A Dissertation Question for Those Who Have Earned a PhD

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Pugbelly2, Feb 24, 2013.

Loading...
  1. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    I am set to complete my graduate degree later this year and am looking ahead to a couple of options, including the PhD. I have a question about the dissertation. I understand the purpose of the PhD is to contribute new knowledge to the field, but can a dissertation be more suggestive than absolute? In other words, as long as the requisite background research is appropriately covered, can a dissertation ask more questions than it answers? Can it propose a solution to a problem?
     
  2. distancedoc2007

    distancedoc2007 New Member

    Great question! In my experience, I ended doing a lot of broad background research, but then narrowed and narrowed my primary research topic in response to feedback from my supervisors and the faculty As a result, the "new knowledge" I added to the pile is fairly specific and small, but no doubt will be used by someone else to advance their own thesis and ideas. For sure, the research will raise lots more questions than it answers, and the "suggested future research" section of the thesis is a great outlet for some of those ideas. It's also okay to end up proposing a framework or approach toward a future solution, rather than solve a whole problem yourself. The other thing is there will be a dozen things things you might have approached differently with 20-20 hindsight, but that's just the nature of the beast! Best of luck to you.
     
  3. distancedoc2007

    distancedoc2007 New Member

    Ha ha! And the best part is that once you're done the darned thing, you never have to apologize for sloppy typing again - grin.
     
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    A dissertation should both answer questions and raise them.

    A dissertation does one of two things, typically. It either (a) develops theory (inductively in order to explain a phenomenon) or (b) answers hypotheses that test theory (deductively). So.....

    You either start out with a phenomenon to study and develop a theory to explain it or you take a theory and test it. Or you do some of both. Or you do a non-scholarly doctorate and dissertation and just do some testing and report the results.

    No matter what, you dissertation will raise issues for future research (done by others or you, but after graduation!).
     
  5. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    So what do you do with a theory that can't really be tested? For example, let's say the topic was going to be on government and private sector partnerships to provide affordable housing in the United States? There are many "partnerships" in existence today, but to the best of my knowledge, none have the structure I believe offers the greatest benefit to the government, the private sector, and to society as a whole. This can't really be tested, so what does one do with it? Simply write an article and choose another dissertation topic?
     
  6. distancedoc2007

    distancedoc2007 New Member

    There are many different approaches you can take, including describing what is happening (descriptive research), getting stakeholder opinions on what is working well, and what might be more desirable in the future (through surveys and focus groups), and comparing case studies across different jurisdictions, etc. There are more experimental and blended methodologies gaining acceptance all the time. Some models from the social (as opposed to hard) sciences might be useful for you. You can check out approaches like action research, phenomenology etc. It's worth a cruise through some books and websites on methodology before changing your topic idea.
     
  7. distancedoc2007

    distancedoc2007 New Member

  8. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Well, you're taking a stance on an issue. Can that be tested somehow? Remember, you can explore the phenomenon qualitatively in many ways that do not involve quantitative measurement. For example, you could create your theoretical construct and have experts in the field take a look and provide feedback. If you plumbed the depths of that sufficiently you might be able to get at your research question.
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Yup. What he/she said.
     
  10. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    Forgive me for being picky but I assume you mean "hypothesis" since a "theory" is already proven and accepted.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Forgive me for being picky, but (a) theories are always subject to further testing, (b) there are yet-to-be tested theories, (c) theories aren't actually "proven" (nothing is; some theories are so good they become accepted as "fact," but are still open change because of new data), and (d) hypothesis are formulated to test theories.

    Yet-to-be-tested theories that are developed and tested in dissertations and theses are sometimes called "armchair theories" because they're derived from the literature, not from field testing. But certainly theories can be developed prior to hypothesis testing. That's the basis for deductive reasoning.

    Even a "fact" like gravity has been subject to major changes over time because new theories have been offered and supportive data have been developed.

    Theory-to-data: deduction. Data-to-theory: induction. Most natural science is developed with deduction. Much (most?) social science is developed with induction.
     
  12. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    This is an excellent educational debate. A few years from now, I will definitely return to it.
     
  13. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    Rich and DistanceDoc,

    Thank you for the feedback and insight. It is VERY appreciated. As I mentioned at the onset, I'm just looking ahead to the PhD program. The topic I used in the example is one that interests me and one that I think merits study and research, I just didn't know how to go about it or whether it would be acceptable as a dissertation. You've given me some initial ideas and some homework to do.

    Thank you.
     
  14. Ike

    Ike New Member

    In scientific research, there are (1) hypotheses, (2) theories, and (3) laws

    (1) A hypothesis is a postulation or statement based on observation or logical conclusion. It can be supported or refuted by tests or more observations.

    (2) A theory is a postulation that has been supported by tests and there is no evidence to invalidate the postulation. A theory is more like an accepted hypothesis.

    (3). A law is a universally accepted and indisputable statement of fact, which not only explains reasons for a test outcome, but can also be used to predict future behavior and more test outcomes. A law is more like a theory that has been found to be universally true without exceptions.
     
  15. Ike

    Ike New Member

    To answer your question, I have to rephrase it as follows: What do you do if your test can’t support the theory or the hypothesis that you want to test?

    The answer is simple. It’s a monumental achievement to disprove an established theory. Depending on how well the theory is known, your test result could be viewed as a scientific breakthrough. It could also be viewed as a sloppy research if your research methodology and tools are flawed. It’s also important to be mindful of the fact that your tests might not always support all your hypotheses when conducting a doctoral research (if you have your own hypotheses to test). Whatever the case might be, you still have to report your findings. If you can defend your findings successfully, I think that your will receive your degree.

    Even if you believe that the theory's test results will no longer be repeatable because some of the theory's deterministic variables have changed, you can still add something to the body of knowledge by investigating the effects of the changed variables on the theory.
     
  16. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Except that a theory can be yet-untested. In fact, most deductive dissertations do just that. The "armchair" theory is strung together, hypothesis are developed about it, tests are developed and conducted, then conclusions regarding them (and the theory) are discussed.

    Yes, theories can also be supported by the evidence. They remain theories, just well-tested ones.

    There are no "laws." The term is used, however, for theories so well tested as to be unassailable. But in reality they're still open to testing and revision. As I said in an earlier post, the "law" of gravity is just one case.
     
  17. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Emphasis on what Ike says. Added: even results that don't produce significant results can be significant since they serve to "wall off" lines of inquiry so future researchers can focus on more promising lines. One of my colleagues did a deductive dissertation, used quantitative methods, got no statistically significant results in his work, (couldn't refute the null hypotheses), and still got his Ph.D. Smart guy, too.
     
  18. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    I agree with the above expanded definitions of theory - and that a theory could be disproved at a future date.
     
  19. Ike

    Ike New Member

    I agree. Yes, scientific laws can still change. However, they don't change as often as theories and hypotheses.
     
  20. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    By definition.
     

Share This Page