My opinion of Rich Douglas’s Dissertation

You read - he didn't.

 

Han: I read the dissertation, and had a couple of issues. First, the response rate was very low, and this was explained, but I think could have made the findings different than expected.

John: Very low compared to what? I thought it was remarkably high -- getting more than 300 senior HR people to do a very long questionnaire -- compared to what I know of response rates for other academic research. (When I was doing my survey of registrars four years ago, with a much much shorter questionnaire, the reading I did at that time persuaded me that a 5% response would be not unreasonable. (I got about 10%).

 

Wow, this is interesting. I have only been reading about the research (not collecting survey's yet) and the guideline that I have read is 50-75% to make sure the missing participants do not have a statistical signifiance in the outcome. It does have a disclaimer that this is when possible. But when you have a minority of the respodents completeing the survey, you probably have a baised in the results. How big you really can't tell. Rich does say the response rate is low, and covers the possible reasons, and makes a sound arguement about it.

 

The sample size of completed questionnaires was 267. This sample size allowed for rather precise measurements of significant differences in question responses. Of course, anyone with an understanding of inferential statistics realizes that a much smaller sample size could have yielded significant results if the differences were large enough. But that wasn't necessary.

A significant (in my opinion) number of participants started the survey but did not complete it. (More than 1,000.) Of course, I addressed that in the dissertation, and drew some wonderful insights into the limits of HR managers and this subject. And addressing non-respondents is a useful way of dealing with low response rates. (Low in terms of proportions, not raw numbers.)

 

Thanks Han

A critique. Didn't hurt a bit.

 

I agree with you, I thought it showed a great deal that so many did not complete it. I think it showed as much, if not more that HR professionals do not know much about the accreditation process. Though your findings showed this statistically, it also was an indirect jump in the response rate being low as a percentage.

It would be intersting as well to see this by industry or perhaps tie attributes to the non-respondents (experience, educational background, etc.) I know, this would be a whole other dissertation!

I didn't mean this point as a critisim, just something you pointed out yourself and was explained.

 

Dennis,

Your comments would indicate that you believe that “critique” means to find fault with something. “Critique” is a value neutral term and can be used to mean highlighting the strengths and/or weaknesses of a work.

Here is a critique from Randell 1234:

“His descriptions of the different agencies (RA, NA, State Approval, State License) were, in my opinion, fair and accurate…Basically, his research supports what most people know and what some people know and will not admit- most employers do not know the difference between RA, NA, State Approval, State License, and diploma mill. When they do learn the difference, the acceptance of the degrees from those agencies change. I think is would be a great report for people to read before they enroll in a school and it would also be good for HR people to read.”

Here is a critique from atraxler:

“I found it very informative especially the first two chapters. The methodology is clearly explained and the results of the study are presented in a very professional manner. The dissertation is very easy to read; Rich has done a very good job, in my opinion. Please note that my interest in Rich’s dissertation is not to give it my “stamp of approval,” TUI did that. My interest in his work is purely for personal enrichment.”

Here is a critique from me:

“Rich's research is important in that it shows the lack of orientation on accreditation in the field of human resources and the errors in judgment that result from this lack of orientation. It also demonstrates that a relatively small amount of education/information can help to resolve the problem. This has definite ramifications for the professional study and training of human resources professionals (and, likely, many other groups).”

Here is a critique from Han:

“I agree with you, I thought it showed a great deal that so many did not complete it. I think it showed as much, if not more that HR professionals do not know much about the accreditation process. Though your findings showed this statistically, it also was an indirect jump in the response rate being low as a percentage.”

Dennis, please tell me where, in the preceding short critiques, can you find the following criteria used: “the only assessment of the dissertation was that Rich is such a nice guy and anything he would produce is good”?

Thanks,

Tony

 

Please disreguard my above comments, by these stipulations, I should not have commented.

 

In my ERAU class on research methods a 10% return for a survey was considered a good return. I also learned that returns depend to a large extent on the survey format and the number of questions asked (Iwas told to ask no more than 20).

 

Not to get off topic, but I have read the same about 20 questions, but does the 20 include the demographic questions?

 

Why is it that here (and other forums) one will not critque the before mentioned dissertation, since they are not qualified, but will critque those who do critque. If you are not qualified to critque (which I think everyone is entitled to their opinion), then how is one then qualified to critque a critque.... I usually don't get involved in the personal stuff, but what a joke!!

 

Hi Han,

Since this is an open forum, anyone can offer a critique on anything. Personal attacks are discouraged, but opinions are not. People who have expertise in a subject certainly do not have to complete a doctoral dissertation in order to comment on the subject or critique someone's work in that subject.

My point in this whole discussion is that critiques can be positive--they do not have to be negative in order to be critiques.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

Critiques can be positive, but the mushy, kissy face, back patting was a bit much.

Now I have to pull out my research text and read up on surveys which, if I remember correctly are among the least accurate rearch tools.

 

You might also want to pull out your dictionary and some English texts, to read up on proper spelling and punctuation.

 

Why the chickenpoo Bruce? Some people call them typos.

 

Glass house....stones.....ringing any bells?

 

Perhaps it is because most people--beyond a whining few--find the author knowledgeable and the work significant. Consider his critics.

I distribute my dissertation to all comers, save one. All who've read it like it. You complain, not about the content, but about the people writing to say they liked it. It's like you were expecting a negative outcome and are disappointed. Talk about bias.

Regarding your desire to critique, if you have to read up on research methods....

 

The only reason to read up on research methods would be to confirm my suspicion that surveys are the least accurate method of gathering data and are the preferable for those wishing to save time and cost. But again I'm probably wrong.

 

Why don't you conduct a poll?

 

Coz people give unwanted answers and the poll has to be retrieved by a proctorologist.