Developing Quality Dissertations in the Social Sciences

8/21/2019 Developing Quality Dissertations in the Social Sciences

1/49


2/49

COPYRIGHT 2009 BYSTYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC

Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC22883 Quicksilver DriveSterling, Virginia 20166-2102

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by anyelectronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying,recording and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Lovitts, Barbara E., 1960Developing quality dissertations in the social sciences : a graduate students guide to achieving excellence /

Barbara E. Lovitts and Ellen L. Wert. 1st ed.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-57922-261-1 (pbk.)1. Dissertations, AcademicHandbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Social sciencesStudy and teaching

(Graduate)Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Wert, Ellen L., 1953 II. Title.LB2369.L685 2009808'.0663dc22

2008031382

13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-261-1 (paper)

Printed in the United States of AmericaAll first editions printed on acid free paper that meets the American National Standards InstituteZ39-48 Standard.

First Edition, 2009 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Acknowledgments

Credit for the idea of translating the book version of this work into a handbook for graduate stu-dents and faculty goes to Louis Sherman, Purdue University, one of the members of my advisorycommittee. Ted Greenwood, of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, provided moral and financialsupport for the project and wholeheartedly endorsed creating not one generic handbook but

three, one each for the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. My publisher and editor, Johnvon Knorring, Stylus Publishing, ably orchestrated all the people and pieces in what turned outto be a longer than anticipated process. Many, many thanks go to Ellen Wert, my co-author, andthe consultants who worked with her, Chris Golde, of Stanford University and a member of myadvisory committee; Mary Huba, Iowa State University; and Dannelle Stevens, Portland StateUniversity. Last but not least is Karen Klomparens, of Michigan State University and an advisorycommittee member, who contributed intellectually to this project and provided an institutionalhome for the funds that supported it.


3/49

Developing

QualityDissertations

in the Social SciencesA Graduate Students Guide

to Achieving Excellence

Barbara E. Lovitts

andEllen L. Wert

S T E R L I N G , V I R G I N I A


4/49

ii

Contents

List of Tables iii

PrefaceTo the Faculty iv

To the Student vii

1 Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation 1

2 Understanding Originalityand Significance 000

3 Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation 000

4 Maintaining Consistent Quality Within the Dissertation 000

5 Achieving Excellence 000

Appendix A: Tasks of the Social Sciences Dissertation 000

Appendix B: Advice for Writing a Social Sciences Dissertation 000

Making the Implicit Explicit: About the Study 000


5/49

iii

Tables

Table 1.1. The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions from Faculty in the Social Sciences 000

Table 1.2. The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions from Faculty in Economics,Psychology, and Sociology 000

Table 2.1. Original Contribution: Characterizations from Faculty in Economics,

Psychology, and Sociology 000

Table 2.2. Significant Contribution: Characterizations from Faculty in Economics,Psychology, and Sociology 000

Table 3.1. The Economics Dissertation at Different Quality Levels 000

Table 3.2. The Psychology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels 000

Table 3.3. The Sociology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels 000

Table 4.1. The Tasks of a Dissertation in the Social Sciences 000

Table 4.2. Introduction in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels 000

Table 4.3. Literature Review in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels 000

Table 4.4. Theory in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels 000

Table 4.5. Method in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels 000

Table 4.6. Results or Data Analysis in the Social Science Dissertation at DifferentQuality Levels 000

Table 4.7. Discussion and Conclusion in the Social Science Dissertation at DifferentQuality Levels 000

Table A.1. Tasks of the Economics Dissertation by Quality Level 000

Table A.2. Tasks of the Psychology Dissertation by Quality Level 000

Table A.3. Tasks of the Sociology Dissertation by Quality Level 000

Table B. Writing the Social Science Dissertation 000


6/49

iv

To the Faculty

LO OK ING BA CK on your own dissertation, youprobably now see it as a major exercise that demon-strated your expertise at the moment when you

were ready to make the transition from being a studentto being a professional.

Most of your faculty colleagues would say the samething, as I discovered through a study of graduate fac-ulty across 10 disciplines. Again and again, the facultydescribed the dissertation as both an opportunity todevelop and sharpen skills and knowledge and evi-dence of a students readiness to work independentlyat a professional level.1

This understanding of the dissertation, it seems,comes with some distance from the process. However,while students are anticipating or engaged in the

process, the dissertation is a bit of a mystery and asource of great anxiety. Many students spend a greatdeal of time (perhaps too much time) wrestling withprocess questions such as how to identify a topic andhow to organize time and material. They try to makesense of a vague demand that the dissertation be orig-inal and significant. Important questions about ex-pectations of qualityWhat does it mean to make anoriginal or significant contribution? What constitutesan outstanding or very good dissertation?often gounasked because it is assumed, by both faculty andstudents alike, that students should simply know.

Of course, they do not know. That they do not isevident from the varying levels of quality, both fromstudent to student in a department and within indi-vidual dissertations. Some faculty spend a great deal oftime coaching and guiding students through theprocess and do so for a longer period of time thanshould be necessary. Further, the dissertation is thepoint of attrition for nearly half of aspiring PhDs whomake it this far. Yet it is the rare department that ex-

plicitly and publicly states its expectations about thiscapstone project.

Shared Expectations

When I asked experienced dissertation advisors to de-scribe their expectations for originality, significance,and quality in their students dissertations, the re-sponses I heard were clear and consistent both withinand across the disciplines and fields. The faculty of-fered similar views on the purpose of the dissertationand what it means to make an original and a signifi-cant contribution. They also expressed similar viewson what constitutes outstanding, very good, accept-

able, or unacceptable work.It seems, then, that students spend a great deal of

valuable time and energy trying to guess somethingthat the faculty implicitly agree upon but have not ar-ticulated in any formal way, either to the students oreach other.

Why Explain the Dissertation?

Although the dissertation represents the transitionfrom student to professional and should display the

capacity for self-directed work, students need and de-serve the benefit of guidance about the process andclear expectations about quality. The department orprogram has a responsibility to communicate clearlyboth its standards of quality and those of the disci-pline. The faculty advising dissertations have a partic-ular responsibility to explain the process, work withstudents to set firm but realistic deadlines, and providetimely, constructive feedback at every step.


7/49

There are ethical, professional, and practical rea-sons for making expectations about the dissertationexplicit, the process of review transparent, and theproduction efficient: It is only right and fair to give

students guidance about standards and expectationsand then allow them to make choices about how touse it. Members of the profession who prepare doc-toral students should communicate the norms andskills of the field to those who seek to enter it.2 Theprocess of dissertation advising will move morequickly and efficiently if students know what is ex-pected of them.

Some faculty members may argue that this call forgreater clarity and transparency is a plea for hand-holding or coddling. Actually, I am suggesting some-thing quite the opposite. If advisors provide guidelines

about standards and expectations from the start, stu-dents responsibilities for meeting them become im-mediately apparent. Students will also havebenchmarks against which they can judge and revisetheir work, reducing the amount of work for advisorsand committee members.

Making Expectations Explicit

When it became clear that the findings of my studycould be put to very specific and practical use, the

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which funded the study,offered to underwrite a set of booklets for graduate stu-dents in the sciences, engineering, and mathematics;social sciences; and humanities. The booklets summa-rize faculty members descriptions of the purpose ofthe dissertation, the role and nature of an original anda significant contribution, and levels of performance.

The specific examples throughout this booklet,many of them drawn from economics, psychology, andsociology, represent the observations of 86 faculty from21 social science departments.

Using This Booklet:Benefits to the Faculty and Program

Although, as I discuss below, my primary hope is thatyou and your students use this booklet together, I alsohope you and your colleagues will find it valuable inyour ongoing conversation about guiding your pro-grams students. Over time, a collective effort to artic-

ulate expectations will help your program achieve aconsistent level of quality. In addition, with a trans-parent process in place and a body of evidence aroundstudent achievement, you will also be better equipped

to provide information about program quality as partof internal and external accountability processes.

Using This Booklet:Benefits to the Student

This booklet is intended primarily as an entry pointfor discussion with the students you advise. I do notpretend to represent what you, as advisor, expect orwhat your program requires. Instead, you will find,throughout the booklet I urge the student to talk with

you and your colleagues about the particular emphasesand expectations of your discipline, subdiscipline, de-partment and program. The information in this book-let is offered as a way to start the discussion.

Indeed, the earlier students are introduced to thestandards and expectations of their disciplines, thebetter. You might consider providing this booklet tostudents long before they start the dissertation, for ex-ample, in a research methods course or in a journalclub.

Whether you bring this booklet to your studentsattention or they bring it to yours, I hope that you will

use it with them to plan, set goals, and provide feed-back on work in progress. For example, the sectionsabout the purposes of the dissertation, originality,and significance would be important to discuss withstudents who are preparing proposals and planningtheir projects. The descriptions of quality might beof use as you discuss the specific goals of a studentsproject.

I believe that you and your students will find theprocess of identifying expectations for the dissertation,as a whole and in its parts, very useful. Your studentswill be better able to assess their own work and address

deficiencies before they submit drafts to you. When youreceive drafts, you can use the expectations to providefocused feedback. This puts the conversation aboutquality directly in the context of professional standardsand expectations.

Finally, your efforts to articulate quality will helpstudents learn to judge quality in their own and otherswork. They can share what they have learned with col-leagues and peers; ultimately they will become better

P R E F A C Ev


8/49

P R E F A C Evi

professionals and, for those who become faculty mem-bers, better advisors.

I do not, however, suggest that these descriptions ofquality be casually given quantitative values and used to

score dissertations for decisions about passing or fail-ing. In fact, I strongly resist this impulse. I hope thatyou will use the descriptors with students to set goalsand monitor progress while they are in the process of re-searching and writing their dissertations so that theycan make improvements along the way.

Focusing Students on Responsibility

More clearly defining expectations is a way to inspirestudents and spur them to higher levels of achieve-

ment. I suggest offering a set of clear expectationsabout the dissertation, articulating goals, and provid-ing feedback and guidance because I believe doing sochallenges students to meet their responsibility as aspir-ing scholars and researchers, to check their progress

toward professional excellence, and to work more effi-ciently and independently.

Barbara E. Lovitts

Notes

1. The study and the findings are described in de-tail in Barbara E. Lovitts,Making the Implicit Explicit:Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation(Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2007).

2. On this topic, faculty and graduate students alikemight be interested in the observations of senior facultyfrom neuroscience, education, and the history of sci-ence, along with others from the humanities, mathe-

matics and science disciplines, found in C. M. Golde,G. E. Walker, and associates, Envisioning the Future ofDoctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline.Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).


9/49

vii

To the Student

WH ET HE R Y OU A REjust beginning your grad-uate studies or have advanced standing inyour program, it is highly likely the disserta-

tion is much on your mindand with good reason.This capstone project of your graduate education isnot like anything else you have written before. It is un-like anything you will write afterward.

The dissertation is a unique, hybrid projectbotha professional-level report on research and a crucialpiece of evidence of your qualification for a credential.It is a point of exit from student status and a point ofentry to professional and scholarly life.

In short, your dissertation is aprocessand aproduct.Writing a dissertation is a processof developing ex-

pert knowledge: the understanding, skills, and thought

processes of a professional researcher. In this sense, youbegan your dissertation as soon as you entered yourgraduate program. Through classes, supervised research,participation in journal clubs, teaching assistantships,and conversations with fellow students, faculty mem-bers, mentors, and advisors, you are acquiring skills andsorting information, learning about issues, making con-nections, and developing ideas for work to be done inyour fieldall of which is necessary for writing thedissertation.

As a product, the dissertation is an external repre-sentation that you have achieved the expertise neces-

sary to be a professional in your field. It demonstratesthat you know how to approach and master complexideas and information; you have mastered your disci-plines knowledge base, acquired its professional skillsand competencies, and are capable of doing independ-ent research. And so, as a product, the dissertationserves as a union card or credential for admissioninto the scholarly and professional community.

A Question of Quality

Faculty in the social sciences are currently giving serious

thought to the nature and meaning of the dissertation.Many departments and programs are moving awayfrom single-study dissertations, long the traditionalform, and toward a dissertation compiled from a set ofarticles or research studies. Your dissertation might fo-cus on a single study, report on several studies, or con-sist of a collection of published or publishable papers.

Judgments about the quality of a dissertation, how-ever, are independent of its form. As you talk with youradvisor and dissertation committee members about theform your dissertation will take and the departmentalrequirements you should meet, you should be asking

questions about their expectations: What does it mean tomake an original or significant contribution? What criteriawill be used to judge the quality of my work?

Starting the Conversation About Quality

Knowing that questions about quality and expectationsoften go unasked, and that few programs or depart-ments have explicit expectations, I decided to ask arepresentative group of faculty who have extensive ex-perience advising dissertations to describe what theyexpect in a dissertation: What is the purpose of the dis-sertation? What constitutes an original or significantcontribution? What makes a dissertation outstanding,very good, or acceptable? Under what conditions iswork unacceptable?

The responses of 86 faculty from 21 economics,psychology, and sociology departments are the founda-tion of this booklet. As a way to start the conversation


10/49

P R E F A C Eviii

about quality, I offer these advisors general descrip-tions of standards and expectations for the dissertationin the social sciences, with specific examples drawnfrom psychology, economics, and sociology.

It is important to keep in mind that these descrip-tions are a starting place. After reading this booklet,talk with your advisors and other faculty members tounderstand the expectations specific to your field, de-partment, and project. Ask them what in your depart-ment and field is considered to be an original orsignificant contribution and what constitutes an out-standing or very good dissertation. Read recent disser-tations from your department. Ask your advisors torecommend an outstanding or very good dissertationin your fieldand study it. Look at your own workcritically and ask for feedback in terms of the descrip-

tors of quality presented here.I also suggest that you discuss this booklet and its

information with your fellow students. It is an oppor-tunity to develop colleagues and a way to combat iso-lation and the feeling that you are the only personwrestling with tough questions.

In fact, as you will see throughout this booklet, thekey to quality in the dissertation is communication. Ifnothing else, I hope that reading this booklet willprompt you to have many conversations with yourdissertation advisor, to seek more than one mentoramong the faculty, and to talk with other students to

compare experiences. I hope you will map out your

dissertation with your advisor and committee andcheck in frequently with them. Finally, I hope you willask questions, ask for feedback, and follow up withyour programs administrators if you are not getting

the help you need.

A Question ofProfessional Responsibility

As someone pursuing advanced training, you are learn-ing what constitutes credible work in the field. Your in-creasing understanding of the standards of the field ispart of what makes you a professional. It also meansthat you have to take responsibility for your work.

Whether your faculty mentors, dissertation advisor

or advisors, committee members, or departmentheads take the initiative to make their expectations ofquality explicit or you take the initiative to bring thisbooklet to their attention and ask for their thoughts,once their expectations are made clear, it is your re-sponsibility to act on them. As someone who aspiresto thePhD, you are responsible for setting goals foryourself, checking your progress, asking for feedback,and taking feedback in the context of professionalstandards.

I wish you well in your work.

Barbara E. Lovitts


11/49

1

T

H E WOR DS on the title page of nearly every dis-sertation, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Phi-losophy, underscore that the dissertation is part of aprocess. The requirements of your program and themany informal opportunities for learning are designedto move you from student to professional, from some-one largely dependent on others for guidance in learn-ing to an independent, expert learner and producer ofknowledge.

Consider the observations of the faculty who par-ticipated in the study on which this booklet is based.The various purposes they ascribe to the dissertation,

summarized in Table 1.1, point to the dissertation asa product that provides evidence that you have mas-

tered professional skills and knowledge: your disci-plines theories and methods and a vast array of facts,principles, concepts, and paradigms. The dissertationis also evidence that you have developed informedopinions about various issues, learned how to approachproblems, and how to judge others work. Whetheryou plan a career in academia, government, business,industry, or in the nonprofit sector, the successfulcompletion of your dissertation will signify your abil-ity to conduct high-level inquiry and to create newknowledge.

1

Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation

Table 1.1 The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in the Social Sciences

The purpose of the dissertation is to prepare the student to be a professional in the discipline.Through this preparation the student learns and demonstrates the ability to conduct independent,original, and significant research. The dissertation thus shows that the student is able to

identify/define problems, generate questions and hypotheses, review and summarize the literature, apply appropriate methods, collect data properly, analyze and judge evidence, discuss findings,

produce publishable results, engage in a sustained piece of research or argument, think and write critically and coherently.

The dissertation shows mastery of the field, that the student is ready to be a professional in and con-tribute to the discipline.

The dissertation prepares the student for a career. It is the capstone of the graduate education andresearch experience, a rite of passage from student to professional. It is a union card or credentialfor admission to the profession.


12/49

Table 1.2 provides descriptions that emerged fromthe discussions with the faculty about the dissertationin their discipline. As you consider the discipline-spe-cific examples in Table 1.2, think about your particular

field and program. Ask your advisor and other facultymembers what they consider the purpose of the disser-tation to be. What aspects of the dissertation does yourfield or program emphasize? What are the expectations,for example, about the quality of writing?

As you discuss your dissertation with your advisorand committee members, ask about ways your particu-lar project best lends itself to serving these purposes.What, specifically, must your dissertation demonstrate?

What, exactly, will give evidence that you have mas-tered the expected knowledge and skills? What willdemonstrate your capacity to independently produceprofessional-level work in the future? From these con-

versations, you might want to draw up a summary ofthe purposes you and your advisors agree on.Ask your advisor, committee, and other faculty men-

tors to suggest recent dissertations from your depart-ment that might serve as good examples. Look at howthe students assembled their dissertations. Put yourselfin your committees shoes and consider how the stu-dents fulfilled the purposes of the dissertation that youradvisors have described.

D E V E L O P I N G Q U A L I T Y D I S S E R T A T I O N S I N T H E S O C I A L S C I E N C E S2


13/49

Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation

Table 1.2 The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in Economics, Psychology, and

Sociology

Economics

The purpose of the dissertation is to allow students to

practice the habits of professional economists; learn to be researchers who do original, creative, significant work; learn how to do researchgenerate questions, apply the appropriate methods, and solve

problems independently at a professional level.

The dissertation demonstrates the students ability to do original research, use tools appropriately,and produce an independent piece of work.

Its function is to launch a career and help the student get a job; to credential the individual as aprofessional economist.

Psychology

The purpose of the dissertation is to allow students to learn how to be an independent researcher.The dissertation demonstrates the students skills and ability to independently conceive and conduct

original, significant, scholarly research: develop important researchable problems, define an experiment,generate and address hypotheses, conduct the experiment, and produce publishable results.

The dissertation is a process that encourages and fosters creativity, a test of whether the studentcan do research independently, the preparation for and launching of a career, on-the-job training, acapstone, a rite of passage, the culmination of graduate education and the start of a career as an in-vestigator, and a transition from being a student to being an independent scholar.

Sociology

The dissertation trains scholars; the student learns how to do independent research, learns certainuseful skills, learns to synthesize the literature, analyze unformed data, and reach conclusions and

write them up; the student learns what the professional standard of scholarship is.The dissertation demonstrates that the student can mount an original, independent research proj-

ect and take it from conceptualization to completion independently, formulate problems or questions,review the literature, collect and analyze data, and discuss findings. It demonstrates that the studentcan do sociology, knows the area at a sufficient level of depth to teach it, and can be an independent,productive academic/scholar.

The process of the dissertation moves the students from thinking of themselves as research assis-tants to thinking of themselves as independent researchers/sociologists. It develops independenceand the ability to do original and significant research and put together a product that has internal-logic, is coherent, and makes an innovative, significant contribution to the field.

The dissertation gives the student a product that can be published; it teaches the skills necessaryto get a tenure-track job. It is a rite of passage, a test for establishing a persons claim to be a scholar,a certificate for admission into the profession.

3


14/49

4

Y

OU PROBABLY NOTICED the terms originalandsignificantin the examples in chapter 1. Maybe

you have heard or been told that you must makean original and significant contribution to the fieldthrough your dissertation. Graduate students across alldisciplines spend a great deal of time worrying aboutthese expectations: What, exactly, does it means to makean original or significant contribution in my field? Is myproject or its results important enough to be consideredoriginal and significant? What, specifically, about my dis-sertation must be original or significant?

In talking with the faculty who participated in thestudy, it became evident that the qualities of origi-nality and significance are elusive and difficult to

define. Moreover, the terms are often shorthandfor the capacity to make an original or significantcontribution.

Originality

An original contribution offers a novel or new perspec-tive. The faculty in the social sciences who participatedin the study described an original contribution as

something that has not been done, found, proved,

or seen before. It is publishable because it addsto knowledge, changes the way people think, in-forms policy, moves the field forward, or advancesthe state of the art.

To achieve this goal, you might develop an originalinsight or advance, or you might borrow a contributionfrom another discipline and apply it to your field for thefirst time.

It is important to understand that the original con-tribution is not necessarily your entire dissertation

but something that is part of it. The faculty in thestudy explained that an original contribution mayresult from

asking or identifying new questions, topics, orareas of exploration;

applying new ideas, methods, approaches, oranalyses to an old question, problem, issue,idea, or context;

developing or applying new theories, theorems,theoretical descriptions, or theoretical frame-works, or reinterpreting old ones;

inventing, developing, or applying new meth-ods or techniques;

creating, finding, or using new data or data sets; applying old ideas, methods, approaches, or

analyses to new data; developing, modifying, or applying new

analyses, analytic approaches, frameworks,techniques, models, or statistical procedures;

coming up with new ideas, connections, infer-ences, insights, interpretations, observations,perspectives;

producing new conclusions, answers, findings,

or results; combining or synthesizing things (facts,

knowledge, models of inquiry, problems,sources, theoretical constructs) from otherfields or disciplines.

Your original contribution might appear in almost anypart of the dissertation. It can be a question, theory,data, data source, method, analysis, or result.

2

Understanding Originalityand Significance


15/49

Degrees of OriginalityThere are, of course, levels or degrees of originality. Atthe lowest level, originality typically involves applyingknown methods or techniques to new data, materials,or the like. Originality in this sense might make a smallor incremental change to the knowledge base and beconsidered to have little consequence. At the higher lev-els, making an original contribution typically involvesasking new questions or applying new methods to oldor new problems and achieving results that are immedi-ately recognizable as having consequence. Contribu-tions such as these advance the field, are publishable,and often appear in top-tier journals. At the very high-est level, the contribution has the potential to changethe field. It is rare for a graduate student to make anoriginal contribution at the highest level. Indeed, few

faculty make contributions at this level.Table 2.1 provides some examples, drawn from eco-nomics, psychology, and sociology, of what it means tomake an original contribution. As you consider thesedescriptions, think about the questions you might askyour advisor and committee members about their ex-pectations and the potential of your project to createnew knowledge, take a new approach to inquiry, or ex-plain or solve a social problem.

The expectations for originality also vary by subis-cipline. In experimental or empirical fields, originalityusually involves generating novel information or data.

By contrast, in theoretical or historical fields, it couldbe a new idea. However, your role in making an origi-nal contribution might be difficult to identify, espe-cially if you are in a field that relies on a high degree ofteamwork, or if you are one of several students collab-orating on an advisors funded research project. It is,therefore, important to talk with your advisor aboutyour role in the project and how to identify your con-tribution to the field.

Understand ExpectationsBecause expectations for originality vary across disci-

plines, subdisciplines, and even advisors, it is impor-tant to ask your advisor and committee, from the start,for clarification about what is expected of you. Ask tosee examples of what they mean when theyand oth-ers in the fieldcall something original. In your on-going conversations, discuss specifically where, in yourproject, you are most able to make an original contri-bution. Is it through, for example, your research ques-tion, theory, data, data source, method, analysis, or

result? Are you using an existing concept or method ina new way? Discuss, as well, how you might best bringyour original contribution to the readers attention.

SignificanceA significant contribution is defined primarily by itsconsequences. As suggested by the descriptions pro-vided by the faculty from economics, psychology, andsociology who participated in the study (summarizedin Table 2.2), a significant contribution is of interestand importance to the community and influences thefield by changing the way people think.

It is important to understand that significance istypically determined, over time, by the disciplinarycommunity, not the individual advisor or committee.Moreover, understanding and appreciation of a con-

tribution often emerges, sometimes many years afterthe fact. Sometimes a topic, issue, or approach is be-fore its time; it does not immediately fit with prevail-ing knowledge or thought, but later it is recognized assignificant.

Although significance is frequently stated as a re-quirement for thePhD, graduate students rarely makesignificant contributionsor are rarely recognized atthe time for making significant contributions. Facultydo not typically expect them to do so. They look, rather,for the capacity to produce a significant contribution inthe future.

The faculty who participated in the study describeda significant contribution as something that is usefuland will have impact, and is therefore publishable intop-tier journals because it

offers a nontrivial to very important originalbreakthrough at the empirical, conceptual,theoretical, or policy level;

is useful and will have an impact; causes those inside, and possibly those outside,

the community to see things differently; influences the conversation, research, and

teaching; has implications for and advances the field,

the discipline, other disciplines, or society.

As with originality, there are degrees of significance.At the highest level, significance is a function of thefields long-term interest in the problem, the difficultyinvolved in solving the problem, the influence of theresults on further developments in the field, as well

5UnderstandingOriginality andSignificance


16/49

6D E V E L O P I N G Q U A L I T Y D I S S E R T A T I O N S I N T H E S O C I A L S C I E N C E S

Table 2.1 Original Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in Economics, Psychology, and Sociology

Economics

An original contribution is something nontrivial that has not been done before, a deviation from ora new way of thinking about an economic feature, issue, or problem. It advances knowledge and is

publishable.It might result from

identifying a gap in the literature; redefining or reconceptualizing old problems; asking a new question; making new connections among existing data; using a new source of data or data set; constructing or amalgamating new data; applying old econometric ideas to new data; applying new econometric ideas to old data; applying, modifying, or developing a model or technique to solve a problem; proving a new result;

proving a theorem using weaker assumptions; challenging existing theories or policies.

Psychology

An original contribution is something that has not been done, shown, or made available before thatcreates new knowledge and is publishable.

It might be

a new question, idea, insight, perspective, theory, model, technology, method, or finding; a novel twist or approach to an old question; an empirical or theoretical advance.

It might result from

applying new, innovative, cutting-edge methods to existing theory; synthesizing knowledge; using or integrating something from another discipline; generating new data; analyzing existing data sets in new ways; clarifying someone elses findings; resolving issues or clearing up some confusion in the field; making an empirical or theoretical contribution.

Sociology

An original contribution goes beyond what is known, offers new questions or contexts, opens new ar-eas of exploration or a new angle on an old area of exploration, provides a fresh empirical focus tosome key theoretical puzzle or debate in the literature, takes an important next step, brings things to-gether in a new way, or extends a debate or the current thinking on a particular topic.

It changes the way people think about a certain topic, leads to further research, is a meaningfulcontribution, and adds to the literature.

It might result from

identifying an unanswered question that resonates with a larger theoretical issue; applying an established theory in a new context; reframing existing data and shedding new light on them theoretically, substantively, or

methodologically; challenging or reinterpreting existing theory or methods; developing a set of concepts or ideas; developing a new theory or method.


17/49

as the degree to which the results affect other fields,disciplines, and even society. At the lower levels, thecontribution is a small or incremental improvement. Acontribution is of little or no significance if people say,

So what? However, the most significant contribu-tions are often ones that initiate a new trend or desta-bilize a conservative area, thus creating new questionsand new research agendas.

Table 2.2 summarizes the descriptions of a signifi-cant contribution provided by the faculty from eco-nomics, sociology, and psychology who participated inthe study.

Understand Expectations

Talk to your advisor and committee members abouttheir expectations for significance. Do so early in the

process, and continue this discussion as you progress.Do they want to see a significant contribution in yourdissertation or do they want you to demonstrate thatyou have the capacitythe knowledge and skillstomake a significant contribution in the future? Whatspecific aspect of your project has the potential to makea significant contribution? How can you best presentthis contribution?

UnderstandingOriginality andSignificance

Table 2.2 Significant Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in Economics, Psychology, and Sociology

Economics

Surprising, impressive, important, and useful, a significant contribution is worthy of publication in top-tier journals because it causes people to see things in a different way and makes progress at the empiri-cal, theoretical, or policy level. A big, useful, or relevant idea, it increases understanding of an economicproblem; challenges existing theory or policy; advances methodology and pushes the empirical frontier;extends data or methods in a nontrivial way; provides greater validation of existing results; will havewide applicability; cuts across many fields or disciplines; will be used by other people; or advances orprovides greater insight into the discipline or the world.

Psychology

A significant contribution is something that advances knowledge. It addresses or distinguishes betweencompeting hypotheses; influences theory development and research; leads to the modification of ex-isting theory or hypotheses; eliminates a theory and provides support for another theory; offers inter-esting, meaningful, or counterintuitive results; has an application; is of interest to others and affectstheir research; changes the discourse in the field; or affects future research.

Sociology

Surprising or unexpected, a significant contribution extends knowledge and pushes an area forward.It does so by

studying something no one has studied before; offering new findings, formulations, arguments, sets of comparisons, or methods;

using a richer and more extensive data set; filling in some missing piece; unlocking a term or phase and captures peoples imagination; conceptualizing or articulating something better; providing various confirmations or amendments; clarifying a point in a debate; shedding light on an issue; identifying an important theoretical puzzle; addressing an emerging social problem or question that has implications for the larger society; educating people in the field; opening up a new field.


18/49

8

Y

O U R EAD the scholarship of others to learn. Butin the process, you also make judgments about the

quality of their work. In the same way that youmake judgments about the scholarship of others, youradvisor and committee members make holistic judg-ments about the quality of their students dissertations.

However, your faculty advisors also read studentwork with another purpose: They read to teach. Theymust read carefully to see where they can suggest im-provements in students conceptualization of the topic,in their methods, in their presentation of results, andin their writing.

Moreover, your advisors and committee read to cer-tifyquality. That is, they must make sure their students

dissertations demonstrate professional competence andcapacity for future professional-quality contributions.

In short, your advisors and committee are readingyour drafts and final version to determine whether yourdissertation is at a level of quality that demonstratesyour readiness to make the transition from student toprofessional.

Degrees of Quality

Like published articles, completed dissertations havebeen written and rewritten. The ideas and presentationhave been subjected to expert criticism and honedthrough repeated drafts, feedback, and editing. And,like published research articles and books, most disser-tations are very good. A few dissertations are remark-able or outstanding in some aspect. On the other hand,some dissertations are, for a variety of reasons, justwithin the boundaries of the professions standards ofquality. They are good enough. In rare instances, somedissertations are unacceptable.

The faculty participating in the study provided de-scriptions of what makes a dissertation outstanding,

very good, acceptable, or unacceptable. In the sectionsfollowing, you will find summaries of what they saidabout quality at these different levels. Use these sum-maries as a way to start planning and, later, evaluatingyour own work. They are also useful guides as you dis-cuss your project with your advisors and committeemembers:Am I making progress toward my goal for excel-lence? Where do I need to make a special effort to developmy dissertation? What might I do to improve the quality?

OutstandingOutstanding dissertations are characterized by original-

ity, high-quality writing, and compelling consequences.They show deep knowledge of a massive amount ofcomplicated literature and mastery of the subject mat-ter. They display a richness of thought and insight, andmake an important breakthrough. The body of work inoutstanding dissertations is deep and thorough. Thestudent demonstrates a sophisticated grasp and use oftheory. In experimental fields, the experiments are welldesigned and well executed. The quality and care putinto the measurement techniques and analyses instillconfidence in the results. The data are rich and comefrom multiple sources.

Even though outstanding dissertations are rarefaculty see them once or twice a decade, if that oftenthe faculty in the study were able to provide a veryconsistent set of descriptors. They described an out-standing dissertation in the social sciences at the higherlevels of originality or significance in that it

asks new questions; addresses an important question or problem;

some

d de-ding,llow-y saidsum-atingu dis-

mitteeexcel-velopality?

ginal-nces.mas-ss ofreak-tionsxper-uality

and

are

enveryout-l sci-gher

nt

3

Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation


19/49

uses or develops new tools, methods, ap-proaches, or new types of analyses;

pushes the disciplines boundaries and opensnew areas for research;

has practical and policy implications; is of interest to a larger community andchanges the way people think.

They explained that in its execution, the outstandingdissertation

is very well written and very well organized; exhibits mature, independent thinking; displays deep understanding of a massive

amount of complicated literature; exhibits command and authority over the

material;

challenges the literature and strongly held tra-ditional views;

is thoroughly researched; is synthetic and interdisciplinary; clearly states the problem and explains why it

is important; has a brilliant research design; has well-planned and well-performed experi-

ments (if experimental); is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep

understanding of theory; has rich data from multiple sources has a comprehensive, complete, sophisticated,

and convincing analysis.

The faculty also described the outstanding dissertationas having the potential to illuminate an entire area,startle the field, or stimulate a lot of activity in theprofession. Indeed, the results or conclusions of anoutstanding dissertation push the disciplines bound-aries and are publishable in the top-tier journals.

Along with offering new and significant knowledge,an outstanding dissertation is a pleasure to read. It hasa point of view and a strong, confident, independent,and authoritative voice. Each part of the outstandingdissertation, from introduction through conclusion, isexcellent, and the pieces are integrated seamlessly. Thewriting is clear and persuasive. The ideas are set outvery clearly and concisely. The writer anticipatesandanswersthe readers questions.

Outstanding dissertations were described as pageturners, surprising and edifying the reader. Readers of-ten react with, Wow! Why didnt I think of that?

Other terms the faculty used to describe outstandingdissertations were compelling, concise, counter-intuitive, creative, elegant, engaging, exciting,insightful, surprising, and thoughtful.

Very GoodThe very good dissertation is very good indeed. It ful-fills the purposes of the dissertation requirement andestablishes the student as a capable social scientist. Themajority of the dissertations that faculty see are verygood, and this is the level they expect of most gradu-ate students.

The faculty in the study explained that a very gooddissertation displays the students mastery of the field,addresses a meaningful question or problem, and is ex-ecuted competently. Although it might not hold the

promise of altering the field, it has the potential tocontribute to the field by expanding its knowledge andthinking. The dissertation contains material for two orthree papers that could be published in top-tier profes-sional journals.

More specifically, the faculty described a very gooddissertation as original or significant, making a mod-est contribution to the field. A very good dissertationhas a good question or problem. It shows understand-ing and mastery of the subject matter; uses appropriate,standard theory, methods, and techniques; includeswell-executed research; demonstrates technical compe-

tence; presents solid, expected results/answers; and iswell written and well organized.

AcceptableA dissertation that meets the basic criteria for theaward of the PhD is considered acceptable. Such a dis-sertation contains a sufficient amount of solid work todemonstrate that the student can do research. It mightresult in some conference papers, but it has little in theway of publishable material, and what is publishable islikely to be accepted by lower-tier journals.

The faculty in the study explained that an accept-

able dissertation demonstrates technical competenceand shows the students ability to do research, use stan-dard methods, and competently apply theory to aproblem. However, they noted, a student might dis-play a narrow understanding of the field. For instance,the student might present an uncritical review of theliterature that does not show insight or understandingof what is important. The analysis might be unsophis-ticated or limited.

9Aiming for Excellence


20/49

The acceptable dissertation shows little promise ofadding much to the field. It is not very original or sig-nificant because it is narrow in scope. It typically focuseson a question or problem that is not interesting or has

predictable results. It might be a highly derivative, smallextension of someone elses work.Sometimes a dissertation that is adequate may reflect

circumstances. In some studies, the hypotheses turn outto be wrong or the results are not statistically significant,meaningful, or important. Sometimes an acceptabledissertation is the result of choices and compromises:The student has accepted a job or post-doc position andneeds to sprint to finish. In such instances, the studenthas achieved a primary purpose of graduate education,which is getting a professional position.

More typically, however, an adequate dissertation is

the product of poor communication between studentand advisor, or inadequate advising. Because much ofthis guidance should take place before you begin towrite the dissertation, it is important to talk soon andin detail with your advisor and other faculty membersabout your topic, your research question or problem,your plan for researching it, the methods you will useto collect and analyze data, the results you are getting,and your interpretation of the results. Get early feed-back on your plan for organizing your dissertation andpresenting your results.

In addition, be sure to get feedback on the quality of

your writing as you begin to draft the chapters. Becausestrong skills in organizing and writing are a critical pro-fessional attribute, even if your dissertation is very goodor even outstanding in other respects, it will be consid-ered only acceptable if you cannot communicate yourideas clearly and effectively. Just as excellent writing en-hances a solid piece of scholarship, weak writing under-mines otherwise excellent ideas and research.

UnacceptableIt is your responsibility to produce professional-qualitywork, and it is your advisors responsibility to prevent

unacceptable work from advancing.As the faculty who participated in the study con-

curred, faculty advisors should provide the guidancenecessary to ensure that the dissertation meets profes-sional standards. The advisor should make sure thatthe student is working with a clearly defined questionor problem and must make sure that the student is us-ing proper methods. The advisor should also provideprompt and constructive feedback. It is also your re-sponsibility to follow through on your advisors andcommittees advice and guidance.

Work that is poorly written and full of errors andmistakes or has other serious flaws is not of adequatequality. The faculty in the study were clear that theywould turn back a draft if the question or problem

is trivial, weak, or unoriginal. Work that does notdemonstrate that the student understands the rele-vant literature and basic concepts and the keyprocesses or conventions of the discipline is unaccept-able when

the literature review is weak or missing. methods are used inappropriately, or incorrect

methods are used. theory is missing, wrong, or not handled well. hypotheses are inconsistent, do not flow from

theory, or are missing.

the data are flawed, misrepresented, fudged,or wrong.

the results presented are obvious, alreadyknown, unexplained, or misinterpreted.

the analysis is wrong, inappropriate, incoher-ent, or confused.

the conclusions drawn from the data are invalidor oversold.

The faculty also described the unacceptable disserta-tion in terms of its presentation: The organization isconfusing and the writing is filled with spelling and

grammatical errors. They said that a dissertation thatviolates standards of academic integrity through pla-giarism, falsification of data, or misrepresentation ofdata is unacceptable.

These problems should be caught early. Use the cri-teria in this booklet as a starting point for identifyingproblems or as a way to plan improvements. If youradvisor and other members of your dissertation com-mittee ask you to revise and rewrite, make sure youunderstand specifically what you need to do to im-proveand make the improvements.

Examples From the Disciplines

The faculty in economics, psychology, and sociologywho participated in the study offered detailed descrip-tions of the dissertation in their discipline at these fourquality levels. As you consider the summaries of theirdescriptions in tables 3.1 through 3.3, develop ques-tions that you might raise with your advisor and com-mittee about their expectations for quality in generaland for your particular project.



21/49

Aiming for Excellence

Table 3.1 The Economics Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

Extremely well written; thoughtful, elegant, clever, compelling, and surprising; internally coherent;chapters have a lot of substance; has the beauty of simplicity; has a lot of creativity, insight, original-

ity, and independence; exhibits command and authority over the material; makes you look at some-thing differently; addresses a very interesting question in a solid way; exhibits a deep understandingof the literature and theory; challenges the literature and strongly held traditional views; contains avery interesting theoretical component; integrates theory across fields; makes a theoretical contribu-tion; constructs a new data set; develops or applies new tools, methods, models, or analytical tech-niques; exhibits incredibly good data collection and analysis skills; has a complete, comprehensive,and convincing sophisticated analysis; solves a controversy or answers questions of interest to thefield; very practically useful for a lot of people; will fundamentally and radically change things.

Very Good

Original, insightful, integrated; may involve new and creative ideas and be well executed, but theproblem is not that interesting; some elements are surprising; has a good question or problem, but

the topic may not be of central interest to the field; good question but poor empirical execution; thequestion is good, but the answer is not; the answer is good, but the question is not; an extension ofsomeone elses work; the hypotheses have not been developed in a theoretical way, are mainly state-ments about how the world behaves; lacks the theory needed to conceptualize the work; uses appro-priate data collection and analytic techniques; uses advanced mathematical or econometrictechniques to analyze the data but cannot really interpret the results; provides convincing evidence,but the analysis does not live up to the idea; has consistent results derived from well-formed assump-tions but not contained in the assumptions; the outcomes are more or less predictable; does not pushthe frontiers; does not really make a significant contribution; contributions are not as deep as theymight be; may readjust the way people think but does not fundamentally change things.

Acceptable

Competent, useful; adequately organized, investigated, and communicated but not particularlyclever or original; plausible but not compelling; shows some gaps in reasoning; directed, as opposedto being independently researched; asks an old question; highly derivative, a correct, small, not excit-ing, extension of someone elses work; synthesizes other peoples work; has an interesting questionthat is poorly addressed; does not exhibit a broad understanding of the subfield; does not place thework in context; displays competence in applying theory to a specific problem, in collecting data, andin managing and analyzing the data; applies an existing model to new data; uses a very restrictivemodel to narrowly answer a question; has not really answered the question; results are believable butthe conclusions are not; student does not realize the depth or the significance of what he or she hasdone; contribution is of minimal value to the profession.

Unacceptable

Trivial and poorly written; not thorough; lacks careful thought; too ambitious or idealistic; containserrors or mistakes; misleading; has no introduction or literature review; does not understand the rel-evant literature; the question is not posed well; asks an inappropriate or unoriginal question; studentdoes not see that the question has an obvious answer; has a series of hypotheses not rooted in theory;uses the wrong data set or analytic techniques; uses inappropriate or incorrect methods; uses a systemof equations that does not have a solution; cannot solve the problem; the problem has already beensolved; misinterprets the data; unable to explain the results; results are self-contradictory; overinter-prets the results; student does not understand the implications of the results; cannot demonstrate theconclusion.

11


22/49

D E V E L O P I N G Q U A L I T Y D I S S E R T A T I O N S I N T H E S O C I A L S C I E N C E S

Table 3.2 The Psychology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

Scholarly; solid, clever, coherent; interesting, persuasive, exciting; counterintuitive; paradigm shift-ing; well organized and well written; driven by intense curiosity; has an elegant, creative, and origi-

nal idea and method; identifies a gap that no one else has identified that needs to be done; builds acase in a linear, logical way; anticipates questions; very synthetic; interdisciplinary; looks at the issuefrom multiple perspectives; eradicates the boundaries among the introduction, literature review, andtheory, and integrates them in a seamless, fluent, articulate way; has multiple components or multi-ple studies; draws on diverse literatures from different disciplines; presents the literature well andshows the gaps; theoretically sophisticated; shows depth of understanding of theory and methods; in-volves a set of programmatic, linear experiments; experiments are designed to falsify a hypothesis;uses very good, sound methods; develops complex stimuli; involves a new or massive data collection;has an innovative analytical strategy; has compelling data and amazing results; the general discussionties it all together; publishable in a top-tier journal; changes the way people think; shifts the thinkingin the field; has policy implications.

Very Good

Novel, creative, coherent, independent but less ambitious and crisp; not highly unusual or exciting;the obvious next step in a research program; done confidently but lacks sparkle; technically well pre-sented; the introduction is tight but not particularly new or different; what is original is clear and laidout persuasively; the model and hypotheses are well laid out and well tested; the methods are verygood but is not conceptually exciting; explores the range with which two variables interact and affectthe dependent variable; uses conventional methods and analyses; uses a new method or statistical ap-plication; the results are less crisp and clear; the experiment did not work out as planned; publishable;does not reform the discipline.

Acceptable

Yeomanlike; correct; technically competent, meets the standard, not very interesting or exciting; ex-

ecutes what is planned, but the research may not work out as expected; an extension of the advisorswork or an in-depth examination of a single case; the questions are simple and reasonable but not ex-citing; lacks an introduction; has reviewed the literature and identified a gap, but the gap is not veryimportant; not critical of the literature and what needs to be done; hypotheses are strong enough andconsistent with the proposed model; the research design is simple; uses a reasonable method to an-swer the question; analysis is clear and appropriate, fits the hypothesis, and answers the question;analysis does not explore all the possibilities present in the data; does not do a lot of exploratory oradditional analyses to clarify the interpretation of the main analysis; results are not important; dis-cussion does not return to the original question, restates the results, does not identify what has beenlearned; may not get published; will not change the way people approach the issue.

Unacceptable

Poorly conceived, wrong, sloppy; has logical flaws; does not do what student said he or she was goingto do; says things that readers believe are false; introduction is shoddy; misses major aspects of the liter-ature; shows little understanding of the core processes; the model and hypotheses are inconsistent; themethodological techniques are poor or flawed; fails to implement the necessary controls; data analysisand results are inappropriate, inadequately reported, unexplained, misinterpreted, or contain errors; thegeneral discussion reiterates the major findings; explanations are not thought through clearly; jumps toconclusions; has no synthesis or big picture context; does not see the next step; requires major revisions;student fails to complete the revisions.

12


23/49

Aiming for Excellence

Table 3.3 The Sociology Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

Well written; clear and concise; rhetorically very solid; fresh, novel, original, insightful, intellectuallyengaging, creative, imaginative; well crafted and well executed; coherent, has a watertight argument;

the different components are connected in a seamless way; has a point of view and a distinct voice;looks at some aspect of the field in a new way; tells a story and is a good read; grounded in a debatebut goes beyond it; a deep investigation that brings empirical focus to something hitherto unclear;shows a unique, rich, in-depth understanding of the topic that leads to the generation of an importantquestion; thoroughly and creatively conceptualized; theoretically sophisticated, brings together theo-ries or concepts in a creative way; has a brilliant research design; examines the questions through thecreative and innovative collection and analysis of rich data; uses several kinds of data to build the case;presents results in a convincing and articulate manner; offers a meaningful or cultural interpretationof the results; brings things together that had not been brought together before; student demonstratesthe ability to be independent; teaches the reader something; publishable in its present form; speaks toa broader audience; has the potential to change the way people think about the problem.

Very Good

Solid; done correctly; follows the rules well; demonstrates technical competence; well written andwell designed; thorough; has a lesser degree of originality; not overwhelmingly brilliant; lacks a cre-ative, broadly synthetic, innovative spark; seams are not quite as clear cut; the point of view is laid onit; does not have its own voice; may be too rhetorical; may lack a core message or sense of what is crit-ical; addresses an important and interesting question or problem but does not produce excitement orsurprise; theoretically and methodologically solid; integrates but does not advance theory; has a gooddata set and a good set of observations; has enough appropriately analyzed data; weaves in the data;offers useful findings; a good, normal science contribution to the field.

Acceptable

Demonstrates technical competence; all parts are there; shows student could be a professional in the

field; less well written; not much originality, passion, or excitement; less thorough; usually small scale;not broad, focused, or integrated enough; not well conceptualized; arguments are spongy; consistentacross sections but has some loose ends; does not have all the subtleties and connections; literature re-view is very mechanistic; does not have command or grasp of the critical literature; shows poor com-prehension of key areas of theory; has minimal or mundane theory; theoretical propositions are notfully worked out; does not typically involve original data collection; the data set is inadequate for theproposition; the right data are not collected; theory and data are not connected; the data are pedes-trian; student is not in command of the data; the evidence is not plausible; the quantitative analysis isvery unsophisticated and elementary; has predictable results; student cannot step outside position ofparticipant and develop a critical, sociological perspective on the data; student exhibits trouble think-ing like a researcher; peters out at the end; cannot answer the So what? question.

Unacceptable

Has major flaws; terrible writing; sloppy presentation; lacks depth of thought and coherent logic; in-adequate or incorrect comprehension of basic concepts, poor conceptualization, execution, andmethodology; pure replication of another study; does not clearly define a problem or issue; weak orno literature review; inconsistent use of references; student is unable to link bodies of theory to makea theoretical argument; materials were poorly chosen; problem is poorly researched; data collection isflawed; analysis is fundamentally flawed and poorly executed; uses inappropriate statistics; findingsare not relevant; evidence does not support the interpretation; interpretation is exaggerated; does notlink findings to the broader field.

13


24/49

14

I

N A S UC CE SS FU L DIS SE RTAT IO N, the parts worktogether to form an integrated whole. Each piece

has a clear function and relates to the others. Takentogether, all the parts connect to form a coherentargument.

Indeed, as the faculty members in the Making theImplicit Explicit study talked about quality in the dis-sertation, they consistently talked about the quality ofthe argument, using words like coherent and con-vincing. They described high-quality dissertationsas well organized: the student uses all the parts ofthe dissertation to build and support a clear, overarch-ing idea.

Because the expectations for the parts of the disser-

tation, their relationship, and importance vary notonly from discipline to discipline but within fields andamong faculty, it is critical to understand what yourcommittee expects or recommends regarding the tasksand organization of your dissertation.

But first, understand the difference between theformof the dissertation and the tasksof the dissertation. Theform is the structure, the parts or divisions. Think of theform as the presentation. You accomplish the tasks, re-gardless of the dissertations structure. Think of them asthe substance.

Understand the Form

In your early conversations with your advisors aboutyour dissertation topic, it is important to be clearabout the requirements for the form of your disserta-tion. In some social science disciplines or department,students present a collection of papers (they might be

called papers, articles or essays, depending on thefield); some of these papers may even have been al-

ready published. The student is expected to connectthe articles in a meaningful way. Faculty in some fieldsor departments ask that the dissertation be organizedspecifically by tasks, with section titles such as intro-duction or problem statement, literature review, the-ory, methods, results or analysis, and discussion andconclusion. And some dissertations are structured the-matically, with the tasks woven throughout the disser-tation in a less clearly delineated way.

Thus it is very important to understand what, ex-actly, your advisors and committee mean when they talkabout chapters, literature review, or methods. Not only

do disciplines differ in their approaches, but each de-partment and university has different requirementsthat may be under review or in the process of beingrevisedabout the structure of the dissertation.

Understand the Tasks

While there is no set formula for organizing the disser-tation, there are, however, essential tasks that must becompleted regardless of how the dissertation is organ-ized or whether the research is empirical, theoretical,

historical, qualitative, or quantitative. Through thesetasks, the student demonstrates his or her professionalskills and knowledge.

For example, at this point in your education youshould know the important literature in the field andthe state of current thinking about your topic. Yourtask is to present this knowledge in the context of theresearch question, to synthesize it, to do so succinctly,

4

Maintaining Consistent QualityWithin the Dissertation


25/49

15Maintaining Consistent Quality

and to offer this synthesis in service of your argument.You might be required to present this information in asection called literature review. If your dissertation isa compilation of papers, you might not have a litera-ture review section, but you will incorporate a reviewand synthesis of the literature at appropriate pointswithin the papers.

Be aware that ideas about and requirements for thevarious tasks of the dissertation vary not only by disci-pline, department, and university, but among facultymembers in the same department. Table 4.1 lists thetasks that the social sciences faculty in the Making theImplicit Explicit were asked to discuss.

Not only should all the parts of the dissertation fittogether and each task be addressed, but they shouldalso be of consistent quality. As we discuss each of thetasks, we provide, in Tables 4.2 through 4.7, sum-maries of the descriptions of faculty from economics,psychology, and sociology.

The IntroductionThe introduction motivates the work and makes thecase for the research. The students task is to state theproblem, set the project in context, present the re-search question, and let the reader know the generalstrategy for the argument. As a distinct chapter, the in-troduction often includes the literature review andtheory, and provides an overview of the entire disserta-tion. Many students write or rewrite the introductionafter all else is completed. In the paper-style disserta-tion, the introduction typically connects the papers

and identifies a common theme.

Literature ReviewIn the traditional-style dissertation, the literature re-view is typically part of the introductory chapter. Inthe paper-style dissertation, each substantive chaptersstarts with an introduction and a literature review. Thetask of the literature review is not simply to summarize

the literature but rather to connect the problem to theresearch on the topic, provide a context by synthesiz-ing the history and controversies of the field, andbuild a story that leads to the hypotheses. The processof choosing the appropriate works to cite and of craft-ing an argument is not easy. However, doing so is animportant professional skill.

TheoryTheory is often part of the introduction and literaturereview, but it may be its own chapter. The studentsresearch question(s) should be linked to theory, andtheory should be used to select appropriate methods.

MethodThe social sciences faculty made few general remarksabout the nature or role of the methods section in asocial science dissertation, in part because differentfields use different methods. Indeed, different fields

have different standards depending on whether stu-dents are collecting their own data or are using anarchival data set. In all cases, the methods used shouldbe aligned with the studys research question(s) andtheory.

Results or Data AnalysisIn the social sciences, data analysis and results involvetaking raw materialquantitative or qualitativedataand trying to make sense out of them. The goalis usually to infer causality from nonexperimental orcorrelational data. Consequently, the quality of the

tasks is a function of how complete the analysis is, thetechniques used, and the robustness of the results. Thesection should tell the reader why a particular analysisis being conducted and what the limitations are.

Discussion and ConclusionThe discussion and conclusion is typically the last sec-tion or chapter of a dissertation. Some faculty draw a

Table 4.1 The Tasks of a Dissertation in the Social Sciences

Introduction/problem statementLiterature reviewTheory

MethodResults/data analysisDiscussion and conclusion


26/49

distinction between the discussion and the conclu-sion: The conclusion summarizes and wraps thingsup, whereas the discussion, which is more important,should tie in to the introduction and put the work in alarger perspective. Some disciplines and faculty considerthe discussion and conclusion task the creative part ofthe dissertation, the place where the student has achance to draw independent conclusions about the

project and show what it means in the larger perspectiveof the discipline.

The economics, psychology, and sociology facultywho participated in the Making the Implicit Explicitstudy had many insightful and specific commentsabout the quality of the tasks of the dissertation intheir fields. You can find summaries of their descrip-


Table 4.2 Introduction in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

well written brief, interesting, surprising, and compelling

motivates the work has a hook provides a clear statement of the problem explains why the problem is important and significant places the problem in context presents an overview of the theory, methods, results, and conclusions lays out the studys implications provides a road map of the dissertation

Very Good

well written interesting

has breadth, depth, and insight motivates the work poses a good question or problem explains why the problem is important and significant provides an overview of the dissertation

Acceptable

not well written or well organized lacks or provides minimal motivation for the work makes a case for a small problem does not do a good job of explaining why it is interesting or important provides minimum or poor context for the problem

presents minimal overview of the work

Unacceptable

poorly written and organized provides little or no motivation for the problem problem is not stated well, is wrong, or trivial does not make the case for the importance of the topic does not provide or does not put problem in a clear context does not present an outline or overview of the research contains extraneous material


27/49


Table 4.3 Literature Review in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

Comprehensive, thorough, complete, coherent, concise, creative, up to dateThe student

shows critical and analytical thinking about the literature synthesizes a body of literature integrates literature from other fields displays understanding of the history and context of the problem identifies problems in and limitations of the literature selective (discriminates between important and unimportant works) identifies and organizes analysis around themes or conceptual categories student adds own insights uses the literature to build an argument and advance the field like a good review article makes reader look at the literature differently

Very Good

Comprehensive but not exhaustiveThe student

provides a thoughtful, accurate critique of the relevant literature shows students understanding of and command over the most relevant literature student selects literature wisely and judiciously sets the problem in context, uses literature to build a case for the research

Acceptable

The student

provides adequate coverage of the literature demonstrates that student has read and understood the literature lacks critical analysis and synthesis not selective (does not distinguish between more- and less-relevant works) misses some important works cites some works that are not relevant an undifferentiated list (This person said this, this person said that.) does not put problem in context

Unacceptable

Missing, inadequate, or incompleteThe student

has not read enough and does not cite enough sources. misinterprets or does not understand the literature. misses, omits, or ignores important studies, whole areas or literature, or people who have

done the same thing. has not read the source or has only read the abstract. cites articles that are out of date. does not provide a context for the research.


28/49

tions in Appendix A. Ask your advisors to be similarlyspecific, if not more specific, about what constitutes

high-quality work in the tasks of the dissertation.Above all, understand the form you are required to

use for your dissertation and the tasks you must addresswithin it. Take time to map out your argument and dis-

cuss in detail with your advisors and committee howyou will make the dissertation work as a coherent

whole. Discuss with them how each of the parts willcontribute to the argument. Study recent dissertationsfrom your department and see how the students madethe pieces work together.


Table 4.4 Theory in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

original, creative, insightful, innovative simple and elegant

well conceived, logically consistent, and internally coherent identifies and critically analyzes strengths and weaknesses uses more than one theory or model compares or tests competing theories advances concepts develops, adds to, revises, or synthesizes theory(ies) aligns with research question, methods, and observations has broad applicability

Very Good

complete and correct uses existing theory well

informs the research question and measures identifies where it works and where it does not work

Acceptable

The student

understands theory. uses theory appropriately. does not specify or critically analyze the theorys underlying assumptions. offers hypotheses that do not derive logically from theoretical premises.

Unacceptable

Absent, omitted, or wrong, misunderstood, or misinterpretedThe student

cannot explain it or why it is being used. uses theory inappropriately. does not align theory with research question, literature review, or methods.


29/49

Maintaining Consistent Quality

Table 4.5 Method in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

original, clear, creative, and innovative provides a thorough and comprehensive description

identifies strengths and weakness/advantages and disadvantages flows from question and theory uses state-of-the-art tools, techniques, or approaches applies or develops new methods, approaches, techniques, tools, or instruments uses multiple methods

Very Good

appropriate for the problem uses existing methods, techniques, or approaches in correct and creative ways discusses why method was chosen describes advantages and disadvantages

Acceptable

appropriate for the problem uses standard or less-sophisticated methods correctly provides minimum or sufficient documentation shows basic competence

Unacceptable

lacks a method uses wrong method for the problem uses method incorrectly methods do not relate to question or theory confounded or fatally flawed

does not describe or describes poorly (insufficient detail)


30/49


Table 4.6 Results or Data Analysis in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

multidimensional original, insightful, surprising

uses advanced, powerful, cutting-edge techniques analysis is sophisticated, robust, and precise provides justifications for each analysis aligned with question and theory sees complex patterns in the data iteratively explores questions raised by analyses results areusable, meaningful, and unambiguous presents data clearly and cleverly makes proper inferences provides plausible interpretations discusses limitations refutes or disproves prior theories or findings

Very Good

Analysis is thorough, appropriate, and correct.The student

uses standard methods. produces rich, high-quality data. links results to question and theory. substantiates the results. provides plausible arguments and explanations.

Acceptable

Objective, routine, and correct but not sophisticatedThe student

aligns data and results with question and theory. produces a small amount of thin data. provides results that are correct but not robust. includes extraneous information and material. has difficulty making sense of data. offers an interpretation that is too simplistic.

Unacceptable

analysis is wrong, inappropriate, or incompetent data are wrong, insufficient, fudged, fabricated, or falsified data or evidence do not support the theory or argument data do not answer the question interpretation is not objective, cogent, or correct

The student

cannot distinguish between good data and bad data. cannot discern what is important or explain the results. does not explain counterintuitive results. explains away or buries results that are inconsistent with expectations. makes improper inferences. overstates the results.


31/49


Table 4.7 Discussion and Conclusion in the Social Science Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

Outstanding

Short, clear, concise, and creative; interesting, surprising, and insightfulThe student

summarizes the work. refers to the introduction. ties everything together. explains what has been accomplished. underscores and explains major points and findings. discusses strengthens, weaknesses, and limitations. identifies contributions, implications, applications, and significance. places the work in a wider context. raises new questions and discusses future directions.

Very Good

The student

provides a good summary of the results. refers to the introduction. states what has been done. ties everything together. states its contribution. identifies possible implications. discusses limitations. identifies some future directions.

Acceptable

The student

summarizes what has been accomplished. repeats or recasts the results or major points. does not address the significance or implications of the research. does not place the work in context. identifies a few, nonspecific next steps.

Unacceptable

Inadequate or missingThe student

summarizes what has already been said. repeats the introduction. does not tie things up. does not understand the results or what has been done. claims to have proved or accomplished things that have not been proved or accomplished. does not draw conclusions.


32/49

22

THROUGHOUT THIS BOOKLET, we have offered

suggestions for achieving quality in your dis-sertation. The final table of the booklet, Ap-

pendix B, provides practical advice gathered from thesocial sciences faculty in the study. We close withsome frank recommendations about the work aheadof you.

Practice Academic Honesty

By passing the dissertation, your advisor, committee,department, and university are certifying that you

have the skills, knowledge, and disposition expected ofa professional in your field, which includes a commit-ment to integrity.

Honest use of data and sources is the fundamentalexpectation of academic work. None of the levels ofquality described here matter if you plagiarize, delib-erately misuse or misrepresent sources, or falsify data.Such serious betrayal of professional standards putsyour degree in jeopardy. It could even be rescinded ifthe dissertation is passed and then found to havethese abuses.

Develop Professional-Level Writing Skills

You probably noticed that writing is a constant itemin the summaries of faculty descriptions of quality. Thequality of your writing plays a large role in facultymembers assessment of the quality of your dissertation.They are looking at the quality of your prose (word

choice, structure of the sentences) and the quality of

your argument.Why is writing so important? The quality of your

ideas will not shine through poor or ineffective writing.Regardless of how brilliant the ideas and how outstand-ing your research, if you cannot convey your ideas anddata clearly, concisely, and coherently, the reader willnot be able to appreciate their import. Likewise, if yourpresentation is not well planned, if you cannot effec-tively map out and sustain an argument or make a case,you miss an opportunity to share your knowledge andcontribute to the field.

Moreover, the mechanics of grammar and the style

of prose affect the perception of a works quality.Many faculty believe that unclear writing reflects un-clear thinking, and that a good researcher is also acompetent writer. Once you are out in the field, yourwriting will be an indicator of the quality of yourthought and your attention to the details of research.If your work is error laden, or you did not take thetime to plan and organize the presentation of the ma-terial, the reader will wonder, with good reason, howcareful you were in your research.

The faculty in the study spoke candidly about thesurprising amou

Documents

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Social Sciences