their importance. Keep in mind that you are walking the reader through the process of your data analysis, so share specifics- how did you make decisions as to what were themes?  

Finally, in most studies you will have a person or two who discussed experiences or ideas that were outside the normal experience of the others in your sample, these are called discrepant cases. Describe how these discrepant cases differed from the rest of the sample and how they were factored into the analysis. You should also consider whether there are obvious reasons for their differences, are these individuals older, younger, or in some other way different from others in the sample? 

Next time we will talk about Chapter 4: Trustworthines. 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

c.4: Data Analyses: Quantitative

Today we will take a look at the results section for quantitative studies. Start out by reporting descriptive statistics "that appropriately characterize the sample." What does this mean? Look at frequencies for your demographics, such as gender, marital status, etc. For continuous variables (not in categories) you will need to compute the means and standard deviations or standard errors (check with your committee as to which they prefer). An example of such a variable is age, the convention is to give these stats like this (M = 43 yr., SD = 5.2). You will also discuss any total scores or subscores that you may have calculated and their distribution. 

The next step is to discuss and evaluate statistical assumptions as appropriate to the study. All statistical tests have specific assumptions that must be considered (see Pallant, 2013, for an in-depth discussion of them).  Let's take as an example, the assumptions for parametric tests (e.g., t-tests, analysis of variance): using an interval or ratio scale of measurement, random sampling, independence of observations (no measurement is influenced by another), a normal distribution, and homogeneity of variance (samples have similar variances). There are techniques to check these assumptions, and you would discuss in this section which ones you used and the results. 

Next, you report your findings, organized by research questions and/or hypotheses. Include the exact statistics and associated probability values (some examples: t(32)=3.1, p < .01; r(N=45)= .16, p > .05). A reminder- if the probability is < .05 (less than), it is considered significant; if it is > than.05 (greater than) it is not significant. You should include confidence intervals around the statistics, as appropriate (check with your committee). Include effect sizes, as appropriate (e.g., R²,^; check with your committee as to what they prefer).  

If you had multiple conditions, you may need to do post-hoc tests. Report the type and results of post-hoc analyses.  You may have additional statistical tests of hypotheses that emerged from the analysis of main hypotheses and you will need to report those.

Finally, you may wish to clarify your results with tables and figures, include those as specified in the APA manual. There is very specific formatting for these- so check it out in the manual.  

Next time we will talk about c.4: Data Analyses: Qualitative. 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  

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

c.4: Demographics and Data Collection

The mixed methods and qualitative checklists have sections called Demographics, in which you should discuss the relevant demographic characteristics of your participants. Typical items include gender, race, and age, as well as any characteristics specific to your study. For example, if you interviewed homeless teen mothers, it would be important to know how long they have been on their own and the age of their children. 

For all methods, the next section is Data Collection. You need to describe when the study was done (for example, months and year). Describe how you recruited your participants, and how many participated in all phases of the study. If you had to change any of your data collection procedures from what was listed in c. 3, indicate how and why it was changed (and that you went through IRB to do so). 

For Qualitative and Mixed Methods Studies. Describe the location of your study, how often you met with participants and the length of time both for individual interviews/surveys and for the total study. Next, describe how you recorded your interviews and how they were transcribed. If you encountered any unusual circumstances during your data collection describe it and how it affected your data collection (e.g., equipment failure, a participant died between interviews, etc.). 

For Quantitative Studies. Describe your demographics as discussed above. Describe how representative your sample is to the population of interest or how proportional it is to the larger population if non-probability sampling is used (external validity). Provide results of basic univariate analyses that justify inclusion of covariates in your model, if applicable.    

For this section, keep in mind that your reader should have a good picture of how you did your study, and would be able to replicate it based upon your description. 

Next time we will talk about c.4: Data Analyses: Quantitative. 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

IRB help!

IRB Office Hours now offered 12-1pm central and 8-9pm central (I will be leading this one) on Wednesdays. 

In a group advising format, a faculty IRB member will help students brainstorm to solutions to ethical challenges in doctoral research, including: 

-setting up partnerships with sites

-recruiting participants

-different ways to obtain and document consent

-minimizing risks for participants

-maintaining data privacy

-managing dual roles and possible conflicts of interest

-sharing results with stakeholders 

Bring your questions. Explore solutions. Learn from other students’ questions and ideas. Pave the way to a smoother IRB review.  

To join in real time (during office hours posted on the IRB website), click https://crq.adobeconnect.com/irbofficehours/ 

Please check IRB website for posted IRB Office Hours, as they may change from term to term. 

To join using a smartphone, be sure to download the free Adobe Connect Mobile app. 

Next time we will talk about c.4: Demographics and data collection. 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