TUI- CBA

ACADEMIC EXPECTATIONS FOR DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

Title Page

Excellent / Poor
Clearly identifies main constructs / Lacks coherent identification of the constructs
Committee members listed / Committee is not listed

Abstract

Excellent / Poor
Concise, brief, rational statement of what will be done in the study (150-200 words) / Lacks rational flow, and description of the study
Too long or too short

Introduction

Excellent / Poor
Presents the context and the knowledge gap, the study purpose, what will be done in the study and how it will fill the knowledge gap. / Does not present the purpose, the context, does not identify the knowledge gap and does not refer to what will be done in the study.
Brief, clear and specific to the topic. / Not clear, too broad, not specific to the topic, scattered, incoherent, too many disciplines.
Study feasible / Not feasible for a dissertation project

Problem Statement

Excellent / Poor
Novel and significant study.
Problem clearly identified; knowledge gap, study significance and novelty clearly addressed / When you read it your question is “so what”
Study purpose and aims stem clearly from the problem statement and knowledge gap. / The link with the problem statement and the knowledge gap is unclear
Clearly presented, focused and specific / Scattered, incoherent; Argument for the study does not flow logically.
Theory-based / Scientific need for the research and generalizability are not apparent.

Research Question(s)

Excellent / Poor
Question(s) clear, articulated and specific corresponding exactly to the study purpose / Not clear, too broad, inconsistent with the study purpose and aims
Thought provoking; provide original insights to the issues / Not original.
Promise of contribution to discipline, and or communities is clear and compelling / Expected contribution is not clear
Clearly addressing the knowledge gap / Unclear how it addresses the knowledge gap
Comprehensive in scope. Includes main and sub questions / Insufficient Scope (too narrow, doesn’t span the range relevant to the topic)
Refers to the main constructs and their relationships (relationships to be investigated in the study) / Main constructs and relationships to be investigated are unclear

Literature Review

Excellent / Poor
There is a relevant synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature / Insufficient relevancy and empirical literature
Critical understanding of literature is evident in style, organization and content / Insufficient or missing literature sections. Lists of annotations or sources without critical commentary or running arguments.
Irrelevant information.
Mastery of appropriate canon is evident. Sources cited are rich and diverse.
Recent publications. / Exclusive reliance on a restricted set of articles and/or of secondary sources. Not enough peer reviewed journals, dissertations or book studies cited. Old articles (more than 10 years old).
Clearly Identifies and discusses the knowledge gap / There is no clear identification or discussion of the knowledge gap
Comprehensive in scope. / Insufficient scope (too narrow, doesn’t span the range relevant to the topic)
Key issues are included. Addresses all the components of the research question/s (main constructs and their associations) / Key issues are not included. Not all constructs present in the research question/s are addressed.
Multiple citations from diverse literature are woven together cogently. / Insufficient literature review, no logical flow of the arguments.
Reframes existing controversies or issues in the literature in novel terms. / Superficial, light engagement with literature. Talks about rather than with cited sources.

Theoretical Orientation and Conceptual Framework

Excellent / Poor
The theory, theories, theoretical models, or mechanisms have been identified and are relevant to the research questions and associations under study. / No theory, theoretical models or mechanisms have been identified to explain the hypothesized associations.
If theories are identified, they do not suit the research questions and hypotheses.
The concepts and the relationships among the constructs/variables are presented clearly and logically / The framework is not presented or, if presented, it does not provide a reasonable theoretical support for the proposed research.
The D.V’s and I.V’s are clearly assigned in the conceptual framework and there is a clarity of directionality / IVs and DVs not included. No assigned relationship between IV and DV
There is a clear graphical presentation / No graphical presentation

Hypotheses

Excellent / Poor
The hypotheses correspond to the research questions / Hypotheses not identified or, if identified, not corresponding to the research questions
The hypotheses are relevant and flow logically from the theory used / No relevant hypotheses. Not related to the study theoretical framework.
The hypotheses are accurately stated / Unclear presentation of hypotheses.
The hypotheses are testable based on operationalized variables / Variables are not identified and hypotheses are not testable

Methodology

Excellent / Poor
Research Design (subheading)
The design is accurately identified and described / No clear design
The design is appropriate and it will answer the study's hypotheses / Inappropriate, unfeasible, or unrelated to the hypotheses
Includes sufficient protection for Human Subjects / Obvious or potential problems with treatment of human subjects (likely not pass IRB)
Study Population (subheading)
Populations have been identified and described, i.e. who, where, accessibility / Population not identified, not well described, or unavailable. Access to participants or specific data unclear.
Recruiting and sampling procedure have been identified / Unclear recruitment or sampling procedure
Power analysis, effect size have been calculated, are sufficient and correctly presented / No power calculation, no clear identification of number of participants, number of participants not enough.
Data Collection Tools (subheading)
Measurement instrument, etc are valid, reliable, and correctly presented / Measurement instrument has no validity or reliability presented.
Plan for data collection and analysis is appropriate / Omitted, unrealistic, incomplete
Measures exist for all variables / Unclear how some variables are measured
Variables - Independent and Dependent Variables (subheading)
Operationalized variables are identified and discussed / No discussion of the variables
Each variable described based on type (nominal, continuous etc.) and role in the analysis (IV/DV) / Variable type and whether they are IV or DV not specified
Statistical Analysis (subheading)
There is a correspondence between the research questions-measures-variables-analysis / No presentation of the relationship between variables, levels of measurements and statistical analysis
Multivariate statistics is required and description is specific to the type of DV and IV / No multivariate analysis exists
The study is feasible (cost, time, resources, approvals, etc.) / Nothing is presented that indicates feasibility

LIMITATIONS, DELIMITATIONS, SIGNIFICANCE

Excellent / Poor
Limitations/delimitations are detailed / No or inadequate engagement with limits of what can actually be discovered via proposed study.
Potential biases are detailed / No discussion of potential biases
Potentially confounding factors are described, and methods to address impact are discussed / No confounding variables are discussed
Methods for missing data are detailed / No details of dealing with missing data
How the study will advance the field is discussed / Insufficient

Organization and Form

Excellent / Poor
Sophisticated, well crafted and well linked sentences / Sentences are ungrammatical or limited in complexity and variety.
The document is cogently constructed. Sections adhere as a whole to tell a compelling story. / Document is disjointed, incomplete or incoherent. Required sections are missing or inadequately developed.
Adheres to TUI expectations re: obligatory sections, format and appropriate style (APA). / Does not adhere to the program requirement or expectations regarding format and style.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Excellent / Poor
Confidentiality/privacy discussed / Not Discussed
Time table of research activities / Unreasonable/ study was done already
References / Old references, or incomplete list