My opinion of Rich Douglas’s Dissertation

This is incorrect (I am researching, studying, and teach about this subject). The least accurate, or better said, the most prone to bias is the qualitative approaches to research. In depth interviews, focus groups, and the like are the least "desirable". This can be for a host of reasons, if anybody wants details, I have a great couple of resources on the subject. The most desireable is a quantitative approach, as done in this study. The nice part about statistics are the numbers don't lie. Don't get me wrong, there are a host of errors that can occur, systemattic errors, random, pre-sampling, measurement, non-response error, etc. etc. My claim was perhaps a non-response error, but the explaination seemed sound, so I don't think this occurred. Also, the response rate was low (in my mind), but the sample size was large enough that is was not significant in the statistical results.

Secondly, I think this dissertation is an exploratory view, as there is not much out there on this subject. There are some conclusions made, and there is an element of conclusive research, but really a major effort of the exporatory research side. A definition for those wondering: Exploratory Research: research that identifies problems, generates hypotheses, and gains insights about particular subjects.

Lastly, there are two elements that I think are being missed in the discussion of this dissertation. First, there are always problems, issues, or not perfect parts about a dissertation, anybody saying otherwise is not telling the truth. This is the reason for the section on explaination of problems, and Rich did a good job in the non-response part explaining root cause. Secondly, this is one dissertation on an evolving subject, this is not the end all, be all of the subject. There is room for further study, and recommendations, again a part of a dissertation.

I have looked at the statistics, and I am not a PhD in math, but the results seem sound, the sample rate was significant, etc. etc.

I am sorry to those wanting findings or critiques different than my thoughts, as I have said they are just my thoughts, and I call them like I see them.

 

Grammar 101

Dennis did not critique Rich's dissertation. He in fact criticized it and has continued to do so despite the fact that he has not read it.

According to Webster dictionary, critique and criticize are not synonym of each other. They have different meanings and usage as can be seen below.

1. Criticize: To find fault with something or somebody as in he criticized the decision as unrealistic.

Synonyms: blame, reprehend, censure, condemn, denounce.

2. Critique: An informed critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature. (It could be used as a verb or a noun)

Synonyms: review, critical review, review an article.

Thanks.

 

Well this is certainly a tempest in a teapot!

I'm sure Rich Douglas did a great job with his dissertation, but like.... really. Who cares now that it is done and he has his well-deserved degree?

Can't we get back to talking about non-controversial topics like religion, sex, politics, and St. Regis?

 

Ditto.

 

Right.

 

Jawellnofine, BUT: would Rich's dissertation have measured up to the standards for a CCU dissertation? Huh? Huh? Huh? What he wrote doesn't matter. How he backs stuff up dun't matter. All that matters is how one feeeeels about it.

I knew that reader response criticism would eventually lead to non-reader response criticism. And here we are.

Oooo that postmohodernism rag...

 

Re: Grammar 101

I missed the part where I criticized the dissertation. Perhaps you could point this out.

 

I am sure that it would equal any CCU dissertation. Unfortunately CCU dissertations were limited to business, psychology, and engineering management not anything that's on your mind today.

 

Sure, right here:

 

Gus

And I thought it was praise.

 

I am a total geek, I thought this was a thread about feedback on Rich's dissertation, I didn't realize.

 

Dennis - Every research methods has positives and negatives. For some topics, there simply is no other way to gather data than with a survey. Survey research isn't perfect. But it is frequently used in dissertations (and other research) by researchers at a wide range of schools.

If Rich didn't use a survey - how else could he reasonably gather data? Rich's final sample size of 267 (out of 1,037 participants) is pretty reasonable. To collect this data some other way (such as personal interviews) would be extremely expensive and could have bias issues.

Regards - Andy

 

I did say it was used because it was cheap and easy and that's all I said on the matter.

 

Least accurate compared to what? When you are conducting research, you choose the research method that is most appropriate to the kind of data that you are collecting. If your goal is to assess the opinions and choices of a specific group of professionals, what would be more "accurate" than surveying them? A live interview with each of them would not necessarily insure greater accuracy.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

Interesting--I knew of a well-known religious author who used to claim that his CCU doctorate was in "comparitive religions".

Tony

 

Oy, a mind-reader! Sorta like Walter Martin (who never let a fact stand in the way of a good polemic).

 

Actually, Dennis, you said a bit more than that; reread your posts. Your comment was that surveys were "among the least accurate research tools." This comment followed your opinion (without having read it yourself) that the lack of criticism of Dr. Douglas’ dissertation was “abhorrent.”

 

I wonder if this was one of the dissertations locked up in the glass case.

Hmmm... Since those dissertations were sequestered precisely to prevent anyone from examining them, how can Dennis be so sure that Dr. Douglas' dissertation would "equal any CCU dissertation."

 

Examining their past actions???

 

Don't want to break it to you Tony but a lot of people claim a lot of different things.