Identifying Operations Research Systems - Dissertation Example

?Harris Kamran Systems Science Analytical Paper 19 July Research framework for dissertation proposals: an analysis Introduction: One of the fundamental criteria for attaining a doctoral degree, or the PhD, is that of successfully completing a thesis or dissertation based on original research by the candidate (University of Victoria, 2002). The importance of this component of the post-graduate education is evident from the fact that some universities actually apply clear distinction based on whether the candidate has been able to successfully pass the dissertation acceptance process, by specifying in the degree if the pertinent candidate is one holding such a merit or not (CIT, 2009). This then becomes reflective of the candidate’s progress, abilities, motivation, and competency throughout the post-graduate studies (CIT, 2009), and any institutions that the candidate may apply to after the completion of his doctorate hold this fact at special import. To state that the successful completion of a dissertation can determine the candidate’s position and future in the filed of academia would not be inappropriate. It is then, of the highest importance that a set of rules of established that will determine the guidelines based on which the dissertation committee would make decisions of either accepting or denying a candidate’s dissertation proposal. As obvious as it may seem, there is not much clearly established and well-defined information available that would address this most crucial topic and a pivotal step in the candidate’s process of attaining a doctoral degree. There is a substantial amount of literature present on the criteria set by different educational boards and bodies determining the basis on which universities are recognized for awarding doctorate degrees. Also, such universities as have been authorized by those educational boards of reaching that set criteria, have supplied the candidates with detailed information on the prerequisites for applying to doctoral level studies in their programs, such data being also quite abundant. The problem arises when the candidates, after they have been permitted to pursue the doctoral level studies in a specific institute, strive to present the committee with their dissertation proposals leading to the actual dissertations, and are often not properly guided as to the nature of the dissertation that is acceptable (Ray, 2007) and the requirements that their dissertations must meet in order to be successfully accepted by the committee. This stems from an absence of an established doctoral level research framework and dissertation proposal acceptance model. Such a model, if applied universally, in whole or in part, would prove to be a most useful tool in the preparation of both the candidate and the committee as regards to the candidate’s approval of the dissertation proposal and the subsequent dissertation itself. This paper, therefore, purports to present such a model of dissertation proposal acceptance guidelines, which would adequately fill the existing gap in the availability of literature and information on a framework of proposal criteria. Whether such a systematic and organized framework is applied anywhere while assessing the research proposals of doctoral candidates is doubtful in itself. It should be noted that this is just a general framework of such guidelines, and that it is obvious that it be subject to change according to the precise requirements of the committee of an institute, depending on the field of research and the scope of the dissertation (CIT, 2009). Many factors come to play while deciding a research proposal; only the general and more universal of those factors and criteria will be included in this proposal, while the more specific and technical requirements would be left to the discretion of the dissertation committee’s sound judgment. The paper will start by briefly touching upon the nature of the research conducted at doctoral level, the details of which will be covered in the subsequent topic of the discussion of general criteria of the framework. This will be followed by an exclusions section; that is, some special cases would be discussed where this general model will have to be modified according to the nature of the specific field of study. By including this section of exceptions, the paper hopes to exemplify the need to view this model as general rather than restrictively specialist in nature. Nature of doctoral level research: the post-graduate or doctoral level is often touted as the highest level of education that is awarded a degree by institutes in most of the countries around the world (Park, 2005). As such, this academic tier might not be available for all fields of study at all institutes; this is especially true of the more recent and still developing disciplines of learning, and many of the multi-disciplinary courses (Park, 2005). Hence, while aiming for a doctorate degree, it is imperative to make selections on the basis of availability of options at the pertinent institute. This selection also depends upon the availability of an instructor or mentor who would supervise the research process and scrutinize the dissertation proposal and the actual dissertation (Ray, 2007). This is important in light of one opinion about the subject that holds that a doctoral thesis, or any academic paper for that matter, is written ‘by scholars for scholars’ (Gocsik, 2005); that is, it is essentially an academic endeavor, making the presence of an academic supervisor a prerequisite of the process (Ray, 2007). There are certain established landmarks that define a doctoral level research and distinguish it from research carried otherwise at other, lower academic levels. A discussion of those landmarks would constitute the framework of the research analysis model, and so will be discussed in the subsequent sections of this paper. Research Proposal Analysis Model: this section will present with an exhaustive analysis and proposal of a dissertation proposal analysis model to be used by the dissertation committee and the candidate himself while deciding upon a research topic and presentation of the dissertation proposal. The dissertation proposal is reflective of the actual dissertation, so many of the set rules and most of the criteria that are applicable to the dissertation are also applicable to the proposal; in fact, the proposal should be drafted in a way that it makes possible the adherence by the candidate to those set criteria of dissertation writing. To that end, the model can be divided into two parts; the mechanics of the dissertation, which is more objective in nature, and the implication of the research and, hence, the dissertation, which is more subjective in nature. It should be noted that while emphasis is placed on the writing of the dissertation proposal and the dissertation, the methodology and scope of research to be conducted for that dissertation is not neglected, but is automatically covered by the pertinent discussion. In fact, references to the conduction of research would be made where there is an expressive need for such references; where no references have been made, they should be considered implied. Hence, this model serves both the parts of a doctorate degree: the research, and the writing of the dissertation. The implication or the nature of the research at the doctoral level is of the utmost importance when deciding upon a topic or field for research and dissertation writing. This issue is of concern both for the candidate and the dissertation review committee, since both need to be sure about which criteria to follow when making decisions about topic selection and acceptance or rejection of a proposal. There are certain standards and criteria that have been established by the educational regulatory bodies that govern the basis for declaring a research as acceptable or unacceptable for the doctoral level. It should be noted once again that such a structured criteria framework does not exist in practice by the dissertation committees at large, hence, the relevance of this model. The more general of these regulations would be discussed below, and the specific rules applying to specific fields would be left as exceptions, some of which would be discussed towards the end of the paper. The research to be conducted should be original (CIT, 2009); that is, it should not have been previously conducted per se, in whole or in part, or even if a similar research has been conducted before, the candidate should be striving to present a new angle or aspect to the topic (University of Victoria, 2002). This leads to the next criterion for doctorate research: the nature of the research should be such that it should add to the existing knowledge database of a field (CIT, 2009), in that it should present new ideas and concepts relevant to the field of study and important to its application. If the research is not presenting new findings, then it should strive to clarify and make more understandable the existing knowledge by making it more coherent (University of Victoria, 2002), or connecting the fragmented parts of the information and giving it a new or innovative aspect that should be useful to the understanding of existing facts (CIT, 2009). Hence, the research can be either supportive or refuting, depending on whether it seconds established knowledge in a field by presenting additional proofs to strengthen the ideas, or it contradicts the established facts or accepted information in light of new and contradictory information, and authenticates it and verifies it instead of just stating it. It is evident that the scope of supportive research is wider in acceptance and application than that of a refutable kind, since the latter essentially presents new information that needs to be established as true and acceptable in order to be applied. Needless to say, the handling of such a research project is far more painstaking than that of the former category. Whatever the case might be, the research should be original (CIT, 2009), as discussed before; in a supportive research, simply repeating the established facts or paraphrasing them with a slightly different approach would be considered below the academic level of doctorate research, and so will be unacceptable. The research should be independent (CIT, 2009). This, however, is not a binding regulation in its entirety, since it is highly dependent upon the nature of the research, its scope, and the nature of the field in which the research is being conducted, which would determine whether the candidate would conduct the research independently (University of Victoria, 2002) as a solitary endeavor, or if he would enlist the help and supervision of other research or supervisors. At times, even in one field of study, it becomes imperative to shift between independent and group research (University of Victoria, 2002). At such times, and especially in the cases of researches conducted entirely in groups, the individual role and contribution of the candidate would have to be judged in order to determine the merit of his research, and to decide upon the acceptance and rejection of the proposal. Therefore, the candidate should strive to the utmost to conduct the research independently (CIT, 2009) as much as possible and wherever possible. The research should be sound enough to provide solutions to the problem identified in the thesis statement of the dissertation, and to be able to make predictions (CIT, 2009) as required by the scope of the research or its application and implication. This means the research proposal should be concrete and provide with solid ideas about the topic of the research, its methodology, its proposed or anticipated findings, and its application. The scope or implication of the research should be at a level that should do justice to the doctorate degree; that is, it should be important and wide enough so that a doctorate degree can be awarded on its basis. However, it should be reasonable and feasible at the same time (University of Victoria, 2002). This is important as most of the universities that conduct a doctorate education levy a restriction on the time allocation of the research and dissertation process; that is, they set a fixed deadline in which to submit the final dissertation after carrying out the research (University of Victoria, 2002). For most institutes, the time period is fixed to six years (CIT, 2009), after which the candidate is deemed to have failed the doctorate studies, and will have to repeat the procedure of admission into the doctorate level at the university in order to complete his research and dissertation (CIT, 2009). Some universities specify in the degree whether the candidate has been able to complete a dissertation or not (CIT, 2009). Hence, the scope of research should be such that it is possible to complete it within the specified time (University of Victoria, 2002). The mechanics of the dissertation refer to the rules and instructions that need to be followed in order to accomplish an acceptable drafting of the dissertation by academic standards. The research topic and the proposal should be such that they allow for a dissertation that would fulfill these criteria, which would be discussed under the topics of format, presentation, structure and integrity, logic and sense, authenticity, and standard (University of Victoria, 2002). Each will be discussed one by one, as follows. Format (University of Victoria, 2002): the proposal should allow for the format of the dissertation to be adhered to without any disruption. The format would, and should, be instructed by the supervisor as it is subject to change from institute to institute, and from field to field, but the general design includes a title page; page of contents; abstract; executive summary; the body of the dissertation subdivided into sections such as literature review; background; introduction; problem statement or thesis; discussion; data collection_ which might be in the form of tables or charts_ and a discussion of the collection methods, along with their reasons, advantages and disadvantages; analysis of the data and a discussion on the methods of data analysis along with their reasons, advantages, and disadvantages; results or findings; their implications; a solution to the problems or thesis established earlier; conclusion, and recommendations; and a list of the complete bibliography and references (University of Victoria, 2002) used in the paper, followed by appendices and notes, if any. An elaborate discussion of these individual sections is beyond the scope of this paper. Presentation (University of Victoria, 2002): the dissertation proposal and the dissertation should be self-explanatory and absolutely clear as to the topic of discussion (University of Victoria, 2002). It should be devoid of any ambiguities or confusion on the part of the candidate, which would, naturally, put the committee under confusion and so reduce the chances of acceptance. The sections should not be rambling, and the dissertation should not be verbose; excessively lengthy dissertations and even proposals fail to impress the committee. To that end, a doctorate level dissertation should not exceed the word limit of a hundred thousand words, with the ideal ranging from seventy-five to eighty thousand words (University of Victoria, 2002). Structure and integrity (University of Victoria, 2002): the proposal and the dissertation should be well connected among its different subsections and with the central idea or the thesis of the paper (University of Victoria, 2002). The proposal should succinctly present the issue to be addressed and the scope of the research; this is important in order to inform the committee on the level of research that would be carried out. It is important to clarify this issue at the level of the proposal in order to avoid future rejections by the committee once the dissertation itself has been written. The scope of the research will be discussed in greater detail later in the paper. The introduction and the conclusion should provide with a clear and easy-to-follow outline of the dissertation (University of Victoria, 2002); the introduction as a guide map and the conclusion as a revision and reminder of important points covered in the dissertation. Logic and sense (University of Victoria, 2002): the different sections of the dissertation should follow logically from one to the other, so that the overall reading of the dissertation is smooth and coherent rather than fragmented (University of Victoria, 2002). This is especially true of the literature review, which should logically give rise to the thesis statement (University of Victoria, 2002); that is, when presenting the proposal, the committee should be able to make sense of the proposed area of research simply after analyzing the discussion of the literature review (University of Victoria, 2002). This point will be clarified greatly later in the paper. The analysis of the data, conclusion and recommendations should make a valid argument and be academically logical (University of Victoria, 2002). Authenticity (University of Victoria, 2002): all the references cited in the dissertation should be properly and completely included in the bibliography (University of Victoria, 2002), which should provide an exhaustive list of all the sources used for the writing of the dissertation, whether they have been cited in the paper or used as background reading. The sources used should be academically sound and acceptable, and authentic. The supervisor should instruct the candidate as to the preferred sources for that particular field of investigation. Standard: the writing style of the dissertation should be academically sound and up to the doctoral level, with no grammatical or spelling mistakes (University of Victoria, 2002). The sentence structure should be concise and flowing. The dissertation should adhere to the appropriate academic formatting and citation style throughout the length of the dissertation. Exceptions: as noted earlier, this model of research analysis is general in its application, and is subject to change, depending upon the specific field of study and the requirements of the committee and the institute. It can be submitted that this model is essentially designed for research in the physical sciences; it will have to be modified when applied to the arts. Examples include research carried out in the field of the performing arts such as music and theater (Monash, 2011), in which more emphasis will be place on the performance of these arts than on the actual write-up of the dissertation, the word limit of which would be lowered to as much as twenty to thirty thousand words (Monash, 2011). Again, this modification depends upon the actual topic of the research; if its theoretical in nature rather than physical, the model need not be changed at all. Another exception if when researching in the field of the visual arts (Monash, 2011). Again, the same modifications as identified for the performing arts might or might not be applicable to the model. The detail of the nature of researches carried out in these specialized fields and the model of analysis of such researches is beyond the scope of this paper. These exceptions have been cited here just to establish the fact that this model is open to modification as required, and is not binding in its application. Conclusion: the analysis of the research topic and the dissertation proposal by the dissertation review committee is essential when deciding on the relevance of the research regarding the doctorate level, and making decisions based on that analysis. Due to a need for a universally accepted and applicable model of analysis for research framework and dissertation proposal and dissertation writing guidelines, this analytical model is proposed to fill the gap in the current literature. The flexible nature of the model makes it accommodating even to the specialized fields of research, and the exhaustive and structured approach makes it beneficial to the committee as well as the candidate when aiming for research at the doctoral level. References (2002). University of Victoria: criteria for assessing PhD thesis. Retrieved from http://web.uvic.ca/gradstudies/pdf/PhDCriteria.pdf (2009). Carnegie institute of technology: CIT PhD qualification, dissertation, and degree. Retrieved from http://www.cit.cmu.edu/current_students/graduates/phd_policies.html (2011). Monash research and graduate school: Chapter 7: thesis and examination matters. Retrieved from http://www.mrgs.monash.edu.au/research/doctoral/chapter7i.html Chapman, David. (1988). MIT: How to do research at the MIT AI lab. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umass.edu/~emery/misc/how-to.pdf Denicolo, Pam. (2003). Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of the criteria. Quality assurance in education, 11 (2), 84-91. Dunleavy, Patrick. (2003). Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write, and finish a doctoral thesis and dissertation. U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan. Gocsik, Karen. (2005). Dartmouth writing program: what is an academic paper? Retrieved from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/ac_paper/what.shtml Isaac, Paul, D., Stephen V. Quinlan, Mindy M. Walker. (1992). Faculty perceptions of the doctoral dissertation. Journal of higher education, 63 (3), 241-268 Lovitts, Barbara E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: a theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in higher education, 30 (2), 137-154. Mullins, Gerry, Margaret Kiley. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: how experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in higher education, 27 (4), 369-386. Park, Chris. (2005). New variant PhD: the changing nature of the doctorate in the U.K. Journal of higher education policy and management, 27 (2), 189-207. Ray, Subhajyoti. (2007). Selecting a doctoral dissertation supervisor: analytical hierarchy approach to the multiple criteria problem. International journal of doctoral studies, 2, 23-32. Read More